"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection

[diogen]

Originally Posted by derbeDeus

Link, please?

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.

[SamuriHL]

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?

[omegaman7]

I recently bought the Star Trek TNG blu ray sampler from amazon. I don't believe it had BD+

[derbeDeus]

Originally Posted by diogen

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.

dude, that's old news (2009!!!). so old, I've even forgot about the paramount story. that piece of news turned out not to be true. look here to get info from the source

[diogen]

Dude, can you read?
Who said they use BD+ in their release? They licensed it. After it was hacked.

And if you claim the didn't license it, you should come up with better links than that BS...

Diogen.

[setarip_old]

Aren't you guys just rehashing the earlier round of converstion about this evanescent Irdeto concept?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...94#post1546394

[derbeDeus]

Originally Posted by diogen

Dude, can you read?
Who said they use BD+ in their release? They licensed it. After it was hacked.

And if you claim the didn't license it, you should come up with better links than that BS...

Diogen.

wow, you are touchy.
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

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by setarip_old

.... the question that comes to mind immediately is, if "Cinavia"/Verance watermarking is the end all and be all - and is contractually MANDATED with a price tag for what is essentially the Blu-ray "world", why would the studios (AACS LA members) be interested in this?

Maybe because

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

David E. Leibowitz is a Co-Founder, past Chairman, and Director of VERANCE and a Managing Partner and Director of CH BOSTON (and CH POTOMAC <- new info).
Mr. Leibowitz brings twenty-five years of experience in copyright, media, communications, and technology matters, as well as business issues facing the entertainment, new media, consumer electronics and information technology industries.
Mr. Leibowitz previously served as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the RIAA, responsible for business and legal issues facing the industry with particular emphasis on how to position the industry to utilize new physical and electronic format systems.
During this period, Mr. Leibowitz chaired the worldwide recording industry’s International Steering Committee on DVD Audio, the RIAA New Technology and Multimedia Committee and the RIAA Legal Committee.
Prior to his work at the RIAA, Mr. Leibowitz was a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm Wiley Rein & Fielding.
Mr. Leibowitz also has served as Policy Planning Advisor to the Register of Copyrights for the U.S. Copyright

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Michael B. Ayers, Senior Vice President, Legal & Business Affairs and General Counsel joined Verance Corporation in 2010 as Senior Vice President for Legal & Business Affairs and General Counsel after more than a decade of experience in the content protection business as legal counsel for Toshiba Corporation.
For six years, he actively led AACS LA, LLC, the entity formed by Disney, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba and Warner Bros. to develop and license the AACS content protection technology used for high-definition movies on Blu-ray Disc.

What a surprise that AACS adopted cinavia .....

PS: only IBM, MS and Intel do not own (yet) a studio

[hello_hello]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Neither is 100% correct. I said that all the products sold after that date must contain cinavia. That means that the manufacturer must ensure that older stocks that have not been sold yet would receive cinavied-FW.

We know what you said, but your linkless quote makes no sense in relation to your claim.

"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...."

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

If no other provisions are set in the individual agreements, the manufacturer is not required to update all the models it sold before 01.02.12. But if a model was manufactured before 01.02 and this model is still on sale, then it must provide an infected FW.

If you reached that conclusion solely from the above paragraph, I'd like to know how. The date of 01.02.12 isn't even mentioned.

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.

[hello_hello]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Indeed, I never thought of that ,
in fact it's useless to invest twice in a DRM technology, one time (Intel Sandy Bridge) suffices

"Sandy Bridge, the latest line of Intel's Core i series CPUs, will reportedly feature faster speeds, better integrated graphics, lower power consumption and a DRM scheme to protect the content of motion picture studios. "

Except for the fact the Sandy Bridge DRM appears to have nothing to do with Cinavia. Is that why you failed to provide a link with your "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."

[diogen]

Originally Posted by derbeDeus

I see

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.

[derbeDeus]

Originally Posted by diogen

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.

Can you do slower? Or, can you be polite?

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.

[Ghitulescu]

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

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

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.

It is highly unlikely that someone will get sent to prison for making a copy of their CD/DVD/BD for their own personal use because how exactly is anyone going to know you did it? Now going out and sharing this ripped copy with the world after you've broken the DRM is a whole different matter.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by amtm

It is highly unlikely that someone will get sent to prison for making a copy of their CD/DVD/BD for their own personal use because how exactly is anyone going to know you did it? Now going out and sharing this ripped copy with the world after you've broken the DRM is a whole different matter.

As few people resist the tentations of internet, it is highly possible that windows se7en (or ei8ht) or simply a script on various webpages would "screen" your HDD for AnyDVD or any other blacklisted SW and send the report to the authorities in charge (or to the private police of the copyright holders). And if one downloaded or paid for anydvd, then s/he MUST have ripped at least one CD/DVD/BD which s/he wasn't otherwise (Nero) able to rip it for personal use. A search warrant will definitively confirm those suspicions.

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.

[diogen]

Originally Posted by derbeDeus

Did it occurred to you that the site you're citing may have got a rumour and promoted it to "news"?

Googling paramount licenses bd+ produces 79K links.
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.

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

As few people resist the tentations of internet, it is highly possible that windows se7en (or ei8ht) or simply a script on various webpages would "screen" your HDD for AnyDVD or any other blacklisted SW and send the report to the authorities in charge (or to the private police of the copyright holders). And if one downloaded or paid for anydvd, then s/he MUST have ripped at least one CD/DVD/BD which s/he wasn't otherwise (Nero) able to rip it for personal use. A search warrant will definitively confirm those suspicions.

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.

Most of those scenarios are improbably because if you aren't spreading around your copies or telling everyone about how you're ripping your Blu-Rays, there is no cause for anyone to notice you. Secondly, your BD-Live example is easily circumvented by never plugging in your Blu-Ray player. If Blu-Ray required an always-on connection it would die a quick death due to such a ridiculous requirement. This is not even getting into the fact that many Blu-Ray players don't even have the ability to connect to the internet in the first place.

[Ghitulescu]

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.

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

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.

Godwin?

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

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.

If they are that clueless how are they even going to know how to plug in their Blu-Ray player to a network connection to begin with? Again, many Blu-Ray players don't even come with ethernet or wireless to begin with. And yes this includes even more recent models.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by amtm

If they are that clueless how are they even going to know how to plug in their Blu-Ray player to a network connection to begin with? Again, many Blu-Ray players don't even come with ethernet or wireless to begin with. And yes this includes even more recent models.

I meant something else: those people are generally TOLD what to do - in the shop (BD-live is a marketing argument, despite I haven't seen a profile 1.1 player for years), in the leaflet, in the Read This First leaflet, in the operation manual (this one is supposed to read it before using it), in various papers inserted into the backcover of the disc, even between the FBI threatening and the Dolby benefits - the customer is continuously "attacked" with informations meant to connect his/her toy to the net (compromising the security of the entire home network) and to do updates as soon as possible.

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.