Apple's New MacBooks Have Built-In Copy Protection

raque writes "Appleinsider is reporting that the new MacBooks/MacBookPros have built-in copy protection. Quote: 'Apple's new MacBook lines include a form of digital copy protection that will prevent protected media, such as DRM-infused iTunes movies, from playing back on devices that aren't compliant with the new priority protection measures.' Ars Technica is also reporting on the issue. Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back? Is this a deal breaker for Apple or will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines? Is this a new opportunity for Linux? And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?"

To Steve

Built-in copy protection is a bag-of-hurt.

Sincerely,

Mac Fan who wants Blu-ray

Re:To Steve

Without seeming to flame (flame mode if you like), we've had experience of locked down platform with Apple's iPhone. Now Apple join Microsoft in having a locked down OS for media playback, nobody can feel smug or superior (apart from Linux users).

Re:To Steve

And we Linux users have been feeling smug and superior all along! ;-)

Re:To Steve

Dear "Mac Fan who wants Blu-ray",

Any major company making a Blu-ray player has 5 options:
1) Do not support playback of copy-protected content. This means most Hollywood stuff won't play, so your Blu-Ray player is useless.
2) Try to hack the copy protection. You may fail; if you succeed then pay big fines and get a court order preventing you shipping products, for violating the DMCA. Go bankrupt. Your employees might go to jail.
3) License Blu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, do not support external screens - restrict it to the laptop's internal display.
4) License Blu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, require HDCP for any external screens.
5) License Blu-Ray, but ignore the license terms. Pay big fines and get a court order preventing you shipping products. Go bankrupt.

Which do you want? You may not like any of the options, but unfortunately there's no other practical option. Apple's choice of (4) is probably the least bad.

These options are due to the requirements of the Blu-Ray spec, and were demanded by Hollywood in exchange for their support. Short of government intervention, Hollywood are unlikely to support any HD format without DRM in the foreseeable future. And Hollywood own the US government (see Disney's perpetual copyright extensions to ensure that Mickey Mouse never ever leaves Copyright), so don't expect any action there.

Re:To Steve

Good luck finding a computer without it.

A 2007 MacBook.

The fact that the same video will play fine on a 2007 Mac but refuse to play on a 2008 Mac proves that the copy protection is not necessary -- if it was necessary it would be applied to all computers equally.

Suddenly glad I bought the previous version.

I don't think that's ever happened to me before.

Don't really care

I don't buy any videos from iTunes: I prefer to rip my own.

Re:Don't really care

"I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that."

Questions? Answers.

Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back?

It seems likely enough to me. I guess I have no proof either way, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that this was NBC's idea.

Is this a deal breaker for Apple?

No.

Will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines?

Yes. Just like they always do.

Is this a new opportunity for Linux?

No, since it won't hurt Apple.

And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?

Nothing. That was a lie then, and is still a lie. Apple puts DRM in their flagship product, and you actually believe them when they spout bullshit about disliking DRM?

Re:Questions? Answers.

Sweet. Once MS put DRM in the OS layer of Vista, Apple felt the need to one-up them with DRM built right into the hardware. Take that, Microsoft.

Er, it's HDCP.

I don't think you can buy a mid to high end vid card these days that doesn't have HDCP baked in; I'm not surprised.

Note that I didn't say I was enthralled, just not surprised.

Will fans just ignore it?

will fans just ignore it

No. They'll start explaining why it's actually an advantage for the user.

Who cares?

If you don't buy crippled content in the first place, it's just wasted, unused, hardware.

Two screen dilemma

I think one of the most worrying things about this story is the claim that you can't watch your content while you have any non-HDCP device connected, even if you're not watching it on that screen!

For someone like me who has a Dell 20" screen that supports HDCP, but also an Apple 20" screen that does not, we're expected to unplug one screen every time we want to watch something protected in this manner? Get real!

Re:Two screen dilemma

Think of it as an implicit endorsement of piracy. If you can't play purchased media on your 100% legitimate hardware, then the choice is clear.

Excellent news!

Steve, whose care for his children passes understanding, knew that many buyers of new macbooks yearn in their hearts to purchase new Apple monitors to go with them. He knew further that for the many crying out, oppressed by old Apple monitors that they already owned, following their desire would be difficult.

And thus, by his hand, a gift was bestowed. His people would, with Him as a purveyor of protected premium content by day and by night, be led away from the old and to the new monitor of their desire.

Lies

This article is totally misleading. It's just HDCP. The media has to be HDCP aware in the first place.

If you don't by defective DRM laden media, then you do not have a problem.

In some ways, this is actually a GOOD THING. Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.

So to SUM UP, all the PIRATED MEDIA WILL STILL PLAY.

Re:Lies

Now the hardware can actually communicate with other media devices that demand a HDCP connection.

No such devices exist. HDCP is strictly transmitter enforced. All HDCP-enabled display and audio devices are fully capable of doing their job without HDCP being turned on.

However, by enabling HDCP on their video hardware Apple has actually increased the opportunity for compatibility problems. If the Apple video hardware tries to do an HDCP handshake and fails - for any number of reasons, like data corruption or a bug in the implementation on either end, etc - then the end result is likely to be a completely blank screen (it should be obvious that if HDCP is turned on, but isn't working right, the only logical result is for the video hardware to stop transmitting, else it risk transmitting sooper-secret-video in the clear). There have been many reports of just this sort of handshaking failure with all kinds of HDCP-enabled devices like ps3's, blu-ray players, amplifier/receivers, etc.

DisplayPort

This is all part of DisplayPort, the display connection. Like HDMI, the digital display connection for HDTV gear, DisplayPort includes an end-to-end encryption mechanism. (Take a look at HDMI/HDCP.)

The end-to-end secure data path is something the HD content providers insist on.

Unauthorized playback protection != copy protect

Playback protection is part of a strategy of copy protection, but it's not the same thing.

Playback protection can hurt me even if I'm *not* trying to copy the media in question, which is my main objection to it.

Copy protection is arguably more legitimate, but it does depend on the specific copyright laws of your jurisdiction.

Up here in Canada the fair use doctrine suggest that it *should* be legal for me to rip a copy of a DVD for my personal playback in another medium (it's roughly the same as making an audio cassette copy of a vinyl record.)

I'm generally of the view that the companies that market media products should focus on improving the quality of those products in order to encourage us to buy them, rather than branding us as criminals. Then again, I still buy music whereas some people seem to not do that at all anymore.

So...

if MacBooks have copy-protecion now, does this mean I'll no longer be able to copy and upload them to Pirate Bay?

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

The problem is that, in a sane society, a company makes a profit for its shareholders by producing products that customers want to buy, and in general by treating the customer as king. Remember the old phrase, "the customer is always right."

So how does screwing over your customers and making them angry equate to making a profit for your shareholders? The giant media companies aren't the ones giving money to Apple, it's regular people buying their hardware, software, and stuff on iTunes.

Re:Obligatory Apple reality check

The problem is that the obligation is getting twisted into "make a profit for shareholders soon", with an almost total lack of concern for the long term.

Apple is actually one of the better companies in this regard, but a lot of companies are running into trouble because they think that shareholder value means pumping up their upcoming Q7 results no matter what.

Re:My guess is this is what they had to do

....buuuuuuut..... they don't HAVE Blu-Ray drives....

Re:old

Please go back to Digg. Slashdot is not better than Digg because of the timeliness of the stories. Slashdot is better than Digg because of the user community.