[jdb8167]

Jon Seff said:

That update only applies to SD content, not HD.

Are you sure? It seems to have fixed HD TV shows for me. I was able to watch an episode of heroes in HD on a VGA screen. Since Apple doesn't sell HD movies for computers (just for AppleTV) that means that the functionality for the new MacBooks is now the same as for the old MacBooks.

[Penzi]

Well, the tumble continues... although not the longest-time Mac user, I did switch back in '02 when I started up a design and photography business. I have been little more than tickled pink with everything Apple I have purchased. Or had been until in the past year I picked up a MBA, an AppleTV and 'upgraded' to Leopard. I'm not going to use this post to whine and cry incessantly and go over the minutiae of my gripes, but suffice it to say that I am one of the few who has had nothing but issues with the new OSX (internet connectivity and general program stability) and my MBA cannot access content from my iMac's Superdrive...
This latest move does not sit well with me at all - I could handle it when the Macs were not only design leaders but the software worked flawlessly for me (from Jaguar on down to Tiger.)
I'm very close to the unthinkable - no, not Microsoft, that would be insane; Linux...

[hillstones]

Lots of misinformation in that article. The EFF sounds like a stupid misinformed group of pirates. HDCP has been part of HD content for at least the past 5 years. When I bought my first HDTV in 2003, one of the "new" features was a DVI input that was HDCP compliant. This is nothing new. Even cable boxes require an HDCP-compliant TV (or Display) ONLY through the DIGITAL connection (DVI or HDMI). Depending on the cable box, the picture would either be downgraded to 480p, or not display at all when connected digitally to a non-HDCP display. If that was the case, the component-video output was used instead for HD. Of course the MacBook/Pro does not have component video out.
The article fails to mention how old the Pioneer Plasma display is; therefore, misinforming the reader to believe that HDCP protected content won't play on HDTV's so we better figure out a way to circumvent it because how dare Hollywood prohibit us from watching HD content on an HDTV! Stupid morons! However, they proved that the HD content played fine when connected to an HDCP-compliant display.
Now the comment about avoiding an AppleTV is just plain stupid. The AppleTV is NOT a display, it has nothing to do with HDCP. However, you do need to connect it to an HDCP compliant TV if you are using the HDMI output and plan to view HD content purchased from iTunes. The component video output should not be affected since it is an analog output.
Of course the article leads you to believe that Apple is the bad-guy. HOLLYWOOD required the content protection because they don't want their content pirated/copied in a pure digital form through DVI or HDMI. The title of the article is wrong and misleading.
So in order for Apple to offer HD content, they had to follow the rules of Hollywood and make sure the content was HDCP protected. That's why the new Cinema Displays are designed for the new MacBooks because they are HDCP compliant displays! Duh!
The HDCP protection still applies when using the DisplayPort to VGA adapter since the content is leaving the MacBook through the digital output. However, I don't know why someone would buy HD content to display it on a non-HD display (VGA). They are just wasting their money, and they are stupid if they think they actually see an HD picture on a Non-HD display, simply because they bought the HD version.
It won't lead to more piracy because piracy hasn't been reduced in the first place. The new QuickTime update for the MacBooks already corrects the issue by allowing standard definition content to play. However, they should update it again to downgrade the HD content to 480p when connected to a non-HDCP compliant display. But I guess it was easier to just block the content entirely to meet Hollywood's requirement.

[hillstones]

[quote name='ibeetle']
>

pdbreske said:

> How will the use of HDCP DRM affect the Apple TV?

This should not effect you at all. The Apple TV does not use the Mini Display port. This effects people who use their new MacBook as the video source.

iTunes purchase to AppleTV, or Desktop to AppleTV, or AppleTV direct download would not be effected by this particular DRM.

Basically, the copy write holders are requiring a DRM for Tab A that will not fit in Slot B.

You are wrong and misinformed. The AppleTV features an HDMI port, which is a digital output. The MiniDisplay port does not have the HDCP copy protection. The HD content purchased from iTunes has the HDCP protection. HDCP protection applies when a Non-HDCP display is connected digitally to a source, either through HDMI, DVI, or the new MiniDisplay Port. So the AppleTV must be connected to an HDCP-compliant HDTV, if using the HDMI connection. If the HDTV has an HDMI port, it is HDCP compliant. HDTV's have been HDCP compliant since about 2003 when they first offered DVI inputs.

[hillstones]

GadgetDon said:

I have an Apple TV connected to a non-HDCP compliant TV. As I understand it, it plays high definition stuff, but downgrades it to standard definition. So, rent the standard definition movies, not the high def. Their version of standard def is still pretty good.

Is your AppleTV connected to an old HDTV that is not HDCP compliant? Is is connected to the TV using the Component Video Intputs? If so, then you can view HD content in HD. If your AppleTV is connected to a Standard Def TV with Component Inputs, then you are correct, you should stick with the standard definition content. HDCP only applies with pure digital connections, HDMI, DVI, and the new MiniDisplay port on the MacBook.

[hillstones]

GadgetDon said:

Unfortunately, just about any high def input (other than over the air and cable/satellite) will have the same issue. What size is your TV? Unless it's huge (50" or larger), you may not notice the difference. And it is great having 100 movies available at whim. (Yes, I've been busy with Handbrake.)

Sorry Don, you are wrong. Only pure digital connections are protected by HDCP: HDMI, DVI, and MiniDisplay Port on the MacBook. Component Video Outputs, which can display HD content at 1080i, is an analog output and not protected by HDCP. And yes, you would notice the difference between HD content and Standard Def content.

[hillstones]

GadgetDon said:

HDCP was designed to block the "analog hole". Even if you have an absolutely uncrackable audio DRM, someone can hook up a recorder to the output of a playback device, and convert it to digital. Even if you have an absolutely uncrackable video DRM, someone can hook up a recorder and digitize it.

And to be fair, no one has yet cracked HDCP so far as I know, there is no way to record a video by capturing the HDCP output of something. Except that much of the reason, I suspect, is that the DRMs have all been cracked. On the PC, there are a number of tools for ripping Blu-Ray and HD-DVD disks.

So, to bring back the locks analogy from earlier in this discussion, HDCP is a high-security corridor from one building to another, with multiple locks, biometric scans, deathtraps for those who don't pass. Except the doors to the builds are combination locks with the combination of 1-2-3.

Wrong again, Don. HDCP only applies to a pure digital connection. It doesn't block the "analog hole" as you claim. The analog Component Inputs on an HDTV are not affected by HDCP.

[GadgetDon]

I have an Apple TV connect via HDMI to DVI cable to a TV that is not HDCP compliant (and another Apple TV connected to a different TV with an HDMI connector and thus HDCP compliant). You are right, that component video is not HDCP and puts out HD content, but I thought it was less than 1080i, I thought it was downgraded.

Both TVs are in the 22-26" range, and having got some HD TV downloads (so I got both the HD and regular definition version), I can't really tell the difference. Side by side, I presumably could, but looking at the standard definition image, it looks plenty good. Again, I'm not talking about "can you tell the difference between a TV signal picked up over rabbit ears and an HDTV signal", I mean a good quality widescreen digital source (like DVD, ripped DVD, or purchased video) vs. the higher definition equivalent. For every set of eyes, there's some screen size where you'll see the difference, looking at a standard definition signal won't seem "good enough". But for most people, 30" and smaller isn't there.

And answering another response...you're right, HDCP only applies to digital signals, and so perhaps the term "analog hole" is inaccurate. But for a long time, analog hole has referred to grabbing the signal from the output, so I've heard it described as the problem HDCP is solving.

[hillstones]

This article has nothing to do with DVD's and ripping them with HandBrake. Why is that even brought up? This article is about purchasing HD content from iTunes and trying to view it on non-HDCP compliant displays.

Congratulations, you can circumvent copy protection on DVD's, which are not HD. DVD's have nothing to do with HDCP.

It would be more impressive if you could figure out a way to bypass HDCP protection to display HD content on a non-HDCP compliant display using a pure digital connection.

Since the HD content offered from iTunes is only 720p, it doesn't matter if your AppleTV is connected through Component Video or HDMI. If they offered 1080p, then that would be a different story since an HDMI connection would be required for that bandwidth.

When HDTV's included DVI inputs starting in 2003, they were HDCP compliant. If your HDTV is older than that, it probably didn't have a digital input, just the analog component video input for 1080i HD (analog component input for HD is not affected by HDCP since it is not a digital signal).

[ibeetle]

No! It is you who are completely wrong. Not just a little but compleatly 100%.

You really need to do two things:
1) Cancel your subsrciption to your tech and video magazines. You obviously are not reading them and if you are you are not comprehending them.

2) Stop stomping around these message board correcting everybody telling them they are wrong; when it is you who is misinformed and giving wrong advice.

My information came from Apples website. Yours came from your own sad feeble little mind.

[GadgetDon]

Folks, let's treat this as a discussion, not as a form of PVP.

[Jon Seff]

Agreed...keep it civil or we'll have to close this thread.

[vaporman]

Quote

This article is stupid. It's like saying putting locks on doors
leads to more burglaries.

It is actually more like saying that police putting locks on our doors while we were out would lead to more burglaries. We'd all have to break into our own houses, thus leaving gaping security holes which may be leveraged by criminals.

Quote

The character of a would-be
pirate is ALREADY corroded if the person has or can justify copying
digital IP.

I have to agree with this.

Quote

I've got Handbrake, and I've used to copy a few
movies to my iPhone. But I bought the DVDs originally. That's where I
draw the line, though. I wouldn't copy friends' disks or DVDs borrowed
from a library. It's an ethical choice.

The problem here is that you are drawing your own lines. By using Handbrake, you are circumventing DRM. This is against the law, which by your definition (as well as Steve Jobs) would mean that your character is already corroded. What other lines are you willing to draw? If you bought a movie from iTunes, but were unable to play it on your TV or iPod, would you find it ethically OK to rent the movie and rip it with Handbrake so that you could watch what you've already paid for? If so, would you be upset that you had to pay to buy it and then pay again to rent it - just so you could watch it. Would you be OK with borrowing the DVD froma friend and ripping it? These are the kind of issues that are raised when DRM over-restricts the end user and forces them to violate the law in order to use what they have paid for. The argument here is that if you didn't have to circumvent DRM to watch the media, you wouldn't own handbrake to begin with - and there would be no temptation for you to break the laws which you have already admitted to breaking.

I am not validating their argument. I'm just saying that there is some value to the underlying logic. If I had a large library of HD iTunes purchases and went out and bought an HD TV, only to bring it home and find that I couldn't watch those movies on my expensive purchase (or even watch them on the computer while that TV was hooked up.) I think I'd probably start thinking about circumventing a few laws myself.

The second part of the argument is where things start to break down. Say for example, that I have been put in the situation to make the choice between watching my purchased media and breaking DMCA laws. Even if I make the decision to become a criminal and circumvent the DRM, it would still be a stretch by my book to think that I'd just throw everything out the window and start sharing everything online. But this is where your earlier Steve Jobs quote becomes essential to the argument. "The character of a would-be
pirate is ALREADY corroded if the person has or can justify copying
digital IP." This quote effectively implies that if you are willing to circumvent DRM, then it is within your nature to pirate that intellectual property as well. This wraps everything up very neatly and the logical conclusion is that by over-restricting usage, you will increase piracy. Of course, they could also be taking the logical route of loosening the definition of the term pirate to include anyone who circumvents DRM (this would include you.)

In either case, I do think it is highly unlikely that this restriction will have an end result of Movie Studios losing money or more people sharing movies online. It will very likely, however, create more "innocent outlaws" of people who just want to be able to use what they have paid for. This will likely have one of two effects. Either studios will use the statistics of this "criminal" activity to bolster support for their attempts at further restrictions - or - people like yourself will start to be prosecuted, which might force the courts to make some decisions about the constitutionality of the DMCA. If the latter were to happen, DMCA might be overturned and we would very likely see a huge increase in usage of software like Handbrake (as well as the PC alternatives.) We would also likely see instant Cracks for every immaginable DRM widely distributed over the internet. If this were to happen, it is likely that we would see at least some increase in online movie sharing - which would validate the EFF claims.

[People_Eater]

ballouja said:

Just as Amazon has created an mp3 store that is free of DRM, Apple can use its weight as a media powerhouse (even though its movie and television stores have not been as successful as its music business) to persuade the media companies to change their ways.

No.

Apple's status as a media powerhouse is the reason why the music labels allow Amazon to sell mp3 files without DRM, but will not allow Apple to. It's an attack on Apple, because the DRM the labels originally insisted on actually had the effect of cementing Apple's marketshare position.

Basically, Apple got too powerful for the labels' liking, which is why they don't allow Apple to stock DRM-free tracks (with the exception of EMI)

Quote

The EFF targets Apple because Apple has one of the most visible electronic media stores

The real reason is sensationalism. They go over-the-top to attack Apple, but didn't make much effort to stop HDMI and other forms of DRM in the first place.

Look in the title of the article "Apple DisplayPort DRM" - as if other DisplayPort-equipped products won't have similar problems. DisplayPort is not Apple's standard. HDCP is not Apple's DRM.

But funnily enough, you don't see the EFF attacking VESA for equipping DisplayPort with HDCP. It's VESA's standard, not Apple's. You also won't see the EFF attacking Dell or HP when they sell machines equipped with HDCP.

It's because the EFF is biased and inconsistent. They bash Apple because it's easy and gives them PR. They could be doing much more effective things, but they don't bother, because being effective would be hard work. It's a lot easier to simply be loud.