"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection [Archive] - Page 2

hello_hello

5th July 2011, 12:32

Now intel wants to include a further level of DRM straight in the core (to avoid the danger of linux or free software).

It's often hard to tell exactly what mixture of speculafact and confabulation much of your scaremongering might be.

I just did a Google looking for info on this Intel DRM and this is all I could find:
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71568.html
"Thou Shalt Not Stream
One particularly interesting reported detail regarding the processors is that Intel will incorporate hardware-level copy protection technologies.
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."

From Intel:
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/910972-sandy-bridge-intel-insider-killswitch-technology.html
"Intel Insider (This feature will be available only if your motherboard supports the Intel HD graphics and when using this feature you are using your Intel processor's Integrated Graphics) Requires a H67 motherboard ##
This feature does not affect any of the files of your computer. It is simply there to allow hardware protected streaming of specific data to your computer."

So it's for streaming video, and this might explain why it hasn't taken off:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/01/07/1553241/Intel-Insider-DRM-Risks-Monopoly-Investigations
"Intel Insider DRM Risks Monopoly Investigations:
"Intel's Sandy Bridge line of processors is impressing the tech community with its power, but a sneaky little feature designed to appease Hollywood has some concerned about Intel's intentions: Intel Insider. If a major video streaming service, such as Lovefilm or the US-based Hulu, were to implement Intel Insider technology on their movie streams — as a way of convincing Hollywood to release films sooner and in high definition without worrying about piracy — it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies. Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded."

So what is this further level of DRM Intel is wanting to include straight into the core? Is it one which allows you to provide some links to demonstrate it's fact?
__________________
It's not difficult to find the ideal signature. Difficult is refraining from using it.

Ghitulescu

5th July 2011, 14:20

It's often hard to tell exactly what mixture of speculafact and confabulation much of your scaremongering might be.

Feel free to learn, unless this contravenes your precepts, my dear yetanotherid. That you refuses to accept or to understand the things surrounding you won't make them disappear, like in the very well-known tactics of the ostrich digging its head into sand.

Besides, googling is not equal researching, if I am allowed to freely quote prof. Langdon of Harvard.

laserfan

5th July 2011, 15:55

I think the strategy here is to not let the users know which player implemented Cinavia yet, so the sales are not biased. Let everyone (manufacturers) implement it. That takes time, lots of it. And when the time is right, when users have bought with high confidence (Sony players or other brands), the bomb ticks and in a short time, every player will have Cinavia detector enabled.
You can think what you want to, but until just one settop player becomes Cinavia-enabled "overnight" by virtue of a simple firmware update, I will be skeptical that this can be done, at least for pre-2009 player designs.

Ghitulescu

5th July 2011, 16:15

You can think what you want to, but until just one settop player becomes Cinavia-enabled "overnight" by virtue of a simple firmware update, I will be skeptical that this can be done, at least for pre-2009 player designs.

There are means to "update" a player other than by a FW upgrade. For instance, the "end of cycle" (the products are worse and worse and people are inherently forced to buy new hardware to replace the dead ones). Or by imposing new technologies and making the older gear obsolete: masochistic people ran to buy 3D players despite their old players were only 1-2 years old, another good chance to implement cinavia. When the 3D technology (I think there are 4 majors and several minors here) will finally get rid of the 3D glasses, probably it's another good opportunity to change the HW base.

laserfan

5th July 2011, 17:03

You keep trying to change the subject. Show me one, just one, set-top BD player that has been "updated" to Cinavia-enabled via firmware.

Ghitulescu

5th July 2011, 17:29

I'm not deviating, I'm pointing to other possible alternatives. For now I know no player personally, but I have seen in various posts, also here, that the PS3 has been cinavied by FW, also certain models of LG and Samsung that have been contaminated or decontaminated ;) . If they lie, I'll you you, too :) .
I am not really concerned about my BD player, although I should do an update to have it decode HD audio, but about my mediaplayer, which seems to be in a perpetual beta stage. I am thus afraid that the required stability (one incentive to update) will come within the same package as cinavia.

hello_hello

5th July 2011, 19:21

Feel free to learn, unless this contravenes your precepts, my dear yetanotherid. That you refuses to accept or to understand the things surrounding you won't make them disappear, like in the very well-known tactics of the ostrich digging its head into sand.

Besides, googling is not equal researching, if I am allowed to freely quote prof. Langdon of Harvard.

You may freely quote anyone you like, but your post does nothing but prove almost conclusively you're just making stuff up. As for your claim I'm like an ostrich digging it's head in the sand, well you're obviously being childish.
I can accept or understand things around me, but telling me I'm refusing to do so is silly given a mentally challenged goldfish could understand that "the next CPUs will have a further level of DRM protections inside", means the next generation of CPUs will have additional in-built DRM, and it does nothing to show your claims are real.

Are you sure you don't make stuff up a little as you type, and after you've repeated it in several posts it becomes real to you?

setarip_old

5th July 2011, 20:19

derbeDeus

5th July 2011, 22:27

Just did a lot of Googling and tried playing a Cinavia infected encode.

Well... that is not enough to be sure that the player you got won't have Cinavia at some point in the near future (2011-2012).

I think I explained quite clearly why they will be implementing it without telling anyone and then they'll just activate it. They don't want your purchase power to have a choice.

You can think what you want to, but until just one settop player becomes Cinavia-enabled "overnight" by virtue of a simple firmware update, I will be skeptical that this can be done, at least for pre-2009 player designs.
There's the example of the LG player that had Cinavia activated and then they deactivated it. Do you think they removed the code? Nope, probably they activated it by mistake, too soon.

Old players have two choices: either the manufacturer continues support for them and puts in the watermark detector or the player is not updated any more and therefore it dies because of lack of support for new discs (no aacs keys to decrypt latest mkb == dead).

Guest

5th July 2011, 23:34

Ghit and hello_hello, knock off the ad hominems or strikes can follow. Thank you.

hello_hello

6th July 2011, 06:46

Ghitulescu

6th July 2011, 07:53

Well... that is not enough to be sure that the player you got won't have Cinavia at some point in the near future (2011-2012).

I think I explained quite clearly why they will be implementing it without telling anyone and then they'll just activate it. They don't want your purchase power to have a choice.

There's the example of the LG player that had Cinavia activated and then they deactivated it. Do you think they removed the code? Nope, probably they activated it by mistake, too soon.

Old players have two choices: either the manufacturer continues support for them and puts in the watermark detector or the player is not updated any more and therefore it dies because of lack of support for new discs (no aacs keys to decrypt latest mkb == dead).
That's more or less my reasoning, too. The player-media issue is too tight, one keeps the other one alive and vice-versa. Lack of playback devices "kills" the media, and lack of media makes a gear technically obsolete. The game between manufacturers and media content producers is generally a win-win one. The losers will be, as usual, the customers, since they cannot choose any longer (a pseudo competition, a hidden monopoly).

I also said that implementing cinavia (or any other DRM technique) will transverse the gear, the idea of one-chip-device being anything but new (IIRC 15 years old). And there is no legal arguments why cinavia shouldn't be implemented: it won't harm your own recordings, neither the original ones. It can only affects the copies (which you are not authorised to make under most legislations). It may only decrease (how bad???) the quality, but this never stopped people from copying DVD-Audios, with the watermarking still within. The only legal issues remain the tax leverage on recordable media, since these can only be used for personal media. And of course what happens after the copyright term expires (it will eventually expire, despite the united efforts to prolong it till Doomsday).
Ghit and hello_hello, knock off the ad hominems or strikes can follow. Thank you.
I'll promise that I'll ignore him and keep the topic. Thank you for understanding.
Post 996 (by "xkodi") indicates that the "elephant in the room" (SONY, with its PS3, standalone players, studios, etc. - and the driving/controlling force behind AACS LA) has not yet found a way to prevent circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.
It's my speculation that SONY is actually pinning their "Cinavia"/Verance hopes on the next generation gaming plus video playback system...
Since the presence of cinavia (or any other similar DRM) cannot be legally prevented, it's fairly ok to assume this.

hello_hello

6th July 2011, 09:31

I'll promise that I'll ignore him and keep the topic. Thank you for understanding.

I really do try to understand, and after having replied to my on-topic questions with a post containing nothing but personal insults, the magnanimous way you've now promised to ignore me to keep the topic has me a little closer to understanding your similar process for converting speculation into fact.

xkodi

7th July 2011, 10:44

Post 996 (by "xkodi") indicates that the "elephant in the room" (SONY, with its PS3, standalone players, studios, etc. - and the driving/controlling force behind AACS LA) has not yet found a way to prevent circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

It's my speculation that SONY is actually pinning their "Cinavia"/Verance hopes on the next generation gaming plus video playback system...

actually, they already released something even more terrible - the new PS3 model CECH-3000B that has just been introduced and starts selling has:

AACS 'Analog Sunset' protection

so, no more HD video playback either (in case it's not AACS encrypted) and of course CECH-3000B has "Cinavia" that cannot be disabled, because all PS3 firmware version 3.56+ are uncrackable.

Ghitulescu

7th July 2011, 10:52

Any AACS licensed product Produced on or after December 31, 2010 shall be able to detect the Audio Watermark.
End of story.

bigdog660

9th July 2011, 22:50

Or even cheaper, start writing your congressman to outlaw these things.

Writing our Congress or Senate here in the U.S. is useless. Might as well piss in the wind since they all do whatever benefits them financially.

rotty

9th July 2011, 23:21

Writing our Congress or Senate here in the U.S. is useless. Might as well piss in the wind since they all do whatever benefits them financially.

Is'nt it comforting to know that Politicians are crooks throughout the WHOLE world.

Who lets them be like this .......................

US.

Chancey

14th July 2011, 19:03

we're only one disgruntled employee away from figuring out Cinavia....chill

rotty

14th July 2011, 19:55

we're only one disgruntled employee away from figuring out Cinavia....chill

I wouldnt mind betting that that was the BD+ story also.

Although, the figuring out is absolutley a massive weapon to the defeat, it may still leave us with a nightmare to correct in the domestic enviroment. Like I said before, removal butchery and Re encoding audio to say DTS MA, how.

The DTS encoder is very expensive and would not be part of a cheap solution package for the normal domestic market.

I know I keep saying it, but avoid Cinavia polluted audio media, thats a big weapon, we shouldnt have to put up with corrupted audio anyway, prevention is better than ......................

k-c-ksum

15th July 2011, 11:30

with dvd-a watermarking certain listeners could here the watermark, dont think thats the case here so the corrruptted audio angle wont get you anywhere :(

Andy o

15th July 2011, 14:57

with dvd-a watermarking certain listeners could here the watermark

Source? I've never heard or read any reliable report, only off-the-cuff assertions that were never backed up.

Ghitulescu

15th July 2011, 15:46

Source? I've never heard or read any reliable report, only off-the-cuff assertions that were never backed up.

There's nothing better than to test it yourself. Discussions can anyone stand ... :)

derbeDeus

15th July 2011, 16:32

Source? I've never heard or read any reliable report, only off-the-cuff assertions that were never backed up.

http://www.ambisonic.net/watermark.html

Andy o

15th July 2011, 18:10

Well first of all let me be clear. I am not saying that the watermark is inaudible. I am saying that there's no evidence for the claims that it's audible in real-world settings (i.e. not a direct ABX comparison between same source, watermarked and unwatermarked, which is an unrealistic scenario).
There's nothing better than to test it yourself. Discussions can anyone stand ... :)

If you would point me to an unwatermarked source, and the same source watermarked, and then tell me what to look for, then it would be easy.

What seems suspicious to me is that nobody that claimed to hear the watermark could clearly explain what it was that they heard.

And derbeDeus, I have read that article, and it doesn't explain anything. Just arguments from authority, which frankly seem exaggerated. No links, no detailed explanation on how the tests were conducted, or even if they had access to the same source, watermarked and unwatermarked. If someone was able to identify the watermark, they would be able to explain what exactly the watermark is and sounds like, not just say vague statements like it will "reduce the perceived quality of DVD-A to somewhere between a good MiniDisc and a below-average CD".

Also:

If a compression algorithm removes inaudible sounds, it can be argued that a watermark will be removed by such techniques - if the watermark is inaudible. If this is the case, it serves no purpose. However, if the watermark is not removed by lossy compression, it will be, by definition, audible.This is only a half-truth. There are many ways to change sound inaudibly that would survive psychoacoustic-based lossy codecs. For instance a 0.1dB fade in/out every certain time interval, or a very slight slowdown or speedup. Not to say that the watermark works like that, but it invalidates the argument that "if the watermarked is not removed by lossy compression it will be audible".

Andy o

15th July 2011, 18:17

BTW, I'm also aware of the SDMI challenge and how Ed Felten's team beat the watermarks. It was a contest though, and they were provided with both watermarked and unwatermarked versions of the same files. In their paper (find it easily by googling) they do clearly and explicitly identify the watermarks, contrary to most or all other claims of identifying the watermarks I've seen online.

rotty

15th July 2011, 19:03

with dvd-a watermarking certain listeners could here the watermark, dont think thats the case here so the corrruptted audio angle wont get you anywhere :(

The audio is supposed to be true to the original, when is passes through phase and lag it is NOT true to the original.

Besides, the audio should not be tampered with on principal.

It may well be that in most cases you dont notice it, but if you dont know how the original sounded then how could you, BUT does that make it OK.

It may even have narrow shift FSK applied to certain notes.

SamuriHL

15th July 2011, 19:08

rotty

15th July 2011, 19:19

Chancey

15th July 2011, 20:23

The simple fact is this....these manipulations of the audio stream are NOT for the consumer's benefit. It's not like they're improving the sound quality on our behalf. They're artificially manipulating the audio to embed this watermark. Whether it can be heard or not it's still defective by design.

At this point i don't think the peeps putting out movies give a rats ass about sound degradation that the average consumer wont notice. They think they are gonna gain profits but i don't think they realize that 99.9% of pirates copy movies that they wouldn't of bought in the first place. And even if they are selling the copied movies, 99.9% of the peeps there selling to wouldnt buy the original either lol. just my opinion.

SamuriHL

15th July 2011, 20:37

If you want to talk about Cinavia as a piracy prevention mechanism, then it's already failed IMO. What pirate is going to rush out and buy a Cinavia enabled player when they can play their ripped off content in VLC or some other PC based media player? Those aren't going to detect Cinavia, so, there's a pretty big back door here to exploit. That's what happens when you have an unfinished spec and keep adding to it over time. The problem is they have to maintain backwards compatibility to the beginning of the spec....which didn't include Cinavia. WOOPS. So as an anti-piracy mechanism, I think it's not so good. As was mentioned in another thread, the potential is there, but, you have to ensure that 100% of the playback mechanisms support detection and follow the rules. Without that, it's not effective.

rotty

15th July 2011, 20:39

At this point i don't think the peeps putting out movies give a rats ass about sound degradation that the average consumer wont notice. They think they are gonna gain profits but i don't think they realize that 99.9% of pirates copy movies that they wouldn't of bought in the first place. And even if they are selling the copied movies, 99.9% of the peeps there selling to wouldnt buy the original either lol. just my opinion.

Hi Chancey

It 's just that it really should be like this by now:

Every time attempts are made against our rights and or quality etc then we should resist it at our most strongest.

It should be second nature to us.

We shouldnt be hearing things like, it wont make a difference etc.

We shouldnt have to even think about resisting, it should be automatic.

They certainly do give a rats ass about their profits, I promise you.

setarip_old

15th July 2011, 22:25

rotty

15th July 2011, 22:42

I thought threads goal was to combat Cinavia.

Are you saying that removal is better than it not being there in the first place. i.e. Dropped.

setarip_old

16th July 2011, 03:04

It is already there...

Chancey

16th July 2011, 09:06

@Chancey, @rotty

Hi!

When I started this thread (and specifically mentioned several times subsequently), the purpose was stated to be postings regarding the technical advances accomplished and or explored regarding the elimination or circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

You folks are drifting O.T.

Perfect way around cinavia, ill record myself saying the lines and yall put that audio file of me reading the lines on ur blu rays. maybe ill pop balloons and stuff in the background for sound effects. lol :p

but seriously if the watermark is above or below human hearing could you not cut the high and low off without degradation of the sound? or is it audible but hidden very well? im a total nubcake i know, sorry if someone has mentioned this in the thread already but there are to many to read them all.

rotty

16th July 2011, 12:12

It is already there...

Yes hence the word Dropped as it was with watermarked audio disks.

Dont be defeatist, we are the ones with the power not them.

foxyshadis

16th July 2011, 23:08

but seriously if the watermark is above or below human hearing could you not cut the high and low off without degradation of the sound? or is it audible but hidden very well? im a total nubcake i know, sorry if someone has mentioned this in the thread already but there are to many to read them all.

The complexity of watermarking is far beyond that; here's an overview of basic audio watermarking (http://beepdf.com/doc/92591/iscgav_01.html), and newer techniques are far beyond these.

@rotty, your posts are useless in this thread. Create a new thread in general if you wish to discuss how much you hate it and what you think should happen to those who engage in it. This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

rotty

17th July 2011, 00:13

@rotty, your posts are useless in this thread. Create a new thread in general if you wish to discuss how much you hate it and what you think should happen to those who engage in it. This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

What do you mean by the comment in your post that I have hilighted.

I have NO hate for anyone, everyone has the right to do what they wish.

And where on earth do you get "what you think should happen to those who engage in it" from anything I have said.

I have no problem with you making comment on what I have said, however, implying I have said something I have not is a different matter.

I did think the thread was for all solutions both techincal and pratical. Although I agree with you, perhaps another thread would have been better.

P.S. As you have said, the watermarking is complex. It is therefore unlikely to be solved easily technicaly here, the solution I have proposed is probably the most pratical and best, i.e. not to have the watermark there in the first place.
It also sends the right message.

We get what we deserve

I will leave it there.

victorth

17th July 2011, 18:17

I've followed the links to some of the Cinavia documents and read them. They seem to provide enough information
for someone to do their own watermarking. So I was wondering if anyone has thought about
superimposing a second bogus watermark on top of a Cinavia-watermarked audio stream, one that just
happens to interfere with the Cinavia watermark?

Assuming that the above is possible, the next step would be to remove the bogus watermark and see if its
removal would still leave the Cinavia watermark disrupted.

Chancey

17th July 2011, 18:34

The complexity of watermarking is far beyond that; here's an overview of basic audio watermarking (http://beepdf.com/doc/92591/iscgav_01.html), and newer techniques are far beyond these.

@rotty, your posts are useless in this thread. Create a new thread in general if you wish to discuss how much you hate it and what you think should happen to those who engage in it. This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

ya that stuff is way beyond me lol thanks for the link.

olyteddy

23rd July 2011, 21:14

This guy (John M. Strawn, Ph.D.) has a pretty impressive resume for a 'consultant'...I wonder if he's for hire?
From: 2004 Client: Verance
To: 2005 Location: San Diego, CA
Duties:
Working closely with Verance R&D staff, implement the Verance Content Management System/Audio-Visual (VCMS/AV) watermarking technology for motion picture sound (now known as Cinavia) in Motorola 56300 assembler in the TC Electronics M6000 environment. In use in major film studios starting early 2005. Travel at client's request to TC Electronics headquarters in Denmark to facilitate integration. Provide and supervise a subcontractor to assist with filter design, filter implementation, and other tasks. More than 30,000+ lines of 56K assembler source, several hundred pages of documentation, a dozen CD-ROMs of debugging data and lab notebooks.

Ghitulescu

25th July 2011, 08:22

This guy (John M. Strawn, Ph.D.) has a pretty impressive resume for a 'consultant'...I wonder if he's for hire?

To do what exactly?
I assume you know that these guys generally signed an NDA with effects even (and especially) after they've left the position.

And please, do not confound the detection (which is simple) with removal. Cinavia algorithms are public, Detection is known (should be), removal is difficult - I dare to remind that the watermarking of DVD-audio has not yet been "solved".

[SLiM]D12

30th July 2011, 22:12

those with JB PS3's will be able to remove cinavia in not too long...

http://psx-scene.com/forums/content/disable-cinavia-drm-proection-task-ps3mfw-builder-1266/

mike20021969

31st July 2011, 13:13

D12;1516773']those with JB PS3's will be able to remove cinavia in not too long...
I think you mean bypass (cinavia detection).

derbeDeus

1st August 2011, 09:04

...or remove detection routine. It is correct to say remove Cinavia from PS3.

xkodi

1st August 2011, 09:16

D12;1516773']those with JB PS3's will be able to remove cinavia in not too long...

http://psx-scene.com/forums/content/disable-cinavia-drm-proection-task-ps3mfw-builder-1266/

that's actually already has happened some time ago:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1511538#post1511538

discorob3

8th August 2011, 00:47

we're only one disgruntled employee away from figuring out Cinavia....chill

this says it all...

Ghitulescu

8th August 2011, 08:23

...or remove detection routine. It is correct to say remove Cinavia from PS3.
this says it all...
To repeat myself.
To do what exactly?
I assume you know that these guys generally signed an NDA with effects even (and especially) after they've left the position.

And please, do not confound the detection (which is simple) with removal. Cinavia algorithms are public, Detection is known (should be), removal is difficult - I dare to remind that the watermarking of DVD-audio has not yet been "solved".

hello_hello

8th August 2011, 11:00

I wonder which definition of "disgruntled" would be used by a disgruntled ex employee still willing to adhere to a NDA?

Ghitulescu

8th August 2011, 12:36

The NDA is signed before getting the position and its effects extend for a number of years after one quit his/her job. NDA is part of the agreement - no NDA, no job.

hello_hello

8th August 2011, 14:37

rotty

8th August 2011, 23:16

I understand what a NDA is. Maybe you misunderstood the question?
I wondered which definition of "disgruntled" would be used by an ex employee who's still willing to adhere to a NDA despite being disgruntled?

Your missing the most important point.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1513316#post1513316

hello_hello

9th August 2011, 20:22

Your missing the most important point.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1513316#post1513316

I did read it, and it's a valid point. However it doesn't explain the lack of logic used when stating a disgruntled ex-employee would only confine their degree of disgruntlement to within the boundaries of a NDA.

Guest

9th August 2011, 21:25

Discussion of NDAs and disgruntled employees is OT for this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

derbeDeus

10th August 2011, 07:42

To repeat myself.

You were referring to removing the watermark from the disc, I was referring to removing the detection routine from the device, which is much easier in the case of PS3.

Ghitulescu

10th August 2011, 08:04

You were referring to removing the watermark from the disc, I was referring to removing the detection routine from the device, which is much easier in the case of PS3.
Indeed, that's the second best option. Keep in mind however, that PS3 is a game console, and Sony can always bring new games, which would require a FW upgrade, which FW would in turn silently (this is a licensing requirement) slip the detection routine back. GAME OVER! PLAY AGAIN?
For a regular BD-player (or mediaplayer) the things are different, one can resist upgrading, and (unless they put the updating routines and the loaders on the disc itself - which is highly improbable) still be able to see the latest discs. If not, then anydvd/dvdfab will earn an honest piece of bread.

rotty

16th August 2011, 20:48

Well it’s a year now since I said watch the time line and not all the rhetoric.

We are still in the same position one year on as I suspected we would be with Cinavia.

SamuriHL

16th August 2011, 20:50

rotty

16th August 2011, 20:59

I don't know about that. It was heavily predicted, by myself as well, that Cinavia would be MUCH bigger than it is right now. We've got only a handful of players that support it...the biggest one being a game machine that's being hacked to remove the detection. The number of discs this protection is seen on isn't monumentally huge, either. That all being said, I guess you're right. Nothing really has changed both in terms of the number of players that support Cinavia detection and the players that we all use that don't. :D

I didnt mean that only I thought or said it, just a statement.

Trouble is all those players that dont can be enabled as you know.

One of my players is a Panny BD35 that wont be able to support it but that wont last forever, and besides, I dont want this crap on my audio.

There is a slow but growing number of titles with this audio spoiling.

Nothing has changed with regard to resolving this either.

And I do think that your prediction is right, its just happening a bit slower thats all.

SamuriHL

16th August 2011, 21:03

I didnt mean that only I thought or said it, just a statement.
Trouble is all those players that dont can be enabled as you know.

There is a slow but growing number of titles with this audio spoiling.

Nothing has changed with regard to resolving this either.

Not the ones I use. :D In any case yes, I understand the point. Quite frankly though, I think that Cinavia removal isn't a high priority for companies like SlySoft and others who may have the talent to actually remove it. Yea, it's on a bunch of discs. Yes, a couple players detect it. But, compared to a protection like BD+ that affects 100% of their customers, Cinavia affects a small minority. And the effort to remove it is pretty large in comparison. What I'm saying is that I don't believe there's a huge incentive at the moment for these companies to bother. As we said last year, that may change. So far, it hasn't.

rotty

16th August 2011, 21:13

Not the ones I use. :D In any case yes, I understand the point. Quite frankly though, I think that Cinavia removal isn't a high priority for companies like SlySoft and others who may have the talent to actually remove it. Yea, it's on a bunch of discs. Yes, a couple players detect it. But, compared to a protection like BD+ that affects 100% of their customers, Cinavia affects a small minority. And the effort to remove it is pretty large in comparison. What I'm saying is that I don't believe there's a huge incentive at the moment for these companies to bother. As we said last year, that may change. So far, it hasn't.

Each time BD+ is destroyed by Slysoft, those disks are no problem. And backups made are fine.

Cinavia has NEVER been removed, not once, ever.

You have more faith than me in the powers on this one but I hope your right.

Id say, let the time line run another year and I predict we will be where we are now except a lot more titles with the pollution and still no resolve. By resolve I do mean removal of this crap.

P.S. I edited the post before this one just to add some stuff.

SamuriHL

16th August 2011, 21:20

You're correct that Cinavia has NOT been removed. I simply suggested a logical reason as to why. It's a minor nuisance but not a huge problem....right now. And has been that way for a year now. Yes, more titles are supporting it, but, not a HUGE amount. So far no players have been added to the list in months. Again, as you've pointed out, all this can change in an instant. It simply hasn't for whatever reason. Speculation on the reason goes from trojan horsing the players and flipping a master switch once they've reached critical mass to them having issues with false detection. Who knows? But look at it from a company like SlySoft's perspective....would you waste an enormous effort on defeating a protection that's affecting such a low minority of their customer base? Especially when you have other important things to work on like CloneBD and SlyPlayer? I'm just giving SlySoft as an example since I clearly use their products. I suspect the same could be said of MakeMKV and DVDFab...why put a huge effort into removing a protection that doesn't (yet) affect a lot of people?

rotty

16th August 2011, 22:33

SamuriHL

16th August 2011, 22:35

Just one last point, although it is a low number of titles at present, its still very bad news if it happens to be a title you want.

The caveat to that being that you have a player that cares. So yes, a combination of a disc you want and a player that detects it is indeed bad. "Dr, it hurts when I take a sledge hammer to my face." "Don't do that." ;)

rotty

17th August 2011, 10:10

The caveat to that being that you have a player that cares. So yes, a combination of a disc you want and a player that detects it is indeed bad. "Dr, it hurts when I take a sledge hammer to my face." "Don't do that." ;)

Its not just the detection of Cinavia, its the corruption of HD audio that is wrong.

If a player detects it or not its still there.

Ghitulescu

18th August 2011, 14:35

Its not just the detection of Cinavia, its the corruption of HD audio that is wrong.

No, wrong is the whole copyright issue. They should have not been allowed to implement persistent copy protection mechanisms when the copyright is ephemere (it lasts 95 years, but it will end one day). Once this was them granted, they could do anything they want.

rotty

18th August 2011, 16:10

No, wrong is the whole copyright issue. They should have not been allowed to implement persistent copy protection mechanisms when the copyright is ephemere (it lasts 95 years, but it will end one day). Once this was them granted, they could do anything they want.

A good point, the copyright is NOT infinate but is finite.

Ive noticed word is getting about re this violation of good audio, so that is good news.

derbeDeus

24th August 2011, 08:52

AACS Announces Schedule for the Inclusion of Cinavia in Blu-ray Disc Players (http://www.verance.com/AdminSavR/news/news_item.php?news_id=66)

k-c-ksum

24th August 2011, 21:29

can anybody actually here the infected watermark. If you wanted to try then checkout the Dutch release of Resident Evil Afterlife. Its cinavia free. Compare it to the the US release which is not.

rotty

24th August 2011, 22:54

AACS Announces Schedule for the Inclusion of Cinavia in Blu-ray Disc Players (http://www.verance.com/AdminSavR/news/news_item.php?news_id=66)

I hope nobody actually thought that studios would be paying a good deal of money to have Cinavia on their disks if players would not be enabled.

We are ALL whistle blowers re this audio abomination. I dont want this crap on my HD audio.

I have avoided any disk with it on. If we ALL did that, as we did with watermarked CD's, what do you think would happen. Same as it did for them, RIP.

KEEP WHISTLE BLOWING Twitter, Facebook, you name it, just do it. And make sure that you alert them to the devils Lilac logo.

Ghitulescu

25th August 2011, 06:18

rotty

25th August 2011, 09:40

Gosh, it's the studios those that insisted on having cinavia on-board.
Protected CD-DAs were never standard, and Philips retired their CD-DA logo. Now they learned from this lesson, so audio-impaired videos are standard, with a grace limit, to ensure "the public embarqued" = no turn back.

Now come on Ghitulescu, are you seriously saying that if people didnt buy these disks they wouldnt change their minds.

They dont care about you, they dont care about me, they dont care about any of us or our rights,

BUT

They DO care about Money Money Money, it is the ONLY god to them.

Ghitulescu

25th August 2011, 10:07

Now come on Ghitulescu, are you seriously saying that if people didnt buy these disks they wouldnt change their minds.

They dont care about you, they dont care about me, they dont care about any of us or our rights,

BUT

They DO care about Money Money Money, it is the ONLY god to them.

That's the power of a monopol. Where are you gonna get those movies instead? From the [equal] heavily protected PayTV (cinavia is not a DVB/ATSC standard, but the studios won't let this happen, do they?)?

rotty

25th August 2011, 10:41

That's the power of a monopol. Where are you gonna get those movies instead? From the [equal] heavily protected PayTV (cinavia is not a DVB/ATSC standard, but the studios won't let this happen, do they?)?

I wont buy even if its a disk I would like. It wont take long if we do that for the impact on sales.

In fact it would be very fast.

We wont die if we dont buy into this crap and it sure affects them a damm site more than us.

Its only a movie to each of us, its millions of dollars to them, and as I said it will have effect fast.

Andy o

25th August 2011, 11:22

rotty

25th August 2011, 11:33

Let's have some perspective here. Blu-ray for all its crap protection, still remains the least consumer unfriendly (in terms of ability to be copied), AND inarguably best quality of the modern distribution channels (compared to, say, anything streaming or cable/satellite).

Also, CDs never had watermarks (in any significant scale, although I've never seen a watermarked CD either). The trouble with protected "CD"s was far more nefarious, and they got awesomely bad PR after the Russinovich "event". Watermarks wasn't at all the reason they stopped by and large selling those copy-protected "CD"s.

I don’t see the connection.

If we don’t buy something because, in this case Cinavia, it will have an effect regardless of what happened to any other media.

If Ford brought out a car colour that was unlinked and didn’t sell and they were being told that the reason it didn’t sell was the colour, they would drop the colour.

Sales are ALL.

Andy o

25th August 2011, 12:26

The connection is that if you're not consuming blu-ray because of Cinavia, you have more reason not to buy cable or Netflix or any other service, including those which sell downloads (not just VOD), cause they suck more regarding copy protection. Hence, my "perspective" comment. Or are you planning on just stopping video consumption, at least legally, or limiting yourself to OTA HDTV?

rotty

25th August 2011, 12:39

The connection is that if you're not buying blu-ray because of Cinavia, you have more reason not to buy cable or Netflix or any other VOD service cause they suck more regarding copy protection. Hence, my "perspective" comment. Or are you planning on just stopping video consumption, at least legally, or limiting yourself to OTA HDTV?

Hi Andy,

I think you are seeing my comments in extremes.

My point is that if we don’t buy the corrupted BD disks NOW, its wont take long for that to transfer into poor sales figures for Cinavia disks.

(Don't forget, Cinavia is affecting DVD as well)

When that happens we give them a massive dilemma, it will be costing them dearly.

I don’t see this lasting long if that happens but, I think we should stick with it for as long as it takes.

I think that if we all did this you would be surprised how fast the effect would be.

As for HDTV feeds, they are not what they should be in most cases anyway as im sure you know, but that’s another argument.

P.S. Ive heard comments from people I know about Cinavia that I wouldnt even expected to know about such things, so word must be getting about somehow.

Andy o

25th August 2011, 14:50

rotty

25th August 2011, 16:00

I'm on board with not buying, but that's because I don't buy movies generally and blu-ray is still too expensive (I mostly rent). I have the impression (not from anyone in particular, but from looking around the net) that Cinavia is annoying more people downloading illegally and playing through PS3 though, than legit users backing up their content. Regardless of the legality, people who download illegally aren't buying stuff anyway, so they can be counted out. Which leaves only the very small number of people that have the know-how to backup their content, and are not using an HTPC to view it.

For me its not just the fact that you SHOULD be able to backup your bought media, its more than that.

Its the corruption of so called perfect audio.

Cinavia, and any watermarking placing info on the audio will effectively introduce modulation to the audio. This is true even if the info added to the analogue audio is digital in nature.

It is pure and simply WRONG on every level. Its above all wrong in principle.

Disk sales are a massive income for the studios.

UK Law is supposed to change, enabling you to legally backup you own media. I don’t know how true this is but if it is, it will be interesting, case against Cinavia. It may all be rubbish of course.

I think that’s the lot. Anything else will be going round in circles.

laserfan

25th August 2011, 16:21

Anything else will be going round in circles.D'ya think? After 55 pages I'm kinda dizzy/nauseated myself, to be sure. ;)

Watermarking might be wrong, but unless you can actually hear the audio corruption I don't think there's any way consumers are going to stop this (there just aren't enough of you rotty).

Back on-topic, I plan to keep a couple of very high-quality BD players in tip-top shape that will never "see" (hear?) the Cinavia protection, so I will always have a way to play my backups. Provided I even HAVE any Cinavia discs that I'll have to re-do (usually for subtitle or annoyance purposes) as at least to-date there aren't any that warrant this treatment (none I'd want to buy yet).

k-c-ksum

25th August 2011, 16:21

rotty

25th August 2011, 17:25

as i see it the only people its going to royally piss off is the piraters, those selling dozens of discs only to be returned by disgruntled purchasers. The end result is the piraters business dries up.

Now that I like. But I suppose, while I wouldnt buy a pirate disk, it did give the legit outlets competition and so probably in a sort of perverse way do us a favour on price of legit disks.

Have you seen that dreadfull film Battle Los Angeles, a mate has it, well listen to the radio broadcasts in the vehicles and the TV sound when they are watching the news items.

setarip_old

25th August 2011, 17:54

@laserfan

Hi! Provided I even HAVE any Cinavia discs that I'll have to re-do (usually for subtitle or annoyance purposes)

Please clarify - Are you saying that "Cinavia"/Verance protection affects subtitles? And affects subtitles even when using a standalone player that doesn't acknowledge "Cinavia"/Verance protection?

Andy o

25th August 2011, 18:37

It doesn't affect subtitles at all. You misunderstand whatever he was trying to say (I think he just likes to change subs manually sometimes).

setarip_old

25th August 2011, 18:44

@Andy o It doesn't affect subtitles at all.

Thanks for your input that restates our long time understanding here regarding what "Cinavia"/Verance does and doesn't affect.

And that's precisely why, however, I'm still curious to hear further clarification from "laserfan"...

laserfan

25th August 2011, 19:55

The only reason I backup BDs is to change their subtitles to make them readable on-screen, or because I can't abide by the adverts and trailers and warnings I have to wade-thru to get to the feature. No other really good reasons to bother with it IMO unless you have small, uncontrolled monsters with access to your precious discs. I do not.

setarip_old

25th August 2011, 21:39

@laserfan

Thanks for clarifying. (And yes, I do have to resort to backups, as it seems this generation of grandkids were born with permanently greasy hands and perpetual cases of "dropsy" ;>})

SamuriHL

25th August 2011, 23:31

The so called audio corruption angle is fine and all. It's ok if you agree on principle that they shouldn't be messing with the audio. I agree with that. HOWEVER, I would love to see a double blind test from an identical audio source with and without Cinavia and find anyone who can tell the difference. At all. I'm quite sure the number that could would be *EXTREMELY* small in the *BEST* conditions...i.e. extremely high end equipment in a lab. I see this audio corruption thing beat to death. I get it on principle, but, if you somehow think it's affecting your ability to enjoy a movie in reality, well, I find that highly suspect to be honest. Cinavia is annoying, it does mess with the audio for sure, but, I am doubtful that anyone is going to "hear Cinavia" in any meaningful way. I just want that to be clarified and understood. The objection is PURELY on principle rather than some real world "OMG they corrupted my audio and it sounds SO AWEFUL" level.

Ghitulescu

26th August 2011, 07:53

There are people still having DVD-Audios. These are watermarked as well. And as well, the encryption was broken, but not the "dewatermarking". DVD-Audio never left the blockstarts, mainly because of the SACD and CD competitors.
Blu-ray rapidly got rid of its main competitor. There is no [viable] alternative to HD content.
I don't think that any art collector objected to the artists' signature on the canvas, which signature however did not prevent the masterpiece to be copied (on a colour copymachine). Well, most color copymachines have a money detector subroutine though.
And boycotting the sales is a step and a measure. It's not the best one and it doesn't suffice.
I explained long time ago what the copyright is. I'll repeat here the essential: The copy right is a monopole granted to the artist by the state, in order to help him getting enough money to continue his/her creative work. Soon, this privilege has been accaparated by a new layer (the distributors). So, they don't create, just distribute, they don't die in poverty, rather they get the invested money within weeks. Yet they managed to extend their rights to 95 years. So, the state (us, the people) let them do this to us, the people. That's why I said to petition your local representative to protect your interest. There are countries where an intermediate layer (of a different nature though) could only be overthroned by a revolution, so powerful became these intermediars.

curtis_mccauley

26th August 2011, 19:12

I have just plowed through this thread. 55 pages. Not much left that I can contribute except the following link to one of the patents for Cinavia protection:

See here (http://www.google.com/patents/about/7369677_System_reactions_to_the_detectio.html?id=7c-pAAAAEBAJ).

rotty

27th August 2011, 00:38

I have just plowed through this thread. 55 pages. Not much left that I can contribute except the following:

1. A link to one of the patents for Cinavia protection. See here (http://www.google.com/patents/about/7369677_System_reactions_to_the_detectio.html?id=7c-pAAAAEBAJ).

2. At the end of the day, Cinavia will live or die based on consumer response. We can rip CDs and play them nearly anywhere only because consumers would not buy CDs that they cannot rip to their player of choice. Last time I looked, ripping CDs was "fair use" in the U.S. and a lot of other places.

As for me, I like to own the stuff I buy. So, no purchases of Blu-Ray Discs or DVDs for me if they try to take away my right of "fair use."

I think that what Ghitulescu says is interesting and right but does underestimate the end user.

Also, the point he makes re the fact that Copyright is not really protecting the maker but the outletters which I agree was not the Copyright intention as I undertand it.

What he also says re sustaining could also be right, BUT
if we do, then as you say, "consumer response" for ALL reasons, is the only real force.

We of course live in a capitalist system, and in such a system, us, the consumer, does not just have power, we have the ONLY power that really exists.

We have become, quite rightly as you say, used to being able to copy, and play, on any system, our bought cd media.

This is our hard earned bought media, and so of course we should be able to.

If we are not pirating, or doing ANYTHING that would in any way be frowned upon, then we should be able to do the above to our bought media.

I would agree that when Cinavia is inserted in distored sound that is part of some movies then it is hard to hear and really does not matter as far as our perceived quality.

Lets put it this way, there are some movies that it would be hard to include this without audiofiles having a go.

I dont have any answers, and the great thing about forums like this is that listening (should say reading) moulds our views.
Ive found my views changing. We should never be bloody minded.

setarip_old

27th August 2011, 02:27

You folks are really drifting Off Topic (Technical aspects possible removal of "Cinavia"/Verance)...

Ghitulescu

27th August 2011, 08:45

While I agree there's your topic, and thus you must know more than anyone else what you intended this topic for, nothing, neither in the title, nor in its first post, suggests that only technical aspects may be here discussed. ;)
In the end it's all about on how can we get rid of it, technically, economically or legally. I gave my opinion on all three aspects.

setarip_old

28th August 2011, 01:00

@Ghitulescu

My last post was not addressed specifically to you, so I can only surmise that you have replied due to some sense of responsibility.

You very selectively say:nothing, neither in the title, nor in its first post, suggests that only technical aspects may be here discussed. - as if your ongoing active participation in this thread, up to and including today, doesn't exist.

1) Surely you remember and understand the following moderators' admonitions and warningsin this thread :
Moderator posts:

#191 This thread is for discussion of Cinavia, not general discussions of copyright and DRM.

#447 Guys, please stay on topic.

#1039 This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

#1056 Discussion of NDAs and disgruntled employees is OT for this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

#1012 Ghit and hello_hello, knock off the ad hominems or strikes can follow. Thank you.

2) Additionally, several times, on a member-to-member basis, I (and others) have politely requested that you and others should start a separate thread regarding your concerns about non-technical things Cinavia-related or otherwise - such as copyrights, nondisclosure agreements etc.:

My Post #440 (Plus reference to Post #1) I started this thread for the purpose of discussing the technical aspects of "Cinavia" and overcoming it, and not the possible legal ramifications, when I said:

"It will be interesting to see what others may discover when they test their backups of the legitimate commercial BluRay on more current equipment.

Therefore, I'd appreciate it if we could stay on topic in this thread - and perhaps start a separate thread regarding speculated upon legalities..."

My Post #463 @Ghitulescu

"Coming back to the OT..."

Yet again, please DO come back to my original topic (See Post #1 of this thread) - Overcoming CINAVIA

My Post #919 Certainly, your stated opinion that:

"Besides, the American movies considered here to be Blockbuster are generally made for an audience having a mental age of at most 15 years and lack scenarios (they copy European movies) - thus the decision is even easier to make. Other than special effects there's little else ..."

is not in any way relevant to the topic of this thread - and additionally, may be considered by some to be inflammatory...

Please be good enough to heed the post by moderator "foxyshadis": #1039 This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

Thank you...

rotty

28th August 2011, 16:46

You folks are really drifting Off Topic (Technical aspects possible removal of "Cinavia"/Verance)...

Hi Setarip

Im probably the most guilty. Its just that I suppose we have sort of exhausted an amatuer technical solution.

Lets take movie only as our requirement with say DTS MA as our audio.

We sort of know the mechanics of the watermark. We know the solution is to detect and change the analogue.

This could turn out to be very destructive to the audio.

We know that IF we were sucsessful in that part, and we want to keep HD audio, then the only re encode option to us is to package the extracted 6 or 8 wav files to LCPM.

This would of course create a massive audio part to the complete stream compared to the original DTS MA stream.

This would mean compressing the video to a much higher level than would have been needed with say DTS MA.

I think that if you limit solutions to technical only then there will be few or no further posts, well with exception of repeats of so called solutions already discussed.

Trying to alter firmware in players is really not the soulution and has no lifespan.

setarip_old

28th August 2011, 17:36

@rotty

Hi!

Thank you for your thoughtful post/response. I think that if you limit solutions to technical only then there will be few or no further posts, well with exception of repeats of so called solutions already discussed. Then so be it. There's nothing unusual about a thread regarding a specific topic either coming to an end, or becoming dormant until NEW specifically pertinent information arises.

Once again, any of us, myself included, should feel free to start a separate thread or threads regarding copyrights, purchasers' rights or anything else that doesn't specifically have to do with technical ways of possibly overcoming "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

rotty

28th August 2011, 23:19

@rotty

Hi!

Thank you for your thoughtful post/response. Then so be it. There's nothing unusual about a thread regarding a specific topic either coming to an end, or becoming dormant until NEW specifically pertinent information arises.

Once again, any of us, myself included, should feel free to start a separate thread or threads regarding copyrights, purchasers' rights or anything else that doesn't specifically have to do with technical ways of possibly overcoming "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

Hi Setarip

Very true.

I suspect, like me, you are interested to see if the comercial players in this field come up with a technical soloution.
Its been very quiet on that front, but there is of course large incentive on their part to solve this, because, if Cinavia is rolled out in force, then it sort of makes their backup products less attractive to comsumers.

Ghitulescu

2nd September 2011, 13:37

rotty

2nd September 2011, 19:27

There will no be any technical solution to this.

The only workaround is to avoid the detection routine in the FW of the affected players.

The more-or-less-similar watermarking method of DVD-Audio is to day not cracked. Would it be someone kind enough to count the pending years? :) :)
:)
:)
Because this will be only solution to watermarking, the interesents have already devised a non-circumventing scheme, ie embedding this into the chips. The one-chip solution, ie no external routing/hackable signals, has already been envisaged, IIRC, in 1998. That would be probably the end of piracy.
Well, I rest my case :)

You may well be correct.

Slysoft's Peer made a statement some time back, saying that they intend to remove this stink.

Well havnt heard anything since then.

I may be possible to, if not remove it, disrupt it.

I would agree with you, that removal is very very difficult and even if we could, may leave us with an even worse effect to our audio.

DVD Video and BD is of course a massive market compared to the doomed DVD Audio, so is worth the effort.

Its interesting that all this comes with the UK news re copyright and right to backup. Dont know how that affects Cinavia.

Out of interest, have you avoided corrupted disks or have you purchased any.

setarip_old

2nd September 2011, 20:52

@rotty Its interesting that all this comes with the UK news re copyright and right to backup. Dont know how that affects Cinavia.As you know, "Cinavia"/Verance protection in no way interferes with your ability to MAKE a backup copy - In its present incarnation, it "only" interferes with proper playback of the copy. So it would be my speculation that the UK situation will have no effect on further implementation of "Cinavia"/Verance protection...

rotty

2nd September 2011, 20:56

@rotty As you know, "Cinavia"/Verance protection in no way interferes with your ability to MAKE a backup copy - In its present incarnation, it "only" interferes with proper playback of the copy...

I don’t believe you posted that.

What use is a backup that you cant play.

If that’s not interfering with your right to back up then I don’t know what is.

setarip_old

3rd September 2011, 01:08

@rotty

That's the way the "game" has always been played.

But let's stay on topic ;>}

Ghitulescu

3rd September 2011, 06:27

To summarise:
-it is possible to remove, in theory, the cinavia signalling on audio, by reversing the algorithms, which were published. The problem is how to identify the correct one (there are seven procedures, and of course, their combinations). And the reason why is not "possible" is also expalined in an older post of mine, it will severe damage the audio.
-the second option is to nvalidate/skip the detetction routins. I think this was done with PS3, but the battle was not yet won, again for reasons I explained in a former post.
-the most efficint method is to stop cinavai from being implemented. Quite hard now, as it's already mandatory in all BD domain.

Slightly off-topic clarifications: - as mentioned in one of my threads, the law in UK changed absolutely nothing (it brought UK to the level where Germany is, and this is still illegal).
- the requirements of the law that the end user should be able to use the movie s/he had legally bought were simply avoided by implementing the "Digital Copy" mockery. That definitivelly killed any your-own private copy right, since you have the official one. Since in the eyes of the law, there's no difference between an MP3 and a WAV/CD, or between a movie recorded with the cellphone in cinema and the master/BD/DVD issue of the same, it plays no role what type thereof is that digital copy.

laserfan

3rd September 2011, 13:17

I rest my case
You are done. You can't post any more. Give it up. Please.:scared:

Sharktooth

7th September 2011, 20:13

-the most efficint method is to stop cinavai from being implemented. Quite hard now, as it's already mandatory in all BD domain.

No, it's easy, don't buy blurays. You should have never done that anyways...

HWK

8th September 2011, 01:15

No, it's easy, don't buy blurays. You should have never done that anyways...

Watermark is also included in DVD version. I will say don't buy players capable of detecting it.

rotty

8th September 2011, 18:40

Watermark is also included in DVD version. I will say don't buy players capable of detecting it.

Dont buy anything to do with Cinavia.

dror.sharon5

13th September 2011, 16:47

I'm far from an expert, so maybe my idea is so stupid I'll get laughed at, but here we go:
Why not edit the audio?
If the watermark is simply an inaudiable sound, that means it's simply a sound in a different freaquency. So why not just edit the audio in an audio editing program and remove any audio signle which is out side human hearing range?
I read somewhere that the watermark is compared to see that the movie is on it's original disc. If the watermark can't be found the movie should continue playing as usual, should it not?
Obviously such audio editing tools which will leave the audio intact are probably professional, heavy and cost A LOT of money, but still...

Ghitulescu

13th September 2011, 17:37

dror.sharon5

13th September 2011, 19:28

You should read the whole thread, unfortunately, because the answer to your ideas has already been given.

It's 56 pages, so... You know... THAT's not gonna happen...
Can I get the quick version?

SamuriHL

13th September 2011, 21:05

It's 56 pages, so... You know... THAT's not gonna happen...
Can I get the quick version?

You really want the quick version? Ok, if you insist. If you really thought you could just open up a compressed audio stream, strip out the signal, and save it, well, I don't know what to say. You honestly didn't think they'd have thought about that and perhaps made Cinavia slightly more "robust"? :) In short, what you propose is impossible. It's not some signal that they look for in the inaudible section of the audio. It's a transformation that's combined with the actual audio and is embedded like a tick. Removing it without knowing exactly what you're doing would destroy the audio. Plus it can't be done on the compressed track, so, you'd have to decode the DTS-HD/TrueHD/whatever audio track to LPCM before you even attempt it. Then you have to know exactly what you're looking for in order to reverse the transformation. And this is all just in theory. No one's even found out how they detect the signal yet, much less how to remove it. To complicate things, you're not just looking for one signal. Cinavia is extremely complicated and robust. It survives every kind of re-encoding imaginable. And there are several different types of signals that they can embed to instruct the player to do different things. In short, not a chance is it as simple as opening it up in an audio editor and removing all the inaudible "noise". LOL. This and many other seemingly "logical" ideas have been discussed to death. Every few months some ingenious type comes in and posts it as though no one's ever thought of it before. It's amusing, but, is definitely not going to lead to a solution. Far more has been discussed on this subject so if you do read through the thread you'll find a whole host of ideas that were thought of that don't work. Cinavia's not going anywhere any time soon. It's going to take a real reverse engineering effort from a company that's well funded and motivated before this thing dies. For now, concentrate on the detection part of the equation. A player that doesn't detect it = a player that can play Cinavia infected backups. That's about the only real solution we have right now. DVDFab can make backups that contain AACS encryption to fool Cinavia into believing they're a trusted source, so, the backup will play on a PS3. I don't personally consider this a good solution considering that your backups are A> protected, and B> still contain Cinavia meaning they could in theory look for a signal for "message 3" on a recordable media and flag that as untrusted. Boom, all those expensive backups are useless. This hasn't happened yet, but, it could. It just requires an update to the detection code in the player.

Anyway, I hope that answers your question. Many a person has brought up the obvious "easy" solutions before and none of them will ever amount to anything more than humorous fodder for discussion. Sorry.

Andy o

13th September 2011, 21:14

I thought the quick answer of "will it work?" would have been "nope".

SamuriHL

13th September 2011, 21:18

LOL. I was trying to head off the inevitable "but why?" response. :)

@seta, maybe it would be good to update the first post with links to the discussions in this thread for the "common creative solutions". I did something similar on SlySoft. It might cut down on these types of questions. I don't blame dror.sharon5 for not wanting to read through 56 pages just to find out where the idea has been discussed before. Just something to consider.

k-c-ksum

14th September 2011, 21:08

Eza17

16th September 2011, 16:21

avoided cinavia discs to date. Is still the case that only the English audio track is infected.? Has anyone tried cutting the audio track into pieces of the english track and a foreign track so you have 1 track made up from both. you could have 5mins of the english track with a few mins of the foreign track then back to the english track until you have enough audio to test. Doesnt have to be perfect editing. Would be intersting to know if the clean audio segments is enough to stop cinavia warnings poping up.

Please see my earlier post #405. Cinavia is reliably detected within 4 seconds of audio so you can't simply remove it by changing parts. Remember the 20ish minute 'grace' period is arbitrary, cinavia could easily just kick in after a few seconds if they wanted it to.

SamuriHL

16th September 2011, 16:23

Please see my earlier post #405. Cinavia is reliably detected within 4 seconds of audio so you can't simply remove it by changing parts. Remember the 20ish minute 'grace' period is arbitrary, cinavia could easily just kick in after a few seconds if they wanted it to.

And don't forget, depending on the TYPE of Cinavia signal embedded, they do. Message 1 is darn near instantaneous from the reports I've seen. (Never seen that one personally). So yes, detection is very fast and they only do a few seconds to eliminate false positives.

skwlsout

19th September 2011, 11:36

Surefire cure for Cinavia,

http://www.skcneedle.com/uploadfiles/3.jpg

One in each ear, and then you can strip ALL the audio, cinavia included, then you enjoy all your media unencumbered by blasted watermarks.

k-c-ksum

20th September 2011, 21:55

Please see my earlier post #405. Cinavia is reliably detected within 4 seconds of audio so you can't simply remove it by changing parts. Remember the 20ish minute 'grace' period is arbitrary, cinavia could easily just kick in after a few seconds if they wanted it to.

they cant have it kick in after 4 seconds though even if they wanted to (well not on bluray backsups from a genuine source) :) thats why i suggested having an infected track segmented with clean audio

Ghitulescu

21st September 2011, 08:35

they cant have it kick in after 4 seconds though even if they wanted to (well not on bluray backsups from a genuine source) :) thats why i suggested having an infected track segmented with clean audio

Oh yes, technically, as someone before me said, cinavia is detected within split seconds. This is well documented, of course for someone caring to read the thread.

Why those 20 seconds?
If the movie starts, after the studio logos passed, hoopla! cinavia, now, that is FRUSTRATING.

Guest

21st September 2011, 19:13

@all

This thread is for discussion of Cinavia protection. OT posts have been removed. Please stay on topic to avoid strikes. Thank you.

wastemoney2hd

1st October 2011, 10:55

rotty

1st October 2011, 11:58

Hello all,

For my understanding :

1. When cinavia survives a recompression it is in the raw digital audio signal, there is no chance that it is in the compression itself. timeinfo, framecount...
2. If you want a mark (additional bits on some raw audio stream data) that does not have hearable effect, what are the options :
- make it not recognised by the digital to analog conversion
- insert it it a way that you do not hear it
are there other options ?
3. It is working on one (mono) raw stream, and does not use differences between multichannel audio

wastemoney2hd

As far as I know, and I have not tried this, but I have read on threads that Cinavia survives microphone recording and therefore would NOT be at the digital level but at the analogue level.

Cinavia is hearable, but not necessarily noticeable to most, it modifies existing audio, but is of course an unwanted pollution of, and makes a joke of, so called HD Audio.

And no, it doesn’t use differential subtraction so it still works on mono track.

wastemoney2hd

1st October 2011, 15:13

hello rotty,

regarding :
As far as I know, and I have not tried this, but I have read on threads that Cinavia survives microphone recording and therefore would NOT be at the digital level but at the analogue level.

-> Did somebody verify this ???

regarding:
Cinavia is hearable, but not necessarily noticeable to most, it modifies existing audio, but is of course an unwanted pollution of, and makes a joke of, so called HD Audio.

-> 100% true. Somewhere in this thread there was a statement, that changing the pitch of the (analog??) signal for more than +/- 14% will make the watermark indetectable.
At least it has to survive 24p or NTSC to PAL conversations to work as intended.

And no, it doesn’t use differential subtraction so it still works on mono track. -> I did not see this info here. Did I miss it ?

Hopefully cinavia will NOT issue additional problems, as BD Format has enaugh problems to play ORIGINAL disks, mastering issues, manufacturing problems, player / firmware related and so on...

I have had more issues to play original BD Disks in 18 month compared to DVD in nearly 20 years. Most of the problems I could solve by firmware update, but finding a firmware that solves your problem and does not break the playability of other disk that worked before, is not acceptable.

wastemoney2hd

rotty

1st October 2011, 17:04

Hi wastemoney2hd

The fact that it was reproduced from mic recording was for Cinema priacy prevention.

As I said, I have not confirmed this and therefore can only pass on what I have read.

As for mono track, Peer at Slysoft had reported this about a year ago.

As for hearing the markings, therre are many many ways that the watermark is added, narrow frequency modulation as you have stated can be used, however, humans are very sensitive to pitch change like this, there are 12 semitones in an octave, 14% is over 1.5 semitones and sure could be heard even if for short period especially if you are aware. The length of the period (i.e. the shortest period this can be applied to the sound) is totally depedant on the frequency of the sound that you are modifying.

Ghitulescu

2nd October 2011, 13:46

Oh, God....

Why don't you read the patents I posted long time ago....
Verance made this info public ...
Since cinavia is not found in the studio recordings, they could implement it in studio gear as well (for those having some thoughts), actually studio players from Pioneer already have this onboard. Since you're not producing anything (you're a consumer, not a producer), cinavia will hurt you not, you're supposed to play only originals. No law in any country I know of, alows you to copy a cinavied medium.
Game over. They are legally covered. Unless you, the people, change the law.

setarip_old

2nd October 2011, 23:10

@Ghitulescu

Although you've yet again gone off topic with your statement that: you're supposed to play only originals. No law in any country I know of, alows you to copy a cinavied medium.
Game over. They are legally covered. Unless you, the people, change the law. Just so no one takes that as fact, I'll respond by suggesting to you that it's most likely there's no law in any country you know of that even MENTIONS "Cinavia" or Verance by name...

Ghitulescu

3rd October 2011, 19:33

You missed the point, cinavia is part of an copy protection scheme, and as such any BD/DVD is illegal to be copied even if one actually can. Names play no role. If one breaches the law, then Verance will not sue him/her for breaching Cinavia, but for breaching eg DMCA in junction with one of the patents it has.
Cinavia cannot be technically removed. It may be "killed" but it leaves objectionable traces. One needs to know the exact procedure and to hope that the reverse path will give the original file. It can at most be circumvented by hacking the players, like it was the macrovision output of some DVDplayers (not all of them). Since the BD specs are on a permanent change, anything done today will be rendered useless tomorrow by FW upgrades or by making the players obsolete.

asarian

13th October 2011, 07:43

Cinavia cannot be technically removed. It may be "killed" but it leaves objectionable traces. One needs to know the exact procedure and to hope that the reverse path will give the original file.

There's no reverse path that will give you the original file: the Cinavia markings are mixed in with the original audio. It's not like paint in your hair that you can wash out. :)

Also, I maintain that Cinavia's Achilles Heel remains on the decoder side, where it has to determine whether the medium you're playing from is authorized to do so. I furthermore think trying to remove the entire Cinavia signature is kinda futile (and bound to fail; if only because you'd have the re-encode the original stream, at quality loss).

Ghitulescu

13th October 2011, 09:55

There's no reverse path that will give you the original file: the Cinavia markings are mixed in with the original audio. It's not like paint in your hair that you can wash out. :)

Also, I maintain that Cinavia's Achilles Heel remains on the decoder side, where it has to determine whether the medium you're playing from is authorized to do so. I furthermore think trying to remove the entire Cinavia signature is kinda futile (and bound to fail; if only because you'd have the re-encode the original stream, at quality loss).

This is EXACTLY what I said long time ago.
However, the thread is revived by newbies that are tired of reading its 1000+ posts and reask or resuggest the same thing over and over again.

I maintain that cinavia can be removed at the expense of audio quality. Like taking the paint spots from a T-Shirt with a scissors. Or like aggressive/automatic denoising of video or audio.

The attack must be performed at players' stage. Not on audio.

Accident

14th October 2011, 02:40

Although, personally I would take a slightly different approach. If you can detect, and eventually decode the cinavia message in the stream, and the cinavia message will most likely consist of sync, payload and checksum. Rather than removing it, I would aim to simply corrupting it, such that it has to be discarded as noise, or invalid. If cinavia can exist in the audio stream, without quality loss, then it can be very lightly modified, to be invalid, without quality loss.

setarip_old

14th October 2011, 04:10

@Accident

Hi! If cinavia can exist in the audio stream, without quality loss, then it can be very lightly modified, to be invalid, without quality loss.It would be great if you could perform and share with us a provable experiment, using a "Cinavia"-infested Blu-ray as your initial source material...

HighLifeMan

15th October 2011, 18:38

@Accident

Hi! It would be great if you could perform and share with us a provable experiment, using a "Cinavia"-infested Blu-ray as your initial source material...

I am going to do exactly this, or, at least, try to. The testing process will be quite time consuming because of the 20 minute thing and the very long audio processing times I'm anticipating. However, I'm pretty confident it can be done, but with how much audio quality loss, I don't know.

So I don't seem like some new guy that doesn't know what he's talking about jumping into the discussion: I read through this entire thread, the patents, and, something I haven't seen anyone else mention, the technical papers written by engineers at Verance.

For anyone that has an IEEE subscription, here is a paper I found very helpful, and that really shows how difficult this is going to be and how robust this watermark is:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/freesrchabstract.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4375954&queryText%3DAudio+Watermarking%26refinements%3D4294900078%26openedRefinements%3D*%26filter%3DAND%28AND%28NOT%284283010803%29%29%2CAND%28NOT%284283010803%29%29%29%26searchField%3DSearch+All
Rade Petrovic and Joseph Winograd have quite a few papers dealing with audio watermarks.

Ghitulescu

17th October 2011, 09:04

So I don't seem like some new guy that doesn't know what he's talking about jumping into the discussion: I read through this entire thread, the patents, and, something I haven't seen anyone else mention, the technical papers written by engineers at Verance.

For anyone that has an IEEE subscription, here is a paper I found very helpful, and that really shows how difficult this is going to be and how robust this watermark is:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/freesrchabstract.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4375954&queryText%3DAudio+Watermarking%26refinements%3D4294900078%26openedRefinements%3D*%26filter%3DAND%28AND%28NOT%284283010803%29%29%2CAND%28NOT%284283010803%29%29%29%26searchField%3DSearch+All
Rade Petrovic and Joseph Winograd have quite a few papers dealing with audio watermarks.
Of course they have :) they are the "inventors" of the patents Verance applied for.
The paper is a sort of dissimulated "marketing announcement". I wasn't really expecting they will say: hey, cinavia can be defeated and here's how we did it ;)
It states what should be by now obvious, that neither DVD-A nor cinavia have ever been defeated. This when both the encrypted and the original files were readily available. Imagine this will be several times harder when no original file is available ;)

The language used in the paper is less legal and more technical than that used in their patents. And they reissued the same thing I said before: the cumulation of several algorithms, to make the removal even more difficult, so the customers would object to the quality of the "decinavied" audio.

Under the fair use doctrine I will provide few sentences from the article:
Our optimism is based on analysis of past experience ........We also developed of a number of countermeasures that would either prevent known attacks (in 2007 nb), make them deteriorate the signal quality significantly, or prevent their repeatability.
...
In particular, multiple watermarking technologies should be deployed, and selection among them should be part of the (secret) stego key.
...
In order to prevent some attacks, or make other attacks more difficult, we propose a number of techniques that conceal watermark presence, location and properties.
...
Of course some of the goals are today only would-be-features, but they just started. IIRC, most of their patents have been already published after the paper and thus in force.

asarian

26th October 2011, 05:20

What's this (http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_1155/P8Z68M_PRO/#specifications) then?! It says "Blu-ray audio layer Content Protection". Are we seeing a Cinavia enabled mobo here?!

setarip_old

26th October 2011, 07:06

@asarian

Hi!

This appears to be a reference to HDCP:

http://www.digital-cp.com/files/documents/04A897FD-FEF1-0EEE-CDBB649127F79525/HDCP_deciphered_070808.pdf

asarian

26th October 2011, 11:06

@asarian

Hi!

This appears to be a reference to HDCP:

http://www.digital-cp.com/files/documents/04A897FD-FEF1-0EEE-CDBB649127F79525/HDCP_deciphered_070808.pdf

Oh good, thanks! They got me scared there for a moment. :) :thanks:

rotty

31st October 2011, 20:22

Hi I saw this link (below) posted some time ago.
The postee did not know if it was being kept up to date.
I looked today and it seems that it is being updated at regular intervals.

Perhaps the link may be worth posting on Twitter/Facebook etc if you have accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia#List_of_Known_Releases_with_Cinavia_Watermarking

setarip_old

25th November 2011, 02:02

Is it just me or is "the silence deafening" from our friends at Verance regarding applications of "Cinavia"?

Perhaps "no news is good news"? (The list linked to by "rotty" is quite limited of late)

SamuriHL

25th November 2011, 02:04

Yea, it's a very bizarre situation to be sure. I really don't get what's happening with Cinavia lately. One would have thought it'd be adopted heavily by studios and player mfg's by now. Very strange.

skwlsout

25th November 2011, 10:37

I think there has been a shift in focus, away from technical measures targeting individuals, towards grander plans of control. Content holders are instead focused on lobbying governments to introduce site blocking legislation, with the idea that if they can choke of the supply of pirated material, then there business models will suddenly work again.

Ghitulescu

25th November 2011, 10:53

Is it just me or is "the silence deafening" from our friends at Verance regarding applications of "Cinavia"?

Perhaps "no news is good news"?

Yea, it's a very bizarre situation to be sure. I really don't get what's happening with Cinavia lately. One would have thought it'd be adopted heavily by studios and player mfg's by now. Very strange.

It's nothing strange in this. The implementation of cinavia is REQUIRED by the licence agreement to be SILENTLY slipped in into the FW upgrades, and these should be made irreversible. And cinavia is a mandatory part of the AACS which is mandatory for Blu-rays.

The cat with bells on the collar will never catch any mice.

I think there has been a shift in focus, away from technical measures targeting individuals, towards grander plans of control. Content holders are instead focused on lobbying governments to introduce site blocking legislation, with the idea that if they can choke of the supply of pirated material, then there business models will suddenly work again.

That will not stop the real hackers to do what they did also before the internet came ;)

hello_hello

25th November 2011, 17:30

It's nothing strange in this. The implementation of cinavia is REQUIRED by the licence agreement to be SILENTLY slipped in into the FW upgrades, and these should be made irreversible. And cinavia is a mandatory part of the AACS which is mandatory for Blu-rays.

Where did you get the "SILENTLY slipped" theory?
It's been "mandatory" for over two years. For something mandatory most manufacturers still seem to be happily ignoring it.
I assume the licence agreement must also stipulate a time frame for manufacturers to have silently slipped cinavia into all their firmware upgrades and current products. I guess as you appear to be privy to the details of the licence agreement you'll be able to inform us as to what that time frame is.

Ghitulescu

25th November 2011, 18:03

It's 2012, first of January. No device subjected to AACS licensing may be sold without cinavia. For products manufactured before that date, an individual agreement may be reached.

setarip_old

25th November 2011, 20:06

Ghitulescu

25th November 2011, 20:25

It appears that, over the last few months, there have been less than a handful of new releases that contain "Cinavia"...
Supposing one doesn't really want to buy all the releases and doesn't really want to upgrade a working player,

and given that it was not mandatory to put the logo on the back,

how can one positively identify those that contain cinavia, say in a shop?

setarip_old

26th November 2011, 01:17

how can one positively identify those that contain cinaviaBy going to the "usual suspects", dear soul - meaning those websites and forums that have been keeping track of this ;>}

hello_hello

26th November 2011, 01:20

It's 2012, first of January. No device subjected to AACS licensing may be sold without cinavia. For products manufactured before that date, an individual agreement may be reached.

How can the implementation of cinavia be required by the licence agreement to be silently slipped in into FW upgrades, while at the same time products sold before a certain date are subject to individual agreements?
It can't be both can it?

setarip_old

26th November 2011, 02:04

@"hello_hello"

I'm sure your good buddy will hasten to point out to you that there is a difference between "MANUFACTURED" before a certain date and "SOLD" before a certain date.

Regardless, the salient point is that it seems that shortly "Cinavia"/Verance watermarking will be pervasive...

hello_hello

26th November 2011, 03:57

rotty

26th November 2011, 14:40

@ setarip_old,
Yes, I guess if you want to make a distinction between "manufactured" and "sold", then in context the statement does seem to be somewhat self contradictory, given products are always manufactured prior to the date they are actually sold.
Given Cinavia watermarking shortly becoming pervasive has been the salient point for quite a while now (nearly a year and a half in this thread), I guess it'll be interesting to see if in fact it is finally shortly to become pervasive. I guess we've only got to wait a little over a month to find out, but as you've pointed out yourself, there seems to be very few releases containing it. It seems a little odd for a certain detection to be mandatory in a player if there's generally nothing for it to detect.

Maybe though, studios are waiting for the time most players will detect Cinavia before bothering to include it in their releases. If the 1st January deadline happens to be accurate, maybe next year it'll be hard to find a disc which doesn't include it. I guess we won't have to wait long to find out.

One thing seems certain, if there is a deadline, most hardware manufacturers are happy to wait until the last minute. Even Sony doesn't seem to want to let it's corporate morals interfere with it's sale of Bluray players.

Yes, your last point is surprising seeing how Sony is usually unsurpassed in shooting itself in the foot.

Do you reckon that in the boardroom at Sony, they all sit round the table and try and think of things to make their latest product fail.

e.g.
"I’ve got it, lets piss off the law abiding public and corrupt the so called HD AUDIO and make it impossible for them to back up their hard bought disks, that should massively reduce sales for us"

If I were a shareholder in Sony, I would want the "head on a plate" of the guy whos idea it was to incorporate this perversion, I wouldnt want a man with that business head messing with my money.

Ghitulescu

26th November 2011, 17:45

If the 1st January deadline happens to be accurate, maybe next year it'll be hard to find a disc which doesn't include it. I guess we won't have to wait long to find out.
There were far many more unprotected original VHS-cassettes than those protected with Macrovision, even after 1985. Don't mix up the marchandise with its package.One thing seems certain, if there is a deadline, most hardware manufacturers are happy to wait until the last minute. Even Sony doesn't seem to want to let it's corporate morals interfere with it's sale of Bluray players. Like Sony will give a damn **** on those sales. Sony dropped manufacturing things long time ago, almost everything coming from Sony is just relabelled. Instead Sony gets a lot of money from IP things. Apparently they learned the American lesson, and very well.

hello_hello

27th November 2011, 10:17

There were far many more unprotected original VHS-cassettes than those protected with Macrovision, even after 1985. Don't mix up the marchandise with its package.

Don't mix up the merchandise with it's package? What does that mean?
How many people bothered duplicating VHS tapes or transferring them to DVD anyway? It doesn't seem relevant.

Like Sony will give a damn **** on those sales. Sony dropped manufacturing things long time ago, almost everything coming from Sony is just relabelled. Instead Sony gets a lot of money from IP things. Apparently they learned the American lesson, and very well.

Well you tell me then, why haven't Sony rushed to implement Cinavia in their Bluray players? They've certainly not been shy to inflict the PS3 with it. I was just offering a theory. You're not even offering an alternative one.

Ghitulescu

27th November 2011, 21:19

derbeDeus

27th November 2011, 22:16

As I said previously, is it just me or is "the silence deafening" from our friends at Verance regarding applications of "Cinavia"?

It appears that, over the last few months, there have been less than a handful of new releases that contain "Cinavia"...

I don't think they "slowed down". It appears that all next releases from Sony will have Cinavia...

Well you tell me then, why haven't Sony rushed to implement Cinavia in their Bluray players? They've certainly not been shy to inflict the PS3 with it. I was just offering a theory. You're not even offering an alternative one.

You cannot know if they implemented it or not in their Bluray players. It's just they didn't activated it yet. ;)
There is a reason why they put it in PS3 and not in regular players. Cinavia in a bluray player will definitely affect sales if people have alternatives. That's why nobody wants to be first to activate it. PS3 is a different story: not only that they wanted to have a test, but what device can be better than one designed for another purpose than playing blurays. Sales are not affected and people will not moan too much about the crippled bd player.

hello_hello

27th November 2011, 22:24

Cinavia implementation is mandatory for PLAYERS not for discs.
It seems a little odd for a certain detection to be mandatory in a player if there's generally nothing for it to detect.
Maybe though, studios are waiting for the time most players will detect Cinavia before bothering to include it in their releases.
Who said anything about it being mandatory for discs?

hello_hello

27th November 2011, 22:39

You cannot know if they implemented it or not in their Bluray players. It's just they didn't activated it yet.

I've no doubt their players will be capable of Cinavia detection after a firmware upgrade which includes it, but until they do, it's not been implemented.

There is a reason why they put it in PS3 and not in regular players. Cinavia in a bluray player will definitely affect sales if people have alternatives. That's why nobody wants to be first to activate it.

Which was exactly my point. (am I not typing in English here?) A point I made because one poster claimed Sony don't care about their Bluray player sales without offering an alternative explanation as to why they haven't implemented it.

derbeDeus

28th November 2011, 10:30

I've no doubt their players will be capable of Cinavia detection after a firmware upgrade which includes it, but until they do, it's not been implemented.

For the reasons I stated above I believe that a lot of players already have the cinavia detector implemented, but it is not yet activated. Because they'll all activate it at the same time (for sales reason), implementing, deployment and testing should be done in advance. And since PS3 has it in, I think Sony other bluray players are already cinavia capable and they're just waiting D-Day.

Ghitulescu

28th November 2011, 11:12

A point I made because one poster claimed Sony don't care about their Bluray player sales without offering an alternative explanation as to why they haven't implemented it.
the explanation was given, but let's put the ripe fruit in the open mouth of lazy thinkers :)

Because there's no other source of HD content than the blu-ray, on which they hold the licences and part of distribution. Easy money, no headaches. The PS3, people say it's the most sold blu-ray player, fulfilled its purpose, now it's neglected (it serves now only as a testing device). Sony is much more than a manufacturer of blu-ray-players, its revenues from PS3 (it includes the games) are matched by those from movie sector. All of them are no match to its music business (sales of CDs and other media, but not audio-gear!!!). Even the insurance business represent twice the money they get from audio/video electronics (excluded PS series because they are game consoles, not A/V).

hello_hello

28th November 2011, 15:16

For the reasons I stated above I believe that a lot of players already have the cinavia detector implemented, but it is not yet activated.

You seriously can't see we're saying exactly the same thing, just using different terminology?

the explanation was given, but let's put the ripe fruit in the open mouth of lazy thinkers

An explanation wasn't given. I offered a theory as to why Sony haven't implemented Cinavia in their Bluray players, you stated they don't care about Bluray player sales which makes the theory invalid. Therefore I asked you why you think they haven't implemented it yet, not for a paragraph of confabulation which actually suggests they've no reason not to.
Ripe fruit in the mouth of lazy thinkers?? Pfffffft...... Once again I've got to defend insults coming from someone who constantly needs to have the topic explained to him.

derbeDeus

28th November 2011, 17:55

You seriously can't see we're saying exactly the same thing, just using different terminology?

Indeed, I can't. You said that a firmware update will implement it. I don't think that's the case. A firmware update is applied when/if the user wants. Manufacturers and AACS won't leave that to chance. It's more like a time bomb activation, I think.

Ghitulescu

28th November 2011, 19:07

A firmware update is applied when/if the user wants. Manufacturers and AACS won't leave that to chance. It's more like a time bomb activation, I think.

I tend to agree with this opinion. The HW is in place, it only need a new FW to implement the detection. The detection itself is very simple and does not put any requirements to the HW (it this HW withstands the java, it will do the detection just well :)).

The user can be forced to do himself a HW upgrade. Since disc 1 I receive the blue paper "kindly reminding me" to upgrade the FW "to take advantage of all digital benefices" or even to be able to play the disc. In two years still no problems, but there are people that might consider this ;), seriously I mean.

Then if the carrot is not working it comes the stick: there might be discs so authored (read protected) that a FW is really needed in order to play it. I'll think what to do firstly when I'll find one.

And the "hidden" thing: there might be involuntary upgrades everytime the player connects itself to the internet, allegedly to load BD-live content***. AFAIK the LGs can upgrade the FW this way.

*** I think that BD-live is the worst joke the studios played on consumers - they sell you "dynamic content", which you have to pay each time you want to see (the internet access), those availability depends entirely on the studios (you can save them locally, but this space is limited and remotely erasable), you pay more for BD-live-compatibility on the player (not much, but anyway), BD-live counts the usage of a particular title and allows lots of backdoors and traps, and I can go on and on.

hello_hello

28th November 2011, 20:21

Indeed, I can't. You said that a firmware update will implement it. I don't think that's the case. A firmware update is applied when/if the user wants. Manufacturers and AACS won't leave that to chance. It's more like a time bomb activation, I think.

Sure there's probably many ways the user could be tricked/coerced/fooled into applying a Firmware update containing Cinavia, but as for currently installed firmware having dormant Cinavia detection capabilities which will suddenly become active.... personally I doubt it.

Ghitulescu

5th December 2011, 15:51

After checking with the mods team about rule 6 ...

almost all Blu-rays with cinavia are titles like The green Hornet, Resident Evil and similar, that not only are not intellectually challenging :) but also cost a lot, God knows why. I will not spend 29.95€, nor 24.90 nor even 19.90 for a movie I don't like, sorry about that. I do not own nor will buy any of the movies listed in wikipedia as containing cinavia. Under the fair use doctrine (not the same intended use, no commercial use, extremely short samples, pure educational/research) I dare to ask for samples of cinavia infected parts of the shortest possible length but at least 20 seconds long, 1 minute I think will suffices. I intend to burn BD25, BD5 and SD/USB, and to test a whole range of European players against it, now on the twelfth hour, before cinavia will be mandatory on all players falling under the AACS provisions. I'll probably repeat the test next year, in summer or in the fall.

The results will be posted here, if this will be of interest, so people may buy their spare player before it's too late.

The samples should not contain THD audio, as I cannot process them with tsmuxer or any other SW using it, like multiAVCHD, unless there is a way unknown to me. The samples must absolutely positive contain cinavia, as rumours are that not all audio tracks do contain it, or that discs sold in a particular region don't contain it, otherwise the test will be flawed.

To protect the site, the samples should be PM directly to me.

setarip_old

6th December 2011, 01:44

@Ghitulescu

Hi! I dare to ask for samples of cinavia infected parts of the shortest possible length but at least 20 seconds long, 1 minute I think will suffices.Am I misunderstanding you?

If you're intent is to test players (not the Blu-ray discs), why would you need more than one sample?

Ghitulescu

6th December 2011, 09:15

Because there are 7 algorithms (at the last count, today maybe more, I haven't checked the latest documentation).

setarip_old

6th December 2011, 17:34

@Ghitulescu

Because there are 7 algorithmsAnd won't ALL "Cinavia-ready" players respond to ANY and ALL of the algorithms?

If so, ALL players could be tested with ANY one "Cinavia"/Verance infected Blu-ray video, couldn't they?

Ghitulescu

6th December 2011, 17:37

AFAIK there is a sort of main channel that keeps the index key to the matching algorithm/s, this allows a lower bandwidth and a lesser impact on the audio quality.

setarip_old

6th December 2011, 19:58

@Ghitulescu

I don't believe that your post #1170 is a response (direct or otherwise) to my post #1169.

I see nothing in your post that specifically indicates a need for more than one "Cinavia"/Verance infected sample to test ANY and ALL players.

If I've overlooked or misunderstood something in your post(s), please feel free to enlighten me.

And, of course if, on the other hand, you now understand and agree with my suggested "one sample fits all" approach, please acknowledge...

hello_hello

7th December 2011, 06:36

It certainly seems to make sense that if a player is capable of detecting Cinavia it should be able to detect all variations of it. Therefore if it detects it in one sample it'd detect it in the rest, or of not, it won't.

jetli

7th December 2011, 07:47

As of now with current firmware, these machines do not
have any cinavia problems. The date for mandatory cinavia is now 2/1/12 according to their website.

http://www.verance.com/AdminSavR/news/news_item.php?news_id=66

i agree with whoever specified, the machines are just waiting to be enabled. After 2/1 check for firmware updates, just beware
any update could then make your machines stop playing
cinavia disks. I will not be updating mine.

jetli

Ghitulescu

7th December 2011, 09:25

And won't ALL "Cinavia-ready" players respond to ANY and ALL of the algorithms?
I frankly don't know this. The way cinavia is implemented is mentioned in my post below
AFAIK there is a sort of main channel that keeps the index key to the matching algorithm/s, this allows a lower bandwidth and a lesser impact on the audio quality.

I don't believe that your post #1170 is a response (direct or otherwise) to my post #1169.

I see nothing in your post that specifically indicates a need for more than one "Cinavia"/Verance infected sample to test [COLOR="DarkRed"]ANY and ALL players.

I asked for samples to be sure. Besides, there has to be a minimum size to be burned on a BD and/or DVD-RW in order to be able to be recognized by the players. I have nothing against you to do it if you think there is something wrong with my request, unlike me you have some cinavia titles.

The date for mandatory cinavia is now 2/1/12 according to their website.
American format or European? First of February or Second of January? The end of the world should occur some later in the year according to the Maya calender :)

xenex

7th December 2011, 13:27

Ghitulescu-

Unless I am misreading your intentions, what you will REALLY need is a sample of Ciniavia-affected audio from a "cam-rip" from a theater or such. Because only those give a Cinavia error within seconds. Cinavia audio from a Blu-Ray source has the 20-minute-or-so 'grace period' and using a one minute sample, you would not know if it were detected or not.

Ghitulescu

7th December 2011, 14:41

Frankly I have no idea what kind of sample I need, important is that it must contain cinavia and it should be Blu-ray compatible. If it's not, then it's of no use, as the mediaplayers, which usually are used to play such things, are not affected by cinavia, in theory. In practice, as I said it before, since they all reside on only 3 solutions from 3 chip-manufacturers, and since these chips are also used in blu-ray-players and STBs and mobile HD-devices, and since these chips are upgradable (the last one or two FW upgrades for Sigma Designs chips do contain cinavia), there is a major risk to have them contaminated too.

But for now, I am only thinking of blu-ray-players. Besides, cam-rips and other "indirect" sources do not test the existence of cinavia, but the strength of its survival.

Yes, I know that cinavia is detected within seconds, even within a splitsecond (read an older post of mine in this thread), however this is known only to the player until it triggers the subroutine. I need to see the warning screen. 20 minutes samples will probably infringe the fair use concept. My reasoning was that even if the length of the video piece is less than 20 minutes and cinavia is present the subroutine will be triggered, otherwise one can circumvent cinavia but making a "patchwork" (seamless playback of shorter-than-20-minutes videos, sort of chapter by chapter).

SamuriHL

7th December 2011, 15:26

I want to throw some serious speculation out there as food for thought. I've been thinking about the concept of enabling Cinavia in firmware updates on existing players. The question is how could they FORCE people to update. I have a very scary thought on that. What would happen if they revoke all player keys for players that they wish to update to Cinavia? This mechanism exists. They revoke player keys all the time. All that's needed is to play a disc with a new MKB that has the player key revoked. BOOM, instant need for a firmware update to update the player key. Oh, and add Cinavia. This would target all the "I'm not going to use updated firmware" people because at that point they'd have no choice in order to play original discs. Anyway, this is PURE speculation as to how they could force the update, but, given the way that blu-ray technology works, this is sadly plausible.

laserfan

7th December 2011, 16:15

The question is how could they FORCE people to update.
Even assuming this is technically possible i.e. that older players possess the ability to detect Cinavia thru a firmware update, to force such a thing on all players could result in huge problems for the manufacturers. I have no doubt that every time they have to do a firmware update, for whatever reason, that there are some significant number of customers that either can't do it, or fail miserably at it, resulting in problems for Customer Service and their warranty/repair/service divisions.

So to force such a thing on old players can result in significant expenses for the mfr. No doubt that's one of the reasons for the "incorporate after such-and-such date to new players" to give mfrs some breathing space in this regard.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I REALLY doubt mfrs want to do ANYTHING AT ALL that might increase their costs or anger their customer base!

SamuriHL

7th December 2011, 16:27

Which I think explains why so few have added Cinavia so far. ;) I never said it would be easy or palatable. Just simply possible. :) Revoke the player key, force an update, slip in Cinavia. Of course, this would only work for players that are physically capable (i.e. have enough processing power) to handle Cinavia checking. But, players manufactured after what, september 2008, are supposed to be "cinavia capable", yes? At least according to what we've read. So, that leaves a lot of room for them to sneakily activate Cinavia detection on players sold after that date that currently don't have that functionality working. Like I said, just throwing it out there for food for thought.

P.S. All those players can update the firmware over the network as they're BD Live capable, as well. Makes it much easier...

Ghitulescu

7th December 2011, 17:16

I want to throw some serious speculation out there as food for thought. I've been thinking about the concept of enabling Cinavia in firmware updates on existing players. The question is how could they FORCE people to update.
They did the following AFAIK:
- put a flyer on each disc to prompt the user to upgrade. I received one with each disc I've bought since the first one. My Pio still works, without any upgrade, but only the future will tell what will happen
- they do the ancient (to me) trick of combining the good news with the bad (silent) one: for instance, they launch a player which has very good specifications, however an essential feature is missing, like decoding DTS-MA. The FW upgrade solves this issue but adds cinavia, namely silently because this is how the licensing contract requires - they did this on Pioneer and on PS3
- they could upload the FW in the background, each time the BD-live player connects itself to the internet - my player was specifically bought without LAN to prevent accidents
- they launch movies so heavily protected that cannot be played by not-upgraded players - that was the case with Avatar
I have a very scary thought on that. What would happen if they revoke all player keys for players that they wish to update to Cinavia? This mechanism exists. They revoke player keys all the time. All that's needed is to play a disc with a new MKB that has the player key revoked. BOOM, instant need for a firmware update to update the player key. Oh, and add Cinavia. This would target all the "I'm not going to use updated firmware" people because at that point they'd have no choice in order to play original discs. Anyway, this is PURE speculation as to how they could force the update, but, given the way that blu-ray technology works, this is sadly plausible.
One issue concerns the people with money. The same thing, but reversed, concerns the people with less money.
The first ones buy expensive gear, like Pioneer, Denon, Marantz or even the Goldmund Eidos. They can't be stressed with things like this, or these companies will have a hard time explaining to a customer that paid 20.000$ for a player why he can't use it. These companies will never ever be blacklisted.
The second ones buy 50$ players, but in millions. Those companies were the same that brought the divx support for DVD-players, inspite the strong opposition of Hollywood. They will find a way to solve this issue too - be it the simplest way of reversing the firmware.
The most touched people will be, as usual, those relying on gear like Sony/Panasonic, both manufacturers and both owners of studios.
Bottom line - I won't be worried too much about this, no player means no revenues for Hollywood, and the flourish of piracy, since the mediaplayers are not yet affected by cinavia.
End of story.

SamuriHL

7th December 2011, 17:27

True enough. And I've been told by others now that my theory of revoking the player keys is not likely. So I will relent on that one. :) I simply wanted to say that the theory was POSSIBLE, regardless of how likely it is. Software players (PDVD, TMT, WinDVD, PS3) have auto-revoking keys that require updates every few months. To my knowledge, no hardware player key has been revoked. But the methodology exists in the AACS standard to do so. That was my only point. As for introducing artificial problems that are "solved" by updating the firmware, yes, I definitely believe that. And I get your point about high end equipment vs cheap equipment vs the rest stuck in the middle.

hello_hello

7th December 2011, 17:45

I want to throw some serious speculation out there as food for thought. I've been thinking about the concept of enabling Cinavia in firmware updates on existing players. The question is how could they FORCE people to update. I have a very scary thought on that. What would happen if they revoke all player keys for players that they wish to update to Cinavia?

While I wouldn't say it's impossible, does the Cinavia licence agreement say anything about pre-existing or older players having to be updated to detect Cinavia before a certain date etc?
Because if not I'd wonder why the manufacturers, who certainly seem to be in no hurry to include it in their hardware until they absolutely have to, would want to force it onto owners of existing devices unless they have to. There may be a reason why they would, but from the hardware manufacturer's viewpoint I'm not sure what it might be.

SamuriHL

7th December 2011, 17:52

I don't think the hardware mfg's WANT to add Cinavia unless they are also a content provider (ahem, Sony). But they have a license agreement with the AACSLA. Who knows what that agreement says. Nonetheless, while what I'm saying is technically possible, I've relented and agree that it's incredibly unlikely. Just be aware of it. Cause if they do it, I'm coming back and posting a big I told you so! :D J/K :)

laserfan

7th December 2011, 21:00

I don't think the hardware mfg's WANT to add Cinavia...Just be aware of it.
Oh come on then. We've been aware of this possibility since the very first appearance of Cinavia, what, a year, three years ago? Why are you trying to get people wound-up about it at this time?

SamuriHL

7th December 2011, 21:20

Oh come on then. We've been aware of this possibility since the very first appearance of Cinavia, what, a year, three years ago? Why are you trying to get people wound-up about it at this time?

Because we're closing in on the date that it's about to become MANDATORY. Is that really all that hard to understand? Give me a break.

setarip_old

7th December 2011, 21:47

SamuriHL

7th December 2011, 21:51

If nothing else, at that time it will be interesting to see what, if any, NEW wrinkles Verance may have up its sleeve - and what NEW developments the developers/programmers/hackers in and around our community may have quietly come up with...

I agree. My intent wasn't to get people "wound up". It was to open a discussion based up on what I CLEARLY labelled speculation about what possibilities could be done. Personally, I know if I bought a player in the past year or two that I thought was "safe" from Cinavia and they add it in sneakily, I'd be pretty upset. Since we're getting very close to the mandatory date for which ALL players sold must include Cinavia detection, I thought it might be prudent to discuss the possibilities for existing players and what, IF ANYTHING, that could mean to them. Apparently others disagree that it's worth thinking about. I suspect we'll find out soon enough. And I'm more curious as to whether more studios decide to adopt Cinavia once all the players being sold support it.

jetli

8th December 2011, 04:00

According to a tech at OPPO digital, there is no firm requirement or date that Cinavia has to be implemented in any given player.
But he did say, that if, Cinavia wished it to be a secret, they would have to keep it a secret.

2/1/12 is the big date. Be leary of any firmware updates after that. BTW, 2/1/12 is just 30 days past the holidays!
Any conspiracy theorists out there?

t

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 04:03

Yea, their license with the AACS LA has to be followed, so, I suspect that includes provisions for "silently increasing security". So that wouldn't surprise anyone. That'd not be a popular decision with their customers though. Oppo players aren't cheap.

Ghitulescu

8th December 2011, 16:27

According to a tech at OPPO digital, there is no firm requirement or date that Cinavia has to be implemented in any given player.

People answering the public questions have a standard set of clauses, any deviance might have serious consequences, and a new job, even in China, is not something easy to be obtained.

Besides, Rovi and AAC-LA do not say anything about the production of a certain device, but they insist on the sales (as this will infringe the patents), and if one doesn't sale, either file for bankruptcy, or modifies the HW/SW.

laserfan

8th December 2011, 16:33

My intent wasn't to get people "wound up".When someone makes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of posts on this subject, over multiple AV boards over multiple years, and on a topic that has already been over-discussed to death, well at some point I have to believe there's an agenda somewhere. If not I think it qualifies as panic-peddling.

"Cinavia is falling! Cinavia is falling!" :p

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 16:42

When someone makes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of posts on this subject, over multiple AV boards over multiple years, and on a topic that has already been over-discussed to death, well at some point I have to believe there's an agenda somewhere. If not I think it qualifies as panic-peddling.

"Cinavia is falling! Cinavia is falling!" :p

Then I suggest you put me on your ignore list and move along then. I'm sorry discussion about Cinavia and it's possible ramifications for people who have paid for equipment and content causes you to think I'm "panic peddling". :rolleyes: But honestly, I really don't care what your opinion is.

[SLiM]D12

8th December 2011, 16:44

One thing i've noticed, and i'm not sure why, but lately only blurays have been coming out with cinavia. The DVD's don't have it and i'm a little confused. There was a time where they were including on both formats ,but they've stopped dvd for quite a few movies in 2011, just take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia#List_of_Known_Releases_with_Cinavia_Watermarking

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 16:47

D12;1543788']One thing i've noticed, and i'm not sure why, but lately only blurays have been coming out with cinavia. The DVD's don't have it and i'm a little confused. There was a time where they were including on both formats ,but they've stopped dvd for quite a few movies in 2011, just take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia#List_of_Known_Releases_with_Cinavia_Watermarking

I wonder if they ran into issues with those titles? It's weird, though, as all they were doing is adding an AACS folder on the DVD so that Cinavia enabled blu-ray players could verify the DVD's as a trusted source. I haven't honestly looked at the DVD's that have come with my latest titles. But that's definitely interesting. There's not exactly a "lot" of discs with Cinavia on it anyway. But I would have thought since they were doing the DVD thing they'd continue with it. Weird.

Ghitulescu

8th December 2011, 16:54

Even assuming this is technically possible i.e. that older players possess the ability to detect Cinavia thru a firmware update, to force such a thing on all players could result in huge problems for the manufacturers.

It appears that there is a misunderstanding in what cinavia is and how it acts.
Unlike the digital CPS usually called Macrovision after the company that implemented it, and which was designed to prevent the copying of a DVD to a tape or another DVD using a DVD-recorder, cinavia doesn't prevent any copying. Macrovision-infected DVDs contain a bit saying Stop, this is protected, you damn pirate, erh, dear customer, and the detection of this bit set will make the player issue a signal to a hardware GPU that will then add the macrovision flavours to the analog signal: the AGC-pulses, the colorstripes, and the corresponding bits in the VBI lines (for DVD-recorders).

Cinavia will prevent only the playback of a illegitimate copy. To this end, a software subroutine analyses the decoded signal (decoding audio is a mandatory feature of all blu-ray players from profile 1.1) for a watermark, this is then decoded to find the algorithms used to hide the real watermark. Once this is detected, then again the FW has to launch a subroutine that will stop the playback and display a warning.

How cinavia works as presented above has some speculative parts, as I don't know for sure which patents are enforced and which are not. But people that have decoded the FW of a certain BD-player probably know more.

So ALL players may be upgraded to cinavia, provided the GPU is upgradable (and it generally is, positive alerts are known for Sigma Designs SMP**** chips).

diogen

8th December 2011, 18:14

It looks like there is a long way to go before Cinavia has any chance to disrupt the established way of doing things...

1. According to the Wiki, it requires a hardware component capable of handling the watermark.
Very few existing players have it. Only ones sold after 1/1/2012 must have it.
Hence, studios will be hesitant to activate it in their releases if they don't want to pi$$ off their customers.
A little bit like BD+ ...

2. AACS keys are upgraded regularly.
If the watermarking detection can be done in software instead of hardware, this capability can be slipped in with a scheduled AACS key update.
But all the media players (PCH, Patriot, WD-TV, etc.) and PCs that are used to play back ripped and DRM-stripped BD/DVD are not under any threat. Not now, not in the future.

3. The only real threat is making TVs/projectors - i.e. all presentation devices - act on the presence of the watermark.
And that won't happen quickly...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 18:50

diogen

8th December 2011, 19:18

When the time comes and
a)nothing but HDMI (or its descendant) is allowed to carry a BD stream: we are getting there;
b)every "authorized" TV and receiver have ARC (Audio Return Channel): all $300+ TVs and $150+ AVR have them today;
c)DTS is not an exception
you won't be able to avoid the audio track hitting the TV.

Hence, the TV will have a say in what gets played.

Considering Google plans to have its software embedded in 50% of new TVs in 6 months, it's not just a tale...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 19:30

But that doesn't help clear up my confusion as to how that would work. It matters not where the audio GOES after it leaves the player. The problem is, the AACS encryption has been removed at that point. Only the player then knows if the source was encrypted or not. (That's the current definition of a Cinavia "trusted source"....is there AACS encryption?) So how would a TV know if it was trusted or not? That's the part I don't understand when people talk about receivers and TV's, etc "getting Cinavia embedded in them." And they claim I'm the one saying Cinavia is falling. LOL! :D The way I understand Cinavia is that it's very basic. Signal is embedded in audio. Player decodes audio and detects signal. Player determines if the source is a "trusted source" by whether it contains AACS encryption or not. Player reacts to the trusted source flag of yes/no by playing/muting and displaying an error. That's really it. Just not sure how that applies outside the player. Or even how it could in the future unless we're not talking about Cinavia and instead some other protection.

diogen

8th December 2011, 19:44

The player spits out (bitsteams) not yet decoded but DRM stripped audio+video stream.
The video is in the clear, the audio has the watermark.

The receiver splits the stream, sends the video to the TV and decodes the audio.
Each of those - AVR and TV - have "veto" rights for playback.

If the audio stream has the watermark, the playback will be authorized only if the original was AACS-ed.
How the AACS flag was passed with the bitstream to the AVR/TV duo is technicality.

Again, I believe this won't happen soon, if at all.
By the time everything is lined up for this to be implemented optical media will most likely be dead...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 19:52

That seems overly complicated and HIGHLY unnecessary for something that the player has to support. (That "technicality" as you call it). If the player has to send an AACS flag, then you're already changing the established standard again and if you're doing that, why not just leave the implementation at the player level? It's not like this solves the case of a non-Cinavia compliant player as those won't be sending any kind of AACS flag, either. It doesn't make any sense to me to have this kind of implementation. You'd be adding to the cost of all the pieces of equipment in the chain and not solving any additional problems that the current, player only version of Cinavia doesn't already solve. So, why would anyone do this?

diogen

8th December 2011, 20:17

If I understand correctly, a player can detect Cinavia only if it decodes the audio stream.
I don't think this is the preferred way of BD playback. Bitstream has its drawbacks but this is not the point.

I think it is a good idea to keep both audio/video in the digital domain and decode just before presentation.
Therefore, the player takes care of the DRM-wrapper: AACS and BD+ in case of Blu-ray movies.
Whatever additional protection is embedded has to be dealt with down the chain.

And it is easy to understand studios' way of thinking.
The DRM-wrappers failed miserably. Why not try something that works with DVD-Audio...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 20:24

The player needs to decode for detection, yes, but, that doesn't mean that it can't bitstream the audio. It's only decoding it for the purposes of detection, not output.

diogen

8th December 2011, 21:07

And do this continuously, every so often.

I think it would be easier to pass the AACS flag than make bitsreaming BD players check for Cinavia.
And this is why it is an option to be implemented (not yet) in the TV (read the wiki).

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th December 2011, 22:00

Since it's already required that players that are profile 1.1 be able to decode the audio, I don't think it's necessarily easier. The implementation already exists.

setarip_old

9th December 2011, 04:13

On a slightly different tack, but still applicable to where and how "Cinavia"/Verance may rear its ugly head, I find it curious that consumers' rights groups around the world are not taking the studios to task for essentially "talking out of both sides of their mouths".

If you've recently purchased any "previously viewed" Blu-ray discs at a rental shop, you've undoubtedly noticed that some of the discs are specifically labelled as "Rental" - and are stripped down versions of the same "for sale" titles. The "Rental" versions may be missing the "Extras", or "Director's Commentary", or alternate versions of the full movie, or different endings, or PIP video/audio, or multiple language audiostreams, or access to "BD Live" - or, in the case of the recently released "Cowboys & Aliens", ALL of the above!, so that the "Rental" version contains only a stripped down menu and the theatrical version of the movie. Some of these "Rental" discs do, however, offer something as a "replacement" for the stripped away stuff - a delightful suggestion that, "if you want access to all things related to this Blu-ray title PURCHASE it" ;>}

So, what we appear to have is the studios making a distinction between the (lesser) rights of renters and the (greater) rights of purchasers/owners of Blu-ray titles. As distasteful and reprehensible as I find this, I'd suggest that the studios should be legally compelled to apply such a concept of differentiation equitably - that is to say, they should be compelled to apply their beloved "Cinavia"/Verance interference ONLY (or other annoying concepts) to "Rental" discs (and, of course, "cams").

Certainly, the studios' own advertising of various means of making backup copies of purchased discs clearly indicates that THEY perceive a difference between the ownership rights of a purchaser (the right to MAKE A BACKUP COPY without hindrance) versus the rights of a renter (the right to VIEW the disc for the period of rental), versus the "rights" of pirates to shoot "cams" (No rights whatsoever - other than the right to an attorney).

I believe that what I've proposed here should be acceptable to all parties (studios, our community, and the consumers at-large) who have a sincere interest in an equitable way to deal with everybody getting a "fair shake" for entertainment dollars...

SamuriHL

9th December 2011, 04:17

You got my vote. I'm all for it.

diogen

9th December 2011, 04:21

I believe that what I've proposed here should be acceptable to all parties...You must be kidding.
"Making a backup copy without hindrance" wasn't, isn't and never will be an option studios will agree with...

Diogen.

setarip_old

9th December 2011, 05:33

@diogen You must be kidding.No, I most certainly am not kidding.

"Making a backup copy without hindrance" wasn't, isn't and never will be an option studios will agree with...That's why consumer rights organizations and, more importantly, courts exist. It's legally mandated capitulation that should be sought, not agreement...

Andy o

9th December 2011, 07:06

For TVs/receivers to detect a watermark, it would take yet another connector standard probably, but even if that happened, we'll all be screwed anyway by the rise of DRM-ridden crappy-player-dependent low-bitrate (by comparison) streaming video. Blu-ray just keeps shooting itself on the foot with all this crap. It's too complicated to even keep updating firmware, when someone can just hit play and watch crappy but good-enough Netflix.

varekai

9th December 2011, 08:24

Will Cinavia be implemented in all new players, both standalone players and internal/external PC/Mac Blu-ray Disc/DVD Writers?

Andy o

9th December 2011, 08:40

That's not how Cinavia works.

Ghitulescu

9th December 2011, 08:47

If I understand correctly, a player can detect Cinavia only if it decodes the audio stream.
I don't think this is the preferred way of BD playback. Bitstream has its drawbacks but this is not the point.

Decoding of audio is mandatory in all players of profile 1.1 and above.

Otherwise they can't use PiP features and other "marketing features" that require a mix of primary with a secondary audio.

That a certain John Doe doesn't use them is irrelevant, the requirements are there and they have to be fulfilled.

How many people have a profile 1.0 player? Erh, how many?

derbeDeus

9th December 2011, 13:22

I completely agree with everything except number 3. How would that work? Only the player knows if it's a trusted source (AACS is present) or not. Once it leaves the player, any "down stream" device has no idea if it was a trusted source or not. So, I don't know how this could get embedded into other devices. What I mean is *I* don't understand how that could work.

You are only right when talking about DVD/Blu-ray Cinavia watermark. The one that is disabled by AACS encryption being present, trusted source, etc...

But there's also "theatre-only" Cinavia watermark, aka message 1, which is not connected to aacs (other than aacs-licensees needing to implement detection for it). So tvs/projectors that would detect Cinavia/message 1 is a possibility.

Technically, the stream comes to the Cinavia-aware device and if it sees a message 1 watermark it very well knows it's not a theatre-projector and will stop playback.

SamuriHL

9th December 2011, 14:59

You are only right when talking about DVD/Blu-ray Cinavia watermark. The one that is disabled by AACS encryption being present, trusted source, etc...

But there's also "theatre-only" Cinavia watermark, aka message 1, which is not connected to aacs (other than aacs-licensees needing to implement detection for it). So tvs/projectors that would detect Cinavia/message 1 is a possibility.

Technically, the stream comes to the Cinavia-aware device and if it sees a message 1 watermark it very well knows it's not a theatre-projector and will stop playback.

Yea, I suppose that's possible. I honestly have no idea how the theater message works and how it determines it's running on the proper equipment or not. Clearly running on a 60" 3D LED TV is not the right equipment so it would know in that case. I could buy that argument. But if AACS is involved in any way, then it must be done at the player level so it wouldn't work for commercial blu-ray and dvd.

varekai

9th December 2011, 15:01

That's not how Cinavia works.

As I understand it, if I'm bying a new standalone Blu-ray player 2012 it's mandatory it will have Cinavia implemented in it's firmware?

And if I'm bying a new internal/external PC/Mac Blu-ray reader/burner 2012 it will not have Cinavia implemented?

SamuriHL

9th December 2011, 15:08

Right, currently the only implementation is in a player. A drive itself has no mechanism for decrypting the disc fully, let alone decoding audio and checking it for Cinavia. ;)

varekai

9th December 2011, 15:11

Right, currently the only implementation is in a player. A drive itself has no mechanism for decrypting the disc fully, let alone decoding audio and checking it for Cinavia. ;)
Thanks, appreciate the straight answer. Guess that's a good thing!

Ghitulescu

9th December 2011, 15:48

As I understand it, if I'm bying a new standalone Blu-ray player 2012 it's mandatory it will have Cinavia implemented in it's firmware?

And if I'm bying a new internal/external PC/Mac Blu-ray reader/burner 2012 it will not have Cinavia implemented?

Right, currently the only implementation is in a player. A drive itself has no mechanism for decrypting the disc fully, let alone decoding audio and checking it for Cinavia. ;)

But it will be implemented in the SW/drivers, maybe in the CPU.

diogen

9th December 2011, 16:16

But there's also "theatre-only" Cinavia watermark, aka message 1, which is not connected to aacs
(other than aacs-licensees needing to implement detection for it).That's what I meant.

Considering AACS wasn't finalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System)until 2 years after hidef discs hit the market, amending it shouldn't be a problem...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

9th December 2011, 16:24

But it will be implemented in the SW/drivers, maybe in the CPU.

It will definitely be added to the players like TMT/PDVD/WinDVD that are licensed by the AACS LA.

Andy o

9th December 2011, 16:50

"maybe in the CPU?" How?

rotty

9th December 2011, 23:56

Has the penny dropped yet. There is NO easy pratical technical solution to this.

The solution is, and always has been Comercial.

setarip_old

10th December 2011, 02:08

@rotty

Hi!

Please explain further - I, for one, don't understand your post.

Thank you ;>}

rotty

10th December 2011, 11:16

Well it’s an expansion of what you have said a few posts ago.

Quote "consumers' rights groups around the world are not taking the studios to task"
Well they can and will!

Audiophiles taking them to task re corrupting good audio!

And then of course the biggest and strongest force of all, people like you and me, the paying public NOT buying into these disks, even if that means not buying ANY.
Trust me, Cinavia would quickly and silently disappear.

What everyone has to keep in mind is that there is NO other option for us than the above. If you are waiting for the usual suspects to come up with a "practical" technical solution then you are wasting your time.

P.S.
The Wiki page below has been updated today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia#List_of_Known_Releases_with_Cinavia_Watermarking

xenex

10th December 2011, 12:26

rotty

10th December 2011, 12:36

Are the audiophiles taking the studios to task because of the use of the Cinavia watermark in almost every movie projected and seen in every movie theater? Because it IS part of the original audio. It is how the studios prevent "cam" recordings. It is now embedded in the audio of almost EVERY SINGLE FILM SHOWN IN THEATERS. It seems odd to say that the Blu-Ray audio is corrupted when, in fact, the actual theatrical projected film contains the same Cinavia watermark in its own audio.

-xenex

No, the watermaked audio in Cinema is not the same as BD, in fact the watermaking in Cinema is even more obtrusive, but this dosent really matter, as audio in Cinemas is at best nothing special anyway.

This together with sweet wrappers and other noise. Would you accept all that on your BD, no of course not, we put up with all this in Cinema, but WOULD NOT put up with it on our BD.

Corruption is corruption

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 14:57

"maybe in the CPU?" How?

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800631143_1800012_NP_8f4f945e.HTM

SamuriHL

10th December 2011, 15:48

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800631143_1800012_NP_8f4f945e.HTM

Unless I'm mistaken that article is talking about the equivalent of hdcp for the wireless streaming. Not cinavia or an equivalent protection?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Andy o

10th December 2011, 16:01

Yes, it has nothing to do with Cinavia or any other similar type of protection. It seems like HDCP, so people can't intercept the signal and copy it.

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 16:18

No, it talks about the implementation of DRM deep into the CPU. HDCP, PAP and other nice abreviations are just tests, they test how the public reacts, Vista was such an experiment, so was Windows Me around the millenium turn.

While now it talks about HDCP, it is just a matter of time until all the DRM features will be implemented. I am scared to death. You should be too.

Common people don't understand the messages, because they are loosing the perspective, but the people keening to implement them, well, they know, and the strategy is simple and efficient - small steps that nobody notice them until it's too late.

Since 1998 it is not possible to travel CD audio unchanged through the system (unless one uses the professional drivers named ASIO and the freeware versions thereof - but this was only AFTER the DRM was implemented, not before) irrespective of HW and SW. And this was done using a single phrase, only twice found in the PC98 specs and above, that is apparently harmless. But no PC98 and up would ever be bit-perfect for 44.1. Unless they use pro solutions.

Learn to read, people, learn to read. 1:1 copies and lossless copies do scare to death, and I mean it, the content providers. It's more than John Doe think, it's much more. It means you, the user, have the same control over the masterwork as the studios have. That is the essence.

Andy o

10th December 2011, 17:21

You are talking a bit like a conspiracist. You're jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Exactly what in Vista has made more difficult to copy anything? Even HDCP is useless as it was intended, it's just a nuisance. I have read some articles about this Intel DRM, but some time ago (check the date on your link). IIRC it was gonna be used for streaming content and such, probably requiring a compatible (software) player. It's probably meant to simplify DRM so you can play content from different sources with the same player, but in any case, there's nothing in sight that will implement it.

Regarding the CD thing, I'm pretty sure there are simpler explanations for the changes (like a much better mixer in Vista onwards). Again, it's trivial to get the full CD lossless output, I don't know what exactly you're talking about frankly.

diogen

10th December 2011, 17:40

...corrupting good audio!To start, there has to be proof - even if only theoretical at this point - that the watermark can be audible.

And that can be done either if you know the mechanic of the watermark insertion or if you try your golden ears.

Do you even know it is in the human audible freq range? Or are you afraid to scare your dog?

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 17:50

After 13 years, yes, it's simple to pass-through CD-audio 1:1. And if you're absolutely sure you can transfer CD-audio losslessly, try a DTS audio CD. You might be surprised.

I am a bit pro-conspiracy. Unlike you I know what I am talking about. That you and another 7 billion minus one men can copy Blu-rays, is not that you are allowed to do this, nor that you are so damn smart that you can do it by yourself, it's just because some people located somewhere outside the rach of Hollywood made a couple of software that could do it for you. The test to comply with Hollywood requirements is actually that one cannot do it in Windows on a regular PC. I can copy a CD 1:1 using a certain SW, but I cannot ever play a CD 1:1 through a PC without the aid of an ASIO (or similar) driver. Which ASIO comes only with pro or semipro cards. Oh, listening a CD in near-CD-quality no problem....

diogen

10th December 2011, 17:52

Learn to read, people, learn to read. ... It's more than John Doe think, it's much more.Geez...
Learn to do proper tests before you believe what you read!
Are you talking about Windows playback problems of some 10 years ago?

If yes, it was the WDM that was fixed few years later.
If not, ASIO and KS (kernel streaming) has been around for a while and the bit-identical rips using different tools have been tested.

DIogen.

diogen

10th December 2011, 18:26

Unlike you I know what I am talking about.No, you don't.
And if you're absolutely sure you can transfer CD-audio losslessly, try a DTS audio CD.And what is going to happen?
FYI, AC3Filter is playing most of the DTS CDs (at least of the non-14bit variety) for over 5 years.
...it's just because some people located somewhere outside the rach of Hollywood made a couple of software that could do it for you.Are you going to say that it's you that blessed the humankind with these tools? Are you DVD-Jon and muslix all-in-one?
The test to comply with Hollywood requirements is actually that one cannot do it in Windows on a regular PC.Where does this BS come from?

I think you mixed up what forum you are on.
This sh!t doesn't fly on doom9...

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 18:30

Sure, it was solved, but I think you need to understand what "solved" means

It means that there was already a problem that needed to be solved.

Why is Slysoft based in Antigua?

All what you say is Ok. There is no conspiracy, only Ghitulescu is "hunting for the moon". But imagine the day after Slysoft of DVDfab went out of business. Imagine the internet will be locked (like in China, Niger and other countries). And you will buy a new PC. I wonder how smart you'll be that day, realising you can't do anything. Not even expressing your legal rights because of the digital lock. You'll then understand my point. Unfortunatelly it willl be too late.

Of course, some non bit-exact solutions will still be available (sort of Digital copy of Blu-ray discs), CD-recorders will still copy CD-DAs the analog way and so on. And stupid people will still be happy because they 'll still get the crumbs from the seniors' table ... (Matthew 5:3 Blessed are those who recognize they are spiritually helpless. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them).

diogen

10th December 2011, 19:00

Sure, it was solved, but I think you need to understand what "solved" meansI do. Do you?
It means that there was already a problem that needed to be solved.No, it doesn't.
It was well documented on AVSForum.
Have you even been around when that happened?
Why is Slysoft based in Antigua?
Every reading soul on doom9 knows that. Just like 2+2=4.
But no one pretends to be a genius and/or prophet because of that.
I wonder how smart you'll be that day, realising you can't do anything.
Not even expressing your legal rights because of the digital lock. You'll then understand my point. Unfortunatelly it willl be too late.I think you need to visit a doctor. Or a priest.

Here is something that you might consider of interest.
As long as you talk LP vs. CD or anything analog versus digital, you will always have the option to claim to know/hear something others don't.
The moment you step into the digital domain (but don't talk cables yet) the discussion becomes binary in every respect:
it applies to the audio/video stream and logic as well. A claim - any claim - is BS until proven right.

Diogen.

rotty

10th December 2011, 19:09

To start, there has to be proof - even if only theoretical at this point - that the watermark can be audible.

And that can be done either if you know the mechanic of the watermark insertion or if you try your golden ears.

Do you even know it is in the human audible freq range? Or are you afraid to scare your dog?

Diogen.

The Cinavia watermark isn’t a tone or tones, it is manipulation of the audio that is already there and therefore well within our range, in other words, it is audible but not necessarily noticeable.

It does therefore however add information to the sound, therefore the sound is corrupted.

I wouldn’t call myself an audiophile, but I like good audio, for me it's the principal that is wrong.

Purists will tell you quite rightly that you can hear the intermodulation between the 44.1K sample rate and certain high frequencies on a CD. Nothing is absolutely perfect eh.

I will leave the moaning to the audiophiles.

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 19:17

Yes, I am utterly wrong, and you are bringing the truth to the mankind.

I hate to say I told you (plural) so. But I told you so.

I will do it once more. I am used to it. People will never learn, thus the history repeats itself once again.

PS: Solved means by all means that something has been solved, ie a problem was there that needed to be solved. Without a problem there were no SOLVED. That is not plain English, it's 3500 years old logic (mathematics).

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 19:27

I wouldn’t call myself an audiophile, but I like good audio, it's the principal that is wrong in my opinion.

Purists will tell you quite rightly that you can hear the intermodulation between the 44.1K sample rate and certain high frequencies on a CD. Nothing is absolutely perfect eh.

I will leave the moaning to the audiophiles.

One cannot legally do nothing against cinavia. Not because the laws are favouring the content providers. Because cinavia protects ONLY the work of the others and should not interfer with your own work. Now, honestly, how many people here created their own work? Should I laugh now or what?

If one thinks cinavia is detrimental to his own work he could bring the case before a judge. Strange, no case filed up to now ....

Even worse, complaining about cinavia means automatically one has issues with the copyright ... as nobody else, except the biased audiophiles (knowing beforehand they have a cinavia-infected track), would ever discover the cinavia artefacts ... according to panellists in their applications, the cinavia tracks are auditively indistinguishable.

I am against cinavia from the principles of paying for and getting what that was paid.

Andy o

10th December 2011, 19:38

Of course DTS CDs can be played back bit-perfect, and in fact, Vista and 7 made this much simpler than ASIO, with WASAPI exclusive mode. It seems it's you who hasn't kept up. Redbook CDs are the easiest thing to copy anyway, it doesn't matter if you can play them bit-perfect if you can just rip them.

And whatever happened with blu-ray is the same as what happened with DVD. Did you yourself decrypt CSS, back in the day? The vast majority has always relied on people who are smart enough to provide the tools. Even Cinavia is not new, it's very similar to the watermarking used in DVD-A.

The problem with your speculations is that you're stating some truths (and some not), but are taking huge leaps into conclusions without any evidence.

diogen

10th December 2011, 19:41

The Cinavia watermark isn’t a tone or tones, it is manipulation of the audio that is already there and therefore well within our range, in other words, it is audible but not necessarily noticeable.

It does therefore however add information to the sound, therefore the sound is corrupted.

I wouldn’t call myself an audiophile, but I like good audio, for me it's the principal that is wrong.

Purists will tell you quite rightly that you can hear the intermodulation between the 44.1K sample rate and certain high frequencies on a CD. Nothing is absolutely perfect eh.

I will leave the moaning to the audiophiles.
I understand the theory and why purists would not be happy.
Fortunately, I'm not in the audiophile category either.

There are just two points I'm trying to make:

1. Whatever can play today BDs (discs, ISOs, derived MKVs, etc.) will be able to do this in the future.
Regardless of the watermark! As long as as the DRM wrappers - AACS and BD+ - are removed.

2. The watermark is around for a year or so and I haven't heard about consumers/audiophiles have bleeding ears
because of the mutilated soundtrack. Hence, it is hardly worth paying attention at the moment.
When they manage to incorporate the watermark checking in the TV/projector, it would be worth to look into.

History is not on the studios' side.
Felten & Co. won the SDMI challenge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Felten).
And that comes from the same people as the BD watermark.

Every Sony attempt to prevent DVD ripping after DVD-Jon, has failed.
Despite being able to C&D some developers.

Hence if there is a perfect DRM it will take time. Something optical media business doesn't have.
And in the end, I'm not sure they actually want a 100% tight DRM...

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 19:49

The problem with your speculations is that you're stating some truths (and some not), but are taking huge leaps into conclusions without any evidence.

True, I can't provide any evidence for things that will occur in the future :)

diogen

10th December 2011, 19:49

Solved means by all means that something has been solved, ie a problem was there...You have no clue what you are talking about.
I'll let you in on the secret: it was one of many Microsoft screw-ups.
And that was the problem.

Not PC98 specs.

Take care.

Diogen.

Andy o

10th December 2011, 19:53

2. The watermark is around for a year or so and I haven't heard about consumers/audiophiles have bleeding ears
because of the mutilated soundtrack. Hence, it is hardly worth paying attention at the moment.
And the thing is history is repeating itself with audiophiles and their hypothetically bleeding golden-ears, with the DVD-A watermark. As far as I know, no one could prove they could identify it, and now that it can be ripped, I don't see people complaining about it anymore.

When they manage to incorporate the watermark checking in the TV/projector, it would be worth to look into.That's an if though, and a big IF at that.

Every Sony attempt to prevent DVD ripping after DVD-Jon, has failed.
Despite being able to C&D some developers.
Even better, they taught the word "rootkit" to millions of people in just a few days!

Andy o

10th December 2011, 19:54

True, I can't provide any evidence for things that will occur in the future :)

Somehow I think you're being serious despite the smiley.

diogen

10th December 2011, 20:06

That's an if though, and a big IF at that.

Even better, they taught the word "rootkit" to millions of people in just a few days!Exactly.
You made my point!

The best chance to implement an unbreakable DRM system is leaving the option open to update it daily.
And that means no hardware players or media. Hence - streaming with Win/OSX/Android/iOS/etc. software players.

And we are getting there...

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

10th December 2011, 21:08

Exactly.
You made my point!

The best chance to implement an unbreakable DRM system is leaving the option open to update it daily.
And that means no hardware players or media. Hence - streaming with Win/OSX/Android/iOS/etc. software players.

And we are getting there...

Diogen.

Therefore the need to implement the protections deep into things beyond the reach of even the hardest hacker. The HDCP solutions must be one-chip-ones with no "entry-points" (so one cannot short 2 pins to disable some functionality or enable others, testing must be done with special tools only, samples of the LSI chips must be sent physically to specialised labs for approval, etc etc), the DRM wil be integrated into the CPU, etc. Remember the concept of trusting computing? You're dealing with it now. Everyone told me It's for online banking only. Really?

If one reads the GEMA (the equivalent of RIAA/MPAA) web page, learns that one is indulged to copy for private use the copyrighted works (one must also understand that copyrighted refers exclusively to the works affiliated to GEMA, not to the works made by the unhappier customer), you know, the studios close an eye pretending they don't see you're copying something. This is a blatant lie, as the Copyright law in Germany specifically say "Recht auf Privatkopie" (the right to a private copy), but many people, including newspapers and magazines, happily quote GEMA, instead of reading the law. But a well-promoted lie ends up becoming a truth, right?

So, how can a greedy body avoid the law? Well, one method is to bribe the officials to issue some favourable laws. Hmm, one of them is in Europe the equivalent of DMCA of USA. So, the copyright law says you may copy a work under certain conditions (and definitively after a certain period, which was almost doubled to 95 years), but hey, stop, you are not allowed to circumvent the copyprotections. Not even after 95 years, or 295 years or 1395 years. The ancillary rights will expire eventually, but the interdiction remains.
You have a free ticket to a museum, but you are not allowed to touch the door to open it.

Welcome to the digital age.

kalehrl

10th December 2011, 22:24

Therefore the need to implement the protections deep into things beyond the reach of even the hardest hacker.

All this reminds me of recent developments in satellite scrambling systems, especially the ones made by Nagravision and NDS Videogurad. Some packages such as TotalTv (encrypted in NDS) and Max Tv Croatia (encrypted in Nagravision) have employed hardware pairing of cards with the receivers to prevent card sharing. Basically, the last phase of control word descrambling is done somewhere deep in hardware, probably in the processor itself or some other chip. Hackers are at a loss and have no idea how to hack it. Jtaging and other methods are useless. I think Ghitulescu is right to be a bit paranoid.

SamuriHL

10th December 2011, 22:38

The future always brings the next round of protection. The stuff being used on Blu-ray today will look like CSS compared to what's likely to be found on whatever 4K standard comes next. Doesn't matter if it's disc or streaming based. Protection is always going to evolve. And there are always going to be people trying to pick the lock. The inherent problem with all these schemes is that at some point, the protection has to be removed so you can play the actual content. Therefore they provide you with the keys to the locks. It takes super genius people to figure out how to get at those keys, but, in the end it's a futile game. Cinavia's sole purpose in life is to ensure that the lock wasn't picked before a certain point. In any case, I prefer to deal with what we have today and what is coming in the near term future rather than what might be coming further down the road. We know it's going to be nasty. That's how the game works. For now, I'd rather focus on Cinavia and the 2 parts of it...content protected by it, and players that detect it. As it stands now, Cinavia is doing a good job checking that the lock wasn't picked. But I'll leave you with a fun analogy.

Cinavia is like the apartment building that has a door man to check that you are authorized to be there. You may have a key to one of the apartments, but, the door man's job is to ensure you're even supposed to be there. That's Cinavia. A non-Cinavia player is like having an apartment without a door man. Hence, no Cinavia checking to make sure you're authorized.

:)

hello_hello

11th December 2011, 00:15

So, the copyright law says you may copy a work under certain conditions (and definitively after a certain period, which was almost doubled to 95 years), but hey, stop, you are not allowed to circumvent the copyprotections. Not even after 95 years, or 295 years or 1395 years. The ancillary rights will expire eventually, but the interdiction remains.
You have a free ticket to a museum, but you are not allowed to touch the door to open it.

As far as I know there's no specific law stating you can't circumvent copy protections. The DMCA says you're not allowed to produce software or hardware etc for the purpose of circumventing copy protections, but given it exists I don't think there's anything to stop the average person from using it in order to make backup copies of copyrighted works they own.

diogen

11th December 2011, 00:31

The future always brings the next round of protection.I'm not sure this is true as a general statement.
I don't think much was done after the HDCP/AACS/BD+ introduction with the hidef optical formats. And all of them failed, again.

I don't think the MPAA/RIAA and their international "relatives" mind too much about the hacks themselves.
What they do mind is the distribution of the results. The Pirate Bay and such.

This is why we hear more and more about the US trying to impose "three-strike" type legislature in other countries
(ACTA (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/us-signs-international-anti-piracy-accord.ars)was the most recent attempt) while hackers get hired by multinationals (Samsung hiring Cyanogen (http://www.slashgear.com/cyanogen-hired-by-samsung-will-continue-work-on-cyanogenmod-for-android-16171941/))...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

11th December 2011, 00:53

I'm not sure this is true as a general statement.
I don't think much was done after the HDCP/AACS/BD+ introduction with the hidef optical formats. And all of them failed, again.

I couldn't disagree more. Cinavia was added, obviously. BD-J protection was created by Sony as seen on Source Code and others. At some point you may start to see structural protection as we do on DVD's. I'd say it's very much true as a general statement that the future always brings with it new and fun protections to deal with.

Ghitulescu

11th December 2011, 13:43

As far as I know there's no specific law stating you can't circumvent copy protections. The DMCA says you're not allowed to produce software or hardware etc for the purpose of circumventing copy protections, but given it exists I don't think there's anything to stop the average person from using it in order to make backup copies of copyrighted works they own.

Directive 2001/29/EC follows in Article 6.3 and following the path set by DMCA. You might be excused for not knowing the EU directive, but you should know DMCA. DMCA has the power of a law within US.

Ghitulescu

11th December 2011, 13:44

I think Ghitulescu is right to be a bit paranoid.
I am not paranoic. I know what I am talking about. I am a realist.

Vurbal

11th December 2011, 16:17

As far as I know there's no specific law stating you can't circumvent copy protections. The DMCA says you're not allowed to produce software or hardware etc for the purpose of circumventing copy protections, but given it exists I don't think there's anything to stop the average person from using it in order to make backup copies of copyrighted works they own.
That is incorrect. The first bit of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html) is specifically a prohibition against circumventing copy protection.

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

hello_hello

11th December 2011, 20:21

Directive 2001/29/EC follows in Article 6.3 and following the path set by DMCA. You might be excused for not knowing the EU directive, but you should know DMCA. DMCA has the power of a law within US.

I don't live in the US.
You may have noticed I said "as far as I know", and if it's wrong, so be it. I don't post theory as fact and then refuse to admit it if it's not correct.

Is that a recent amendment to the DMCA? Last time the subject came up in this thread I did post links to support what I'd said but at the time the DMCA was considered less on-topic than it appears to be now.
I guess I was just ahead of my time, as after all (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1522276&postcount=1097) his complaining (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1522381&postcount=1099), setarip_old seems to have decided with this post (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1543875&postcount=1206) that the scope of the discussion in this thread isn't quite as narrow as he initially thought. ;)

xenex

13th December 2011, 11:12

I have noticed that on the Slysoft forums, and elsewhere, there has been some 'wondering' as to why Cinavia is being actively applied to Blu-Rays, and not so much to DVD's.

I have a theory on this. I cannot state it as absolutely correct, but I feel 95% certain on it. Back in March 2011, I wrote a program to test the hash table and certificate on Cinavia-DVD. The program works, with maybe a bug or two. It is on page 44 of this thread, I believe.

What I discovered is that a commercial DVD can contain Cinavia (with an AACS folder) OR it can contain structural protection such as ArccoS/Ripguard.Etc, but NOT BOTH. This is because the method of hashing the VOB files used to create the AACS hash table requires a normal, compliant DVD structure.

And, of course, the structural protection methods on DVD require a 'corrupted' DVD structure. And I've done some tests. There are (currently) seven DVD's known to contain Cinavia. I've tested five of them:

Takers, Burlesque, The Tourist, Zookeeper, Bad Teacher

All five of these have no "special" protection at all, and can be copied using the old "DVD Decrypter."

Looking at a more recent release, the "SMURF" movie, I note that whilst the Blu-Ray release DOES include Cinavia, the DVD release does not, but DOES have a new ArccoS/Structure protection.

I do not know who in the production chain decides on what protection any given release would have, but I surmise that the 'powers who be' have decided that structural protections on DVD are more effective than Cinavia at this time. And they are probably correct, given the numbers of DVD players out there that are not "Cinavianabled."

My greater point, though, is that any given DVD release might have Cinavia, or might have structural protection, but it CANNOT HAVE BOTH. I'm 95% certain. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm just that sure.

-xenex

Ghitulescu

13th December 2011, 12:08

Maybe also because the DVD is dying, like the VHS before it. It certainly help with the budget not to invest money (like the old MV, cinavia requires licence fees).

xenex

13th December 2011, 13:07

Ghitulescu-

I don't think DVD is dying at all. I think "customer" demand for DVD is as high as ever. But I know what you are saying, and I believe you are correct. So at 'some point' (next year or two) some (popular) movie will be released "Blu-Ray ONLY EXCLUSIVE!!" We know it's going to happen. Just like no new movies are on VHS, soon Blu-Ray will be forced on us. I know it will happen. So I guess I agree with the prediction, what can I say. It's going to happen.

-xenex

(I disagree with you sometimes, but I am a realist too. And a student of history.)

SamuriHL

13th December 2011, 14:24

derbeDeus

13th December 2011, 15:15

setarip_old

13th December 2011, 23:00

I tend to think that the underlying reason Verance issued the first few DVDs with "Cinavia" was in direct response to the early discovery by members of our community that audiostreams from DVDs could be used to replace "Cinavia"-infected audiostreams on their same-titled Blu-ray discs. As I recall, prior to the first DVD with "Cinavia" release, there was speculation that "Cinavia" watermarking could not be used on DVDs - forcing Verance to prove it could be done.

Early steps in the "cat and mouse" game.

Kudos to "xenex" regarding the wonderful analysis and conclusion regarding the apparent limitations of coexistence of conventional copy protection vis-a-vis "Cinavia"/Verance protection ;>}

SamuriHL

13th December 2011, 23:05

Now they have to weigh the options when releasing the DVD's. Do they add structural protection to make them harder to copy and run the risk of someone using the audio track from the DVD to circumvent Cinavia on the Blu-ray? Or do they forego structural protection in favor of "closing the loophole" by adding Cinavia in an effort to protect their higher quality, and to some degree, higher margin Blu-rays? Not a decision I'd want to make. To quote my daughter...."sucks to be them." :D

SamuriHL

13th December 2011, 23:07

Oh, and P.S. xenex, if they come out next month with a structurally protected Cinavia laiden DVD, I blame you! :p Seriously, though, that was a brilliant conclusion. Much appreciated.

Guest

13th December 2011, 23:42

I don't believe the thesis that structural protection rules out Cinavia. There is only anecdotal evidence and no plausible theoretical reason for it. I think it's misguided to accept this thesis as true at this point.

SamuriHL

13th December 2011, 23:46

It really depends on how the hash is generated. If they're using every file referenced on the disc, then they'd run head first into the structural protection which would in fact cause it to fail. So, the theory is actually pretty sound. I guess we'll see what happens, and like I said, if we do see structurally protected Cinavia discs, I'm blaming xenex. :D LOL!

rotty

13th December 2011, 23:53

Guest

14th December 2011, 03:59

...would in fact cause it to fail... What is your basis for this claim of fact, especially given that you don't know the algorithms used?

SamuriHL

14th December 2011, 04:10

What is your basis for this claim of fact, especially given that you don't know the algorithms used?

Thank you for quoting a small part of what I said and using it out of context. I love that. :rolleyes: Structural protection works because a regular player doesn't access the corrupt parts of the disc. You believe that the Cinavia algorithm used for creating the AACS hash that validates the disc, which none of us know how it works, actually knows what files are part of the structural protection and which ones aren't? People have theorized that the AACS hash is created by hashing all files on the disc. I haven't looked it myself. I'm only basing this on what others have said as to how it works. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about knowing anything as fact. Here's what I said:

"It really depends on how the hash is generated. If they're using every file referenced on the disc, then they'd run head first into the structural protection which would in fact cause it to fail."

*IF* they are hashing all the files on the disc, THEN it would stand to reason that the structural protection would cause problems.

Guest

14th December 2011, 04:51

Thanks for confirming the status of the theory as unsubstantiated speculation.

SamuriHL

14th December 2011, 04:58

Thanks for confirming the status of the theory as unsubstantiated speculation.

No problem. Pretty much everything in this thread falls into that category. Lol :) But yes, we have no proof of the claim thus far.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

xenex

14th December 2011, 07:04

We actually DO know how the hash and certificate are generated and verified, it's all laid out in detail in this AACS specification:

http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/AACS_Spec_Signed_CSS_Final_0.952.pdf

The program that I wrote and mentioned earlier implements this specification and can read and verify the hash and certificate (man, the ECDSA stuff was HARD) and can also generate a new hash table from a given compliant DVD. It's here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=155777&page=44

The one thing it CANNOT do is digitally sign the certificate, as the AACS_CCpriv key is secret and unknown.

So I do have what I feel to be solid technical reasons for thinking my theory is correct. I could be wrong, sure, but it's a theory. Anyone can believe whatever they want. I don't think there is any way to given a formal mathematical proof, LOL :)

-xenex

Ghitulescu

14th December 2011, 09:37

Yeah, sounds right to me too.
Cinavia was introduced on DVDs not as a method of protection for dvds (the players base without cinavia is masive), but for their Bluray pairs.
Lol, they've decided that loophole is not that bad :D

I'm not that sure.
The trend today is to have that sort of "Tricorder", a sort of all-in-one thing. It's no longer clear whether for instance Dune HD Max is a media player with incorporated Blu-ray playback module, or a BD-player with extended multimedia facilities. Or a SAT receiver with multimedia (AVI, MKV, subtitles etc.) that may be equally seen as a mediaplayer with DVB-S2 tuners. Are the Brother's line of MFCs printers with scan/copier/fax modules, or copymachines with fax/PClink features or even facsimile machines with copy/usb bonuses?
The design is also changed to futuristic, individual shapes that precludes any other device nearby. The time of rectangular, stapled (43cm)/racked (19") devices went to an end.

Bottom line: most people will voluntarily discard their DVD-players to keep only one player, the BDplayer. And the latter will look for the AACS folder also on DVDs and will trigger cinavia for copies.

Vurbal

14th December 2011, 09:45

I'm not that sure.
The trend today is to have that sort of "Tricorder", a sort of all-in-one thing. It's no longer clear whether for instance Dune HD Max is a media player with incorporated Blu-ray playback module, or a BD-player with extended multimedia facilities. Or a SAT receiver with multimedia (AVI, MKV, subtitles etc.) that may be equally seen as a mediaplayer with DVB-S2 tuners. Are the Brother's line of MFCs printers with scan/copier/fax modules, or copymachines with fax/PClink features or even facsimile machines with copy/usb bonuses?
The design is also changed to futuristic, individual shapes that precludes any other device nearby. The time of rectangular, stapled (43cm)/racked (19") devices went to an end.

Bottom line: most people will voluntarily discard their DVD-players to keep only one player, the BDplayer. And the latter will look for the AACS folder also on DVDs and will trigger cinavia for copies.
I tend to agree with this. While I don't believe DVD itself is going away any time soon, DVD players are another thing entirely. They will gradually be replaced by Blu-ray players, even for those who never buy a Blu-ray disc. The entire DRM ecosystem for Blu-ray was designed, from the beginning, with the idea of future-proofing. Putting Cinavia protection on DVDs is a logical step from that point of view.

derbeDeus

14th December 2011, 10:16

Yes, correct.
But they also have a window of time when they want very much the disc to be protected, knowing that the big sale for a disc is when it appears. So we will have Cinavia dvds again in the future, when the balance favours the watermark.

Guest

14th December 2011, 14:45

...
So I do have what I feel to be solid technical reasons for thinking my theory is correct. I could be wrong, sure, but it's a theory. That's all I was asking for, some basis for the theory, which you have now provided. Thank you.

jetli

22nd December 2011, 03:58

hello_hello

22nd December 2011, 12:47

they said, that 2/1/12, when we think cinavia is suppose to be mandatory, it isn't!

That's what I suspected the first time the deadline was mentioned. It'll be interesting to see if it happens or not.

Ghitulescu

22nd December 2011, 14:16

BTW, Oppo digital says there is no immediate plans in their future to implement cinavia in their players. they said, that 2/1/12, when we think
cinavia is suppose to be mandatory, it isn't! we shall see if they were lying.
they also said it was just a simple firmware change to ANY player. no hardware needs to be modified to implement cinavia on ANY player.

That's what I suspected the first time the deadline was mentioned. It'll be interesting to see if it happens or not.

Since the implementation of cinavia must be kept silent, such statements are either marketing messages or generic ones (that will be substantiated later in form of "yes, our machines do not contain cinavia, unfortunately the models for US/EU must contain it to fulfil the legal requirements bla bla"). Oppo is based in China and tries hard to get a bigger piece of cake in the hard fought High End series.

Oppo sells BD-players (as opposed to eg Popcorn Hour which sells multimedia players) and is subjected therefore to AACS regulations. The companies behind AACS have a lot of countermeasures - both legal (copyright, patents, trade agreements) and technical (blacklisting).

Ghitulescu

22nd December 2011, 15:09

hello_hello

22nd December 2011, 15:12

I guess in a month or so we'll know whether it's fact or conjecture.

derbeDeus

23rd December 2011, 08:07

How long needs one to wait until the cinavia message will appear (on a cinavia "infected" player)? In internet I've seen numbers like 20 minutes to be the most mentioned.
And how counts the player these minutes? I mean, did the FWD/REW count? Chapter skipping? Change of the audio track? Wait until 19:58:00, FWD 3 seconds, PLAY? Any pattern found so far?

It's 20 mins for bd/dvd rips (message 3) and <1min for theatre rips (message 1).
The 20 mins are counted as effective "watch time", ff,rev does not count. Eg. if you pause it, the pause time will be subtracted and you get more watch time. Also, there's about 18-20 secs delay before the message goes away after the condition to trigger it changed (eg. you changed to another track without cinavia).

xenex

23rd December 2011, 11:27

Yep-

SamuriHL did a ton of tests on this over a year ago and posted highly tested and definite results that are beyond question. But those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

-xenex

Ghitulescu

23rd December 2011, 11:47

SamuriHL did a ton of tests on this over a year ago and posted highly tested and definite results that are beyond question. But those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

If this refers to my attempts to spot cinavied devices this year :)
then I have to remind you that the behaviour of cinavia in respect to these messages and the conditions needed to trigger it are nowhere set. What is known is a press release on the web page. The conditions may be changed, if the results are still not satisfactory. The whole BD specs are routinely changed/amended.

I agree that once a device is cinavied it cannot be reverted back. But finding out which one is still not, that is worth a try.

xenex

23rd December 2011, 13:46

Ghitulescu-

Please to see this:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/hpa_tech_retreat_2011_day_2/

I think it's interesting.

-xenex

SamuriHL

23rd December 2011, 15:06

If this refers to my attempts to spot cinavied devices this year :)
then I have to remind you that the behaviour of cinavia in respect to these messages and the conditions needed to trigger it are nowhere set. What is known is a press release on the web page. The conditions may be changed, if the results are still not satisfactory. The whole BD specs are routinely changed/amended.

I agree that once a device is cinavied it cannot be reverted back. But finding out which one is still not, that is worth a try.

My testing was done with The Losers on a PS3. The 20 minute duration is set by the studios and could vary. However all the reports I've seen for commercial discs containing cinavia indicate that they're all using the 20 minute "grace period". And that seems to hold true on other players from what I recall...so not just a PS3 implementation. Other message types trigger cinavia quicker from what I've read. Meaning no grace period...they just shut down playback instantly. I've no experience with those media as they are only found on theatrical releases to my knowledge. I hope this helps in your testing. Fwiw I made my own cinavia detection media from a 20 minute or so section of the losers. I reencoded it to a 400 meg mp4 and tested that it nicely triggers cinavia. You could do the same with any cinavia infected disc.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

rotty

2nd January 2012, 19:01

Has anyone checked the link below now (2012)
The list of new corrupted disk releases for these few days in 2012, it is almost as big as the entire 2011 list.

People should:
a) Finally realise that Cinavia will be switched on in ALL players.

b) Stop this endless senseless listing of players that are Cinavia free, WAKE UP, they will be enabled.

I will be polite and describe as uninformed, people that believe that the PC will remain immune from this.

Start 2012 as you mean to go on, you know exactly what to do regaring these releases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia#List_of_Known_Releases_with_Cinavia_Watermarking

diogen

2nd January 2012, 19:19

I will be polite and describe as uninformed, people that believe that the PC will remain immune from this.I will be polite and point out that the probability of ffdshow developers to abide by the BD DRM requirements is zero.

Diogen.

setarip_old

2nd January 2012, 20:13

Now that 25GB BD-Rs are priced (on labels such as "Optical Quantum") on par with DVD9 blanks, perhaps it's time for the community to once again consider the "BDMV-REC" concept made available by DVDFab. Here's a summary:
Pros:
* It is a solution to disable Cinavia, exactly as it is disabled for the original disc, due to (AACS) protection layer being active.
* DVDFab does all the tricks involved to create such a protected backup at a push of a button.
* The disc can preserve all the original features like menus, interactivity, BD-Live.
* Broad firmware support: PS3 users with firmware from 1.60 and up to 3.55 can use BDMV-REC discs; fw3.55 is the latest at the time of writing.
* At any time, DVDFab or DVDFab Passkey can be used to remove the protection, if you need to.
* This is kind of an official solution, because it involves support from AACS standards, the same standards that force adoption of Cinavia
* While we tested it on PS3 for now, it may work on other players too. As results from tests will become available we'll update you with. Also it seems that only PS3 has Cinavia detector in current, up-to-date firmware (others disabled it, like LG, or just announced it for future firmware).

Cons:
* BDMV-REC is not implemented by all players. BD Players implemented Blu-ray standards as they saw fit to market their products. Not all of them have implemented AACS Recordable BDMV (BDMV-REC). PS3, being one of the best players, did.
* If not on PS3, we encourage users to check the playback support for "AACS protected recordable BDMV" either with BD Player support or with a BD-RE.
* PC players support protected BDAV, but not BDMV-REC.
* Cinavia is not removed, just disabled.

rotty

2nd January 2012, 21:12

I will be polite and point out that the probability of ffdshow developers to abide by the BD DRM requirements is zero.

Diogen.

Im not talking about your and my PC right now.
I will be even more polite and not comment about s/w being unable to do anything to get round it in future.

SamuriHL

2nd January 2012, 21:19

Im not talking about your and my PC right now.
I will be even more polite and not comment about s/w being unable to do anything to get round it in future.

Then what are you talking about? Cause only licensed commercial software players are going to be affected on the PC.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

rotty

2nd January 2012, 21:37

Then what are you talking about? Cause only licensed commercial software players are going to be affected on the PC.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Take Video and Audio back to the very first stage at which it is available within the PC, this can be a completely closed system, i.e. Cinavia is detected before this point. Input to the system can also be closed, i.e. validity.

I think that people can argue about this ad infinitum and I sure wont bother myself with that.

As you know, the PC has sort of been a rogue in the industry for some time now, the industry with its big money clout has been after closing this big loophole.

But if you really do think that the PC will always be immune from this or future DRM then you are of course intituled to do that.

Sent from my laptop using my fingers

SamuriHL

2nd January 2012, 21:55

rotty

2nd January 2012, 22:04

Wait...I didn't say anything about future drm. I am talking strictly about cinavia at this point. That is what this thread is about. And I maintain that when discussing cinavia only licensed software players will be affected. If you want speculate about some future drm to lock down the PC then we'll be discussing a new topic entirely.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

It doesn’t matter what the s/w player is, it still needs to physically output the audio at some point.

Be it within the PC or out of a connector to the outside world, (analogue or digital).

In future PC's, this architecture will be closed, Cinavia will be detected not using s/w but within the hardware in the closed structure before it even leaves the single chip (Analogue/Digital).

As for other DRM, once you have a closed system, all this becomes simple.

Sent from my Laptop using my fingers

SamuriHL

2nd January 2012, 22:53

We'll have to agree that we disagree on this one. :)

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

rotty

2nd January 2012, 23:26

We'll have to agree that we disagree on this one. :)

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

OK Samuri

Happy New Year by the way.

diogen

2nd January 2012, 23:51

I will be even more polite and not comment about s/w being unable to do anything to get round it in future. There were times when the universality of the PC as a player was under threat: before deCSS, before muslix, etc.
The RIAA/MPAA didn't smarten up while the "hackers" did: now we have a commercial (as well as non-) package that does the ripping.

Are you saying the time might come and AnyDVD emplyees will be in jail and the PC's OS will enforce DRM?

Maybe. But then again, according to Maia 2012 is the end of the world anyway...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

3rd January 2012, 02:17

OK Samuri

Happy New Year by the way.

Happy new year to you, as well.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

jpsdr

3rd January 2012, 09:26

Question, if someone knows : If a Blu-Ray is created using Scenarist and audio has Cinavia, will burning BDMV, CERTIFICATE and AACS created directories after mux instead of BDMV and CERTIFICATE only on a BD-R, be enough to bypass Cinavia ? I mean : fool the player...

Ghitulescu

3rd January 2012, 09:48

Try BDMV-REC :) instead ;)

jpsdr

3rd January 2012, 12:59

This is specific to DVDFab apparently, from what i've understood form google search. When i redo a Blu-Ray, i do several things, like denoising video or add subtitles (when i work from japanise anime BR). So, it's not a simple rip. Thanks, but, unless i've understood things wrong, this is useless for me.

Ghitulescu

3rd January 2012, 13:27

EVERY and I really mean EVERY BDplayer knows the type of the disc inside irrespective of the tricks used (like booksetting) so BDMV-REC can be easily circumvented: recordable disc + cinavied track =-> illegal copy =-> audio mute + and message 1 or 3, depending on the source of the material. Until then, enjoy this solution. It's the only available one.

PS: every single optical recordable medium was designed NOT to support encryption of any kind. Encryption can only be made at replication factories. It's much simpler (and extremely effective) to control a few thousand sites than millions of CD/DVD/BD-writer/recorder owners (AKA damn pirates :) ).

setarip_old

3rd January 2012, 18:38

@jpsdr

Hi! This is specific to DVDFab apparently...Thanks, but, unless i've understood things wrong, this is useless for me.If DVDFab works as advertised to create playable "BDMV-REC" discs, why would it be useless for you?

k-c-ksum

3rd January 2012, 21:27

cinavia implementation on PC software may well be its down fall, anydvd/dvdfab coders will be able to see just how it ticks

diogen

3rd January 2012, 21:56

Verance's SDMI watermarking was defeated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Felten#SDMI_lawsuits)ones.
http://www.usenix.org/events/sec01/craver.pdf

I don't think it has improved much since, ~10 years ago.
Therefore, will be defeated again as soon as it moves from annoyance to a threat.

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

14th January 2012, 18:39

No, the algorithm was shown to have flaws.
The SDMI was not defeated, read the article carefuly, you'll notice they have access to the original samples, a luxury the hackers of BD-cinavia do not have.
The only solution to cinavia is to find a player that plays copies disregarding cinavia and be sure you'll never connect it to the internet or upgrade it yourself.

Ghitulescu

7th February 2012, 10:04

An interesting bit of information hereAs a bonus: Cinavia does not survive in DTS sound...:)

Diogen.
Google says however that this works on PS3 only - so this sounds more like a defective/incomplete implementation than a solution.

SamuriHL

7th February 2012, 13:53

An interesting bit of information here
Google says however that this works on PS3 only - so this sounds more like a defective/incomplete implementation than a solution.

This is highly inaccurate information. When I did my testing I created a dts core track and muxed it into a DVD. Cinavia was detected just fine on my ps3.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Ghitulescu

7th February 2012, 15:21

In bitstream or decoded?
I assume the audio must be decoded in order to detect cinavia - anyway, decoding audio is a requirement of BD specs.

I don't have a PS3, the information I posted are from diogen, see the original topic, and from google (a few fora for PS3). It was not my intention to misinform people, just to bring forward something interesting.

derbeDeus

7th February 2012, 19:30

Cinavia is not detected on PS3 in Music mode. ie. any track with Cinavia will play fine. But that's something they didnt bother to do. In any other mode, BD, DVD, video file, dlna, it will detect cinavia and will act on it if it's not a trusted source (only BD and DVD can be, not sure about video file, maybe some cprm on sd or smth will do, but any discussion would be purely theoretical :) ).

SamuriHL

7th February 2012, 20:57

I believe when I was testing I tried both bitstreaming and decoding and it detected it both ways. Again, that's on a DVD that I remastered with the core DTS track from a Cinavia enabled blu-ray. AFAIK, all "loopholes" in the PS3 detection have been corrected by now in the latest firmware updates.

@Ghitulescu - my comment wasn't in reference to you posting the information. Simply the information itself was not correct. :)

diogen

7th February 2012, 21:29

When I did my testing I created a dts core track and muxed it into a DVD. Cinavia was detected just fine on my ps3.According to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia) this doesn't apply to bitstreamed DTS sound.

That (and the linked SDMI article above) seems to indicate that the Cinavia test runs against the waveform, i.e. decoded sound.

Since DD isn't listed in the exception list, there must be more to it than just bitstreaming to fool the Cinavia test...

I still believe Cinavia is a very remote threat to existing media distribution, e.g. bypassing it.
It is more of a test run for future tech like UltraViolet...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

7th February 2012, 21:32

According to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia) this doesn't apply to bitstreamed DTS sound.

That (and the linked SDMI article above) seems to indicate that the Cinavia test runs against the waveform, i.e. decoded sound.

Since DD isn't listed in the exception list, there must be more to it than just bitstreaming to fool the Cinavia test...

I still believe Cinavia is a very remote threat to existing media distribution, e.g. bypassing it.
It is more of a test run for future tech like UltraViolet...

Diogen.

Maybe this weekend I'll whip up another copy of the DVD and try it again. From what I understand, Cinavia enabled players are required to decode the audio to check for Cinavia whether they're bitstreaming or not. Clearly the PS3 has the ability to do that, so, if bitstreaming the DTS track bypasses Cinavia, it's a bug. And I do believe they've fixed all such issues at this point. But testing will show us for sure.

Andy o

7th February 2012, 21:59

Haven't we gone through this claim before? Look at the citation for that claim at the Wikipedia page!

diogen

7th February 2012, 22:06

From what I understand, Cinavia enabled players are required to decode the audio to check for Cinavia whether they're bitstreaming or not.That might explain why this tech was missing in the first gen players: they might not have the required amount of spare horsepower to do that.
All BD players should be able to decode. But a DTS-HD MA soundtrack isn't mandatory despite becoming more common in today's releases...

Based on this write-up, Cinavia is more than just a flag to play or not to play the audio.
It suppose (at least in theory) to have many more possible meanings, hence it's more than just one bit of information.

But maybe the DVD/BD implemented only its "binary" function...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

7th February 2012, 22:14

Uhhhh, I don't quite know how to respond to that to all of that. First, I'm very :confused: by the "But a DTS-HD MA soundtrack isn't mandatory" comment. It's part of the blu-ray spec. Are you simply saying that not all discs are required to have DTS-HD MA tracks? That's true. But all licensed blu-ray players are required to be able to play them if the discs do have one. To the point about first gen players, yes, it's generally accepted that they don't have the horsepower to both bitstream and decode a track at the same time...which is a requirement for Cinavia detection. I'm also :confused: by the last part of your post. Cinavia isn't an overly complicated algorithm. Regardless of whether the user is having the player decode or bitstream the audio during playback, the player decodes the audio track, checks for the Cinavia signal, and if found validates that it's a trusted source. If it's not, the Cinavia signal tells the player what to do about it...i.e. pop up a message after 20 minutes and mute the audio for message 3 signals, or pop up a message and immediately stop playback entirely on message 1 signals. That's really all there is to it.

diogen

7th February 2012, 23:43

Are you simply saying that not all discs are required to have DTS-HD MA tracks?Yes. But all licensed blu-ray players are required to be able to play them if the discs do have one.No.
If it's not mandatory, the player doesn't have to play it. Just like DTS on DVD.

Based on how DTS-HD MA is assembled, you can have the track and play DTS core only.
Cinavia isn't an overly complicated algorithm.It would be better to claim it is not an algorithm set in stone.
If it's not, the Cinavia signal tells the player what to do about it.Yes, it does.
Like I said, at least in theory. Read this (http://www.cinavia.com/languages/english/pages/technology.html).

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 00:17

The PLAYER must support DTS-HD MA as it's part of the blu-ray spec and is mandatory. As is TrueHD and obviously LPCM. So I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with that one. And I never said the Cinavia algorithm was set in stone. :) In fact, I've repeatedly said quite the opposite. I believe wholeheartedly based on the patents that it has the ability to adapt to any successful attack. Much like what they do with BD+. They can add new message types, add varying signals for the existing message types, and even have different signals for message 3 that vary the length the player gives for a grace period. It's a rather nasty little sucker. :)

diogen

8th February 2012, 00:42

The PLAYER must support DTS-HD MA as it's part of the blu-ray spec and is mandatory.No. Read this ([/QUOTE]).
So I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with that one.Never mind.

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 00:43

No. Read this ().
Never mind.

Diogen.[/QUOTE]

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_audio_codecs

Just so we're clear. :)

diogen

8th February 2012, 00:45

Learn the distinction between mandatory and optional.

Diogen.

EDIT:
In case you don't know that either: the site you link to is private, nothing to do with BD LA.

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 00:46

Learn the distinction between mandatory and optional.

Diogen.

Excuse me?

Please note that this simply means that Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these audio codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which audio codec(s) they use for their releases.

Please learn to read before berating someone. You do NOT have your facts straight!!

diogen

8th February 2012, 00:58

Please learn to read before berating someone.
You do NOT have your facts straight!!Please keep your advice to yourself.

You have no clue what the word "fact" means!

For audio, BD-ROM players are required to support Dolby Digital (AC-3), DTS, and linear PCM. Players may optionally support Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution Audio as well as lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.[101] BD-ROM titles must use one of the mandatory schemes for the primary soundtrack. A secondary audiotrack, if present, may use any of the mandatory or optional codecs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

Diogen.

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 01:03

Ok, whatever. I certainly am not going to argue about this with you. Believe what you will.

Andy o

8th February 2012, 02:23

duudes chill. Diogen, look at the source (http://www.twice.com/article/246434-1st_HD_DVD_Players_To_Decode_All_Mandatory_Optional_Audio_Codecs.php) of that claim. These Cinavia and blu-ray entries are either outdated or just plain lazy. The source for the "DTS doesn't trigger Cinavia on the PS3" claim is so absurd.

hello_hello

8th February 2012, 04:18

Neither are mandatory in a player according to Wikipedia.

DTS-HD Master Audio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio)
DTS-HD Master Audio is a lossless audio codec created by Digital Theater System. It was previously known as DTS++.[1] It is an extension of DTS which, when played back on devices which do not support the Master Audio or High Resolution extension, degrades to a "core" track which is lossy. DTS-HD Master Audio is an optional audio format for Blu-ray Disc format exclusively. DTS-HD Master Audio has been steadily becoming the standard for Blu-ray lossless audio format.

Dolby TrueHD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD#Blu-ray_Disc)
In the Blu-ray specification, Dolby TrueHD is an optional codec.

hello_hello

8th February 2012, 04:22

SamuriHL, you might want to take another look at your own link.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_audio_codecs

Dolby TrueHD - lossless encoding of up to 8 channels of audio. (optional)
DTS-HD High Resolution Audio - extension of DTS, 7.1-channel surround sound. (optional)
DTS-HD Master Audio - lossless encoding of up to 8 channels of audio. (optional)

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 04:30

For all those blu-ray players out there that only support LPCM, DD, and DTS core, right? :rolleyes:

(You didn't even read what you wrote, did you? ENCODING is not done by a player ;) They're talking about what's mandatory and optional for studios that master discs, not what the player has to support for decoding)

hello_hello

8th February 2012, 06:32

For all those blu-ray players out there that only support LPCM, DD, and DTS core, right?

Now you're getting it. ;)
The fact that most players support more than just those three audio types doesn't make the rest of them mandatory.

(You didn't even read what you wrote, did you? ENCODING is not done by a player ;) They're talking about what's mandatory and optional for studios that master discs, not what the player has to support for decoding)

I read what I wrote, only I'm not the one misinterpreting it.
Your list shows which audio formats Bluray supports, which are mandatory in a player and which are optional.

Linear PCM (LPCM) - up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio. (mandatory)

So either you're wrong, and it means LPCM support is mandatory in a player, or you're correct and it means every Bluray discs includes an LPCM audio stream. Do you really think it's the latter?
According to your interpretation, every disc must include Linear PCM, Dolby Digitial, and DTS audio streams. Do you really believe every disc includes all three?

The same three audio formats listed as mandatory in a player below are also the only three marked as being mandatory in the list you linked to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Audio
For audio, BD-ROM players are required to support Dolby Digital (AC-3), DTS, and linear PCM. Players may optionally support Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution Audio as well as lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. BD-ROM titles must use one of the mandatory schemes for the primary soundtrack . A secondary audiotrack, if present, may use any of the mandatory or optional codecs.

Andy o

8th February 2012, 06:43

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 06:44

Yea OK...show me one of these supposed players that only supports DD/dts/lpcm then I'll believe it. It certainly won't be a profile 1.1 or higher device. For the topic at hand, which I'll remind you is cinavia, I'm positive you aren't going to show me a cinavia enabled player that doesn't support dts-hd ma and truehd decoding. You do get that blu-ray as a spec wasn't finished in the beginning right? That it has gone through several iterations as a spec?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

SamuriHL

8th February 2012, 06:47

Ooh, I thought I didn't post that last post of mine. I was writing it and didn't finish and then forgot about it. The PS3 famously didn't support DTS-HD MA at all when it came out, right? I thought with a profile update DTS-HD decoding might have become mandatory for players, but I can't find info about that.

Correct. But we seem to want to ignore the fact that the blu-ray spec has "evolved" and that cinavia isn't going to end up on a profile 1.0 device. But hey they can continue arguing amongst themselves about it. I'm done discussing it further as it is completely off topic.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

jpsdr

8th February 2012, 10:24

Just to add some information : There is license issue. Supporting DTSHD-MA for exemple, will cost more to manufacturer, because it's a license it has to pay, for each device sold. So, if you search very cheap players, maybe you'll find devices wich not support DTSHD-MA and/or TrueHD. If you want to sell a Blu-Ray player, you must, at least, support AC3/DTS/LPCM (and others mandatory), but after, if you want, you can pay more license fees and support others format. If you want to sell a Blu-Ray, you're not obliged to put all the audio mandatory for players, but at least one.
Now, the true point : What support truly means ?
The following is what i think, from some little information i've glanced being a beta tester from an HW media player, and having seen a little history of license problem, but it needs to be verified.
Support i think means decoding ALL channels of the HD audio track, and output them in either LPCM by HDMI/SPIF, or by analog output (cinch) you have sometimes avaible on back of players. This allow you do send the HD audio track to a receiver wich doesn't decode the specific format.
Not supporting means you can't do the above, but, i think, the player still can bitstream by HDMI (i don't know for TrueHD, bit i've read that DTSHD-MA can only be bitstreamed on HDMI, not SPIF, because of bandwith) the HD audio track not decoded, to be send to a receiver wich supports it.

hello_hello

8th February 2012, 13:21

Yea OK...show me one of these supposed players that only supports DD/dts/lpcm then I'll believe it.

Nobody said there's ever been a player which supports only the mandatory codecs. Maybe there has, maybe there hasn't, but obviously the distinction between "mandatory" and "supported" is one which eludes you.

For the topic at hand, which I'll remind you is cinavia, I'm positive you aren't going to show me a cinavia enabled player that doesn't support dts-hd ma and truehd decoding.

Same problem again. An inability to make the distinction between "mandatory" and "supported".
While you're reminding me of the topic while continuing to debate the same off-topic subject, I'll point out you pretty much proved yourself to be wrong by default when you ignored the questions you were asked.

You do get that blu-ray as a spec wasn't finished in the beginning right? That it has gone through several iterations as a spec?

I also get you've shown nothing which proves codecs which were originally optional are now mandatory. Can you provide a link to the updated Bluray specs to contradict all the pesky evidence you've chosen to ignore so far? I doubt it.

diogen

8th February 2012, 15:39

There is license issue.DTS as a company had few licensing issues. Aside from (reportedly) being expensive, it isn't just their fault.
The hidef players - HD DVD and BD - were initially envisioned to support only LPCM output.
And if you want to watch the movie with the director comment overlaid, you don't really have any other options:
you can't mix together two DTS/DD soundtracks unless decoded first.

So, DTS (the company) didn't have a licensing program for AVR makers.
This was the reason AVRs were really late in supporting the new batch of DTS codecs.

Also, Sigma had problems to license DTS-HD for their non-DRM chips used in PCH, WD-TV and other media players.
That made the first generation of these players support only bitstreaming of the DTS codecs.

...i don't know for TrueHD, bit i've read that DTSHD-MA can only be bitstreamed on HDMI, not SPIF, because of bandwith) the HD audio track not decoded, to be send to a receiver wich supports it.Not because of bandwidth.
The optical cable could carry ten times the DTS-MA bandwidth without problems.
But the standard abiding silicon on the ends of the SPDIF cable cannot. Hence, only DVD-grade DD and DTS can be passed over SPDIF.

The latest Thunderbolt (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/why-apples-2m-thunderbolt-cable-costs-a-whopping-50.ars)standard is trying to address this issue: if you buy a better cable you will get faster transfer.

Diogen.

Guest

8th February 2012, 22:13

Guys, this is all off topic for this thread now. Please take this discussion to a new thread.

SamuriHL

9th February 2012, 21:41

From the DVD Fab forum:

The DVDFab developers have asked me to make all users aware of the folllowing:

Installing PS3 firmware v4.10 or greater will cause the Cinavia workaround to no longer be effective with BDMV-REC discs produced by DVDFab.

The discs will still be playable, but Cinavia will be activated as with a normal backup disc. This firmware (thanks SONY!) causes the BDMV-REC discs to not be seen as a "trusted source" and thus become ineffective.

Work on a removal-type solution continues.

http://forum.dvdfab.com/showpost.php?p=109873&postcount=436

Ghitulescu

9th February 2012, 22:00

It doesn't matter what kind of circumvetion those of dvdfab/anydvd will come - DISC_TYPE=Recordable + cinavia means it's a copy. End of story. Even if is your video, if by accident you recorded cinavia sound (wedding, party etc.) it will still trigger cinavia because you don't have the right to use the music.
I've said this long time ago.

SamuriHL

9th February 2012, 22:01

As have I. Now the point has been made quite clearly by Sony. :)

rotty

9th February 2012, 23:12

diogen

10th February 2012, 04:52

Reports that the final AACS will have audio watermarking technology go back 4 years
http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?p=89041#post89041

No prophetical talents required...

Diogen.

Andy o

10th February 2012, 05:00

That's not what they were talking about, but it was indeed obvious that Sony was gonna plug that hole.

diogen

11th February 2012, 17:27

That's not what they were talking about...Who are "they"?
Posters above or reports 4 years ago?

From my forum experience there is a very strong inverse correlation between the "I told you so!" and "Fact!" posts and IQ of the posters...

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

11th February 2012, 18:24

No prophetical talents required...

The reason the industry pushed the "digital" technology was simple and I've said it some 15 years ago to some colleagues, it's the copy protection. One cannot protect the analog the very same way (advantages and disadvantages) as the digital.

Since the technology needs to be adopted, "they" must let it more or less free, at the beginning, only to close all the "holes" later. The least obvious to many is the closing of the analog loop hole this year.

I remember the outcry of several years in USA concerning the infamous broadcast flag. People start complaining only at the "run time", despite no changes in the ATSC standard has been committed since its initial draft: why did they not comment when the specs have been drafted? "Future implementation" :) the future is now ;)

Step-by-step, the digital locks will prevent anything the content provders don't like (and probably, as the DAT/CDR examples have shown, will lock many legal rights down as well, for the manufacturer fears more the studios than the stupid consumer that will buy anyway the product provided the price is low enough).

Cinavia only needed to pass the legal requirements, not the technical ones - the latter were laid out since the very first draft of the BD.

rotty

11th February 2012, 19:16

I Have just read the Wiki list re Cinavia infected disks. they say that:

"As of 2012, only Sony Pictures releases have implemented Cinavia DRM"

Well this is the only time, now and only now that we can send the best message we can, dont buy Sony Pictures releases with Cinavia.

This will of course send a message to ALL studios/distributors.

Yes yes I know I have said it before.

SamuriHL

11th February 2012, 19:33

Once again proving that wiki information is a bunch of BS. :) Sony is NOT the only one to have implemented Cinavia. In fact, it wasn't even the first! Check out who released The Losers. ;)

setarip_old

11th February 2012, 21:19

@SamuriHL

Hi! Maybe it's time to take a deep breath to reduce your frustration level a bit ;>}

Actually, it just seems to be a case of poor wording in the WikiPedia post. It should have said something like, "Thusfar, all Cinavia-infected Blu-rays released in 2012 have been distributed or otherwise controlled (produced or owned) by SONY and/or its subsidiaries".

Here's the list per WikiPedia - and its unintentionally misleading quote:

2012

1.Anonymous
2.Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star
3.Carnage
4.Courageous
5.Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark
6.Drive
7.Higher Ground
8.The Ides Of March
9.London Boulevard
10.Midnight in Paris
11.Moneyball
12.Restless
13.Take Shelter
14.The Rum Diary
15.The Skin I Live In
As of 2012, only Sony Pictures releases have implemented Cinavia DRM.
If you know of any 2012 Cinavia-infected releases that are NOT SONY-related, please post that information here.

SamuriHL

11th February 2012, 21:22

Poor wording indeed. That quote seems to indicate that only Sony has implemented Cinavia at all. Which, as we know, is not the case.

Andy o

11th February 2012, 21:30

Who are "they"?
Posters above or reports 4 years ago?

From my forum experience there is a very strong inverse correlation between the "I told you so!" and "Fact!" posts and IQ of the posters...

Diogen.
Can't you tell who I'm referring to?

What you linked has nothing to do with it. They were talking about the PS3's loophole which made Cinavia titles encoded with DVDFab's AACS playable.

diogen

12th February 2012, 02:02

Can't you tell who I'm referring to?
No. That is why I asked.
What you linked has nothing to do with it. They were talking about the PS3's loophole which made Cinavia titles encoded with DVDFab's AACS playable.The last two pages only you are talking about PS3.
The rest compete for the Nostradamus crown.

Diogen.

Andy o

12th February 2012, 02:58

No. That is why I asked.
The last two pages only you are talking about PS3.
The rest compete for the Nostradamus crown.

Diogen.
Really, for someone with such higher IQ you should have known.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1557121#post1557121 read again? And then subsequent posts until yours.

Guest

12th February 2012, 03:15

Guys, let's keep it civil, per forum rule 4. Thank you.

SamuriHL

12th February 2012, 03:21

@setarip

http://www.verance.com/AdminSavR/news/news_item.php?news_id=66

While I can't find any titles that have been released in 2012 with Cinavia on them other than Sony...SO FAR...that link at least indicates that other studios have licensed it. It's likely safe to say that we WILL see more, but, so far only Sony has released titles with it in 2012 up to now.

xenex

12th February 2012, 06:25

SamuriHL

12th February 2012, 13:54

Apparently the 2012 release of "The Thing" - which is a Universal release - has Cinavia, according to a poster on the DVDFab forum. So it's not ALL Sony.

EDIT TO ADD:
It makes no difference I guess, but I have noticed that ONLY SONY puts the "Protected by Cinavia" logo on the (back of the) disc covers. Universal, Fox, and Warner never have. So SONY warns you at least, LOL.

Yea that's nice of them! Lol. I've only seen the one warner bros cinavia release so far. I suspect once we see more players with cinavia the studios will pick up adoption.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

rotty

12th February 2012, 14:26

Apparently the 2012 release of "The Thing" - which is a Universal release - has Cinavia, according to a poster on the DVDFab forum. So it's not ALL Sony.

EDIT TO ADD:
It makes no difference I guess, but I have noticed that ONLY SONY puts the "Protected by Cinavia" logo on the (back of the) disc covers. Universal, Fox, and Warner never have. So SONY warns you at least, LOL.

If BD release of "The Thing" is the Kurt Russell version (1982 I think), then there is a BD release of the same film without Cinavia, I have that film.

Now I wonder if it is a frame for frame, sound track for sound track copy but with the watermark.

P.S. As to it being Sony or not, just dont buy.

SamuriHL

12th February 2012, 14:37

I believe he's referring to the just released remake.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

rotty

12th February 2012, 14:40

I believe he's referring to the just released remake.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

OK Thanks Samuri

Ghitulescu

12th February 2012, 17:27

Cinavia is part of AACS requirement with is a part of BD specs. Whoever wants to issue a Blu-ray must implement cinavia (I assume there is a sort of grace period). It's not like CSS which one could use it or not.

SamuriHL

12th February 2012, 17:47

I think that should be clarified. It's not required for content mfg's to use. It's licensed separately from AACS at a different cost structure. What is required is for content player mfg's to implement the Cinavia detection. And while all the major studios have licensed Cinavia for use on their content, by no means are they required to use it. Think of it like BD+, which currently only FOX uses. The players are all required to support it, but, it's up to the studios to license it for their content. The same applies to Cinavia as far as I understand it.

xenex

13th February 2012, 10:15

I have to agree with SamuriHL here, what Ghitulescu is saying is misleading at best, and wrong at worst. There is NO REQUIREMENT that I have seen for Blu-Ray content (movies) to have the Cinavia audio watermark. It's an option.

As has been discussed before, Blu-Ray PLAYERS mfd after Feb 2012 must include DETECTION of Cinavia. And there is still some question there. Does it mean new "models" (SKU's) of players, or does it mean ALL players? I don't know.

For example, maybe OPPO could continue to release their two players without Cinavia detection, unless and until they release a new "model" player. And they may choose to not release or design a new "model" and say that their current design cannot support it. I suppose we will see soon how this all plays out.

Ghitulescu

13th February 2012, 11:36

Well, I don't think Samsung/LG&Co. pushed for cinavia, but the studios. Why would they invest loads of money in a technology they won't use it?
That not all movies have cinavia (yet) is only because they use the first ones as a test.

PS: does any of you have actually seen the AACS licensing agreements and specs? I can read wikipedia myself but this doesn't mean I'm better informed. I doubt this is exactly the same case as MV for analog and CSS for DVDs.

hello_hello

13th February 2012, 14:13

Well, I don't think Samsung/LG&Co. pushed for cinavia, but the studios. Why would they invest loads of money in a technology they won't use it?

What loads of money did they invest? I thought Verance license the Cinavia technology? Maybe the studios have to pay a fee for every release which includes it?

PS: does any of you have actually seen the AACS licensing agreements and specs? I can read wikipedia myself but this doesn't mean I'm better informed. I doubt this is exactly the same case as MV for analog and CSS for DVDs.

So where did you come up with your "no player will be sold without Cinavia after 1st Feb 2012" theory?

Ghitulescu

13th February 2012, 15:47

So where did you come up with your "no player will be sold without Cinavia after 1st Feb 2012" theory?
From verance web page.

Ghitulescu

13th February 2012, 16:32

What loads of money did they invest? I thought Verance license the Cinavia technology? Maybe the studios have to pay a fee for every release which includes it?

David E. Leibowitz is a Co-Founder, past Chairman, and Director of VERANCE and a Managing Partner and Director of CH BOSTON.
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
I don't think I need to say more...

jakmal

13th February 2012, 16:57

Studios have to pay licensing fees to Verance for every movie that they embed Cinavia in (mainly for theatrical releases). The reason why not all Blu-rays have Cinavia audio tracks is because fees to Verance applies there too. Obviously there is a tradeoff here since studios want to sell their Blu-rays at attractive prices and the Cinavia licensing will increase that price for the consumers (eventually all costs get passed on to them).

The founder / CEO / whatever of Verance seems to be well connected with RIAA (not MPAA, which is what the studios come under), but that doesn't have too much bearing on whether studios want the tech or not (except as a conduit for Verance to pitch it to them).

Ghitulescu

13th February 2012, 17:16

Try the other one then
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

jakmal

13th February 2012, 17:22

Studios / disc replicators need to pay Verance $0.04 for each disc. By the time this gets down to the consumers, multiply it by 10x to account for the middle-men.

Watermark Detector (part of Blu-ray players incl. software players) needs a payment of $10K - $300K depending on volume. Expect smaller players like the Oppos (which are not mass market) to pay at the higher end of the spectrum. The already costly players are just going to become more costly.

Production houses need to pay $50 per watermarked track. For someone spending millions of dollars, this is a pittance, even if it is per copy sent to the theaters.

Note that these fees are not inclusive of the cost of the watermark detector development (Verance kindly provides the watermark detector code for a price, and I expect that to factor into the cost of the players in a major manner)

jakmal

13th February 2012, 17:26

Try the other one then
What a surprise that AACS adopted cinavia .....

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

From my interaction with the BD insiders at CES, I was left with no doubt that a majority of the BDA (player manufactorers / chip companies / non-studio personnel) didn't want to license Cinavia (after all, it increases the costs for them when it is made mandatory). They were just strong-armed into accepting it by a few vested interests (like the one you found out above)

SamuriHL

13th February 2012, 17:32

Ghitulescu

13th February 2012, 17:39

From my interaction with the BD insiders at CES, I was left with no doubt that a majority of the BDA (player manufactorers / chip companies / non-studio personnel) didn't want to license Cinavia (after all, it increases the costs for them when it is made mandatory). They were just strong-armed into accepting it by a few vested interests (like the one you found out above)

That's exactly correct right there. No mfg wants to see their costs artificially rise. But it's not just licensing that those mfg's have to consider. There's a lot of testing involved, as well. You don't just drop this code in your firmware and see what happens. (Well, I guess if you're Sony maybe you do :D) The point is that there are a lot of costs around implementing this thing. It's clear who wants it and who doesn't. I'm very curious to see who ends up implementing it right away now that it's required, and who pushes their luck.

Both opinions are beyond any doubt correct. They do not contradict mine. It's also clear who's pushing for this. And when 3 giant manufacturers of AACS want cinavia, dwarfs like Oppo have to comply, whether they like to pay or not. Matsushita is known for its readiness to implement DRM schemes in its HW.

SamuriHL

13th February 2012, 17:48

Both opinions are beyond any doubt correct. They do not contradict mine. It's also clear who's pushing for this. And when 3 giant manufacturers of AACS want cinavia, dwarfs like Oppo have to comply, whether they like to pay or not. Matsushita is known for its readiness to implement DRM schemes in its HW.

Yes, it's quite clear the studios run the entire infrastructure like a cartel. Anyone who doesn't comply with their extortion demands gets their license pulled. No license, no ability to sell a player. So yes, the mfg's will comply, but, I want to see which ones wait until the very last threat of having their license pulled before they do so.

CruNcher

13th February 2012, 18:36

From my interaction with the BD insiders at CES, I was left with no doubt that a majority of the BDA (player manufactorers / chip companies / non-studio personnel) didn't want to license Cinavia (after all, it increases the costs for them when it is made mandatory). They were just strong-armed into accepting it by a few vested interests (like the one you found out above)

Though without something like Cinavia DECE will fail so everyone will pay no matter how much it will cost, and those who don't will be outsiders and wont be able to let users play the DECE content in the future on their Devices ;)
And i highly doubt it will fail because some Asian Manufacture doesn't want to pay for the license for a watermarking system that will be mainly used with it then they should stay in Asia with AVS Devices.
If you don't agree to the rules you are out simple as that, they cant be any compromises anymore it's a to big shift :)

It's almost clear that the Digital Protection Part will be DRM provided (mainly) by Rovi (DivX and Microsoft) (+Secure Playback Path (in the continuity off TCG Intel already previewed it successfully) and the Analog Protection part will be Cinavia provided by Verance the OS Security will be granted with Uefi Secure Boot.

So we are pretty much their for Hollywood to say "Ok now we gonna release Digital Movies on Cinema release date" ;)

So there are practically 4 redundant systems that need to be broken (some of them protecting the other)

hello_hello

14th February 2012, 00:39

From verance web page.

I couldn't find it. Can you provide a link?

I don't think I need to say more...

You do if you want to show the studios have invested "loads of money" in Cinavia.

Try the other one then

Still doesn't prove what you said is true.

Studios / disc replicators need to pay Verance $0.04 for each disc.)

Seems rather odd the studios have invested "loads of money" in a technology, then still have to pay a license fee to use it. ;)

spock2000

14th February 2012, 02:13

SamuriHL

14th February 2012, 02:16

So they're updating players with firmware now? Fascinating. This should prove interesting. I haven't checked my stand alone player yet.

Ghitulescu

14th February 2012, 06:48

I own 5 blu ray players besides the 2 blu ray drives on my pc. 1 160 gb ps3 fat and 1 ps3 slim. 1 samsung BD-D6500 3d blu-ray player and a Sony BDP-S185, Sony BDP-S360. I updated the firmware on the Samsung this month and now it has cinavia protection. If I update the firmware on the Sony BDP-S185 it will have cinavia also. This Cinavia stuff is horrible!:mad: For this reason my solution is to never update the firmware on the Sony BDP-S185,BDP-S360 and to use these players to play my backup copies of my entire original Blu-ray collection. ;)

So they're updating players with firmware now? Fascinating. This should prove interesting. I haven't checked my stand alone player yet.

From verance web page.

Yes, of course they do. I explained several pages ago how they drive people to do the upgrade.

Now it's time for spock2000 to prove the other statements of mine:
-it cannot be rollbacked
-it was not advertised as containing cinavia

BTW spock2000, have you disconnected the other players from the internet? ;)

hello_hello

14th February 2012, 07:21

Now it's time for spock2000 to prove the other statements of mine:
-it cannot be rollbacked
-it was not advertised as containing cinavia

They'd be the statements I doubt anyone has disputed because it's fairly likely that's how it'd work.
If he's not going to update the other players, and they don't advertise Cinavia is included, I wonder how he knows the latest updates for the other players include Cinavia, or if he's just assuming.

From verance web page.

Still no link?

BTW spock2000, have you disconnected the other players from the internet? ;)

I have. In fact they've never been connected to the internet.
I did update the Samsung player manually about a month ago (firmware released in December) to see if they'd fixed the MKV aspect ratio problem (which they haven't). I thought I'd take a chance with that player but haven't tested it for Cinavia infection yet. I might do that tonight and report back. The Sony players will probably only ever play my backup copies, so I can't see myself being driven to update the firmware in much of a hurry, if ever.
If I ever come across a disc which the Sony players can't play, and the Samsung player is already infected, I'll just keep the Samsung player updated to use for playing original Bluray discs.

derbeDeus

14th February 2012, 07:49

-it was not advertised as containing cinavia

Sony does advertise (http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/product/BDP-S185/downloads/BDP69G_v0033)

From verance web page.
Still no link?

He did say it's on Verance site. Search... (http://www.verance.com/AdminSavR/news/news_item.php?news_id=66)

So they're updating players with firmware now? Fascinating. This should prove interesting. I haven't checked my stand alone player yet.
Sony released Cinavia firmwares on 1st of February :) And Samsung on 2nd.
It was all prepared, just waiting for the clock.

I must admit, they didn't do it as I thought they would, online activation and without notice.
They did it through firmware update and some will even tell you what's in the bag.
If you don't update asap and take a look around you may not "catch" Cinavia ;)

hello_hello

14th February 2012, 08:59

He did say it's on Verance site. Search... (http://www.verance.com/AdminSavR/news/news_item.php?news_id=66)

He says a lot of things, such as firmware won't be advertised as containing cinavia. Sony has proved that wrong.
I did look, but for some reason didn't see it. Hence asking for a link.
Thanks.

The press release isn't terribly specific. It'll be interesting to see if manufacturers release firmware for all existing/current players which includes Cinavia, or whether they'll mainly include it in the firmware the players ship with from now on.

For example the Sony player you linked to has new firmware which includes Cinavia, but the Sony player I own (S480), appears not to, and I think it's still a current model. I wonder whether manufacturers are obligated to include it in new firmware for older-model players, or even if it necessarily follows Cinavia detection is something older players must be capable of.

omegaman7

14th February 2012, 09:05

I won't connect my Folks LG or Samsung, for fear of them allowing an update. They're not exactly good (at all) with technology. They'll see an update as a positive thing. Naturally...
The funny thing is, I bought the LG to allow Netflix connectivity. But because I'm afraid of their updating it, I won't allow it :p Good luck enforcing it on an HTPC guys! You're gonna need it.

xenex

14th February 2012, 10:29

It's amusing how that Sony firmware update link above lists Cinavia under "Benefits and improvements." I'm fairly certain there are NO customers writing in to request "Please add Cinavia, I want it, please!!"

Funny how times change. I remember it was just a few years back that firmware updates were generally considered a "good thing." It meant that the mfg. was still actively supporting older products and often even adding new features.

Now they are a thing to be feared, shunned, and avoided. "What will they take away next - or what horrible DRM crap will they add." To the point that the "upgrades" - if you can call them that - are being forced in some cases.

We live in interesting times.

Ghitulescu

14th February 2012, 10:29

@omegaman
http://lgknowledgebase.com/kb/index.php?View=entry&EntryID=6479

and for our maestro in using the internet when he feels in need to argue with people, the snapshot of the home page of verance - namely (that's another helping hand) click me to take you to verance home page then look on the right hand side (http://www.verance.com)
http://oi42.tinypic.com/14lbwl.jpg

derbeDeus

14th February 2012, 11:39

He says a lot of things, such as firmware won't be advertised as containing cinavia. Sony has proved that wrong.
This whole thread is created to speculate on the subject. That's not a bad thing, it only matters how good is the idea put forward. We try to compensate with brain the lack of "official" info;) Since most of us don't work for Sony&co, AACSLA or Verance some of the stuff discussed here prove to be correct and some are wrong.

I thought that was common knowledge that 1st Feb is the kick start for Cinavia in all players. It's been discussed in Cinavia forums...

The press release isn't terribly specific. It'll be interesting to see if manufacturers release firmware for all existing/current players which includes Cinavia, or whether they'll mainly include it in the firmware the players ship with from now on.

For example the Sony player you linked to has new firmware which includes Cinavia, but the Sony player I own (S480), appears not to, and I think it's still a current model. I wonder whether manufacturers are obligated to include it in new firmware for older-model players, or even if it necessarily follows Cinavia detection is something older players must be capable of.
I think it's reasonable to say that all players that will continue to receive keys after Feb 2012 will incorporate a Cinavia detector. I don't think manufacturers are forced to include it in older players. I can even say that it's manufacturers choice which players will have it or not, cause they know better how powerful their devices are. So they'll decide to put Cinavia in and continue to receive keys or to "retire" a particular model. <---- btw, speculation ;)
I think someone could say for sure by reading AACS licensing docs. I've started to read one but got bored.

hello_hello

14th February 2012, 11:40

and for our maestro in using the internet when he feels in need to argue with people, the snapshot of the home page of verance - namely (that's another helping hand)

Yeah, the link was posted a while ago. I discussed it in my last post. Time to move on.....

hello_hello

14th February 2012, 11:47

This whole thread is created to speculate on the subject. That's not a bad thing, it only matters how good is the idea put forward.

I agree. Which is why, like yourself, I wouldn't offer speculation as fact.

I think it's reasonable to say that all players that will continue to receive keys after Feb 2012 will incorporate a Cinavia detector. I don't think manufacturers are forced to include it in older players. I can even say that it's manufacturers choice which players will have it or not, cause they know better how powerful their devices are. So they'll decide to put Cinavia in and continue to receive keys or to "retire" a particular model.

Yeah. I'd speculate something similar. I can see manufacturers offering firmware updates for older players for media compatibility etc, but I don't think it necessarily follows they'll all go to the trouble of also including Cinavia unless they have to. Especially if the minute they do, they've got to pay a fee for the privilege. I guess time will tell.

xenex

14th February 2012, 13:03

I think it's reasonable to say that all players that will continue to receive keys after Feb 2012 will incorporate a Cinavia detector.

That's a really backward and odd way of saying things. What you seem to be saying is "any player manufactured after Feb 2012 will not receive new keys from the AACSLA unless they incorporate a Cinavia detector."

But we don't know this to be the case. Now, just as you are, I am speculating. To my understanding, the newer Sigma SoC's (and others) implement the actual Cinavia detection. However, the firmware itself must do the job of muting audio/stopping playback. That's why we see the PS3 and some Sony and Samsung players adding it via firmware.

And as I have read, many older players do not have chips capable of Cinavia detection. So in their case, no firmware update is even possible to add the "muting/stoppage."

I have a strong feeling based on what I have read that this Feb 2012 "cutoff date" will only apply to new models of players that are released. In other words, I am saying that if Oppo, for example, continues to sell their two models of players, they can continue to do so without adding Cinavia detection at all.

But IF they do release a new model, then it will have to include it. But they don't have to design or release a new model either. I know the licensing agreements have a lot of power, but I don't believe that they have so much power that they can force any hardware manufacturer to redesign or modify something they already have in production.

I'm "speculating" too, but with some thought behind it.

Ghitulescu

14th February 2012, 13:19

I thought that was common knowledge that 1st Feb is the kick start for Cinavia in all players. It's been discussed in Cinavia forums...

I think it's reasonable to say that all players that will continue to receive keys after Feb 2012 will incorporate a Cinavia detector. I don't think manufacturers are forced to include it in older players. I can even say that it's manufacturers choice which players will have it or not, cause they know better how powerful their devices are. So they'll decide to put Cinavia in and continue to receive keys or to "retire" a particular model.

That's a really backward and odd way of saying things. What you seem to be saying is "any player manufactured after Feb 2012 will not receive new keys from the AACSLA unless they incorporate a Cinavia detector."

I have a strong feeling based on what I have read that this Feb 2012 "cutoff date" will only apply to new models of players that are released. In other words, I am saying that if Oppo, for example, continues to sell their two models of players, they can continue to do so without adding Cinavia detection at all.

But IF they do release a new model, then it will have to include it. But they don't have to design or release a new model either. I know the licensing agreements have a lot of power, but I don't believe that they have so much power that they can force any hardware manufacturer to redesign or modify something they already have in production.

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.
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
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.

In this case, the older models will "decay" themselves.

Anyway, to add something few people are aware of: any repair shop MUST upgrade the FW to the latest stand. For Blu-ray-players this will automatically mean cinavia.

CruNcher

14th February 2012, 13:36

Also this is just the beginning more Devices (Software) gonna follow in the future see it as the start ;)
And if you think this is coming so unexpected hehe think again this is prepared for years, also be careful with Bios updates ;)

rotty

14th February 2012, 13:39

There is a lot said here re power, power of the studio's, LA, etc.

Consumer power makes power of these Companies/Studios etc look pathetic.

In all fields, in all market types, there are no execeptions, this is and has always been true.

If people are not buying players because of this, and are not buying disks because of it then we will see who has the power.

What the buying public want, and dont want have always been the real power and driving force, its true now, and will always be true.

The only power is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CruNcher

14th February 2012, 13:49

Just wait for Fairuse to be redefined ;)

Ghitulescu

14th February 2012, 14:05

Well, I wonder how many of these users, that download camrips from the net to see a particular movie that is not yet in their theatres, will resist buying, especially when the price will be conveniently lowered.

And, as setarip_old once said, there will always be a certain % of users that won't buy no matter what (let's call them pirates). Diminishing the revenues of the multimedia giants together with the activity of those "Robin Hoods" will give studios the excuse to cut even more from the rights of the rest, honest buyers - it's because of piracy that we had lower incomes, let's cut them the right to a private copy, the fair use right, the right to sell, to rent etc etc, let's make the rootkit mandatory etc etc etc. Will it pass? Yes, because the politicians are more sensible to a direct "sponsorship" of a meagre 50.000$ than to the interest of the millions of voters that put them into the Senate/Parliament.

CruNcher

14th February 2012, 14:35

Hehe you have it in that Screenshot" The Definition of Consensus" though not ours ;)

diogen

14th February 2012, 15:43

Inventing - and licensing - DRM schemes has a very spotty track record in preventing ripping.
And even less on companies signing up to use them.

CSS
Made completely useless by DVD Jon last century.
Nevertheless, studios still use it on their DVD releases.

AACS
Hacked by muslix in 2006. Seems to be as useless as CSS.

BD+
Despite being reverse engineered by Slysoft, Paramount joined FOX in licensing BD+ .

How can Cinavia prevent me from playing ripped DVD/BDs?
As long as I don't use an "authorized" player, Cinavia presence in the audio stream is completely irrelevant to the playback experience.
Considering all the audio/video codecs in DVD/BD can be handled with third party decoders (e.g. ffdshow),
what can possibly force me to use an "authorized" player?

I can't imagine the anti-ripping campaign to succeed unless streaming is the only distribution mechanism.

Diogen.

EDIT: By "playing ripped DVD/BDs" I mean computer playback.

Ghitulescu

14th February 2012, 16:00

How can Cinavia prevent me from playing ripped DVD/BDs?
As long as I don't use an "authorized" player, Cinavia presence in the audio stream is completely irrelevant to the playback experience.
Considering all the audio/video codecs in DVD/BD can be handled with third party decoders (e.g. ffdshow),
what can possibly force me to use an "authorized" player

I wonder why microsoft licensed cinavia ;) ;) ;)

SamuriHL

14th February 2012, 16:11

I wonder why microsoft licensed cinavia ;) ;) ;)

For the xbox 720. ;)

Ghitulescu

14th February 2012, 16:33

For the xbox 720. ;)

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.

derbeDeus

14th February 2012, 18:56

Despite being reverse engineered by Slysoft, Paramount joined FOX in licensing BD+ .

Link, please?

diogen

14th February 2012, 19:00

Link, please?Here.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/29/paramount-licenses-bd-drm-from-macrovision/

Irdeto has acquired the tech in the meantime.
http://irdeto.com/irdeto-acquires-rovi-corporations-bd-technology-for-blu-ray.html

Diogen.

SamuriHL

14th February 2012, 19:21

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

14th February 2012, 19:27

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

derbeDeus

15th February 2012, 00:11

Here.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/29/paramount-licenses-bd-drm-from-macrovision/

Irdeto has acquired the tech in the meantime.
http://irdeto.com/irdeto-acquires-rovi-corporations-bd-technology-for-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 (http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers) to get info from the source ;)

diogen

15th February 2012, 01:54

setarip_old

15th February 2012, 04:12

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

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1546394#post1546394

derbeDeus

15th February 2012, 09:57

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

15th February 2012, 10:59

.... 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 :)
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

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

15th February 2012, 13:05

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. :)

www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agreement_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...."

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

15th February 2012, 14:07

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

15th February 2012, 15:15

I seeYou don't.
I'll try one more time, really slow.

My post (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1558339&postcount=1396) 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

15th February 2012, 16:12

You don't.
I'll try one more time, really slow.

My post (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1558339&postcount=1396) 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

15th February 2012, 16:25

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 :)

amtm

15th February 2012, 16:31

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

15th February 2012, 16:42

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

15th February 2012, 16:42

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+ (http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=paramount+licenses+bd%2B&pbx=1&oq=paramount+licenses+bd%2B&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=1818l9515l0l9808l22l19l0l3l3l0l244l2556l2.15.2l22l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e0c563e9c2c335c0&biw=1334&bih=850) 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.

amtm

15th February 2012, 16:50

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

15th February 2012, 16:56

amtm

15th February 2012, 17:15

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? :rolleyes:

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

15th February 2012, 17:41

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.
http://oi40.tinypic.com/35clzbt.jpg

hello_hello

15th February 2012, 18:05

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).

I think you're confusing the expression "highly possible" with "highly unlikely".

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.

That'd be just like if you've ever bought a gun, you must be a murderer.

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.

And as the RIAA etc proved, suing a few people and trying to make scapegoats out of them achieves nothing.

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.

Who won't care.

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.

Ridiculously so. Where I am ISPs aren't required to pass along those "you've been caught downloading a file" emails to their customers. The ISP which won that case in court used to pass the emails on to the police instead. They've apparently got other things to do.

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.

Which "victims" are you referring to? Are you referring to a few individuals being sued by the RIAA or MPIAA and trying to equate that to your confabulations on individuals being arrested?

hello_hello

15th February 2012, 18:07

Godwin? :rolleyes:

LOL! That seems to perfectly sum it up.

SamuriHL

15th February 2012, 18:10

So, uh, Cinavia. Yea. What a nightmare. :D

amtm

15th February 2012, 18:18

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.

Great, but if their Blu-Ray player doesn't come with either an ethernet port or wireless (and many don't) your whole point is entirely moot. And you seem to be highly overstating how much effect any of that actually has. And what's even more silly is you somehow claim they can follow all these instructions on how to hook up this player yet are too dumb to somehow unplug the cable? Really?

Ghitulescu

15th February 2012, 18:24

I think you're confusing the expression "highly possible" with "highly unlikely".
Nope.
That'd be just like if you've ever bought a gun, you must be a murderer.The comparison is not adequate, one doesn't bring financial loss to someone else by killing a [wo]man, au contraire, stops the suprapopulation of Earth.
And as the RIAA etc proved, suing a few people and trying to make scapegoats out of them achieves nothing. They didn't have the new laws. That time Elby and SlySoft were not offshore :) and Megaupload ran full steam.
Ridiculously so. Where I am ISPs aren't required to pass along those "you've been caught downloading a file" emails to their customers. The ISP which won that case in court used to pass the emails on to the police instead. They've apparently got other things to do.
I don't care either. Maybe not you, but your children will witness this. Terra Australis is no longer the place indicated as "Here are lions" on the maps, they will adopt the laws as everyone else sitting under the British crown.
Which "victims" are you referring to? Are you referring to a few individuals being sued by the RIAA or MPIAA and trying to equate that to your confabulations on individuals being arrested?
It doesn't matter whether they have been convicted or not. The simple fact of being accused and dragged into this issue may perform "miracles" (not with those 5-10% hard core pirates). You're too old to hunt a job I remember clearly this, but imagine you're a college ambitious boy that wants more from life, and you have been made a TV star, in the negative way. Try now to get a well paid job, something different than delivering pizza.

Ghitulescu

15th February 2012, 18:36

And what's even more silly is you somehow claim they can follow all these instructions on how to hook up this player yet are too dumb to somehow unplug the cable? Really?
That one needs first to know this. You know, I know, but others do not. They are told to do so and they will do so.

Let's assume for the sake of argumentation that all 190,488 members of doom9 know about cinavia and online surveillance and stuff. Let's add other 209,752 members from videohelp (some are doubled ;)). From 7 billion people only some 300k know something for sure. Dropping the African population, some another 3G of underdeveloped countries that do not have access to a player, and we as still at 10'000x more "innocents" than "connoisseurs".

And I don't want to remind you the old jokes with the Americans and the VCR programming, right? ;)

PS: How dare you to suggest the user to unplug the net from his player? How do you think he'll be able to watch youtube? :) ;)

hello_hello

15th February 2012, 18:39

The comparison is not adequate, one doesn't bring financial loss to someone else by killing a [wo]man, au contraire, stops the suprapopulation of Earth.

You don't bring financial loss to anyone by buying software either.

They didn't have the new laws. That time Elby and SlySoft were not offshore :) and Megaupload ran full steam.

And before torrents there was Napster. What's your point?

I don't care either. Maybe not you, but your children will witness this. Terra Australis is no longer the place indicated as "Here are lions" on the maps, they will adopt the laws as everyone else sitting under the British crown.

Oh dear, you've got your crystal ball out again I see.

It doesn't matter whether they have been convicted or not. The simple fact of being accused and dragged into this issue may perform "miracles" (not with those 5-10% hard core pirates). You're too old to hunt a job I remember clearly this, but imagine you're a college ambitious boy that wants more from life, and you have been made a TV star, in the negative way. Try now to get a well paid job, something different than delivering pizza.

Could we have a story about a fluffy white bunny and a turtle next?
As I said, piracy hasn't come to a screaming halt simply because a few people were sued, and none of your fairy stories change that. I'll leave you to your imaginings.... You're just making a lot of noise for the sake of it, none of it really anything to do with Cinavia.

amtm

15th February 2012, 18:45

That one needs first to know this. You know, I know, but others do not. They are told to do so and they will do so.

Let's assume for the sake of argumentation that all 190,488 members of doom9 know about cinavia and online surveillance and stuff. Let's add other 209,752 members from videohelp (some are doubled ;)). From 7 billion people only some 300k know something for sure. Dropping the African population, some another 3G of underdeveloped countries that do not have access to a player, and we as still at 10'000x more "innocents" than "connoisseurs".

And I don't want to remind you the old jokes with the Americans and the VCR programming, right? ;)

PS: How dare you to suggest the user to unplug the net from his player? How do you think he'll be able to watch youtube? :) ;)

You make no sense with this argument. Hooking up the player to the internet and everything related to get that working is far more complex then disconnecting it from the network. Yet you somehow claim they can do the former but not the latter? :confused: You're overstating your point and you are overstating the amount of people that actually use any of the network capabilities of their Blu-Ray player. I'd imagine that almost no one uses BD-Live which is why most discs don't even use the feature.

amtm

15th February 2012, 18:47

And in case you don't believe me with the BD Live comment go to this (http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php) page and filter by "Has BD Live" and you will see less than 15% of discs even use it. So I'm highly doubting that many people even know or care that their player can even connect to the Internet and even connect their player to begin with. Especially when most players with network connectivity use ethernet and most people don't have their cable/dsl modems next to their TV.

omegaman7

15th February 2012, 18:53

I'd imagine that almost no one uses BD-Live which is why most discs don't even use the feature.

BD-Live is useless to me, and everyone I know. When I buy a movie, I want to watch a movie. Not be forced to sit through trailers, FBI warnings, warnings of smoking, etc. Special features are all fine and good. About the only thing I enjoy though, would be a gagreel. Depending on the movie and my mood, I don't even watch deleted scenes. Though the lord of the rings extended was incredible. The option to incorporate them into the movie (seamless branching), is a much better route.

Cinavia currently doesn't affect me. Never will :p Now BD-J, THERE'S a nuisance!

Ghitulescu

15th February 2012, 19:01

In Germany is almost impossible to find a player without BD-live or a TV without online connectivity, each manufacturer having its own online Tv service, of course incompatible with the competitors' systems.
I understand that in Africa is quite impossible to connect those to internet :)

So, the happy customer goes home and eventually will install the internet, because he paid for this feature. Because he saw youtube in someone else's house. Or any other countless reasons. That's why DLNA is not secure at all, to allow the last dummy on earth to connect his TV to the "world".

But in the end, the cable (copper, optical, or whatever futuristic medium) will be the future - it allows individual customisation (good and bad), separate billing, and precise addressing including security. Unconnected people are socially dead. See facebook for an example.

Ghitulescu

15th February 2012, 19:08

rotty

15th February 2012, 19:26

I hate to be right in such matters :) It simply does not matter whether you believe me or not. As long as there are huge amounts of money at stake, my opinion, my beliefs, yours, yours will not count. Who stopped the Patriotic act, the DMCA, now ACTA? Did anyone complain about the DVD protections? Why? Because was so easy to circumvent them, so who cared. Now, it won't be so easy. But it will be too late to react.

Well its never too late.

When players hit the high street with Cinavia already enabled, now that will be interesting.

That news will buzz round the internet/Facebook and the like etc, and I dont think people will be so eager to part with their money for them.

Now there will always be people that do. But that will still make sales compared with previous figures look rather sick.

The same can apply to disks.

spock2000

16th February 2012, 01:57

Apologies for not responding sooner. I have been to swamped @ work lately. @ Ghitulescu. I found out about the cinavia detection on the samsung BD-D6500 after i tried to play the smurfs movie. It worked fine playing Columbiana last month. 2 days later the sony bdp-s180 asked for a firmware update. So I started downloading it via ethernet port. Then i thought to myself I wonder if this firmware has cinavia like the samsung had. I checked on wikipedia and sure enough the cinavia section said it did. But then I thought I'd better double check because anyone can edit wikipedia. Sure enough at the sony support website it listed cinavia was included in this new firmware. So I canceled the download and unticked the box that says check for automatic updates. Around thanksgiving I bought a 47" 3d smart tv. Eight weeks ago I thought"wouldn't it be cool to have a separte 3d blu ray player to watch 3d movies instead of wearing out the drives on my 2 ps3's. Voila! The samsung BD-D6500. I have many options to watch hd movies here. Either original or copies of bd movies i own. Stream them using netlfix or hulu plus on my "smart" tv or "smart" samsung 3d blu ray player which will always have the newest firmware btw. I use my external 2 tb western digital to watch .mkv hd movies on the sony sdp-s180. The samsung BD-D6500 plays .mkv movies to choppy right now. I gave up trying to play cinavia infected movies on the ps3's 2 years ago. I play video games online so I need to have the newest firmware to play on the Playstation Network. Meanwhile, my sony bdp-s360 is hibernating in my closet waiting for the day its little brother the sony bdp-s180 gets tired of playing cinavia infected movies!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Salt,Takers,Smurfs,Colombiana,The Tourist,The Social Network,etc.............hahaha

Btw, Isn't this thread kind of long? Must be some kind of doom9 record.

hello_hello

16th February 2012, 03:26

I hate to be right in such matters

You probably won't have anything to worry about then. Chances are you're just as right now as you were when you said
"the studios have invested loads of money in Cinavia"
or
"all the products sold after that 1st Feb must contain cinavia"
or
"the manufacturer must ensure any older stocks that have not been sold yet will receive cinavied-FW."
or
"Intel Sandy Bridge includes cinavia"
or
"firmware won't be advertised as containing cinavia"
or
"whoever wants to issue a Blu-ray disc must implement cinavia"
etc, etc.....

Ghitulescu

16th February 2012, 06:51

You probably won't have anything to worry about then. Chances are you're just as right now as you were when you said
"the studios have invested loads of money in Cinavia"
yes, they did. do you have proofs for the contrary, no thoughts
or
"all the products sold after that 1st Feb must contain cinavia"
again proofs - all major shops in Germany disposed their old stocks at dumping prices.
or
"the manufacturer must ensure any older stocks that have not been sold yet will receive cinavied-FW."
once again, proofs to the contrary.
or
"Intel Sandy Bridge includes cinavia"
I am not sure about cinavia, yet Intel is founding party in AACS LA. Video watermark recognising is part of SandyBridge.
or
"firmware won't be advertised as containing cinavia"
only Sony did this so far, so AFAIK is 1:5 or 20%. And before 01.02.2012 was even 0%, as not even Sony advertised cinavia in PS3.
or
"whoever wants to issue a Blu-ray disc must implement cinavia"
etc, etc.....
He still will. Anyone here replicationg a Blu-ray?

Guest

16th February 2012, 06:53

Boys, if this personal pissing contest continues, we may have to split all the posts out of this thread. Thank you.

hello_hello

16th February 2012, 07:30

yes, they did. do you have proofs for the contrary, no thoughts

The studios license Cinavia. Logically they wouldn't have invested money in a product only to have to pay to use it. Unless you can show Verance is owned by the studios there's no proof of your claim, and I can no more disprove some random confabulation regarding who invested in Cinavia than I could prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
You claimed the studios invested loads of money in Cinavia. Obviously if it's not something you've just made up, you'll have evidence which shows your claim is true. All you've got to do is show us the evidence which led you to that conclusion, but nothing you've offered so far comes close. Until you do, it's just your own odd speculation.

again proofs - all major shops in Germany disposed their old stocks at dumping prices.

Is that the first time you've ever had post Xmas sales in Germany? Were all the other types of goods on sale during January proof that they can't be sold without Cinavia after 1st Feb too? What you have there isn't proof, it's just an illogical conclusion. I wish I'd bought that new CD player in January while it was on sale. I didn't know they'd discounted it because Cinavia wasn't included in that model.

once again, proofs to the contrary.

You made the claim. The onus is on you to show how you know it to be true, which I assume you can do if you really know it to be fact. However I posted detailed info from the AACS agreement you originally referred to as evidence to the contrary which you happily ignored. Just because you've made so much off-topic "noise" since, it's been pushed back a couple of pages so you can pretend it's not there, doesn't mean it isn't.
Here's a link to that post. Feel free to discuss it in a intelligent manner. http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1558592&postcount=1409
And of course nothing in that agreement mentions anything in relation to the retailer I can see. Only the licensed manufacturer. I'd be keen for you to show me proof a retailer couldn't stockpile non-cinavia models of a player and still be selling them in five years time if they wanted to. Any agreement is in relation to the manufacturer. Once they sell them, how does the agreement then apply to the retailer?

only Sony did this so far, so AFAIK is 1:5 or 20%. And before 01.02.2012 was even 0%, as not even Sony advertised cinavia in PS3.

Which makes your claim that no firmware updates will advertise the inclusion of Cinavia correct how exactly?

He still will. Anyone here replicationg a Blu-ray?

Then show us how you know it's mandatory to include Cinavia on discs. I don't replicate Bluray, neither do you. Even you must know that's irrelevant.

setarip_old

16th February 2012, 19:10

Has anyone confirmed whether playing an infected disc on a "Cinavia"/Verance-infected standalone player connected to an HDTV via either component or composite cables triggers the sordid protection?

SamuriHL

16th February 2012, 19:16

*While I have NOT tried it*, I can't imagine it makes any difference what the output is. I'm basing this on what we know about Cinavia....that the output doesn't enter into it. From my understanding of how it works, an AACS protected blu-ray disc is read by the player and the streams are decrypted. Then, the audio track is decoded in memory (regardless of whether you're bitstreaming the output or not) and the detection algorithm looks for Cinavia. If it's found, and the disc is not a trusted source, then the player responds according to the signal found...either muting the audio or whatever else it's told to do. Again, not tried it, but, I can't see that it would matter based on what we currently understand about Cinavia.

Ghitulescu

16th February 2012, 19:40

2012 was, according to the Maya calender, the year called "analog sunset". :)
Since from 2012 onwards all players must contain cinavia, and since the same 2012 onwards the same players must equally drop the analog outputs, I think that even if there might be outthere a player triggering cinavia on HDMI but not on YUV, this won't solve the general issue. It may, however, help those that accidentally upgraded their player.

rotty

16th February 2012, 20:21

I would say that Samuri has it spot on.

I cant imagine that Cinavia detection within a stand alone player has anything whatsoever to do with what is happening "outside" the player, i.e. HDMI audio streaming, anlogue output etc.

I would say that detection within the player is well before any audio output selection for digital O/P or de-coding for analogue O/P.

setarip_old

16th February 2012, 20:30

@Ghitulescu

Hi!

My SPECIFIC QUESTION: Has anyone confirmed whether playing an infected disc on a "Cinavia"/Verance-infected standalone player connected to an HDTV via either component or composite cables triggers the sordid protection?

1) I can assure you that most members, even including me, are well aware of the demise of analog connections for new constructs

2) Your "response" here (after eliminating the smarmy nonsense) boils down to "No, I haven't tested this" - So why did you bother posting?

3) Your statement that: I think that even if there might be outthere a player triggering cinavia on HDMI but not on YUV, this won't solve the general issue. is shortsighted, at best. At this point in time, while there are still MILLIONS of both sold and unsold players and HDTVs/TVs with component and/or composite connections in existence, ANY testing/experimenting that may show the ability to stifle "Cinavia"/Verance could prove to be quite valuable.

setarip_old

16th February 2012, 20:46

@SamuriHL, @rotty

I posted this question for two reasons:

1) As I said in response to Ghitulescu": At this point in time, while there are still MILLIONS of both sold and unsold players and HDTVs/TVs with component and/or composite connections in existence, ANY testing/experimenting that may show the ability to stifle "Cinavia"/Verance could prove to be quite valuable.

2) IIRC, it's been indicated that the "Cinavia"/Verance watermarking is placed in the higher areas of the audio spectrum while, also IIRC composite and/or component connections/cabling are unable to pick up that area of signalling. (My limited knowledge regarding this is likely glaringly obvious, but I still think it's worthwhile to explore the "unexplored")

While there continues (publicly) to be little progress being made to overcome this protection, I constantly harken back to past simple successes at overcoming supposedly "bulletproof", such as SONY's ill-fated "Track 0" on music CDs. Anything is possible...

rotty

16th February 2012, 20:56

Hi Setarip

Cinavia detection would im certain be totally independant of audio selection within the player.

Therefore, whatever option you choose in the player menu, i.e. say you select analogue out (if it still exists) then Cinavia is still being detected because the detection is being done before the circuits that give you the audio selection.

All the player has to do is mute all audio outputs, probably it simply blocks the audio stream at the very first stage after de-muxing.

Ghitulescu

16th February 2012, 21:07

1) I can assure you that most members, even including me, are well aware of the demise of analog connections for new constructs
The same members are also aware of cinavia and won't update their players. And those that didn't listen or had no choice won't anyway be able to revert to a cinavia-free FW. Because cinavia acts on all outputs, it's in the verance patents. Spotting the superposing window of cinavia-free + analog outputs is valid for a few players. And the older ones will eventually need to be upgraded or they won't be able to play Avatar 2 in 4D. Because of the BD specs.
Your "response" here (after eliminating the smarmy nonsense) boils down to "No, I haven't tested this" - So why did you bother posting?
To say you this. How many people did you think saved the PS3 tricks, now obsolete?

SamuriHL

16th February 2012, 21:10

@SamuriHL, @rotty

I posted this question for two reasons:

1) As I said in response to Ghitulescu":

2) IIRC, it's been indicated that the "Cinavia"/Verance watermarking is placed in the higher areas of the audio spectrum while, also IIRC composite and/or component connections/cabling are unable to pick up that area of signalling. (My limited knowledge regarding this is likely glaringly obvious, but I still think it's worthwhile to explore the "unexplored")

While there continues (publicly) to be little progress being made to overcome this protection, I constantly harken back to past simple successes at overcoming supposedly "bulletproof", such as SONY's ill-fated "Track 0" on music CDs. Anything is possible...

This may be true about component/composite, I honestly don't know, but, the detection happens inside the player and as such isn't a result of checking the output. Meaning even if it did lose some kind of signal on the output, it still wouldn't affect detection as it's happening in memory inside the player. Hence the requirement to be able to decode the audio even if bitstreaming it. So I assert again, that while I have not tested it, it still won't make any difference what output you're using in terms of detection.

Guest

16th February 2012, 23:50

Two OT chit-chat posts deleted.

Guys, this thread is getting out of hand. Please keep to technical issues about Cinavia.

SamuriHL

16th February 2012, 23:53

rotty

17th February 2012, 00:57

Have we seen a major uptick in the number of Cinavia enabled players this month? I know before this month we had what, half a dozen? With the firmware updates and new players supposedly required to have Cinavia implemented in them as of this month, has that number significantly increased?

Cinavia is of course a poison chalice for any player manufacturer.

A player whose firmware is enabled is going to have a massively reduced sale.

For myself, I have not purchased any known Cinavia infested disks.
Again, people will buy them, but BD is still not exactly main stream and therefore people like us make up a fairly high percentage of disk sales.

In the UK I have noticed that the BD section in say HMV peaked in size about a year ago and shelf space has not increased. The stores are still 95% DVD compared to BD.

Supermarkets in the UK have a very small BD section, tiny in fact in most stores.

So, "WE" can make a difference at this stage if we don’t buy into this crap.

Don’t put too much faith in a tool for Cinavia removal appearing, our best defence by miles is financial.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 01:14

Cinavia is of course a poison chalice for any player manufacturer.

A player whose firmware is enabled is going to have a massively reduced sale.

For myself, I have not purchased any known Cinavia infested disks.
Again, people will buy them, but BD is still not exactly main stream and therefore people like us make up a fairly high percentage of disk sales.

In the UK I have noticed that the BD section in say HMV peaked in size about a year ago and shelf space has not increased. The stores are still 95% DVD compared to BD.

Supermarkets in the UK have a very small BD section, tiny in fact in most stores.

So, "WE" can make a difference at this stage if we don’t buy into this crap.

Don’t put too much faith in a tool for Cinavia removal appearing, our best defence is financial.

That's all very interesting, but, has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I asked. :)

rotty

17th February 2012, 01:19

That's all very interesting, but, has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I asked. :)

Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought that you were inferring that Cinavia enabled player numbers had probably not increased.

My post was just to say why that may be. That’s all.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 01:21

rotty

17th February 2012, 01:30

I wasn't inferring anything. I genuinely don't know which is why I was asking. I wanted to see if the number of players that supports Cinavia has gone up this month. I know a couple got firmware updates to support it, so, we're maybe at like 7 or 8 that I'm aware of so far. But I wanted to know if anyone knew if the numbers were rising quickly.

OK I’m with you now, I don’t know either but I suppose with it being a F/W thing, it can change so quickly.

I would really love to know how much an average movie disk would cost us if all the protections were not there. I.E. no payments for licences for this that and the other.

The disk may be just the right price to make Piracy totally non viable.

P.S. Even law abiding people who make legit backups may not even do that, they would buy a second disk instead.

I suppose Piracy is a smoke screen, they are not really interested is Piracy one way or the other, just making money out of licences.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 01:42

We'll never know. But yea, I really am interested to see if the uptake on Cinavia enabled players has started in earnest now that it's supposedly mandated.

hello_hello

17th February 2012, 03:20

We'll never know. But yea, I really am interested to see if the uptake on Cinavia enabled players has started in earnest now that it's supposedly mandated.

Hey..... is this you?
http://forum.slysoft.com/member.php?u=1606
I just noticed the user name while I was Googling around and came across this post in a thread:
http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=338359&postcount=337
"Here is a reply I received today from Oppo:
None of our players support Cinavia as it is not required by our licensing as the players were first manufactured in 2010."

I think at least the myth of manufacturers being obligated to release cinavia infected firmware for current models after a 1st Feb deadline is debunked, along with the claim no players can be sold after 1st Feb without Cinavia.

Taking a quick survey of Sony's US website and a more thorough search of the Australian website (because it's better laid out and easier to find things)....
With only one exception (the S185) Sony hasn't released any new firmware for any player since last November. Some players haven't been updated for 6 months to a year.

So two weeks after the supposed deadline it appears Sony hasn't done a thing about releasing cinavia infected firmware for current players (with the exception of the S185), and I'd be very surprised if they're shipping players with a different firmware to what they're offering for download.
I suspect.... well at least hope..... uptake of cinavia will be mainly left for new models released after 1st Feb. Maybe I should stock up on Bluray players now and see how much non-infected players will fetch on eBay in six months time. :)

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 03:28

Yes, that's me. And yea, that's the kind of info I'm trying to figure out. The claim was made that as of Feb 1 2012 that all players sold are mandated to have Cinavia. There was some talk about a "grace period" but I don't know. PDVD12 was released like the day before the deadline and it doesn't have Cinavia. When I go to the wiki page, I don't see much of a difference in terms of players that support Cinavia now than was on there a month ago. My SA-BT230 doesn't support Cinavia with the latest firmware update. So that's why I'm trying to get a pulse on where we are. To me it doesn't seem like things have changed. I've been told by several sources (not just that post) that Oppo will not be adding Cinavia to existing players and only *MAY* add it to future ones if they're required to do so. As it stands now, this Cinavia thing still seems like a non-issue to me. One Sony player and one Samsung player being updated doesn't exactly equate to the end of the world as far as I'm concerned. It does show that older players CAN be updated. But that's about it.

jakmal

17th February 2012, 04:46

Since Oppo has come out with the statement, let me also add some inputs I received at CES:

1. Cinavia is ONLY required if you submit your 'player' to the BDA for licensing after Feb 1st. If your player was licensed before Feb 1st and you decide to sell it anytime (even next year), then, there is no need to implement Cinavia.

2. Some players licensed after Feb 1st may still escape without implementing Cinavia. They can claim while submitting that Cinavia is implemented. BDA issues license after putting the player through the certification process (basically run some tests). However, getting a particular test stream into the certification test is a long drawn out process. Some of the industry insiders told me (off the record, obviously) that the Cinavia testing test streams might take 6 - 8 months or more to be officially added to the certification process. So, even Blu-ray players without Cinavia could get certified by the BDA in that time frame. Obviously, big name players like Sony and Samsung aren't going to do that, but I fully expect small name manufacturers to skimp on Cinavia just for the licensing costs.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 04:49

MOST excellent information. Thank you for that.

hello_hello

17th February 2012, 04:49

As it stands now, this Cinavia thing still seems like a non-issue to me. One Sony player and one Samsung player being updated doesn't exactly equate to the end of the world as far as I'm concerned. It does show that older players CAN be updated. But that's about it.

I did wonder.... along the lines of "one Sony player and one Samsung player" if they're "testing the waters" so to speak. Even though it's apparently now mandatory in new players, it does seem a little co-incidental the one Sony player to include it also happens to be their cheapest player. Maybe they're a little worried about the effect it might have on sales, or hoping to "ease us into it" so we won't complain as much.
It'd be kind of ironic if cinavia's biggest achievement, at least in the short term, is to give current model players a longevity they would never otherwise have.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 04:56

I did wonder.... along the lines of "one Sony player and one Samsung player" if they're "testing the waters" so to speak. Even though it's apparently now mandatory in new players, it does seem a little co-incidental the one Sony player to include it also happens to be their cheapest player. Maybe they're a little worried about the effect it might have on sales, or hoping to "ease us into it" so we won't complain as much.
It'd be kind of ironic if cinavia's biggest achievement, at least in the short term, is to give current model players a longevity they would never otherwise have.

Cinavia has been "in testing" for a long time at this point. One would think by now they'd have tested it enough. But the info posted by Jakmal is very insightful. I'm still not very concerned about Cinavia having a real impact on my personal situation. I will be upset when the software players (TMT and PDVD) implement it. Until then, it's not going to impact me whatsoever. And given the number of players that currently support it, a VERY small number of people are actually affected by it. I would say that it looks as though in the next year it'll become a bigger issue, but, so far....not much of a problem. Just avoid the Cinavia enabled players. Which at this point, doesn't seem too difficult to do.

hello_hello

17th February 2012, 05:02

jakmal,
yes, that's some interesting information.

When it comes to Cinavia, the whole thing is really just a Bluray player "problem" isn't it? (Well aside from the PS3). Do any other standalone devices/media players include Cinavia yet, and/or do they have to? I can't imagine they would.
Chances are Cinavia's biggest achievement will be to increase the demand for alternative playback devices while decreasing the demand for Bluray players. Or despite the ever increasing multimedia abilities of Bluray players they'll end up being relegated to little more than a device for playing discs, while people will use another type of media player for everything else.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 05:07

At the moment, only players that are licensed by the AACS LA are required to support Cinavia. That's part of their license agreement with the AACS LA. If they aren't licensed by the AACS LA, then there's NO reason (or desire) for them to support Cinavia. It costs money to do so. So they won't unless they're forced to.

hello_hello

17th February 2012, 05:09

I will be upset when the software players (TMT and PDVD) implement it. Until then, it's not going to impact me whatsoever.

I hadn't given much thought to the software side of it, I guess because I don't use a media player capable of playing Bluray discs (well I don't think it will without help from AnyDVD).

When it comes to using a PC, I assume players such as MPC-HC, Potplayer, VLC etc are going to continue playing encoded video, cinavia or not, just as they currently do.... it seems the only real Cinavia casualty at the moment will be the Bluray player.

Cinavia has been "in testing" for a long time at this point. One would think by now they'd have tested it enough.

I meant testing the waters in terms of public reaction, not testing Cinavia itself.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 05:14

I hadn't given much thought to the software side of it, I guess because I don't use a media player capable of playing Bluray discs (well I don't think it will without help from AnyDVD).

When it comes to using a PC, I assume players such as MPC-HC, Potplayer, VLC etc are going to continue playing encoded video, cinavia or not, just as they currently do....

That's correct. But, when I want to watch a rental disc from Netflix, I like to use a licensed player with AnyDVD running. (AnyDVD gives me far more control over my playback experience and removes all the protections which helps the software players not freak out as much). The problem is, once those players support Cinavia, running AnyDVD to remove the protections will trip Cinavia, even on an original disc. This is where I'm going to start getting irritable. I can easily just use J River MC17 even on original discs with AnyDVD running, but, I like the option of running a licensed player with full support for menus and all that. Cinavia ruins all the fun. The way around that is to backup the latest versions of the players without Cinavia and use those when needed. If you remove all the protections anyway, there's generally no need to update the players unless there are bugs in the player itself.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 05:15

I meant testing the waters in terms of public reaction, not testing Cinavia itself.

Yea. The PS3 being one of the most popular BD players, there are definitely a segment of the BD watching public that have run into Cinavia. Public opinion is....it sucks. :D

setarip_old

17th February 2012, 06:26

@SamuriHL
And given the number of players that currently support it, a VERY small number of people are actually affected by it.The PS3 being one of the most popular BD players, there are definitely a segment of the BD watching public that have run into Cinavia.Huh?

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 14:37

All I meant was that the ps3 user base was the highest percentage of affected users. I still don't think it's very large. To be affected you need to own a cinavia player, own cinavia movies, and watch backups. I don't believe that constitutes the majority of ps3 owners. But as a group, because the ps3 is likely the most popular cinavia affected player, ps3 owners are most affected by it.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

rotty

17th February 2012, 20:32

I think we should all be very careful of not being complacent just because Cinavia hasn’t been massively enable in February, it is very early days in the enforcement indeed.

I am not being the voice of doom, but at the same time let’s not get our heads in the sand.

Out of the two possibilities, i.e. Cinavia will be enabled widely, and Cinavia will not happen then I think that logic would seem to point to the former and by quite a large degree.

Quote from post on last page from Oppo:
None of our players support Cinavia as it is not required by our licensing as the players were first manufactured in 2010

Perhaps player Manufactures are hoping that they can sell the players without Cinavia enable and then blame elsewhere if an upgrade enables the poison.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 21:01

I don't think anyone in this thread is being complacent. But, I think it helps to have a clear picture of where we are on the ground today. Which is this...

1) More discs have been released with Cinavia so far this year than we've seen before. Clearly that aspect of the Cinavia equation is on the uptick.
2) The number of players supporting detection, today, is small. The PS3 being the most widely used among them. But so far we have not seen a major spike in Cinavia supporting players. As of today.

Not known today but speculated by me:
Of the population of PS3 owners, which is the largest player group affected by Cinavia, how many are *ACTUALLY* affected by Cinavia? That means that they are buying Cinavia infected discs, backing them up, and trying to play the backups on the PS3...And running into the Cinavia message.

I would argue that's not a great percentage. And an even smaller percentage of the BD community as a whole. (Which is the point I was trying to make earlier and clearly did a bad job of explaining what I was trying to say). I can't quantify that. I'm not claiming to. This is simply a stated opinion not a statement of fact.

But what we do know is up there in 1 an 2. Discs vs players and the adoption rate of Cinavia in both. That's likely to change going forward. But, we've said that all along and here we are almost 2 years later with a handful of players and not a lot of discs (relatively...compared to total number of titles on the format). So adoption is going to be slow based on past history.

setarip_old

17th February 2012, 21:22

Ghitulescu

17th February 2012, 21:24

This doesn't change the things too much. As soon as Oppo changes a single bit in the since-2010-made players, they need to recertify them and to bring the rest of them to the latest stand (cinavia) via FW upgrades. Let's see how Oppo manages to escape. If.... The only real escape is that in a country the laws specifically prohibit cinavia or any other watermarking system, but this counts for that country only.

EDIT: this was for rotty, but meanwhile several replies occured in between

jakmal

17th February 2012, 21:27

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 21:29

If one is keeping score in the ongoing "Cinavia" cat and mouse game between Verance ("the studios") and the community, I'd suggest that the community is actually ahead, since Verance felt compelled to address the creative "BD-REC" solution proffered by "fengtao" and the gang at DVDFab.

Doesn't the fact that they closed that loophole put us behind now? :p HEHEHE :) (I'm just kidding...I get your point)

At least to me, the recent silence by the two significant players seeking a FULL and/or interim solution to "Cinavia" (DVDFab and SlySoft), may be indicative of either or both companies having "something big" that will only be brought forth once a MAJOR commitment to the installation of Verance/"Cinavia" has been made.

Time will tell...

SlySoft hasn't been silent about it. They've stated publicly that they aren't going to worry about it until it becomes a bigger problem. Right now they're focusing on bigger issues like getting a new product launched. A product that, as they've stated, will be needed for their Cinavia solution once they deem it necessary to provide one. Which means you're correct that they're not tipping their hand until Verance commits fully. :) Whether they're working on it behind the scenes or not, I don't know. I can't imagine that they've not at least looked at it from a curiosity stand point. :) But they've said they're not going to throw resources at it at this point. Not yet. I can't speak for other companies. I'd like to think Mike would be working on his own solution, as well, though.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 21:32

Can you point me to some information on how Verance acted in response to the BD-REC solution?

I'm not sure Verance themselves acted, but, Sony closed this off in one of the recent PS3 firmware updates. Cinavia on BD-REC discs (meaning AACS protected) will now trip Cinavia detection. It kinda sucks cause we warned about that happening a long time ago and now those people that spent money on making those discs are somewhat screwed at the moment. I feel bad for them.

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 21:34

This doesn't change the things too much. As soon as Oppo changes a single bit in the since-2010-made players, they need to recertify them and to bring the rest of them to the latest stand (cinavia) via FW upgrades. Let's see how Oppo manages to escape. If.... The only real escape is that in a country the laws specifically prohibit cinavia or any other watermarking system, but this counts for that country only.

EDIT: this was for rotty, but meanwhile several replies occured in between

I'm confused. What kind of change are you talking about that'd require recertification of an existing player? You can't be saying that a simple firmware update is enough to warrant recertification, are you?

Ghitulescu

17th February 2012, 21:37

SamuriHL

17th February 2012, 21:40

It's somewhere hidden in the compliance rules. I can't cite now, only Monday.

I'd be interested in the details on that one as it could definitely impact whether Cinavia is added or not. But from what jakmal said, I can't imagine that they'd have time to recertify every player every time they upgrade it. They're already behind certifying new products apparently.

Ghitulescu

17th February 2012, 21:52

I'd be interested in the details on that one as it could definitely impact whether Cinavia is added or not. But from what jakmal said, I can't imagine that they'd have time to recertify every player every time they upgrade it. They're already behind certifying new products apparently.

AACS LA has the right to buy samples and to test them independently. Imagine what happens when one sample doesn't react eg to cinavia :) It's a 20 min job.

I couln't find any reference to cinavia (a negation) on the oppos' webpage.

setarip_old

17th February 2012, 21:56

@jakmal

Hi!

Regarding my comment about Verance/("the studios") and "BD-REC",

Go to: http://forum.dvdfab.com/

You'll see the following quote near the top of the page: Please be aware that PS3 firmware >= v4.10 will no longer see DVDFab Cinavia solution (BDMV-REC) discs as a trusted source, which negates the Cinavia solution. Do not update the PS3 firmware to v4.10 or later if you want the DVDFab Cinavia backups to continue to play in your PS3. Check the Cinavia thread in the Blu-ray Copy forum below for questions/discussion of this issue. Work towards a removal-type solution continues.

jakmal

17th February 2012, 22:37

AACS LA has the right to buy samples and to test them independently. Imagine what happens when one sample doesn't react eg to cinavia :) It's a 20 min job.

I couln't find any reference to cinavia (a negation) on the oppos' webpage.

Assuming this is true, what is going to happen? The player's certification might get revoked. That is not going to prevent owners of the player from playing Blu-rays.

If they wanted to screw customers even more, a doomsday scenario would include putting out Blu-rays adding the previously sold 'now non-certified' Blu-ray players' keys to the drive revocation list. From then on, newer Blu-rays wouldn't play on that particular player. In practice this is extremely unlikely, as this extract from the AACS Wikipedia page shows.

In principle, this approach allows licensors to "revoke" a given player model (prevent it from playing back future content) by omitting to encrypt future title keys with the player model's key. In practice, however, revoking all players of a particular model is costly, as it causes many users to lose playback capability. Furthermore, the inclusion of a shared key across many players makes key compromise significantly more likely, as was demonstrated by a number of compromises in the mid-1990s.

If the BDA forces this, it is my opinion that it would spell the death-knell for the industry.

rotty

17th February 2012, 23:35

Doesn't the fact that they closed that loophole put us behind now? :p HEHEHE :) (I'm just kidding...I get your point)

SlySoft hasn't been silent about it. They've stated publicly that they aren't going to worry about it until it becomes a bigger problem. Right now they're focusing on bigger issues like getting a new product launched. A product that, as they've stated, will be needed for their Cinavia solution once they deem it necessary to provide one. Which means you're correct that they're not tipping their hand until Verance commits fully. :) Whether they're working on it behind the scenes or not, I don't know. I can't imagine that they've not at least looked at it from a curiosity stand point. :) But they've said they're not going to throw resources at it at this point. Not yet. I can't speak for other companies. I'd like to think Mike would be working on his own solution, as well, though.

But this IS a problem RIGHT NOW.

If you want to buy a disk and back it up and it has the posion on it then you cant, RIGHT HERE AND NOW, well you can back it up but it will become a coaster.

diogen

18th February 2012, 00:28

...a doomsday scenario would include putting out Blu-rays adding the previously
sold 'now non-certified' Blu-ray players' keys to the drive revocation list.I believe key revocation on this scale is reserved for cases when a (Chinese?)
manufacturer is flooding the player market and not playing by the rules...

But considering this never happened in the DVD times (with patent holders
constantly complaining codec licences were not paid), it is even less likely
to happen now when those licenses are a fraction of what it used to be...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

18th February 2012, 01:03

But this IS a problem RIGHT NOW.

If you want to buy a disk and back it up and it has the posion on it then you cant, RIGHT HERE AND NOW, well you can back it up but it will become a coaster.

They don't see it that way. It's not affecting 100%, or even a majority, of their customers yet. You can argue with me til you're blue in the face and it won't change their stance on it. :) *I* didn't come up with their policy. I'm only saying what they have publicly stated on their forum. Nonetheless, I also don't think they're wrong. It's a matter of priorities. When you're a small company that's trying to push out new software that people have been waiting YEARS for, well, that comes first. A new protection that a minority of the customers are having issues with is going to get a lower priority...especially when it's stated that they need the new software to tackle the Cinavia problem. :)

hello_hello

18th February 2012, 07:09

This doesn't change the things too much. As soon as Oppo changes a single bit in the since-2010-made players, they need to recertify them and to bring the rest of them to the latest stand (cinavia) via FW upgrades.

You just keep offering speculation as though it's fact, and often it contradicts the evidence.

Define "changes a single bit".

It's been shown existing, licensed players don't have any Cinavia compliance requirements. It's been shown there's no obligation to add it via firmware. Just for once, why not simply say "okay I was wrong about that" instead of trying to further justify old speculation with new.
Logically, the only way Oppo would be required to include Cinavia is if they change a product significantly enough to require a new license/certification for it. I don't know what constitutes a significant enough change, I'm certain you don't, and I'm also sure it's not defined by something as speculative as "if they change a single bit".

AACS LA has the right to buy samples and to test them independently. Imagine what happens when one sample doesn't react. It's a 20 min job.

More speculation which ignores the contradiction of the AACS testing a player for a functionality it's certification doesn't require it to have.

I'd be interested in the details on that one as it could definitely impact whether Cinavia is added or not. But from what jakmal said, I can't imagine that they'd have time to recertify every player every time they upgrade it. They're already behind certifying new products apparently.

Don't hold your breath. First it's not Monday so no compliance rules can be sited, then it's an inability to find any references to Cinavia negotiations on Oppo's web site......

hello_hello

18th February 2012, 07:16

I'm confused. What kind of change are you talking about that'd require recertification of an existing player? You can't be saying that a simple firmware update is enough to warrant recertification, are you?

Here's a section from the agreement again which no doubt Ghitulescu will ignore for a third time, given it appears to contradict his claims. It refers to updates.

http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agreement_20120118.pdf
"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. "

Ghitulescu

18th February 2012, 07:45

Here's a section from the agreement again which no doubt Ghitulescu will ignore for a third time, given it appears to contradict his claims. It refers to updates.

Maybe it's my English, but how is supposed this to helpOppo?

hello_hello

18th February 2012, 09:24

I doubt it's your English, but please explain why you think it's supposed to help Oppo. Or alternatively why you're pretending to think it's supposed to help Oppo.

rotty

18th February 2012, 12:33

They don't see it that way. It's not affecting 100%, or even a majority, of their customers yet. You can argue with me til you're blue in the face and it won't change their stance on it. :) *I* didn't come up with their policy. I'm only saying what they have publicly stated on their forum. Nonetheless, I also don't think they're wrong. It's a matter of priorities. When you're a small company that's trying to push out new software that people have been waiting YEARS for, well, that comes first. A new protection that a minority of the customers are having issues with is going to get a lower priority...especially when it's stated that they need the new software to tackle the Cinavia problem. :)

Hi Samuri

Quote from your post: "You can argue with me till you're blue in the face and it won't change their stance on it".
I take it by their you mean I was referring to Slysoft.

Well no not really, I would be very surprised if they have a practical answer for us to use as far as watermark removal. My point was that it is a problem right now as far as disks are concerned.

It doesn’t really matter about how many players are enabled at present, what matters is that you cant make a backup with the watermark right now because you will most probably be wasting your time and money.

SamuriHL

18th February 2012, 13:21

Here's a section from the agreement again which no doubt Ghitulescu will ignore for a third time, given it appears to contradict his claims. It refers to updates.

http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agreement_20120118.pdf
"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. "

That sheds quite a bit of light on the subject. Thanks!

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

SamuriHL

18th February 2012, 13:40

Hi Samuri

Quote from your post: "You can argue with me till you're blue in the face and it won't change their stance on it".
I take it by their you mean I was referring to Slysoft.

Well no not really, I would be very surprised if they have a practical answer for us to use as far as watermark removal. My point was that it is a problem right now as far as disks are concerned.

It doesn’t really matter about how many players are enabled at present, what matters is that you cant make a backup with the watermark right now because you will most probably be wasting your time and money.

Yea I was referring to what slysoft has stated. Meaning I have no control over it, that's all. :)

I do disagree with your statement that you can't make a backup with cinavia in place. It heavily depends on how you backup and what you're using to play the backup. Slysoft's main focus with anydvd is on the htpc community. So far the htpc is not affected by cinavia. I can make ISO backups using anydvd and they'll play just fine on my htpc with any of the 3 main commercial players. And since we're not generally talking about burning those ISO images to BD media, even when the commercial players are updated so the images no longer play, you haven't wasted money on your backups. In fact any solution slysoft comes up with after that point will likely work on the ISO image as easily as the original disc it was made from. That should speed things up in terms of cleaning up your backups. I suspect this is the reason slysoft doesn't see a pressing need just yet. Once the PC software players are updated to support cinavia I suspect you'll see them start to work on a solution to remove it. But not likely before that time if I had to guess.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Ghitulescu

18th February 2012, 14:32

I doubt it's your English, but please explain why you think it's supposed to help Oppo. Or alternatively why you're pretending to think it's supposed to help Oppo.

I never said that. The rest of the world said that, quoting a single source, allegedly an email sent by an Oppo official to someone I don't know.

I said the contrary. That passage does not concern the subject-matter of that email. In fact, if I read that email, the official probably said the truth, Oppo does not plan (read on their own volition) to implement cinavia, but they might be forced to.

Otherwise, all the manufacturers that intend to resist can simply continue to produce those pre-2012 models and bingo ;) ciao cinavia bye bye.

That paragraph, sorry, says something completely different. Therefore the manufacturers will implement cinavia or loose their licence.

hello_hello

18th February 2012, 15:34

I never said that. The rest of the world said that, quoting a single source, allegedly an email sent by an Oppo official to someone I don't know.

So now the rest of the world wants to know how the section I quoted is supposed to help Oppo????
The forum post I quoted two pages ago has nothing to do with this conversation, but if believing someone would pretend to have contacted Oppo, pretend to received a reply, and then post it in the Slysoft forum.... if it helps you to keep denying everything but what you want to believe.... good luck to you.

I said the contrary. That passage does not concern the subject-matter of that email. In fact, if I read that email, the official probably said the truth, Oppo does not plan (read on their own volition) to implement cinavia, but they might be forced to.

As I said.... good luck to you. The email from Oppo stated they don't plan to, because they're not obligated to. The passage I quoted from the agreement seems to confirm it, yet you're still claiming Oppo might be forced to (well at least you've speculated down from "must"). On what do you base that claim? What evidence do you have?

Otherwise, all the manufacturers that intend to resist can simply continue to produce those pre-2012 models and bingo ;) ciao cinavia bye bye.

Now you're catching up with the rest of us. Not that it's likely to happen, although I did say in an earlier post it might slow the release of new models quite considerably, but yes, in theory, why not? Would it really be the first time a manufacturer has sold a particular model of a device for years while newer models have come and gone?

That paragraph, sorry, says something completely different. Therefore the manufacturers will implement cinavia or loose their licence.

"Something different"? sigh.... Okay I'll bite. Please enlighten us with your interpretation of what it says.

rotty

18th February 2012, 17:36

Yea I was referring to what slysoft has stated. Meaning I have no control over it, that's all. :)

I do disagree with your statement that you can't make a backup with cinavia in place. It heavily depends on how you backup and what you're using to play the backup. Slysoft's main focus with anydvd is on the htpc community. So far the htpc is not affected by cinavia. I can make ISO backups using anydvd and they'll play just fine on my htpc with any of the 3 main commercial players. And since we're not generally talking about burning those ISO images to BD media, even when the commercial players are updated so the images no longer play, you haven't wasted money on your backups. In fact any solution slysoft comes up with after that point will likely work on the ISO image as easily as the original disc it was made from. That should speed things up in terms of cleaning up your backups. I suspect this is the reason slysoft doesn't see a pressing need just yet. Once the PC software players are updated to support cinavia I suspect you'll see them start to work on a solution to remove it. But not likely before that time if I had to guess.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Yes, I was talking about physical media backups.

Even ISO could be in trouble if PC architeture changes, but thats a way off yet I would think. It is worth thinking about though, by then, imagine how many movies on Hard Drive you would have and only playable on old PC's until they give out.

Removal is the only real way to be safe, I dont think that will happen though. Only my opinion.

SamuriHL

18th February 2012, 17:41

rotty

18th February 2012, 17:49

By the time it matters, I'm of the opinion removal will be an option. It's just not worth stressing over at this point. As long as we have a way to play them what's the real issue? That some day in the future my PC might not be able to play them? Again, by then, it's likely someone will have tackled Cinavia.

Yes, but as I say, I was talking about physical media, ISO was just a talking point.

Physical media is an immediate problem, because you dont want to spend money on a disk that will be unusable on stand alone players soon.

It isnt that it will happen, its that the uncertaincy makes it a non go-er right now.

Lol think that one is exhausted.

Ghitulescu

18th February 2012, 18:11

So now the rest of the world wants to know how the section I quoted is supposed to help Oppo????
The forum post I quoted two pages ago has nothing to do with this conversation, but if believing someone would pretend to have contacted Oppo, pretend to received a reply, and then post it in the Slysoft forum.... if it helps you to keep denying everything but what you want to believe.... good luck to you.
I repeat, for the last time, that I didn't say that, nor I believe it. But as usual you put your words in my mouth...

"Something different"? sigh.... Okay I'll bite. Please enlighten us with your interpretation of what it says.
It says that a product already certified product (ie containing cinavia) should not be subjected to retesting/relicensing unless it was substantially changed.

It doesn't say that a product not containing cinavia may not need to be recertified and consequently sold as such till doomsday. That's wishful thinking based on statements taken out of their context.

hello_hello

18th February 2012, 19:50

I repeat, for the last time, that I didn't say that, nor I believe it. But as usual you put your words in my mouth...

I don't have to put words in your mouth, you posted them yourself, then as usual you're pretending you didn't.

SamuriHL: "You can't be saying that a simple firmware update is enough to warrant recertification, are you?"
hello_hello: "Here's a section from the agreement again.... It refers to updates."
Ghitulescu: "Maybe it's my English, but how is supposed this to helpOppo?"

So I'll ask again.....
Why do you think the section I quoted from the agreement is supposed to help Oppo?

It says that a product already certified product (ie containing cinavia) should not be subjected to retesting/relicensing unless it was substantially changed.

No it doesn't. It says updates for existing products... read it again, you'll notice the word update is used several times... and I'll quote.... "shall not have to comply with changes to the Specifications or Compliance Rules, or sunrise of new obligations (e.g., the Watermark Screening Obligations)."
No mention of products already containing cinavia not having to be re-tested, although it's the first rational conclusion you reached in a while.

It doesn't say that a product not containing cinavia may not need to be recertified and consequently sold as such till doomsday. That's wishful thinking based on statements taken out of their context.

No it doesn't. I did say it's the logical conclusion, and I will say you've yet to offer anything but wishful thinking and amusing anecdotes to the contrary.
It's not hard... show us where in the agreement it says existing products must be sold with Cinavia detection after a certain date. The whole thing is easily downloaded. I provided the link. Show us the evidence all players being sold after the 1st Feb contain cinavia detection as you claimed they would. Show us how you know future firmware updates for current products must include cinavia despite all the evidence to the contrary. Show us how you understand the rules better than Oppo. Show us something which actually supports your claims. Anything.....

Guest

19th February 2012, 02:00

it's the first rational conclusion you reached in a while Knock it off, hello_hello, or you will have to find another forum. That would be a shame, because you contribute a lot to Doom9. But your harrassment of Ghitulescu has to stop...immediately.

Follow-up to PM if you must.

Ghitulescu

19th February 2012, 07:44

I'll explain in short what AACS document says in my interpretation.

First of all, this document supersedes whatever other agreements before.
Secondly, there are definitions to be followed when reading it. A licensed player must comply with the rules of this document and must be updated to comply with their latest stand (limit date set) or become unlicensed. Watermarking is a MUST.
That passage is only an exception, and in my opinion concerns only a change in the watermarking detection ie whether it changes, the product already on sale may not be retrofitted if the manufacturer doesn't want it. And this refer to products made after 2010 (first sunset) - and they do already contain cinavia by the simple fact that the SoCs already have it on-board. SoCs follow a different certification.

In my opinion, if one reads the passage alone, he might believe one can escape cinavia (because it's still not 100% no-cinavia). If one places it in its context, it must be 100% for cinavia.
I believe that the attorneys of Samsung, Pioneer etc. know how to read the document.

foxyshadis

19th February 2012, 11:03

If it doesn't have to do with the technical analysis of Verance or a method of detecting and/or breaking it, it doesn't belong in this thread. What is so hard to understand about that?

hello_hello

20th February 2012, 03:49

If it doesn't have to do with the technical analysis of Verance or a method of detecting and/or breaking it, it doesn't belong in this thread. What is so hard to understand about that?

The fact that the title of the thread is only a general reference to ""Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection" and the original post included nothing about any technical analysis of Verance, nor any references to breaking it.

hello_hello

20th February 2012, 04:07

That passage is only an exception, and in my opinion concerns only a change in the watermarking detection ie whether it changes, the product already on sale may not be retrofitted if the manufacturer doesn't want it. And this refer to products made after 2010 (first sunset) - and they do already contain cinavia by the simple fact that the SoCs already have it on-board. SoCs follow a different certification.

Where did you get 2010 as being the first sunset? How do you know SoCs already had it on board and followed a different certification? What certification was that?
The passage clearly states "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)"
Assuming 1st Feb was the sunrise date of the Cinavia obligation, ie when it became mandatory as even Verance's website claims, products sold before that date aren't obliged to include Cinavia, so the only way your claim makes sense to me, is if Cinavia was actually compulsory back in 2010. Is there anything to show it was compulsory back in 2010?

In my opinion, if one reads the passage alone, he might believe one can escape cinavia (because it's still not 100% no-cinavia). If one places it in its context, it must be 100% for cinavia.
I believe that the attorneys of Samsung, Pioneer etc. know how to read the document.

Could you show us which section of the agreement places the passage in context and shows players must therefore contain Cinavia, or ask the the attorneys of Samsung, Pioneer etc. to post here with their opinion?

Ghitulescu

20th February 2012, 08:11

rotty

20th February 2012, 20:47

A mod ruled out the "technicality" of this subject-matter, so unless there is a huge demand for a clarification, this issue remains as everyone interested can read and understand it.

From now on, this thread will remain probably closed for at least 3 years, as no technical solution really exists to circumvent cinavia. Like that of the DVD-audio, which is still not "broken", after how many years? And whose watermarking is even less complicated. The "technical" solution against watermarked DVD-As is to either use a wm-ignoring device or to play those files as eg FLACs on a computer.

All "technical" (LOL) solutions up to now involved a flawed design in a particular device, which is not even a player but a game console. Flaws closed, no circumvention.

Despite the early-on bravado re "removal of Cinavia", I also don’t believe any useable solution to remove the watermark exists.

The language of "Removal" will quietly disappear.

I would bet (and im not a betting man) that all that will be offered will be a software player that will ignore the watermark.

And then, possibly, only useable until the PC architecture is changed to put pay to that.

omegaman7

20th February 2012, 21:03

And then, possibly, only useable until the PC architecture is changed to put pay to that.

You're suggesting they'll put a leash on the PC. I doubt that that will last long ;) Cinavia detection on a PC will likely happen, but there will be workarounds shortly after.

rotty

20th February 2012, 21:07

You're suggesting they'll put a leash on the PC. I doubt that that will last long ;) Cinavia detection on a PC will likely happen, but there will be workarounds shortly after.

The PC CPU and I/O (All I/O including Video and Audio streams) and Watermark detection will be conatined within a single chip.

There will be no workround.

diogen

20th February 2012, 22:17

I don't think hardware DRM on PCs will go far...

We have heard about Trusted Computing for a long time.
I think the best known (and not abandoned) implementation have Macs: OS X isn't suppose to install unless the Infineon TPM is present.
The Hackintosh community had an answer for that shortly after implementation.

I think the cycles in chip design and software are too different.
The entertainment industry has a better chance to abandon the PC as a playback platform...

Diogen.

diogen

20th February 2012, 22:21

The PC CPU and I/O (All I/O including Video and Audio streams) and Watermark detection will be conatined within a single chip.You can't be serious...

Diogen.

SamuriHL

20th February 2012, 22:31

What I could see happening is that another spec similar to PAP being created for use by software players. And what I'm saying here is that the video and audio drivers and licensed software players would be required to support this new spec. The player could then pass along whether the media is a trusted source to the audio/video drivers using an encrypted token. And then the driver can check for Cinavia. But that would require a new spec to be implemented similar to how PAP was created for bitstreaming audio on the PC. If the "trust source token" isn't passed to the driver, and Cinavia is detected, then at a driver level the audio would be muted and/or video shut off. Whatever. I don't honestly feel this will be done. I'm simply suggesting it COULD be done on a technical level. It'd be pretty stupid. I think it's far more reasonable to keep everything at the player level as it's done now. I mean, come on, we haven't even gotten that far yet. To think that imminent doom is upon us is pretty far fetched at this point in time. You're talking years out if that (for a more advanced detection routine based on hardware, I mean).

rotty

20th February 2012, 22:54

SamuriHL

20th February 2012, 23:18

Time will of course tell.

They know they are on to a winner with audio watermarking and the algorithms are endless.

So it could easily be worth it for them to close off all avenues.

Sure, no doubt. My point was that you can speculate long term all you want. It doesn't change what's here and now. Today, we have a few players that support Cinavia detection. We have under 100 titles that have Cinavia on them worldwide. We do not have ANY Cinavia detection happening on the PC. That's today.

Near term, we will start to see more players with Cinavia detection. We will LIKELY see more studios start to put it on their releases, which means an uptick in titles that have Cinavia on them. Commercial PC software will eventually get this stuff added...either in the near term or not so distant long term.

Long term....speculation. Pure and simple. That's all we have. We can make all kinds of predictions about what will and won't happen, but, so far when we've tried (myself especially), we've been *WRONG*. When Cinavia came out people were SURE a year from then ALL players would have support for it, no new titles would be released without it, the PC would be locked down, and the end is here. How'd that work out? It's one of those things where if you keep making the same predictions year after year eventually you'll be proven right all along. It's actually rather meaningless.

Focus on what's here today and what we KNOW that's coming up in the near term. Long term? Don't bother....it'll change anyway.

rotty

20th February 2012, 23:43

Sure, no doubt. My point was that you can speculate long term all you want. It doesn't change what's here and now. Today, we have a few players that support Cinavia detection. We have under 100 titles that have Cinavia on them worldwide. We do not have ANY Cinavia detection happening on the PC. That's today.

Near term, we will start to see more players with Cinavia detection. We will LIKELY see more studios start to put it on their releases, which means an uptick in titles that have Cinavia on them. Commercial PC software will eventually get this stuff added...either in the near term or not so distant long term.

Long term....speculation. Pure and simple. That's all we have. We can make all kinds of predictions about what will and won't happen, but, so far when we've tried (myself especially), we've been *WRONG*. When Cinavia came out people were SURE a year from then ALL players would have support for it, no new titles would be released without it, the PC would be locked down, and the end is here. How'd that work out? It's one of those things where if you keep making the same predictions year after year eventually you'll be proven right all along. It's actually rather meaningless.

Focus on what's here today and what we KNOW that's coming up in the near term. Long term? Don't bother....it'll change anyway.

100 titles, what number would you say IS a problem. Will you still be saying this at say 500, still at 1000, still at 5000.

What number of players enabled, what figure ?

It really feels like head in sand to me.

Right NOW cant me today or next week. NOW must mean today and a forward span of a few months.

Comercial Software Players with detection, well you know as well as I do that they will not be able to sell them if Slysoft have a player.

The Comercial Software Player Companies could go out of business.

So, the PC will then be outside the protection of Cinavia, no matter what a Company does to stop it.

Architecture change will be forced on the PC manufaturers to do something about it.

Well this is what I see as reality. Now it is an opinion, and that is what a forum is in part for.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:01

100 titles, what number would you say IS a problem. Will you still be saying this at say 500, still at 1000, still at 5000.

What number of players enabled, what figure ?

It really feels like head in sand to me.

Right NOW cant me today or next week. NOW must mean today and a forward span of a few months.

Comercial Software Players with detection, well you know as well as I do that they will not be able to sell them if Slysoft have a player.

The Comercial Software Player Companies could go out of business.

So, the PC will then be outside the protection of Cinavia, no matter what a Company does to stop it.

Architecture change will be forced on the PC manufaturers to do something about it.

Well this is what I see as reality. Now it is an opinion, and that is what a forum is in part for.

My head's not in the sand. Nor is it in the clouds. It's focused on what reality is today.

The number of titles is completely irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is the number of players. Because the discs can be as infected with Cinavia as they want, but, if the player doesn't detect it, then it's POINTLESS. So I would say, again, to look at where we're at TODAY. Which is this: MOST people who have a BD player are not affected. I'm not talking about whether they COULD be or not. I'm simply stating that as of today, most people that own a licensed BD player are not inhibited by Cinavia at all. Regardless of how many discs there are out there that have it. Now I will agree that PS3 owners are the ones who got screwed the most. I own one, so I get it. But, quite frankly, if you're scared to death of big bad Cinavia, get another player. In fact, ALMOST any other player will do for now. We can speculate about how long those other players will remain Cinavia free or not, but, as of right now, the majority are, and the rest is nothing more than speculation. Which, as I said, we're notoriously bad at.

Please understand, I have NO problem with you having an opinion here. At all. I just wanted to share mine, as well, in that I personally think there's too much doom and gloom surrounding Cinavia. (I'm partially to blame for that, I freely admit. My own speculation over the years has done nothing to calm people's fears about it. I accept my responsibility there.) I just think it's overblown. I get what you're saying and where you're coming from. I really do. I just look back at the predictions we've made since Cinavia was released and observe that we aren't so good at it. :)

All that leads me to, keep constant watch on how things are RIGHT NOW, look for clues as to how they're going to change in the near term, and continue to exercise strategies for avoiding this stupid protection completely. That's what I'm doing and so far, other than intentionally triggering it on my PS3 for fun, I've never been affected by it. Nor should anyone who's serious about watching backups. The avoidance strategies today aren't hard. We just don't know what will change, and when, going forward when using licensed players.

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:07

What do you mean the number of titles is irrelevant.

You are the one that used a number to make your point, you are the one who used the figure of 100 not me.

You completely missed my point.

You were the one that used a number to make a point,
So I ask again, what number RIGHT NOW (as if today had that number), what number of titles WOULD you say is significant.

omegaman7

21st February 2012, 00:10

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:11

I think you missed MY point. :( 1 disc is too many *IF THE PLAYER DETECTS IT*. EVERY disc is irrelevant *IF THE PLAYER DOESN'T*. So, again, the number of titles that contain Cinavia is not the issue. It's the number of PLAYERS that is.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:13

I don't think it's the number to date (100) that gets peoples attention. I think it has more to do with how many titles per month are being distributed with cinavia. That number is very small. Mostly $ony titles eh?

If even a couple more studios begin implementing, THAT will get peoples attention big time LOL!

It could be ALL of them and it'd still not get my attention. :) However, if tomorrow I woke up and EVERY SINGLE BD player in the world was suddenly Cinavia enabled, then I'd be concerned.

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:13

I of course have no problem with you having an opinion that is opposite to mine.

You are a respected contributor and have my respect as well.

But as with any business, you cant just look at today, you need to look into the near future to make sense of life.

If you were told you have a serious illness, you wouldnt say to the doctor, I feel OK today so im not going to worry about next month.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:18

Let me ask you this....my PC can play ANY BD I want right now either with or without a licensed software player. And it doesn't matter at all if that BD contains Cinavia. So what, in the next year, is going to change that? Anything? Even if the commercial players get updated to support Cinavia, I am smart enough to back up the very latest version that doesn't. And if they decide to revoke the player keys of the commercial players to force you to update, I still don't care because I use AnyDVD to remove all protections anyway. And since I use AnyDVD to remove protections, that opens me up to non-commercial players that don't give a care in the world that Cinavia is in the audio stream. So, tell me, how am I going to be affected any time soon? What is the big FEAR I have to be concerned with? Anything?

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:18

It could be ALL of them and it'd still not get my attention. :) However, if tomorrow I woke up and EVERY SINGLE BD player in the world was suddenly Cinavia enabled, then I'd be concerned.

Now I know you dont like to look into the future but,
just out of interest, what do you think is most likley:

a) An insignificant number of players will be enabled this Year.

b) A significant number of players will be enabled this Year.

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:22

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:24

Now I know you dont like to look into the future but,
just out of interest, what do you think is most likley:

a) An insignificant number of players will be enabled this Year.

b) A significant number of players will be enabled this Year.

I honestly have no idea. In 2010 I would have answered with a majority of players. Today, I'm literally saying I don't know. The reason? History has taught us well that we really don't have a clue. What is most likely and logical in every sense isn't necessarily what's going to happen. As we have seen. Since Cinavia works, shouldn't every disc have it and every player support it by now? But that's not the case. So....you tell me.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:29

I dont think you have anything to fear.

I have never even thought about it in that way.

I was just making a point as to how I see industries reacting.

I think that if you have enough PC's to last your lifetime then your more than safe (I think ???)

Right, that's been the point I was trying to make. To look at things from the viewpoint of an end user who just wants to play their backups. Myself, I make MKV's of all my discs and play them using J River's MC17. It doesn't know a darn thing about Cinavia and it couldn't care less. I could just as easily make the MKV's and play them on a WD Live TV media streaming device as my dad does. Also not affected by Cinavia. For rented discs I use TMT5 and PDVD12 with AnyDVD running. Once those get Cinavia, then I will switch to just using J River MC17 on the disc itself, or I will just simply not upgrade TMT and/or PDVD. Done. Cinavia can fade away into oblivion at that point.

I couldn't care less about how the industry reacts. What I care about is the simple down to earth question...."Is this going to affect my ability to play my backups...or not?" And so far, even in the foreseeable future, the answer is NOT. This right here is why I have the attitude I do towards Cinavia. Until I am, or am likely to be, affected by it, I simply find it a fascinating topic, but, really nothing more than that.

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:32

I honestly have no idea. In 2010 I would have answered with a majority of players. Today, I'm literally saying I don't know. The reason? History has taught us well that we really don't have a clue. What is most likely and logical in every sense isn't necessarily what's going to happen. As we have seen. Since Cinavia works, shouldn't every disc have it and every player support it by now? But that's not the case. So....you tell me.

Im with you on this but if I was really pushed and HAD to pick I would go for b).

I dont think we will see a removal program, so we have 2 options:

1.. The PC
2.. Dont buy

And you know which one I think has the last say.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:34

Im with you on this but if I was really pushed and HAD to pick I would go for b).

I dont think we will see a removal program, so we have 2 options:

1.. The PC
2.. Dont buy

And you know which one I think has the last say.

No argument there. :) I would love to say I'm not going to buy it. To support the cause. But, for me I have a policy that if I take the time to go see it in the theater, I generally buy it just on principle. Because I've already forked over 30 or more bucks to see it anyway. If it's a movie I haven't seen and am not sure about, I'll rent it. But if it's something I haven't seen but know I'm going to want to watch it more than once, I buy it. Yes, not buying is the best answer. But what happens if more studios adopt it? Are you going to have the willpower to avoid them all? I know I won't. I'm just being honest here. :)

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:41

No argument there. :) I would love to say I'm not going to buy it. To support the cause. But, for me I have a policy that if I take the time to go see it in the theater, I generally buy it just on principle. Because I've already forked over 30 or more bucks to see it anyway. If it's a movie I haven't seen and am not sure about, I'll rent it. But if it's something I haven't seen but know I'm going to want to watch it more than once, I buy it. Yes, not buying is the best answer. But what happens if more studios adopt it? Are you going to have the willpower to avoid them all? I know I won't. I'm just being honest here. :)

LOL, you do what I do. If have gone to see it at the Cinema, then its probably a film I want on BD. Some films ive been to see dont fall into that catagory lol.

Ive been lucky so far because I think most if not all in the Cinavia list I dont really want to see let alone own.

I will though NOT buy even if I want it if it has Cinavia.

I really think that at this early stage in both Cinavia and in fact BD uptake, we can make a great big difference if we do this.

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:44

It wouldnt last long, word would get about re sales figures, that would fuel it more.

You wouldnt have to hold out too long.

they would cave in.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:47

rotty

21st February 2012, 00:51

You have more willpower than I do for sure on that one. :) Plus I have kids and my wife to think about. I completely and totally understand the boycott idea and even support it in theory. I just know that I wouldn't be able to hold out.

yeh I know, havnt had the problem yet as no movie in that list wanted. will possibly rent if need to keep the peace.
NOT BUY.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 00:54

yeh I know, havnt had the problem yet as no movie in that list wanted. will possibly rent if need to keep the peace.
NOT BUY.

What's funny, though, is that because of the playback methods I use, I literally have to look on the cover or at a list to know which of mine contain Cinavia and which ones don't. LOL! When I say I'm not affected, I mean not even the littlest bit. :D At this point I figure if it's a Sony release, it likely has Cinavia. If it's a Warner Bros release, it's at least possible. And if it's anyone else, it's possible but not probable. But other than looking on the cover or seeing online that it has Cinavia, I genuinely wouldn't even know unless I tried to stream it to my PS3. I stopped using that for media playback LONG before Cinavia came around. :)

setarip_old

21st February 2012, 04:55

(See "Lord Mulder's" post in the "News sub-forum here)Experimental support for BluRay discs:
- Menus are deactivated in this release (will come soon).
- AACS and BD+ DRM libraries and keys are not shipped, for legal reasons.Sounds like we may soon have another reason not to be too concerned about Verance/"Cinavia" protection (When used in conjunction with DVDFab Passkey, AnyDVD, or possibly MakeMKV) ;>}

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 04:57

Yea, the new VLC is pretty sweet. I hadn't seen those two entries, though. VERY NICE!

Ghitulescu

21st February 2012, 07:36

Again wishful thinking.

Microsoft licensed cinavia. Why? To put it on Xbox? No, probably because MS wants its in-house player to be able to play BDs on a PC, thus transforming the PC into a player and thus needing an AACS licence, too, which comes in turn with cinavia as well.

Intel will burrow DRM algorithms deep down into the CPU, so any software is useless, unless this SW patches that, before CPU (impossible, unless Intel itself provided a hook point).

Therefore the originals will play (following a sort of PAP method) while the copies will be blocked.

The standalones are cinavied, the PCs will be soon, the game consoles :) are cinavied, too. Where will one be play the copies? On his cellphone?

What I've seen here was only a wish, based that someone, somewhere, and somehow will find a solution to remove cinavia, technically I mean. Hopes go to DVDfab and AnyDVD. That is a nice delegation of tasks. But supposing they'll manage to "decinaviy" the audio, how can one get into the possession of this software? Probably booking a trip to Antigua, because the internet will be blocked as well, at least for "dangerous" sites. And hoping that the Customs won't notice the memory-stick, nor the bank transfer.

The only solution to cinavia you can do without delegating is to instruct your senator/representative to issue laws ruling out some intrusive aspects of AACS and cinavia. They could rule as illegal, for instance, the leverage of "copy tax" on media and recorders, since no copy can be made. Because cinavia cannot be legally outlawed.

Andy o

21st February 2012, 08:58

What's the timeframe do you think, until that happens?

rotty

21st February 2012, 10:19

If you knowingly buy a disk with the Cinavia watermark, then you cannot complain about Cinavia.

Not a moan, not a bad word.

It’s like slagging off a politician, saying that they are bad/useless/corrupt, and then voting for them to put them in power.

Ghitulescu

21st February 2012, 10:25

They start envisaging the complete digital lockdown somewhere around 1989-1990, the first results can be seen today, after some 20 years*. I think in 5-10 years (as they have less work to do now) everything that has to do with multimedia content will be definitively locked, one way or the other.

In 1920, if one destroyed his record (classical things like, the kids, the dog, the cat) that one had to buy a second original. One wanted to see twice a particular movie? No problem, s/he must buy a second ticket. We'll come back to that situation, except that tomorrow one cannot skip the trailers and commercials :). The first item is renamed today as No right to private copy (only the original is legal), the second one is renamed Video-on-demand. Old news ;).

The magnetophone (R2R) and the VCR changed this order. The studios lost both trials (in analogue) but the won the digital ones (CDR, DAT, SCMS). They lost the Rio one, but now they found the solution to this "hole", too. Simply, drop the analogue. One cannot protect the analogue that good as the digital. It was not a favour (digital quality ;)), it was a theft.

The history repeats itself. Those willing to copy macrovisioned-tapes (or DVDs the analogue way) had to rely either on a MV-remover or to hunt an older-than-1985 VCR. When MV outlawed the first, people were left only with the second solution.

* I mean everything is copy-protected, unless the law forbids it and even then, they could enforce it (that's the power of a monopole). All private SAT and Cable broadcasters use now various flags to prevent copying, time-shifting, archiving, analogue output etc. In some instances they can even prohibit the FWD (commercial skip). The DVD was a closed system (digital and analog) until someone broke the CSS. The BD learned from this early mistake and designed the system to be upgradable. The specs are also upgradable, so that they could force the users to change their players much easily (the most part of non-cinavia players has been made obsolete eg by 3D). The players will also be made as cheap as possible, so they can break around the time when a new "technology advance" rise. I read in various fora that the early models already developed laser rot symptoms, after some 4-5 years. Just in time to buy the new 3D cinavied player.

PS: the future in communications will foresee only cables (copper or optical or whatever new technology). Because only the cable can guarantee a targeted distribution of the information (for instance you see your own customised "version" of CNN news, while your neighbour might see the same CNN news but with a different content) and of course its full control (like selective filtering of internet - google does it for years).

ro-ee

21st February 2012, 10:56

Intel will burrow DRM algorithms deep down into the CPU, so any software is useless, unless this SW patches that, before CPU (impossible, unless Intel itself provided a hook point).

Therefore the originals will play (following a sort of PAP method) while the copies will be blocked.

As long as no cpu-accelerated methods are used, DRM algorithms have no say in this. Think of it that way: just as currently you can let the graphics card decode the video (and where DRM algorithms could detect and block it), you can still have it all done in cpu (though this may have a speed impact). And in cpu it's pure software (think of ffmpeg).

One problem could be the output of audio through a on-chipset sound chip. If the chipset maker decides it doesn't allow watermarked (i.e. cinavia'd) audio to be played if no prior authentication has been done with a certain software, then we're again screwed. To mitigate this either one has to use extra hardware (a spare sound card) or find a way to authenticate itself so even the sound chip detects cinavia, it lets it pass because it thinks it comes from a trusted source.

As a rule of thumb I would say: if it can be done completely in software, you're still safe. Once you rely on hardware acceleration (and the hw has detection algorithms), you need to fool the hw into thinking it comes from a trusted source or use HW w/o the detection.

rotty

21st February 2012, 11:04

As long as no cpu-accelerated methods are used, DRM algorithms have no say in this. Think of it that way: just as currently you can let the graphics card decode the video (and where DRM algorithms could detect and block it), you can still have it all done in cpu (though this may have a speed impact). And in cpu it's pure software (think of ffmpeg).

One problem could be the output of audio through a on-chipset sound chip. If the chipset maker decides it doesn't allow watermarked (i.e. cinavia'd) audio to be played if no prior authentication has been done with a certain software, then we're again screwed. To mitigate this either one has to use extra hardware (a spare sound card) or find a way to authenticate itself so even the sound chip detects cinavia, it lets it pass because it thinks it comes from a trusted source.

As a rule of thumb I would say: if it can be done completely in software, you're still safe. Once you rely on hardware acceleration (and the hw has detection algorithms), you need to fool the hw into thinking it comes from a trusted source or use HW w/o the detection.

The CPU will become a single chip.
This Chip will have:
1..The main CPU
2..A small 8/16 bit CPU for DRM running on board s/w
3..All I/O

Where would your external soundcard get its input signal.

From the single chip CPU. The stream from the I/O would be blocked.

ro-ee

21st February 2012, 11:22

The CPU will become a single chip.
This Chip will have:
1..The main CPU
2..A small 8/16 bit CPU for DRM running on board s/w
3..All I/O

Where would your external soundcard get its input signal.

From the single chip CPU. The stream from the I/O would be blocked.

As long as there are buses connecting the hardware, there's still a chance. Normal or external PCI (Thunderbolt), or even USB audio adapters can receive data from the CPU, and unless the CPU (or at least the DRM part of it) scans ALL I/O for unwanted content, this is still a possibility.

Ghitulescu

21st February 2012, 11:22

1. Intel manufactures graphic cards :)
2. non-HW-accelerated reencodings/decodings/etc are painfully slow on older (and non-DRMed) systems
3. Microsoft already tried to get rid of alternative (in this case) sound drivers (the trustworthy ASIO & co) by proposing WASAPI. Since the audio stream MUST pass through WASAPI in order to get out from the system to AVR+Speakers, I see no difficulty in implementing the watermark detection there (it shouldn't be so hard, weaker GPU/CPUs of standalone do this currently). Microsoft licensed cinavia. For Xbox720 only? Why this hurry, as it will be sold only in 1.5 years?
4. There is since long time a requirement that all "sensible" parts of a system to be monolithic (no more soldering, no more bridging, no more cutting traces, no more test points etc.) to prevent tampering. AACS also requires this. HDCP requires this. "The weakest Link" can render the whole system "dead" or crippled.

rotty

21st February 2012, 11:26

As long as there are buses connecting the hardware, there's still a chance. Normal or external PCI (Thunderbolt), or even USB audio adapters can receive data from the CPU, and unless the CPU (or at least the DRM part of it) scans ALL I/O for unwanted content, this is still a possibility.

The Bus as you and I understand it at present wont exist. All I/O will be subject to the single chip.

Ghitulescu

21st February 2012, 11:49

Like Sigma Designs SoCs (http://www.sigmadesigns.com/uploads/documents/selection_guide.pdf). The only "access point" seems to be the DRAM, but this could be integrated as well or could hold only useless data. They are called "Secure Media Processors" for a reason, right?

xenex

21st February 2012, 13:11

The Sigma SoC chips implement a wide variety of functions, including decoding many audio formats, many video formats, and YES even Cinavia "detection." However, they cannot (and do not) implement Cinavia ENFORCEMENT. That part must be done within the firmware of the player itself. As has been seen recently with Cinavia ENFORCEMENT being recently added to a Sony and a Samsung player. The SoC can detect the watermark, but the firmware of the player may (or may not) bother to act on it.

-xenex

ro-ee

21st February 2012, 13:30

are we still talking about PCs or other single-chip-embedded devices? Even with the advent of all these tablet and whatever devices, where more and more users settle with a locked down system, I still do believe there will be computers like current PCs where you can start any software you want and plug in any hardware you like. The future is bleak for the other devices though, with secure boot and whatever, where only certified software will run, ruling out all self-compiled and not-so-off-the-shelf software and open source in general.

Ghitulescu

21st February 2012, 13:47

When I pointed to SoCs I knew they won't be that soon found in a PC. I wanted just to show the future (or the past). The intelligent periferics (like IDE) took over various functions a CPU once did. If the CPU in a eg Sinclair Spectrum did everything (including the timing for the optional floppy interface) except encoding the video, the much powerful CPUs of today can do it, too*. There is an initiative, whose name I've forgot ATM, to replace the old BIOS with a "trusted platform". Why? Because the old system allowed for bypassing whatever locks the modern OSes might want to put in.

So the technical solution to cinavia on PCs seems again to be "DON'T UPDATE, DON'T UPGRADE". Keep your system as it is now (if you're happy with) and away from internet.

*According to Verance, the detection routine doesn't need more than 10Mips, thus a Pentium class CPU would fully suffice.

setarip_old

21st February 2012, 20:07

@SamuriHL

Hi! Myself, I make MKV's of all my discs and play them using J River's MC17So, based on the current limitations of MKV, does your statement mean you'll be willing to purchase "Cinavia"-infected Blu-ray discs at retail, despite the fact that you may not be able to view "PIP" and possibly other "Extras" that you'll have paid for? (whether you'd like to or not)

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 20:31

@SamuriHL

Hi! So, based on the current limitations of MKV, does your statement mean you'll be willing to purchase "Cinavia"-infected Blu-ray discs at retail, despite the fact that you may not be able to view "PIP" and possibly other "Extras" that you'll have paid for? (whether you'd like to or not)

That's correct. I don't generally care about so called "extras". And if I want to watch them, I can just as easily pop the original in a licensed player and call it good. I generally care about having the movie on my HTPC's so I can watch the main movie across my gigabit network. I get what you're asking, though, and it's a fair point. But for me, the answer is yes, I will accept the limitations of MKV.

setarip_old

21st February 2012, 20:49

@SamuriHL
I get what you're asking, though, and it's a fair point.Thanks for replying ;>}

I asked so that the answer to my question would be posted for all to read - so that no one might be misled into thinking that your procedures would result in a viewable "Full Disc" Blu-ray backup...

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 21:04

@SamuriHL
Thanks for replying ;>}

I asked so that the answer to my question would be posted for all to read - so that no one might be misled into thinking that your procedures would result in a viewable "Full Disc" Blu-ray backup...

Yes, that's completely fair to point out. My method will only do movie only backups. The method for anyone wanting full disc backups is to create an ISO file (or rip to folder *IF* your chosen player supports that function), mount the ISO (if created), and open it with a *non-cinavia* version of a commercial software player like TMT, PDVD, or WinDVD. This is why I recommend keeping the old versions around in case you need them. That should keep you in movie heaven, with all the extras, for quite some time.

rotty

21st February 2012, 21:42

Yes, that's completely fair to point out. My method will only do movie only backups. The method for anyone wanting full disc backups is to create an ISO file (or rip to folder *IF* your chosen player supports that function), mount the ISO (if created), and open it with a *non-cinavia* version of a commercial software player like TMT, PDVD, or WinDVD. This is why I recommend keeping the old versions around in case you need them. That should keep you in movie heaven, with all the extras, for quite some time.

Hi Samuri

I only backup Movie. Do you convert to MKV rather than straight to ISO just to get rid of the BDMV overhead file size.

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 21:51

Hi Samuri

I only backup Movie. Do you convert to MKV rather than straight to ISO just to get rid of the BDMV overhead file size.

That's correct, yea. MakeMKV, which I currently use, takes the streams as is from the BD and sticks them in an MKV container. This reduces the size quite a bit vs an ISO. Even vs a movie only ISO, believe it or not. MKV is a very efficient container. When I switched most of my ISOs over to MKV a long time back, I reclaimed many gigs of space in the process. The other nice thing is that because they are smaller and single file, they stream across the network like butter. :) So what I do is set up libraries on each machine in J River MC17, and then when I want to watch a movie or show, I open that up in theater view, select the one I want, and I'm off and running no matter which machine I use in the house. Cinavia never enters the picture at all for me in that case. I literally have to check the back cover to see if it has Cinavia on it. Or I guess I could try to stream it to my PS3 but why? :)

rotty

21st February 2012, 22:00

That's correct, yea. MakeMKV, which I currently use, takes the streams as is from the BD and sticks them in an MKV container. This reduces the size quite a bit vs an ISO. Even vs a movie only ISO, believe it or not. MKV is a very efficient container. When I switched most of my ISOs over to MKV a long time back, I reclaimed many gigs of space in the process. The other nice thing is that because they are smaller and single file, they stream across the network like butter. :) So what I do is set up libraries on each machine in J River MC17, and then when I want to watch a movie or show, I open that up in theater view, select the one I want, and I'm off and running no matter which machine I use in the house. Cinavia never enters the picture at all for me in that case. I literally have to check the back cover to see if it has Cinavia on it. Or I guess I could try to stream it to my PS3 but why? :)

Thanks Samuri

SamuriHL

21st February 2012, 22:55

Just as an FYI to others looking to "Cinavia proof" their library. My use of J River MC 17 is not required for MKV or disc playback. While I personally feel it's an exceptional piece of software and well worth the money, if you want to have a Cinavia free playback solution that can play from unprotected BD structures or MKV's as easily as MC17 can, you can use the open source MPC-HC. My recommendation is to disable all internal filters and instead install madVR for the renderer and LAV filters for splitting, audio, and video decoding. With that setup, you can use MPC-HC to open unprotected BD structures (disc, mounted ISO, folder) and/or MKV's with full bitstreaming capability and/or full decoding. (Caveat...DTS-HD MA decoding requires a DLL from TMT). This will never support Cinavia, and as long as you can remove the protection, it will play your content. It will *NOT* currently give you menus, so you are limited to using the title switching capability of your player of choice to play the movie and extras. But it's at least another weapon in the arsenal against Cinavia.

rotty

22nd February 2012, 00:15

SamuriHL

22nd February 2012, 00:16

Hi Samuri

I have an error when trying to update DirectX 2010.

Have you any knowledge re this.

No, but, you should post it in the MPC-HC thread. I'm sure you can get it solved there.

rotty

22nd February 2012, 00:23

No, but, you should post it in the MPC-HC thread. I'm sure you can get it solved there.

OK, must admit I hadnt looked to see if there was a thread re this.

Thanks

SamuriHL

22nd February 2012, 00:34

With apologies to Setarip_old for going off topic but in the interest of people looking for Cinavia free playback:

MPC-HC: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=123537
LAV Filters: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156191
madVR: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146228

Hope that helps!

setarip_old

22nd February 2012, 05:51

It's been about a week since I posted the following request:Has anyone confirmed whether playing an infected disc on a "Cinavia"/Verance-infected standalone player connected to an HDTV via either component or composite cables triggers the sordid protection?

I've got to believe that there's a member of the community who would feel good knowing that his/her otherwise frustrating "Cinavia"/Verance-infected standalone player was used to either easily (plug in a cable or two) refute or support this suggestion ;>}

SamuriHL

22nd February 2012, 06:13

I don't have a way to test it as I don't have component cables for my ps3. I still maintain it won't work.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

setarip_old

22nd February 2012, 07:37

@SamuriHL

I fully understand the majority opinion about this, but you never know (I keep harkening back to the SONY CD "Track -0-" debacle).

If nothing else, it'll be simple to perform the test and shouldn't take more than 30 minutes of standalone player time...

xenex

22nd February 2012, 14:33

setarip_old-

Since the player itself, PS3, standalone, or whatever, detects the Cinavia audio watermark itself, it doesn't seem to matter WHAT the "video" output is at all.

A player of any kind using component or composite output just sends the video signal out. It doesn't even know if a TV or display is connected. Why do you think this would make a difference?

-xenex

SamuriHL

22nd February 2012, 14:46

He just wants someone to actually TRY it to confirm what we think we know. I see nothing wrong with that. I'd have done it already if I had component cables kicking around for the ps3. In any case it's a pretty easy thing for someone to confirm.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Ghitulescu

22nd February 2012, 15:41

It doesn't even know if a TV or display is connected.Technically, this is wrong. I can't say ALL of them can do this, I can only say a player can know this and several actually do implement it.

EDIT: Just remembered it -> wasn't supposed that the medium (the disc) should mandatory contain DOT (DIGITAL ONLY TOKEN) according to AACS agreements of 2006 and newer? In other words, the players that still have analogue outputs MUST NOT deliver usable analogue signals?

setarip_old

23rd February 2012, 02:15

Could there be a light at the end of the tunnel (Not a train coming at us) regarding Verance/"Cinavia" and other types of copyright "protection"?

Read the Digital Digest posting at: http://forum.digital-digest.com/f145/mpaa-dont-rip-dvds-re-buy-videos-instead-95624.html

SamuriHL

23rd February 2012, 02:22

Very unlikely. The exemption wouldn't preclude the studios from attempting to protect their content. If the exemption is granted, it'd allow us to bypass the copy protection for the purpose of "ripping" to make a legal, fair use, backup. It doesn't, however, give you the tools to do so or require that the studios make it easy for you to exercise that right. :)

setarip_old

23rd February 2012, 03:15

@samuriHL

You've got to start somewhere, hence my question, "Could there be a light...".The first baby step, in what's described at that link, would be removing the cloud of (questionable) illegality from users' efforts to remove or circumvent copy protection. Who knows how far a genius like "LIGHTNING UK" could have gone, if he/she wasn't coerced into "retiring"?

The second step would be that the studios/MPAA/Verance etal could possibly be taken to task legally if, in defiance of such a ruling, they continued efforts to either create new or enhance existing protection schemes.

It would be supremely ironic if the eventual demise or circumvention of Verance/"Cinavia" (and other protections) proved to be not solely through the technical efforts of the Community but rather as the consequence of "THE LAW" as well ;>}

SamuriHL

23rd February 2012, 03:21

Sorry, setarip_old, I wasn't trying to sound negative. :) It's a very positive development. I'm pessimistic that it'll be granted give the SOPA/PIPA/etc legislation recently brought through the US congress and senate. Still it would be nice if they would grant this exemption.

Let's talk about what happens if it passes because there is precedent here. A similar ruling was made for jailbreaking. And your assertion that "The second step would be that the studios/MPAA/Verance etal could possibly be taken to task legally if, in defiance of such a ruling, they continued efforts to either create new or enhance existing protection schemes." is completely and 100% wrong, I'm afraid. All it says is that users can legally jailbreak. That has NOT stopped Apple or Motorola or a myriad of other companies from putting technical measures in place to prevent so called jailbreaking. The same pattern will apply here. We may get the exemption which says end users may do it, but, it does NOT prevent the studios from putting technical barriers in your way to stop you.

So no, if you're hoping that an exemption means you can force them to remove it by force of the law, I'm afraid you are going to be incredibly disappointed.

SamuriHL

23rd February 2012, 03:27

Please don't get me wrong. I'm HIGHLY in favor of the exemption being granted as it would give us the right to backup our movies legally. THAT is a VERY positive thing. The thing I'm pessimistic on is A) Getting it passed and B) Forcing the studios to stop protecting their media. That's just not going to happen. But, if the exemption is given, we can rely on companies to provide those technical solutions to allow us to exercise our right granted by the exemption. So still a VERY positive thing if it passes!

setarip_old

23rd February 2012, 03:31

@SamuriHL

I don't want to really drift off-topic, but I have to address this. You say: pessimistic that it'll be granted give the SOPA/PIPA/etc legislation recently brought through the US congress and senate.As far as I know, ALL of that legislation has been shelved indefinitely - as a consequence of the "Petition the White House" procedure.

See the following: http://forum.digital-digest.com/f145/petition-asks-white-house-investigate-mpaa-bribery-claim-95582.html

SamuriHL

23rd February 2012, 03:33

@SamuriHL

I don't want to really drift off-topic, but I have to address this. You say: As far as I know, ALL of that legislation has been shelved indefinitely - as a consequence of the "Petition the White House" procedure.

See the following: http://forum.digital-digest.com/f145/petition-asks-white-house-investigate-mpaa-bribery-claim-95582.html

I'm afraid not.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/02/08/reid-sneaks-sopa-senate-82141/

In any case, I agree, we shouldn't take this further off topic. I only brought those up to show why I'm not optimistic for the exemption to be granted. I REALLY hope so. I REALLY REALLY do.

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2012, 09:19

Frankly I don't see the connection to cinavia. Nor to its technical means for circumvention. But since it was brought by the thread starter it must not be off-topic :).

Cinavia is wrong because in junction with AACS (and it is) it extends "de facto" the effects of the copyright and ancillary rights forever, ie long after the legal frame allows. Then the inability to copy for personal use a cinavied material questions the legality of the copy tax on recorders and media. That has nothing to do with the internet SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and the like. Cinavia is not wrong simply because the internet lock will prevent people from downloading AnyDVD or materials under rule #6 :).

One thing is clear. People begin the realise the danger, now when they finally see the "blackout", like in the well-known story on boiling the frog. Before it was simply, they didn't care too much what laws and directive they implement as long as they could "hack" those DVDs and BDs in the darkness of their basement, like the Middle Age alchemists. Now those brilliant guys that made the copying possible were banished outside their reach, damn Hollywood. Now it's a fine time to kiss some a*** !!! :) But now an entire consolidated block of laws must be nullified, not just one.

rotty

23rd February 2012, 15:42

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2012, 16:14

rotty

23rd February 2012, 16:36

Nope, this is exactly the same issue that the authors of time-limited shareware/trialware must face. How to be sure that disc A (a movie made in 1917 by Chaplin) those rights will expire say in 2027 can be copied and watched on the same device that should prevent the playback of a copy of disc B (a movie made last year) those rights will expire long after your player would have been "ecologically recycled", you know like grandma's gramophones :)? Do we need to buy players with various "end of intellectual properties rights" years? Like player A limit date 2012, player B limit date 2013 etc. ;) :)

This is our problem, not theirs. They locked everything, just to be sure: it's better to kill 1000 innocents than to let a criminal escape. As one can see, the lobbying is much profitable than being tipped at horse races or stock exchange, even than a Russian pyramidal money game. With a meagre contribution to the elections campaign, some may gain billions.

No, player A, player B, etc all have the same expiry date for each year stamp of the watermark.

All players are kept up to date via F/W updates.

FOR EXAMPLE

You insert a disk etc,
The player says, this media has the watermark,
Is it trusred source,
NO,
What year stamp is the watermark,
Is that year now outside the protection.

If it is outside the protection then play without restrictions else mute after 20 mins (or whatever the restriction is).

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2012, 17:00

rotty

23rd February 2012, 17:13

There is no year in the watermark (there is however a year in the UDF fields, but who controls the info there :( for an original and for a copy :) ). I agree that the player can be "stamped" with a nonwritable/nonerasable year by FW upgrades (downgrades :)), again who controls this, but AFAIK the copyright holders managed twice to extend the term so I am pretty sure they won't accept this anyway.

You missed my point.

There can be any info they wish to put in the watermark modulation.

However, I dont suppose they do put date info.

That wasnt my point.

I was just saying that if they wanted a way out of the argument, re, "Copyright forever", then they easily had one simply by adding date info.

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2012, 17:36

My two points were:

the studios want to have the IP rights as long as they can (and I've seen missing or even misleading infos on both media and internet) - a limit date set means it is set (written in stone), but maybe they manage to extend the terms to 350 years :) before the limit date set in the watermark so they have lost your (great)n grand son's money for the remaining 255 years
They cannot be sure who controls the date in the player (or worse, in a PC) - lots of people began refusing to upgrade, not for fear for cinavia, but because newer FWs have been proven several times to be worse than the precedents

The only solution is to attack the legal validity of their claims, and to restrict the term of copyright and ancillary to max 51.97 years (optimal 15) as Pollock said it in 2007.

rotty

23rd February 2012, 17:59

If a user does not update the player then that is of course down to them and the blame for a disk not playing is down to them.

Ghitulescu

23rd February 2012, 18:28

rotty

23rd February 2012, 20:13

And still there are problems to be solved:

the same disc played in the US is ok, in Canada not - various countries with various terms
reissues of copyrighted works or extentions of term for a particular work - it happened several times with some movies
fair use issues where applicable

and last but not least, to keep the humour side

the studios must know beforehand when eg George Lucas will die (maybe they'll prepare the engraved grave in advance as well)

LOL, Quote from your post: The studios must know beforehand when eg George Lucas will die (maybe they'll prepare the engraved grave in advance as well)

The ingraving on his grave will change anyway, hes never satistifed and will have extra words put in that spoil it, then it will be redone in 3D.

But seriously, the watermark could have a unique number for each title. No date would be needed. The players, updated say each year at least, could hold the list of title numbers that could be played now (as copies) as copyright had expired.
4 Bytes each title would be enough, would give 8 character Hex (billions of numbers).

hello_hello

11th March 2012, 15:52

Sony seems to have forgotten Australia. :(

The rest of the world seems to have current Bluray player firmware updates to "Improve BRAVIA Internet Video connectivity"... oh.... and to add Cinavia.... but here in Australia we don't seem to warrant "Improved BRAVIA Internet Video connectivity".... or Cinavia.....

diogen

22nd March 2012, 15:26

A nicely researched (doom9 forums including) summary article about (mostly) BD DRM protection with emphasis on Cinavia
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5693/cinavia-drm-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-blurays-selfdestruction
The best watermarking (from the Felten's SDMI challenge times) explanation I've ever read.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5693/xkcd_drm.png
:)
I didn't know there is (was?) an attempt to sue Slysoft in Antigua...

The one-liner conclusion (from the article) would be
We have seen that Cinavia is effective only in one piracy scenario, and that scenario is actually quite unlikely in real life.

Short and to the point.

Diogen.

rotty

22nd March 2012, 20:11

A nicely researched (doom9 forums including) summary article about (mostly) BD DRM protection with emphasis on Cinavia
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5693/cinavia-drm-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-blurays-selfdestruction
The best watermarking (from the Felten's SDMI challenge times) explanation I've ever read.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5693/xkcd_drm.png
:)
I didn't know there is (was?) an attempt to sue Slysoft in Antigua...

The one-liner conclusion (from the article) would be

Short and to the point.

Diogen.

Yes an interesting artical.

Also interesting about SlySoft.

As ive always said:

We get what we deserve.

Dont buy Cinavia infected disks.

If we buy a Cinavia watermarked disk then we cannot complain about Cinavia, we cannot moan, winge, say a bad word. We are supporting it. We are making it happen.

MRCOCOset

1st April 2012, 18:21

(I am of Polish translated by Google)
WELCOME. I do not know if this has already been described in this thread. So excuse me if I repeat.
Inspired by that someone wrote above that the code is stored in the upper parts of the soundtrack I decided to cut the upper part of the path of CINAVIA film (for me CARRANGE with dts) from 48kHz to 32kHz (as in Divix once).

First I open MKV with DTS x64 media coder and the formation of 32kHz stereo MP3 file (2 minutes work at 3GHz 4 cores)

PS. You can also create .ac3 5.1/32khz

Second I open MKV with DTS MKVToolnix and add the path mp3 32kHz and delete dts. (MUX without compression)

Third It works! D5500 BD player does not detect CINAVIA

Ghitulescu

1st April 2012, 18:34

How is the quality of the sound in 32kHz?

MRCOCOset

1st April 2012, 18:38

So if you cut off a little treble. It's always a solution.

diogen

1st April 2012, 21:15

Personally, I wouldn't mind cut-off at 16kHz.
Statistically speaking, the majority at the age of 50+ won't hear it anyway (I'm one of them).

But I'm not sure that's what Cinavia is all about. From the linked article
...Verance's watermarking scheme involved frequency domain modifications, hiding multiple time-varying echoes. Note that the human ear is not sensitive to echoes involving speech and music where the delay is less than 50 ms. In fact, only echoes with a time difference of 100 ms or more become annoying. Verance's scheme involved echoes with delays varying between 0.5 ms and 1.75 ms, rendering them indecipherable to the human ear.
Doesn't sound like storing information in inaudible frequency range. And this was 10+ years ago.

BTW, what is CARRANGE? And what was the bitrate of the MP3 soundtrack?

Diogen.

kalehrl

2nd April 2012, 14:00

BTW, what is CARRANGE?
I believe he meant the film Carnage.

Big Vern

2nd April 2012, 18:59

Smoker25

4th April 2012, 12:34

I bought a new BD player yesterday - Sony BDP-S780. I updated it to the latest firmware without realizing that it contains Cinavia and now I found out that it's impossible to downgrade to one of the previous versions.

I tried disconnecting my router from the Internet but it didn't help. Message 3 appears and the audio is muted either immediately or after 20 mins or so.

Do you guys have any tips on how to avoid Cinavia?

Guest

5th April 2012, 21:08

[Bump after approval from moderated posts queue. Note: our spam filter sometimes trips erroneously on posters with low post counts.]

diogen

5th April 2012, 21:18

Do you guys have any tips on how to avoid Cinavia?Since you bought it just yesterday, take it back.
If they don't have a no-question-asked policy, "invent" a problem...:sly:

Diogen.

setarip_old

5th April 2012, 22:13

Just curious - Does anybody know if the hardware manufacturers are putting "Cinavia" labels on their products?

hello_hello

5th April 2012, 22:41

Since you bought it just yesterday, take it back.
If they don't have a no-question-asked policy, "invent" a problem...

The player lists MKV files as a playable file type in the manual (at least my 480 does) and he wants to use it to play MKV files. If it won't play his Bluray MKV encodes because of Cinavia, the problem is real. ;)

I agree with diogen, if you can take it back and/or exchange it, it's worth a shot. It might already ship with Cinavia, but as Cinavia has only been compulsory for a couple of months, there's a chance the shop is still selling players with older firmware which aren't inflicted with it. Or there may be another brand/model which is Cinavia free.

I own a Sony player so I've been paying a bit of attention to their firmware. Please don't take this as gospel, but....
Sony seems to have forgotten Australia (where I live) and hasn't inflicted us with any new, Cinavia infected firmware as of yet. While the firmware is supposed to be country/region specific, each new firmware release seems to have the same version number regardless of region. The latest firmware release for Australia is M07.R.0579, dated Nov 2011. It's not advertised as containing Cinavia and it seems only to be newer versions of firmware released elsewhere which do (from Feb 2012 onwards). So basically if you can check the player's firmware in the shop before exchanging the player and it's using the above firmware, I'd be fairly confident it's Cinavia-free. Or alternatively see if you can exchange it for another Cinavia-free player, although it'd be a pity as the Sony players are otherwise quite good.

I guess the only problem is one day you may want to update the player's firmware to make it compatible with newer discs but if you want to remain Cinavia free you won't be able to. Unless you want to own two players (one with Cinavia free firmware for playing MKVs) it might pay to start looking at alternative media players for playing your encodes.

hello_hello

5th April 2012, 22:48

Just curious - Does anybody know if the hardware manufacturers are putting "Cinavia" labels on their products?

I don't know, but I'd be surprised. I'd have a similar question though.....
Does anyone know if are manufacturers still shipping models which were current before Feb 2012 with Cinavia free firmware?

Maybe it's too early to answer either question as manufacturers could still be shipping pre-Feb stock and/or shops could still be selling it.

MRCOCOset

6th April 2012, 09:39

I believe he meant the film Carnage.
1) yes film
2) max bitrate
3) so I

diogen

6th April 2012, 15:11

2) max bitrateMeaning what? 256kbps? 320kbps? VBR?

I'll ask differently: what was the size of the MP3 soundtrack file you replaced the DTS with?

Diogen.

MRCOCOset

6th April 2012, 17:29

Meaning what? 256kbps? 320kbps? VBR?

I'll ask differently: what was the size of the MP3 soundtrack file you replaced the DTS with?

Diogen.

CBR 320kbps or vbr max quality or ac3 5.1 640kbps

CruNcher

8th April 2012, 17:45

Something else might be not so oftopic @ all

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57404804-281/anti-sopa-internet-society-under-fire-for-hiring-mpaa-executive/

http://news.cnet.com/8618-31921_3-57404804.html?assetTypeId=12&messageId=12154966&tag=mncol&txt

either he saw the light @ the end of the tunnel or a very big number on a check that the advocate couldn't resist you decide ;)

diogen

8th April 2012, 19:07

If he's not a spy, he is going to be busy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/06/mpaa_sopa_returns/
...bill currently being considered by the US House of Representatives could make the SOPA legislation look positively idyllic.

Diogen.

CruNcher

8th April 2012, 22:53

aha CISPA sounds familiar like the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung/Stock Data Recording Legeslation Act of the European Union" hmm i wonder who was the mother of which ;)

Atak_Snajpera

8th April 2012, 23:36

How is the quality of the sound in 32kHz?

i doubt that we will notice audio degradation in movies(explosions,shoots,voices...).

also mising 16khz could have been restored by algo similar to SBR in he-aac.

rotty

11th April 2012, 23:29

Wiki list has changed. Whats happened to the full list of Cinavia infected disks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia

P.S. Seems to have been rectified.

Big Vern

13th April 2012, 09:42

Atak_Snajpera

13th April 2012, 11:43

i suspect that it was a joke. cinavia is suppose to survive even recording by cheap mono microphone. most of them can't record anything above 16khz (32khz pcm).

Ghitulescu

13th April 2012, 13:05

It might have some hidden truths. Did anyone really tested this claimed invulnerability against cheap mikes? Marketing claims like these have been proven false over time (do I need to remind you those surrounding the CSS?) ...
The mark is somewhere in the upper part of the spectrum, so cutting the trebles makes sense. How much is another story.

Atak_Snajpera

13th April 2012, 15:07

If I only had DVD/BD movie with infected soundtrack and proper BD-player with enabled Cinavia I would already be after intensive tests. ;)

diogen

13th April 2012, 15:32

cinavia is suppose to survive even recording by cheap mono microphone.I think that's true.
It was suppose to survive home camcording with Cinavia-infected audio in the background.

Going back to the original SDMI paper (http://static.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec01/craver.pdf) by Felten & Co. rebuts the inaudible frequency argument.
On page five it shows the difference between the original and Cinavia infected soundtrack in the frequency domain.
And the figure caption reads
A short-term complex echo. Above, the frequency response between the watermarked and original music,
taken over 1/50 second, showing a sinusoidal ripple between 8 and 16 KHz....
I.e. the echo ripple (Cinavia watermark) goes below 16kHz and well into speech frequencies...

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

13th April 2012, 16:26

The ideas of SDMI and cinavia are striking similar, yet the implementation details might be different. AFAIK SDMI failed some 10 years ago so its "technology" is frozen at ~2004.
All the details about cinavia are in the patents I put several hundreds of posts earlier :)
For technical reasons it must have only one max. 2 narrow spectra where the mark is to be found, otherwise the decoding part before finding the mark will incur too much technological costs (analogue or digital filters).

MRCOCOset

14th April 2012, 15:11

So......has anyone actually tried this yet, or is it just an April fool's joke?

no joke ... Everything works. Just try and convince people.:sly:

Atak_Snajpera

14th April 2012, 18:27

can you try with another cinavia infected movie. this might be just a lucky shot.

MRCOCOset

15th April 2012, 09:04

can you try with another cinavia infected movie. this might be just a lucky shot.

Jestem Polakiem więc piszę po polsku do Ciebie Polaku.
To nie był przypadek. Kolega kupił odtwarzacz BluRay Samsung D5500 BD. Zaktualizował w nim firmware. Pościągał kupę filmów MKV 1080p. Oglądał. W czterech filmach. "RZEŹ" "The GUARD" (STRAŻNIK) , "HUGO i jego wynalazek" oraz "Jack & Jill" zaczeły mu wyskakiwać wiadome komunikaty CINAVIA. Poprosił mnie o to aby coś z tym zrobić.
Więc. To już znasz:
"Zainspirowany tym że ktoś wyżej napisał że kod jest zapisany w górnych partiach ścieżki dźwiękowej postanowiłem obciąć górne partie ścieżki film z CINAVIA ( u mnie CARRANGE z dts) z 48khz do 32khz ( jak w divix kiedyś ).

1. otwieram MKV z dts w media coder x64 i nim tworze plik mp3 32khz stereo ( 2 minuty roboty przy 4 rdzeniach 3ghz)

2. otwieram MKV z dts w mkvtoolnix i dodaję ścieżkę mp3 32khz a usuwam dts. (MUX bez kompresji)

3. Działa !!! odtwarzacz BD D5500 nie wykrywa CINAVIA

Tak postąpiłem we wszystkich czterech filmach. I działa. Filmy przeleciały po 4 razy każdy i zero komunikatu.
Jakość wiadomo delikatnie obcięte góry ale działa.
Wystarczy spróbować żadna filozofia.
I pamiętaj , że zastosowałem format ścieżki .mp3 (mpeg, mpg) a nie jak piszecie coś wyżej o formacie PCM (np. wav) bo to różnica.

GOOGLE

I am a Pole, so I am writing to you in Polish Pole.
This was no accident. A friend bought a BluRay player Samsung BD D5500. It updated the firmware. Pościągał 1080p MKV movies pile. Watched. In the four films. "Carnage," "The Guard" (GUARD), "Hugo and his invention" and "Jack & Jill" began to pop him known CINAVIA messages. He asked me for it to do something about it.
So. It already know:
"Inspired by that someone wrote above that the code is stored in the upper parts of the soundtrack I decided to cut the upper part of the path of CINAVIA film (for me CARRANGE with dts) from 48kHz to 32kHz (as in Divix once).

First I open MKV with DTS x64 media coder and the formation of 32kHz stereo MP3 file (2 minutes work at 3GHz 4 cores)

Second I open MKV with DTS MKVToolnix and add the path and delete mp3 32kHz dts. (MUX without compression)

Third It works! D5500 BD player does not detect CINAVIA

So I acted in all four films. And it works. Videos flew after 4 times each and no message.
Quality knows gently cut the top but it works.
Just try no philosophy.
I remember that I used the format of the path. Mp3 (mpeg, mpg) and not write something like the above PCM format (eg wav) for the difference.

Atak_Snajpera

15th April 2012, 10:15

hello_hello

15th April 2012, 14:54

Could it be the resampling that stops Cinavia from working, rather than removing high frequencies as such? Has anyone tried this?

I was going to test it. I even upgraded the Samsung Bluray player (BD-C6500) to the latest firmware (dated January), but after the update it played Carnage with DTS audio from start to finish, so I assume the firmware doesn't include Cinavia. Australia seems to be getting left out of the Cinavia craze. Still no Cinavia infected firmware from Sony either.

Atak_Snajpera

15th April 2012, 15:03

If we only had software player which detects cinavia... I'm very interested how many "tortures" can cinavia survive ;)

MRCOCOset

15th April 2012, 19:27

resampling 48khz to 32khz is not the same as cutting off only upper frequencies.
you should decompress dts to wav. Then open wav in audacity. remove upper 16 khz and save to wav again. compress that file to ac3 5.1 640kbps (48Khz obviously). this method will give better quality than yours.

original
http://i.imgur.com/SXDS2.png

now we apply low pass filter
http://i.imgur.com/uPPDq.png

and here is result
http://i.imgur.com/gqzPo.png

After passing the path through the filter is slightly better than with resampling:

Orginal:

http://tinypic.pl/i/00181/ejkglncjkpz5_t.jpg (http://tinypic.pl/ejkglncjkpz5)

Resampled:

http://tinypic.pl/i/00181/cabbh6mu4qcd_t.jpg (http://tinypic.pl/cabbh6mu4qcd)

Low pass:

http://tinypic.pl/i/00181/ipco3cnert34_t.jpg (http://tinypic.pl/ipco3cnert34)

But is this method removes CINAVIA?
And after that, more work to get the output file without CINAVIA. The user has the choice of faster using "media coder" at the expense of slightly lower performance "mountains". Or more time-consuming but qualitatively better way to "LOW PASS"
Assuming that your thesis does. Do not check because I have at hand a colleague player.

Atak_Snajpera

15th April 2012, 19:42

it would be nice if you could verify whether my method realy destroys cinavia or not?

MRCOCOset

15th April 2012, 19:48

it would be nice if you could verify whether my method realy destroys cinavia or not?

Prepare a video of the path (low pass). And I will give to check the time.

Atak_Snajpera

15th April 2012, 19:57

tomorrow i will prepare few samples using different methods. for example
resampling to 32khz,40khz,44khz and then to 48khz

original to he-aac 5.1 and then to ac3

IanB

15th April 2012, 23:12

A thought, dropping the sample rate from 48kHz to 32kHz changes the Nyquist frequency from 24kHz to 16kHz. If the process does not low pass the source then aliasing may occur. A 16.5kHz signal will appear as a 15.5Khz signal. I imagine special signals with significant spectral elements around the 16kHz range are going to be quite spoilt. :devil:

setarip_old

16th April 2012, 02:10

A point of information - One of the four titles stated by "MRCOCOset" to have generated Cinavia messages, the "Hugo" ("Hugo and his Invention"?) Blu-ray disc, is NOT noted to have Cinavia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia

omegaman7

16th April 2012, 02:36

Perhaps certain regions of "Hugo" have it? Universal has had a few select releases with Cinavia.

setarip_old

16th April 2012, 04:29

@omegaman7

I have found NO indication anywhere that "Hugo" for ANY region contains Cinavia protection...

omegaman7

16th April 2012, 06:40

Interesting. I wonder if his listing "Hugo" as a sample of cinavia, was an oopsy LOL! Perhaps Hugo was simply on his mind when he was listing the titles he tested ;)

xenex

16th April 2012, 08:51

Just to quickly note - That Wikipedia page on which movies contain Cinavia is not completely accurate, for example I can tell you that the DVD releases of 'The Social Network' and 'The Adventure of Tintin' DO NOT contain Cinavia. If you have these DVDs you can check for yourself. Neither one has the required AACS folder on the disk. People post inaccurate things on Wikipedia all the time, sigh...

I find that the DVDFab list here:

http://blog.dvdfab.com/cinavia-protection.html

Is more accurate (100% so, I believe) is updated regularly, and includes more info including Studio name & etc....

-xenex

EDIT: I am not affiliated with DVDFab in any way, I just find that list a MUCH better source of info on what releases contain Cinavia.

Atak_Snajpera

16th April 2012, 18:49

I would like to ask people who own Playstation 3 (with latest firmware) or BD-player with cinavia enabled firmware to test these samples.

DO NOT REWIND WHILE PLAYING!

ORIGINAL
AC3 file (provided by user watermarking from videohelp.com)
http://paste2.org/p/1981582

Attack method: Resampling
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27599202/Cinavia-Resampling_32khz.7z
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27599202/Cinavia-Resampling_40khz.7z
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27599202/Cinavia-Resampling_44khz.7z

Attack method: Low Pass Filter 16khz
file will be uploaded tomorrow

Attack method: HE-AAC 320kbps
file will be uploaded tomorrow

SamuriHL

16th April 2012, 18:59

Grabbing the 32 and 40 samples now. I don't believe 44 will make a difference as I resampled when i made my test file that I use to test players with. My personal feeling is that resampling will not solve this particular issue. Will have the results of these files in a while.

EDIT: I can't get my PS3 to play that file and don't have a lot of time to mess with it right now. Hopefully someone else can look at it.

b66pak

16th April 2012, 20:42

@Atak_Snajpera ps3 don't have support for he-aac...
_

Atak_Snajpera

16th April 2012, 20:44

i meant original to he-aac and then to ac3.

SamuriHL

16th April 2012, 20:45

I tried making an AVCHD out of the 32 sample and putting it on a memory stick but my PS3 is being stubborn about reading it. Oh wait....I may know why. Do they need to be in a video sub-folder on the ps3?

Atak_Snajpera

16th April 2012, 20:49

maybe multiavchd could help.

SamuriHL

16th April 2012, 20:52

No, it was just what I said. The PS3 requires a VIDEO folder. Now I can play the file directly and/or the AVCHD I made. So it's running now. I'll see how it goes.

SamuriHL

16th April 2012, 21:13

32Khz sample at 21:18 triggers the Cinavia content message code 3.

setarip_old

17th April 2012, 06:17

@xenex

Hi!

1) As I said in my earlier post, I was unable to find an indication ANYWHERE of a "Hugo" BD containing Cinavia protection - including the DVDFab listings

2) You state, "I can tell you that the DVD releases of 'The Social Network' and 'The Adventure of Tintin' DO NOT contain Cinavia. If you have these DVDs you can check for yourself. Neither one has the required AACS folder on the disk." You may or may not be correct. Also noted (by an asterisk) in the DVDFab listings is the fact that, although a U.S. release may contain Cinavia protection, releases for other regions by different studios (Warner, Universal, etc.) may not contain Cinavia.

BTW - It appears that the source material used by "MRCOCOset" may be "cams" and/or other non-original, commercial discs - which might explain why his/her "Hugo" contains Cinavia protection...(Reference to this appears to have been deleted)

xenex

17th April 2012, 08:30

setarip_old-

No disagreement from me. I also was unable to find any use of Cinavia on the "Hugo" movie, either BD or DVD. I believe as you do that poster "MRCOCOset" is talking about "camrip" files. That's a whole other issue than official BD or DVD releases.

As for 'The Social Network' and 'The Adventure of Tintin' DVDs, mine do NOT have the required AACS folder. People in other regions are free to check their disks for the presence of such. I speak only for myself. I personally believe that only the seven DVD releases listed on the DVDFab list above contain Cinavia.

And technically, I just don't see this re-sampling working to remove Cinavia. There are two aspects to any audio. The "Frequency Domain" - call it X, and the "Time Domain" - call it Y. Cinavia is primarily in Y. The "Time Domain." Short term, spread spectrum echoes. It's not just a "tone" or "frequency" to remove. It's tiny echoes over the entire audio spectrum.

-xenex

SamuriHL

17th April 2012, 13:10

Somewhere tin tin contains cinavia because the samples posted are from a DVD copy of it...audio only of course. And the resampled version I grabbed and tested tripped cinavia message 3, which as we know only shows up on commercial discs. In any case I didn't believe resampling would work either as I did plenty of that on the losers. Changing formats, resampling, removing channels...none of that affects cinavia. Still it was easy enough to try.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Atak_Snajpera

17th April 2012, 15:37

Last attempt
AC3 -> HE-AAC 192kbps -> AC3 192kbps
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27599202/00000.7z

CruNcher

18th April 2012, 19:01

Atak just a question did you removed the previous files or did dropbox ?

marcusj0015

21st April 2012, 12:54

@SamuriHL

Hi! In addition to your PS3, did you try playing this on a (any) standalone BluRay player(s)?

1) It would be a good idea for someone to try a BD-RB-compressed version on PS3s and standalones (As I stated, my equipment predates the protection). Although the audiostream(s) would be unaltered, it would be interesting to see whether the changed correlation to videoframes might impact the watermark detection.

2) As a point of information, I did not hear or see anything unusual at the 20:03 point when playing back the video on my equipment - so I'd guess that customer complaints about the protection "interfering" with or diminishing playback quality for ALL players would fall on deaf ears.

3) Did anyone else notice a strange visual glitch at somewhere around the 9:30 mark of the movie. As the helicopter rises, a 2 dimensional green graphic appears briefly and seems to be "pulled up" to the helicopter. I woder if this could possibly have something to do with the protection...

What if you changed the Original Lossless audio track timecode from 23.967 to 24 and did the same to the video to keep it in sync, would that work?

And if that dosen't work, we need to stop fooling around and build an app that will download a list of movies with a list of each and every Cinavia beep, and remove them from the audio.

There are two ways we can do that, we can either analyze each track the whole time and find out if the beeps are systematic, if they are, we can choose to only include the original beep time code and the frequency of the beeps, to save time.

setarip_old

21st April 2012, 21:29

@marcusj0015

Hi!

If you read this entire thread, rather than making suggestions based on one of the earliest posts that I made to this thread, you'd find that your suggestion (and several varieties of it) has already been attempted and failed...

marcusj0015

21st April 2012, 21:42

simplepinoi177

22nd April 2012, 03:52

I actually had done Atak_Snajpera method on the TS version of 21 Jump Street...

There are other similar methods floating around the web-o-sphere and only one I have found that wouldn't render movies unwatchable and is a perfect substitute (only a true videophile/audiophile would tell the difference but only when comparing the cinavia and non-cinavia copy)

dbcooper

22nd April 2012, 04:30

Well, spill the beans ...

rotty

4th May 2012, 21:48

Wiki seems to have stopped listing BD/DVD with Cinavia pollution.

Saw this link on Slysoft forum site which lists media with Cinavia so posting it here for those interested:

http://blog.dvdfab.com/cinavia-protection.html

db1280

10th June 2012, 01:55

Rather than remove cinavia, is it possible to add in the watermark a a second time, offset by a half or quarter of the wave frequency, so that it is not detected? Sorry if this has already been suggested..

Err, it has....#642 and others...

db1280

10th June 2012, 02:45

Have there been any downloaded firmware updates for anything besides the PS3 that has introduced cinavia?

hello_hello

10th June 2012, 09:32

Have there been any downloaded firmware updates for anything besides the PS3 that has introduced cinavia?

Many Bluray players have had firmware updates which include Cinavia. Sony, at least, seems to be letting people know Cinavia is included when downloading a firmware update from their website. I'm not sure if any other manufacturers are doing that.

db1280

11th June 2012, 03:10

Many Bluray players have had firmware updates which include Cinavia. Sony, at least, seems to be letting people know Cinavia is included when downloading a firmware update from their website. I'm not sure if any other manufacturers are doing that.

Are the firmware updates impenetrable?
Or can they be pulled apart and reverse engineered, especially when they go from no-Cinavia to with-Cinavia?

omegaman7

11th June 2012, 03:54

A sophisticated hex editor perhaps... and some know how.

pandy

12th June 2012, 12:37

Are the firmware updates impenetrable?
Or can they be pulled apart and reverse engineered, especially when they go from no-Cinavia to with-Cinavia?

usually encrypted and signed - if you are lucky then security by obscurity

Ghitulescu

12th June 2012, 14:37

And one must not forget that nowadays there are several blocks that need to be "upgraded", and only one or two of them are done by FW, the rest being done in factory.

db1280

15th June 2012, 19:42

usually encrypted and signed - if you are lucky then security by obscurity

The PS3 has been broken. The private keys to whatever is encrytped for download are thus obtainable.

Let me explain this a bit more...

If you have a PS3 that is pre-Cinavia and have it connected to the Internet via a Linux firewall, then when you do the upgrade, you can use something like wireshark or tshark to capture all of the web session data on the Linux box. Sure, it will be HTTPS'd, but the PS3 has to have the key for that certificate somewhere in its running image/ram available for use to decrypt what it receives. ... heck, you may not even need to do that. If you can dump the PS3 firmware, that would be enough.

The best way to use PS3 firmware would be dump the version without cinavia and the next one with cinavia. If it was 3.50 without and 3.51 with, then the next step is trivial.

The next step is to use a program to compare object files to see what has changed. Even if the image is 100MB of executeable, not all of it will have changed. Quite likely you could use binary image analysis tools to easily identify new object code that has been added as well as that which has changed. Given that this is all based on frequency stuff, all of the data to see Cinavia is likely going to be stored in static tables. Even if they were encoded, again the PS3 needs to access them at run-time so the keys to decode the Cinavia tables are going to be in the PS3 firmware somewhere.

The PS3 is the best attack vector for Cinavia because the PS3 has been root'd. Do any of the Linux-compatible versions of the PS3 support Cinavia?

Away from the PS3, you would need to find a way to attack the firmware of a normal BluRay player. Are there posts or ports inside some players that can be touched and the player switches into a debug mode, unintentionally?

Are there any vulnerabilities in the JVMs used in BluRay players that can be exploited? Consider that a BluRay disc is essentailly one big JAVA program, so are there ways to attack a BluRay player from a custom BluRay disc and get it to provide access to either the data tables for the Cinavia functions or just the Cinavia functions themselves?

Can a PS3 player be made to write a crash dump to disc whilst playing a BluRay or similar and then the disc examined outside of the PS3 and hunt for the Cinava data/functions in the dumped data?

What have Sony forgotten that can be taken advantage of?

m.rup

19th July 2012, 18:50

Hi, Panasonic recently released firmware v.2.64 for their BD60 player. Does anybody know if this version is infected with Cinavia?

milkybar1983

5th August 2012, 12:06

The PS3 has been broken. The private keys to whatever is encrytped for download are thus obtainable.

Let me explain this a bit more...

If you have a PS3 that is pre-Cinavia and have it connected to the Internet via a Linux firewall, then when you do the upgrade, you can use something like wireshark or tshark to capture all of the web session data on the Linux box. Sure, it will be HTTPS'd, but the PS3 has to have the key for that certificate somewhere in its running image/ram available for use to decrypt what it receives. ... heck, you may not even need to do that. If you can dump the PS3 firmware, that would be enough.

The best way to use PS3 firmware would be dump the version without cinavia and the next one with cinavia. If it was 3.50 without and 3.51 with, then the next step is trivial.

The next step is to use a program to compare object files to see what has changed. Even if the image is 100MB of executeable, not all of it will have changed. Quite likely you could use binary image analysis tools to easily identify new object code that has been added as well as that which has changed. Given that this is all based on frequency stuff, all of the data to see Cinavia is likely going to be stored in static tables. Even if they were encoded, again the PS3 needs to access them at run-time so the keys to decode the Cinavia tables are going to be in the PS3 firmware somewhere.

The PS3 is the best attack vector for Cinavia because the PS3 has been root'd. Do any of the Linux-compatible versions of the PS3 support Cinavia?

Away from the PS3, you would need to find a way to attack the firmware of a normal BluRay player. Are there posts or ports inside some players that can be touched and the player switches into a debug mode, unintentionally?

Are there any vulnerabilities in the JVMs used in BluRay players that can be exploited? Consider that a BluRay disc is essentailly one big JAVA program, so are there ways to attack a BluRay player from a custom BluRay disc and get it to provide access to either the data tables for the Cinavia functions or just the Cinavia functions themselves?

Can a PS3 player be made to write a crash dump to disc whilst playing a BluRay or similar and then the disc examined outside of the PS3 and hunt for the Cinava data/functions in the dumped data?

What have Sony forgotten that can be taken advantage of?

this has already been done, all info is here:

http://www.ps3devwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Playstation_Update_Package_%28PUP%29#Cinavia_DRM

although they have only succeeded in patching out the detection (only for playing files not cinavia disks). Somebody familiar with ps3 binaries needs to reverse engineer the PRX files to see exactly how cinavia works...

SamuriHL

26th August 2012, 16:37

http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=54079

Just a heads up that there's speculation now that the latest trial copy of PDVD 12 adds Cinavia detection. We knew this day was coming and looks like we've arrived. The purchased version has not yet been updated but if the trial has it, we can be sure that an update to the purchased version is not far behind. Keep an eye on that thread as a SlySoft member is looking at the trial now to verify Cinavia detection is in fact in that build.

Guest

26th August 2012, 17:04

Maybe having the binary can ease reverse engineering of the technology.

SamuriHL

26th August 2012, 20:03

Let's hope so. It has now been confirmed that the trial does in fact contain Cinavia detection which means it's only a matter of time before the retail version is updated. My advise to everyone...make a backup of your current PDVD 12 install. You may want to revert back to it from time to time.

rek1978

31st August 2012, 20:40

Please read my post in audio encoding.I have found something...

http://forums.afterdawn.com/t.cfm/f-153/cinavia_fix_--_no_need_to_mod_or_hack-928172/

Guys read at the end....i have done somrthing similar but only with DTS sound and i bypassed cinavia in my LG blu ray player (believe it or not) may my english are not very good to explain to you.
Sorry for mentioning other forum.
I reckon doom9 is one of the best around

Andy o

31st August 2012, 21:05

Andy o

31st August 2012, 21:13

BTW, download the .exe file referenced in that first post at your own risk (https://www.virustotal.com/file/22acd070cfb6e067e7ae8ac85096bce630836e992786bead25db05bbf20907ca/analysis/1346443828/).

Ghitulescu

3rd September 2012, 08:32

Which post is yours? The first poster reeks of BS, but StevenNewcastle posted (http://forums.afterdawn.com/t.cfm/f-153/cinavia_fix_--_no_need_to_mod_or_hack-928172/#5718918") a clever workaround that might just work. (Short Steven: use a DTS WAV track so the player's decoder thinks it's just noise, but the receiver/decoder over SPDIF will still decode it as 5.1 DTS.)

Even so, where's the hack? S/P-DIF cannot accommodate HD audio formats, so big deal :). Most methods simply concern the playback of downloaded movies on PCs and/or mediaplayers. The latter are not affected yet by cinavia.

sexconker

10th September 2012, 21:44

I rip my BluRays and store them on a network drive.
I currently play them through my PC hooked up to my TV via HDMI and an old HTIB via optical.

I'm currently looking at buying a new HTIB ( http://amzn.com/B0076R7K26 ) and was wondering if I'd be screwed over by Cinavia. Since the HTIB is a BluRay player, it has (or will soon have) Cinavia detection. The issue is whether or not that detection triggers on the other inputs.

If I play the file on my PC and pass the audio and video over HDMI to the HTIB (audio either as DTS/DTS-HD MA/AC3 passthrough or LPCM), would it listen in on that audio stream and throw a fit? Or would I be safe?

I could also pass 5.1 AC3 over optical and have the video go straight to the TV via HDMI.

I'm thinking I would be safe since the HTIB isn't the one decoding the source file and wouldn't know if there was a key or not. Cinavia detection only trips if the Cinavia-infected hardware has access to the source file. If it's just audio (or audio/video) decoded from an external device, it has no way of knowing whether or not it's an original.

Right?

SamuriHL

10th September 2012, 21:50

Correct. The Cinavia detection can only work on discs that it's playing. It can't reliably detect whether another source is properly licensed or not. Of course, that doesn't mean stupid companies won't try. What I mean is they could detect a Cinavia signal in another source and refuse to play it whether it's legitimate or not. That'd be stupid and get them sued most likely, but, it's at least possible.

sexconker

10th September 2012, 22:05

Thanks, that's what I figured.
If I play a file on my external device and feed audio/video to my HTIB, the HTIB can detect Cinavia in the watermark but can't do squat because it only has access to audio and video from the device, and can't verify whether or not it's an original. If I played a copied BluRay disc or a rip via a USB drive / network share, then it would have access to the file itself and would be able to know that I'm playing a rip and not an original.

I should be good to go then.

SamuriHL

10th September 2012, 22:08

In theory, yea. I never count out the stupidity of these companies, but, I can't see them blocking Cinavia content played outside their own blu-ray player. The detection is built into their blu-ray player and not the receiver part anyway.

diogen

10th September 2012, 23:22

I currently play them through my PC hooked up to my TV via HDMI and an old HTIB via optical.
I'm currently looking at buying a new HTIB...Why do you need an HTIB if you play ripped movies on your PC?

Get a decent AVR. At the moment those don't have Cinavia smarts even in theory...

Diogen.

diogen

10th September 2012, 23:51

...Steven: use a DTS WAV track so the player's decoder thinks it's just noise,
but the receiver/decoder over SPDIF will still decode it as 5.1 DTS.)If this does work and the PS3 can be that easily tricked
into believing the audio file's header (instead of content),
it most likely will be fixed during next firmware update.

The fix can be dead easy: reduce the volume by 0.1%.
That would be enough to turn the soundtrack into real white noise...

Diogen.

Andy o

12th September 2012, 20:50

Reduce the volume of what? Sony would have to actually add a feature, which I'm sure some people would be happy about (I've seen a few request or ask about it at the foobar2000 forum), which is DTS wav detection and decoding. So if Sony did that, how would you "reduce the volume" so that the decoder detects it as noise?

sexconker

12th September 2012, 21:26

Why do you need an HTIB if you play ripped movies on your PC?

Get a decent AVR. At the moment those don't have Cinavia smarts even in theory...

Diogen.

Because the PC is hooked up to the TV for video, and the HTIB for surround sound?

An HTIB is smaller, cheaper, cleaner, etc. than a full receiver.
I realize a receiver wouldn't have any possibility of Cinavia infection, but I don't want to shell out the extra cash for a receiver + speakers + a BluRay player.
My current Samsung HTIB has been great for 10+ years, and I'm only upgrading it because I'll have future devices that don't have optical out (Wii U, for example).

For my purposes, http://amzn.com/B0076R7K26 looks like the best option (it was $25 cheaper yesterday, damn it). That and an HDMI switcher. I don't need or want 7.1, giant or expensive speakers, etc.

setarip_old

23rd September 2012, 08:04

Re: Evanescent software

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1592303&postcount=1

Right now the software is still in development and the authors report a success rate of 55% on the tested Blu-Ray discs and DVDs. The release of DVD Ranger 5 is scheduled for October 31st and will cost $89.99 plus $39.99 for the Cinavia module. Pre-order price is $69.99 – including the Cinavia module. Seeking advance payments for vaporware - Cute...

Kerry56

23rd September 2012, 16:17

Someone claiming to be a rep for Pixbyte/IFoerster showed up over at MyCE, in this thread (http://club.myce.com/f94/cinavia-broken-pixbyte-329333/#.UF8nG6Ma5G4).

No way of verifying anything at the moment, but it does seem the software will have a 7 day trial to test its capabilities.

Ch3vr0n

24th September 2012, 20:44

and and every guy i know that tried to install that trial had it expire the second they clicked the "get trial key" button. Gone from 7d trail to expire by 1 button press

Ghitulescu

25th September 2012, 09:52

and and every guy i know that tried to install that trial had it expire the second they clicked the "get trial key" button. Gone from 7d trail to expire by 1 button press

That looks like scam to me http://www.tapeheads.net/images/smilies/scratch2.gif.

Big Vern

25th September 2012, 17:40

and and every guy i know that tried to install that trial had it expire the second they clicked the "get trial key" button. Gone from 7d trail to expire by 1 button press

Yep, same here! I even emailed them about it, and have not yet had a reply.
Make your own minds up ;)

mike20021969

25th September 2012, 21:08

and and every guy i know that tried to install that trial had it expire the second they clicked the "get trial key" button. Gone from 7d trail to expire by 1 button press

Yep, same here!

There's a possible scenario for that happening here:
http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=353781&postcount=39

setarip_old

26th September 2012, 00:17

Curiouser and curiouser:

1) If a 7 day pre-release trial is truly available now, the developers would appear to be giving the folks over at Verance an unnecessary heads up to defeat this software, prior to the stated 10/31 release date

2) Posts indicate thusfar the authors report a success rate of 55% on the tested Blu-Ray discs and DVDs...It will be also tested on PS3, various Blu-ray players and PowerDVD.

A) One would expect, based on the nature of Verance/"Cinavia" protection, methodology would be either 100% successful or 0% successful

B) Not yet tested on PS3 (The world's largest implementation of Verance/"Cinavia"), various Blu-ray players, PowerDVD - Doesn't leave too much of the real world that it could have been tested on

In light of the fact that informational posts are supposedly coming from Spain, perhaps something is being lost in the translation. I say this because, if not due to translation, my interpretation of these informational posts is that they appear to clearly indicate (almost in an "in your face" way) that the community is being tested and/or taunted...

bryguy12

28th September 2012, 01:32

The 55% is just poor reporting. Their original 'press release' stated "Approx. 55% of all reported Blu-ray Region A/B disks and DVDs have been successfully tested so far". That doesn't mean 45% failed, just (maybe) that they've only had access to 55% of the known discs with Cinavia.
And my tea-leaf and chicken bone readings feeling? -- this transcoder is vaporware.

setarip_old

30th September 2012, 01:14

A bit of information from my (ever-aging) memory banks - The following is part of a post at the Myce Forum, purportedly a "team member" working on this program-in-progress: 2005, The DVD-Ranger team released as first company in the whole world a free and opensource software "ShrinkTo5".

1) It was never truly free - To attempt to be legitimate, you had to trackdown and purchase the core "machinist.dll". You could then choose to either use a "no cost" version laden with adware (and, likely, spyware) or, as I recall, pay $15 to $20 for the "Shrinkto5" skeleton (did not include "machinist.dll).

2) DVD Shrink was ALWAYS 100% free and NEVER contained any adware or spyware.

3) DVD Shrink was around for several years before Shrinkto5 and its constantly problematic "heuristic" programming appeared.

4) If anyone can locate the Shrinkto5 Forum (archives or otherwise, I couldn't find it), among other things, you'd get the overall flavor/sense that the Shrinkto5 folks were constantly trying to catch up with DVD Shrink - and, IIRC (Don't hold me to this), later with RipIt4Me. This same forum contained MANY posts of "Where's my refund?" and "Where do I find the newest Machinist.dll?"

At the risk of being repetitive, I strongly suggest you keep your money in your wallet for the time being.

Perhaps these folks would consider providing test versions of their Verance/"Cinavia"disruption module to the moderating staff of Doom9 for independent testing and evaluation?

Chetwood

30th September 2012, 06:20

I deleted ShrinkTo5 after my first test run, LOL. But you know, there's a sucker born every minute. Just think of the jackasses that release a "new" DVD Shrink every year, ripping of uninformed customers.

setarip_old

25th October 2012, 07:05

If I understand correctly, the information at the following link might very well make "Verance/"Cinavia" disappear as a concern for PS3 users:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/f145/new-ps3-hack-may-irreversible-96025.html

SamuriHL

25th October 2012, 13:48

It should be noted that tmt5 now has Cinavia detection. All those who doubted that software players would see cinavia can become true believers. I had no doubt. ;)

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

setarip_old

1st November 2012, 00:14

It should be noted that tmt5 now has Cinavia detectionWon't that possibly leave things open for (easier) reverse engineering?

SamuriHL

1st November 2012, 00:16

Won't that possibly leave things open for (easier) reverse engineering?

Not with the way ArcSoft implemented it. Possibly with Cyberlink's implementation. However, that remains to be seen at this point. ArcSoft's implementation is nasty.

billqs

1st November 2012, 16:57

I know we have "no one on the inside", but since I use both PowerDVD 11 and Arcsoft TMT 3 with 3D plugin, do we imagine they will add the Cinavia "feature" to these already released products as well?

SamuriHL

1st November 2012, 17:00

Since neither product is currently sold anymore, I seriously doubt Cinavia will be retrofitted into those legacy products.

billqs

1st November 2012, 17:13

I went to the linked list on Discs and players that have been "Cinaviad". The player list looks pretty sparse. I may be picking up a more recent 3D BD player for my Home Theater and wondered which one might be safe. I know to avoid players made after February of this year.

Big Vern

1st November 2012, 18:50

Well, Halloween has come and gone, and this DVD ranger "cinavia buster" is still on pre-order.

[SLiM]D12

1st November 2012, 19:53

Well, Halloween has come and gone, and this DVD ranger "cinavia buster" is still on pre-order.

Yep -- it aint coming. Poor people that pre-ordered and got nothing out of it.

Ch3vr0n

1st November 2012, 23:06

Oh and here's what they do when you ask for a refund with PayPal for failure to deliver. Check the note on the refund. They say they don't blacklist. Proof sais otherwise.

Posted by brcs over at the slysoft forums.

-----------

Oh and this is what you get if you request file a dispute with them from paypal for non delivery of dvdrangers product.

Total amount:
$19.99 USD
Fee amount:
$0.00 USD
Net amount:
$19.99 USD
Refund:
$19.99 USD to PayPal balance

Date:
Nov 1, 2012
Time:
00:11:11 PDT
Status:
Completed

Subject:

IFoerster Development
Note:

Blacklisted for any additional purchases.

http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=356696&postcount=136

-----------

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

SamuriHL

1st November 2012, 23:11

You mean you won't be able to able to purchase it when they release their amazing Cinavia killing product? Darn.

setarip_old

2nd November 2012, 15:55

As I said on September 23rd regarding the purported "DVD Ranger" Cinavia removal program: Seeking advance payments for vaporware - Cute...

Xplic1T

4th November 2012, 02:27

Obviously this is a bust ... it was nothing more than screwing people out of money. Cinavia's echoing algorithm is built into movie/dvd/br presses of the media and is only going to become more prevalent with future releases. I dont believe we can just filter it out because it's built into the core audio itself ... we just dont notice it because the echoing is constant and in miliseconds ... so what can we do ? Screw Cinavia and buy a HTPC or some blu-ray player that doesn't detect cinavia. End of story ... oh and who cares if Cyberlink or Arcsoft now support it ? Get yourself VLC and stop worrying.

Either way id rather spend 70 bucks towards a G-box than 20 bucks on some pipe dream that hasn't been verified by anybody.

SamuriHL

4th November 2012, 02:46

I personally use J River MC18 with LAV Filters, madVR, and rip my blu-rays to MKV with MakeMKV and AnyDVD. What's a "cinavia" again? Oh, right, that thing that doesn't impact me. :D MC18 can also play blu-ray discs which is great for when I rent stuff from Netflix and just want to watch it. No menus, no previews, no nonsense...just a high quality movie. I'm a huge advocate of the HTPC approach. :)

Ch3vr0n

4th November 2012, 03:15

Big Vern

4th November 2012, 11:57

So they're 3 days overdue now with the release. No official public statement, still the possibility to "pre-order" their "cinavia module". I wonder what's going on on the forums. Must be alot of pissed of customers by now cause they failed to live up to the promise. I'm curious but i refuse to register just to get a peek. Anyone with an account over there that could shed some light ? ^^

Tried to create an account!

They have a security question, "what is the name of our software". I typed in DVD Ranger, and that is wrong, according to them. I tried many variants of DVD ranger as well, lower case, upper case, none worked. Seems like you can't even register an account.

mike20021969

4th November 2012, 12:34

I wonder what's going on on the forums. Must be alot of pissed of customers by now cause they failed to live up to the promise. I'm curious but i refuse to register just to get a peek. Anyone with an account over there that could shed some light ?

Wonder no more... their forum is as dead as a dodo.
There's currently more life on Mars :D

The vast majority of posts are by an administrator who goes by the username ReadMeToo®

Ch3vr0n

4th November 2012, 12:39

Lol no surprise there then. That's what you get for making such huge claims and not live upto them. That's what i love about slysoft, they neither make such claims nor do release dates. Stuff will be ready when its ready, no eta = you can't disappointed ppl except maybe a little for keeping them waiting.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

mike20021969

4th November 2012, 13:02

Lol no surprise there then.

Forum screenshot download (jpg image requires lots of scrolling):

http://www24.zippyshare.com/v/74298668/file.html

cynthia_old

5th November 2012, 01:18

Stuff will be ready when its ready, no eta = you can't disappointed ppl except maybe a little for keeping them waiting.

The admin of the support forum posted this some hours ago.

I know they are working on a few bugs but I like you have no idea when it will be ready and waiting as well

There is no scam Trust me on this one it will be released when its ready

http://www.dvdrangersupportforum.info/index.php?topic=3172.0

Ch3vr0n

5th November 2012, 07:24

Since that forum isn't officially supported by the dvd ranger folks, that's imo not a credible source. Such statements only hold SOME credibility if they are posted PUBLICLY on the main dvd ranger forum. and not on a statement hidden from the public in a mandatory registration forum that's not officially endorsed. I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

cynthia_old

6th November 2012, 02:03

Since that forum isn't officially supported by the dvd ranger folks, that's imo not a credible source.

They also sent out a mail regarding the current issue.

Update news on DVDRanger 5 and the DVDRanger Module

November 5, 2012

Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes we are reminded that we are only human.
Our sincere apology.
We underestimated the amount of work to change the entire core of the software in 30 days.

Please take note:
1.) There’s no cheating, lying, or trickster.
2.) The DVD-Ranger 5 is coming soon
3.) The Cinavia Module is coming soon

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new
“Albert Einstein

We are just a team of human that has missed a deadline.

We apologize again.

Your DVD-Ranger Team

Regards,
The DVD Ranger - Support Forum Team.

SamuriHL

6th November 2012, 02:04

At least they put out information. Those that pre-paid were owed at least an explanation so that's good.

Ch3vr0n

6th November 2012, 04:28

True, but shouldn't that kind of statement be publicly visible on the mainsite too. Cause it isn't and preorders were still possible ( checked last night).

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

cynthia_old

6th November 2012, 05:33

True, but shouldn't that kind of statement be publicly visible on the mainsite too. Cause it isn't and preorders were still possible ( checked last night).

The same statement is posted on the products home page as a banner and also as a separate page.

http://www.dvd2hd.com/2012/11/05/coming-soon/

Ch3vr0n

6th November 2012, 06:29

Then they finally had some Denver and made a public statement. When i check Sunday night (sat on sun) they hadn't yet. Curious on when they'll actually release their "solution" to cinavia. I'll stick with slysoft though. :-)

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

Atak_Snajpera

6th November 2012, 11:20

buying cat in the sack is plain stupid.

it is still a scam for me.

setarip_old

6th November 2012, 16:46

@Ch3vr0n

Hi! Then they finally had some Denver What does this mean?

Ch3vr0n

7th November 2012, 04:16

Meh autocorrection on a cellphone sucks at times. Was supposed to be "sense" ;-)

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

Ghitulescu

7th November 2012, 15:14

Then they finally had some sense and made a public statement.

I believe it wasn't because of the "Denver" they had, but otherwise they could have been sued ... Not that this clears the scam, may be a clever advertising to get more money before they run ...

setarip_old

7th November 2012, 15:29

Based on what's been posted about this apparently non-existent software here and at other forums, I can't believe that there could be any other users still willing to make "advance payments" for it...

Regards,
The DVD Ranger - Support Forum Team.
Has anyone determined where these people are located?

Ch3vr0n

7th November 2012, 17:18

easy. The benefits of being a domain registrar ;) Knowing where & how to look ;)

registrant:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0123140248
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA

Domain name: DVD2HD.COM

Administrative Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0123140248, dvd2hd.com@contactprivacy.com
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165385457
Technical Contact:
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0123140248, dvd2hd.com@contactprivacy.com
96 Mowat Ave
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165385457

Registration Service Provider:
FatCow, support@fatcow.com
888-278-9780

Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 10-Apr-2012.
Record expires on 24-Feb-2014.
Record created on 24-Feb-2010.

Domain servers in listed order:
NS2.FATCOW.COM
NS1.FATCOW.COM

registered through tucows

Raw Registrar Data
Registrant Contact Information:
Name: Robert Robbins
Organization: R.E.Robbins, Entrepreneur
Address 1: P.O.Box 1305
City: Montgomery
State: Texas
Zip: 77356
Country: US
Phone: +1.2817604151
Email: selectchoicedomains@gmail.com

Administrative Contact Information:
Name: Robert Robbins
Organization: R.E.Robbins, Entrepreneur
Address 1: P.O.Box 1305
City: Montgomery
State: Texas
Zip: 77356
Country: US
Phone: +1.2817604151
Email: selectchoicedomains@gmail.com

Technical Contact Information:
Name: Robert Robbins
Organization: R.E.Robbins, Entrepreneur
Address 1: P.O.Box 1305
City: Montgomery
State: Texas
Zip: 77356
Country: US
Phone: +1.2817604151
Email: selectchoicedomains@gmail.com

Billing Contact Information:
Name: Robert Robbins
Organization: R.E.Robbins, Entrepreneur
Address 1: P.O.Box 1305
City: Montgomery
State: Texas
Zip: 77356
Country: US
Phone: +1.2817604151
Email: selectchoicedomains@gmail.com

registered via domaincontrol.net

Anythin else i can do for you ? ^^

setarip_old

7th November 2012, 19:00

Nothing else, thank you ;>}

I just thought some of the posters might have a "need to know"...

Ghitulescu

7th November 2012, 19:38

Texas and Canada, but no Cayman Island?

Ch3vr0n

8th November 2012, 06:52

Texas and Canada, but no Cayman Island?

Well the thing is, that info only shows the data for the person that registered the domains. It does not show where their actual physical office is located. One can assume it is at one of those 2, because that person probably is involved with dvdranger in one way or another. It is no guarantee their office is located at one of those addresses until someone takes a trio to those places.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

Reel.Deel

8th November 2012, 16:24

Here's a google profile (pic included) (https://plus.google.com/113389693626517253523#113389693626517253523/posts) of one of the suspected perps.
Strangely, he also has www.hislovingkindnessministry.com (http://hislovingkindnessministry.com/hislovingkindness/our_mission.html) registered to him were he accepts donations. Hmmmm?

Montgomery Texas is about an hours drive from were I reside. I would drive by since I sometimes travel through there, but since it's P.O Box address, it doesn't help.

Atak_Snajpera

8th November 2012, 16:38

Strangely, he also has www.hislovingkindnessministry.com registered to him were he accepts donations. Hmmmm?
This looks like webpage made by 10 year old kid from 90s :) And those T-Shirts with that awesome logo....

Ch3vr0n

8th November 2012, 17:13

Montgomery Texas is about an hours drive from were I reside. I would drive by since I sometimes travel through there, but since it's P.O Box address, it doesn't help.

Well ya could send him a registered letter or something (which you have to sign for) to that p.o. box and camp it till it gets collected. Then follow the sucker to his real address :-)

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

cynthia_old

22nd November 2012, 15:36

DVD-Ranger 5 is released today.

This version contains the Interface for CinEx but not CinEx itself.

Looks like it's in progress. :)

SamuriHL

22nd November 2012, 15:37

LMAO! That's awesome. LOL

[SLiM]D12

22nd November 2012, 16:46

You know, maybe they really meant Halloween 2013 for their cinavia release?

setarip_old

22nd November 2012, 19:22

(Just a personal observation) In light of all of the previous successes the community has had regarding any and all other protection concepts, it seems that after all this time, it may just be that Verance/"Cinavia" is invincible.

Of course it's possible that things are being worked on that I'm/we're not aware of... (If I understand correctly, the in process "Slyce", by Slysoft, will be a software-only player and will not do anything to make discs with "Cinavia" play on standalone players. If I'm wrong, by all means, please correct me.)

Ch3vr0n

22nd November 2012, 19:51

You're wrong about slyce mate. That is exactly what it WILL do. Slyce is the bluray version of clonedvd. And i know because I'm the Dutch translator for slysoft and have access to a limited functionality copy. Check my sticky over at the slysoft forums in the high-defense software section and you'll see what em talking about. It will NOT handle cinavia on initial release, but it WILL handle it in a future version. The software player what your talking about is currently dubbed "SlyPlayer", not Slyce.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

Ghitulescu

22nd November 2012, 20:28

Slyce must somehow disable/remove/inactivate the "marker". Otherwise it makes no sense.
I believe there is no escape from this trap. Of course the only solution is to avoid "cinavied" products, like we did in 2004 with Sony-infected CDs. Or to use cinavia-free playback solutions, which may exist now, but not in the future, as more and more we rely on HW decoding for most activities (a "hook" exists since the implementation of trusted computing platform - cinavia detection routine can easily hook-in to).

setarip_old

22nd November 2012, 20:30

@Ch3vr0n

Hi!

That's precisely why I said, "If I'm wrong, by all means, please correct me."

Are you saying that "Slyce" will enable standalone Blu-ray players to directly play (Put the disc in the drawer of the standalone player) actual physical Cinavia-containing Blu-ray discs and/or physical backup copies? Is an additional program also required to first remove copy protection other than Cinavia?

For those of us who don't know, would you be good enough to post here (and/or provide a link) what "CloneDVD" and "Slyce" can/will do regarding discs that contain Cinavia (as it relates to standalone players)?

Am I correct in saying that "Slyce" has not yet been released and that it will initially be released without "Slyce for Cinavia" capability?

Thank you.

Ch3vr0n

22nd November 2012, 21:53

Ok so here's the lowdown.

We all know it's a protection. The reason another piece of software is needed is because it's in the audio. Thus the audio needs some form of re-encoding to remove or make the signal unreadable/undetectable on backups. This is beyond the scope of anydvd as it can't re-encode and never will. That is not what it is designed to do. Slyce will enable IN A FUTURE UPDATE, the playback of ACTUAL cinavia "infected" backup discs as we like to call them. So yes slyce will enable the "direct play, insert cinavia disc into standalone" playback without triggering cinavia. If it's an orignal then you don't need to worry about cinavia. "physical cinavia containing blu-ray discs and physical backup copies are the same thing". As soon as you remove AACS cinavia can trigger.

What CloneDVD can do, well that can be found on the slysoft site. It's a simple shrinking tool but very nice one and easy to use to remove unwanted audio and/or subtitles. Since cinavia is now also spreading onto DVD i HOPE (don't know) that CloneDVD2 will eventually get an update to remove cinavia on dvd's too.

In short CloneDVD2 does:

shrink DVD9 to DVD 5
remove unwanted audio
create movie only's (if you don't keep the menu's intact)
simple reauthoring to remove trailer crap

What Slyce can do can be found over at my sticky at http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=53392. There you can find a detailed overview, along with screenshots and features of the things i could spot in the limited functionality. I'm waiting on a new build since there have been changes since the last update on that thread and translations will need to be updated.

In short slyce will do

Shrink BD50 to BD25, single layer & double layer DVD (it's unclear in my copy atm if that means BD5/9 and or movie or full disc conversion to DVD5/9)
remove trailer crap, unwanted audio & subtitles
conversion to MOBILE FORMATS such as .avi
and many more (like NATIVE processing of ISO's without even having to mount them. Just load em up straight into the program)

Think of it as an advanced version of CloneDVD2 and CloneDVD Mobile, all rolled into 1 but then for blu-rays. Guess that thread is overdue for a new update on the mobile conversion. i'll get to work on that update this weekend.

NOTE that this may NOT be the final GUI and not all currently mentioned features in my sticky over at slysoft are to be considered "final". They are all subject to change as i do not work for slysoft. I was simply given permission to create the thread to distribute information about it.

Again: Slyce WILL remove or disable cinavia detection eventually. It will NOT do this on initial release. Speaking of release, if all goes well it should (not the possible tense) before the year is over. So sometime in the next 5 weeks

setarip_old

22nd November 2012, 23:56

Slyce WILL remove or disable cinavia detection eventually.I sure hope your statement proves to be true, as it's been my feeling since I started this thread "forever ago" that if anybody could do this, it would be the folks at Slysoft ;>}

SamuriHL

23rd November 2012, 00:46

Slyce will eventually decode audio and remove Cinavia. However, the focus right now from my limited understanding is getting the base product out the door. Then the work on Cinavia will begin. So I hope people don't think it's going to be weeks after the release of Slyce that Cinavia support is added. My personal feeling is that it's going to take a while....measured in months or more AFTER the release of Slyce. Then again, SlySoft has surprised us before so who knows. That's just my uneducated guess.

gearrob

25th November 2012, 20:33

Would like to try out Slyce compared to the Cinavia module from Pixabyte.

Ch3vr0n

25th November 2012, 20:37

that will take some time though. As previously said. Slyce will NOT handle cinavia on the initial release. Eventually it will deal with it, just not right now and there is no timetable from slysoft on when it will. Cinavia just isnt widespread enough yet

SamuriHL

25th November 2012, 20:37

I don't think we'll see Cinavia support in Slyce any time within a year, but, again, personal prediction. I'm personally just waiting for Slyce itself to be released. It should be a very exciting product. The Cinavia removal will be icing on the cake.

olyteddy

26th November 2012, 03:52

Would like to try out Slyce compared to the Cinavia module from Pixabyte.
So far neither is available...

Chetwood

26th November 2012, 07:16

omegaman7

26th November 2012, 07:20

It's not about ignoring. The devices that don't support it, simply aren't looking for it. Essentially, old technology is oblivious to it :)

Ch3vr0n

26th November 2012, 12:25

So far neither is available...

Yet the schedule for slyce remains unchanged from my insider info. I should be getting a new (perhaps final) build to update the dutch translation. For the moment, the timeframe is still before the year is over.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

SamuriHL

26th November 2012, 14:13

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm using a mediaplayer like the WDTV, I won't run into problems since it ignores the Cinavia signal even if it's transferred to the MKV when ripping the movie from Bluray? Does anyone really think that there won't be any standalones that ignore the Cinavia signal?

Any device not licensed by the aacsla will not have the cinavia detection code. So long as it's not an officially licensed player it should remain free of cinavia.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Chetwood

27th November 2012, 07:00

Essentially, old technology is oblivious to it
Right. And what about upcoming media players like the rumoured WD TV Play (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1421755/official-wdtv-play-anticipation-thread)? I will b new technology and still ignore Cinavia, right?

omegaman7

27th November 2012, 09:54

My WD TV Plus did not utilize the cinavia detection scheme. I imagine they could update its firmware to accommodate such code. But I sold it, so there's really no need for me to worry about it now :p My LG BD player plays media files, netflix.com... there was just no need to keep it. Plus money was tight ;) I see no reason why WD wouldn't answer that question. People have a right to know what they're buying.

setarip_old

27th November 2012, 16:23

@SamuriHL

Hi! So long as it's not an officially licensed player it should remain free of cinavia.
Is there a current list of such players (hardware and software players)?

SamuriHL

27th November 2012, 16:27

I'm not aware of anyone maintaining a current list. There very well could be one out there, but, it's not something I've kept up on.

EDIT: The criteria, though, that you should look for is...can it play encrypted blu-rays? If yes, then it's licensed. If it can't, then there's no AACS-LA license involved and will not have Cinavia detection support. Most media players like the WD TV's, Roku's, etc fall into that category.

Ch3vr0n

27th November 2012, 19:51

There is a rather long one on the dvdfab site that lists alot of them and i think also which software based players.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

Hookahice

6th December 2012, 03:28

Can anyone confirm that Cyberlink PowerDVD 12.02118a.57 (current latest version) has Cinavia implemented within the player/software?
I tried playing "The Campaign" backup BD copy on it and didn’t get the message. Not sure why, it should have thu! I get the message on the PS3.
I was wondering if anyone here did indeed get the message on the PC (Using PowerDVD 12).
According to Cyberlink this version should already have Cinavia detection within.
The reason I am asking, I would like to run some testing by doing some memory dumps and further investigate some of the triggering mechanisms.
My first goal is to accelerate the triggering mechanism to be much less than 20 minutes. Would make stuff a lil easier/faster to debug.
It’s time to beat this stuff already – way too long they have gotten away. They threw us a bone now by putting it on PC software which is “easier” to reverse engineer than proprietary firmware on PS3 or certain Blu-ray players.

Let me know please...

whurlston

6th December 2012, 07:21

Can anyone confirm that Cyberlink PowerDVD 12.0.9369.1618 (current latest version) has Cinavia implemented within the player/software?

1618 is not the current latest version (as a simple check of their website would show you). It was released on May 10, 2012 and AFAIK it was the last version to NOT contain Cinavia.

There have been two updates since then plus at least one interim build:

1905 (Trial version only release?)
1905c: Released Sept 10, 2012
2118a: Released Oct 11, 2012

There have been mixed results with Cinavia and the 1905/c builds and I can't remember exactly which one contained Cinavia detection code. The 2118a build will definitely have it.

http://www.cyberlink.com/downloads/support/powerdvd/patches_en_US.html

Hookahice

6th December 2012, 17:27

Sorry for the typo. I meant to write that I have the most recent version of the software (PowerDVD 12.02118a.57)

I modified my original post with the correct version.
I would like to hear from anyone who has seen the message on this version which supposedly contains Cinavia. I know Cyberlink stated it should have it but I would like to confirm with those who have seen it while playing a Cinavia infected movie on this version of PowerDVD!

Thanks!

SamuriHL

6th December 2012, 18:29

omegaman7

6th December 2012, 19:18

I've seen it in 1905. I have no idea what version I have installed right now. I basically had turned the 1905 trial into a full version installer so I could use it to test Cinavia. I've not had ANY time to throw at software player Cinavia detection lately. TMT5 also has Cinavia detection but the way they implemented it is incredibly nasty. If you look at it, you'll figure out the details of what I mean and why it's not ever likely to be cracked. PDVD is much more....likely a target. ;)

They thought the PS3 couldn't be hacked. Humans make mistakes. They overlook possibilities. I guarantee there's a vulnerability. It just hasn't been found. I may just have to install it on a secondary PC, just to see what you're talking about :p

SamuriHL

6th December 2012, 23:15

They thought the PS3 couldn't be hacked. Humans make mistakes. They overlook possibilities. I guarantee there's a vulnerability. It just hasn't been found. I may just have to install it on a secondary PC, just to see what you're talking about :p

Have fun with that. :) They used digital signatures to sign all the parts of the Cinavia code so that if you touch any of it, the audio no longer works at all. :)

omegaman7

6th December 2012, 23:17

Have fun with that. :) They used digital signatures to sign all the parts of the Cinavia code so that if you touch any of it, the audio no longer works at all. :)

LOL, in any case, this will never affect me. Their only hope now, is a new medium, that has this "Super" protection. And even then, there are loop holes. This cat and mouse game will never end... ;)

SamuriHL

6th December 2012, 23:22

Yea, I hear that. I've been using J River MC18 for all my playback needs. Who needs menus and previews? :) Pop the disc in, hit play, main movie without having to fuss with it. What's not to like? :)

omegaman7

6th December 2012, 23:25

Yea, I hear that. I've been using J River MC18 for all my playback needs. Who needs menus and previews? :) Pop the disc in, hit play, main movie without having to fuss with it. What's not to like? :)

Have you never seen deleted scenes are gag reels you felt worth keeping? Trailers can be somewhat agreeable too. They remind you down the road, movies you've forgotten about :p

To each his/her own though of course ;)

SamuriHL

7th December 2012, 00:20

I can select those titlesets in J River MC18 if I know what they are. Or I can just load up my player...those things aren't ever Cinavia protected anyway.

Hookahice

7th December 2012, 00:53

Can anyone with PowerDVD that contains Cinavia test this please?

Disable the following services in Windows:
CLHNServiceForPowerDVD12
CyberLink PowerDVD 12 Media Server Monitor Service
CyberLink PowerDVD 12 Media Server Service

Restart Windows and open up PowerDVD. You will get a warning message that says something about MediaServer not being able to work correctly (who cares), just close it (press the X) and try playing a Cinavia protected movie (i.e. The Campaign or anything with known Cinavia protection). Use an ISO or an actual burnt BD to play it in PowerDVD.

Play it for 20+ minutes without fast forwarding and please let me know if you get your audio muted.

Please report your findings here.

For some reason, "The Campaign" is not triggering Cinavia protection for me. I’m going to test "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" next.

EDIT: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" has been tested as well - not getting the message!

:thanks:

Big Vern

12th December 2012, 10:19

Any more news on this super-duper cinavia busting software yet?

Ghitulescu

12th December 2012, 11:13

Can anyone with PowerDVD that contains Cinavia test this please?

It's good that you found a solution for the SW playback of the cinavied movies. However, as many times said, the only defence is not to upgrade and not to buy those movies, that until the studios will stop.

Cinavia will be implemented in the HW of any new PC, it's just a matter of time.

rotty

13th December 2012, 17:19

It's good that you found a solution for the SW playback of the cinavied movies. However, as many times said, the only defence is not to upgrade and not to buy those movies, that until the studios will stop.

Cinavia will be implemented in the HW of any new PC, it's just a matter of time.

Thats so right.

It's a shame, I think that most people who want to copy their disks just want to make a hard drive "BD Juke Box".

It makes selecting and watching very convienient.

Perhaps what is needed is a Physical BD Jukebox, i.e. holds the original disks and selects them just like the old music jukeboxes.

Now I know that means more space but at least you havnt got to take the trouble to make a copy, just add your disk to the machine, you probably wouldnt even have to tell it what the disk is, all that info either already there or via internet connection like itunes.

Just a thought.

Ghitulescu

13th December 2012, 17:44

I believe the studios learned something.
I see original BDs (ok, not the brand new ones, but the value of a movie does not reside, my own opinion, in being brand new on the market) sold in Germany for 4.44€. A good Verbatim BDR in jewelbox costs a little bit less, a BDR50 is around 8€. Prices including GEMA (I know one could buy also cheaper than 3€, but since GEMA asks a little bit more than 3€ per BDR25 they are grey imports). Those that "do backups" to "save the originals from kids, dogs or cats" would probably save money buying the originals for the second time.

The problem of cinavia is a philosophical one: studios gave the customers artificially worsened copies (claiming the contrary, of course). Like Rembrandt would have signed his pictures right in the middle with the paint roller.
http://hardwareandpaints.com/images/paint-roller-7.jpg
Sort of
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zfIJn4yYDrU/Tx1l0ik0XOI/AAAAAAAADE4/PVN9-1eGdBI/s1600/mr+bean+whistlers+mother.jpg

rotty

13th December 2012, 20:42

I believe the studios learned something.
I see original BDs (ok, not the brand new ones, but the value of a movie does not reside, my own opinion, in being brand new on the market) sold in Germany for 4.44€. A good Verbatim BDR in jewelbox costs a little bit less, a BDR50 is around 8€. Prices including GEMA (I know one could buy also cheaper than 3€, but since GEMA asks a little bit more than 3€ per BDR25 they are grey imports). Those that "do backups" to "save the originals from kids, dogs or cats" would probably save money buying the originals for the second time.

The problem of cinavia is a philosophical one: studios gave the customers artificially worsened copies (claiming the contrary, of course). Like Rembrandt would have signed his pictures right in the middle with the paint roller.
Sort of

Well exactly, what's the point in having so called perfect audio when it is then deliberately degraded and corrupted with an audio watermark.

Crazy logic or what.

sng

6th January 2013, 10:49

What program on post pictures #1614?

sneaker_ger

6th January 2013, 17:23

Audacity

setarip_old

6th January 2013, 19:27

As "rotty" said: Well exactly, what's the point in having so called perfect audio when it is then deliberately degraded and corrupted with an audio watermark? And in addition to effectively downgrading audio by applying Verance/"Cinavia", the studios have, for some time now, been providing specially created lower quality "Rental versions" of Blu-rays that have ALL extras removed and, in many instances, have lower quality primary audiostreams than do the sellthrough versions of the same titles.

BTW - As an incentive to "push" the stripped down versions, the studios sell the rental versions to the rental chains for less than the price of the full versions.

Who knows, perhaps the next step will be lower quality HD video...

SamuriHL

6th January 2013, 19:53

setarip_old

7th January 2013, 06:24

@SamuriHL

Hi! Those are often much harder to illegally copy than physical discsExcuse me, but have you "gone over to the dark side"? I was under the impression that, at least at this forum, it was believed that making backup copies of purchased discs for personal use was NOT illegal...

Ghitulescu

7th January 2013, 10:20

Not to get completely off topic so forgive me, but, I would theorize that the lower quality rental versions are designed to increase the consumer acceptance of lower quality streaming options. Those are often much harder to illegally copy than physical discs and are cheaper for studios, as well.
True. Also the Ultraviolet and the personal cloud systems are designed to progressively direct the flock to the ownless (pay-per-view, pay-per-hear) entertainment. The breakthrough of home recording has to be closed again.
As "rotty" said: And in addition to effectively downgrading audio by applying Verance/"Cinavia", the studios have, for some time now, been providing specially created lower quality "Rental versions" of Blu-rays that have ALL extras removed and, in many instances, have lower quality primary audiostreams than do the sellthrough versions of the same titles.
Rentals are differently marketed than retail. One can use only a rental version if he wants to make money out of it (rental shops), never a personal copy (retail). Theoretically, one may not even invite his work team to see a movie (it's for personal use, right? - to this extent not even the wife has the right to :) ).
@SamuriHL
Hi! Excuse me, but have you "gone over to the dark side? I was under the impression that, at least at this forum, it was believed that making backup copies of purchased discs for personal use was NOT illegal...
Oh yes, it is illegal if one has to circumvent the technical means of protection, be they only the CSS or even "Input PIN code"....
Besides, rental discs cannot be sold, thus cannot be purchased by individuals (legally, of course) and thus cannot be legally copied. SamuriHL was talking about rental discs.

SamuriHL

7th January 2013, 11:42

@SamuriHL

Hi! Excuse me, but have you "gone over to the dark side? I was under the impression that, at least at this forum, it was believed that making backup copies of purchased discs for personal use was NOT illegal...

Um no. I think you missed my point completely. I was implying that so called digital copies and streaming services offer studios better protection for their content. After all, cinavia is a content protection system designed to thwart illegal copying. It just happens to prevent legal backups, as well. But there can't be a legal backup of a rental disk, correct? And that was my point... That not only is getting consumers to stop renting discs cheaper for studios, but offers better protection. And that may be the motivation behind these lower quality rental discs. I believe they're trying to get consumers to start using streaming rentals more that disc rentals.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

SamuriHL

7th January 2013, 11:54

True. Also the Ultraviolet and the personal cloud systems are designed to progressively direct the flock to the ownless (pay-per-view, pay-per-hear) entertainment. The breakthrough of home recording has to be closed again.

Rentals are differently marketed than retail. One can use only a rental version if he wants to make money out of it (rental shops), never a personal copy (retail). Theoretically, one may not even invite his work team to see a movie (it's for personal use, right? - to this extent not even the wife has the right to :) ).

Oh yes, it is illegal if one has to circumvent the technical means of protection, be they only the CSS or even "Input PIN code"....
Besides, rental discs cannot be sold, thus cannot be purchased by individuals (legally, of course) and thus cannot be legally copied. SamuriHL was talking about rental discs.

That's correct. I was definitely referring to rentals, not retail discs. Those so called free ultraviolet digital copies that come with retail discs set the stage. To use it you have to set up the account and the other add the service to all your devices. Consumers start to see how convenient it is to have it available everywhere without hassle. And the quality matches or often beats cable company vod systems. A majority of people out there see 1080p and just assume it's bluray quality. They don't really notice or care that it's a lower bit rate. So after they start using the digital copies and find that the quality loss is acceptable given the convenience, the next time they want to rent a movie maybe they decide to try a streaming rental. Cinavia becomes irrelevant when you don't own a physical copy of a movie. And I think the studios are realizing this more and more and are pushing people in this direction. After all, if given the choice between a half baked rental disc and a good enough streaming service, most will choose the streaming service.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

hello_hello

7th January 2013, 12:08

Oh yes, it is illegal if one has to circumvent the technical means of protection, be they only the CSS or even "Input PIN code"....
Besides, rental discs cannot be sold, thus cannot be purchased by individuals (legally, of course) and thus cannot be legally copied. SamuriHL was talking about rental discs.

I don't know how it works where you are, but walk into any video rental store in Australia and you're bound to find a section where they have ex rental DVDs for sale. My local store had a huge clearout late last year. I think half their stock was purchased by individuals, including a couple of DVDs by myself.

SamuriHL

7th January 2013, 12:20

I don't know how it works where you are, but walk into any video rental store in Australia and you're bound to find a section where they have ex rental DVDs for sale. My local store had a huge clearout late last year. I think half their stock was purchased by individuals, including a couple of DVDs by myself.

Fair enough but where I live rental stores are a relic of history. They no longer exist here.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

hello_hello

7th January 2013, 13:38

Cinavia will be implemented in the HW of any new PC, it's just a matter of time.

A year ago you argued you knew for a fact no Bluray player without Cinavia could be sold after the Feb cut off date, including existing models. Oppo still sells a Cinavia free Bluray player.

You stated Cinavia would be required to be slipped silently into every firmware update (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1541031#post1541031), yet I've read many forum posts where even in the US posters have stated they've updated previous model Sony players this year and remained Cinavia free. So far in Australia, Sony have only issued a firmware update for one of their Bluray players which they advertise as containing Cinavia.

You've stated firmware won't be advertised as containing Cinavia. Sony advertise if it's included in their firmware.

Now you're claiming Cinavia will be implemented in PCs..... again.
According to this article (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5693/cinavia-drm-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-blurays-selfdestruction/4) Bluray manufacturers are required to pay Verance between $10,000 and $300,000 per year (depending on volume) for the privileged of including Cinavia in their players. Which section of the PC industry do you think is going to volunteer to pay that unless they're forced to?

I believe though that it is not enough to assert something, some proofs must be provided, too. (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1606554#post1606554)

Good advice, don't you think?

SamuriHL

7th January 2013, 15:39

The so called Feb cut off date is WIDELY misunderstood as to what it means. It's *NOT* "any player sold after that date". It means any player *CERTIFIED* after that date. And that is a VERY large distinction. Players certified before Feb 2012 may continue to be sold without it and do no need to be updated unless they have to be re-certified for any reason. That is why Oppo will never add Cinavia to their older models. It's also why TMT and PDVD had to add Cinavia because both had to be recertified last year. (Software players apparently have more rigid certification standards than stand alone hardware players). This information comes from a trusted source, but, I'm not able to reveal who that is because they're not technically allowed to be speaking publicly about it. Anyway, the whole Feb 2012 thing is very misunderstood and people took it to mean any player sold after that date must be updated which isn't true.

setarip_old

7th January 2013, 22:11

Ch3vr0n

7th January 2013, 22:37

That's common practice overhere in belgium too.

SamuriHL

7th January 2013, 22:54

@Ghitulescu, @SamuriHL

Be advised that similar to the post by "hello_hello" regarding Australia, right here in the good ol' USofA, Blockbuster (and surely other B&M shops) DO, in fact, SELL "previously viewed" (used) lower quality rental discs...

Sure, if you can find one. Where I live they're all closed and gone. Yea, you can buy a rental disc. That also was NOT the point. The point is this....studios are sick of people illegally doing a "rent rip return" process that I think most people can agree upon is NOT backing up your legally purchased material. So they're trying to create less incentive for people to do that vs buying the title by making rental discs less attractive in the first place. And streaming offers them far more protection for their content than Cinavia on a physical disc. That was my point. Also there's an economic incentive for the studios to push people to streaming rentals vs renting discs. For disc rentals, the movie studios have to manufacture the discs. Then they are sold to a rental company. That's the extent of the movie studio's profit afaik...that initial sale. Whereas streaming, they make WAY more money as they get licensing deals from the rental companies, the rental companies pay for the streaming infrastructure and bandwidth, and as such there's no cost for media. The rental company is also responsible for content protection, so, the studios make out there, as well. You can see why they'd want to make rental discs less attractive when compared to convenient streaming that's instantaneous and cost effective.

Besides, who in their right mind would want to buy a stripped down, used rental disc unless you could get it *REALLY* cheap and didn't care about any extras or better quality? I'd personally rather wait for the retail version to go on sale so I can get all the extras and a brand new disc that hasn't been manhandled by god knows how many people. But that's just me. :)

setarip_old

8th January 2013, 02:50

To summarize:

While the studios and their cohorts claim that copying discs is illegal (No matter what the reason for copying, claiming copyright infringement), they and those who self-righteously lobby the US Congress and similar bodies throughout the world see nothing unethical (and possibly illegal) about their methods of peddling lower quality products for rental, without making it clear that such products are inferior to the sellthrough versions - and then have the audacity to advertise during playback, "If you like this (stripped down, inferior, incomplete) rental version for which you just spent a few dollars, perhaps you'd like to spend still more money to see what the real/legitimate version looks and sounds like - and what the missing extras are all about"...

SamuriHL

8th January 2013, 02:56

Awesome ain't it? :) But yea, that's pretty much it. And I do think streaming services are going to catch fire this year. They've already started to, but, ultraviolet is releasing their download/play anywhere format this year. That will make the convenience too high for most people to resist. I don't think Cinavia will play a role in any of the online streaming services. I don't think they'll need it. But, they always could add it if they so chose. Disc rental services are a dying breed, and with this "rental only" stripped down stuff they're doing, they're only hastening the demise. Want good quality? Buy it. Otherwise you're better off just streaming it anyway. Just great.

Chetwood

8th January 2013, 07:09

Speaking of morals, the studios also are not above releasing DVDs with far lower bitrates than in previous years just to push people to Bluray. All those years I had to use DVD Shrink to make backups to blank discs, cause they wouldn't fit. DVDs over the last 2 years or so always fit right out of the box to a DVD5.

Guest

8th January 2013, 14:48

Please take this off-topic discussion to a new thread. Thank you.

maksa

14th January 2013, 19:31

Since this thread became so large that it is inpractical, should we open new one for just a technical aspects. I know something about water marking of analog signals, works similar to pulse compression of the radar signals where you mark your transmitter pulse so when you receive echo, it is positively yours. This used to greately improve radar range and jamming robustness. It was a long tiem ago (1985), but still valid.
I have alse read a lot of analog signal watermarking and it will be tough cookie to chew.
I was thinking of some kind of autocorrelation functions that would extract Pseudo Random Sequence from highly correlated audio signal, but that is just a first step.
Neuron, maybe we open new thread that is strictly of thecnical nature, we know different schemes of audio watermarking are out there, Cinavia being just one (somehow made its way to Holliweood).
Regards,
MaksA

setarip_old

14th January 2013, 20:17

@maksa

Hi!

If you read the initial posts and many subsequent posts to this thread, you'll find that THIS thread was established for just the purpose you've mentioned.

While the posts to this thread do sometimes stray from the original purpose, moderators such as "neuron2" are around to periodically steer the thread back to its intended purpose ;>}

Ghitulescu

14th January 2013, 20:59

Now, about cinavia. Back on topic. Cinavia is one of the many trials the entertainment industry (the studios) excercised in order to stop the copying of the works. It started very long time ago, when they lost against Sony. Since the Betamax trial, the consumer gained the right to timeshifting, which soon was extended (illegally, yes) to home recording, home copying. What I said I believe it represents the truth, it is however difficult to prove to people in a big hurry because the tactic is "to boil the frog". Small steps are added each day, each new technology brings the entertainment industry one step closer to the total copy-interdiction, de jure or de facto. NDA documents foresee such steps, and the vision extends up to 50 years.

I do firmly believe that there is no use in blocking a way while letting other free (as the CD case showed, which led to the quick dead of home CD-recorders), and since the HD audio has to pass throught the system (Vista was, like Me before, just a test to see how DRM is received by the Average Joe) and through the hardware chips, these are the best places to hide the cinavia detection, as nobody can get so deep into. The monolith concept is if I am not mistaken some 25 years old. Trusted computing platform only a few years younger. Remember the Macrovision case - everyone was happy that capture cards were immune to it, as not being part of the deal JVC closed with the studios (the HQ "improvement") - All-in-one (AIW) showed them that they are wong, only the very first version is capable of capturing macrovisioned videos.

And yes, sometimes there are schemes that fail, like the CBS CopyCode (an earlier version of cinavia). But this doesn't stop them.

FInally, there are probably 20000 people in the whole world that know what cinavia is, most of them members of various fora like this one. Comparing with the world population they are nobody. It's even less than the accepted piracy quota of 10%. Some think it is safe to mention cinavia. But I never saw any information about what cinavia does, so that the Average Joe may have second thoughts about upgrading the FW to a cinavied one. All my BDs (and I have I think more than 200) have a flyer thast half-scaring half-ordering suggest the user that he MUST upgrade the FW (I believe I put once a photo of one of these, in German but the meaning was clear). I never updated and I was able to see also 2012 productions.

maksa

14th January 2013, 21:17

and it is bourdensome, lot's of pieces here and there. That is why I've suggested new one. Lets try to solve the probem in five step solution:

Identify
Analyze
Formulate possible slutions
Evaluate solutions
Choose optimal one

We've done good work in indentifying the problem. Analysis is something else.
There is 4 different possible watermariking approaches with so many sub-variants that the analysis is of highest priority.

I'll just try to make it simple: We are working with analog signal modification.
Due to the nature of such signal, sucessful 100% de-watermarking is theoretically impossible due to the indefinite numebr of states - like diluting pigment in a bucket of water and trying to removie it atom by atom (putting toothpaste back in tube is a trivial comapred to this).
Unlike decrypting, where we have whole information of the signal, just scrambled, here we have signal and PLUS that we have no idea about. Descrambling, even by brute force is by order of magnitude easier, since we know what to expect for output. Here, we have expected output and a little soemthing.

So we NEED knowledge of the audio signal spectrum and cepstrum (FFT of log(spectrum)). That we have. Second knowledge is about the nature of the watermark (time domain, frequency domain, wavelet domain or sample manipulation). That we don't have as of now, at least not for Cinavia, although we susspect that it is PSR sequence in TD at 8kHz and harmonics with some kind of phase modulation (Iwouldn't be surprised if it is hybrid of many different things).

So even if we know it, we have to detect watermark, extract it and subtract it from watermarked signal to get clean original. That is not an easy task, to say the least. Statistical methods must be used to isloate watermark by destroying and removing audio.

Second venue would be to circumvent the technology, but from engineering stand of point, that is not a solution - something that DVDFab did.

Third venue is to add signal that would disable some of the watermark detection circuits (sync or decision makeing circuit). Most of the schemes out there are robust to such attacks unless you distort audio that it is beyond recognition.

Is there any other suggested methods? Please chip in...

Just for starters.
Cheers,
Maksa

Ghitulescu

15th January 2013, 14:38

I'll just try to make it simple: We are working with analog signal modification.
Due to the nature of such signal, sucessful 100% de-watermarking is theoretically impossible due to the indefinite numebr of states - like diluting pigment in a bucket of water and trying to removie it atom by atom (putting toothpaste back in tube is a trivial comapred to this).
Unlike decrypting, where we have whole information of the signal, just scrambled, here we have signal and PLUS that we have no idea about. Descrambling, even by brute force is by order of magnitude easier, since we know what to expect for output. Here, we have expected output and a little soemthing.

So we NEED knowledge of the audio signal spectrum and cepstrum (FFT of log(spectrum)). That we have. Second knowledge is about the nature of the watermark (time domain, frequency domain, wavelet domain or sample manipulation). That we don't have as of now, at least not for Cinavia, although we susspect that it is PSR sequence in TD at 8kHz and harmonics with some kind of phase modulation (Iwouldn't be surprised if it is hybrid of many different things).
We know, we don't need to guess.
I know it is hard to read more than 1700 posts, but the information how cinavia works is there, I put it myself.
So even if we know it, we have to detect watermark, extract it and subtract it from watermarked signal to get clean original. That is not an easy task, to say the least. Statistical methods must be used to isolate watermark by destroying and removing audio.
That was also said.
Second venue would be to circumvent the technology, but from engineering stand of point, that is not a solution - something that DVDFab did.

Third venue is to add signal that would disable some of the watermark detection circuits (sync or decision making circuit). Most of the schemes out there are robust to such attacks unless you distort audio that it is beyond recognition.
Another solution has been also said - boycotting the cinavied products. That is the most efficient tool, yet the most unsuitable as it is very hard to organize it. Last year I was happy that only stupid movies have been identified with cinavia, hoping that this will lead to a consumer stop, yet it seems that exactly these had the most impressive boxoffice revenues. Case lost forever.

rotty

15th January 2013, 14:43

I edited my previous post and deleted the first line(s) by mistake.

Ignore my previous post, it should have read:

I think that most susccesful defeats of protections have come from insider information.

I suspect that if Cinavia is defeated, it will be most likely via this method.

Even then, we are still left with having to re encode the audio.

As far as I know, Player compatable domestic options are either LPCM for quality but large file or AC3 (not so good).

hello_hello

15th January 2013, 15:20

Now, about cinavia. Back on topic. Cinavia is one of the many trials the entertainment industry (the studios) excercised in order to stop the copying of the works. It started very long time ago, when they lost against Sony. Since the Betamax trial, the consumer gained the right to timeshifting, which soon was extended (illegally, yes) to home recording, home copying. What I said I believe it represents the truth, it is however difficult to prove to people in a big hurry because the tactic is "to boil the frog". Small steps are added each day, each new technology brings the entertainment industry one step closer to the total copy-interdiction, de jure or de facto. NDA documents foresee such steps, and the vision extends up to 50 years.

It's not about proving something to people in a big hurry but about having any proof to support your claims at all.
How would Cinavia stop a PC from ripping a disc even if ultimately it stopped you from using the PC to play it?
And the question as to why the PC industry would agree to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to a third party company for the privilege of including protection for someone else's content still remains unanswered. Is there a consortium of PC manufacturers pushing for the inclusion of Cinavia in PCs similar to the consortium controlling the AACS Licensing Administrator?
And why just the PC? Has the world seen the light and it's now the most popular player used to view video in the home, making it reasonable to ignore the countless other types of media players in use?

As a general rule I don't see DRM being added to a device unless doing so benefits the manufacturer of the device or there's a law mandating it, and given the laws in other countries tend to differ from those in the US in regard to copyright and fair use (I'd still like to know which countries have a law forbidding individuals from purchasing rental DVDs), that poses another obstacle.
CopyCode failed mainly because it was rubbish, but ultimately because attempts to make it compulsory via the Digital Audio Recorder Copycode Act of 1987 failed.

Trusted Computing Platform? Why mention it? Is there an example of it currently effecting the average PC user in a negative way? Part of the TCG specifications say it has to be shipped disabled and deliberately activated by the user. How does it relate to Cinavia at all?

Guest

15th January 2013, 15:35

I think that most susccesful defeats of protections have come from insider information. What examples can you cite to support this belief?

maksa

15th January 2013, 15:49

if it is been said. I see now and I've read all Ghitulescu's posts.
I just wanted to summarize all we know in a new post, strictly technical, no social engineering, economics etc. This monster post lost it's focus and is extremely hard to follow.

What is the confidence level of how Cinavia works?
How do we extract the PN key?

I know that my standalone BD wasn't detecting it before latest upgrade. It tells us that hardware (if required) was alredy there but no code to detect it, or there is no special hardware, just Dolby decoder and a piece of software + key.
Since we have to upgrade to watch latest rleases (how AACS works), I see no way to NOT have Cinavia enabled. Maybe ripping master BD before we even see it and watching backups all the time.

Rgerads,
Maksa

SamuriHL

15th January 2013, 16:10

My solution, WHICH MAY NOT WORK FOR EVERYONE, is to rip to MKV and play with a non-licensed player. Only licensed players that have been certified after Feb 2012 are required to have Cinavia detection. (Notice the terminology I'm using: licensed vs commercial....the software I use is commercially sold but is not licensed by the AACS LA) The solution I use can also play movie only from the discs themselves. This is great for rental discs that I simply want to play. Since I have AnyDVD active at all times, a rental disc that contains Cinavia will be seen as invalid in my case. Therefore I've been moving more and more to non-licensed players. Again, that may not be a viable solution for all, but, it is one solution to avoiding the Cinavia menace.

rotty

15th January 2013, 18:22

What examples can you cite to support this belief?

Videocrypt (Sky analogue encryption system)
CSS algorithm leak

I design communications equipment and there are many examples there as well.

Some systems would in fact be almost impossible (if not impossible) to crack without inside knowledge

maksa

15th January 2013, 18:40

is maybe required, but also software players have to deliver the key to the decision making circuit. Maybe that could be intercepted and read as in case of BD AACS?

rotty

15th January 2013, 18:53

is maybe required, but also software players have to deliver the key to the decision making circuit. Maybe that could be intercepted and read as in case of BD AACS?

Yes, this is true, but no keys in Cinavia, it just has to be detected.

Im NOT saying that it cannot be cracked without inside information, but I wouldnt mind betting that that is how it will be broken.

Like Samuri says, the best way round it is to leave it there and dont worry about it, if the playback system you are using dosent care if the watermark is there then who cares.
Well the audiophiles will.

Who knows, the very foundation that it stands on, i.e. knowing that the media is NON ROM may even be able to be fooled. I dont know, but I suppose in theory, a non physical image with encryption in place may be able to have apperant tracks with key info.

The software that you would use to "Mount" the image (the virtual drive) would have to be written to support this of course in order to fool the player.

HWK

15th January 2013, 19:37

rotty

15th January 2013, 19:58

I doubt it only relies on Rom Mark, there must be more to it. But Rom Mark would be definitely strong candidate. However you do raise good point fengtao try to make BDMV-REC and that didn't work too long. So it is more than encryption for sure.

Possibly Encryption, ROM mark and physical properties of disk.

Players identify that the disk is a ROM just by the fact that the encryption is in place.

However, you cannot make an encrypted disk because the info needed to decrypt it cannot be stored on a
BD-R or a DVD-R (no physical area)

You can make an encrypted image but you must have anydvd running in order to play it, and then your back to square one, the player still sees it as un-encrypted and therefore not trusted.

The only way to fool the player is to produce an encrypted image and also the info needed (the keys) to decrypt, in virtual tracks in the image, that would only exist normally in a
ROM and cannot exist in a -R.

The software needed to produce this image is not available (at the moment).

You also need special virtual drive software again, specifically written for this and does not exist (at the moment) in order to mount this produced image.

However, if these two pieces of software were written, it should be possible to make an image, straight from a disk, and then mount the image and it would look exactly like a physical disk with all the encryption and key info.

This has nothing to do with ROM mark. If the player also needed that then that would be easy to produce.

setarip_old

15th January 2013, 20:12

SamuriHL

15th January 2013, 20:16

The only issue with that one is that I believe DTS-HD MA support was optional on HD DVD players so that's one potential "gotchya" to that otherwise sound plan.

rotty

15th January 2013, 20:31

Similar to SamuriHL's concept of avoiding Cinavia-enabled hardware, although it may sound like a joke to some, using (freeware) multiAVCHD to convert backups to HD-DVD (and playback on carefully preserved HD-DVD standalone players) would be a viable alternative for those who are truly simply desirous of making backups only for safety's sake...

Would there be any advantage compared to using a PC with a non enabled Cinavia s/w player.

Compatability for menus and sound options etc would be better on the PC I would have thought.

maksa

15th January 2013, 20:57

Yes, this is true, but no keys in Cinavia, it just has to be detected.

I am not so sure about that, pseudo-random sequence appears as the random process unles you have a key, so it could be interpreted as noise. Using stohastic analysis, distribution for PRS is almost the same as Gauss Normal distribution of audio signal, but just a little different. Blind Detectors of watermarks work like this, using statsitical alghoritms to determine what is watermark and what is signal. Then they apply the key and pull the data from PNS.

rotty

15th January 2013, 21:04

I am not so sure about that, pseudo-random sequence appears as the random process unles you have a key, so it could be interpreted as noise. Using stohastic analysis, distribution for PRS is almost the same as Gauss Normal distribution of audio signal, but just a little different. Blind Detectors of watermarks work like this, using statsitical alghoritms to determine what is watermark and what is signal. Then they apply the key and pull the data from PNS.

re keys, you may well be right.

Probably, still best to get round it than trying to remove it. The available patterns for the marking are of course infinate, looking for them could be futile as they could change on a disk release by release basis.

Also, the removal may not be seemless and what about the re encoding.

HWK

15th January 2013, 22:01

Players identify that the disk is a ROM just by the fact that the encryption is in place.

However, you cannot make an encrypted disk because the info needed to decrypt it cannot be stored on a
BD-R or a DVD-R (no physical area)

Not true, while you can't create exactly in same manner as commercial stamper do. However you certainly can create BDMV-REC which still has AACS on it.

You can make an encrypted image but you must have anydvd running in order to play it, and then your back to square one, the player still sees it as un-encrypted and therefore not trusted.

The only way to fool the player is to produce an encrypted image and also the info needed (the keys) to decrypt, in virtual tracks in the image, that would only exist normally in a
ROM and cannot exist in a -R.

The software needed to produce this image is not available (at the moment).

You also need special virtual drive software again, specifically written for this and does not exist (at the moment) in order to mount this produced image.

However, if these two pieces of software were written, it should be possible to make an image, straight from a disk, and then mount the image and it would look exactly like a physical disk with all the encryption and key info.

This has nothing to do with ROM mark. If the player also needed that then that would be easy to produce.

SamuriHL

15th January 2013, 22:03

Not true, while you can't create exactly in same manner as commercial stamper do. However you certainly can create BDMV-REC which still has AACS on it.

Which is not the same as a BD-ROM. They killed the BD-REC work around by looking at the media type.

rotty

15th January 2013, 22:12

Not true, while you can't create exactly in same manner as commercial stamper do. However you certainly can create BDMV-REC which still has AACS on it.

Yes you can, BUT it does NOT look like a BD ROM to the player, and it can only play because, at the discretion of the player, the rules at that time BDMV-REC was deemed "trusted source".

I’m not too sure if that has now changed and BDMV-REC is no longer "Trusted source "

I’m sure I remember seeing that that loophole was plugged. I’m sure someone can put us right on that.

If it is still considered "Trusted source" then that can change at a whim, and anybody that has spent good money on producing BD-R's like this could be in for a big shock in the future.

SamuriHL

15th January 2013, 22:14

rotty

15th January 2013, 22:18

There is NO bd-rec content that should have the Cinavia signal from a *commercial blu-ray*. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of a trusted source and the detection algorithm was changed to reflect that.

Thanks Samuri, I thought that I remebered that it was no longer a viable way to circumvent the watermark.

I seem to remeber that at the time, even when it was working we all thought that is was foolish to rely on that as an answer.

SamuriHL

15th January 2013, 22:33

Well, some insisted the loophole could never be closed, but, as many of us thought, it could and was. As I said, Cinavia message 3 signals belong on BD ROM commercial discs only.

Chetwood

16th January 2013, 07:51

Like Samuri says, the best way round it is to leave it there and dont worry about it, if the playback system you are using dosent care if the watermark is there then who cares.
IF. Maybe it will later and you're screwed and it would have been better to boycott any Cinavia-infected content all along.

As a general rule I don't see DRM being added to a device unless doing so benefits the manufacturer of the device or there's a law mandating it
Or the content owner mandates it which is why Netflix uses Silverlight for example. I think you're being overly optimistic when it comes to ways for the content owners to force their terms on hardware manufacturers.

rotty

16th January 2013, 10:41

IF. Maybe it will later and you're screwed and it would have been better to boycott any Cinavia-infected content all along.

Well your right, I did say a while back, we get what we deserve.

If we buy this crap then we cant moan or winge.
I was shouted down by most who said it wasnt possible to boycott it.

Out of the 2 possible answers, yes or no, re "will the PC be affected by all this in the future", I sure dont know, but I would have thought yes is the more likely answer unfortunatley.

SeeMoreDigital

16th January 2013, 15:52

IF. Maybe it will later and you're screwed and it would have been better to boycott any Cinavia-infected content all along.
I agree... Sony's use of Cinavia offers us all an excellent reason why none should buy any hardware or software products manufactured by Sony or their affiliates.

Thankfully all Blu-ray and DVD titles sold within the EU that contain Cinavia have to include the Cinavia logo: -

http://i48.tinypic.com/2itlnrt.jpg

EDIT: Sufficed to say, if Cinavia (or a version of it) starts turning up on Sony (or their affiliates) audio CD's, I will be very annoyed...

Cheers

Ghitulescu

16th January 2013, 18:08

It's not about proving something to people in a big hurry but about having any proof to support your claims at all.
The biggest problem I see in that the large public is not informed. They don't see the danger until it's too late. And when it's too late then it's too late to do anything.
Who's gonna give a damn on protections for games when CloneCd was around?, laughed the "self-called hackers". The wave of cries and lamentations in the ripping games arena surpassed the Japans' tsunami, when CloneCd was forced to disappear then to reappear months later under a different name and owner in some fiscal paradise.
Who's gonna give a damn on CD-audio protections? EAC was forced to remove one beloved feature, and people had to resort to Alcohol. The situation went back to normal, because Philips threatened the studios that they will lose their licence should they continue to sell "damaged" CDs. I don't think I've seen a protected CD since 2004.
Who's gonna give a damn on DVD protections?, laughed other "self-called hackers". Let's see them how big hackers are, if both AnyDVD and DVDfab will be forced to disappear. FixVTS has been sued by Sony and disappeared. So what said the same "hackers". Let's download it from the net. What happens if those sites are shut down (as that of DVDshrink)? Let's find it somewhere else. What if the net is filtered? How about the IP reform? There have been plenty of "normal" addresses, in particular when millions of them are stupidly wasted on private numbers. What happens when the "black guys" knock on your door and finds you with a illegal software?
How would Cinavia stop a PC from ripping a disc even if ultimately it stopped you from using the PC to play it?
That says a lot about what your understanding of cinavia. Cinavia doesn't impede the copying, just the playback. Cinavia is perfect legal, and thus it's hard to fight legally against it.

And speaking of hurry, cinavia uses the same idea as the CopyCode. CopyCode failed some 20 years ago. After 20 years, the same thing happens again. And should cinavia fail today it will come another scheme, not tomorrow, but in years.
And the question as to why the PC industry would agree to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to a third party company for the privilege of including protection for someone else's content still remains unanswered.
You missed the point again, but this seems to be your limits. As soon as only 3-10 chipmakers manufacture HD-audio ICs, that are used also in the entertainment devices, the cinavia (or the equivalent scheme) that is included there can also be activated here. At no costs, and even not forcibly. There is no alternative. When Microsoft introduced HAL, they had the perfect roadmap in front of them. When they introduced PC98 they laid out another step. When Intel introduced Trusted Computing, they already had passed a hurdle, the PIII serial number, which was heavily challenged that Intel even provided a way to deactivate it, however all the new CPUs from them had it hardware enabled. Did anyone cried? Not that I remember.
And why just the PC? Has the world seen the light and it's now the most popular player used to view video in the home, making it reasonable to ignore the countless other types of media players in use?
Firstly, because it's the most ubiquitous computing platform.
Secondly, because Jobs did the same on his Apples, just different.
Thirdly, the other mediaplayers will become obsolete the next day after a change in standards (when I bought my popcorn, there have been already millions of mediaplayers sold all over the world, yet only two models at that date could also output HD-audio, most of them could only output Dolby, and even many more have been restricted to SDTV DivX only). See what people do - half of this forum is occupied with recoding from one format into another one, repeating this job each time a new gadget appears - they will tire one day, and that will be their end point.
As a general rule I don't see DRM being added to a device unless doing so benefits the manufacturer of the device or there's a law mandating it,
It would be more costly to them to develop and manufacture themselves the non-cinavied audio chips. See it as an advantage.
and given the laws in other countries tend to differ from those in the US in regard to copyright and fair use (I'd still like to know which countries have a law forbidding individuals from purchasing rental DVDs), that poses another obstacle.
It doesn't forbid that the consumers buy rental copies, just that the use is restricted. One is for personal use, the other one is for making money out of it.
The laws haven't changed lately, yet the legal actions and/or consequences became more evident, things that one could though they have been free to do (falsely of course) are now punishable and the impact more severe. As ACTA showed to those that really understood what was behind, the same laws will become universally valid all over the globe.

See Willis vs Apple and you'll probably understand.
eBay refuses to list used recorded media (CDRs, audio and video cassettes etc). Thrift stores do the same thing. The laws haven't change since the '80ies in this respect. Why now? Smile, tomorrow it will be worse :)

I wrote these not for you, as usual I think you'll still miss the point, but as a written statement of what the future will bring us. So don't be in such a hurry, I am still young, you're probably the same, so let's see what happens in 20 years from now on.

maksa

16th January 2013, 18:45

This forum is about DECRYPTING, not a History Channel. I am not young and don't have 20 years to wait for the World to become bleak image of things before, full of I-crap and DRM. As a matter of fact, even now is much different than when I was younger. All the people smoked in the movies (and in normal life), there were no blurring of the images, logos, faces so that movie companies don't get sued, 3 year old babies could go to the beach naked !!!, children actually palyed outside!!!, people didn't lock the doors and there was no CNN (imagine the freedom).

Saying that, I'd like to see Cinavia defeated, not because of fair use, but because it is there (Sir Edmund Hillary said the same thing when asked why did he climbed Mount Everest). I just don't like being patronized by the State or Big Corporations, like I have no brains, and this is one way of doing it.

I am taking to read all 1700 over posts, collect data on Cinavia and start a new thread that is purely technical. You guys can continue discussing what will be (que sera, sera) but life is too short.
Cheers,
Maksa

SamuriHL

16th January 2013, 18:52

The prevailing theory I've seen on the Cinavia signal suggests that it's a series of small echoes that represent each type of signal (message 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) and that they seem to be able to encode information into that signal. Finding the echos has been a big challenge. Removing them without destroying the audio is the bigger challenge.

hello_hello

16th January 2013, 19:11

Or the content owner mandates it which is why Netflix uses Silverlight for example. I think you're being overly optimistic when it comes to ways for the content owners to force their terms on hardware manufacturers.

They can mandate to their heart's content but if the hardware manufacturer doesn't buy their content it doesn't effect them. Unless PCs started shipping with studio release movies recently and I haven't noticed.
If you have an example of how content owners could force PC manufacturers to include their copy protection in PC hardware while paying for the privilege though I'd be happy to hear it.

hello_hello

16th January 2013, 20:17

The biggest problem I see in that the large public is not informed. They don't see the danger until it's too late. And when it's too late then it's too late to do anything.

Actually the biggest problem is that it doesn't in any way explain how or why PC manufacturers would start including Cinavia in their hardware. It's just scaremongering to support unsubstantiated speculation.

Who's gonna give a damn on protections for games when CloneCd was around?, laughed the "self-called hackers". The wave of cries and lamentations in the ripping games arena surpassed the Japans' tsunami, when CloneCd was forced to disappear then to reappear months later under a different name and owner in some fiscal paradise.
Who's gonna give a damn on CD-audio protections? EAC was forced to remove one beloved feature, and people had to resort to Alcohol. The situation went back to normal, because Philips threatened the studios that they will lose their licence should they continue to sell "damaged" CDs. I don't think I've seen a protected CD since 2004.

Aside from the usual high degree of "nothing to do with the topic", which side are of the debate are you arguing there?

Who's gonna give a damn on DVD protections?, laughed other "self-called hackers".....

Still nothing to do with the topic, so I've no idea what the point is you're tying to avoid making.

That says a lot about what your understanding of cinavia. Cinavia doesn't impede the copying, just the playback. Cinavia is perfect legal, and thus it's hard to fight legally against it.

It says more about your understanding of what you read. That was exactly my point. Your unfounded "Cinavia coming to PC hardware near you" speculation doesn't explain how it'd achieve anything aside from forcing you to use another device for playback after you've ripped the disc with a PC.

And speaking of hurry, cinavia uses the same idea as the CopyCode. CopyCode failed some 20 years ago. After 20 years, the same thing happens again. And should cinavia fail today it will come another scheme, not tomorrow, but in years.

Speaking of repeating something which still has no relevance to the topic....

You missed the point again, but this seems to be your limits. As soon as only 3-10 chipmakers manufacture HD-audio ICs, that are used also in the entertainment devices, the cinavia (or the equivalent scheme) that is included there can also be activated here. At no costs, and even not forcibly. There is no alternative. When Microsoft introduced HAL, they had the perfect roadmap in front of them. When they introduced PC98 they laid out another step. When Intel introduced Trusted Computing, they already had passed a hurdle, the PIII serial number, which was heavily challenged that Intel even provided a way to deactivate it, however all the new CPUs from them had it hardware enabled. Did anyone cried? Not that I remember.

I didn't miss the point. However it appears I did fail to foresee the further unsubstantiated speculation which would follow. The same questions apply. No doubt the same questions will remain ignored. Why would IC manufacturers include Cinavia to protect someone else's content and potentially adversely effect sales while paying for the privilege? Who's going to be the first to do so while everyone buys someone else's chips? Which IC manufacturing consortium is pushing for the compulsory inclusion of Cinavia in chips? The only reason Cinavia is compulsory in Bluray players is because the entertainment industry had a vested interest in it and also effectively controlled the licensing of players. Do you actually think for a second if they didn't, there'd be more than a tiny percentage of players which include Cinavia? How do they make Cinavia compulsory for other manufacturers?
And once again I fail to see how a rant on Trusted Computing and revised roadmaps etc. supports your claim Cinavia will one day be included in PCs? Maybe if you could explain how it does?

Firstly, because it's the most ubiquitous computing platform.
Secondly, because Jobs did the same on his Apples, just different.
Thirdly, the other mediaplayers will become obsolete the next day after a change in standards (when I bought my popcorn, there have been already millions of mediaplayers sold all over the world, yet only two models at that date could also output HD-audio, most of them could only output Dolby, and even many more have been restricted to SDTV DivX only). See what people do - half of this forum is occupied with recoding from one format into another one, repeating this job each time a new gadget appears - they will tire one day, and that will be their end point.

Firstly, "ubiquitous" proves nothing, and secondly whatever Apple did is irrelevant because they can do whatever they like. We're talking about Cinavia in PCs.
Thirdly, the longevity of media players is completely irrelevant to the topic, as is your further speculation regarding how often people re-encode their media. It's got no more to do with the topic than than number of people who re-purchase movies every time they're re-released on the latest and greatest industry standard format.

It would be more costly to them to develop and manufacture themselves the non-cinavied audio chips. See it as an advantage.

Only when based on your premise Cinavia will soon be included in all currently manufactured chips, which I completely reject.

It doesn't forbid that the consumers buy rental copies, just that the use is restricted. One is for personal use, the other one is for making money out of it.
The laws haven't changed lately, yet the legal actions and/or consequences became more evident, things that one could though they have been free to do (falsely of course) are now punishable and the impact more severe. As ACTA showed to those that really understood what was behind, the same laws will become universally valid all over the globe.

Give me an example of where rental companies have an agreement with content providers not to sell the discs. Anywhere. Pick a country.
Offering generalisation regarding laws is meaningless unless you can give me an example of such a law. Pick a country. Anywhere. Where is it illegal for individuals to purchase ex-rental DVDs from rental companies? Instead of answering the question, you're just continuing to make stuff up.

See Willis vs Apple and you'll probably understand.
eBay refuses to list used recorded media (CDRs, audio and video cassettes etc). Thrift stores do the same thing. The laws haven't change since the '80ies in this respect. Why now? Smile, tomorrow it will be worse :)

Not only was the majority of your post a combination of fact avoiding red herrings, now you're not even confining them to reality.
Willis vs Apple is pure fiction. I guess the art of stating unsubstantiated speculation as fact isn't confined to a user or two per internet forum.
And of course eBay let you list used original recorded media. It's pure nonsense to claim otherwise. As do thrift stores.

I wrote these not for you, as usual I think you'll still miss the point, but as a written statement of what the future will bring us. So don't be in such a hurry, I am still young, you're probably the same, so let's see what happens in 20 years from now on.

I didn't miss the point. When it comes to the topic of whether Cinavia will soon be included in PCs, the only "as usual" was your failure to offer any actual facts which support your claim.

Guest

16th January 2013, 21:04

Last warning to stay on topic. Strikes will follow.

This thread is for technical discussion of Cinavia.

rotty

16th January 2013, 21:12

I agree... Sony's use of Cinavia offers us all an excellent reason why none should buy any hardware or software products manufactured by Sony or their affiliates.

Thankfully all Blu-ray and DVD titles sold within the EU that contain Cinavia have to include the Cinavia logo: -

Cheers

Just a quickie, The UK looks like it may well loose HMV stores due to a number of issues including of course on-line competition and on-line streaming.

Now, if I go into a store I can hold the disk and look at the back and see that abomination of a logo for Cinavia.

If I shop on-line, say Amazon, I cant.

I think that inline with EU rules re showing the logo, on-line sellers should be made to also show us this info.
OR
perhaps the logo should be on the front so the image we see on-line shows the logo.

I think we have the right to know if our audio has been deliberately tampered with.

Guest

17th January 2013, 19:10

Let me try to be clearer.

The thread is for discussion of Cinavia, not for discussion of whether you can buy rental DVDs, and other assorted OT topics. It is also not for our usual suspects to have flame wars and pissing contests.

If you post about Cinavia and without ad hominems, there will be no problems. If you post OT discussions or inflammatory ad hominem material, then there will be problems.

Please also note, do not respond here to discuss this moderation policy. I will be happy to discuss it in PM with anybody.

diogen

18th January 2013, 04:38

If this takes off (don't know the challenges) all the fancy Cinavia-type DRM methods will fade away
http://www.digital-digest.com/news-63565-Sonys-RFID-Based-DRM-Could-Be-Used-To-Stop-Second-Hand-Games-Trade.html

Claimed to be for the PS games. Why no use them in BDs? No RFID - no playback.

I don't think hardware hacking is anywhere close even in theory to tackle this...

Diogen.

Ghitulescu

18th January 2013, 11:52

I am taking to read all 1700 over posts, collect data on Cinavia and start a new thread that is purely technical. You guys can continue discussing what will be (que sera, sera) but life is too short.

The short version is to search for their patents (verance) in google (since some time google allows searching in patents), there are only a few dozen. Relevant were at the time of the old postings only some 7 of them.

However, cinavia is about recognition, not about preventing the copying. That means the device needs not to be too complex (like eg decoding blurays), but safe enough to recognize 100% the positive and to reject the false positive alarms (not that the studios would care about).

Removing the cinavia from the audio (that a cinavied device would not trigger the detection) is two-folded - first one has to identify exactly what was added (there are several algorithms, and cinavia allows combinations of them), the second step is to remove it. To use a video comparison to audio, removing cinavia would be like a delogo: the result can be any from a black rectangle to unseen marks.

PS: just for clarification, the patents do not enforce a solution into practice. They lay the generic algorithms, which are then used by the design team to find the best working conditions, which may differ from what was initially written there.

diogen

19th January 2013, 18:20

I was shouted down by most who said it wasnt possible to boycott it.Do you believe it is?
Do you think a boycott campaign has a chance to make a difference in this particular case?

This isn't SOPA/PIPA in legislative stages.
This is a technical measure implemented and used for years (on a low scale).
Every studio's decision to implement it (or not) with a certain title can be driven by many factors.
But NOT by your threat of boycott!
Out of the 2 possible answers, yes or no, re "will the PC be affected by all this in the future", I sure dont know, but I would have thought yes is the more likely answer unfortunatley.What is the PC of the future?
Today even Raspberry Pi can play (some) BD rips.
Do you believe a time will come when Intel, AMD, ARM and its army of licensees,
VIA, Realtek, Sigma Designs, etc. will all decide to support Cinavia in hardware?

I will sooner believe you will succeed in your call for boycott and will make a difference...:sly:

I see the Cinavia tackling activity as sport. Very interesting.
And just like solving the Fermat Theorem, zero effect on real life...

Diogen.

rotty

19th January 2013, 23:14

Do you believe it is?
Do you think a boycott campaign has a chance to make a difference in this particular case?

This isn't SOPA/PIPA in legislative stages.
This is a technical measure implemented and used for years (on a low scale).
Every studio's decision to implement it (or not) with a certain title can be driven by many factors.
But NOT by your threat of boycott!
What is the PC of the future?
Today even Raspberry Pi can play (some) BD rips.
Do you believe a time will come when Intel, AMD, ARM and its army of licensees,
VIA, Realtek, Sigma Designs, etc. will all decide to support Cinavia in hardware?

I will sooner believe you will succeed in your call for boycott and will make a difference...:sly:

I see the Cinavia tackling activity as sport. Very interesting.
And just like solving the Fermat Theorem, zero effect on real life...

Diogen.

The PC, again I agree, what will the PC of the future be, who knows.
Smart TV's are basically a PC in your TV.
More and more devices like this, Im sure that these will become more and more powerfull.
The PC as a seperate item may not exist/may not be needed.
I cannot look into the future any more than anyone else.

When I said "will the PC be affected by all this in the future", I wasnt taking of Cinavia a such, any control of what we can and cant playback I meant.
Simply if I had to pick out of YES or NO re us being controlled in what and how we can playback media, then I would go more on the side of YES.
Its just an opinion, just like your opinion is the opposite.

As for boycott, thats purley a personal choice, if you want to NOT buy watermarked media then do that. Bit late for all that now even if it could work.

milkybar1983

22nd January 2013, 12:34

I know its been mentioned before but I think a good lead would be to reverse engineer the PS3 files that detect it. There is already a disabler for custom firmwares:

http://rebug.me/disable-cinavia-installer-3-41-3-55/

Disable Cinavia Installer for 3.41 and 3.55 CFW/MFW will permanently install the necessary ‘Cinavia Free’ video modules (excluding AVCHD/Blu-ray) to your PS3.

This has been a feature of the REBUG firmware from the start but since there seems to be a lot of interest by users of other CFW/MFW we thought we would make an easy installer for everyone.

USAGE:

Install Disable_Cinavia_3xx.pkg

Run Disable Cinavia Installer (3.xx) from [Game] menu in XMB

PS3 will reboot

Enjoy

~ Codename: REBUG

setarip_old

22nd January 2013, 23:00

@milkybar1983

Hi! excluding AVCHD/Blu-rayI'd say that's a pretty BIG exclusion!

milkybar1983

22nd January 2013, 23:10

@milkybar1983

Hi! I'd say that's a pretty BIG exclusion!

yes true but they have still managed to patch the detection on MKVs which is a start

SamuriHL

22nd January 2013, 23:38

But you can't extract any generic Cinavia lessons here. They simply patched it so it doesn't call the Cinavia detection routines. That doesn't mean anything other than they attacked one player. And only to bypass the detection.

Ghitulescu

23rd January 2013, 09:06

Disable Cinavia Installer for 3.41 and 3.55 CFW/MFW will permanently install the necessary ‘Cinavia Free’ video modules (excluding AVCHD/Blu-ray) to your PS3.Hi! I'd say that's a pretty BIG exclusion
yes true but they have still managed to patch the detection on MKVs which is a start
But you can't extract any generic Cinavia lessons here. They simply patched it so it doesn't call the Cinavia detection routines. That doesn't mean anything other than they attacked one player. And only to bypass the detection.
It is a step that shows that on generic CPUs, like Sony's Cell proc, cinavia can be disabled, because it is done in software (PS3 is a game console not a BDplayer). Probably they would manage eventually to bypass the routines also for AVCHD/BD, although I think that they did not do this because disabling cinavia on products where cinavia is mandatory might result in civil and/or criminal trials.

It doesn't solve the issue other players have, that are based on HW chips like Sigma Design or Realtek. And these start to be a majority on the market and at homes. PS3 was a hit because for an amount of money inferior to any BDplayer on the market at that date, a family father could buy a BDplayer (for him) and a game console (for the kids, and/or him, too :)). But it also causes conflicts of interest, and today, when the players are priced way below a PS3, it simply doesn't pay to buy a PS3 for BDs anymore.

xenex

24th January 2013, 09:49

milkybar1983

24th January 2013, 12:00

dvdfab media player already plays them with menus and does not have cinavia detection

rotty

24th January 2013, 12:07

It doesn't matter if Cinavia 'detection' is implemented using software, or a dedicated chip.

Cinavia 'activation' is ALWAYS implemented in software. In the case of the PC, it is player software that is downloaded and installed, such as the newer PowerDVD, TMT, and etc. In the case of the PS3 or standalone BDplayers, it is via firmware update - which is, of course, still software. The only practical difference is that on a PS3 or standalone, that software is "flashed" or saved on a chip and difficult to get to or modify. On a PC, the software is stored on the hard drive, so modification could (in theory) be much easier.

That's not to say it would be easy to disable it in either case. With asymmetric key cryptography (used correctly) both cases would be very difficult to reverse engineer or modify. But neither is impossible.

I really agree with SamuriHL on this, and I use only non-licensed players like VLC and such. But I completely expect to see the PC software based players to have "cinavia-disable" patches soon. And I would not be terribly surprised to see "cinavia-disable" firmware updates for standalone players further in the future.

I don't really see SlySoft or anyone else extracting the audio, removing the watermark, and re-encoding it. To me, that does not seem practical. But hey, it is my opinion and my guess. I think patching the players may happen.

Anything that can be "added" by a new software version or a new firmware can be removed as well. Not saying it would be easy, but certainly possible.

I hope your right re firmware that disables Cinavia option and patches for S/W players, that would be good news.

Also, re removal, I agree totally with you.

The only fly in the ointment for stand alone players I could see is that the players that are out at the moment were probably manufactured/designed well before the Cinavia switch on time and therefore Cinavia enablement was via software.
It was in their interest to have it disabled as long as possible because people were clambering for the players that were in this mode.
At a later date, the Manufacturers could comply with the license simply with a firmware update.

Could it be that the next batch of stand alone players will have it hard wired "ON", after all there is no reason to have it switchable (in their eyes) and why have the vulnerability of s/w when you don’t need it.

Ghitulescu

24th January 2013, 14:47

nevragain

25th January 2013, 03:24

I don't think that it would be a simple signal from a detector chip to the main processor. It would be too vulnerable to probing.

Ghitulescu

25th January 2013, 10:37

I don't think that it would be a simple signal from a detector chip to the main processor. It would be too vulnerable to probing.
Not to the main processor, as eg the SMP series from Sigma are all-in-one chips, just to let eg a video overlay with a OEM message (eg country specific), instead of the built-in, the sound will be muted anyway by the detector, since the signal passes anyway through it, what are 2 more transistors compared to the millions they already have?

It looks only as a theory today, but only the time will tell the truth ... patience :)

rik1138

1st February 2013, 22:27

It is a step that shows that on generic CPUs, like Sony's Cell proc, cinavia can be disabled, because it is done in software (PS3 is a game console not a BDplayer). Probably they would manage eventually to bypass the routines also for AVCHD/BD, although I think that they did not do this because disabling cinavia on products where cinavia is mandatory might result in civil and/or criminal trials.

Nobody hacked or defeated Cinavia on the PS3. On PS3 debug units (special units with special firmware) Cinavia is not enabled. They used the Video playback routines from the Debug firmware and hacked them into the official firmwares (or, better description- 'Custom firmwares') and that effectively defeated Cinavia.

Gaming Debug consoles don't have the code to playback Blu-ray movies at all, so they've never been able to defeat Cinavia on Blu-ray. Sony has different 'debug' consoles that are used solely for Blu-ray Video production (these consoles can't play games at all, only movies), and on these consoles Cinavia is also disabled, even on the latest firmwares. That's what they need to get ahold of to defeat Cinavia on Blu-ray. The only other catch is that these Video-only debug consoles also can't decrypt AACS encrypted discs (i.e., they can't play retail manufactured discs). So if you used one to hack a firmware, you disable Cinavia, but then you can no longer play real discs...

But it definitely proves it's possible to shut it off in a PS3, I just don't think anyone cares enough to look into it (hacking the PS3 seems to be all about pirating games, not movies...)

minaust

20th February 2013, 19:50

But it definitely proves it's possible to shut it off in a PS3, I just don't think anyone cares enough to look into it (hacking the PS3 seems to be all about pirating games, not movies...)

That's the heart of the problem. Most people aren't affected at all by Cinavia. Why should they care?

setarip_old

20th February 2013, 20:14

Most people aren't affected at all by Cinavia.Except for those people who still purchase millions of DVDs and Blu-ray discs and desire to make backup copies for themselves ! - And also those who, like unwitting sheep, obediently either update or replace their standalones to the most current (Cinavia-infected) versions...

setarip_old

2nd March 2013, 18:58

I just noticed that it's been almost three years since I started this thread about "Cinavia".

It's apparent that the early optimism of the Community (including me) was overly exuberant.

Perhaps some folks are still quietly working on it.

One can only hope...

(For the time being, I'd suggest that for those of us who still choose to view and OWN our videos on discs, keep your earlier model Blu-ray standalone players (and DVD players) in good working order)

SeeMoreDigital

2nd March 2013, 19:08

I just noticed that it's been almost three years since I started this thread about "Cinavia".

It's apparent that the early optimism of the Community (including me) was overly exuberant.

Perhaps some folks are still quietly working on it.

One can only hope...
Fortunately for us all, in the three years you started this topic, Cinavia has not infected every Blu-ray or DVD disc release ;)

SamuriHL

2nd March 2013, 19:36

I guess you haven't kept up with SlySoft then. :) An upcoming version of AnyDVD HD will disable Cinavia detection in TMT5, TMT6, and PDVD12. PLEASE NOTE!!! This is NOT a Cinavia "defeat". It only works for those specific players and does *NOT* remove Cinavia. I don't know the magic behind it and it's not yet out. But it's coming very soon and will work on both original discs and backups. But ONLY for those specific software players. It is still their stated goal to remove Cinavia with a more permanent solution going forward. However, since that will be in their Slyce product and that's been further delayed, no one knows when it'll be upgraded to perform Cinavia removal. So there's hope. Just not the grand hope that it'd be whacked in a few months like people originally may have thought.

setarip_old

2nd March 2013, 19:37

@SeeMoreDigital

Hi! Fortunately for us all, in the three years you started this topic, Cinavia has not infected every Blu-ray or DVD disc release Yes, but there's presently nothing to prevent that from happening. The application of Verance/"Cinavia" to discs is done entirely at the whim of the studios and their related organizations...

setarip_old

2nd March 2013, 19:55

@SamuriHL

While it's great to hear that someone (SlySoft) is still working on trying to overcome Verance/"Cinavia", it sounds like it'll be somewhere far down the road, if at all, that a cure for this is available for all the millions of standalone players...

SamuriHL

2nd March 2013, 21:37

DrinkLyeAndDie

2nd March 2013, 23:05

Yup. So my advice is if you want to play backups, don't buy one. It seems silly to me that people complain that there's no solution to remove Cinavia where there are solutions to avoid it altogether. :)

Many people get twisted enjoyment out of complaining about something they claim really annoys them. The logic in that one always eludes me.

Slysoft's workaround for licensed software players will be beneficial to many but the war is far from over. :)

setarip_old

3rd March 2013, 18:47

@SamuriHL

You say: Yup. So my advice is if you want to play backups, don't buy one. It seems silly to me that people complain that there's no solution to remove Cinavia where there are solutions to avoid it altogether.
Perhaps it's a generation thing, but there are many people out there (myself included) who believe that they should be able to purchase and own a tangible product (a disc) and, as the owner, do what we please with it, including READILY making a properly performing backup copy without having to overcome things such as Verance/"Cinavia" interference/protection...

SamuriHL

3rd March 2013, 19:01

I think you missed the point. You know that the players being sold now contain Cinavia detection. You know that many titles contain Cinavia (as the label on the back of each title shows). And, finally, you know that there is *NO* working solution for Cinavia. So if you're expectation is to backup your purchased titles, then given what you know, you should be avoiding the purchase of any Cinavia title AND/OR stand alone licensed players. To buy both and then complain that you can't play your backups is illogical. That was the point. Otherwise, if you choose to buy both, then you understand that you CAN NOT play backups on them currently are will remain waiting for the elusive removal that doesn't seem forthcoming ANY time soon. Someday? Yea.

setarip_old

4th March 2013, 00:47

@SamuriHL

As I've stated several times before, I and many others are carefully husbanding our pre-Cinavia standalone players (Blu-ray, DVD, and even HD-DVD players for those of us who are creative at converting Blu-rays to HD-DVD movies-only using payware - or freeware multiAVCHD)

SamuriHL

4th March 2013, 00:48

And that's about all you can do. We can't WISH a Cinavia removal solution into being.

setarip_old

4th March 2013, 01:52

We can't WISH a Cinavia removal solution into being.That's been eminently clear since this thread was started - and when you performed your first series of very enlightening tests ;>}

Those tests certainly provided insight as to what we were (and still are) up against

SamuriHL

4th March 2013, 01:54

That's been eminently clear since this thread was started - and when you performed your first series of very enlightening tests ;>}

Sadly, quite true.

[SLiM]D12

6th March 2013, 14:04

Slysoft released the new version and so far users are saying it lets them play both AACS protected and non protected iso's in those software players without cinavia being triggered.

Definately a step in the right direction!!!

Ghitulescu

6th March 2013, 14:11

Unless one badly needs menus and watches movies only on a PC, this is pretty much useless.

Big Vern

6th March 2013, 18:12

Unless one badly needs menus and watches movies only on a PC, this is pretty much useless.

Why is it useless? As Slim said, its a step in the right direction. Maybe you have a better solution?

setarip_old

6th March 2013, 19:15

"[SLiMD]12" says it lets them play both AACS protected and non protected iso's in those software players without cinavia being triggered.
If this is so, it may be just one short step to capturing the videos (in real time) for Verance/Cinavia-free playback on various hardware setups...

milkybar1983

6th March 2013, 19:17

"[SLiMD]12" says
If this is so, it may be just one short step to capturing the videos (in real time) for Verance/Cinavia-free playback on various hardware setups...

nope the watermark will still be transferred to the new capture

SamuriHL

6th March 2013, 19:57

rotty

6th March 2013, 20:41

Correct....this is about disabling the Cinavia triggering mechanism in the player. If I recall, someone once predicted this would be the quickest way to "defeating" cinavia. Of course, they were discussing attacking firmware for hardware players, but, software players are clearly easier. This does not touch the embedded Cinavia signal in any way.

I wonder if this was a "Leak"

Either way, I bet that the Licenced S/W Player makers are well pleased with this.

Their sales of S/W players will pick up again now.

SamuriHL

6th March 2013, 21:10

rotty

6th March 2013, 21:30

I can assure you, it's not a leak. I doubt you're aware of what this means for those software players. Suffice it to say you can be sure someone's getting an @%% chewing right now from the AACS LA. This is not likely to make Cyberlink or ArcSoft very happy at all. No, this was SlySoft all the way exploiting weaknesses in how they "see" Cinavia.

Yes I just wondered.

They may well be getting a grilling but their sales WILL go up.

It should be a "Positive" lesson to the industry on how their short sightedness is so very very self defeating.

SamuriHL

6th March 2013, 22:49

omegaman7

6th March 2013, 23:05

They won't see it that way. They'll take it out on Cyberlink and ArcSoft because their implementation is weak. It'll be a major headache for them as they beef up the security and round and round we go.

LOL! They think they can leash a PC. Because that's worked so well for them so far :rolleyes: I guess I do appreciate where they're coming from. But they are sabotaging good honest people in the process :(

SamuriHL

6th March 2013, 23:37

LOL! They think they can leash a PC. Because that's worked so well for them so far :rolleyes: I guess I do appreciate where they're coming from. But they are sabotaging good honest people in the process :(

It is a hilarious attempt, I agree, but, the people that get screwed are Cyberlink and ArcSoft, and ultimately customers. So, it sucks from that view point.

rotty

7th March 2013, 00:22

Its early days to see exactly how LA will react.

An over reaction will be "cutting off their nose to spite their face".

I reckon that the "Players" will not be in any hurry to "Beef Up" their security.

Make Hay whilst the Sun shines.

Will be interesting.

SamuriHL

7th March 2013, 00:23

They will if fines or the threat of having their license pulled are in play. And from what I understand, both are on the table if they have a breach of security like this.

rotty

7th March 2013, 00:31

They will if fines or the threat of having their license pulled are in play. And from what I understand, both are on the table if they have a breach of security like this.

It is very interesting alright.

Like you say, it is a shame.

As we have probably all said and thought, if no protection whatsoever was on these disks, the price of a disk to the public would be so so so much cheaper and who the hell would bother pirating.

Just think of the amount we would buy at that, Blu Ray would have taken off big time.

These are "intelligent" people, well perhaps they just think that they are.
No business savvi (the studios that is)

LA have got savvi alright, parasites.

Guest

7th March 2013, 01:05

Drifting OT again, folks. This is for technical discussion of Cinavia. Ot posts will be deleted without further comment.

Pho3NiX

10th March 2013, 03:40

Hi

I've just found the cinavia protection.
I'm not really affected by it, but I like data processing and would like to help.

my insight: do not try to remove it :)

a) It's made specifically to be tamper resistant of simple audio transformation

b) The noise level required to confuse the protection might remove audio quality if we apply it blindly.

ALTERNATIVE:

Embed your own watermark :)

Aka add noise in the "watermark-domain" rather than in the time-domain. The watermarking algorithm will ensure that whatever noise, it'll have the least perceptible cost (while hopefully making the most damage the previously embedded watermark)

The intro of this paper is nice to explain the available watermarking methods, my bet is on "Spread-Spectrum" as it's also mentioned on wiki page.

https://anonfiles.com/file/edfd7a47d0b1fe9b064c0efd9c663bdc

---------------------

My question is ... is there still a protected sample available to investigate ?

rotty

11th March 2013, 18:43

Ghitulescu

12th March 2013, 09:14

Sorry, just realised that you probably meant, is there an audio sample "on line"
There must be, :), just google for a title known to contain cinavia, and download it on your own risks.
Because all cinavia-containing audio is commercial, and therefore protected by copyright (not that the audio made by an individual is not) and therefore the sample needed to identify the watermark clearly infringes the fair use length and thus falls under this forum's rule 6.

Chetwood

13th March 2013, 07:01

I think you probably should read up on fair use. The length itself is no dead giveaway.

Ghitulescu

13th March 2013, 11:13

Fair use is defined in USA only. In other countries "fair use" does not exist as such but as a general concept, like "crime". But this is off-topic. In order to make sure cinavia detection work, one needs at least 20 minutes of a movie. According to the general concept of "fair use" 10 times 20 is 200 minutes, which corresponds to a movie longer than 3 hours. Most movies are a bit longer than 90. This was my point.

pandy

13th March 2013, 14:07

Hi
my insight: do not try to remove it :)

a) It's made specifically to be tamper resistant of simple audio transformation

b) The noise level required to confuse the protection might remove audio quality if we apply it blindly.

ALTERNATIVE:

Embed your own watermark :)

Aka add noise in the "watermark-domain" rather than in the time-domain. The watermarking algorithm will ensure that whatever noise, it'll have the least perceptible cost (while hopefully making the most damage the previously embedded watermark)

The intro of this paper is nice to explain the available watermarking methods, my bet is on "Spread-Spectrum" as it's also mentioned on wiki page.

From Cinavia patents is quite clear that algorithm use long term pseudorandom (spread spectrum coded) audio signal phase changes that are detected by some type of sliding correlator with window time long enough to be not sensitive for local (short time) phase modulation (changes).
Cinavia phase changes are small enough to be not hear by human but long enough to carry data bits with sufficient margin of protection - so more or less analysis to detect Cinavia should focus on small phase changes in audio frequency domain with additional information that this information is localized over 7 - 9kHz.
If algorithm can detect presence for Cinavia then protection can be easily removed by nullifying phase changes made by Cinavia.

Ideally is to compare audio source protected and not protected by Cinavia in frequency/phase domain.

1Bullet

16th March 2013, 04:22

I am guilty of not reading all the post in this forum, so I will just ask. I have been dabbling with Cinavia for quite while. I will share what I know if others can confirm. I even had to buy a new standalone Blu ray player that Cinavia is activated on as I will will not update my standalone. Unfortunatly I will be forced to or forget Cinevia, nothing will play due to firmware no being able to read the encryption keys.
I am finding consistantly the original cinavia watermark is showing up at 18 to 22 minutes.
I personally finding at almost exactly 20 minutes into film.
I have been spliting the BDMV streams at this time (now) into 3 minute units then remuxing all pieces streams back together leaving out now stream 00006 ( 18 to 21 minutes) which is the timing of the Cinavia trigger.
I have done this with my own rip of Battle of LA and with other than the movie missing 3 minutes plays to the end.
This is becoming very time consuming, I am hoping to get down to the minute, then into the seconds. What I am trying to acomplish or better what I believe is that Cinavia watermark is on one frame only. And if that if that frame can be found it can be removed with out any loss of audio or video quality.
Has any one seen the triggers at different times for the Cinavia message Code 3 other than what I mentioned above.
I don't mean after it has been discovered which is right away unless you play a different disc.
I believe again what is happening is at 20 minutes on the audio that is infected ( sorry but I think of Cinavia as a Sony disease) the watermark is sending scripted code to the processor of the player ( in short like CRC check of the original AACS encryption key). The key has been removed with the rip of the disc, checker fails players processor shuts down audio processing player and creates the warning. The visual warning is a no more than a subtitle and may be easy to find on one frame than the actual watermark.

SamuriHL

16th March 2013, 08:32

The trigger is not 20 minutes. More like 30 seconds. 20 minutes is the grace period they give you before they activate Cinavia.

omegaman7

16th March 2013, 08:41

The trigger is not 20 minutes. More like 30 seconds. 20 minutes is the grace period they give you before they activate Cinavia.

Well put. I'm sure 1Bullet can hear that loud and clear ;)

Essentially, the trigger has to be absolutely certain, before triggering the cinavia message. Imagine if you were to record a wedding, with one of the movies in the background(The audio after all, is all that's required). The wedding would trip the message if it were too sensitive.

SeeMoreDigital

16th March 2013, 11:28

omegaman7

16th March 2013, 17:24

Have any of you guys tried playing your Cinavia infested blu-ray back-ups on 'non-disc spinning devices', such as a network/HDD capable media player or UPnP/DLNA TV?

You mean like a WDTV media player? I believe they're not required to support Cinavia. I don't doubt that a $ony device under that category would support cinavia detection though. $ony is the advocate after all...

SeeMoreDigital

16th March 2013, 17:48

You mean like a WDTV media player? I believe they're not required to support Cinavia. Yep... those sorts of media players ;)

Chetwood

17th March 2013, 09:34

From what I've read these player simply ignore the flage. Haven't tried it myself yet though.

jpsdr

17th March 2013, 09:42

It seems that they require to support Cinavia only if they have the possibility to read encrypted Blu-Ray (and are manufactured after feb 2012) either from an optical disc or an encrypted ISO. If they only support decrypted Blu-Ray (either decrypted ISO or BDMV directory data wich mean they can't read retail optical disc), they're not required to support Cinavia.

diogen

17th March 2013, 15:33

Starting with the very first media player with HD playback abilities (WD TV, 2008) the chipset powering them never supported DRM.
Not because the chipmakers are good guys, but because adding DRM costs money (licensing).
So, they manufacture two different chipsets: those that support DRM and go into BD-blayers and such and DRM-less used in media players.

Keith Jack (http://keithjack.net/), Sigma Designs' insider and active forum participant, said as much around that time on avsforum.

Diogen.

diogen

17th March 2013, 17:10

Just as a reference point: all the talk about new Intel CPU/chipsets and Microsoft Win8 enforcing Cinavia seems to be just that - talk.

I've tried playing about half a dozen movies (original m2ts AACS-less and mkv) that supposedly(*) have Cinavia in their soundtrack.

Win8 (Enterprise, as a VM) on the latest Z77 boards was just as ignorant of the DRM as Win7 is on the same hardware.
And considering how vague the definition of the BIOS is on a VM, one can safely assume that playback will be possible
for as long as today's VMs will be playable, i.e. for quite a while.

(*) Based on the list of movies from here (http://veehd.com/forum/viewtopic?f=263185).
I can't confirm that the soundtrack did in fact have the DRM since I don't (and never did) have a standalone player and/or console.

Diogen.

pandy

18th March 2013, 16:54

Guys - Cinavia is patented solution - it must be implemented at decoder side - this is not possible for non programmable DSP solution (ie decoder where DSP can't be modified - hard-coded or where hardware resources are not enough to support additional code). All reconfigurable/programmable DSP should be capable to support Cinavia however it means that Cinavia must be implemented and to do this vendor\developer\manufacturer must have license\nda\contract with Cinavia.
Some of those companies probably will be never trustworthy enough for Cinavia thus it is hard to expect that they implement Cinavia (cost of development and patent violation).

SeeMoreDigital

19th March 2013, 17:14

Have any of you guys tried playing your Cinavia infested blu-ray back-ups on 'non-disc spinning devices', such as a network/HDD capable media player or UPnP/DLNA TV?Has anyone?

Ghitulescu

19th March 2013, 18:36

A BD-copy that according to the internet is cinavia-infested worked in a Popcorn C200 as it worked in any of my non-cinavied real-disc-spinning BD-players.

Was this the answer to your question? And if it ware, did you expect some other results :) ?

SeeMoreDigital

19th March 2013, 19:41

A BD-copy that according to the internet is cinavia-infested worked in a Popcorn C200....That's good to know.

Has anybody else tried playing a Cinavia infested blu-ray back-ups on 'non-disc spinning devices', such as a network/HDD capable media player or UPnP/DLNA TV?

omegaman7

19th March 2013, 19:48

I've played multiple formats of Cinavia infected titles on my LG BD640 via flash drive. It has not been instructed to look for the cinavia watermark. Yet...

Don't know if it ever could or will though. We mostly watch netflix and flash drive backups. The disc player began having audio hiccups. Brief moments of no audio(fraction of a second).

diogen

20th March 2013, 23:38

Has anybody else tried playing a Cinavia infested blu-ray back-ups on 'non-disc spinning devices'...Is this a joke?
None of the "non-disc spinning devices" pay any attention to DRM.
Because none of them are authorized (and never will be) BD players.

Not all of them will play BD backups - can't play ISOs, can't handle bandwidth, etc. - but if they do, they couldn't care less about DRM.

There is another class of devices that does this perfectly since the week muslix64 made his first post - computers.
It would be harder to make a PC notice DRM than ignore it...:)

Diogen.

SeeMoreDigital

21st March 2013, 10:33

Is this a joke?
None of the "non-disc spinning devices" pay any attention to DRM.
Because none of them are authorized (and never will be) BD players.

Not all of them will play BD backups - can't play ISOs, can't handle bandwidth, etc. - but if they do, they couldn't care less about DRM.
So there you have it then... Given it's possible to play Cinavia infested Blu-ray and DVD back-up's on "non-disc spinning devices", Cinavia is not really that much of a problem.

Indeed, I've tested my two DNLA TV's and 4 media players (including Oppo BDP-103) and found that I can play such files stored on my NAS perfectly...

Guest

21st March 2013, 14:34

Again I remind you this thread is not for general DRM discussion. OT/inflammatory posts have been removed. Please constrain yourselves to technical matters concerning Cinavia in this thread. You are free to start other threads for more general discussion regarding DRM.

SamuriHL

26th March 2013, 01:01

http://www.dvd2hd.com/2013/03/25/cinex-delayed-or-hoax/

Their claims to having a Cinavia solution really don't sit well with me. They claim they're going to release a white paper on Cinavia. That should give us all the technical information we need about how Cinavia works. I, however, won't be holding my breath on that white paper being forth coming. Ever.

Big Vern

1st April 2013, 11:41

Cinavia busted!!!

Was looking good till I realized what the date is today :)

http://www.myce.com/news/myce-releases-tool-for-circumventing-cinavia-protection-66639/

SamuriHL

1st April 2013, 12:18

Cinavia fix... Xifaivanic. ;)

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

libawm

18th April 2013, 20:16

http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=295800&postcount=1108

Ch3vr0n

18th April 2013, 22:01

Euhm the post you link to is 2 years old.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

Mark_Venture

23rd April 2013, 15:48

So there you have it then... Given it's possible to play Cinavia infested Blu-ray and DVD back-up's on "non-disc spinning devices", Cinavia is not really that much of a problem.

Indeed, I've tested my two DNLA TV's and 4 media players (including Oppo BDP-103) and found that I can play such files stored on my NAS perfectly...
So is it safe to say that Bluray players (like Sony, Panasonic, LG, etc) that support DLNA Playback from a DLNA media server in order to play or file stream blurays that are backed up to MKV files should not be impacted?

I've seen posts/talk about PS3 being impacted, is that only when playing via a burned bluray (BD-R) disc? or via DLNA also?

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand because I'm looking at getting a 3D bluray player (possibly Sony BDPS5100), and I'm concerned about being able to play my backups (made with BD-Rebuilder) from my media server via DLNA. (I use windows file sharing with my OLD LG BD390 and BD570 2D players now, without issue, but looks like all newer players only support DLNA)

SeeMoreDigital

23rd April 2013, 16:31

So is it safe to say that Bluray players (like Sony, Panasonic, LG, etc) that support DLNA Playback from a DLNA media server in order to play or file stream blurays that are backed up to MKV files should not be impacted?No... It's not safe to say that at all.

I can only speak from my own personal experiences using my own equipment...

sneaker_ger

23rd April 2013, 16:35

So is it safe to say that Bluray players (like Sony, Panasonic, LG, etc) that support DLNA Playback from a DLNA media server in order to play or file stream blurays that are backed up to MKV files should not be impacted?

No, not at all. The only players that are relatively safe are the ones that do not have Blu-Ray drives. Since it costs money to license and implement Cinavia and customers don't want Cinavia, firms will usually avoid it if they can. The Oppo player seems to be an exception (short google search suggests it does not implement Cinavia for mkv), but I wouldn't rely on a Sony player to behave the same (not least because Sony is a content producer as well and might have a different stance on copy protection than pure player manufacturers). Your best bet is a separate player.

Ch3vr0n

23rd April 2013, 17:20

You're both wrong. Dlna players can have a bluray drive just fine and not be impacted by cinavia. The only thing that matters is the player LICENSING date. If that date is before Feb 1st 2012, then mandatory cinavia detection is not required. Not for a disc, not for an avi, not for an mkv, not for anything. Is that that Feb 1st or lager, then mandatory detection is required for any playable source. Whether it is a dvd, bluray, mobile movie format (avi, mkv, MPG, hdd rip, ISO) doesn't matter. Any player licensed (NOT MANUFACTURED) after that date must detect it. So even if a player was still being produced and receives updates today, if it was licensed before Feb 1st 2012 it doesn't need cinavia detection capabilities.

Verstuurd van mijn HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e met Tapatalk

sneaker_ger

23rd April 2013, 19:07

My answer was not wrong. There are players that had Cinavia even before that date (this thread was opened mid 2010), but I don't know a single player without Blu-Ray capabilities that has Cinavia.

SeeMoreDigital

23rd April 2013, 20:20

...but I don't know a single player without Blu-Ray capabilities that has Cinavia.Agreed...

setarip_old

29th April 2013, 18:37

Although I don't own one, I'd speculate that any SONY brand DVD-only player, portable or otherwise, is likely to have Verance/"Cinavia" built in, if it was licensed after February 2012 - or perhaps earlier (since it's our "friends" at SONY we're talking about)

1Bullet

4th May 2013, 03:25

The only thing that matters is the player LICENSING date. If that date is before Feb 1st 2012, then mandatory cinavia detection is not required. Not for a disc, not for an avi, not for an mkv, not for anything. Is that that Feb 1st or lager, then mandatory detection is required for any playable source. Whether it is a dvd, bluray, mobile movie format (avi, mkv, MPG, hdd rip, ISO) doesn't matter. Any player licensed (NOT MANUFACTURED) after that date must detect it. So even if a player was still being produced and receives updates today, if it was licensed before Feb 1st 2012 it doesn't need cinavia detection capabilities.

I beg to differ, I have multiple Samsung BD players now. I have 2 X BD 5300 made on Apr.and Sept 2011 , 2 x BD 5700 made Oct and Nov. 2011 and 1 X LG BD640C. On one of each of the Samsungs , after being update by Samsung in Feb 2012 to firware version 1023.0, they now detect cinavia. The other 2 are at earlier versions and will never be allowed, by me to update. The second BD 5300 I just picked up a month ago for $ 69.00 with v. 1017 installed. The infected BD 5700, I have screwed up trying to test code I wrote updating it to v.1050, a no existant firmware. My firmware worked kinda but screwed me up thinking cinavia watermark is at the 20-22 minute. The player still works but need to try writing more code. This is where I now feel cinavia fix will come from. The hardware needs to be patched, similar to making a player region free.
But with both cinavia infected Samsungs and the LG playing MKV, AVI of solid state HDD,or USB (36 gb) cinavia warning 3 will pop up. even converting audio to MP3 which is a waste.
So now anything I want to back up with Cinavia, is now Movie Only, cause you only need new firmware updates for the special features and java menus. The un-update players play these backups with no issues. A recent example Zero Dark Thirty. The dvd audio is 3 seconds longer making it impossible to sink to the blu-ray by muxing, even worse out of 5 of the 16 chapers they are also different lenghts. just so the DVD audio can not be used.
Cinavia fix is going to come from hardware fixes.

hello_hello

7th May 2013, 23:22

I beg to differ, I have multiple Samsung BD players now. I have 2 X BD 5300 made on Apr.and Sept 2011 , 2 x BD 5700 made Oct and Nov. 2011 and 1 X LG BD640C. On one of each of the Samsungs , after being update by Samsung in Feb 2012 to firware version 1023.0, they now detect cinavia.

What Ch3vr0n posted is correct. Cinavia is mandatory for players licensed after the cut-off date. It doesn't mean players prior to that date can't contain Cinavia and it doesn't mean firmware upgrades for players sold prior to the cutoff date can't contain Cinavia, it just means it wasn't mandatory.

I don't know how Cinavia is implemented in hardware, but as it seems the same firmware update can sometimes be used for several models from a particular manufacturer, I suspect many manufacturers decided to include Cinavia earlier than required simply so they didn't have to maintain two versions of firmware.... one with Cinavia and one without. Hence some firmware updates for older model players contain Cinavia even though it wassn't mandatory for it to do so. At least that's my theory.

Where I am (Australia), it's surprised me Sony still don't appear to have released Cinavia infected firmware for any model sold before the cuto-off date, even if it was a current model at the time (with one exception). I'd assume newer models have it, but most of the players which were current at the time have only had a single firmware update since the cut-off date. Maybe because the players haven't required further firmware updates Sony decided it wasn't worth releasing new firmware solely for the purpose of adding Cinavia? Or maybe those Australian model players didn't have Cinavia implemented in hardware?

rotty

8th May 2013, 16:42

Or maybe those Australian model players didn't have Cinavia implemented in hardware?

Im not sure if the player have H/W to detect Cinavia, they just have to have powerfull enough Processor to do it on the fly without running out of steam to do playback.

For example, Cinavia is impelmented in some S/W PC players, the PC has no Cinavia detection H/W.

AFAIK, earlier players cannot impliment the Watermark detection routines simply because they are not powerfull enough to do it in real time and playback.

hello_hello

10th May 2013, 02:52

Im not sure if the player have H/W to detect Cinavia, they just have to have powerfull enough Processor to do it on the fly without running out of steam to do playback.

You're probably right. My player's the BDP-S480, and while I'd assume it's powerful enough, I have no idea if it contains the same hardware as the same model player in other countries.
Out of curiosity I just checked, and the last firmware update for my player in Australia was April 2012 and it's not advertised as containing Cinavia. I looked at Sony's African site and it's exactly the same. The only advertised change in the firmware is "BRAVIA Internet Video improvement".

Unfortunately Sony keeps re-directing me when I try to use their U.S. or European sites, so I had to rely on Google's cache instead, but it appears the last US firmware release for the 480 was August 2012 and it's advertised as containing Cinavia along with a host of other updates/improvements.

As the same firmware download seems to apply to all models in a series (ie BDP-S480/S485/S580/S780) and some countries/regions seem to have Cinavia infected firmware for a particular model while other countries regions don't, I could only speculate as to the reason. Maybe they contain different hardware, maybe Sony decided it's not worth releasing firmware solely for the purpose of adding Cinavia in some countries/regions, or maybe it was purely a marketing decision. I don't know anybody who bothers updating their Bluray player firmware anyway, as we don't seem to need to where I am. I have a friend with a BDP-S360 which still plays all the discs she buys and it's so old I'm pretty sure it can't play video via USB.

While I was looking around I did notice the newer models (490/590/790), which were released after the cut-off date, still don't have firmware updates which are advertised as containing Cinavia where I am. The updates for those players in the U.S. do advertise Cinavia. I'm only speculating, but it does imply those players weren't Cinavia capable when they were originally released, even though they were released after the cut-off date (I guess they were licensed before then). Taking that speculation a step further, maybe Sony are still selling Bluray players without Cinavia in some regions (ie where I am).

Anyone in the Asia-Pacific region who owns a 490/590/790 and can confirm whether or not it had Cinavia out of the box?
Out of curiosity, next time I drive past my local store I might call in and ask if they can tell me whether any of the players they currently sell are Cinavia-free.

Ghitulescu

10th May 2013, 10:20

Im not sure if the player have H/W to detect Cinavia, they just have to have powerfull enough Processor to do it on the fly without running out of steam to do playback.
Cinavia is a detection, not a processing of audio. It can be done with extremely low resources.

rotty

10th May 2013, 21:49

Cinavia is a detection, not a processing of audio. It can be done with extremely low resources.

It has to decode the audio to analogue and then look for the watermark short term echos, and then match these patterns with its algorithm, (iffy patterns at that), this is processor intensive.

For example, the Panasonic BD35 could never impliment this detection, CPU no where near good enough to do that and its main task.

omegaman7

10th May 2013, 21:53

It has to decode the audio to analogue and then look for the watermark short term echos, this is processor intensive.

For example, the Panasonic BD35 could never impliment this detection, CPU no where near good enough to do that and its main task.

Interesting. So it sounds like you know a lot about this watermark. Care to crack it? :p

rotty

10th May 2013, 22:04

Unfortunately Sony keeps re-directing me when I try to use their U.S. or European Sites.

Hi Hello_hello

I am in europe (UK). If there are any sites/downloads you want me to try to get for you let me know.

I know that for DVD we are region 2 and you are region 4.

I Think for Blu Ray you are the same region as we are (region B). There may of course be other blocks within your player s/w that would stop a European firmware from being accepted.

rotty

10th May 2013, 22:20

Interesting. So it sounds like you know a lot about this watermark. Care to crack it? :p

Hi omegaman

LOL I am very flattered that you would say that, I would love to say I could, would be very rich if I could eh LOL.

Just to put my penny worth in though, I think that removal or dissruption of the watermark would be more destructive to the audio than would be acceptable.

After all, the trick is to remove this whilst keeing the patient alive, the patient of course in this case being the audio.

I can remove Cinavia easily, remove the audio stream, the patient is of course then dead.

Avoiding is probably the best option, a stand alone player or PC s/w player than doesent care if the watermark is present.

omegaman7

10th May 2013, 22:27

rotty

10th May 2013, 22:53

I have a basic understanding of the watermark. I've been putting it off, and putting it off, but I'd really like to take a CLOSE look at a segment of the audio(perhaps 20 min or so). Unfortunately, time is something I can't seem to set aside for this. Perhaps this weekend is finally the time. But without knowing what I'm looking for, It'd be nearly a shot in the dark. There is no doubt a way to suppress the watermark/frequency-ies, without noticing. After all, they put it there, and "we can't hear it".

I won't hold my breath of course. I do have a way of noticing patterns though. Although when they're highly complex...

Well it probably isnt that we cant hear it, its that we dont notice it. Short term echos are not that disturbing to us, we only seem to notice once they delay steps over a certain time, and its very sudden strangley enough.

The Audio watermark for DVD/BD is probably different to the Watermark in Cinema's.

The Audio watermark in Cinema's will be well within the audible spectrum and quiet blatent. After all, we dont care too much if the audio in Cinema isnt perfect, people eating / talking / sweet wrappers etc in background and we are not going to replay and replay THAT audio at home, once only at the Cinema so we dont care too much.

We know that the watermark in Cinema has to be at the analogue level and in the middle to lower part of the audio spectrum so as to be picked up and survive microphone recordings from people making illegal recordings (CAM). Also, it needs to be in this part of the spectrum to survive the accostics of the building.

BUT, is this the same for DVD/BD, just out of interest, has anybody made a bad microphone recording of a BD with the watermark. I mean really done this.

If it survives that, then we know it is well within the middle/lower end of the spectrum and that it is at the analogue level. If it does not survive this then we know that is NOT the same as Cinema watermark.

This really has to be verified to get a starting point.

All this above or similar will I would have though have been done by the proffesionals, but we need to do this to gain the knowledge of the beast for ourselves.

Now I dont want to be a kill joy, but lets say we know exactly what to look for, and we know what to remove, will the patient (the audio) survive.

omegaman7

10th May 2013, 23:42

BUT, is this the same for DVD/BD, just out of interest, has anybody done a bad microphone recording of a BD with the watermark. I mean really done this.

That's it! I gotta play with this now! :) You give me an interesting idea.

ChiDragon

11th May 2013, 00:09

I guess it depends on what you consider a bad microphone recording? Someone mentioned testing it in post #11.

rotty

11th May 2013, 00:25

I guess it depends on what you consider a bad microphone recording? Someone mentioned testing it in post #11.

Hi ChiDragon

Bad Mic recording I mean cutting top end, just to see where we are, i.e. try several recordings.

Ending up with very very muffeled recording.

Obviously, cutting this top end is NOT the way to beat it, but at least we know where we are.

Record the audio crudely, i.e. in a room with a Mic, at least 10 feet away (with gain enough to be at normal level), so you are recoding with a Mic with the sound comming from a speaker(s), yes that crudely.

As I say, this is NOT a way to beat Cinavia, but it will let us know what we are looking at.

If Cinavia CAN be recorded with a GOOD Mic recording then Cinavia is NOT at the Digital level, it IS at the same level as the Cinema watermark, i.e. Analogue.

It could of course be at 2 levels, BUT if it fails the BEST Mic recording it probably is at the Digital level only (which means that what we have been led to beleive is wrong and that for DVD/BD NO analogue system for the Watermark on physical media exists (or at least at present)).

rotty

11th May 2013, 00:45

That's it! I gotta play with this now! :) You give me an interesting idea.

Hi omegaman,

Sounds interesting fella, would love to know what results you get.

SamuriHL

11th May 2013, 13:56

rotty

11th May 2013, 14:37

Mic recordings have been well tested. It survived all of them. Someone used a camcorder pointed at a wall while they played a cinavia movie in the background. The recording tripped the cinavia detector upon playback. It has been well understood that the signal is embedded at the analog level since the beginning.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

Hi Samuri

Yes had always thought it was, but, it occurred to me is this the ONLY level a marking has been placed in the audio stream.

Anyway, I agree with what you said some time ago, re avoidance.

omegaman7

11th May 2013, 17:29

rotty

11th May 2013, 18:44

I imagine that not all mic's will pick up the signal though. Especially, if they've been tweaked to filter out certain frequencies, along the audio spectrum. Which wouldn't require the use of a mic to accomplish ;) With use of appropriate software.

Well yes your right, a microphone will not have a flat response across the audio spectrum.

But that wont be of any consiquence for this experiment.

apgood

12th May 2013, 01:55

I imagine that not all mic's will pick up the signal though. Especially, if they've been tweaked to filter out certain frequencies, along the audio spectrum. Which wouldn't require the use of a mic to accomplish ;) With use of appropriate software.

It might be interesting to see what happens if say the frequencies above say 15kHz are filtered out and/or low level subsonic frequencies below as 20Hz.... Assuming of course it isn't interleaved through the whole spectrum and doesn't need to be an ”intact” signal....

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

IanB

12th May 2013, 05:41

We already know the manifestation of a Cinavia data bit is a very short period echo. An effect chosen to be virtually inaudible.

I suspect these 'echoes' make a very distinctive pattern when you look at a Fourier transform of the data, i.e. in the frequency domain.

This style of DFT technology is very immune to analogue and digital domain filtering and distortion, which is precisely a characteristic the black hats in this game would strive for.

I am sure the design of the 'echoes' is also such that trying to simplistically remove them from a source would spoil it significantly, i.e. many false matches.

If I was designing this I would use some devious clock recovery scheme over these bits to extract a data stream of 1's and 0's, it needs to survive PAL speed up, it also needs to cope with long period of silence in the host audio track.

I would apply a very substantial forward error detection and recovery algorithm like a hamming code. In the end we only need 2 or 3 bits of data to trigger the detection flags and packing 1000's of 'echo' bits per minute is trivial.

ChiDragon

12th May 2013, 07:31

So with literal silence as the input would your algorithm just wait it out until you have a signal to alter?

ChiDragon

13th May 2013, 22:34

omegaman7

13th May 2013, 23:25

hello_hello

14th May 2013, 05:02

Hi Hello_hello

I am in europe (UK). If there are any sites/downloads you want me to try to get for you let me know.

I know that for DVD we are region 2 and you are region 4.

I Think for Blu Ray you are the same region as we are (region B). There may of course be other blocks within your player s/w that would stop a European firmware from being accepted.

Thanks, but I was really just trying to visit Sony U.S. or Europe for a look to see how much of the current firmware is advertised as containing Cinavia.... given I only came across firmware for one player which is advertised as containing it in Australia (the cheapest model). Using Google's cache I could get to the U.S. site.
Even though the model numbers are the same, it appears players are quite different from region to region or country to country, at least when it comes to firmware, as they have different features (such as the ability to connect to different online services etc).

rotty

14th May 2013, 13:32

I did a "bad camcorder" recording with my camcorder pointed out the window and The Amazing Spider-Man BD playing approx 11 ft away on terrible all-in-one PC speakers, with the volume just loud enough to listen comfortably at my chair in front of it. Plenty of street noise in the recording and the dialogue in the movie is muffled to the point of being unlistenable.

Cinavia remains intact.

Hi ChiDragon

A great test, interesting that the sound was comming from the poor PC speakers (mid to hi mid range).

Is it possible for you to do a fairly good Mic recoding as WAV or MP3 or if not convert it to any sound file that itunes will accept. Then play the file in itunes and use the graphic equaliser in itunes to experiment with the file.
Obviously it will mean you then re recoding from itunes with camcorder but would be interesting.

Start with only low end outputting.

ChiDragon

14th May 2013, 20:08

I don't understand the purpose of doing a new "good" mic recording if the goal is to see at what point Cinavia stops being detected.

rotty

14th May 2013, 20:58

I don't understand the purpose of doing a new "good" mic recording if the goal is to see at what point Cinavia stops being detected.

You need a good recording to start with so that when you filter certain frequency ranges using the itune graphic equaliser you can see at what point it affects Cinavia detection.

The bad recording you made still has most of the lower mid range + mid range + upper mid range.

Your test was good because you now know that DVD/BD version of the watermark its quite robust and also is analogue for sure.

With a new good recoding being played back in itunes, you will be able to attenuate/lift certain ranges of frequencies using the itunes graphic equaliser.

You have to start with a good recording and then make it bad (as far as playback is concerned using the graphic).

If you havnt seen the itunes graphic then take a look and you will see that the controls (10 of them + overall gain) either lift or attenuate frequencies from +12db to -12db giving you a 24db max difference between frequency ranges. These ranges are:

32HZ 64HZ 125HZ 250HZ 500HZ 1KHZ 2KHZ 4KHZ 8KHZ 16KHZ

Remember that for every 3db increase you double the power out (obviously, for every 3db decrease you halve the power out)

ChiDragon

15th May 2013, 01:07

You need a good recording to start with so that when you filter certain frequency ranges using the itune graphic equaliser you can see at what point it affects Cinavia detection.

Then start with the lossless file from the disc...

I have no interest in playing around with an equaliser. Not my thing.

EDIT: Did a 2nd gen recording using the same technique but with the first recording as the audio being played back on the PC. Cinavia is not detected. Dialog is recognizable as human speech but no words are decipherable.

rotty

15th May 2013, 10:35

Then start with the lossless file from the disc...

I have no interest in playing around with an equaliser. Not my thing.

EDIT: Did a 2nd gen recording using the same technique but with the first recording as the audio being played back on the PC. Cinavia is not detected. Dialog is recognizable as human speech but no words are decipherable.

The only way to know if Cinavia modulates the media sound in one frequency domain is to use a filter, and the easiest way to do this is with an equaliser.

itunes is free and easy to use.

I understand if you dont want to mess with this but its simplest way to find out.

As to your last point, if they muffled the audio across the band to a level where Cinavia was not detected then this still tells us nothing.

kypec

15th May 2013, 12:44

rotty

15th May 2013, 13:35

So the conclusion of ChiDragon's test would be that as soon as sound quality has deteriorated enough for Cinavia watermark being undetectable so did the overall legibility of audio for human speech recognition :)

Yes but the whole spectrum was degraded.

It may well be that only part of the spectrum need to be degraded. Thats why we need to use specific targeted filtering to find out. If that is the case, then finding the watermark will be easier.

ChiDragon

15th May 2013, 18:08

Do you just not have a Cinavia player? If you send me degraded files I will play them.

rotty

15th May 2013, 21:58

Do you just not have a Cinavia player? If you send me degraded files I will play them.

Unfortunately I dont have a Cinavia enabled player.

diogen

17th May 2013, 17:45

It has to decode the audio to analogue and then look for the watermark short term echos, and then match these patterns with its algorithm...Cinavia is detected during playback.
All the heavy lifting - decoding audio/video, mixing, etc. - is done as part of playback.
Audio decoding uses under 10% of the resources (if you do it specifically for Cinavia detection).

Considering hidef is playable today (almost) by Raspberry Pi, the Cinavia algorithm itself uses literally zero resources...

Diogen.

rotty

17th May 2013, 20:28

Cinavia is detected during playback.
All the heavy lifting - decoding audio/video, mixing, etc. - is done as part of playback.
Audio decoding uses under 10% of the resources (if you do it specifically for Cinavia detection).

Considering hidef is playable today (almost) by Raspberry Pi, the Cinavia algorithm itself uses literally zero resources...

Diogen.

Where did you get the 10% figure from.

Even if that figure was correct, it cannot be correct for any CPU.

If it took 10% resource of a very fast CPU, it would take much much higher resource from a much slower CPU to do that task in the same time.

LOL can you imagine how long it would take to decode one frame of 1920 x 1080 using a Z80 at 100% resource.
(just to make the point)

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the main interest here.

diogen

18th May 2013, 15:11

Where did you get the 10% figure from.IIRC, this was reported at AVS about the very first HD-DVD player from Toshiba.
It was a pure software (Linux) player, the first and the last one.

Attempts to measure this number on a PC show even smaller numbers for audio decoding (I agree, a proper test is hard).

And btw, this number is irrelevant. See below.
Even if that figure was correct, it cannot be correct for any CPU.What does CPU have to do with it? Today everything is done in hardware. Ever opened a HD player?
It has one chip and some auxiliary silicon. That's it. Read KJack's posts starting 2007...
If it took 10% resource of a very fast CPU, it would take much much higher resource from a much slower CPU to do that task in the same time.Again, what does this have to do with it?
LOL can you imagine how long it would take to decode one frame of 1920 x 1080 using a Z80 at 100% resource.
(just to make the point)What point? The irrelevant one?

Again, in bulleted form:
- a blu-ray player has to be able to decode both audio and video (at least the mandatory codecs).
If it can't do that, it can't be called a blu-ray player!! With me so far?
- whether you bitstream for decoding in your receiver or not, the decoding is done anyway (in Cinavia-able players)
- a comparator with a few KB of RAM to cache a few ms of the audio is doing the Cinavia checking.
The last can be done within the SOC by now.

Once again, where does this stuff about Cinavia being resource hungry come from?

Diogen.

EDIT: The "cleanest" way of beating Cinavia would be disabling the analog audio in the player alltogether and bitstream to a (dummy) receiver...:)

rotty

19th May 2013, 12:17

My God Diogen

You really do just like to argue about anything dont you.

Like I said, who cares about this point.

Obviously, avoiding the detection is the easiest and probably best like I have said as well.

I hope that this will always be possible.

diogen

20th May 2013, 00:27

You really do just like to argue about anything...Not really, but I'm developing some taste for it...:sly:

As mentioned before, Cinavia discussion on doom9 is a form of masochism.
For people that know anything and everything about audio/video, how to rip, transcode,
(re)encode, how to use every OS under the sun, etc. - typical doom9 forum member - it is
much easier to rip the bloody BD-thing and play it on anything but the few Cinavia-detecting BD players.

But this simple solution hasn't stopped this discussion for almost 100 pages.
So, yes, I want in on the fun of it...

And since we are in penny-pinching mode, bypassing the analog stage isn't avoiding detection, but ignoring it...

Diogen.

rotty

20th May 2013, 10:30

Not really, but I'm developing some taste for it...:sly:

As mentioned before, Cinavia discussion on doom9 is a form of masochism.
For people that know anything and everything about audio/video, how to rip, transcode,
(re)encode, how to use every OS under the sun, etc. - typical doom9 forum member - it is
much easier to rip the bloody BD-thing and play it on anything but the few Cinavia-detecting BD players.

But this simple solution hasn't stopped this discussion for almost 100 pages.
So, yes, I want in on the fun of it...

And since we are in penny-pinching mode, bypassing the analog stage isn't avoiding detection, but ignoring it...

Diogen.

It sure is masochism but speaking for myself, I don’t really take the attempts to do anything about it by any of us too seriously, it’s just a bit of fun I suppose.

Also, and I may be totally wrong, I think that if it could be removed, that the cure would be worse than the disease.

I suppose, that's its strength.

omegaman7

20th May 2013, 11:06

I haven't forgotten :S Believe me... fact of the matter is, I have a rather full plate at the moment. I guess the real problem, is I'm not affected by Cinavia. I have an insatiable hatred for $ony. So I don't employ their hardware. The PS3 gets nothing but glares from me. I'm not exactly sure what brought it on. Their business practices for one...

I have dreamed up some ideas for attempting to either discover the pattern, or inadvertently removing it. When I FINALLY attempt it, I will post here. This seems to be a worthy thread for posting findings :) I'm currently testing a cutting edge piece of hardware, for review. When that's done, I should have much more time for this.

SeeMoreDigital

20th May 2013, 20:09

Given that Cinavia is mostly confined to the 'English' audio stream. I wonder what would happen if you: -

* De-mux the English language surround sound stream and separate it into mono audio tracks
* Save the English 'centre' audio track and discard all the others
* De-mux one of the foreign language surround sound streams and separate it into mono audio tracks
* Discard the 'centre' foreign language audio track and save all the others
* Re-combine the English 'centre' audio track with the foreign language surround sound tracks

The question is whether Cinavia would still be detected when it's confined to just one track within the surround sound stream?

Cheers

ChiDragon

20th May 2013, 21:15

I can tell you that the surround tracks on their own are detected as Cinavia.

Even if your method worked, dialogue isn't confined to the centre track (ex. room echo).

SeeMoreDigital

20th May 2013, 21:35

I can tell you that the surround tracks on their own are detected as Cinavia. Indeed, English language surround sound tracks contain Cinavia. But from what I understand, the foreign language surround sound channels do not !

Even if your method worked, dialogue isn't confined to the centre track (ex. room echo). Agreed... It's just a suggestion...

ChiDragon

20th May 2013, 22:04

I meant that the surround channels on their own trigger detection.

And given that my camcorder test with muffled dialogue, folded-down surrounds, and the introduction of all sorts of other noises still triggered Cinavia, it seems to me that centre track + surrounds from a whole other movie would still trigger Cinavia.

SeeMoreDigital

20th May 2013, 22:16

I meant that the surround channels on their own trigger detection.
For which language?

ChiDragon

21st May 2013, 04:21

Ones that are Cinavia watermarked, of course.

plasmacutter

11th June 2013, 03:36

omegaman7

11th June 2013, 03:40

I'll probably be attempting something like that this week(Finally on vacation!). There are multiple movies, where the Blu-ray has the "watermark", and the DVD does not. Pretty ignorant if you ask me, but hey, if they wanna make it easier for us ;)

But then, identifying it may not be difficult. It's removing it, or masking it without affecting the audio, that's the real challenge.

plasmacutter

11th June 2013, 03:49

omegaman7

11th June 2013, 04:20

Masking it is as easy as any filter for media... If they can embed it imperceptibly, it can be removed just as imperceptibly. Heck, there's a chance you wouldn't even need to isolate it, you could just "jam" it by simply applying the same imperceptible distortions to the whole thing, millisecond by millisecond.

As for the people earlier in the thread who worry this can't be broken, i've seen literature indicating the exact same scheme has been before on different media.

I also think the only reason it hasn't been cracked is the fact that it's simply not ubiquitous enough as an inconvenience yet. People are still able to choose a different player relatively inexpensively, or even build a cheap HTPC for 250 bucks.

That's exactly my thoughts. A lot of people still have first and second generation players, that don't support detection. But, if a lot of people make the switch to 3d players, we'll see a rise in frustrations. I'm not one to jump on that bandwagon. And I'm already protected for all time. I keep software backups like you wouldn't believe. And should they ever try to leash the PC (For all playback software), that'll be that. A lot of people would be quite upset by that.

It's days are numbered. Like all things, it's only a matter of time...

ChiDragon

11th June 2013, 04:28

I mean, it would be painfully easy if they made the mistake of cinavia-protecting a BD version without doing so for DVD

Howso? I posted samples of the same audio track with and without Cinavia in 2010 and no one came back with a solution. The audio was from different-region lossless BDs; no DVD compression making things more difficult.

omegaman7

11th June 2013, 05:02

I wouldn't say painfully easy. Perhaps for an algorithm given a specific set of instructions. But what instructions would we give it? LOL! Perhaps an algorithm could be told to look for a pattern, among 6 separate audio tracks. It would probably take even a powerful processor weeks to list all patterns it finds. But this really isn't my area of expertise. I honestly think the naked eye might have better advantages. Humans do have a gift for spotting things out of the ordinary at times. But this could more complex than that.

plasmacutter

11th June 2013, 05:06

they were probably approaching it programmatically (digital diff), which would produce nothing but junk, rather than running a diff against the sound itself, which would have to be done in an audio editor.

They say this is robust against compression, etc, so overlaying the waveforms in an audio editor should produce some pretty obvious results.

You'd need multiple samples to determine whether it's just one signal, or multiple variations, and the bands used.

If it's just one signal, you're looking at the easiest solution, if you isolate the bands it gives you a narrower range for "jamming".

Ghitulescu

11th June 2013, 13:06

In the last issue of c't (also available online), 13/2013, was published an article about cinavia.

sneaker_ger

11th June 2013, 17:33

It's in 12/2013.

1Bullet

13th June 2013, 06:59

What I am trying now is ripping the DVD and BD audio out by chapters. Out of all my combo packs, I don't have one that has the same audio in the DVD as the BD. Using Salt as an example, the BD length is 1:43:28, the dvd is 1:43:23 . The only chapters that are the same length are 2,3,5,6,7,9,11,14 and 16. This doesn't mean there identical either. My plan is convert each of these chapters into its own wave file. Then using Audition load the BD chapter and using noise reduction effect. Iwill use the entire DVD chapter as my noise print. If any of the chapter I mention turn out to be identical to the BD(only hoping) I should only be left with Cinavia. Then using what is left in the BD as a new noise print, this should if reduce Cinavia as noise. Again only if I captured cinavia. Just started this process so I some has tried it before and it failed let me know.
I'll be back with my updates.

Ghitulescu

13th June 2013, 10:45

You need to use a DVD with the same number of channels as the BD, which usually have at least 5.1.
Then you have to see whether the mix is the same (as any difference would be interpreted as "noise").
Finally you have to guess where the cinavia is hidden, or repeat the procedure for each channel in part.
That's a lot of work. Besides, from what I know, cinavia is not a statistical noise, in other words denoising a noise-free sound simply worsens it.

But if you manage to do it :thanks:

rotty

13th June 2013, 12:30

1Bullet

15th June 2013, 03:13

I am not saying yet, that this is Cinavia, but after long hours of work I have discovered the following differences between the Salt dvd and Blue-ray 5.1 audios in chapters, 2,3,5,6,7,9,11,14 and 16. I have a noise patch of of it. Now its time to apply the patch across the entire BD audio. if hopefully works I have to do another movie to see if I get same results. If pic of link works say hello to what iam really hoping to be Cinavia. if its really Cinavia it is only in channels 1,2 and 3.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j241/1Bullet_2006/Cinavia.jpg (http://s82.photobucket.com/user/1Bullet_2006/media/Cinavia.jpg.html)

rotty

15th June 2013, 11:40

rik1138

1st July 2013, 22:58

Has anyone tried a reference and diff attack on this?

I mean, it would be painfully easy if they made the mistake of cinavia-protecting a BD version without doing so for DVD, but even if they have not, there's a good possibility that diffing out a large number of tracks would give you what you need to extract.

Yes, apparently there are people that have uncompressed audio before and after Cinavia was applied. Companies like Slysoft I believe are working on it, so there may be some solution, someday... The problem still remains that removing it requires extracting the audio to WAV files, doing whatever to remove it, and then either encoding it back to DTS-HD MA, or just leaving it 5.1 PCM (or whatever). Both present problems since there's no free DTS encoder available, and 5.1 PCM may not fit back on a disc (or may cause bitrate problems)... It's not something that can just be removed 'real time' like AACS.

For the 'average' user, the best solution will probably always be just having a player that doesn't support it.

microchip8

2nd July 2013, 11:12

... there's no free DTS encoder available ...

Sure there is: http://aepatrakov.narod.ru/index/0-2

But it doesn't support DTS HD MA

rotty

2nd July 2013, 15:30

Yes, apparently there are people that have uncompressed audio before and after Cinavia was applied. Companies like Slysoft I believe are working on it, so there may be some solution, someday... The problem still remains that removing it requires extracting the audio to WAV files, doing whatever to remove it, and then either encoding it back to DTS-HD MA, or just leaving it 5.1 PCM (or whatever). Both present problems since there's no free DTS encoder available, and 5.1 PCM may not fit back on a disc (or may cause bitrate problems)... It's not something that can just be removed 'real time' like AACS.

For the 'average' user, the best solution will probably always be just having a player that doesn't support it.

Yes, this has always been the problem, even if it could be removed.

I still believe that the watermark is prity much non reversable, i.e. cannot be removed without un acceptable damage to the audio.

Slysoft are using the phrase "possible soloution" when talking about Cinavia. So their solution may not be to actually remove it.

Time will tell.

rik1138

2nd July 2013, 21:55

Sure there is: http://aepatrakov.narod.ru/index/0-2

But it doesn't support DTS HD MA

Well, yeah, the conversation I was having was about lossless audio since I mentioned DTS-HD MA previously. I don't consider replacing lossless audio with lossy audio an option at all, even if it did remove Cinavia. :D

Yes, this has always been the problem, even if it could be removed.

I still believe that the watermark is prity much non reversable, i.e. cannot be removed without un acceptable damage to the audio.

Oh, it can be removed... It's just a waveform of sorts, if it can be added in, it can be taken out.

The main issue may be that the changes made to the audio are either different for each title, or can be changed at any time. So even someone figures out exactly what to remove and a way to do, they may be able to just change it and you have to figure it out again. If the only reliable way to figure out what to remove is comparing two _lossless_ audio files with and without Cinavia, that might get hard to do repeatedly.

rotty

2nd July 2013, 23:34

Well, yeah, the conversation I was having was about lossless audio since I mentioned DTS-HD MA previously. I don't consider replacing lossless audio with lossy audio an option at all, even if it did remove Cinavia. :D

Oh, it can be removed... It's just a waveform of sorts, if it can be added in, it can be taken out.

The main issue may be that the changes made to the audio are either different for each title, or can be changed at any time. So even someone figures out exactly what to remove and a way to do, they may be able to just change it and you have to figure it out again. If the only reliable way to figure out what to remove is comparing two _lossless_ audio files with and without Cinavia, that might get hard to do repeatedly.

Its not a waveform added to the audio, it is modification of the existing audio.
The watermark cannot exist for example in silent portions of the audio.
It modulates the audio itself, this is why it is hard to remove without damage.

Also, you cannot use two examples of the same audio (one with the watermark and one without) to get a differential output. The watermarked audio is being deliberately phase shifted slowly both leading then lagging randomly. This will therefore ALWAYS give a diff output even where the audio is exactly the same. There are also signals added to give diff output as red herrings and have nothing to do with the watermark itself.

One way to defeat the marking is not to remove anything but to add audio to the signal.

Ghitulescu

3rd July 2013, 09:43

rotty

3rd July 2013, 09:58

Actually, even if it's a modification of the sound (which indeed is, cinavia is not embedded in silent portions of audio, nor in those below a certain threshold), it still can be removed this way, provided one has a clean copy of the same track (ie the one used for watermarking). The "denoise" function would restore the audio, at least in theory.

Yes thats what I said, it cannot exist in silent portions of the audio.

You can use "clean" audio tracks to replace the Cinavia tracks (provided they are timecode exact) but you cannot use "clean" audio tracks to denoise the Cinavia tracks, because the Cinavia tracks are being phase shifted constantly therfore they will never overlay correctly.

Ghitulescu

3rd July 2013, 13:03

... because the Cinavia tracks are being phase shifted constantly therfore they will never overlay correctly.

True, but this wasn't for the purpose of recovering the original track (which exists :) ) but to defeat the recognition of cinavia.

rotty

3rd July 2013, 15:28

True, but this wasn't for the purpose of recovering the original track (which exists :) ) but to defeat the recognition of cinavia.

How, you cant compare them or add or subtract them because the watermarked tracks are moving in phase +/-.

You can use it instead of the original but thats all.

The original information can only still exist in the watermarked audio if the watermark had simply been added to the audio, if it modulates the original, then the original audio is changed, the original information in the new watermaked audio has been lost.

If you have the copy of the original audio then there's no problem, but this is not defeating Cinavia, its just putting it back as original. I we had access to the lossless original audio each time then Cinavia would not be viable at all, but unfortunatley this is not the case at all.

BoMbY

5th July 2013, 16:52

It probably has some weakness. Maybe a buffer overflow, or something, you could trigger to confuse the detection.

rotty

5th July 2013, 17:02

It probably has some weakness. Maybe a buffer overflow, or something, you could trigger to confuse the detection.

Im sure your right about weakness, I hope people dont think im saying it cant be overcome, im sure it can be.

It already is of course with a stand alone or S/W player that does not detect it or a S/W player that does detect it but has been disabled by Slysoft option.

A bit of lateral thinking perhaps.

Lets take the PC, any player will play a disk with the watermark if certain criteria are met.

We need 2 programs, one program to produce a special ISO Image and one program that is a special Virtual drive.

The Image must be left encrypted as original and hold the keys required for decryption just like a BD ROM. This together with the special Virtual drive must make the image look exactly like a physical BD ROM.
As I just said, the ISO has to have all the info as original from the original disk, it does not have to hold this info in any particular way or format, its the job of the special Virtual drive to take this ISO info and arrange it to make it look exactly like the original BD ROM.
With this option, we do nothing to dissrupt/remove the watermark, the player has no choice but to allow it to play as if it is the original disk.
The Virtual drive would have to be "cloaked" as far as the PC is concerned and must look like a physical optical drive so the player software cannot detect it.

Im sure there are loads of lateral thoughts out there that may well work.

Adding signal(s) to the audio my block the detection and so on and so on.

Big Vern

6th July 2013, 10:47

http://www.myce.com/news/cinavia-copy-protection-cracked-with-freeware-67808/

Myce user Macrovision3500 reports on our forum that the Cinavia copy protection is broken by using freely available and opensource software. Unfortunately the method has a drawback, it degrades the audio quality of the movie. By using the opensource audio editor Audacity with settings as stated here you can create an audio track from which the Cinavia protection is removed.

Macrovision3500 has tested the solution with his Playstation 3 with the latest firmware and confirms it works. While the audio quality might not be acceptable for many users, this is a great proof of concept. The Cinavia protection works by adding a watermark to the audio track of movie. Therefor many belief it should be possible to remove the protection by making changes to the audio track.

It seems that this technique indeed breaks the Cinavia protection. The method can probably be fine-tuned and might become an excellent method to enable users to make backups of Cinavia protected discs.

There are other ways of backing up discs that are protected by Cinavia. With the paid applications AnyDVD and DVDFab it’s possible but they require frequent updates. Also the developers of DVDRanger claim to have a working solution, unfortunately it has not been released yet.

How to disable Cinavia
Cinavia removal

1st download an app that converts video to audio...I would recommend
Freemake Video Converter. then,
get an program named Audacity open the mp3 audio converted in freemake
and open the file in Audacity choose File>Open then Edit>Select>All
then go to Effect>GVerb
make sure to have the following config:

roomsize (m):1.0
reverb time (s): 0.1
Damping: 0.0
Input Bandwidth: 0.20
Dry Signal (db): -7.0
Early reflection level (db): 0.0
Tail Level: -17.5

save

then choose file export save as other uncompressed files then save...
make sure to merge audio sources with freemake video converter.

If you go here;
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357132-Cinavia-removal-technique
You can download a "before" and "after" mp3 using the above method. It does sound pretty rough, but I'm sure with some more tweaking, a better solution can be achieved?

rotty

6th July 2013, 11:31

Hi Big Verne

Like I said in post #1960.

"I still believe that the watermark is prity much non reversable, i.e. cannot be removed without un acceptable damage to the audio."

The after MP3 is dreafull, as you would expect it to be, to remove the watermark or make the watermark unreadable in this way, you really have to be destuctive.

I dont think it would be possible to "fine tune" this method.

Emulgator

11th July 2013, 19:04

roomsize (m):1.0
reverb time (s): 0.1
Damping: 0.0
Input Bandwidth: 0.20
Dry Signal (db): -7.0
Early reflection level (db): 0.0
Tail Level: -17.5

Ouch. That reverb will mask it while sacrificing the original signal.
Nah, lets run a FFT against those cinavia blips and filter only these.

I have no BD/DVD comparison example, 1Bullet, do you mind giving me your files, PM me.

rotty

11th July 2013, 19:51

Ouch. That reverb will mask it while sacrificing the original signal.
Nah, lets run a FFT against those cinavia blips and filter only these.

I have no BD/DVD comparison example, 1Bullet, do you mind giving me your files, PM me.

This is the problem, the only chance you have of identifing what is Cinavia to remove and what is audio that should be there is to compare a non infected audio with the infected audio, if you have non infected audio then there's no point anyway, just use that un infected audio to replace the oroginal track(s).

I also use the word chance because as I have already said, the whole Cinavia track is deliberatly phase moving constantly so the two tracks wont overlay correctly so cannot be directly compared and there are red herrings also.

Gradius

29th July 2013, 05:07

Use poison to kill poison. ;)

rotty

29th July 2013, 07:36

Use poison to kill poison. ;)

Yes, like I said in post #1962
One way to defeat the marking is not to remove anything but to add audio to the signal.

Big Vern

7th August 2013, 18:51

rotty

7th August 2013, 20:57

I would say that they will never be able to improve the damaged audio caused by this process to a point that would come anywhere near the quality that you would expect even from lossy audio like say AC3. Nowhere near it.

So as for HD audio, well no way.

Wilbert

7th August 2013, 21:04

A quote from the link that Big Vern posted
To prove their understanding of Cinavia, the developers also released a whitepaper providing more details on the protection.

Where can we get the whitepaper?

Apparently the sound quality is very bad after removal: http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357132-Cinavia-removal-technique.

Big Vern

8th August 2013, 05:56

Apparently the sound quality is very bad after removal: http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357132-Cinavia-removal-technique.

That is not the DVD Ranger's "CinEx module" version. That was a different attempt.

More from DVD ranger...

The CinEx module from DVD-Ranger is in Beta but we have confirmed that it indeed bypasses the Cinavia protection. Unfortunately the audio quality of the copied movie is far from perfect, but the lead developer of the software has told us that he and his team are now at the point where they know how to improve the audio quality considerably

Its a start.

Ghitulescu

8th August 2013, 08:05

Cinavia finally beaten, so it seems!

http://www.myce.com/news/dvd-ranger-cinex-module-beta-tested-beats-cinavia-68353/

Our test was conducted by forum administrator and video expert Kerry56. For the test he used Arcsoft TotalMedia Theater. This Blu-ray playback software is known to detect the Cinavia watermark....The entire movie was played and again no sign of Cinavia.

To make sure the combination of the Blu-ray movie and Arcsoft TotalMedia Theater really triggers the protection, a backup of the disc with regular Blu-ray backup software (without CinEx) was created. As expected this backup indeed triggered Cinavia protection. This means that DVD-Ranger seems to have overcome their difficulties and is now ready to improve this beta version.

I would say that they will never be able to improve the damaged audio caused by this process to a point that would come anywhere near the quality that you would expect even from lossy audio like say AC3. Nowhere near it.
So as for HD audio, well no way.

That is not the DVD Ranger's "CinEx module" version. That was a different attempt.

More from DVD ranger...

The CinEx module from DVD-Ranger is in Beta but we have confirmed that it indeed bypasses the Cinavia protection. Unfortunately the audio quality of the copied movie is far from perfect, but the lead developer of the software has told us that he and his team are now at the point where they know how to improve the audio quality considerably

Its a start.
This start was discussed 3 or 4 years ago.
A good start would be the provision of a modified audio track that would differ from the original as an MP3 differs from the CD it originates.
One could even inject false information, equally "inaudible" into the audio so it would interfere with the detection algorithm, and this would be better.

BaRRoS

8th August 2013, 14:08

Where can we get the whitepaper?

Hope I dont break any rules by posting links..

http://www.dvd2hd.com/_dl/cinex_wp_release1.pdf

Kerry56

8th August 2013, 15:13

rotty

8th August 2013, 20:53

I posted some before and after audio clips over at Videohelp.com. The Cinex module for DVDRanger is not producing good sound at all. Here (http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357938-Cinavia-removed-by-DVDRanger-Cinex-module)is the thread.

No. And it never will by this process.

By non reversable, I of course mean, cannot be removed and leave an acceptable audio track.

Even applying audio to the track to disrupt the reading of the watermark in not exactly attractive.

Out of ALL the options, the best by far are:

1.. Standalone or s/w players that dont take any notice of the watermark.

2.. S/W players that have the detection flag(s) disrupted, i.e. by AnyDVD.

johndough

19th August 2013, 20:53

The DVD-Ranger cinavia module is chuckle worthy but this is
the real deal:

Cinavia removal:

1st download a program that can extract audio from video...I would recommend
freemake video converter. then
get an program named Audacity open the converted audio file in freemake
and open the file in Audacity choose File>Open then Edit>Select>All
make sure to have the following setting:

Effect>Equalization: Walkie Takie Preset.

then go to Effect>GVerb

Make sure to have the following settings:

roomsize (m):1.0
reverb time (s): 0.1
Damping: 0.0
Input Bandwidth: 0.05
Dry Signal (db): 0.0
Early reflection level (db): 0.0
Tail Level: -17.5

Then click on:
Save

then choose file export save as other uncompressed files then save...this may take a
while depending on the computers performance....
Now with both sources...
make sure to merge audio sources with freemake...
drag and drop the video to the app...click on the audio speaker where there is
a link...select the audio file created with Audacity select desired Video format and wait for the file to be converted.

Have fun.

rotty

19th August 2013, 22:43

johndough

19th August 2013, 23:17

This is the same as the so called Cinavia solution in post #1969 execpt Dry Signal was 7db down.
The resutling audio was dreadfull.

I think the Effect>Equalization: Walkie Takie Preset is the giveaway.

Its not the same...heres a before an after:

http://www.putlocker.com/file/A1FB54E357B16D09 before
http://www.putlocker.com/file/F241ADAC3349C1BE after

Its a tweaked version of the settings. with better results.

Ghitulescu

20th August 2013, 13:08

1st download a program that can extract audio from video...I would recommend freemake video converter. then get an program named Audacity open the converted audio file in freemake and open the file in Audacity choose File>Open then Edit>Select>All make sure to have the following setting:

I believe that the members of this forum know some 20 years now how to demux the audio from a container, and not to use a "video converter" (hä???) for treating audio.

rotty

20th August 2013, 19:35

Its not the same...heres a before an after:

http://www.putlocker.com/file/A1FB54E357B16D09 before
http://www.putlocker.com/file/F241ADAC3349C1BE after

Its a tweaked version of the settings. with better results.

Have you tried this yourself.

Just put a wav or mp3 file thru this process with the settings you have stated.
The result is aboslutley dreadfull.

EDIT
Do you work for Verance, is this their attempt to try and make it look like there's no hope against this.

Ghitulescu

23rd August 2013, 20:27

Do you work for Verance, is this their attempt to try and make it look like there's no hope against this.
Working for Verance or not, there is no hope.
The only hope is to buy now a media player that does not (yet) obey cinavia detection and run copies through it. This is the only solution up to day, that would work without adversely affecting the sound quality. I said this 3 or 4 years ago.

rotty

24th August 2013, 12:36

If you are talking of removal then I would agree.
Other options, and so as to "no hope" then I would'nt agree.

setarip_old

24th August 2013, 18:03

@Ghitulescu

Hi!

Although "Cinavia"/Verance watermarking has thusfar proven to be irreversible and/or eliminated as a mass protection, that's not to say wiser, more persistent folks won't eventually overcome it.

However, on the skeptical side, the solution may arrive after the protection ceases to be relevant - and it may just wind up being a "challenge met" exercise...

omegaman7

24th August 2013, 18:47

I'm betting somebody knows something. I find it rather interesting, that $ony is the only company massively supporting Cinavia. I suspect other companies may be aware of a possible circumvention. Hopeful thinking? Conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But then, perhaps the other companies are being asked to pay a ridiculous sum of money to employ it? One thing's for sure. If ALL the companies were suddenly using it, there would exist an even larger need, to circumvent it. Myself, I don't even give it much thought. None of my devices support detection. Though I do find this "irreversible" protection scheme intriguing.

I don't believe in the no win scenario... :p

rotty

25th August 2013, 09:54

omegaman7

25th August 2013, 16:55

This could be true but they all know that CSS (for DVD) is broken and still use it, they all know that AACS is broken and still use it (although is mandatory), they all know that BD+ is broken and some use it.

Guess they figure they can detour a few people LOL!

rotty

25th August 2013, 17:56

Guess they figure they can detour a few people LOL!

LOL I reckon your right.

I just wish that this extra cost for these usless systems on our disks was NOT passed on to us, the paying public.

junh1024

1st September 2013, 11:32

Breaking cinavia (without complete sonic destruction) could be within reach.

The key here is PHASE (reading wikipedia & etc)..

Cinavia chose to work in the phase domain, since that is mostly imperceptible, and is less conquered, than say,m the frequency domain.

Also, cinavia is an audio problem. So asking on Hydrogenaudio would’ve been more appropriate, and perhaps a solution would’ve been converged to faster,. but I digress.

I don’t think I have any CInavia BDs to test this on, and the BDs that I want to buy from a certain retailer are usually out of stock….

The plugins below are mainly VSTs so u will need a compatible host.

Some possible methods require the use of a proper commercial DAW such as REAPER ( www.reaper.fm ), Audacity may work, but dealing with VST authorization may not work in all cases. I won’t provide full step-by-step instructions on how to add an FX or how to operate a DAW. But here are some suggestions for those that know how to operate one:

NB: all these methods r 4 stereo, but may b xtended 2 surround with some chaining.

FREE TOOLS PROBABLY START HERE ==============

M1:

Brickwall Lowpass, soft lowpass, lowshelf, 8kz with any sharp EQ. I use Izotope Ozone 5 Eq, but there may be free ones available

Why 8khz? See here: http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357132-Cinavia-removal-technique?p=2257033&viewfull=1#post2257033

M2:

As above AND use an exciter to fake some frequencies beyond 8k. I use Izotope Ozone 5 Eq & Ozone 5 Exciter, but there may be free ones available.

M3:

Resample to 32khz and encode using HE-AAC. this will mean that the SBR band runs from 8->16khz, so hopefully making the phase less original.

M4:

Use a delay imager, which mixes each channel into the other, wuth a delay. May sounds a bit horrid, but worth a shot.

M5:

Use any Binaural/HTRF implementation like FFMPEG earwax DSP or TB_IsoneSurround.

M6:

Use any IIR EQ and make random boosts/cuts.

FREE TOOLS PROBABLY STOP HERE ==============

M14:

Use a multiband reverb like Wavearts Masterverb or Meldaproduction MMultibandReverb. Reverbs work because they change the phase a bit (also why the technique in some earlier posts work)

M15:

Change the phase using say, Izotope Ozone 5 EQ in mixed-phase mode. Make a node, boost it by X dB. Make another node at the same frequency, but attenuate it by X dB. Change the phase of one or both. Preferably, both the nodes are above 8k (why as stated above).

M16:

As above, but use parameter modulation in REAPER to change the phase over time. Preferably the random preset with a low hz, since this is probably most unlikely to resonate with the phase stuff that they do\.

M17:

Use Audition3 (Newer versions won’t work). Apply the Stereo Imagery:Graphic panner FX. Select the Phase curve tab, and check auto-center pan.

EDIT: actually M17 may not work since I think it changes the Phase difference. Very subtle, but important disctinction btw Phase and Phase difference, which is sometimes shortened to Phase.

M18:

Use a VST that isn't linear-phase like Voxengo transgainer 1.2- or probably 1.3+ with 'legacy algorithm' (&/+ supersample with min.-phase) or SPL De-verb or DTSneural upmix with width = 100% and depth = +100%. MUST be this DTSneural upmix, since DTSnu mucks with the phase (but perhaps not in the right places)

M19:

Use a comber such as PSP stereoenhancer or Nugen Stereoizer. Play with the image & slice width settings. Additionally, take only one channel, and recomb it and restereoize it with Izotope RX2's Deconstruct T+N.

Also, the JS:gfxanalyzer in Reaper shows phase iirc. May be useful (or not)

I have not tested any methods above, but here are some starting points:///