"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection [Archive] - Page 16

Mug Funky

14th February 2011, 02:59

a thought occurs to me.

there's two ways to analyse the audio to find watermarks.

1. try to find an example of audio+watermark and clean audio, then look for the differences.

2. gather together all the cinavia sources we can find, and see what's the same about them.

even something as simplistic as averaging them all together (with some attempts to sync by cutting based on when the message is triggered) might reveal something useful - we regard the audio itself as "noise" and try to reduce it by averaging with many different soundtracks.

no doubt there'd be a random starting offset when the watermarking kicks in, but i think enough trying and we might find something.

arctor

17th February 2011, 00:10

Off-topic I know but is it possible that this will make its way into the DAC's and Driver of the Sound Cards?

So the drivers/dac/ Windows sound API could stop playback if Cinavia is detected and the AACS certificate is not passed in with the source.

That would defeat Open Source playback, (unless you were using Open Source drivers which didn't check that)

Realistically it is probably too much of a major change to get this end to end (from Source to Playback hardware) but it might be the next step they start looking at. The other thing that I can see is that the more components that need to implement this the more information about it will leak out.

[QUOTE=SamuriHL;1477866]Yea, I get it. But, for the context of this thread, we're discussing Cinavia. New protections could be made to do all the scary bad things you're suggesting. However, in terms of Cinavia, then no. It's limited to being an embedded signal on an audio track that is then detected by the player. The player is instructed to determine if the content is from a trusted source. In the case of DVD's and Blu-ray's, they check for an AACS certificate to see if it's a valid, original disc. If the player doesn't contain Cinavia checking code, then the protection is rather useless. QUOTE]

SamuriHL

17th February 2011, 00:32

Off-topic I know but is it possible that this will make its way into the DAC's and Driver of the Sound Cards?

So the drivers/dac/ Windows sound API could stop playback if Cinavia is detected and the AACS certificate is not passed in with the source.

That would defeat Open Source playback, (unless you were using Open Source drivers which didn't check that)

Realistically it is probably too much of a major change to get this end to end (from Source to Playback hardware) but it might be the next step they start looking at. The other thing that I can see is that the more components that need to implement this the more information about it will leak out.

I'm gonna ask again. HOW does the "sound api" know that? Any time someone wants to bring up this kind of nonsense, I'm gonna keep asking the same question until it gets through to people. HOW does anything besides the player that's reading the physical disc know whether there's a valid AACS certificate? And with an open source player, the AACS stuff is removed before it ever gets to the player. (Same with commercial players on my machine....I use AnyDVD to remove the protection in realtime...the commercial players all get unprotected discs.) Unless the "sound api" has some mechanism to read from the original disc and verify the AACS certificate after detecting Cinavia in the audio stream, thus bypassing the player, it's not possible to do what's being suggested. At least not without some major work to the OS. I don't mean to be a PITA on answering this. It's just that I wish people would think it through a little bit and ask themselves how something would ACTUALLY work.

Ghitulescu

17th February 2011, 09:04

I'm gonna ask again. HOW does the "sound api" know that? Any time someone wants to bring up this kind of nonsense, I'm gonna keep asking the same question until it gets through to people. HOW does anything besides the player that's reading the physical disc know whether there's a valid AACS certificate? And with an open source player, the AACS stuff is removed before it ever gets to the player. (Same with commercial players on my machine....I use AnyDVD to remove the protection in realtime...the commercial players all get unprotected discs.) .

Now it's clear for me that you didn't understand what I said before.

Cinavia is not intended for AACS certification only. As some contributors to this forum showed, there are DVDs with cinavia. AACS is only one arm of its forced implementation. As 2012 nears, more and more standards and commission bodies will implement the same or similar strategy to prevent unauthorised copying (actually the playback of copies).

Cinavia, if one reads the patents and the cinavia webpages, is designed to prevent the playback of copyrighted material ANYWHERE else than on a certain pool of playback devices, which are considered safe. It includes, as I said, even the "copyrighted" audio at parties/weddings/etc, events that have been filmed/taped (it survives, they say, the analog conversion, in this case CD/DVD/SACD/etc->AVR->Loudspeaker->air :p->camcorder mic->tape->playback device).

If one copies the "cinavied" BD/DVD onto a playback device, other than the DVD/BD-player, the whole purpose of cinavia is moot. Conversely, this way cinavia would be effective only on copies of BD/DVD played on DVD/BD players. The trend is towards mobile devices, FlashRAM players, HDD players.

Concerning the PC. Since the material is copyrighted, it doesn't need to be AACS compatible, not even to enforce an AACS detection, it simply needs to detect cinavia. A home made movie/tune will never contain cinavia, unless something is "stolen". These are able to play on a PC, it's your own material. As long as cinavia is detected, that means that AACS detected on or off, you're using copyrighted material. That's enough. And cinavia detection can be implemented not only in drivers' layer, but more dangerous in FW or HW (real chips). Hello?

xenex

17th February 2011, 10:10

I'm going to have to fully agree with SamuriHL.

Only a PLAYER device can detect and act upon Cinavia. And Cinavia detection is not something hardware manufacturers are adding happily, they are forced to by the AACS spec.

A few examples - Even if a sound card could detect the watermark - which it potentially could - HOW could it force the player to halt playback in the case of a NO_HOME_USE mark? It could not and cannot. Only a PLAYER device/software could do that.

If the audio output hardware from a TV could detect the watermark - which it potentially could - HOW would it send commands back to the PLAYER?? It cannot. It could mute the audio on any detection of the watermark, but then it would mute valid TRUSTED_SOURCE Blu-Rays and DVDs just as well, wouldn't it!!

I've even seen some 'speculation' that a receiver could act upon Cinavia! Well, as I've said, it could detect it, as could any device that decodes audio. But Cinavia has TWO PARTS. The watermarked audio itself, and a PLAYBACK DEVICE that can verify if the media is a TRUSTED_SOURCE.

So, whilst a TV, a sound card, a receiver, a media streamer, etc. could in fact detect the Cinavia watermark in an audio stream, without the 2nd part, verification of TRUSTED_SOURCE, it would not and could not make a decision as to 'mute' or 'not-mute' that audio.

And there is no way that a TV, sound card, receiver or media streamer could send a signal back to the PLAYER ITSELF. It's just impossible. Might be a good idea to read my earlier post in which I showed that the AACS agreement requires that the PLAYER DEVICE displays a CINAVIA MESSAGE.

Ghitulescu

17th February 2011, 11:19

You're unbelievable!

A. Take a BD player that plays a BD disk.
A1. The disk is original. The player sees this thing. The player detects cinavia. The disk is ok, cinavia subroutine is not called. Normal playback.
A2. The disk is a copy.
A2A. The copy is not cinavied. The player sees that the disk is a BDR/E or non-protected. The player checks for cinavia. Cinavia is not found. Normal playback.
A2B. The copy is cinavied. ---"---- -----"-----. Cinavia is found and subroutine is called.

B. Take a mediatank (mediaplayer, whatever is this thing called in your country, like WD TV Live or Popcorn Hour and similar).
B. Still B. All media files here are copies, since the originals are on the BD-ROM. If a media player has a BD drive (Oppo, Dune HD and PCH C-200 come to mind) then it's scenario A (above).
B1. media is not cinavied. The player does not call the subroutine as it may be home a made file.
B2. media is cinavied. Subroutine called.

C. PC-enabled SW player
C1. The PC doesn't have a BD drive. That is the media is a hollywood-copy or a home made
C1A. non-cinavied media play normal like usual
C1B. cinavied media. Until a file reaches the output cables (DVI/HDMI, audio) a file has to be retrieved from the HDD (OS can check in background), the file has to be decoded (drivers check in background), the digital data is sent to the corresponding output cards (audio card drivers/FW/HW check for cinavia). If cinavia is detected anywhere in this chain, provided the file is a copy, cinavia is triggered.
C2. The PC has a BD drive.
C2A. The disk is original. It's the responsability of the player to instruct both the drive and the OS that this copy is legitimate (there are several terms like PAP and stuff to describe how the signal path is checked), then play it as normal. Cinavia detected but not triggered.
C2B. The disk is a cinavied copy. Cinavia detected and triggered.

The whole issue here is to identify whether the file/disk is a copy or an unauthorised/unprotected media file or not, then if cinavia is detected the triggering subroutine is called.

How that works with a camcorder? Simply, a consumer camcorder is always unprotected, in other words it's considered as a copy. This concept is known and used since the DAT issue. A cellphone? The same. If a protection is found, whatever it may be, and cinavia is detected -> End of Story. No need for AACS (or for AACS only).

What prevents people from seeing this is that cinavia is now a test (a working test). Let's talk in 5 years.

Corolar: the only universal solution to this is to eliminate, physically, cinavia from the audio part. Partial solutions would be FW hacks, but these will work only with specific gear and can be anytime invalidated through mandatory FW upgrades (see the PS3 case).

SamuriHL

17th February 2011, 14:23

Corolar: the only universal solution to this is to eliminate, physically, cinavia from the audio part. Partial solutions would be FW hacks, but these will work only with specific gear and can be anytime invalidated through mandatory FW upgrades (see the PS3 case).

On this part, we agree. And I'm going to leave it there and call it good. :)

setarip_old

17th February 2011, 20:14

@xenex

Hi!And there is no way that a TV, sound card, receiver or media streamer could send a signal back to the PLAYER ITSELF. It's just impossible.

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything in the repetitive voluminous and speculative posts about what the future may hold for the further application of "Cinavia", a couple of things I learned many, many years ago that will always be valid:

1) Never say "Never"

and

2) What's impossible today is often solved tomorrow

A.Fenderson

17th February 2011, 20:58

...Cinavia detection is not something hardware manufacturers are adding happily, they are forced to by the AACS spec.

I think we would do well to keep in mind that simplifications like this aren't representative of the whole picture. Sony, for instance, is both a home-theater hardware manufacturer and a movie studio conglomerate--their actions prove that they believe they have much to gain from incorporating Cinavia detection into as many of their playback devices (PS3 and other BD players)--and watermarks into as many applicable forms of media (including DVDs, which to my understanding can only be an *option* for the studios, not mandated, in that the DVD Forum hasn't mandated AACS or Cinavia)--as they can, as quickly as they can.

Only those hardware manufacturers with no direct ties to the studios--and therefore arguably nothing to gain directly from Cinavia's success--would be annoyed at being forced to include Cinavia tech in their gear. Sony, though, produces HT hardware, owns a ton of movie studios, and is a founding member of AACS LA, so they obviously want to push Cinavia into their own hardware and media products.

setarip_old

17th February 2011, 23:04

As I mentioned in Post #1 when I started this thread, my equipment pre-dates "Cinavia" protection, so that I cannot directly perform any testing.

Therefore, I would repeat a suggestion/request for testing that I made in 11/20/10 Post #312 and modified in 11/21/10 Post #323:

If possible, perhaps "Cinavia" can be fooled by adding (NOT replacing) 1, 2 or even 5 blank audiostreams in superior track sequence to the original audiostreams, with the same indicated audio formats and running times as the originals...

arctor

19th February 2011, 01:50

The Sound API does not need to access the disk directly rather it needs to know that the player is a valid player that is calling it. In fact it would be quite high coupling if you enforced this. In a chain of trust, the Sound API trust everything before it and needs a mechanisim to authenticate that trust.

Possibly when the stream is passed into the SoundAPI a encrypted checksum (MAC) generated by the player is included with it. The player will only generate this checksum if the media has AACS.

In the SoundAPI this checksum is then validated and if present then the sound can be played with only a Cinavia check for the Cinema profile If non encrypted data is sent through the API then a full Cinavia check is perfromed and if detected (which implies pirated data) the sound is muted or a high pitch beep is sent through. I don't care that player cannot detect this because the player should have checked Cinavia and if it didn't you are obviously using a non certified player.

Of course you could hack the player to always send the checksum (or recover the key). What you can't do is build an opensource player unless you know this key.

Obviously this means sharing a key between the sound card API / Firmware and the players and all the management (i.e. key revocation etc) of it. This will be a major logistic headache and a challenge for the DRM designer out there. Here your major OS changes you mentioned will need to happen. Will this happen, I don't think so but that doesn't mean its not possible.

Cinavia's ability to securly encode in the audio the fact the audio is copyrighted and should be validated is quite impressive. The challenge for the DRM designers will be to ensure components in the chain can perform that authentication without compromising the security.

I'm gonna ask again. HOW does the "sound api" know that? Any time someone wants to bring up this kind of nonsense, I'm gonna keep asking the same question until it gets through to people. HOW does anything besides the player that's reading the physical disc know whether there's a valid AACS certificate? And with an open source player, the AACS stuff is removed before it ever gets to the player. (Same with commercial players on my machine....I use AnyDVD to remove the protection in realtime...the commercial players all get unprotected discs.) Unless the "sound api" has some mechanism to read from the original disc and verify the AACS certificate after detecting Cinavia in the audio stream, thus bypassing the player, it's not possible to do what's being suggested. At least not without some major work to the OS. I don't mean to be a PITA on answering this. It's just that I wish people would think it through a little bit and ask themselves how something would ACTUALLY work.

SamuriHL

19th February 2011, 02:03

The problem with that is that you are forcing people to update their player in order to play original discs. That is not the case as of today. So that's a fairly significant change and consumers will NOT be happy with it. You might say the studios won't care, but, they will if the backlash is loud enough. It's one thing to implement a protection technology in new players. It's quite another to enforce it by requiring the consumer update their software/hardware in order to play a disc.

Ghitulescu

19th February 2011, 08:39

The problem with that is that you are forcing people to update their player in order to play original discs. That is not the case as of today. So that's a fairly significant change and consumers will NOT be happy with it.

Do you actually own a BD player?
One in two or three disks actually displays a warning about my player which needs upgraded to watch the disk. My player is now 2 years old but still plays the latest disks, well, I missed some 5 updates. All the new disks come at least in Germany with an additional flyer that states the same DO UPGRADE YOUR PLAYER TO THE LATEST STAND.

Most consumers simply do not care about it*. My experience with FW upgrade for the past 18 years says that, while at the beginning the FW upgrade was a bonus, see TEAC and Yamaha two companies that really tried to improve their products, today the FW is the key to restrict the digital freedom. The turning point was to my experience the SD2.5 case. Since then I recommend anyone to do whatever he can to resist upgrading.

*And even if they do notice a degradation in its capability they are left with no alternative (the other equivalent gear is equally infected).

SamuriHL

19th February 2011, 14:33

Do you actually own a BD player?
One in two or three disks actually displays a warning about my player which needs upgraded to watch the disk. My player is now 2 years old but still plays the latest disks, well, I missed some 5 updates. All the new disks come at least in Germany with an additional flyer that states the same DO UPGRADE YOUR PLAYER TO THE LATEST STAND.

Most consumers simply do not care about it*. My experience with FW upgrade for the past 18 years says that, while at the beginning the FW upgrade was a bonus, see TEAC and Yamaha two companies that really tried to improve their products, today the FW is the key to restrict the digital freedom. The turning point was to my experience the SD2.5 case. Since then I recommend anyone to do whatever he can to resist upgrading.

*And even if they do notice a degradation in its capability they are left with no alternative (the other equivalent gear is equally infected).

So ALL BD players that have ever been made are upgradable to even the first version of Cinavia detection through a FW udpate? Cause otherwise, you're FORCING customers to spend money on new equipment just to watch movies. Something that they have not done yet. Even a first gen BD player can play the latest discs. They just don't get all the functionality. That would not be the case if you can't update every single BD player sold since day 1 to this uber secure Cinavia methodology. And as I said before, forcing customers to BUY a new player just to watch a standard they bought into....that's going to create a backlash.

Ghitulescu

19th February 2011, 15:53

The Blu-ray certification for a player imposes the manufacturer, among other thing, that the player be FW upgradable. They learned the DVD lesson. So they will force the player to update to keep it up with the newest protections. So all BD players will be capable of implementing cinavia, since this is a software thing. As soon as one cinavia form has been hacked, they will update the players to the next combination.

How to force? SImply, they launched the campaign of UPDATE OR YOUR PLAYER WON'T WORK (which is not really true) and of course the BD-Live players would automatically update themselves (this is why I have a BonusView one). If this doesn't work, they have the second choice, the deliberately provide the player with a beta FW and they will provide both the enhancement (for my player it would have been DTS MA, for others it may be the 3D thing) and the bitter pill. According to one manufacturer (I will not mention its name for obvious reasons) the implementation of Cinavia should be, according to NDA agreements, not be made public. In other words, they won't mention the introduction of cinavia in the FW log. And even more, once such methods are implemented, no possibility exists to revert to an earlier version (that's the best indication that something wrong has been done to your device). Now the billion dollar question: why it wasn't introduced from the beginning (as cinavia is protected since 2005)? Well, the first rule of marketing is to reach the "turning point" - if all players have been infected, people would have been realised the danger, and the BD issue would have been a stillborn. The old gear will nevertheless disappear and the circle will be completely closed.

Is this another conspiracy theory? Nope, this is the reality. Wellcome to the Digital Age!

SamuriHL

19th February 2011, 16:08

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that any player can be made to check for Cinavia through a firmware update. The older players may not be physically capable of checking for Cinavia. This is a point that's been debated quite heavily and no one has any real idea of whether it can be done or not. This whole "super cinavia" scenario that was outlined a few posts ago that relies on something from the player being passed to an audio driver or receiver requires that every single player out there support it. Otherwise, consumers won't be able to play their original discs. I know the AACS-LA has required that player mfg'd after a certain date all have the required capability to support Cinavia. That suggests, perhaps, that players previous to that cutoff date may not have the ability to be updated to support it. Otherwise, why the stated cutoff date? Again, that's not PROOF of anything and could just be a licensing thing for all I know. But, unless you can get Cinavia on EVERY single player in existence, then it's going to HAVE to be optional and only apply to players that support it. And that being the case, open source players are safe as there's absolutely no way to tell an original from a backup once it leaves the player unless the player is required to implement some methodology for doing so. *IF* you can update every player with Cinavia, and somehow can force all customers to upgrade to a firmware that supports it, then yes, you could force Cinavia on every single device and not allow players that don't implement it. I don't consider that scenario very likely.

setarip_old

19th February 2011, 18:55

@SamuriHL

Hi! I know the AACS-LA has required that player mfg'd after a certain date all have the required capability to support Cinavia. That suggests, perhaps, that players previous to that cutoff date may not have the ability to be updated to support it. Otherwise, why the stated cutoff date?Simply, the "cutoff"/start date was predicated upon the date that the Verance/"Cinavia" concept was approved for mandatory inclusion by AACS-LA...

SamuriHL

19th February 2011, 18:56

@SamuriHL

Hi! Simply, the "cutoff"/start date was predicated upon the date that the Verance/"Cinavia" concept was approved for mandatory inclusion by AACS-LA...

Sure, but, that doesn't either confirm or deny whether OLD players can be updated to handle Cinavia through a simple FW change.

Ghitulescu

19th February 2011, 19:02

setarip_old

19th February 2011, 19:27

that doesn't either confirm or deny whether OLD players can be updated to handle Cinavia through a simple FW change. No it doesn't - and that's quite intentional, as there's nothing to be gained by speculating about that.

I've only answered the one question you asked for which there is a factual response.

On the other hand, I still think it would be beneficial if someone with Verance/"Cinavia"-infected equipment could test to see if perhaps "Cinavia" can be fooled by adding (NOT replacing) 1, 2 or even 5 blank audiostreams in superior track sequence to the original audiostreams, with the same indicated audio formats and running times as the originals...

SamuriHL

19th February 2011, 19:34

On the other hand, I still think it would be beneficial if someone with Verance/"Cinavia"-infected equipment could test to see if perhaps "Cinavia" can be fooled by adding (NOT replacing) 1, 2 or even 5 blank audiostreams in superior track sequence to the original audiostreams, with the same indicated audio formats and running times as the originals...

How would that fool Cinavia, exactly? It checks the audio track that's being played, so, what would this accomplish? I don't know how one would go about making those tracks, so, I have no way of testing that.

Rich86

19th February 2011, 21:15

Cinavia is a SW algorithm. It doesn't require a HW chip. That older players cannot be made to check for cinavia is mainly due to their age and the manufacturers don't want to invest more man-hours in developing such a FW. Besides they are not even required to do so. So why bother.

As I said, let's talk in 5 years.

Even with cinavia being a software based check - it must require processing capability and resources to operate. Standalone players do not have internal processors of the same caliber and power as a game system like the PS3, for example.
Might this constant checking of the audio stream have a negative impact on the player's performance? Isn't there the potential danger of audio/video dropouts, etc. when the player is crunching whatever it crunches to see if it wants to permit you to hear the audio on the title you are playing?

SamuriHL

19th February 2011, 21:19

Ronin-7

20th February 2011, 18:20

Even with cinavia being a software based check - it must require processing capability and resources to operate. Standalone players do not have internal processors of the same caliber and power as a game system like the PS3, for example.
Might this constant checking of the audio stream have a negative impact on the player's performance? Isn't there the potential danger of audio/video dropouts, etc. when the player is crunching whatever it crunches to see if it wants to permit you to hear the audio on the title you are playing?

Cinavia support is being added to the Sigma 8642 series through an SDK update so certain equipment (http://www.iboum.com/net-media-players.php?sort=sortrating&chip=sig4&pfilt=&hdd=&net=&fan=&lcd=&esata=&dts=&dtsp=&dolbt=&dolbtp=&dtsma=&dtsmap=&year=&ppp=40&bd=&dvd=&netflix=&dvbt=&dweb=&multi=&stream=&sparam=&ikey=&pg=1&rp=csigma4) will be capable of receiving Cinavia.

Netgear's Blu-ray capable network media player the NeoTV550 it seems will be the first to get updated (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4110/netgear-ces-2011/2) although Netgear have said they will issue a warning informing users that the update contains Cinavia and the firmware update will be optional but I cant imagine their being any non-Cinavia updates after that.

I'm guessing all future Blu-ray capable Sigma Designs platforms will support Cinavia, though Sigma have a get of jail free card through XBMC which they are porting to their next gen chipset (http://xbmc.org/theuni/2011/01/12/more-about-sigma/) so XBMC will ignore Cinavia.

Ghitulescu

20th February 2011, 19:00

In order to do the Cinavia check, the player must (in realtime) decode the audio track, perform the Cinavia check algo, while simultaneously outputting the track either through bitstreaming or LPCM. One would think that some players might get a bit stressed by that, yes.

I don't have access to Blu-ray book, however Sony, one of its promoters said that decoding audio in player is mandatory for those players that are BonusView and up (BD-Live). I can only assume that the only players not capable of doing this, from the HW point of view, are those of the first generation.

Cinavia support is being added to the Sigma 8642 series through an SDK update so certain equipment (http://www.iboum.com/net-media-players.php?sort=sortrating&chip=sig4&pfilt=&hdd=&net=&fan=&lcd=&esata=&dts=&dtsp=&dolbt=&dolbtp=&dtsma=&dtsmap=&year=&ppp=40&bd=&dvd=&netflix=&dvbt=&dweb=&multi=&stream=&sparam=&ikey=&pg=1&rp=csigma4) will be capable of receiving Cinavia.

Netgear's Blu-ray capable network media player the NeoTV550 it seems will be the first to get updated (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4110/netgear-ces-2011/2) although Netgear have said they will issue a warning informing users that the update contains Cinavia and the firmware update will be optional but I cant imagine their being any non-Cinavia updates after that.

As I said the agreements they sign contain the clause that this addition should not be made public, exactly to prevent what you said. I'll watch Netgears' statements with a close eye.

SamuriHL

20th February 2011, 19:09

I don't have access to Blu-ray book, however Sony, one of its promoters said that decoding audio in player is mandatory for those players that are BonusView and up (BD-Live). I can only assume that the only players not capable of doing this, from the HW point of view, are those of the first generation.

Very possible. My dad still has a gen 1 player, so, I can honestly say that if Cinavia became mandatory, he'd be pretty....upset. :) That being said, eventually, those gen 1 players are going to die off, and with some new players being under 100 bucks USD, it's only a matter of time. I just don't know when/if they'll make Cinavia mandatory for every device in the chain. We will have to wait and see for that.

Sinatrafan

22nd February 2011, 23:12

SamuriHL

22nd February 2011, 23:18

Definitely not, no.

rotty

23rd February 2011, 01:42

I have a question. I dunno if this is even possible. Can a Blu Ray disc that has the Cinevia infection, when played back on any Blu Ray player, also INFECT that Blu Ray player? (like Sony's Rootkit?)

In other words, can that Blu Ray disc AUTOMATICALLY install the Cinevia (universal) firmware when played back on any Blu ray player, so that the Blu Ray Player will become infected as well, without our knowledge ? This is a horrifying thought !

Yes that would be horrifying, I have never heard of firmware updates being implimented via the played media.

BUT the following would be at least possible:
If say you owned a new or newish player, and the player does not exhibit Cinavia detection firmware, it still could be the case that in fact the player is fully Cinavia firmware ready right now but switched off.

In other words, all it needs is a command to switch it on, (not firmware update) just a trigger. This trigger could be a future batch of disks, both DVD or BD. The trigger could even be the title names or volume ID. The sick irony of course is that the trigger disk(s) could be Cinavia free themselves.

Now im not saying that this is the case at all but it is perfectly possible in theory. I just have a devious mind.

So these lists of players said to be Cinavia firmware free at present until update may not be Cinavia firmware free at all. Somebody that has a newish player and is relying on the player being safe by not updating could still be unsafe.

Why would this be done, why not just have the player Cinavia firmware switched on right now, well I can think of many many reasons cant you.

setarip_old

23rd February 2011, 03:06

@Sinatrafan

Hi! In other words, can that Blu Ray disc AUTOMATICALLY install the Cinevia (universal) firmware when played back on any Blu ray player, so that the Blu Ray Player will become infected as well, without our knowledge?

Contrary to the absolute statement made by "SamuriHL", I'd suggest to you that, thusfar, no one has publicly established that anything exists to preclude that possibility.

SamuriHL

23rd February 2011, 03:09

I give up. I really do...

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2011, 08:38

xenex

23rd February 2011, 11:35

I give up. I really do...
I can certainly see why you would feel that way. This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

... thusfar, no one has publicly established that anything exists to preclude that possibility.
Given this logic, it is equally possible that a new firmware update will make your Blu-ray player emit flying purple gorilla-bats that fly around your house and eat all of your backup media. After all, no one has publicly established that it is not a possibility.

Can we all get back down to Earth and deal with facts, please? In the entire history of Blu-ray to date, has there ever been a (movie) disc that "silently updates" the firmware of any player? I'm fairly certain the answer is NO.

Has there ever been a (movie) disc that has even included an "optional" firmware update for any player? Again, I believe the answer would be NO.

Even when "Avatar" came out and did require some players to be updated, mostly Samsung players as I remember, those updates were supplied by Samsung themselves and required specific user intervention to install.

As a point of fact, in the many years that I have been using computers and electronic devices, I cannot recall even one instance in which any device has been "silently updated." Can anyone here name such an instance?

Correct me if I am wrong.

derbeDeus

23rd February 2011, 12:09

I can certainly see why you would feel that way. This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Given this logic, it is equally possible that a new firmware update will make your Blu-ray player emit flying purple gorilla-bats that fly around your house and eat all of your backup media. After all, no one has publicly established that it is not a possibility.

Can we all get back down to Earth and deal with facts, please? In the entire history of Blu-ray to date, has there ever been a (movie) disc that "silently updates" the firmware of any player? I'm fairly certain the answer is NO.

Has there ever been a (movie) disc that has even included an "optional" firmware update for any player? Again, I believe the answer would be NO.

Even when "Avatar" came out and did require some players to be updated, mostly Samsung players as I remember, those updates were supplied by Samsung themselves and required specific user intervention to install.

As a point of fact, in the many years that I have been using computers and electronic devices, I cannot recall even one instance in which any device has been "silently updated." Can anyone here name such an instance?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, let's get back to Earth and use facts to give an answer.
Cinavia watermarked blu-rays that come from Sony (ie. all, but The Losers) also include a PS3 firmware update file. That is 3.15 for initial batch and then The Social Network and Burlesque come with 3.50.
PS3 won't allow the playback of such discs, unless you apply the update. The update won't tell you that you "get Cinavia detector" if you apply it, but it is your choice to install it or not.
So there is no silently "infection" without your consent, but otoh you're forced to do it in order to play the movie, and when you give your consent to install the firmware you don't know what you just did ;)
The only solution here is to make a backup of the disc without the PS3 update file. (Of course we are talking here about a console that was not "infected", ie. a PS3 with firmware prior to 3.10).

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2011, 12:15

Cinavia watermarked blu-rays that come from Sony (ie. all, but The Losers) also include a PS3 firmware update file. That is 3.15 for initial batch and then The Social Network and Burlesque come with 3.50.
PS3 won't allow the playback of such discs, unless you apply the update. The update won't tell you that you "get Cinavia detector" if you apply it, but it is your choice to install it or not.
So there is no silently "infection" without your consent, but otoh you're forced to do it in order to play the movie, and when you give your consent to install the firmware you don't know what you just did ;)

Exactly.

setarip_old

23rd February 2011, 17:13

rotty

23rd February 2011, 21:59

@derbeDeus

Thank you for setting the record straight regarding the current state of affairs. That type of "coerced cooperation" will likely raise far less consumer rage than did the heinous, secretive Sony-type "rootkit" of the past.

However, with 50Gb to "play with" on a Blu-ray disc, there's certainly plenty of space available for entertainment media providers to create all sorts of never-before-done mischief.

On the other hand, as I've suggested previously, one can hopefully look forward to the recent hack of the PS3 yielding a permanent solution to the Verance/"Cinavia" protection.

Yep and what if as I said earlier, the newer players do not need to be updated to have full Cinavia detection, what if the firmware for that is already in the player and not yet enabled.

You would only need to change one bit (a boolean flag) to enable Cinavia. You wouldnt need any of the 50GB disk space, just a little bit of Java or as I said the firmware could be looking for certain titles of the new disks yet to be released and this could change the flag bit and BOOM, Cinavia is ON.

Wouldnt even need to be a watermarked disk that does it.

I really dont think its that far fetched.

Vurbal

24th February 2011, 16:27

Yep and what if as I said earlier, the newer players do not need to be updated to have full Cinavia detection, what if the firmware for that is already in the player and not yet enabled.

You would only need to change one bit (a boolean flag) to enable Cinavia. You wouldnt need any of the 50GB disk space, just a little bit of Java or as I said the firmware could be looking for certain titles of the new disks yet to be released and this could change the flag bit and BOOM, Cinavia is ON.

Wouldnt even need to be a watermarked disk that does it.

I really dont think its that far fetched.
I think it's extremely far fetched for a number of reasons. For starters, it assumes a level of rational thinking that's completely incompatible with how DRM obsessed content owners and distributors think. Their entire mindset screams "we need maximum DRM in place and it needs to be there immediately." Their only reason for being sneaky about DRM is plausible deniability. "No Mr. Consumer, it's not our fault your Blu-ray player won't play what it did yesterday. Talk to the manufacturer."

The scenario you describe would result in exactly the opposite effect. If things change after putting a disc in, most people won't be cursing the player manufacturer. It will be the distributor or studio behind the disc. On top of that, if something gets screwed up because of whatever code they used to enable the new "feature," they'll also have player manufacturers pointing fingers at them. They have nothing to gain (even from their twisted POV) and everything to lose by taking on that responsibility.

Player manufacturers also have significant incentive to oppose such a scheme. Every time you push out another firmware update you run the risk of causing unforeseen problems. If you count on a third party to make even a small change to it correctly, the risk grows exponentially. If that third party is a company whose expertise is something only tangentially related to your product, as is the case with Blu-ray authoring and player firmware, the risk increases even further.

It's one thing for Sony to include an update for Sony hardware on their discs. It's another entirely for Sony (or anyone else) to include updates for some other company's player. It adds layers of complication and uncertainty that no one wants and makes studios responsible for things they clearly believe are the job of anyone and everyone besides them. While such an arrangement might seem sensible for someone who has thoroughly thought the process through, belief in DRM isn't the result of rational analysis. It's all about blind faith.

Ghitulescu

24th February 2011, 16:49

So who cares? I mean whether the guilt is with the manufacturer or with the disk issuer? How can s/he solve this? Downgrade? Well, no, this is equally mentioned in the BD specs, so in the end the manufacturer will be considered guilty, too. I still remember the old days when my uncle hit the TV because the tape in the VCR was broken. I don't really think that most consumers today are smarter than the consumer of 20 years ago. I also had hard times not earlier than 10 years ago to explain a bookkeeper where is the software we bought for the company, he couldn't conceive we paid money for something he couldn't see.

The second run: how to solve the problem? Is Sony guilty for sneaking cinavia in? Pick Samsung? Not again, cinavia here, too. Maybe LG? Panasonic? Because, by the time cinavia will hit one brand it will hit all of them. So not much of a choice.

Third run: how to solve the problem? Pick a mediaplayer with no BD drive (so no AACS certification). I think people forgot the RIAA vs. Sony DAT case - Sony was threatened to be brought to court even if the apparatuses could not, at the time, digitally copy the protected works (there were no commercial DATs) and analog copies were allowed under the Home Recording Act. The same for today, not implementing cinavia would mean for the manufacturers of such players the risk of being on trial for "accessory to crime" - facilitating the copying.

Welcome (again) in the digital age!

Vurbal

24th February 2011, 16:58

Ghitulescu

24th February 2011, 17:09

Was that a response to what I posted? If so, I'm confused about what point you think you're addressing.

Point 1 - manufacturers cannot resist
Point 2 - the user will not inherently blame the studios
Point 3 - I don't care what Sony does, all the manufacturers will eventually do the same thing

Vurbal

24th February 2011, 17:25

Point 1 - manufacturers cannot resist
Of course they can.
Point 2 - the user will not inherently blame the studios
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. My experience in various customer service related positions shows otherwise.
Point 3 - I don't care what Sony does, all the manufacturers will eventually do the same thing
All the other studios can't do the same thing unless they're also going to buy consumer electronics or game console manufacturers.

Ghitulescu

24th February 2011, 18:01

Of course they can.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. My experience in various customer service related positions shows otherwise.

All the other studios can't do the same thing unless they're also going to buy consumer electronics or game console manufacturers.

All three points are unfortunately valid.
There are several ways to force the manufacturers to obey the requests. One is to impose standards, other is to use the law (lobby), there are more levers to do a thing...
You'll find out only the opinion of the people that care and their opinions reached the customer service. It's not very wise to generalize this.
Point 3 is related to point 1.

Vurbal

24th February 2011, 19:37

All three points are unfortunately valid.
They're opinions, and as I say you're entitled to yours. However they are not facts, which is how you seem to view them.
There are several ways to force the manufacturers to obey the requests. One is to impose standards, other is to use the law (lobby), there are more levers to do a thing...
And there are many ways for manufacturers to resist, which is the reason we have things like the completely private and contractually based implementation of Blu-ray DRM. In any case, whether they will get what they want in the form of unspecified future legislation is completely unrelated to what their plans are under the current law and licensing agreements. If you wish to have a conversation speculating about future DRM, you should start a new thread to see if anyone's interested. I have no intention of being drawn into a discussion of it in this one.
You'll find out only the opinion of the people that care and their opinions reached the customer service. It's not very wise to generalize this.
What you'll find out is the opinion of the people who are upset. However, history backs me up on this. When people get discs which cause them problems they don't complain about the player. They complain about the disc. It has already happened multiple times with Blu-ray. And since you give no authority for your opinion I'll continue to rely on my experience, thank you very much.
Point 3 is related to point 1.
And ignores completely the fact that all Sony has done is send out an update for their own hardware. While technically all major studios have done this already, Sony being the only one also making players, it merely highlights the fact that Sony is, and will continue to be, different than the rest.

Going back to Cinavia specifically, if it were going to be "turned on" in compatible players in this manner it would almost certainly have happened either before the first Cinavia disc was released or as part of the first releases. Especially considering Sony's history. Since it didn't, conjecture that it will happen in the future without more evidence than "Sony included a PS3 update with their Cinavia infected discs" is hard to take seriously.

SamuriHL

25th February 2011, 04:48

Sony is unique in that they can force consumers to accept firmwae updates or else be cutoff from online activities. The ps3 is not really a stand alone in the traditional sense. Forced updates on actual stand alones hasn't been done to my knowledge. It's unlikely to happen as firmware isn't generic between players. Again, the ps3 being a special case.

setarip_old

25th February 2011, 08:34

Actually, it looks like SONY is really no longer in a position to force much of anything since the PS3 "jailbreak".

The latest "Oh no you don't SONY" apparently is a hack that allows users to UN-ban their consoles.

As I've stated in several previous posts pertaining to the "jailbreak" itself, and the subsequent hacks:

Although this is not Verance/"Cinavia"-specific, it seems only logical that now that the PS3 is wide open to manipulation, someone will eventually make use of this as part or all of the means to permanently eliminate the present "Cinavia" protection. Keeping in mind that the PS3 appears to include far and away the single most prevalent hardware Blu-ray player (I believe it's outsold all other players combined), just defeating "Cinavia" only on the PS3 would be a heck of a shot across the bow of AACS, Verance, et al.

Ghitulescu

25th February 2011, 09:26

They're opinions, and as I say you're entitled to yours. However they are not facts, which is how you seem to view them.

And there are many ways for manufacturers to resist, which is the reason we have things like the completely private and contractually based implementation of Blu-ray DRM. In any case, whether they will get what they want in the form of unspecified future legislation is completely unrelated to what their plans are under the current law and licensing agreements. If you wish to have a conversation speculating about future DRM, you should start a new thread to see if anyone's interested. I have no intention of being drawn into a discussion of it in this one.

What you'll find out is the opinion of the people who are upset. However, history backs me up on this. When people get discs which cause them problems they don't complain about the player. They complain about the disc. It has already happened multiple times with Blu-ray. And since you give no authority for your opinion I'll continue to rely on my experience, thank you very much.

And ignores completely the fact that all Sony has done is send out an update for their own hardware. While technically all major studios have done this already, Sony being the only one also making players, it merely highlights the fact that Sony is, and will continue to be, different than the rest.

Going back to Cinavia specifically, if it were going to be "turned on" in compatible players in this manner it would almost certainly have happened either before the first Cinavia disc was released or as part of the first releases. Especially considering Sony's history. Since it didn't, conjecture that it will happen in the future without more evidence than "Sony included a PS3 update with their Cinavia infected discs" is hard to take seriously.

Is everyone here blind?

How can one rely on a DRM scheme (ie cinavia) that requires a lot of changes, lots of pressures on mfgs, consumers' annoyances and so on, if this is so easy to circumvent? Simply by ripping the BD (cinavied or not) and play it on a mediaplayer - which seems to be the trend for the 3rd Millenium (due to BDR prices and scarce availability).

It's like putting 256 locks on the front door while letting the back door wide open. It's a wonderful protection :), much like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Copy_control_logo.png which worked only on Windows PCs (they are 90% but hey, no serious pirate uses windows).

All commercial media will be cinavied, since this will not pose any problems, to professionals (which do not work with protected signals - they create the signals), and to consumers (the media content they create is free of cinavia, unless they use commercial parts therein). This will only pose problems to copied media. And in order his to work this will be implemented everywhere. Otherwise it won't work.

But people prefer not to see it, until too late.

So the only solution still remains the complete removal of cinavia from the audio. Even if it will adversely affect the quality.

jpsdr

25th February 2011, 09:32

So the only solution still remains the complete removal of cinavia from the audio.
Maybe it will not be possible. Assuming with the hack of PS3, we'll be able to find out how it work, it doesn't mean because something can be detected that it can be removed easely.
Well, wait and see...

xenex

25th February 2011, 10:32

Just looking at a TV program guide this evening, I notice that the cable channel HBO is now airing "The Losers," the first instance of a "Cinavied" film we have seen. Does the BROADCAST version include the Cinavia watermark? I don't know. I could easily record it with my DVD-Recorder, but I have no way to check for Cinavia. I own no PS3 (No Sony crap at all, in fact). But how interesting would it be if television/cable broadcasts now start to include the Cinavia watermark.

There would be all sorts of weird implications. "Babies first steps or first dance in front of TV?" Denied!! and etc.....

EDIT FOR ELABORATION:

Many of these DRM schemes, especially Cinavia presume that any home-made recording just must be an attempt to copy the studio's "crown jewels" and distribute their movie. But it's not always the case, is it. I may be recording my baby's first steps, my dog playing with my cat, or any number of innocent things. If a TV nearby happens to be playing a Cinavia-protected video, and the watermark is there, my own personal video is then corrupted.

Cinavia doesn't care about intent, it just ASSUMES. It assumes if the watermark is heard, you are trying to copy the "crown jewels." Well, I don't care about what is playing on a TV in the background. It's not "jewels" to me, it's background noise. But, ah, it is WATERMARKED background noise.