Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
14th February 2012, 19:00 | #1401 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
|
Here.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/29/p...m-macrovision/ Irdeto has acquired the tech in the meantime. http://irdeto.com/irdeto-acquires-ro...r-blu-ray.html Diogen. |
14th February 2012, 19:21 | #1402 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,351
|
Completely off topic, but, I don't believe Paramount has actually IMPLEMENTED BD+ on any title to my knowledge. Unless someone knows of one that has it?
__________________
HTPC: Windows 11, AMD 5900X, RTX 3080, Pioneer Elite VSX-LX303, LG G2 77" OLED |
15th February 2012, 00:11 | #1404 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
Last edited by derbeDeus; 15th February 2012 at 00:14. |
|
15th February 2012, 04:12 | #1406 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,267
|
Aren't you guys just rehashing the earlier round of converstion about this evanescent Irdeto concept?
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...94#post1546394 |
15th February 2012, 09:57 | #1407 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
so the info from a news site, from years ago, that never turned out to be true is solid info but if it's up-to-date and comes straight from the horse's mouth, it's bs I see |
|
15th February 2012, 10:59 | #1408 | Link | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA) |
|||
15th February 2012, 13:05 | #1409 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
|
Quote:
"Adopter may not, after the Certification Requirement Date, sell or distribute a Licensed Product to the public, or cause a Licensed Product to be sold or distributed to the public " All that says to me is after the "Certification requirement date" The "Adopter" is not allowed to sell or distribute any licensed product to the public, period. Although I don't fully understand it yet myself it seems it's referring to "Adapters" selling products subject to compliance testing and nothing to do with Cinavia specifically. What I found funny, is the part you neglected to quote. http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_A...t_20120118.pdf "Except as provided herein for then- currently shipping Implementations, Adopter may not, after the Certification Requirement Date, sell or distribute a Licensed Product to the public, or cause a Licensed Product to be sold or distributed to the public...." Quote:
I briefly looked through the document. It refers to "sunrise dates", "which will be provided in Notices to Licensees". No specific dates are mentioned. A quick scan found this. "4.2.3.1. Subsequent Periodic Updates to an individual unit of a Licensed Product (or a product that would be a Licensed Product but for a breach of the Specifications or Compliance Rules) that has already been Activated, or was a Licensed Product when shipped by Adopter, shall comply with Section 4.2.3.2, but shall not have to comply with changes to the Specifications or Compliance Rules, or sunrise of new obligations (e.g., the Watermark Screening Obligations) with an effective date after the date on which the Licensed Product was Produced or the Robust Inactive Product was Activated unless, following such Periodic Update, the Licensed Product would (i) be the same as a Licensed Product that is separately marketed by Adopter under a new product name or a higher numerical designation to the left of the decimal point (e.g., the change from Version 1.0 to Version 2.0, but not to Version 1.9), and (ii) either enables AACS protection or use of an AACS function that would not have been protectable with AACS Technology or usable by the Licensed Product prior to the Periodic Update, or performs the AACS functions by substantially different means and in a substantially different way than they were performed by the Licensed Product prior to the Periodic Update. " Anyway, maybe someone good at legal-speak might want to read the whole document (I linked to it above) but from what I've read so far it seems there's no obligation for manufacturers to include Cinavia in updates for products they've already sold even if they're current. Of course there's little doubt manufacturers aren't going to bother producing two versions of firmware for current models but maybe the chances of Cinavia free firmware for older models is still pretty good. I could be wrong, I haven't read the whole document yet, but I'm not sure about the "Ghitulescu interpretation". There's also this (page 119): "Notwithstanding the foregoing, Adopter shall not ship or download any further units of any software Licensed Product later than six months after the applicable sunrise date without causing it to comply with the requirements applicable to Licensed Access Products Produced on or after the relevant sunrise date." Sounds to me like they've also got six months after the sunset date to make current models compliant. I wonder what the sunset date might be.... Edit: although I think the second section I quoted may only apply to software.... it's all very confusing. Last edited by hello_hello; 15th February 2012 at 14:48. |
||
15th February 2012, 14:07 | #1410 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
|
Quote:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71568.html "The technology it'll use is apparently called "Insider." It will incorporate an end-to-end protection layer and a management feature to unlock high-definition movies downloaded from online streaming services or off DVDs." |
|
15th February 2012, 15:15 | #1411 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
|
You don't.
I'll try one more time, really slow. My post was an attempt at a historical reference: not only do studios use useless DRM (CSS, AACS; all studios) but they might even license it after it is rendered useless (BD+, Paramount). To prove the second statement wrong you have to show the licensing never took place. A retraction of the announcement I linked to would suffice. A claim that Paramount has nothing to do with BD+ today is irrelevant! Diogen. |
15th February 2012, 16:12 | #1412 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
Your claim is that Paramount licensed BD+ and never used it. Ok. First, you don't have any proof for that other than some news site. Not exactly official information. Second, you claim that they licensed it, after it was hacked and never used it. Highly unlikely. Why would the studio throw the money away? It's only your assumption. Third, pretend that they've licensed it, and never used it. They'd still have a slot in that list and the open possibility to use it. That's also a historical list. Whatever goes in, stays. You're assuming that they "un-licensed" it. I don't think that's possible. Once you sign in and pay the money, they're used or lost. It's not like taking back a jacket. You ask me to give you a "retraction" link. How often does a news site do that? In most situations they just retract a news that is not correct. In that case you're asking me to give you something that does not exist. Did it occurred to you that the site you're citing may have got a rumour and promoted it to "news"? Or that does not matter now, cause you took it personally to defend them beyond reason. |
|
15th February 2012, 16:25 | #1413 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
It is not important whether they licensed it or not, but whether they will use it or not.
And also it's completely irrelevant whether this protection has been cracked or not, and when the money changed hands consequently irrelevant, too. Because, under the "harmonised" copyright laws (and the new ACTA deal, and what other orwellian "deals" will may come) the fact that one cracked one protection means nothing. Or makes anyone attempting or doing it a villain. In a few years companies like Slysoft will probably need to move to Alpha Centauri, so no more "smart" kids that can rip the DVD/BD simply by downloading a software to show the world/neighbourhood what a hacker have they around. So, cracked or not, the vast majority of people will not have anymore the tools to circumvent the nasty trailers and FBI warnings and 1001 Dolby logos and how nice is the HD world and and and. If a CD/DVD/BD cannot be copied with eg Nero, then if you'll copy you'll win an unpaid leave to a fed prison. Maybe people will go back to the times when various SW and in particular games changed hands physically, on floppies or compact cassettes. This is what I call progress
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA) |
15th February 2012, 16:31 | #1414 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
15th February 2012, 16:42 | #1415 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
Quote:
It's highly improbably however that 260 Million US citizens will be searched at once, but a few scrapegoats will be enough to scare most people, except for those 5-10% they can tolerate. Or the BD-Live-enabled Sony or Panasonic Blu-ray player will sense the copy inside and will report the owner again to those authorities in charge. Or maybe the nosy neighbour next door, whose uniformly green grass has been spoiled by your dog, may whisper you to the next police station. And I am not paranoid enough. The good news is they can't arrest 260 Mil people at once.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA) |
|
15th February 2012, 16:42 | #1416 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
|
Quote:
Searching for proof it never happened were (so far) unsuccessful. Did it occur to you that your "never turned out to be true" might have nothing to do with Paramount and BD+? Diogen. |
|
15th February 2012, 16:50 | #1417 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
15th February 2012, 16:56 | #1418 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
IIRC, both in Germany and in the US, the very first victims were defenceless people (like old men, schoolboys, housewives, mental disabilited etc.), some of them even not knowing they did something wrong. These are the people not knowing how to plug off their BD-player from the net, to firewall their PC and so on... and also not interested in doing this, because they had, as I said, no idea of doing something wrong. This is enough to scare most semi-honest people, just enough to reverse the balance sold:theft.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA) |
15th February 2012, 17:15 | #1419 | Link | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
15th February 2012, 17:41 | #1420 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
|
Quote:
As an example (which BTW I've promised some dozens of posts before ) here's a leaflet I receive with every blu-ray disc I've bought since second 0.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA) |
|
|
|