Silicondust HDHomerun + DLNA = LiveTV on almost any device? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 181 Old 12-07-2012, 09:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by caeguy View Post

XBMC demo. Very exciting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml0g2l01zVM&sns=em
Why is the Travel Channel video so choppy?
olyteddy is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 181 Old 12-07-2012, 09:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

I hate to throw a wet towel on this, but the DTCP requirement could kill everything that is great about this. When I first read this, I was pretty optimistic. But then I remember my early days in HD. The first technical writing I ever did was here at AVSForum, it was a post on how to record to Windows XP via 1394. The motivation there was spurred by the 1394 requirement of the FCC Plug n' Play agreement. A big reason why recording via 1394 never caught on was because of DTCP, while there was plenty of devices with 1394, there weren't many that supported DTCP. Fast forward to five years ago, you might recall CableLabs certifying DTCP-IP, but still to this day I don't know of any implementation that is in use. In fact, I believe the HDHR Prime to PS3, will be the first -- would love to be corrected on this one.
All that being said, being able to watch Live TV on a PS3 via a HDHR Prime is cool, but not practically useful. As Sammy2 pointed out, we need to be able to record. But even more so, we need an enjoyable way to record and playback content; and so far, enjoyable DLNA experience is an oxymoron.
I believe SD has a grand plan, and I look forward to it being revealed, but my excitement is tempered for now, as I'm experiencing Deja Vu.
All good points. I really wasn't that excited at this news. While it is big news, it's not really for those with an HTPC. The Prime will ONLY be capable of supplying live TV. There will be no recording functionality because there is nowhere on the device to store the recordings. (That said, I wouldn't be surprised if SD enabled the USB ports for the TAs to allow a hard drive to be connected.)

Now a separate DLNA server (device or application) that has also licensed DTCP-IP (for the case of encrypted content) could request the stream from the Prime and serve as the recording device but for a PC application, there would be no point to this. They would need to license DTCP-IP and a DRM protection like PlayReady. Or they could just license PlayReady for half the cost (eliminating DTCP-IP) and use the DRI interface (directly or using the PBDA Directshow wrapper filters) like Windows Media Center.

We are not the target customers for this functionality, people with Smart TVs and devices that don't care about recordings are. I'm not knocking SD, this is a smart play for them. They just created the opportunity to move from Techies to the Average Joe, not a small feat for their market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

So if Prime serves live TV including Premium channels directly to all these devices XBOX, PS3, Samsung TV's, Phones, Tablets whatever, where does the Program Guide come from on all these devices?
The guide will show up like any other content. The Prime will present what is currently airing as a list of available videos to watch (as if they were on a hard drive somewhere). When you select one, the Prime will tune to the appropriate channel (instead of reading a file) and stream it to the device.

For those interested in the technical specifications:

Aired programs will be listed by the ContentDirectory Service of the DLNA MediaServer device. If the Prime had recording capabilities, it would also implement the ScheduledRecording Service. You can read about them at http://upnp.org/specs/av/av4/
vladd is offline  
post #93 of 181 Old 12-08-2012, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
captain_video's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 3,541
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 134
I think this approach has some great potential. As for it being useless, consider how many people have to use a cable box to watch TV. If they can get rid of the box and use either an X-Box or Playstation for live TV then it's a win-win. You've not only eliminated an extra box but you'll save a few bucks a month as well.

I've posted a feature request in the Ceton Echo bug tracking forum asking for XBMC support to be added to the Echo. I don't know if it's feasible or not, but it would potentially solve a lot of my playback issues using an extender. I know there's a PVR function being added to XBMC, if it hasn't been added already, that could make XBMC a one-stop app for those of use with content that's copy freely. I'm on FIOS and the only channels flagged as copy once are the premium channels, none of which I subscribe to.
captain_video is offline  
post #94 of 181 Old 12-08-2012, 06:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diverge View Post

Anyone know a little about this technology and could explain how such as system would work?
I did a little reading on what is out there now, and Samsung and DirectTV have been using DTCP-IP for a while (I guess since the partnership was announced at CES 2011, and they started it on their 2011 line of TV's). But they seem to use something called RVU Technology, which uses DTCP-IP. I'm just curious on how this all fits togther. Is RVU just a set standard on how the server and clients talk, using DTCP-IP... and DTCP-IP is just one piece to it all?

RVU is a remote user interface layer that was built outside of DLNA and on top of (and competed against DLNA's original remote user interface which was based on HTML instead of being image based). DirecTV uses it as its whole-home solution with certain Samsung TVs being clients as well as the C31 set-top box. While RVU allows the HR34 to render the UI remotely on an RVU client, the video stream is sent in a separate stream via DTCP-IP. RVU was later added to the DLNA standard, and I believe DirecTV is the only one currently using this. Verizon had originally planed to, but later decided to go another direction with its yet to be released whole-home strategy.

The idea behind these remote user interfaces, is that most DLNA clients have less than great experiences, and the source wants to control the entire experience (think tru2way).
Diverge likes this.

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
post #95 of 181 Old 12-08-2012, 06:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Now a separate DLNA server (device or application) that has also licensed DTCP-IP (for the case of encrypted content) could request the stream from the Prime and serve as the recording device but for a PC application, there would be no point to this. They would need to license DTCP-IP and a DRM protection like PlayReady. Or they could just license PlayReady for half the cost (eliminating DTCP-IP) and use the DRI interface (directly or using the PBDA Directshow wrapper filters) like Windows Media Center.
We are not the target customers for this functionality, people with Smart TVs and devices that don't care about recordings are. I'm not knocking SD, this is a smart play for them. They just created the opportunity to move from Techies to the Average Joe, not a small feat for their market.

I'm not 100% sure how the server would work. I know that you can store protected CableCARD recordings on anything you want, but you can only play them back from the WMC computer you recorded them on. I'm not sure if DTCP-IP is only a transmission DRM, or if it also can be applied to a stored file the way PlayReady can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

The guide will show up like any other content. The Prime will present what is currently airing as a list of available videos to watch (as if they were on a hard drive somewhere). When you select one, the Prime will tune to the appropriate channel (instead of reading a file) and stream it to the device.

Actually, the channel list only shows the channel name, it does not show the name of the program currently airing. This is something that could be built into the renderer or a another DMC, though.

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
post #96 of 181 Old 12-08-2012, 08:16 AM
t-c
Member
 
t-c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

The guide will show up like any other content. The Prime will present what is currently airing as a list of available videos to watch (as if they were on a hard drive somewhere). When you select one, the Prime will tune to the appropriate channel (instead of reading a file) and stream it to the device.

I'm not sure on this but I think the Prime is only capable of providing a simple channel lineup i.e., channel number and call sign plus a few other bits of data, like what shows up in their QuickTV player.

In my OP I was using the term Program Guide to refer to an EPG or IPG similar to what is provided by Windows Media Center and other PVR applications. I thought Program Guide data comes from an external source and is then integrated into the channel lineup by a service app that is part of the PVR or Player application.

It would be interesting to know how a Program Guide is generated on:

Samsung TV
PS3
XBOX
t-c is offline  
post #97 of 181 Old 12-08-2012, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

I'm not 100% sure how the server would work. I know that you can store protected CableCARD recordings on anything you want, but you can only play them back from the WMC computer you recorded them on. I'm not sure if DTCP-IP is only a transmission DRM, or if it also can be applied to a stored file the way PlayReady can be.
DTCP-IP is transmission only. For storage, one of their approved DRM schemes must be used: http://www.dtcp.com/approvedtechnologies.aspx

Windows Media DRM 10 or newer are on the list (which are a part of PlayReady).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

Actually, the channel list only shows the channel name, it does not show the name of the program currently airing. This is something that could be built into the renderer or a another DMC, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

I'm not sure on this but I think the Prime is only capable of providing a simple channel lineup i.e., channel number and call sign plus a few other bits of data, like what shows up in their QuickTV player.
In my OP I was using the term Program Guide to refer to an EPG or IPG similar to what is provided by Windows Media Center and other PVR applications. I thought Program Guide data comes from an external source and is then integrated into the channel lineup by a service app that is part of the PVR or Player application.
It would be interesting to know how a Program Guide is generated on:
Samsung TV
PS3
XBOX
Correct, it's only the list of channels. I blame it on late night posting.
vladd is offline  
post #98 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 03:37 PM
t-c
Member
 
t-c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Can DTCP-IP DRM be licensed to open source projects like XBMC?

Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA)
http://www.dtcp.com/agreements.aspx
t-c is offline  
post #99 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 05:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

Can DTCP-IP DRM be licensed to open source projects like XBMC?
Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA)
http://www.dtcp.com/agreements.aspx
I'm sure they would be more than happy to take your money and sell the license certificate. Then they would revoke the certificate as soon as it was "leaked" in the source repository. So while the answer to your question is technically "yes", it will not work.
vladd is offline  
post #100 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 05:07 PM
Member
 
MikeK614's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I literally just ordered an Xbox a couple days ago to go along with my HDHomerun, but then I heard the news about the PS3 support, and the Xbox is now just sitting there unopened. I currently have two PS3's so I would prefer if I could just use those, however I'm not sure if the user experience would be the same, and if I might still be better off using an xbox extender.

Does anyone have an idea of how the day to day usage of these two options would differ? I'm assuming the ps3 would not be able to schedule recordings or playback any recorded material? Also, can anyone guess what the user interface would be for the PS3? Would you have to go through all of the various menu levels to actually get to select channels on the PS3 like you do for any standard DNLA content, which could get somewhat cumbersome, or is anyone expecting a separate HDHomerun app like there is for netflix? Just trying to get an idea of what people expect the capabilities of this to be. It seems there still would be some valid reasons to have an xbox as an extender based on how this PS3 tuner capability is expected to work.
MikeK614 is offline  
post #101 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 06:09 PM
t-c
Member
 
t-c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

Can DTCP-IP DRM be licensed to open source projects like XBMC?
Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA)
http://www.dtcp.com/agreements.aspx

I'm sure they would be more than happy to take your money and sell the license certificate. Then they would revoke the certificate as soon as it was "leaked" in the source repository. So while the answer to your question is technically "yes", it will not work.

I'm trying to understand what SD's press release really means with respect to opening the door for alternatives to WMC that can play all CATV programming including copy protected.

Sounds like no-go for XBMC...
t-c is offline  
post #102 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 06:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Phase one is for devices with DTCP-IP support. XBMC (or any other open source software) does not and never will have DTCP-IP support. It would defeat the purpose. SmartTVs and media player devices like a Roku box would be able to support it.

I don't know what SD has planned for the later phases of their Project:Connect though.
vladd is offline  
post #103 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK614 View Post

Does anyone have an idea of how the day to day usage of these two options would differ?

WMC on the 360 acts like a full blow DVR, the ability to automatically schedule recordings based on title etc. Watching the HDHR Prime on a ps3 will be like browsing a list of channels in a list and then watching live tv. So no program guide, no show meta data, not recording. So for now they aren't that comparable, but who knows what it'll look like in a few months.

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
post #104 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 07:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Diverge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Phase one is for devices with DTCP-IP support. XBMC (or any other open source software) does not and never will have DTCP-IP support. It would defeat the purpose. SmartTVs and media player devices like a Roku box would be able to support it.
I don't know what SD has planned for the later phases of their Project:Connect though.

Just because XBMC is opensource, doesn't mean that an addon to it needs to be. Does it?

I don't see why these functions can't be added as long as someone puts in the time and money and sells the addon. There are plenty of opensource projects that have proprietary binary (closed source) additions. Just look at android. Most of it is open source, but most of the hardware drivers aren't, along with a lot of googles built in apps.
Diverge is offline  
post #105 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 07:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diverge View Post

Just because XBMC is opensource, doesn't mean that an addon to it needs to be. Does it?
I don't see why these functions can't be added as long as someone puts in the time and money and sells the addon. There are plenty of opensource projects that have proprietary binary (closed source) additions. Just look at android. Most of it is open source, but most of the hardware drivers aren't, along with a lot of googles built in apps.
I haven't looked into the license/code of XBMC to really answer that specifically but in general: sure, you can do a closed source addin to an application, there just needs to be some type of API or plugin architecture in place for the main app to support the plugin. I proposed something exactly like that for MediaPortal and NextPVR in one of the Ceton threads: a black box app to handle the recording and playback that just exposes functions like Play(), Pause() etc to the main app.

The main problem with a software application using DTCP-IP (at least a Windows application) is that DTCP-IP licensing will double your licensing costs for no reason. You can simply license PlayReady (which you would still have to do if you went the DTCP-IP route) and use the DRI/PBDA interface.
vladd is offline  
post #106 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 07:42 PM
t-c
Member
 
t-c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I don't think DRM can be securely implemented that way---as a stand-alone black box addon. I think the content has to be protected along it's entire path from source to screen including all the interfaces, memory and storage. Right?
t-c is offline  
post #107 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lockdown571's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

WMC on the 360 acts like a full blow DVR, the ability to automatically schedule recordings based on title etc. Watching the HDHR Prime on a ps3 will be like browsing a list of channels in a list and then watching live tv. So no program guide, no show meta data, not recording. So for now they aren't that comparable, but who knows what it'll look like in a few months.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I'm thinking more like a few years. DVR development is apparently pretty complex, and even the new XBMC PVR add-on, which has long been in development, is quite rudimentary compared to WMC (no series scheduling for instance). This DLNA implementation will be even more rudimentary than XBMC PVR. I don't see Silicon Dust just pulling out an amazing DVR in a few months time.

I'm very excited for this development, especially if it supports copy once. However, if you have a Windows 7 PC laying around (which most people do), why not just use WMC in conjunction with an Xbox 360 extender (something else most people have)?

Don't get me wrong, being able to watch live TV on other devices will be great, I just wouldn't expect it to be a replacement for WMC anytime soon.
lockdown571 is online now  
post #108 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 08:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Diverge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

I haven't looked into the license/code of XBMC to really answer that specifically but in general: sure, you can do a closed source addin to an application, there just needs to be some type of API or plugin architecture in place for the main app to support the plugin. I proposed something exactly like that for MediaPortal and NextPVR in one of the Ceton threads: a black box app to handle the recording and playback that just exposes functions like Play(), Pause() etc to the main app.
The main problem with a software application using DTCP-IP (at least a Windows application) is that DTCP-IP licensing will double your licensing costs for no reason. You can simply license PlayReady (which you would still have to do if you went the DTCP-IP route) and use the DRI/PBDA interface.

I don't really know much about DRM, but there was a question posted on the silicondust forums that implies that DTCP-IP has some sort of DRM to apply to the storage of files, and streaming previously recorded protected content.
Quote:
Will Project:Connect support DTCP-IP 1.2, i.e. DTCP-IP with content move EMI flag? If so, will SD implement the move function proportionally to the CCI flag? or will this allow us to decouple the content from being physically tied to the recording (server) device? or perhaps the originating server device is considered to be the HDHR Prime box in which case it must support move for storage purposes?

AFAIK DTCP-IP standard does not tie a move to the source CCI.
source: http://www.silicondust.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13920&sid=33e16080c966489a47f8a54ab47391bc


I did a search and found a cablelabs spec that seems to imply (at least to me) that you can stream previously recorded copy protected content over DTCP-IP (they call it DTCP-DIS... whatever that is).
http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/OC-SP-HN-SEC-I04-120531.pdf section 6.12
Quote:
The OC-DMS SHALL set DIS-DTCP-copy flag, defined in [DLNA vol 4], for MSO Recorded Content items
according to the Copy Control Information (CCI) Encryption Mode Indicator (EMI) values for a content item as
specified below. See [CCCP] for definitions of CCI and EMI.

Table 1 - Mapping of CCI Values to DIS-DTCP flags
CCI EMI Value DIS-DTCP-copy flag
Copy Free True
Copy Never False
No More Copies False
Copy One Generation True

Apologies in advance if I'm not interpreting this stuff correctly redface.gif
Diverge is offline  
post #109 of 181 Old 12-11-2012, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

I don't think DRM can be securely implemented that way---as a stand-alone black box addon.
It's pretty much the ONLY way it can be implemented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

I think the content has to be protected along it's entire path from source to screen including all the interfaces, memory and storage. Right?
Yes, which is why it would need to be a black box type of application. It's the only way to insure that something cannot be injected into the path.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diverge View Post

I don't really know much about DRM, but there was a question posted on the silicondust forums that implies that DTCP-IP has some sort of DRM to apply to the storage of files, and streaming previously recorded protected content.
DTCP-IP DRM only applies to the transport mechanism (when the file/stream is sent from device A to device B). When device B saves it, it saves it with a different DRM scheme (PlayReady being one of the approved types). DRM must be handed off to another approved scheme for "persistent protected storage" (recording) and "protected digital output" (playback rendering). Basically, you would request that the DTCP-IP would "transfer" the DRM handling to PlayReady. DTCP-IP would recognise that PlayReady is an approved DRM and allow the transfer of the license. See http://www.dtcp.com/approvedtechnologies.aspx for DTCP approved DRM shemes for persistent protected storage and protected digital output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diverge View Post

Apologies in advance if I'm not interpreting this stuff correctly redface.gif
No apologies necessary, I'm learning as I go just like you. And I could be just as wrong in my understanding. biggrin.gif
Diverge likes this.
vladd is offline  
post #110 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 05:46 PM
t-c
Member
 
t-c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

I haven't looked into the license/code of XBMC to really answer that specifically but in general: sure, you can do a closed source addin to an application, there just needs to be some type of API or plugin architecture in place for the main app to support the plugin. I proposed something exactly like that for MediaPortal and NextPVR in one of the Ceton threads: a black box app to handle the recording and playback that just exposes functions like Play(), Pause() etc to the main app.
The main problem with a software application using DTCP-IP (at least a Windows application) is that DTCP-IP licensing will double your licensing costs for no reason. You can simply license PlayReady (which you would still have to do if you went the DTCP-IP route) and use the DRI/PBDA interface.

I should have read your post more carefully. You laid it out nicely. I would assume that the DRM would need to be implemented as code that runs in the protected Environment (PE), same as how it works in Windows Media Center.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa376846(v=vs.85).aspx

So its not really a technical issue but more of a business issue i.e. costs, year over year volumes, ROI, etc.

Looking at some of the up front and recurring licensing costs and considering the cost of development, support, etc I would say that a business model would be difficult.

DTCP-IP licensing fees:

DTLA Small Adopter $14000/year
DTLA device certs ?
Microsoft code signing cert ?

WMDRM 10 (PlayReady) for persistant storage

$5,000 license fee
$10,000 certificate fee for each major release of a licensed product

Software engineering $
Support $
Other $
t-c is offline  
post #111 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Right. But as I said, for an PC application, you don't need to pay the DTCP-IP licensing. PlayReady is all you need because you can request that the Prime send the stream with DMDRM encryption using SetDRM in the Security Service of the DRI interface. This is what Media Center does.

If anyone wants to pay the $5k license fee for me, I would be more than happy to create a demo for them. biggrin.gif
vladd is offline  
post #112 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
babgvant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-c View Post

I should have read your post more carefully. You laid it out nicely. I would assume that the DRM would need to be implemented as code that runs in the protected Environment (PE), same as how it works in Windows Media Center.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa376846(v=vs.85).aspx
So its not really a technical issue but more of a business issue i.e. costs, year over year volumes, ROI, etc.
Looking at some of the up front and recurring licensing costs and considering the cost of development, support, etc I would say that a business model would be difficult.
DTCP-IP licensing fees:
DTLA Small Adopter $14000/year
DTLA device certs ?
Microsoft code signing cert ?
WMDRM 10 (PlayReady) for persistant storage
$5,000 license fee
$10,000 certificate fee for each major release of a licensed product
Software engineering $
Support $
Other $

Plus whatever it costs to get CableLabs to certify the solution.
babgvant is offline  
post #113 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 05:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
CableLabs does not have to certify a PC application AFAIK. They used to certify the entire system but then they changed that to allow OCUR devices to be installed on any PC.
vladd is offline  
post #114 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 06:41 PM
t-c
Member
 
t-c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Right. But as I said, for an PC application, you don't need to pay the DTCP-IP licensing. PlayReady is all you need because you can request that the Prime send the stream with DMDRM encryption using SetDRM in the Security Service of the DRI interface. This is what Media Center does.
If anyone wants to pay the $5k license fee for me, I would be more than happy to create a demo for them. biggrin.gif

Thats interesting regarding WMDRM.
t-c is offline  
post #115 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 06:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
babgvant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

CableLabs does not have to certify a PC application AFAIK. They used to certify the entire system but then they changed that to allow OCUR devices to be installed on any PC.

My understanding is that they will need to certify any app that uses a previously uncertified playback pipeline. AFAIK, the only PC pipeline that is certified is WMC's which uses undocumented features in DS - so it can't be reused.

I did some research into what it would take to do this on a PC a while back. Could be wrong, but it seemed like the cheapest way was to use the protected path stuff baked into MF. AFAIK it's the only documented way to enable HDCP.
babgvant is offline  
post #116 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 07:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

If anyone wants to pay the $5k license fee for me, I would be more than happy to create a demo for them. biggrin.gif

Are you sure all it takes is paying the fee? I have a feeling that they will not license it to just anyone. If they did, they would run the risk of someone using it to make something that removes the encryption.

If it is just a matter of paying the fee, then I bet you could get it funded with a Kickstarter project.
jim2100 is offline  
post #117 of 181 Old 12-12-2012, 08:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by babgvant View Post

My understanding is that they will need to certify any app that uses a previously uncertified playback pipeline. AFAIK, the only PC pipeline that is certified is WMC's which uses undocumented features in DS - so it can't be reused.
I did some research into what it would take to do this on a PC a while back. Could be wrong, but it seemed like the cheapest way was to use the protected path stuff baked into MF. AFAIK it's the only documented way to enable HDCP.
Actually, the pipeline that WMC uses is very well documented: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463120.aspx
Quote:
WMDRM is a technology that extends protected content to consumer electronics devices. For example, WMDRM applies to digital media receivers, such as the OpenCable Unidirectional Receiver (OCUR), that are connected to devices, such as a computer, that transmit over home networks.
For information on WMDRM for PBDA, refer to the “PBDA Specification (Part 3: WMDRM) [1].”
Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463131.aspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Are you sure all it takes is paying the fee? I have a feeling that they will not license it to just anyone. If they did, they would run the risk of someone using it to make something that removes the encryption.
If it is just a matter of paying the fee, then I bet you could get it funded with a Kickstarter project.
That fee (and a license agreement) gets you a test certificate and the SDK so that you can develop your application (NDAs involved and all that). You then have to pay the $10k and submit your test app for certification for the final certificate. Sure, you could then make something that removes the encryption but the second you release it into the wild, they will know it was your certificate that did it and simply revoke that certificate (then hunt you down with pitchforks).

Oh, and if your submitted product does not pass the certification, it's $2500 for each retest.

http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/ (Select "Developing a PlayReady PC application" in the dropdown). There may be additional fees involved but I don't know what the would be.

I could be wrong in my understanding of all this so if someone else knows...
vladd is offline  
post #118 of 181 Old 12-13-2012, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
babgvant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Actually, the pipeline that WMC uses is very well documented: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463120.aspx

That's only half the problem (and having documentation doesn't make it well documented* smile.gif). You still need to certify the playback mechanism. Securing something at rest is relatively easy. Make sure that it can't be hijacked during playback is not. DS wasn't designed to handle protected playback, obviously it's possible to get something DS based certified (MS did after all), but it's not reusable so you would need to build something new. IMO, MF is the only cost effective way to do that.


* Google "SageDCT"
babgvant is offline  
post #119 of 181 Old 12-13-2012, 08:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by babgvant View Post

That's only half the problem (and having documentation doesn't make it well documented* smile.gif). You still need to certify the playback mechanism. Securing something at rest is relatively easy. Make sure that it can't be hijacked during playback is not. DS wasn't designed to handle protected playback, obviously it's possible to get something DS based certified (MS did after all), but it's not reusable so you would need to build something new. IMO, MF is the only cost effective way to do that.
I don't disagree about using MF for playback but that's theoretical in my case until I would be able to take a look at the PlayReady SDK. They may provide a way to do it with DirectShow but all the samples I have seen to date use Media Foundation. As for certification of the playback mechanism, have you gotten confirmation that it needs to be certified by CableLabs? (I'm honestly asking here because I wasn't able to find any CableLabs certification that covered PC applications for OCURs.)
Quote:
* Google "SageDCT"
I'm intimately familiar with SageDCT (not as much as you of course). wink.gif You were a great help to me and Martin with NextPVR stuff and thank you for that.
vladd is offline  
post #120 of 181 Old 12-13-2012, 08:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
babgvant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

As for certification of the playback mechanism, have you gotten confirmation that it needs to be certified by CableLabs?

Not personally. Had a few conversations with some people who have looked at it seriously. It's supposed to be quite onerous, even have to write an essay about how awesome your playback framework is smile.gif.
babgvant is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off