or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Video Processors › HDCP seperate box ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDCP seperate box ? - Page 3  

post #61 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey
It’s not the volume as much as the precedent. Do you really think that they will allow a situation that implies that they have all these rules, but won’t enforce them? In any case, as I mentioned, there are people in a position to know who have hinted that there will be a response.
I think Odyssey is correct: threads with a title like this are the DMCA's worst nightmare and I doubt they would not take notice and/ or action
post #62 of 215
I rather dislike these public articles proclaiming the hacking of HDCP when in reality, that is just not the case.

The real fact is, the devices were made legally. What was lacking at the time was technology. These devices were designed, submitted and approved, and built with older chip that was unable to re-encrypt HDCP with the understanding that when new chips were available, the manufacturer would switch to the compliant chip. New productions are now fully HDCP compliant.
post #63 of 215
Title changed to something a little more appropriate.
post #64 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
The real fact is, the devices were made legally. What was lacking at the time was technology. These devices were designed, submitted and approved, and built with older chip that was unable to re-encrypt HDCP with the understanding that when new chips were available, the manufacturer would switch to the compliant chip. New productions are now fully HDCP compliant.
Kei, can you clarify how the new productions are compliant? HDCP can't be carried by RGBHV, as far as I knew.
post #65 of 215
Joshua,

Eventually, I suspect that the unit will no longer pass HDCP signals to RGBHV, and will be used primarily for a computer. Sorry, my comments were directed more about the distribution amp, but I know that it is the HDCP issue that kept this item from being designed with Component output.
post #66 of 215
Kei, I don't doubt your integrity on this, but I do think you are mistaken or were given bad information. The explanation that you've given here is quite suspect, particularly with regards to the DVI->RGBHV converter.

The HDCP Repeater standard is quite clear and unambigious. Any device that accepts an HDCP-encrypted input cannot produce any analog output when a protected input signal is received. None whatsoever.

The only thing is that if you build a DVI->RGBHV converter using a standard DVI chip (one that does not have HDCP support), it will function in exactly the proper way. It will be unable to do the HDCP decryption, and the source device will cease to transmit to it, and there will be no analog output. Thus to produce a "compliant" DVI->RGBHV converter, there is no need to pay the HDCP license fees, which are expensive.

So there really is no credible explanation for building their DVI->RGBHV converter unless they intended from the start for it to circumvent the clear language of the HDCP standard. Why pay any more money to build it than is required?
post #67 of 215
Michael:

Except the DVI distribution amp strips the HDCP so any DVI------->to RGBHV converter will work, the DVI-------> to RGBHV is not receiving an HDCP encrypted signal, read carefully what Kei wrote you are hearing it from the horses mouth.

Lon
post #68 of 215
Quote:
So there really is no credible explanation for building their DVI->RGBHV converter unless they intended from the start for it to circumvent the clear language of the HDCP standard.
Other than that the same chips were use in the two designs and bought in bulk?

Or that instead of going with one vendor that has that model of chip, the option which may have been discouraged was that item be designed with a DVI chip from a different vendor?

You're right that there is no logical reason, but I'm sure there was a motive.
post #69 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG
..... read carefully what Kei wrote you are hearing it from the horses mouth.
Hey, take that back! I'm not the horses mouth. :D

Actually, I'm only relaying what was told to me long ago, before an appropriate chip was available to build a properly functioning distribution amp.
post #70 of 215
Sorry, didn't mean to compare you to a horses mouth, but it needed to be clarified that the units in question where not hacks.
post #71 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloReiter
So can anyone tell me where I can buy this???
This place has an article about the device and the link where to buy it.
http://theaterathome.blogspot.com/

Cheers,
-B
post #72 of 215
I'd like to ask a dumb question. Please note that I'm very much an electronics novice, which is why the question may be dumb. So no laughing.

Say the HDCP powers are able to revoke the keys to your Dtrovison converter. No high-def dvd for you! Could an HDCP decoding chip be swapped from an HDCP compliant display into the Dtrovision? Are all the chips the same so that this could be done? I can't imagine why anyone would buy a whole new display just to get a chip, but maybe a used or broken display can be found cheap enough. It's not likely that the key from the compliant display would ever be revoked, so you'd be safe forever.

Of course, I expect that there's flaws in what I've asked, probably some fatal flaws. I just haven't heard anyone propose it so far.
post #73 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG
Michael:

Except the DVI distribution amp strips the HDCP so any DVI------->to RGBHV converter will work, the DVI-------> to RGBHV is not receiving an HDCP encrypted signal, read carefully what Kei wrote you are hearing it from the horses mouth.

Lon
This doesn't make sense. I have to agree with Michael. You can't strip HDCP. Within HDCP, the video data is scrambled. You must have the keys to de-scramble. In addition an HDCP compliant device will only send 128 frames un encrypted. If it gets no handshake it will cease transmission.
post #74 of 215
It doesn't "strip" HDCP, it decrypts it.
post #75 of 215
LJG:
Quote:
Except the DVI distribution amp strips the HDCP so any DVI------->to RGBHV converter will work, the DVI-------> to RGBHV is not receiving an HDCP encrypted signal, read carefully what Kei wrote you are hearing it from the horses mouth.
No, I am talking about the dedicated DVI->RGBHV converter which also strips HDCP. No need to use the distribution amp to get that effect.

Also, I am well aware who I am speaking to, incidentally, as I own one of the distribution amps---bought it from Kei and her cohorts!---and I've seen one of the DACs in action.

Kei:
Quote:
It doesn't "strip" HDCP, it decrypts it.
Well, I think we're having a simple disagreement about semantics here.

I say that if an HDCP device decrypts the HDCP handshake on input, and doesn't put it back on the output, then it's "stripping" HDCP.

(As a family man, it's either that or a wire stripper. No other kind will suffice. :))
post #76 of 215
Alan: your plan is technically feasible, assuming that you can actually desolder the old chip from the board and replace it with a new one. That's a big assumption though. I don't know what packaging they use but I would not be surprised if it would be difficult if not impossible to replace.
post #77 of 215
Kei:
Quote:
Other than that the same chips were use in the two designs and bought in bulk?
Certainly possible. However, the HDCP consortium has to approve both designs. Surely they would have realized the fundamental flaw in the design of the DVI->RGB converter. Even if they use the same chip model, Silicon Image or whomever could sell them a chip with an invalid/empty key for use in the DVI->RGB converter, just to insure compliance.
Quote:
Or that instead of going with one vendor that has that model of chip, the option which may have been discouraged was that item be designed with a DVI chip from a different vendor?
Not sure what you mean here.
Quote:
You're right that there is no logical reason, but I'm sure there was a motive.
Oh, I don't doubt there was a motive :) I'm just not convinced it was on the up-and-up. If they were only selling the distribution amp, then I could believe the story. But this DVI->RGB converter muddies up the story rather seriously.
post #78 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey
So the people doing these cracks are no friend of the honest consumer.
What if the honest consumer just wants to use their existing display or do what is legal within the bounds of fair use? No, I think that Hollywood is definately not the friend of the honest consumer nor are the weenie electronics companies that fall in line.

Hollywood believes you should be treated like a criminal, that may not offend you, but it does me.

Dave
post #79 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant
LJG:No, I am talking about the dedicated DVI->RGBHV converter which also strips HDCP. No need to use the distribution amp to get that effect.

Also, I am well aware who I am speaking to, incidentally, as I own one of the distribution amps---bought it from Kei and her cohorts!---and I've seen one of the DACs in action.
(As a family man, it's either that or a wire stripper. No other kind will suffice. :))
My bad I did not know the dvi--> RGBHV also has same effect, I thought it was only the Distribution amp.


Lon
post #80 of 215
Quote:
Hollywood believes you should be treated like a criminal, that may not offend you, but it does me.
So fine, you're offended. But Napster unfortunately proved Hollywood right. People who would under other circumstances not break the law seemed to have no problem doing so from the privacy of their own Internet connection. People that look and act just like you and me apparently have no problem stealing music (and rationalizing their way to kingdom come as to why it ought to be legal to do so).

Besides, Person99, have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Ever? Then you've proven Hollywood right too. You're a criminal. And so am I. We all ignore laws when it's convenient.

Having said that I believe that technical copy protection measures ought not be given special protection by the government. In other words, I'd like to see the DMCA repealed. Then there can be a more natural tug-of-war between the studios, hackers, and consumers. Thus copy protection measures will continue to exist, and continue to remain an encumbrance, but they do not remain illegal to break just for the sake of it---only if you break them to do illegal things with the content (outside of fair use).
post #81 of 215
Michael,

The meaning for the second comment, a DVI>VGA device could have easily been made using another vendor's DVI chip which I have heard is cheaper. I was told in no uncertain terms that the design was indeed submitted for approval. Apparently, this was done at one of the Asian divisions. It was designed to be used with PC video cards, that much I know.
post #82 of 215
Michael,

I guess the chip used in the DVI>VGA converter is not that unique as I just tested another brand that works in the exact same manner. :)
post #83 of 215
Perhaps OT perhaps not but are there not presently direct view CRTs that are HDCP compliant and are there not RP CRTs same ?

Art
post #84 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn
Perhaps OT perhaps not but are there not presently direct view CRTs that are HDCP compliant and are there not RP CRTs same ?

Art
There's quite a few direct-view CRTs, especially computer monitors.

No CRT front projectors, alas. I'd love to see a G90 hooked up by 12 bit HDMI.
post #85 of 215
Kei,
I know the device will work with PC-DVI from a video card but what about DVI from an HDCP compliant device such as an up scaling DVD player?

Earl
post #86 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carled
The issue is with the "likely outcomes" you speak of. None of us can see the future, and that is just one possibility of many..
I agree with you completely, but in other forums, I seem to have had trouble communicating that we don't know the future.

Also, I have worked on encryption before and I admit to not have studied the HDCP spec, but if device A, B, and C look the same from a handshake and negotiation perspective (i.e. same device ID, same key, etc), it is really a leap to say just because they have smart guys they will be able to disable A without effecting B and C.

Simple fact is, this thing doesn't cost much, it might not work in the future, but it very well may for years to come. Each person gets to decide if it is worth it to them.

Dave
post #87 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn
Perhaps OT perhaps not but are there not presently direct view CRTs that are HDCP compliant and are there not RP CRTs same ?

Art
Yes Art, but I don't know what you are saying. Are you saying as others had that these could be used to create devices, or just that they exist so what is the big deal? They are "OK" because they don't make the decrypted analog signal available outside of the device. Same reason why and HDCP compliant input card for a G90 or Marquee is "OK".

Dave
post #88 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Grant
So fine, you're offended. But Napster unfortunately proved Hollywood right. People who would under other circumstances not break the law seemed to have no problem doing so from the privacy of their own Internet connection. People that look and act just like you and me apparently have no problem stealing music (and rationalizing their way to kingdom come as to why it ought to be legal to do so).
Although I understand your point, I believe the analogy is a poor one. They are substantitively different. All I want to do is use the display device of my choice with the player and media I purchase. I don't want to steal anything or do anything illegal with the content. In the Napster example, they were stealing. I'm not advocating stealing.

The point about being offended is that we should all be offended by this and vote with our dollars. But alas, look around, apathy rules and this will not occur.

Dave
post #89 of 215
I'm very offended and plan on voting with my dollars.

The way I see it, the industry owes me the extra cost of devices incurred that I have to purchase to simply watch the media that I have already paid for with the equipment I own.
I wonder how I can recoupe that money...?
post #90 of 215
Quote:

The point about being offended is that we should all be offended by this and vote with our dollars. But alas, look around, apathy rules and this will not occur.
Look around AVS Forums (plasma forum for example) and you will see we have been warning about HDCP for YEARS:

we have recommended that if you are looking for a new display device, you choose one that is HDCP compliant

I am not supporting HDCP: I have no love of it: I have seen video processor manufacturers struggle with HDCP license fees and then have trouble obtaining HDCP chips, then spend hundreds of man hours designing robust circuits that meet license requirements, and then have to pay an expedite fee in order to receive the keys in a timely manner so they can release their product: and HDCP still has problems with integration

it is not the fault of the equipment manufacturers: they have to comply with the law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Processors
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Video Processors › HDCP seperate box ?