more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You assertion that being the largest US vendor or largest online vendor of music means that Apple doesn't have to follow legal contracts is absurd. The content owners have the right by ownership and the contracts Apple signed to make sure that DRM is included.
PS: iTS DRM-free music is the same price as their DRMed music.
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
Your information is outdated by over a year. iTunes+ tracks cost the same now and has since October 2007. I don't know how you can be credible in this discussion if you use that obsolete of a point in the argument.
I haven't thought of the possibility of Apple bullying the labels into providing iT+, though maybe it's a bit of a detente, the labels want more money, Apple wants no DRM. If Apple wanted DRM, I don't see why they'd bother offering iT+ at all, or ever offered it without DRM.
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You can tell when Jobs lies...his lips move.
You have to go back and read up on the battle between Apple and the record labels over this very issue. Apple wants no DRM the record labels want the ability to charge more. This battle has somewhat been repeated with video on iTunes.
I'm not sure why you think Apple is holding the superior position when they don't own the music or video. Without the music or video their is no iTunes store.
You assertion that being the largest US vendor or largest online vendor of music means that Apple doesn't have to follow legal contracts is absurd. The content owners have the right by ownership and the contracts Apple signed to make sure that DRM is included.
PS: iTS DRM-free music is the same price as their DRMed music.
my bad on the price..fair enough.
when apple comes to RENEW the contract then they could do something about the DRM if they cared..but they won't 'cos deep down they don't..
You have to go back and read up on the battle between Apple and the record labels over this very issue. Apple wants no DRM the record labels want the ability to charge more. This battle has somewhat been repeated with video on iTunes.
I'm not sure why you think Apple is holding the superior position when they don't own the music or video. Without the music or video their is no iTunes store.
Apple hold the superior position cos they have the customers and the market share. The industry CANNOT drop Apple or ITMS or they lose millions.
Your information is outdated by over a year. iTunes+ tracks cost the same now and has since October 2007. I don't know how you can be credible in this discussion if you use that obsolete of a point in the argument.
I haven't thought of the possibility of Apple bullying the labels into providing iT+, though maybe it's a bit of a detente, the labels want more money, Apple wants no DRM. If Apple wanted DRM, I don't see why they'd bother offering iT+ at all, or ever offered it without DRM.
Apple offered IT+ on a very limited number of tracks to gain the moral high ground and to make people think that DRM free is what they want.
In truth iCon doesn't give a rats about it. But DRM free is where public opinion is and thats right where he's heading in a very well orchestrated PR move.
He becomes the 'good' guy.
all consumers should just buy CD's, rip them as they see fit and then give the discs to charity.
when apple comes to RENEW the contract then they could do something about the DRM if they cared..but they won't 'cos deep down they don't..
Yet as JeffDM pointed out, if Apple wants DRM so bad they why did they offer all EMI audio without DRM? On top of that, why has Steve Jobs made mention of DRMed audio as being a failure before and during iTS reign?
I don't see how you can say that Apple wants DRM on all their audio when they were able to get one studio to not offer it and there is plenty of evidence of Jobs clearly stating that DRMed music is a dead end. I think you've dranken too much of the "kool-aid" if you think Apple is so great that they can easy convince the music studios that DRM is bad when their executives have publicly stated (once in a rebuttal to Jobs' open letter) that DRM is necessary.
BTW, you haven't made a case as to how DRM-free audio on iTS would hurt iPod sales. Now people can have the convenience of iTS and the audio that Amazon is hosting, except in the slightly better AAC format. As the article stated, the whole purpose of the gruff studios going to Amazon with DRM-free audio was to unhinge Apple's control over them. DRM was the only card they had left to play!
Apple hold the superior position cos they have the customers and the market share. The industry CANNOT drop Apple or ITMS or they lose millions.
I think it was Universal that negotiated their music contract to be able to pull songs from iTS at any time or only release songs at their discretion on iTS so that other, more profitable revenue streams would get tapped first.
It was NBC that pulled all their shows from iTS. They are now back, but lost a great deal of revenue over the months, including the Olympic iTS revenues which would have topped the charts for 2 weeks.
Both wanted variable pricing, You are right that they can't, but don't think that they won't try it. These examples are proof of the clashing between the content owners and Apple.
PS: I would like to hear a reason as to why you think Apple would need or want DRM on the music they sell when the iPod, iTunes, iTS integration already holds people to their money maker, the iPod.
Both wanted variable pricing, You are right that they can't, but don't think that they won't try it. These examples are proof of the clashing between the content owners and Apple.
Yes they have and still are attempting various measures to break iTunes hold. Withholding content, pulling content from iTunes, and giving special favor to other media services.
Its true Apple is able to maintain because they have the highest marketshare, but they do not hold all the power.
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You can tell when Jobs lies...his lips move.
In case you don't know. iTunes Plus songs are also twice the bit rate as regular iTunes songs. It's not just DRM free. You're (were) actually paying more for a higher quality song. Not the fact that it's DRM free. As DRM free songs from iTunes sells for the same price as the songs with DRM.
Apple main concern is to provide a legal way to get contents for iPods owners. If the music studios won't allow iTunes to sell DRM free songs. Then Apple's choice is to either offer the song with DRM or not offer the song at all.
It's kind of hypocritical of you to accuse Jobs of always lying when you type out FUD on nearly every one of your post.
People will notice this, if they have an monitor that has a DVI or VGA port that doesn't have HDCP support and they rent a movie to play on it, they will get this error and they will notice
Hey, one thing that's unclear.
Is this copy protection on High Def versions of the movies, or on Standard Def too?
We knew Apple wanted to control their HD movies, since they only allowed them on their HDCP enabled AppleTV. Now that the laptops have HDCP, they may be allowing HD downloads to their MacBooks.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
On a related note - an option for HDCP is supposed to be that it downscales the HD content to 960x540. Apple's SD content is less than that anyway, so why enforce it? (Perhaps it was an error of enforcement?)
I think my problem is that Apple is continuing to sell equipment to customers without informing them of the restrictions. I don't have a problem with HDCP per se, I understand the reasons behind it. But Apple's roll-out of this new standard (where the nature and timescale of the roll-out is completely controlled by Apple) seems like one step forward, two steps back to a lot of users. It's the law abiding users that lose out here.
Apple continue to tell customers that they can use their existing displays with the new MacBooks. That clearly isn't true. For instance, if you buy an Apple Cinema Display (that's an ironic name now isn't it) it's not going to work fully with the current laptop offerings or any future Apple hardware sporting the DisplayPort interface. When I say work 'fully' I mean you can't continue to enjoy the same functionality you enjoy today.
So Apple have adopted a video interface where:
1. CPUs without a DisplayPort interface cannot drive a DisplayPort monitor
2. CPUs with a DisplayPort interface cannot drive anything but a DisplayPort monitor
Which effectively means that this new video interface is neither backwards nor forwards compatible, and the iTunes content you have already bought is now worthless. Will Apple be offering refunds for affected iTunes content? Probably not.
So, the stark reality is that if you are planning to purchase a new Cinema Display, that display won't work properly with any future hardware produced by Apple. Likewise, if you're planning on purchasing a new Apple Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro, those CPUs will never be able to drive any future displays produced by Apple.
Way to go Apple!
The standard is not new. Apple did not invent it. HDCP is built into BluRay, display port, HDMI and DVI. Apple is only complying with the standards so that they can offer HD contents. Your statelite and cable network had to comply with this standard before they could broadcast HD. BluRay player makers had to comply with this standard before they can sell a BluRay player.
1 is correct.
2 is incorrect
All existing and new displays, without the mini display port, will work with all present CPU's and mostly all CPU's in the near future. Apple has a mini-display port to DVI adapter for CPU's that has the mini-display port. I believe, but not positive, that this adapter contains the chip that enables HDCP. So all of your old and new contents with HDCP encoding should be playable. If it plays when you bought it. It should play in the future.
Their new mini-display port, LED, display will only work with a CPU with a mini-display port. You most likely wouldn't be buying one of these usless you already have a CPU that has the mini display port.
Now some of the HD movies you buy today may require you to have a mini display port (or HDMI) before you can output it to an external display. In which case you couldn't output it today anyways (at least not in HD), if you don't already have a CPU with a mini display port (or HDMI). You can only play it on your laptop or iMac screen. Or get an Apple TV. (I think Apple TV is HDCP compliant. It has HDMI. ). So any future CPU purchase with a mini display port would actually allow you to play this content on an external display. You wouldn't be losing it.
MacPros and PowerMacs are highly upgradable. I don't see why you couldn't buy a graphic card with a mini display port or HDMI when (if) they become available.
As for buying the Mini or iMac today. I wouldn't count out Apple TV as a way to of displaying contents on an Apple display with a mini display port.
This is similar to some of my frustrations doing a screen grab. If the DVD Player program is running, I can't do a system screen grab of anything or anywhere on the screen, even if the playback window is covered, hidden or minimized. I don't really see a decent reason for the DVD format or the movie industry to object to that, it's just a single frame and it's certainly not worth the work to piece together a frame-by-frame reconstruction of the movie.
The screen grab only don't work when you're using the OSX DVD player. Use a third party DVD player like VLC and the screen grab will work just fine.
I use VLC mainly because I have some region 2 movies that won't play on my region 1 DVD drive. I can only reset the region code on the DVD drive 5 times. The 5th time is for good. VLC doesn't care about region codes. There will always be a work around for DRM. And I have no doubt that by the time I need (or want) to own HD contents, the work around will be in place.
I too am disheartened (that's putting it mildly) at Apple's implementation and will seriously reconsider purchasing a new Mac in 2009. I believe (IMHO) they are only required to prevent full HD signal from going to the analog device and could under the agreement allow a lower level signal through.
But its all moot - just google HDFury.
There never was a horse that couldn't be rode, nor a rider that couldn't be throw'd. Think about it.
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.
I understand your argument here, but I think the real question is would making a recording in this way be illegal?
In my opinion this is not necessarily an illegal way to make a copy of a movie. According to the law in Canada, if I buy a movie on iTunes I have the legal right to make a copy of that movie for my own personal use. Right now iTunes does not allow movies and TV shows to be copied to DVD, even though doing so is not necessarily illegal. Recording my legally purchased movies from iTunes to a DVD using a VGA cable would be totally legal, as long as it?s for my own use and I don?t give or sell the copy to anyone else. But they are plugging that loop hole anyway, even though it violates our rights to legally copy our media and treats us all like criminals.
The huge sin of the movie and music industry has been convincing us that all copying of movie and music media is illegal and we should all be stopped!! This is not true. According to the law when one purchases a music CD or movie DVD or digital file, one has the right to make a copy for their own use. The music and movie industries have always tried to stop this. Years ago they tried to stop the selling of blank cassette tapes and VCR tapes, but that was unsuccessful, because it?s was never illegal to record your legally owned vinyl albums to cassette tape or a movie to VCR tape. Modern digital computer files are no different, we all have a right to make copies! This is a right the industry giants have continually tried to kill.
Now they (Apple and movie studios) want to tell us what projector or Display we can use to view their content!!! No way man!!!! This is total bull crap, and it constitutes a violation of our rights as owners (or licensed viewers) of recorded media to view or copy our legal property in the way in which we want. There are very limited ways of making copies of iTunes movie and tv files and it?s all together too difficult to transfer files around to other legal devices, and now we may run into problems with our displays being nonfunctional with the property we have legally purchased. What if I want to view my HD iTunes movie somewhere else other than where my computer or apple tv are located and I don?t have an ipod that can transport the video file (can an ipod play HD in full resolution?) I should have the right to copy this HD movie to a DVD so I can view it elsewhere. Not all copying of movies and TV media is illegal, and until iTunes gets this right I?ll stick to DVD. I buy lots of DVDs and I can copy them and use them on different devices and displays without any problems, and that?s not illegal.
Why would I switch to digital download and face the heap of corporate red tape that goes with it!
Because they found some hack around HDCP doesn't mean they are supposed to be doing it.
Except it isn't a hack. It's DESIGNED that way. Which brings me back to my point that Apple's implementation is broken... no other HDCP compliant devices deny access over VGA. It's considered to be a "secure" connection despite having no encryption, likely do to the lack of VGA recording devices on the market.
Except it isn't a hack. It's DESIGNED that way. Which brings me back to my point that Apple's implementation is broken... no other HDCP compliant devices deny access over VGA. It's considered to be a "secure" connection despite having no encryption, likely do to the lack of VGA recording devices on the market.
AnyHDDVD is a hack though. But as far as I know, HD DVD and Blu-Ray do allow HD over analog, the worst that would happen is that the image is down scaled to 480p if ICT is enabled. This is the first I've heard that completely prevents playback.
Having copy protection support in the machines' DisplayPort hardware doesn't bother me so much--it's part of the DisplayPort standard. But what does bother me is that Apple is USING that copy protection in the movies they supply via iTunes! Obviously that decision is likely from the content owners, not from Apple themselves, but I'd sure be unhappy if I couldn't watch a movie on my big external screen!
Apple stands up against DRM all the time. They don't always win. What computer company are you thinking of switching to that does a better job than Apple at getting content owners to abandon DRM?
It's bad news, but it's a stretch to think that it's Apple who drives the use of DRM. Apple OPPOSES DRM, publicly, and in some cases they get their way. Look at music--the Store couldn't have ever existed without DRM, but once it took off, Apple has gotten EMI to abandon it. Others may follow suit, or they may choose to keep punishing Apple's success, but either way, the DRM on those other songs is not Apple's choice. And looking at movies, it seems that SOME movies have this HDCP protection and some don't, so I think once again you can bet it's the content owner, not Apple, who is behind it.
Actually, my research shows the complete opposite. Apple was a huge supporter of DRM for many years and I believe that they still are. I am a huge Apple fan, but many of their products show up on shelves(or online) with some form of DRM implementation. They usually only remove the DRM after a large amount of complaining from their customers, and when they do they do it with great reluctance. Yes, I know Steve Jobs has spoke against DRM, but I don't believe for one second that Apple really wants to completely remove DRM from their products.
Comments
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You assertion that being the largest US vendor or largest online vendor of music means that Apple doesn't have to follow legal contracts is absurd. The content owners have the right by ownership and the contracts Apple signed to make sure that DRM is included.
PS: iTS DRM-free music is the same price as their DRMed music.
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
Your information is outdated by over a year. iTunes+ tracks cost the same now and has since October 2007. I don't know how you can be credible in this discussion if you use that obsolete of a point in the argument.
I haven't thought of the possibility of Apple bullying the labels into providing iT+, though maybe it's a bit of a detente, the labels want more money, Apple wants no DRM. If Apple wanted DRM, I don't see why they'd bother offering iT+ at all, or ever offered it without DRM.
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You can tell when Jobs lies...his lips move.
You have to go back and read up on the battle between Apple and the record labels over this very issue. Apple wants no DRM the record labels want the ability to charge more. This battle has somewhat been repeated with video on iTunes.
I'm not sure why you think Apple is holding the superior position when they don't own the music or video. Without the music or video their is no iTunes store.
You assertion that being the largest US vendor or largest online vendor of music means that Apple doesn't have to follow legal contracts is absurd. The content owners have the right by ownership and the contracts Apple signed to make sure that DRM is included.
PS: iTS DRM-free music is the same price as their DRMed music.
my bad on the price..fair enough.
when apple comes to RENEW the contract then they could do something about the DRM if they cared..but they won't 'cos deep down they don't..
You have to go back and read up on the battle between Apple and the record labels over this very issue. Apple wants no DRM the record labels want the ability to charge more. This battle has somewhat been repeated with video on iTunes.
I'm not sure why you think Apple is holding the superior position when they don't own the music or video. Without the music or video their is no iTunes store.
Apple hold the superior position cos they have the customers and the market share. The industry CANNOT drop Apple or ITMS or they lose millions.
Your information is outdated by over a year. iTunes+ tracks cost the same now and has since October 2007. I don't know how you can be credible in this discussion if you use that obsolete of a point in the argument.
I haven't thought of the possibility of Apple bullying the labels into providing iT+, though maybe it's a bit of a detente, the labels want more money, Apple wants no DRM. If Apple wanted DRM, I don't see why they'd bother offering iT+ at all, or ever offered it without DRM.
Apple offered IT+ on a very limited number of tracks to gain the moral high ground and to make people think that DRM free is what they want.
In truth iCon doesn't give a rats about it. But DRM free is where public opinion is and thats right where he's heading in a very well orchestrated PR move.
He becomes the 'good' guy.
all consumers should just buy CD's, rip them as they see fit and then give the discs to charity.
when apple comes to RENEW the contract then they could do something about the DRM if they cared..but they won't 'cos deep down they don't..
Yet as JeffDM pointed out, if Apple wants DRM so bad they why did they offer all EMI audio without DRM? On top of that, why has Steve Jobs made mention of DRMed audio as being a failure before and during iTS reign?
I don't see how you can say that Apple wants DRM on all their audio when they were able to get one studio to not offer it and there is plenty of evidence of Jobs clearly stating that DRMed music is a dead end. I think you've dranken too much of the "kool-aid"
BTW, you haven't made a case as to how DRM-free audio on iTS would hurt iPod sales. Now people can have the convenience of iTS and the audio that Amazon is hosting, except in the slightly better AAC format. As the article stated, the whole purpose of the gruff studios going to Amazon with DRM-free audio was to unhinge Apple's control over them. DRM was the only card they had left to play!
Apple hold the superior position cos they have the customers and the market share. The industry CANNOT drop Apple or ITMS or they lose millions.
I think it was Universal that negotiated their music contract to be able to pull songs from iTS at any time or only release songs at their discretion on iTS so that other, more profitable revenue streams would get tapped first.
It was NBC that pulled all their shows from iTS. They are now back, but lost a great deal of revenue over the months, including the Olympic iTS revenues which would have topped the charts for 2 weeks.
Both wanted variable pricing, You are right that they can't, but don't think that they won't try it. These examples are proof of the clashing between the content owners and Apple.
PS: I would like to hear a reason as to why you think Apple would need or want DRM on the music they sell when the iPod, iTunes, iTS integration already holds people to their money maker, the iPod.
Both wanted variable pricing, You are right that they can't, but don't think that they won't try it. These examples are proof of the clashing between the content owners and Apple.
Yes they have and still are attempting various measures to break iTunes hold. Withholding content, pulling content from iTunes, and giving special favor to other media services.
Its true Apple is able to maintain because they have the highest marketshare, but they do not hold all the power.
more rubbish, if Apple was serious about getting rid of DRM then iTunes plus would sell at the same price as normal and EVERY track would be DRM free.
ITMS is now one of the worlds biggest vendors of music surely they can stand up to this if they 'really' wanted to do this..?
You can tell when Jobs lies...his lips move.
In case you don't know. iTunes Plus songs are also twice the bit rate as regular iTunes songs. It's not just DRM free. You're (were) actually paying more for a higher quality song. Not the fact that it's DRM free. As DRM free songs from iTunes sells for the same price as the songs with DRM.
Apple main concern is to provide a legal way to get contents for iPods owners. If the music studios won't allow iTunes to sell DRM free songs. Then Apple's choice is to either offer the song with DRM or not offer the song at all.
It's kind of hypocritical of you to accuse Jobs of always lying when you type out FUD on nearly every one of your post.
People will notice this, if they have an monitor that has a DVI or VGA port that doesn't have HDCP support and they rent a movie to play on it, they will get this error and they will notice
Hey, one thing that's unclear.
Is this copy protection on High Def versions of the movies, or on Standard Def too?
We knew Apple wanted to control their HD movies, since they only allowed them on their HDCP enabled AppleTV. Now that the laptops have HDCP, they may be allowing HD downloads to their MacBooks.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
On a related note - an option for HDCP is supposed to be that it downscales the HD content to 960x540. Apple's SD content is less than that anyway, so why enforce it? (Perhaps it was an error of enforcement?)
I think my problem is that Apple is continuing to sell equipment to customers without informing them of the restrictions. I don't have a problem with HDCP per se, I understand the reasons behind it. But Apple's roll-out of this new standard (where the nature and timescale of the roll-out is completely controlled by Apple) seems like one step forward, two steps back to a lot of users. It's the law abiding users that lose out here.
Apple continue to tell customers that they can use their existing displays with the new MacBooks. That clearly isn't true. For instance, if you buy an Apple Cinema Display (that's an ironic name now isn't it) it's not going to work fully with the current laptop offerings or any future Apple hardware sporting the DisplayPort interface. When I say work 'fully' I mean you can't continue to enjoy the same functionality you enjoy today.
So Apple have adopted a video interface where:
1. CPUs without a DisplayPort interface cannot drive a DisplayPort monitor
2. CPUs with a DisplayPort interface cannot drive anything but a DisplayPort monitor
Which effectively means that this new video interface is neither backwards nor forwards compatible, and the iTunes content you have already bought is now worthless. Will Apple be offering refunds for affected iTunes content? Probably not.
So, the stark reality is that if you are planning to purchase a new Cinema Display, that display won't work properly with any future hardware produced by Apple. Likewise, if you're planning on purchasing a new Apple Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro, those CPUs will never be able to drive any future displays produced by Apple.
Way to go Apple!
The standard is not new. Apple did not invent it. HDCP is built into BluRay, display port, HDMI and DVI. Apple is only complying with the standards so that they can offer HD contents. Your statelite and cable network had to comply with this standard before they could broadcast HD. BluRay player makers had to comply with this standard before they can sell a BluRay player.
1 is correct.
2 is incorrect
All existing and new displays, without the mini display port, will work with all present CPU's and mostly all CPU's in the near future. Apple has a mini-display port to DVI adapter for CPU's that has the mini-display port. I believe, but not positive, that this adapter contains the chip that enables HDCP. So all of your old and new contents with HDCP encoding should be playable. If it plays when you bought it. It should play in the future.
Their new mini-display port, LED, display will only work with a CPU with a mini-display port. You most likely wouldn't be buying one of these usless you already have a CPU that has the mini display port.
Now some of the HD movies you buy today may require you to have a mini display port (or HDMI) before you can output it to an external display. In which case you couldn't output it today anyways (at least not in HD), if you don't already have a CPU with a mini display port (or HDMI). You can only play it on your laptop or iMac screen. Or get an Apple TV. (I think Apple TV is HDCP compliant. It has HDMI.
MacPros and PowerMacs are highly upgradable. I don't see why you couldn't buy a graphic card with a mini display port or HDMI when (if) they become available.
As for buying the Mini or iMac today. I wouldn't count out Apple TV as a way to of displaying contents on an Apple display with a mini display port.
Does it only effect things playing through iTunes and if you put none iTunes bought films in there it wont display them?
What if i just download a quicktime trailer onto my desktop i cannot watch it?
How about my holiday video in qucktime, i wont play on quicktime or vlc or anything, just through iTunes?
This is similar to some of my frustrations doing a screen grab. If the DVD Player program is running, I can't do a system screen grab of anything or anywhere on the screen, even if the playback window is covered, hidden or minimized. I don't really see a decent reason for the DVD format or the movie industry to object to that, it's just a single frame and it's certainly not worth the work to piece together a frame-by-frame reconstruction of the movie.
The screen grab only don't work when you're using the OSX DVD player. Use a third party DVD player like VLC and the screen grab will work just fine.
I use VLC mainly because I have some region 2 movies that won't play on my region 1 DVD drive. I can only reset the region code on the DVD drive 5 times. The 5th time is for good. VLC doesn't care about region codes. There will always be a work around for DRM. And I have no doubt that by the time I need (or want) to own HD contents, the work around will be in place.
But its all moot - just google HDFury.
There never was a horse that couldn't be rode, nor a rider that couldn't be throw'd. Think about it.
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.
I understand your argument here, but I think the real question is would making a recording in this way be illegal?
In my opinion this is not necessarily an illegal way to make a copy of a movie. According to the law in Canada, if I buy a movie on iTunes I have the legal right to make a copy of that movie for my own personal use. Right now iTunes does not allow movies and TV shows to be copied to DVD, even though doing so is not necessarily illegal. Recording my legally purchased movies from iTunes to a DVD using a VGA cable would be totally legal, as long as it?s for my own use and I don?t give or sell the copy to anyone else. But they are plugging that loop hole anyway, even though it violates our rights to legally copy our media and treats us all like criminals.
The huge sin of the movie and music industry has been convincing us that all copying of movie and music media is illegal and we should all be stopped!! This is not true. According to the law when one purchases a music CD or movie DVD or digital file, one has the right to make a copy for their own use. The music and movie industries have always tried to stop this. Years ago they tried to stop the selling of blank cassette tapes and VCR tapes, but that was unsuccessful, because it?s was never illegal to record your legally owned vinyl albums to cassette tape or a movie to VCR tape. Modern digital computer files are no different, we all have a right to make copies! This is a right the industry giants have continually tried to kill.
Now they (Apple and movie studios) want to tell us what projector or Display we can use to view their content!!! No way man!!!! This is total bull crap, and it constitutes a violation of our rights as owners (or licensed viewers) of recorded media to view or copy our legal property in the way in which we want. There are very limited ways of making copies of iTunes movie and tv files and it?s all together too difficult to transfer files around to other legal devices, and now we may run into problems with our displays being nonfunctional with the property we have legally purchased. What if I want to view my HD iTunes movie somewhere else other than where my computer or apple tv are located and I don?t have an ipod that can transport the video file (can an ipod play HD in full resolution?) I should have the right to copy this HD movie to a DVD so I can view it elsewhere. Not all copying of movies and TV media is illegal, and until iTunes gets this right I?ll stick to DVD. I buy lots of DVDs and I can copy them and use them on different devices and displays without any problems, and that?s not illegal.
Why would I switch to digital download and face the heap of corporate red tape that goes with it!
Because they found some hack around HDCP doesn't mean they are supposed to be doing it.
Except it isn't a hack. It's DESIGNED that way. Which brings me back to my point that Apple's implementation is broken... no other HDCP compliant devices deny access over VGA. It's considered to be a "secure" connection despite having no encryption, likely do to the lack of VGA recording devices on the market.
Except it isn't a hack. It's DESIGNED that way. Which brings me back to my point that Apple's implementation is broken... no other HDCP compliant devices deny access over VGA. It's considered to be a "secure" connection despite having no encryption, likely do to the lack of VGA recording devices on the market.
AnyHDDVD is a hack though. But as far as I know, HD DVD and Blu-Ray do allow HD over analog, the worst that would happen is that the image is down scaled to 480p if ICT is enabled. This is the first I've heard that completely prevents playback.
Having copy protection support in the machines' DisplayPort hardware doesn't bother me so much--it's part of the DisplayPort standard. But what does bother me is that Apple is USING that copy protection in the movies they supply via iTunes! Obviously that decision is likely from the content owners, not from Apple themselves, but I'd sure be unhappy if I couldn't watch a movie on my big external screen!
Apple stands up against DRM all the time. They don't always win. What computer company are you thinking of switching to that does a better job than Apple at getting content owners to abandon DRM?
It's bad news, but it's a stretch to think that it's Apple who drives the use of DRM. Apple OPPOSES DRM, publicly, and in some cases they get their way. Look at music--the Store couldn't have ever existed without DRM, but once it took off, Apple has gotten EMI to abandon it. Others may follow suit, or they may choose to keep punishing Apple's success, but either way, the DRM on those other songs is not Apple's choice. And looking at movies, it seems that SOME movies have this HDCP protection and some don't, so I think once again you can bet it's the content owner, not Apple, who is behind it.
Actually, my research shows the complete opposite. Apple was a huge supporter of DRM for many years and I believe that they still are. I am a huge Apple fan, but many of their products show up on shelves(or online) with some form of DRM implementation. They usually only remove the DRM after a large amount of complaining from their customers, and when they do they do it with great reluctance. Yes, I know Steve Jobs has spoke against DRM, but I don't believe for one second that Apple really wants to completely remove DRM from their products.