Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection/Archive 2006

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Great effort but this article confuses the functionality of AACS with HDCP. AACS encrypts the content and attempts to manage the rights available for the content. HDCP creates a secure, encrypted channel between authenticated devices. For example, HDCP does not ban analog outputs. AACS has a digital only token, image constraint token and analog sunset clause in the licensing agreement. It is the functionality in AACS that downgrades and ultimately blocks analog output. This really creates confusion for readers. FelixT 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From FiringSquad: "there is no shipping retail add-in board with HDCP decoding keys. Simply put, none of the AGP or PCI-E graphics cards that you can buy today support HDCP." [1] Shawnc 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

>> I doubt they ever will. The Crypto-chips that they'd have to include on the cards would be their un-doing. One kid in Norway manages to crack that and determine how to make legit HDCP keys... and the industry will suffer WORSE then it did with the whole CCS contraversy. For this to work (according to the specs on it) its going to need access to the outside world every few days/weeks for updated codes. Either via a web connection or through software on newly released BlueRay and HD-DVD discs. Thing is, they can also disable keys, which has the possibility to make old discs useless (in effect, destroying your purchase).

My biggest wonder is, when we get around to camcorders that can record on BluRay or HD-DVD... what kind of key will they use? Couldn't you just mimic the key that the camcorder uses ONTO your PC for burning? In essence, make all your burned BlueRay/HDDVD discs look (according to the decrypter) like they're home movies... just a thought. --Ghostalker

Assuming the situation with HD-DVD/Bluray mirrors that with the current technology, you won't be able to protect content you create yourself (that privilege will be reserved for the movie studios). If the content isn't protected, it doesn't need to be encrypted when being transfered from device to device. --James 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

DRM is an industry marketing slogan and for that reason alone does not belong on Wikipedia. It's as if an article on BMWs described them as ultimate driving machines without making clear that this is an ad slogan, not a neutral description of BMW's products.

Actually DRM is much worse--it's a polemical term which is being used to justify monopolistic practices and violations of freedom of speech and privacy.

A more accurate description of "DRM" would be "mechanisms that allows hardware and software companies to control your computer, invade your privacy and restrict how you can use your own property." Okay, that too would express a point of view. How about "copy restriction"?

What's worse, Wikipedia uses the term "intellectual property" on more than 40,000 pages! Clearly that's not a neutral phrase, as it implies IP should be owned forever. Seriously though, these are terms that are part of everyone's lexicon at this point, flaming liberals along with everyone else. "Copy restriction" is a little more neutral, but I don't think that DRM is something that any encyclopedia (professionally produced or written by users) would seriously consider conciously avoiding. --

Interiot

12:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added that "The vulnerability shown by Crosby et al requires knowing 40 linearly independent private keys." Thus (in a realistic case), more than 40 keys (HDCP devices) need to be compromised to disable the key revocation scheme, cf. http://www.angelfire.com/realm/keithirwin/HDCPAttacks.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.173.28 (talk • contribs) 10:24, February 24, 2006