Apple's new MacBooks have built-in copy protection measures - Page 3

I'm with you 100%.

WOW. This is pretty lame.

Now I'm REALLY glad I bought the previous gen MacBook Pro (Amazon, $1444) instead of one of the latest machines.

Looks like I'll still get screwed eventually by this Nazi BS, but not for 4 years or so.


...

The purpose of HDCP is to stop an analog hole. If you could plug display port or DVI into an VGA cable. Recording devices could record a pristine and DRM free copy of the content.

Aren't you one of the ones so keen on Blu-ray? This same DRM would come with it.

So you can't take that VGA feed and copy it. The CP in HDCP is for Copy Protection. iTunes should down-convert to 480p in this case; that's the only mistake on Apple's part.

By your own words, you admit Apple and Steve are hypocrites then.

How? If you had a DVI monitor and no one told you you wouldn't even know. Oh the horror!!

I had to learn this lesson the hard way. I remember trying to sell a legit copy I owned of AutoCAD on ebay. After my auction was booted and my account frozen I learned that just because I had purchased the software and license, it didn't mean I could do whatever I wanted to (which included reselling it). I was "leasing" the intellectual property under certain terms and conditions. There was no gun held to my head when I bought it. Did I like it? No. In fact, there was something very un-American about the whole thing. But that's the way it is!

If you "just won't stand for this" and expect Apple to change... you might as well get good at creating hand puppets with that non-HDCP projector!

It's one of those times when you ask yourself "what's getting upset going to do?"

I've never said anything terribly pro or con on Blu-Ray, except that I thought it was better than HD-DVD, and that while it will be replaced by digital downloads, that process will take a long time due to bandwidth limitations.

You have me confused with someone else.


...

[ deleted ]

Alright, I'm trying to keep all of your outrages straight.

If you really cared to make a difference, you'd not buy the content and not pirate it from a torrent. If the studios saw declining sales and declining torrent downloads, they couldn't use piracy as a lame rationalization for DRM that they do now.

Besides, you don't have a right to use their products. They can put whatever DRM on it that they like. It doesn't mean you have a right to steal it just because you really want it.

Simply stealing it sends them a message that you're a thief. Letting them know their product isn't important enough to you to use at all and that if they removed DRM they'd have your money will send a much more powerful message.

Oh, Apple must love you. Such a good little boy.


...

Conceded, and my meaning was not so much over the matter of ownership in that sense. I do own many msuic CDs and I know that I only own the right to consume that music. But my beef is simple that if a DRM is going to restrict illegal uses of media, then it shouldn't also restrict legal (or what a general populous would consider completely fair) use.


Your argument re: the purpose of laws is well-grounded, and through the discussions so far, it's clear that I will need to define what I'm getting at more. Industry-standard DRM measures currently suck at discerning between legitimate consumers and illegitimate consumers. You're not supposed to speed on the way to work to make up for lost time. And if you get caught, then you pay for that risk. But you don't see speed governors on your car that, say, top you out based on the speed limit of the road you're on. You still have the choice. But in the case of this article, I feel that John the high school teacher should have been able to watch a movie that he purchased the rights to consume on any monitor he was capable of hooking his laptop up to. Had John used the DVD version of the same movie, I don't think he'd have had the same problem. That inequality is what irks me.

Do you actually think it was Apple's decision to include HDCP and not the studios? Do you think they wanted to do this?

Because of the studio's insistence on HDCP, Apple's choice was to sell it with HDCP, or not have it to sell at all.

Hey, I feel for ya. I have a hard time keeping all of your various arguments for why Apple is always right straight too.


...

Lordy

I had no idea that people were as clueless as this.

What did some of you all think when we media mavens were

ranting about DRM being excessive in the new formats?

HDCP is a given for any current and forthcoming HD content and

With Blu-ray it's even worse ("It's a bag of hurt" says Jobs).


In fact you should be HAPPY that Apple has finally implemented HDCP
support. It now means the road is paved for adding Blu-ray and other
HD technologies. Sure...you'll have to buy a new monitor perhaps but hell
you know you need the new hotness anyways.

Oh of course, I've never ever thought Apple has done one thing wrong, ever......

Pretty much.


...

HDCP support is not a choice for Apple. Anyone who wants to push HD content must be compliant - the content owners demand it. It is already in place in all the HD content we watch - you just don't or rarely notice because your HD home theater, HD TiVo, HD Cable DVR etc. is already compliant as is your HDTV. All we are seeing here is a glitch where a legacy technology (VGA) comes up against a new standard (HDCP) and something breaks. The studios have little incentive to create a workaround more than the 480p downsampling they already claim to have, and VGA is (slowly) dying out as a video standard. Apple should fix that failure (lack of downsampling).
If you care about HD on your computer, you have to use DVI or better. If you are OK with SD, then keep on trucking with VGA.
Bitching about HDCP is like King Canute demanding the tide go back. Feel free to protest by not buying HD content from iTunes, but don't think that you will get any better experience from otherHD or Blu-Ray.
Also - good luck with Vista in avoiding HDCP - FAIL. Go Linux, let us know how that goes.

Massive over reaction.

PS This doesn't mean I like DRM but it's not Apple's job to fight our battles. HDCP is, on balance, good business for them (enables HD content) since most people will watch it over HDCP compliant setups.
PPS - Apple hasn't put out anything with a VGA port as a primary connection for a long time (though you can get and use the adapters) - most mac users are already HDCP compliant.

Would you care to provide proof of that?

I'm not so sure this paves an easy path for Blu-ray. Apple owns Fairplay and can implement its own version of HDCP. Apple would have to license Blu-rays proprietary DRM.

OOOOOOOH, I'm soooooo burned....



lol

Call me what you'd like, but you can't say I'm wrong. The only reason this was caught was because it was run on incidentally unsupported hardware (projector) that apple should have warned about. I have a 20 inch Apple display and while I wouldn't have been able to run the new laptop on it until the DP-to-DVI adaptor was available, I could still plug it in my widescreen through HDMI and I'd never had be the wiser. The only real crime apple committed here was not telling customers that this was coming down the pipe which is causing more confusion then need be. I'm sure if people had known this was happening, they just would have bought the DVD instead.

America used to love oil and for that our car companies built cars to use MORE of it.

America loves their technology, now it seems the tech companies are implementing features into their products FORCING you to upgrade. Or in the case of the FCC (and Apple (FW)) They are taking away features, forcing you to upgrade. In the FCC's case, at least, they know how to do a change over!!!! Hey Apple do you know what transition means?????



Why not just add macrovision to an Analog output????(I don't really know what I'm talking about on that one)

Legality, freedom, etc. aside. Technically speaking, I don't understand why on earth Intel and the movie studios felt the need to combat piracy by placing restrictions on video transmission between the payback device and the monitor. Piracy is accomplished 99% of the time by decrypting the DRM of content digitally on a computer - not through (possibly expensive) external recording devices. Possibly piracy groups could begin to do this if DRM became too difficult to crack, which I HIGHLY doubt. However, even for those who do pirate films, for whatever reason (free or freedom), the probability they will actively search out for a device to copy a film and then PAY for it is absurd.

Basically, technically speaking, IMO they are attacking the wrong link in a weak chain and, in doing so, ONLY hurting legitimate users - it doesn't affect piracy groups in the slightest. If they really wanted to effectively combat piracy, they would either (A - technical) be working on more effective DRM protections on the content itself or (B - socioeconomically) actually work to make legal video content "purchases" easier, more convenient, etc. Apple has done an excellent job of B for music and a decent job at A. However, video is not quite there yet.

BTW - my first post here.

It's always true that people who are first to dish out the sarcasm can never take it.


...

I wasn't necessarily advocating stealing content. I just meant don't buy it.

Well the problem is theft.

Once broadband took off the ability to steal covertly increased substantially. On a modem it was physically infeasible to steal a movie of DVD quality much less HD. Today it's easy to download a HD movie in a matter of minutes.

Now with music the financial hit isn't that hard. The typical label musician makes less than a buck per CD sold. If you download a track from them you're likely costing them roughly $.08 or so. Their production costs are low with many CD cut from makeshift studios in the home. Juxtapose that with a movie. A movie worthy of theatrical release costs in the millions to produce, market and distribute. Just look at the credits for a movie and see the amount of staffing it takes to take a project from screenplay to post production.

When you download a movie your REALLY put the creators in a pickle. Unlike the musician who recoups most of their money via touring the movie depends on the DVD release to generate much of the profits now and if you steal that you've driven a dagger through their heart.

Apple should protect the rights of all artists who worked hard to create something from scratch and that product has value. Yes ..I'm dismayed by how greedy the majors are but someday the hope is that low cost distribution and marketing will revolutionize the Indie markets and pricing will become very affordable.

The only way that happens though is to allow a degree of protection from theft and the ability to profit from one's creation.

my $.04

Hey, I'm with you on that one!!
I apologize for being a stickler earlier, but I do think it is important to be clear about what we are objecting to and why we think it is objectionable.

This example (if true) is a travesty.

I, too, agree that DRM is lothesome if it prevents legal use. If it can be implemented such that it never affects me when I am following the law then I really don't have a problem with it. But it should not be a burden to the legal consumer and this case does apear that it could be a real backslide

The analogies do seem to be pretty accurate. For example, as a user, you technically only have the right to play that DVD on an approved, licensed player, at least in the US. Any concept of fair use media shifting went out the window with digital copy protection laws. I don't remember if Europe has passed any similar laws yet on the subject.


It doesn't sound like much work to save $10 if I were so inclined. If you don't mind the computer running at max for half an hour.


I seem to recall that Netflix applies DRM to their streaming video.


I think you can with an older computer without HDCP support.


What does HDCP have to do with IP addresses?

Well, if you look back in history hardware restrictions never served it's intended purpose, but it's really annoying that these measures haven't been disclosed by Apple in any way.

Remember all the uproar when Vista with it's copy right restrictions was introduced? People and media complaint about bad bad Microsoft fooling its customers, again.

Now MS is on a road to a more open philosophy, forced by the industry. And what doese Apple...right...they're doing it the Microsoft way.

(xvi) HDMI. An HDCP connection is required in order to view movies (purchased or rented) and TV shows transmitted over HDMI.

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

This problem is only with iTunes purchased content, I think it shouldn't cause the flickering on the monitor.

What happens on older laptops and other machines, do they not allow playing back those movies at all on an external screen? If they do play back in HD, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of trying to block the "analog hole"?

And when HDMI isn't available, isn't the movie supposed to still play back, just not in HD resolution?


Because without the limitation you could just hook up the output to the input of a device that records HD and have an exact copy of the movie.


I doubt people would bail on Apple/windows too much, they'll just pirate the movies instead. And haven't HD movies been cracked already?

Sorry, but I have long forgotten where I saw an article about European 'piracy taxes'. The gist was that the EU applies a percentage, I think it is to flash memory or something similar, as a result of lobbying from the record industries and this cost is reflected in all mp3 players sold in Europe.

iTunes Plus doesn't cost any more than iTunes regular. There was a transitional time when it did (and offered you higher quality for your trouble too) but only for singles, not albums, and only when Plus was new and the record labels were hesitant to get on board. Maybe more would be on board today if singles still cost more, but I'm glad Apple dropped the price.

It's absurd to think Apple is driving the DRM rather than the content owners driving it. The profit Apple makes from charging .30 more for certain singles for a certain period of time is trivial compared to iTunes as a whole, which in turn is a drop in the bucket compared to the device sales that Apple REALLY cares about. Apple's motivation with iTunes pricing is clearly simplicity, not pinching pennies out of us--remember how they fought against offering certain tracks for over .99? They gave in partially with Plus--temporarily.


Can you explain?

DRM is a necessary evil from Apple's point of view. The content owners call the shots. Apple has fought against DRM, and sometimes they've won, sometimes not. Apple's other choices were a) not to fight, and let the recording industry go nuts, or b) not to have downloadable music (which people do want) from the big content owners at all.

You are clearly mistaken over what you've purchased. You do NOT own the video. You have purchased a license to play the video in compliance with the associated license agreement. Just like you cannot legally play a video from Blockbuster to a crowd of people who've paid admission, there are license restrictions on downloaded movies.

In this case, more than ever before, the license is enforceable.

In neither case do you "own" the movie. You do own a piece of polycarbonate (DVD), or a reel of tape. You can do with those as you wish (burn, tape over, use as a coaster). In no case do you OWN the movie itself. You are a licensee. It's the same with DVDs and VHS and vinyl.

Technology is finally letting copyright holders control how they distribute their content. In the early history of film, it was easy. Celluloid is expensive, and requires some know-how to manufacture, expose and process. Even with a content player (projector), duplication was effectively impossible.

Tape changed all that. Now, making copies of video or audio was relatively easy. Studios lost control of their creative works.

If you are upset, vote with your wallet. Piracy is illegal, and isn't an alternative. You don't "need" movies or TV or music.

The real problem is that studios are controlling the multi-purpose content delivery systems (computers), and introducing complications that I will never legally need. HDCP checking surely takes CPU time or at least space on silicon. If I run into problems with monitor connections because of ill-tempered HDCP authentication, I'll be mad. But only because it's not serving its intended purpose.

In exactly is Windows on the road to an open philosophy? I see MS trying compete with everyone and to control everything the way they always have.

Apple nor MS are to blame or have much control over these DRM policies. If they want the right to use copy written content, they are forced to use the DRM.

These tech companies are using HDCP as a way of forcing a monitor(TV) upgrade. In the case of the FCC it's just greed. US government (of the people, by the people) is making 100's of millions of dollars off of the analog spectrum auction. Yet, they're taking away my signal, replacing it with a new one (hey apple, what you think of that idea (FW)), and ultimately FORCING me to spend money on something I never needed before, and for what. Higher resolution? Do people realize HDTV came about because houses are too small in Japan and they sit too close to the TV. Do we in the U.S. do that? Now I love HD, but hey, I pay for it.

Now Apple, and others, are using HDCP as an excuse to upgrade my monitor. How much "Apple" tax do we have to take.

Sure, go ahead, say it's not Apple's fault. In the end though we all know who AGREED to implement it.

BTW I have yet to meet ANYBODY that has a high resolution (HD and up) stand alone recording unit (never mind with VGA input)

HDCP requires that every device along the path honor and enforce it.
If the monitor doesn't enforce it, then you could put a capture device at the end of the chain.

I'm somewhat concerned about the HDMI switcher I use, but not all that much.

Also, HDCP doesn't mean that the picture won't display, simply that the compliance bit is switched off when it hits a non-compliant component, and the picture will be down-rez'd to, say, 480P.

Still, its a curious choice, but no doubt geared towards securing more HD content from the studios.

Who else would be leading the way to HDCP on iTunes?

If you meant in general use of enabling HDCP, yeah, they sure are are leading the way to applying it. Right after HD Televisions (and many monitors), Upscaling DVD players, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, Cable Boxes, and Video Card manufacturers, Microsoft...

Come to think of it, looks like Apple's late to the game!

My 5-year old TV has HDCP. If you think this is shocking news, then you haven't been paying attention. Yes, HDCP is dumb, but if you want to watch HD material, you will need an HD display, and most all HD displays support HDCP.