HDCP - Unlawful?
 

Im just wondering what everyones opinion is on HDCP Copyright Protection.

Ive heard that some countries have actually outlawed it from being used in the technology they use, making a massive victory for consumers of those countries.

So what can be done here, then?

I mean, its pretty obvious that the HDCP idea is flawed, and basically at the end before its really begun, but what about the possible 60%+ people who DONT have a HDCP compliant device! Even if they CAN technically recieve a HD Signal!

I was thinking of writing to the Government about it, but Im not sure what good it will do...

Ofcom maybe?

Ad how much support would there be against HDCP in this country...

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

i dont worry about it and sleep better at night.
id be interested to know who banned it

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

No one as far as I know. Sounds like wishful thinking and unfounded rumour.

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

Technically being able to recieve it and being sold as hd ready are two entirely different things. Most devices that have HDMI should also have HDCP.

How is the idea flawed ? The idea is simple, only the final display panel removes the encryption on the video. This stops people putting devices in between the player and the display in order to record / copy the signal.

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

Not sure it's flawed. Incoveniant, yes, but not flawed.
The way I see it, I don't think any action would succeed. Just because you have equipment that can recieve a signal, it does not follow that you should be able to view that signal. Where I work, we have a few satellite TV dishes. None are Sky dishes (in fact they are there to recieve foreign language TV for our Language labs). Should Sky be legally obliged to provide us decrypted signals just because we have equipment that can recieve them? Clearly, no. To do so would destroy their business model.

Similarly, my v+ technically has the ability to view every channel Virgin Media does. Should Virgin Media be required to supply all those channels to me?

Now, one major difference is those dishes were not sold to us so we could recieve Sky.

However, there's not as major a difference as may there may seem to be. Most people I know that were sold HD TV were sold it on the basis that they could watch TV in Hi definition. They can. Not all stuff is HDCP protected (AFAIK), so they can watch the non HDCP stuff.

The Sale of Goods act gives us rights in the event that the goods are not fit for the purpose they are sold for, but it doesn't (afaik) give us any rights in the case of HDTVs apart from ensuring the viewer can watch some channels on them. If it did, Virgin (wth their one HD channel and HD On Demand stuff) would be finished..

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

If you're worried about any sort of DRM, then join Defective by Design...

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

To be fair, HDCP is a pain in the bum. I've seen several issues on several HD forums that were HDCP handshaking issues between different manufacturers. It's like a parent telling a small child that they can't be trusted.

Here's a question: Do Blu-ray recorders (available in Japan) have HDMI in? Will they take the signal from a HD box, remove the DRM and record it to disk? We all know the content providers don't want to to be able to do any recording at home, so have they sneaked this one in under the radar in the name of 'progress'?

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

In order to display a HD Ready sticker the screens HDMI/DVI inputs have to have HDCP (amongst other things). If you are sold a TV with a HD Ready sticker that cannot handle HDCP signals then you have a case to get your money back.
Theres a quick summary of the requirements before a set can display a HD Ready sticker. http://www.dvdlibrary.co.uk/hd_ready.htm

Your screen only has to be able to display 720 lines, it does not even have to be able to show all 1280 pixels making up each line!

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

Let's also try to forget the idiocy of the 'HD Compatible' official standard that thankfully everyone ignored. This was any set that was capable of receiving a 720p/1080i set over HDMI with HDCP, and then downscaling it to bog standard PAL. Confusing? Just a little!

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

No, the screen has to capable of displaying 720 lines. SD is only 576. But yes its a rubbish set of standards.

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

@Losttheplot: Ahhh - I think for the first time I know something you don't. ;) There is actually a 'HD Compatible' standard, with a very similar logo to the official 'HD Ready' one. It merely states that the set must take a HD picture. It doesn't have to have more than 576 lines of resolution.

From researching this (I last heard about it years ago) it appears it never actually got off the ground as it was thought it would 'confuse consumers'. Damn right it would have done! The only thing that comes close to backing me up is the great deceiver of Wikipedia here

Re: HDCP - Unlawful?
 

If such a devices existed (haven't looked) its highly likely that they would record to disc with the HDCP intact. So depending on how the 'broadcast' flag was used the same limitations will apply (no recording, recording limited to x days etc etc)
All its doing is returning power to the broadcasters and make us watch tv when they want us to, rather then when we want to!
So no recording of series of entire series of shows then watching them in one. Oh no thats what the box sets are for!