"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection

[SamuriHL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Thank you for that. It makes perfect sense and wasn't something I ever considered. I agree that it's a very likely possibility.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[derbeDeus]

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

[setarip_old]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

That was a mystery re DVD and I think you have answered that perfectly.

Fantasic stuff, well done. We all love a mystery and even better when it is answered.

Thats what forums like this are all about.

[Guest]

...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]

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]

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

[SamuriHL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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.

jet

[hello_hello]

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]

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]

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?

[hello_hello]

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

[derbeDeus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rotty]

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]

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

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[rotty]

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]

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]

OK Samuri

Happy New Year by the way.

Happy new year to you, as well.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk