"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection

[SamuriHL]

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]

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]

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.

[rotty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

MOST excellent information. Thank you for that.

[hello_hello]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...

[Ghitulescu]

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]

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.


Can you point me to some information on how Verance acted in response to the BD-REC solution?

[SamuriHL]

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]

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]

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]

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?

It's somewhere hidden in the compliance rules. I can't cite now, only Monday.

[SamuriHL]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rotty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.