Apple's New MacBooks Have Built-In Copy Protection 821
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Sincerely,
Mac Fan who wants Blu-ray
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. Nothing will play, but we're feeling damned superior about it.
Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What title would you be able to play onLinux on (Score:5, Insightful)
> So what's the advantage of Linux regarding this now again?
Linux won't suddenly cripple your output hardware because
it thinks you are doing something that the MPAA disapproves of.
Once you allow the MPAA into the core of your OS, then that
becomes a very real problem.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the best of all options:
6) License Bu-Ray. When playing back Blu-Ray, require HDCP for any external screens trough a updatable firmware. Then "leak" a "hacked" firmware (the original one) which does allow playback everywhere. And be sure, to make a big press release, that you will get "them" and sue "them", for creating such an incredibly well working "hacked" firmware *hint* *hint*.
At least that's what I would do. And I'm pretty sure some companies already did similar things.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Informative)
BluRay has provisions for blacklisting players, so if Apple were stupid enough to do that, at some point in the future their users would insert a new BluRay disc which would revoke the keys for their BluRay drive, rendering it useless. I'm guessing Apple don't want that to happen.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget my MOD points on this story....my goodness. I'm not a fan of BluRay, but wow. Why the heck would I EVER want a BluRay player when I have other options to watching HD video.
Those above comparing this to prohibition are spot on. Let's make it REALLY hard for people to do what they want with their content when its REALLY easy for them to steal the content and do whatever they want to do with it. Brilliant!!
What really bothers me is that it appears Apple fell for the same trap as BluRay with their on-line content. They could have really had a differentiation in their stuff vs. BluRay, but it appears they don't mind opening up "bags of hurt" after all....
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Informative)
downloading HD rips off any of the following:
- usenet
- thepiratebay
- isohunt
is a viable, serious option.
Re:To Steve (Score:4, Insightful)
Put up a TV antenna.
People need to get over this stupid idea that the only way you're
ever going to see HD Video is through some excessively draconian
DRM regime. People are stuck in a mental jail of their own creation.
Microsoft and Apple should have both told the MPAA what to go do
with themselves.
of "blacklisting players" (Score:5, Informative)
The way that works (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that each title has a "title key" (randomly generated exclusively for that release) that is used to encrypt the content.
Sony has created a set of "vendor keys", lets say 1000 of them, to give out to anyone that wants to make a bluray player and agrees to play by their rules.
When a movie is pressed to bluray, the movie's titlekey is encrypted separately 1000 times, once for each vendor key, and is stored on the disc in a title key dictionary. As long as you know at least one vendor key, you can retrieve the title key. Now after apple signs on the dotted DMCA line, they are assigned and given one of the vendor keys. (lets say it's key #256) 256's private key is placed on the bluray player firmware apple ships with. The player uses that key to decrypt copy #256 of the title key from the title key dictionary on the disc. It can't decrypt any of the other 999 copes since it only has private key for #256.
Lets say the firmware is hacked.
Once sony figures out that key #256 is being used by a hacked player, they "revoke" it. This means that every title released after this point will no longer have an entry in the title key dictionary for key # 256. So anyone with an older apple bluray player will not be able to view the new movie because it cannot get the title key from the disc.
Every disc they have that they bought up to the point of revocation will continue to work indefinitely on the older player, because the old discs will all still have a title key in position 256 in their title key dictionary.
At that point if apple wants to get back into the game, the RIAA will force them to strengthen the security in their player firmware to make it more difficult to hack, before they give them a new vendor key. Apple will push this out as a firmware update and once again all their bluray players will work with all titles, old and new.
If it gets hacked again, it's possible sony will just say too bad so sad and refuse to give them another key regardless of what apple is willing to do. At that point all the players with the vulnerable firmware will cease forever to work with new releases.
I know I'm missing several layers of other nasties such as the bluray player vm, but this is the part that's relevant here. Sony can't remotely brick or otherwise damage your bluray player, and cannot prevent it from being able to play discs that it already can play. They can only prevent your player from working on discs released after they decide to drop the hammer.
Yes, but they can't revoke it now. (Score:5, Interesting)
a 2007 crack [arstechnica.com] is irrevocable.
this is why we have things like anydvd HD, etc, and why they pushed out BD+, which was ALSO cracked.
For further reference on the ease of ripping BLU-RAY for naive users, see this link [floppyhead.com]
Game over, and once again, the MPAA loses.
Re:of "blacklisting players" (Score:5, Informative)
So what happens if the "hacked" firmware switches Apple's key with, say, the PS3's? Would Sony be stuck?
Part of their agreement to get a key is certain steps must be taken by the vendors when writing their firmware and making their hardware, to make the private key difficult to extract. Any vendor that "loses control" over their key simply requests another one. Sony revokes their old key, causing all new disks to not work with the old firmware. The vendor pushes a firmware update to their players (either by download/usb thumb drive or internet download) to get the new key which is embedded in the new firmware. This is why practically all bluray players have internet connections. It's not a convenience for you so much as it is to make it possible and practical for vendors to recover from getting their key revoked by Sony. No vendor wants their vendor key publicized, but they have to take that into account. If it does get released, and you don't have a way to update all your customers after you get a new key, you've essentially "bricked" all your previously sold units. (at least in the eyes of the consumer, being unable to play new content) And that may be enough RMAs to pull you under.
In your example, if someone managed to extract the PS3's key and embed it in a free bluray ripping software, (unlikely because they "wrote the book" on steps you should take to protect it, but certainly not impossible) they would simply revoke their own key and push a software update to your PS3, required for viewing new movies, like any other vendor.
The only way to beat sony at this game is to reverse engineer or otherwise break the encryption to recover en-masse the entire set of vendor private keys. If that list were to be made public, then Sony would have two options. (1) revoke ALL keys and start from scratch, (requiring all bluray players in the world to receive a firmware update) or (2) give up on it. Right now if a key is compromised, they have hundreds (thousands?) of as yet unassigned vendor keys in the dictionary on every disc being made, so revoking one and handing out another is not a problem because it's already on all the existing discs. But if you have to start over, it makes a bit of a mess because all the old discs only have the old dictionary, and so players would need to have two vendor keys, an old one to play old discs, and a new one to play new discs. I suppose they wouldn't mind that all so much but it may be enough deterrent to make them consider option (2).
That's why the vendors have to sign the agreement and take certain steps to protect their keys. There's a limited number of vendor keys available to be assigned from the start. (anyone happen to know the exact number?) So they can't just go revoking keys every week, they'd run out too soon.
I've read some recent information about "processing keys" being discovered, I don't know if that means someone has found a way to break the entire dictionary. Being able to break the entire dictionary is of course the best thing to see happen. It doesn't bring the whole system crashing down, but drags it down to the effectiveness that is presently on DVDs. (which is essentially non existent now with apps like Mac The Ripper and Handbrake out and about) - meaning open apps can be written to break any disc currently in production.
Ya I guess I am a bit behind the times [engadget.com] here. Not sure if I'm getting this right but it appears that the "processing key" is the ONE key that encrypts the content of any bluray disc. The title key isn't actually required to decrypt the content if you know the processing key. Gee that stinks for them I guess. Makes pretty much all of the above a moot point. I'm surprised the bluray ripping apps haven't been popping up like dandelions already. Guess not enough people have bluray drives in their computers yet. Funny how THAT is what's causing this to not hit the fan very fast.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Informative)
Cry me a river, you fanboy. It is only insightful because it fits with your broken little worldview. Read the god damn article; it has nothing to do with Blu-Ray and everything to do with the iTunes Store FairPlay Version 3 DRM.
They implemented this crap because if they say no and stick up for their consumers they know they'll get passed by other parties as a content delivery method. They decided to be evil because it grants increased profits. Deal with it.
Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook (Score:5, Informative)
For all those slashdoters that work at apple: Make sure you let your Marketing department know that this has cost them a long time customer.
I have a powerbook G4 and I recently bought a mac mini for my wife.
I was planning to get a new Macbook for Xmas.
However hearing about this has changed my mind. I will not let a company dictate what my fair use rights are. I'm disappointed, its so short sighted on Apples part. Technology companies should stick to technology and let our courts and elected members of government worry about our rights and rights of content producers (admittedly they haven't done a good job either).
I moved away from Windows because of this (that and stability issues). I know from the Windows media player 10 or higher behaviour that it won't let me play is my own content (I created it, I own the copyright) and home videos over a projector...
It's bad enough when I have to change software, in this case an open source player (VLC) solved the problem for me. If the "crippleware" is OS and hardware based the only thing at that point is to chose an uncrippled product.
It's too bad. Apple does do a good job with hardware etc.. I've been very satisfied with the Powerbook G4 I have.
I will now be looking at a nice small laptop with an AMD CPU running Linux (probably Ubuntu). If anyone has any suggestions let me know. :)
Thanks.
Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
And I suppose that you're similarly boycotting Blu-Ray discs, HDTV tuners, HD DVRs and anything else that uses HDMI? Because if not, that's hypocritical. This DRM is nothing more than HDCP and anything using HDMI has it.
Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I've avoided anything HD particularly for that reason (DRM)...
I'm hoping that before I'm forced to change because normal DVDs aren't available anymore that the industry will have come to its senses (wishful thinking I know... :} ) and be producing technology without DRM crippling features.
I don't know about you but "nothing more" than _not_ being able to use the technology I paid for the way I want to use it is a big deal.
The next step after DRM is in place is to charge you again for every copy of a movie or song you already own. In other words you cant copy music from you CD collection to your MP3 player or your PC and listen to it. DRM will prevent that. You will have to pay again for each copy...
After that... the next step is to charge "per play" 5 cents every time you listen to the song...
Then the next step is to create cycle of new player technologies and the next generation player won't play the previous generations content and you'll have to pay for the music again...
It's a slippery slope once you accept lock in...
The only way to send a message is not to buy crippled hardware. If a technology won't sell then it sends a clear message.
I'd rather give up some features in a product than my freedom to use it the way I want.
Re:Looks like I won't be buying a Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, *I* certainly am.
The switch from VCR Tapes to DVD Disks was well worth it. The movies look very nice and clear, the medium doesn't wear out, and takes up a lot less space - in addition to supporting several languages and the like.
Tell me the advantages of HDMI again? Higher resolution? Don't really need that, DVDs pretty good. DRM out the wazoo? *Really* don't need that. Higher prices? Oh wow, how lovely.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see you say that when asked the same question in a few years from now.
The cheap quip, "so use last year's machine" is so myopic that it's ridiculous. The principle is "DRM is bad" and, now that Apple have fully embraced it, I am no longer even going to consider trying a Macbook, regardless of what the Apple guys I know tell me about the wonderful OS.
DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.
Incidentally, if you think the DRM situation is getting bad now, imagine a world where all your computing gets done "in the cloud" (forgive me for using that idiotic buzzword) and you have no control over the platform you use to do whatever it is you want to do with your computer.
Big business wants to control your actions, so they can dictate what you need to spend money on. Recognize it. Fight it by not buying into it.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often wondered how long it will be until mainstream computing consists entirely of thin clients with web browsers and servers that provide all storage and applications. You can encrypt everything to make sure the server can't read it, but you have no guarantee that the server will give you back your data after you've stored it.
But no one will care, because, despite all of the horror stories of their friends' favorite storage sites going under and losing all their data, people will think, "It won't happen to me!".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To Steve (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM is bad, I do not want to support a company that buys into the whole attempt to control what I can and can not do on my computer.
Technically they're controlling what you can and cannot do with content and they've already been doing that for years with FairPlay. If you don't want to support them over HDCP then you shouldn't want to support them anyway because of FairPlay. The recording industry might tell them that they need DRM but I doubt they tell them not to license it to anyone else.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Interesting)
Say what you will of physical media and its attempts at copy protection, nothing even borders on the kind of shit that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon et al are flinging at their paying customers.
Realistically DRM is probably here to stay. But what would be nice is if the industry adopted a single common DRM and movie format that all services and all playback devices could support. At least then a movie bought on iTMS would play on a 360, or a movie bought on Amazon would play on a Zune etc. The current situation of countless providers with proprietary DRMs and formats and partnerships with studios is running the whole digital download industry into the ground. It's like a repeat of digital music and ebooks all over again. These companies are their own worst enemy.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with cloud computing is two fold. First, how do you know, for a fact, that Google isn't indexing your data or worse storing it for later use even after you delete it from the cloud? You don't. You only have their word and when push comes to shove if they can profit somehow on your data they will. Second, most cloud computing zealots want everything on the cloud. The cloud isn't suited for every application but just try to convince some PHB who was talked into it by one of these zealots and you got a fight on your hands. I speak from experience on this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously people shouldn't buy old computers to avoid DRM; that's inefficient and unsustainable.
It's only inefficient and unsustainable if most people don't buy old computers to avoid DRM.
If enough people do it, having DRM in computers will be too expensive since they don't sell, and we will have computers without it again.
Problem is, most people will think "I must have the latest model!" and not care if there's DRM built in or not.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The great irony is that you can boot into Vista on your 2008 Macbook and play the same video.
Re:To Steve (Score:4, Informative)
"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."
What it actually proves is that older Macs don't have DisplayPort connectors, and therefore also lack the chips that implement the VESA DisplayPort specification, which has always incorporated DPCP, and added HDCP in the DisplayPort 1.1 specification.
Any hardware which has a DisplayPort connector incorporates at least one form of DRM in its hardware, and two of them if it implements version 1.1 of the standard. This will of course only be an issue if one is (a) using that port for connecting to a non-conforming display, and (b) trying to view media which invokes its DRM capabilities.
NB: because the VESA-specified DRM systems are part of the DisplayPort controller hardware, they do not require any OS or driver support to prevent protected media from playing on non-conforming displays, which means that they can't be bypassed by the OS or drivers either.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you try to play it on an old projector/monitor?
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
...Also the HDMI signal isn't digital, really, it is a digital bitstream on an analog carrier. (at the frequencies involved everything is analog).
Praytell, at what frequencies can there be a digital signal then?
How about I skip to the point:
A Digital signal realized using electricity is an encoding on top of an analog signal.
Saying that it isn't digital because it is really a digital signal modulated on top of an analog signal shows that you don't really know what you are talking about.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
It is kinda odd that we're all used to using fibre for digital audio, but no for video, which requires more bandwidth.
Re:To Steve (Score:5, Insightful)
PS There are surely ways around it.
Doesn't matter. I shouldn't be restricted. I shouldn't have to go 'underground'.
The fact that I can is irrelevant.
The fact that you could still get alcohol during the prohibition doesn't make prohibition any more palatable.
Would that include getting the free copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking the easiest way around it is to just download a copy. Seriously, wtf, people - do you not like having customers?
I damn near gave up buying media of any kind because of copy protection, and so I do without. Yay Amazon MP3 store to the rescue. But I'm getting completely sick of this.
It's time to push Congress for a Consumer's Digital Purchases Bill of Rights that forces compatibility. If you want DRM so bad, it's your job to make it work.
Re:Would that include getting the free copy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would that include getting the free copy? (Score:4, Funny)
You think Congress will help? Who do you think passed the DMCA in the first place? Fairies?
That's it. I'm not clapping for Tinkerbell ever again.
Re:Would that include getting the free copy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I buy my music on CD - still - because I am used to being able to copy them onto MP3s using tools of my choice, at compression quality of my choice, without DRM. Yeah, downloading an .MP3 might be easier, but the bulk of my CD collection is 20+ years old, I can't imagine keeping track of a DRM restricted song file that long, therefore it is of much less long term value to me.
If I want short term music enjoyment, I'll listen to the radio, or lately net-radio, or actually go see a live performance. If I'm buying a copy of music, I expect that copy to be durable enough to pass down to my children, just as I have inherited 78 RPM Pathe' discs from my grandparents.
Suddenly glad I bought the previous version. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Suddenly glad I bought the previous version. (Score:5, Funny)
Now you know how us Windows XP users have been feeling. :-)
Don't really care (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy any videos from iTunes: I prefer to rip my own.
Re:Don't really care (Score:5, Informative)
"I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that."
Re:Don't really care (Score:5, Funny)
The barn door has not just been left open on the DVD format, someone loaded it into the back of a truck and sped off.
My guess is this is what they had to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My guess is this is what they had to do (Score:5, Informative)
....buuuuuuut..... they don't HAVE Blu-Ray drives....
Re:My guess is this is what they had to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Most likely. And yet when Microsoft did it first by implementing it in Vista, they were (and continue to be) flamed for it.
Yes I know DRM exists in other areas of Vista (eg. protected audio path), but still, now that Apple have gone with this, will they be flamed too as should be fair?
Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was a lie then, and is still a lie.
I hate taxes. I try not to pay them.
Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.
Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of Apple's growth for years has been tied directly or indirectly to multimedia. It's what's most differentiated them from Microsoft in the eyes of the common computer user. All of the big content owners demand DRM. So the choice was between DRM and corporate growth or no DRM and Apple going nowhere.
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is a hardware company. Were you gone that day?
Not when they make an OS, they're not. They're in the OS and the hardware business, and they choose to tie their products together with DRM. And if they're in the hardware business, how come all their advertisements for their computers aren't actually for the computers, but how much better their OS is? Right, because they only claim to be in the hardware business, but that claim is only part of the truth.
Apple did not invent DRM and OS X is not copy-protected. You can copy it a zillion times and install it with no problems, activation, etc. to any supported Apple computer in existence an unlimited number of times.
And? The point is Apple puts DRM on their OS. This flies directly in the face of the claim that they dislike DRM. If they disliked it, they wouldn't actively choose to use it.
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no gun to your head to pay taxes, just a financial threat (yeah, you can go to jail for tax evasion, but only because you can't afford to pay the taxes you owe).
If Apple didn't support DRM in iTunes, few if any of the labels would have signed on at the time. Even now, it's clear that the majors continue to believe it's a requirement, and would quite possibly not sell their music through iTunes, thus impacting Apple's bottom line.
I think it's an apt analogy.
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is true, why do Amazon an eMusic have such huge collections of DRM-free music? Is the difference between their catalogs and the iTunes catalog that big?
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, under which laws Apple will go to jail if they don't put DRM in their notebooks?
Thought so.
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a lie then, and is still a lie.
I hate taxes. I try not to pay them.
Yet, in order to keep living outside of jail, I keep paying them.
Am I lying about hating taxes? Or am I playing the game that needs to be played?
The difference is that you're describing something that you see as a disadvantage. You dislike paying taxes because you wish you could do something else with your money.
Now describe to me why Apple dislikes DRM. As far as I can see, not only are they playing the so-called "game that needs to be played" but since they're the market leaders in that particular business, it also serves as a lock-in. If you've been buying your tv shows from iTunes for the convenience of buying stuff online, you know you can watch your stuff on the goal with an ipod. Better not buy a zune, your videos won't work there!
Ok, that's going too far. Nobody would buy a zune either way. However, do you want to set up a media center that lets you watch all those videos in your living room? The AppleTV is the choice for you! You sure as hell can't set up a mythtv box. If you buy a windows media center box from dell, that won't play those videos either.
So, I know why you don't like to pay taxes. Tell me again why apple hates drm?
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're joking, right?
Apple hates DRM because it takes a shitload of time, money, and effort to design and implement, and an even bigger shitload of time, money, and effort to show 'plausible efforts' to keep it working once it's deployed. Anyone who tries to do DRM simply agrees to climb on a treadmill of trying to stay a fractional step ahead of the people who will break the protection.
Apple hates DRM because DRM is inherently futile. You simply can't build a system that puts both the lock and the key in the hands of the end user, then impose rules on what the user can do with those two pieces.
Apple hates DRM because the longer DRM is allowed to exist, the longer the content cartel will continue to make this massive, futile investment a requirement for any access to content. Apple especially hates DRM because it puts the content owners in a position where they can say, "I don't have to know how it works, or whether it's even possible. I have the power to say what has to be done, and making it happen is your job. And thanks to the laws that we've bought and the contracts we've written, if you don't manage to do the impossible to our satisfaction, we can sue the shit out of you then nail you on criminal charges."
Apple hates DRM because using DRM simply manufactures enemies with the technical knowledge to rip apart any technical measures Apple tries to build. And while defeating DRM may be a socially acceptable goal, a lot of that knowledge can potentially be reapplied to general malware.
Apple hates DRM because it sucks for the user. Remember: Apple doesn't make money licensing its OS to a bunch of OEMs who then try to sell a product to consumers, or with massive, umpty-thousand-seat software licensing deals. Consumer dissatisfaction hits Apple in the pocket much harder than it hits Microsoft. On top of that, Apple sells in the premium-priced segment of the market, where people are willing to say, "if I have to put up with something that sucks, I can buy another product for a whole lot less."
It would take Apple a hell of a lot less effort to make a product that users like a hell of a lot more if they could ditch DRM. Given that less than 1% of all the music on iPods was purchased through the iTunes store, the idea that Apple sees some kind of benefit from consumer lock-in just doesn't scan.
The only upside of DRM is that it gives Apple access to the content cartel's catalog. And tens of millions of consumers voting with their dollars have said that they prefer devices that do have DRM and cartel content over devices free from DRM that don't have cartel content.
So in the long run, it comes down to a question of philosophy versus economics. If you hate DRM so much you won't buy a Mac, iPod, or iPhone, so be it. The few thousand people who agree with you on that score are less valuable to Apple than the 15-20 million who will buy new DRM-encumbered Macs, iPods, and iPhones in the next quarter.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Questions? Answers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Pottymouth:
Apple's number one motivating factor, and the number one motivating factor of all publicly traded companies, is to increase stock value. If a clean user experience - or at least the perception of it - is one way to do it, then that's what it's going to be.
But one theme rings true throughout the Apple way of doing things: a tightly controlled branded ecosystem, which is what underlies the clean user experience. DRM can fit quite tidily with that principle.
Obligatory Apple reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Making a profit for shareholders
Why anyone is surprised that Apple (and Google) act like real companies is always a surprise to me.
Apple needs to turn a profit and make concessions to satisfy stockholders.
Re:Obligatory Apple reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How many people care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Outside of Slashdot's readership, nobody cares about DRM.
There are vanishingly few "screwed over" customers "angry" about HDCP. Most people never even see the "restrictions" on their "freedom." They subscribe to cable, buy their BluRay players, buy their disks, and it all works just fine. If they didn't, then these stories would be in Time Magazine (or, better yet, TV Guide) and not on Slashdot.
Re:How many people care? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are vanishingly few "screwed over" customers "angry" about HDCP. Most people never even see the "restrictions" on their "freedom." They subscribe to cable, buy their BluRay players, buy their disks, and it all works just fine. If they didn't, then these stories would be in Time Magazine (or, better yet, TV Guide) and not on Slashdot.
For a couple reasons:
1) Consumers are retarded. I know of lots of people with HDTVs that watch the game stretched and distorted on an SD channel and think its the bees knees. Some of them even have access to the same channel in actual HD and don't even know it.
These people wouldn't know HDCP had downsampled their blu-ray on their non HDCP compliant device unless it hit them over the head with hammer.
And savvy people, the ones who know, mostly just buy compatible hardware.
2) The reality is HDCP really isn't screwing that many people over... at least not yet. That shoe hasn't dropped yet, and it probably won't drop until its obsolete, and people start fuming that their blu-ray disks don't work anymore on anything. And that's not going to happen for a while.
In my opinion DRM in general isn't going to hit people HARD until something MAJOR gets taken down while the DRM they use is in wide use. e.g. Apple closing the iTunes Music store is probably the only thing that would do it -today-. So far all the DRM hits have been minor league... Major League Baseball killing their drm format, or first generation blu-ray players not working with new discs... stuff that only hits small early adopter markets.
Sooner or later though, something big will get taken down, and people at large will sit up and notice. Probably won't be for another 10+ years though.
Re:How many people care? (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, he hooked up his laptop to a projector and got the Not Authorized Display.
D'oh!
Re:How many people care? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a matter of time. Slashdotters are just the amphibians of the DRM-world, we are more sensitive to small changes in the climate than the average organism. The levels of idiocy imposed by hardware and software manufacturers has not yet reached its zenith.
"Normal" people will start getting angry pretty soon, when they can't hook together ordinary AV hardware and have it just work, and when their seemingly physical media of various kinds mysteriously stops working under certain circumstances. The market for DRM-free gear will also grow, I predict (it already exists, and is a touted feature on some hardware and software).
Re:Obligatory Apple reality check (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why consumers don't have a problem with it. The only ones extremely opposed to Fairplay are the idealists who are against the very idea that they can't be trusted to obey the law. Those types of people aren't in the target market for iTMS anyway, so Apple isn't hurting at all by making profit for shareholders, appeasing media content providers, and giving (actual) costumers what they want.
Re:Obligatory Apple reality check (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I'm sure I don't like DRM any more than you do, but before firing off like that, have a look at how Apple has made use of their DRM monopoly with Fairplay. They've consistently dictated prices over the RIAA monopolies and won. They are using their lock on DRM to act in their own best interest, which also happens to be their customers' best interest.
Apple IS telling the giant media companies to go f*** themselves on price hikes and more oppressive DRM restrictions in favor of their customers needs/demands. I think the most magnificent/ironic aspect of the whole deal is that if it weren't for the DMCA, the RIAA could simply reverse engineer a compatible version of Fairplay and be done with Apple. The media monopolies cut their own throat by lobbying for a law and then allowing someone else to exploit it first. You have to find that at least a little bit amusing.
Now if we could just convince Apple that locking developers out of the iPhone really IS a bad idea, I'd have nothing bad to say about them.
What will fanbois think? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, Steve Jobs is still an asshole [danstechnstuff.com].
Re:What will fanbois think? (Score:4, Informative)
Wow. This got knocked down as a troll pretty quick. While his comment about Steve Jobs being an ass is uncalled for, I don't see the need for a -1.
Anyways, I think Apple is starting to think that they're island of a system is going to be brought into contact with more competition, like ragnarok and other software. This is one of the preemptive measures to assure that Apple's flagship software stays that way.
Re:What will fanbois think? (Score:5, Funny)
Er, it's HDCP. (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
will fans just ignore it
No. They'll start explaining why it's actually an advantage for the user.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't buy crippled content in the first place, it's just wasted, unused, hardware.
Two screen dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Switcheur of two years now, one thing that STILL bothers me is that I can't take screen grabs while a DVD is playing -- even if DVD Player is in a different space or on a different display!
Grrrrrrrr
On the other hand, DVD Player is lightweight enough and good enough at remembering where it is that I can cmd+tab/cmd+q/cmd+tab/cmd+shift+3/click and the movie interruption is something like 4-5 seconds.
But still.
Re:Two screen dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
*sigh* (Score:4, Interesting)
The more I hear about Apple, the more I like Microsoft because they did the same thing years ago, thus proving they have a better understanding of the business.
I didn't really mind when Apple locked their hardware. After all, it's their hardware. I didn't really mind when Apple locked their iPods. After all, I could use a Creative Zen. I didn't mind when they refused to remove the iPod-only DRM on ITMS. After all, I prefer buying CDs and ripping them myself, since it's almost the same price, with virtually no hassle or copy "protection". But now, one of the best OS on the market will feature built-in, OS-level DRM? Fuck that. I won't be buying an Apple any time soon, which is a shame because I was planning to do just that with the Chrismas money.
So Microsoft is barely starting to play ball. Apple is locking it's products more and more, and locking the users of the products. Google starts forking Open Source projects to proprietary code (OpenID). The IT world is becoming more and more confusing.
I think it's time to read In the Beginning was the Command Line [shand.net] again.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
It will never stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Questions (Score:3, Informative)
1) I thought that it was permissible under the HDCP spec for the video to be played downscaled to 480p? If so, why isn't this happening? If not, what does Vista do/when did that change?
2) Especially without wall-to-wall TPM, why on earth are we worrying about the display as a digital hole? Scraping frames as they pass over the display connection seems about the _worst_ way imaginable to rip a protected stream. There are issues with audio/video sync, dropped frames and recompression that are all avoided by getting at the decrypted but not decoded stream - something that simply can't be controlled without TPM (and probably not with TPM, either).
How is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
And the hackaround will arrive, when? (Score:4, Insightful)
Next month?
Early next year?
It's really kind of stunning how stupid they think people are.
RS
A Modest Proposal (Score:4, Interesting)
We've discovered that well-heeled snoops using sophisticated radio equipment can, from a non-trivial distance, pick off the EM signals coming out of your monitor and reconstruct the image you're viewing. HDCP would thwart this, protecting the user's privacy. So HDCP can be seen as a pro-user security measure.
By re-casting HDCP as a system security feature, it then becomes obvious where control of HDCP should lie: In the user's hands. If HDCP were under my control, and didn't cost any extra in terms of CPU cycles or power consumption, I'd turn it on and leave it that way. Extra privacy for free!
But more importantly, by re-casting HDCP as a data security feature, applications attempting to manipulate it are correctly seen as hostile. If J-Random-Videoplayer tries to flip the system HDCP settings one way or another, they should get smacked down with EPERM and go no further. Even better, a dialog should pop up and say, "An unprivileged application is attempting to discover the current settings of display encryption (HDCP). This is a system security setting which should be accessed only by administrative programs. How should the request be handled? ()Report as enabled ()Report as disabled ()Report current setting ()Reject request"
Discuss :-).
Schwab
Get pissy with me and I'm gone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a mac user. I've used Linux for 11 years now, I've used Windows back in the day for StarCraft or when it was neccesary for work (and on my jobs workstation) and I use OS X today whenever I want zero-fuss integration and need to run the Flash IDE to draw up some RIA components. I still use Debian and Ubuntu aswell, however.
I'm typing this on my Mac Mini with Tiger - with the pricey but neat new aluminum mac KB attached - and my last computer purchase was the famous classic 12" G4 macbook, trusted subnotebook of hackers and geeks all around the world. The fluorescent light needs longer time to fully light up, but after 5 years it still is a piece of integrated hard- and software that I love to use on a regular basis. In a nutshell: I'm a computer expert and I like my macs and I can name solid reasons why I do.
Apple has a rock-solid multiplier in me, as I - as most geeks - am the opinion-leader in all things concerning IT and computers for at least 50 people that know me well enough to know my profession. I can inmediately think of at least 3 people who have gotten macs also due to largely my influence on their decision.
That aside I can only say: Get pissy with me and I'm right back to Linux on x86 only. As soon as I have to fuss around with media not playing on my computers I'm gone, mac mini and 13" unibody MacBook be damned. I'd rather fuss around with half-finished OSS projects or crappy printer integration on a dell laptop that looks and handles like a piece of shit than having some DRM scheme wasting my time. If Apple even thinks about pressing the lock-in game, I'm gone and I will stop recommending Apple instantly. And I'll start discouraging people from buying them.
My 2 Euros.
So 1984... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:old (Score:4, Funny)
File this under "depressing but true."
Re:HDCP, not "built-in copy protection" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sensational Much? (Score:5, Informative)
This is NOTHING like the all-pervasive DRM that infests Visturd(TM) at every turn
I run Vista and I'm not really sure what you are talking about. What extra DRM does Vista have that XP does not? Whatever it is, it is definately not "all-pervasive", or I would have noticed.
Re:Sensational Much? (Score:5, Informative)
Just ignore it, it's a Slashdot myth that Vista has some magical form of DRM that "slows down" everything on your computer. That's as specific as it ever gets. If you ask for evidence of it, they always link to the same one article that refers to MP3 playback on a beta release as "proof."
I've asked about this about a dozen times, and I've never gotten a satisfactory reply. I've also asked for repro instructions for a series of actions that would result in the magical DRM blocking a user action. The simple fact is that the only DRM in Vista is in WMP; the same way the only DRM in OS X is in iTunes. There's no horrible conspiracy, and your computer isn't being "slowed down".