RE: FC: Hollywood wants to plug "analog hole," regulate A-D
Mike wrote:
And what's to prevent it from happening at a high level if there's enough profit in it? MPAA is a tiny market compared to the rest of the electronics industry - it will be easy to bypass the law on a huge scale. You don't need to be a "sufficiently talented electrical engineer" when you can go across the border, buy 1000 simple/cheap devices and bring 'em back in your pickup truck.
Nothing will prevent one in theory from manufacturing, trafficking, or possessing unapproved electronic devices. Just as nothing is presently preventing you from realizing fantastic margins by loading up your truck with bags of cocaine before crossing the border. What will limit the possession and distribution of non-MPAA approved consumer electronic devices in the future to a threshold compatible with the MPAA's revenue goals will be the mandatory 5-10 year minimum sentences those found in possession of such devices will face. Are you willing to do that time? Or would you rather pay the members of the MPAA some $20 or 30 per month subscription fee that's being enforced by your approved device? No, continuing to watch your old video tapes on your old VCR is not an option after the upgrade and registration deadline for these infringement devices has passed. --Lucky
continuing to watch your old video tapes on your old VCR is not an option after the upgrade and registration deadline for these infringement devices has passed.
Actually, for the last one or two years it's already illegal to sell or re-sell (even used) VCRs without macrovision shit. What will determine the outcome of this war is future availability of universal openly-programmable computing platforms (aka pee-cees). We will probably see regulations following those for handguns: for the first few decades everyone sported them, then they became heavily regulated. So expect a 5-year federal care for possession of an "unlocked" PC within one mile from schoolyard or an airport. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Everything I'm about to say should be taken purely as an analytical discussion of possible solutions in light of the possibilities for the future. For various reasons I discourage performing the analyzed alterations to any electronic device, it will damage certain parts of the functionality of the device, and may cause varying amounts of physical, psychological, monetary and legal damages to a wide variety of things. There seems to be a rather siginficant point that is being missed by a large portion of this conversation. The MPAA has not asked that all ADCs be forced to comply, only that those in a position to be used for video/audio be controlled by a cop-chip. While the initial concept for this is certainly to bloat the ADC to include the watermark detection on chip, there are alternatives, and at least one that is much simpler to create, as well as more benficial for most involved (although not for the MPAA). Since I'm writing this in text I cannot supply a wonderful diagram, but I will attempt anyway. The idea looks somewhat like this: analog source ------>ADC------>CopGate----->digital Where the ADC is the same ADC that many of us have seen in undergrad electrical engineering, or any suitable replacement. The CopGate is the new part, and will not be normally as much of a commodity as the ADC. The purpose of the CopGate is to search for watermarks, and if found, disable the bus that the information is flowing across, this bus disabling is again something that is commonly seen in undergrad EE courses, the complexity is in the watermark detection itself. The simplest design for the copgate looks somewhat like this (again bad diagram): in----|---------------buffergates----out ----CopChip-----| Where the buffer gates are simply standard buffer gates. This overall design is beneficial for the manufacturer because the ADC does not require redesign, and may already include the buffergates. In the event that the buffer needs to be offchip the gate design is well understood and commodity parts are already available that are suitable. For the consumer there are two advantages to this design; 1) the device will be cheaper, 2) the CopChip can be disabled easily. In fact disabling the CopChip can be done by simply removing the chip itself, and tying the output bit to either PWR or GND. As an added bonus for manufacturing this leaves only a very small deviation in the production lines for inside and outside the US. This seems to be a reasonable way to design to fit the requirements, without allowing for software disablement (since it is purely hardware). Joe
On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:24 pm, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
The MPAA has not asked that all ADCs be forced to comply, only that those in a position to be used for video/audio be controlled by a cop-chip. While the initial concept for this is certainly to bloat the ADC to include the watermark detection on chip, there are alternatives, and at least one that is much simpler to create, as well as more benficial for most involved (although not for the MPAA). Since I'm writing this in text I cannot supply a wonderful diagram, but I will attempt anyway. The idea looks somewhat like this:
analog source ------>ADC------>CopGate----->digital
Where the ADC is the same ADC that many of us have seen in undergrad electrical engineering, or any suitable replacement. The CopGate is the new part, and will not be normally as much of a commodity as the ADC. The purpose of the CopGate is to search for watermarks, and if found, disable the bus that the information is flowing across, this bus disabling is again something that is commonly seen in undergrad EE courses, the complexity is in the watermark detection itself.
The simplest design for the copgate looks somewhat like this (again bad diagram):
in----|---------------buffergates----out ----CopChip-----|
Where the buffer gates are simply standard buffer gates.
This overall design is beneficial for the manufacturer because the ADC does not require redesign, and may already include the buffergates. In the event that the buffer needs to be offchip the gate design is well understood and commodity parts are already available that are suitable. For the consumer there are two advantages to this design; 1) the device will be cheaper, 2) the CopChip can be disabled easily. In fact disabling the CopChip can be done by simply removing the chip itself, and tying the output bit to either PWR or GND. As an added bonus for manufacturing this leaves only a very small deviation in the production lines for inside and outside the US. This seems to be a reasonable way to design to fit the requirements, without allowing for software disablement (since it is purely hardware). Joe
Bzzzzztttt! Wrong Answer ! How do you prevent some hacker/pirate (digital rights freedom fighter) from disabling the "CopGate" (by either removing the CopChip, finding a way to bypass it, or figure out how to make it think it's in, "Government Snoop" mode ) ? Then the watermark can be removed. Remember it only requires ONE high-quality non-watermarked analog to digital copy to make it on the net and it's all over. -- Neil Johnson, N0SFH http://www.iowatelecom.net/~njohnsn http://www.njohnsn.com/ PGP key available on request.
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:59:43PM -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
Remember it only requires ONE high-quality non-watermarked analog to digital copy to make it on the net and it's all over.
And that is what this whole nonsensical scheme founders on. There are probably 300-500 million existing sound cards out there and at least millions of existing NTSC analog capture cards. Many if not most can do acceptable fidelity conversion of analog audio and video to digital formats if programmed correctly. And there are even a few tens of thousands (or more) of new generation PCI cards that capture ATSC digital video (including HDTV) direct to disk in the clear. The MPAA cannot will these out of existance. Sure some are obselete ISA based designs, but there are certainly enough reasonably current boards around so that it will be a long long while before the population of working systems capable of performing analog to digital conversion of either watermarked audio or video reaches insignificance. And without that point being reached, anything else seems pretty ineffective as per your point above. And telling the public that they face serious jail time if they don't turn in that Creative Soundblaster from the old PC in the attic closet isn't going to fly. The sheeple may be sheep but even they aren't going to accept that kind of nonsense from Hollywood or any corrupt congress. I'd even venture to say that if this issue breaks out into the big time and the public really is faced with crippled devices that don't work and mandatory obselescence of existing expensive computer and entertainment systems with potential jail time for use of old equipment that the backlash will be so intense that raw public votes will control over Hollywood money. -- Dave Emery N1PRE, die@die.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Dave Emery wrote:
And telling the public that they face serious jail time if they don't turn in that Creative Soundblaster from the old PC in the attic closet isn't going to fly. The sheeple may be sheep but even they aren't going to accept that kind of nonsense from Hollywood or any corrupt congress.
I'd even venture to say that if this issue breaks out into the big time and the public really is faced with crippled devices that don't work and mandatory obselescence of existing expensive computer and entertainment systems with potential jail time for use of old equipment that the backlash will be so intense that raw public votes will control over Hollywood money.
I think that's what boils down to the "bottom line". Because there are so many units in place that can do the bypass, there will be enough time to create a backlash. There's already a backlash on "protected" CD's, mostly by consumers who can't play them on older CD players. It's just not gonna fly with the public, so that may be all it takes to stomp hollywood on this one. Time will tell I guess. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Mike Rosing wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Dave Emery wrote:
And telling the public that they face serious jail time if they don't turn in that Creative Soundblaster from the old PC in the attic closet isn't going to fly. The sheeple may be sheep but even they aren't going to accept that kind of nonsense from Hollywood or any corrupt congress.
I'd even venture to say that if this issue breaks out into the big time and the public really is faced with crippled devices that don't work and mandatory obselescence of existing expensive computer and entertainment systems with potential jail time for use of old equipment that the backlash will be so intense that raw public votes will control over Hollywood money.
I think that's what boils down to the "bottom line". Because there are so many units in place that can do the bypass, there will be enough time to create a backlash. There's already a backlash on "protected" CD's, mostly by consumers who can't play them on older CD players. It's just
And/or indeed, on newer players. In the UK at least (http://uk.eurorights.org/issues/cd/docs/celdion.shtml) the new generation of anti-theft CDs have been reported to be useless on modern DVD players/car stereos, by design. Some older players either lack the "feature" or are less sensitive, I assume, so can be ok. It's just a case of matching a technology with the right player... So not content with limiting public demand for new hardware (a minor issue), the extra precautions actively encourage consumers to not buy legal content. Woo. Better to get illegal content that you can do what you want with. With regards to the analog[ue]/digital stop-gapping, r o f l m a o. This would be just as effective as, ooh, copy-protecting CDs? Oh, humm... Chasing down peer-to-peer outfits? Uhh... Trying to ban videos? Oh, wait... Firstly, in order to prevent widespread ripping of analog signals through disabling mass consumer device, there needs to /be/ mass consumer ripping. How many people do you know who actually go to the trouble of transferring their taped episodes/films onto their PC? It's not as simple as grabbing mp3s. As with other such "distribution" in its relevant infancy, the hard work's carried out by a much smaller number of people - millions of films may be downloaded every month, but there's generally only 2 or 3 versions of each film, from different sources, max. Believing that crippling the populace will fill this tiny leak is... well, amusing. Secondly, how much work is going to go into protecting a fading technology? This is from both the MPAA's and the consumers' points of view. For the former, analog avoidance is only of any use if the content is not readily available in digital format already. Most of the analog content that I guess the MPAA want to stop conversion of is either people in cinemas with cameras, or people with tapes of episodes at home. The former is hard to stop through watermarking (I'm unsure of the technicalities, but I'd have thought preserving it between screen and camera would be tricky? Even without people geting uo and walking past the view...), and even then it's only one source of films. The latter is, I suspect, more the target of the MPAA's volley. If this doesn't move towards digital origins, i.e. through PVRs or cable-streams obtained via PC (which are subject to a different smother), then the abundance of existing technology, and probable (anonymous) circumvention of new ones anyway renders all actions proposed useless. The question then is how much investment do you want to throw away? Outside the US, I suspect that the circumvention may go the same way as DVD region "control". Looking at players recently, it was quite hard (after checking around, as most people would) to actually _avoid_ region-locked DVD players. The only real factor that really keeps regions in place is their localised supply to meatspace shops, or the boundaries of international postage & packing. Foolishness, foolishness, and yet more foolishness. Perhaps if we just ignore them, then they'll go away eventually :) .g
On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:24 pm, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
The MPAA has not asked that all ADCs be forced to comply, only that
in a position to be used for video/audio be controlled by a cop-chip. While the initial concept for this is certainly to bloat the ADC to include
watermark detection on chip, there are alternatives, and at least one
is much simpler to create, as well as more benficial for most involved (although not for the MPAA). Since I'm writing this in text I cannot supply a wonderful diagram, but I will attempt anyway. The idea looks somewhat like this:
analog source ------>ADC------>CopGate----->digital
Where the ADC is the same ADC that many of us have seen in undergrad electrical engineering, or any suitable replacement. The CopGate is the new part, and will not be normally as much of a commodity as the ADC. The purpose of the CopGate is to search for watermarks, and if found, disable the bus that the information is flowing across, this bus disabling is again something that is commonly seen in undergrad EE courses, the complexity is in the watermark detection itself.
The simplest design for the copgate looks somewhat like this (again bad diagram):
in----|---------------buffergates----out ----CopChip-----|
Where the buffer gates are simply standard buffer gates.
This overall design is beneficial for the manufacturer because the ADC does not require redesign, and may already include the buffergates. In the event that the buffer needs to be offchip the gate design is well understood and commodity parts are already available that are suitable. For the consumer there are two advantages to this design; 1) the device will be cheaper,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Johnson"
the CopChip can be disabled easily. In fact disabling the CopChip can be done by simply removing the chip itself, and tying the output bit to either PWR or GND. As an added bonus for manufacturing this leaves only a very small deviation in the production lines for inside and outside the US. This seems to be a reasonable way to design to fit the requirements, without allowing for software disablement (since it is purely hardware). Joe
Bzzzzztttt! Wrong Answer !
How do you prevent some hacker/pirate (digital rights freedom fighter) from disabling the "CopGate" (by either removing the CopChip, finding a way to bypass it, or figure out how to make it think it's in, "Government Snoop" mode ) ?
To quote myself "the CopChip can be disabled easily," last paragraph sentence begins with "For the consumer . . . " as has been pointed out by numerous people, there is no solution to this. With a minimal amount of electrical engineering knowledge it is possible for individuals to easily construct a new ADC anyway.
Then the watermark can be removed.
Which can and should be done after conversion.
Remember it only requires ONE high-quality non-watermarked analog to digital copy to make it on the net and it's all over.
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that I believe this to be a good thing, when the design I presented was designed to minimize cost, of design, manufacture, and removal. I am of the fundamental opinion that this is not a legal problem, this is a problem of the MPAA and anyone else that requires a law like this to remain profitable is advertising incorrectly. The Hollywood studios have already found the basic solution, sell advertising space _within_ the program. In fact some movies are almost completely subsidized by the ad space within the movie. By moving to that model for primary revenue it is easy to accept that a massive number of copies will be made since that improves the value of the ad space in your next movie/episode. Of course I'm not involved with any studio so they don't ask my opinion. Joe
participants (7)
-
Dave Emery -
Graham Lally -
Joseph Ashwood -
Lucky Green -
Mike Rosing -
Morlock Elloi -
Neil Johnson