"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection [Archive] - Page 29

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.