I was trying to keep the discussion point as simple as possible. ART's are "approved", in other words ART's are "legal". I used the term "loophole" to describe an exception to the perceived "rules" that most people are hungup on. When congress passes a tax code, and later on provides some legal exceptions to the general tax rule, those exceptions are generally regarded as "legal loopholes". Perhaps a "legal loophole" isn't the best way to describe this approved technology that has been implemented by multiple companies. What phrase would make you more comfortable?



I think the word "Approved" in the phrase "Approved Retransmission Technology" from the DCP website satisifes this request. Yes, it is somebody elses scheme, and it has already been implemented by multiple companies in other industries (primarily digital signage).


I apologize for the phrasing - no offense was intended. I just was trying to explain that the extreme level of disclosure being demanded by some would cause harm to my business. I will do my best to satisfy reasonable requests for details that are not of a confidential nature, and I will try to help you better understand when we decide that something is too confidential to disclose publicly.

The simplest answer is that we have licensed a private label custom solution that is a collaboration between multiple companies on the Adopters list and we don't want to tell our competitors the name of our subcontractors. The last thing I need is one of my subcontractors getting hit up with requests from other companies to do the same for them and buy out our contracts. We have fully disclosed the names of the participating Adopters to DCP and HDMI licensing authorities - multiple times. In my experience, the HDMI/HDCP police seem to do a pretty good job of keeping an eye on the industry and making sure things are not illegal.

Anything but loophole :D. That was the same word used in many of the Kaleidescape discussions.

Thanks for your answers.

I do have one last question. I know that with Blu Ray player manufacturers keys can be "revoked". I think I am comfortable enough with the answers you have given to use the generation 2 product once we get to test it. But just to ask one last question, let's suppose the unthinkable happens and at some point your product is no longer licensed and you can't sell it any more. Is there anything they (DCP/governing body) could do or revoke that would cause existing products in the field to stop functioning?

Not that I know of.

Unfortunate that is not the case. HDCP has a revocation list which can be updated through new media (so called blacklist). Here is a quick read: [Link: practical-home-theater-guide.com]

"Key-revocation procedures are there to ensure that any device which violates the license agreement could be relatively easily blocked from receiving HD data.

If some particular model is considered 'compromised', its Key Selection Vector (KSV) is put into a blacklist - referred to as revocation list. These lists are encoded onto the HD media e.g. on newly produced disks with HD content. This means that the newer the media - e.g. high definition DVD disc - the larger will be the revocation list.

Each revocation list is signed with a digital signature using the Digital Signature Algorithm - also referred to as DSA. DSA is a United States Federal Government standard for digital signatures; it is used to prevent malicious users from both revoking legitimate devices as well as removing revocation for compromised devices from the list.

During the authentication process, if the receiver's KSV is found by a transmitter in the revocation list, then the transmitter considers the receiver to be compromised and refuses to send High Definition data to it.

It is this key revocation process that makes HDCP sort of 'future-proof' when it comes to combating the use of fake or rogue devices. Through key revocation, HDCP gives the media, content, or even other devices, the ability to invalidate keys of devices known to be a problem."

Amir, I'm aware of the revocation list, and while I am curious to know if it has ever been expanded (can you imagine how much slower a BR player will be if it has to do a boolean search against a few hundred thousand keys?), that is not the point. You seem to have missed the last year of discussing the JAP 1G solution, so you don't yet understand how it works. The Key and EDID of the first attached display is what is presented to the source.

QQQ's question was whether already installed systems could be disabled in the future. That was the question I was answering.

This is the aspect of the solution that would give me the most concern in terms of future legality/compliance.

I'm trying to think of ways that someone could use a JAP product to rip/copy the content.

I don't know of any devices that have an HDMI INPUT and can copy. Honestly I really don't know very much about how content is stolen currently. If the Key and EDID are handled with the first source, couldn't someone take two JAP RX units, have one go to the display and act as the first in line, and then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc, wouldn't have to do anything with a key/edid? This stream is now unprotected?

I'm guessing that I'm wrong here, but please clarify.

The JAP Receivers only have a single HDMI output and they enforce HDCP remotely on each attached sink. The stream is never unprotected. It is neither harder or easier to rip the content than from any other HDMI splitter device. If the attached source content requires HDCP, then only the attached displays on the LAN with valid HDCP keys get to see the content. We've demonstrated this with digital signage applications. When the PC is feeding the non-HDCP content to the network all of the attached displays (those with and without HDCP keys) get to see the content, when we cut over to a Blu-Ray player all the displays without HDCP keys go dark.

If you own an a recorder with HDMI inputs that doesn't respect HDCP (none exist that I'm aware of), then the risk associated with that recording device is the same whether or not you are using the JAP solution.

As for how content is stolen currently, my best guess is that some of the HDCP "key stripper" devices come into play. The JAP solution is not a key stripper at all. It is a distributed key enforcement system that is limited to the physical contraints of a LAN.

Good enough for me. You should make a video of this, it sounds like a great visual demonstration.

If the system relies on a blacklist rather than a whitelist, then it only needs to search through a very short list of bad device IDs. I also assume you mean a "binary" search above, not boolean :).

FYI, Blu-ray players also have revocation and the process is lightning fast due the way MKB processing is done whereby a device is revoked in the normal work of trying to find the title keys to play. There is no extra processing involved for a compromised or normal player. Not saying that is how HDCP works but that people who design such things, do think through them :).


I remember reading threads on this topic but don't recall technical discussions of this nature. So if it was discussed then, I apologize and appreciate a link so that I can go and read it.

For now, what you seem to be saying is that your receiver uses a device that is approved/otherwise not compromised and hence, can't be revoked. So the source can't see past it to revoke anything. So far as good?

If so, it would be incredible news to me that you would be allowed to use a form of content protection between the two endpoints that is immune to any form of revocation. If you do have such a scheme, you have essentially disabled any notion of revocation in HDCP. I can't assume DCP people, unless sleep at the helm, would have ever approved such a scheme.

No system is hacker proof. Revocation is the key to disabling systems that are compromised, allowing revised/fixed versions to be deployed. Without it, people will hold to the broken ones and use them forever as copy machines. Witness the situation with DVD today.

Ed, I do this stuff for a living and you are starting to make me concerned :).


And that was what I was addressing. If HDMI connection to the display cannot be revoked (through your devices and connection), then you have substantially lowered the copy protection bar for the entire system, including sources like Blu-ray and cable boxes which are supposed to at some point get content even before blu-ray and are relying on HDMI's security level to get there.

Maybe you are saying this is a loophole in how HDCP is designed/licensed and hence, it is not your problem. If so, I like to see that confirmed so that we know what we are looking at. I agree if you have a revocation proof system that your customers do not have anything to worry about as you mentioned.

BTW, I really appreciate you being here and answering these tough questions :). If you feel to you need to stop this conversation at any point, please do so and I would understand. Your need to run a business supersedes our need to know.

You are becoming suspicious that JAP's HDCP solution my not be kosher and you suddenly become Panglossian? This site isn't a trade publication where advertising equals hearing and seeing no evil. I'm on Ed's ignore list because I've had the temerity to interrupt his love fest with some serious questions about how his product handles HDCP. You are coming to this same conclusion and you write that Ed's "need to run a business supersedes our need to know."

Are you freakin' kidding me? If this product is kosher it will be one of the best to come to market in some time. It is flexible, significantly less expensive and while it doesn't provide all the features available in 1.4 it puts a picture on to the display every time-- a trade off most every CI would happily make. It has only one serious negative. The legality of how it handles HDCP. On a forum dedicated to custom installers you behave like a writer for a trade publication and think a manufacturer's right to sell a solution you think may not be kosher supersedes the CI's right to know that it is legal?

You would not be bothered in the least sitting silently while you knew or suspected that the claims a product made were false? I may be on an island of one. But how can anyone trust any of your opinions if you honestly believe a manufacturer's right to sell a product outweighs our right to know its claims are valid?

I understand Ed's position. I am also grateful for Ed's participation and patience. However, I am astounded by yours.

Alan

No one comes to a forum expecting to receive the type of questioning Ed is receiving from me. It is an unfair situation and I want to be up front about it.

Keep in mind that it is entirely possible that copy protection is not Ed's expertise yet in the course of this Q/A, he says something that causes grief for his company and his employment. I don't want to be responsible for that.

I realize some posters think otherwise but this is not a court of law and Ed has no obligation whatsoever to answer questions from us just because we demand an answer. If it were a court of law, it would be within my rights to not force him to answer my questions :).


You can choose to put someone in a position to disrupt his livelihood for the sake of spending time with you and me. I won't.


No I am not kidding you. But I am amazed that all of a sudden, I have gone from an uninformed writer to someone you need on your side on this argument. Fight your own fight. We saw how much information you got out of him with your style ;) :).


First, please quit this non-sense about me being a writer. I am not a professional writer. I write free technical tutorials once in a while for WSR magazine based on my prior industry experience. I am sure you know my background otherwise. So please don't be condescending this way as you will derail this thread, making it about you and me and not get the answers you want ;).

I have my own CI company (http://madronadigital.com/) and have similar need to you to know these things. But I am not going assume that gives me right to force someone say their product is "illegal." You want to force him to do that, then learn a better way to engage him than the left and right attacks. Need an example? See David's approach.


First, I did not sit "silently" and have managed to get us to this point of the conversation. You have a heck of a lot more to use next you go fist-fighting with Ed :). Second, I do not own the forum and did not shut down the conversation. Ed can choose to keep going or not and you can engage him in conversation as can others.

I am making a personal choice to not participate in interrogatories which rival a court case, potentially causing harm to someone personally. You seem to assume that can only happen if his product is "illegal." But that is not the only scenario. It is entirely possible that I ask him an in-depth question which he answers incorrectly and gets him in hot water with his company or other compliance agencies. That might be OK in your book but it is not mine.


I hope people appreciate that it is with conduct such as mine, that we attract more industry insiders here, allowing us to get a level of knowledge we would never enjoy otherwise. Even if we got 90% of what we wanted to know, we would be infinitely ahead of the game, than just exchanging opinions oursleves without real data.

But sure, I am more than happy to live with the consequences of what I say here. Ultimately the validity of what I say has to stand on its own, rather than what my personal opinions are regarding industry insider participation in forums.


When someone says they want to put you on ignore list, I would say that is damning condemnation of how much they think you appreciate them :). But sure, by all means, be astounded, or whatever other grandstanding word you want to use about me. I am fine with that :).

Ed's in sales. He has a hell of a product for sale. Blackwire Designs was correct to bring the product to our attention though he ought to have been a bit more transparent when he did so.

I hope this product is legal. All I've asked for was the information on which a CI to make a reasoned decision of the risk/reward. Even if it's not legal I suspect many will still chose to use it.

I don't wish JAP to go out of business. I do not wish ill on Ed. However, I believe in logic and the logic of this situation is that if this is legal everyone excepting Ed's competitors benefits. If it's not a lot of CIs will have their rear ends exposed. I don't want Ed to lose his job but I also don't want to see a CI forced out of business because they made the what may turn out to be the wrong decision because they honestly thought they were selling a legal product.
Maybe because I'm a CI and this is a board for CIs I am siding with the custom installer.

I do not think Ed is attempting to deceive. I take him at his word that he thinks his product is legal. I don't know everything and I'm hardly the final arbiter. However, I call it the way I see it. Ed is unhappy with my participation because he has a sales opportunity on which I'm raining. I have a great deal of sympathy for Ed's predicament. This is one more proof of the evil of HDMI as a system and its licensors in particular; even more evil is that these very same entities can turn around and invalidate a product after people have purchased it in good faith even as they refuse to certify a solution ahead of time as legal.

Manufacturers have one business plan and a CI a different one. You say you are a CI but your behavior and attitude suggests your sensibility is a manufacturer. Few CIs can fight a law suit and a 15-20K install that is later invalidated by these evil HDMI licensors is going to put that CI in court. At the very least he is going to eat the cost of that install and have to reach into his pocket to replace those products with a second solution. If he is relaying on a networked solution, oh boy. However, If Ed is correct and it is legal everyone wins. A reasonably priced matrix solution that solves issues of reliability, distance and centralized distribution would be a god-send.

You are worried about Ed and JAP? I think you ought to be more concerned about the CI who is in a worse position if the way these products handle HDCP are invalid. If Ed is in trouble he can remain silent. The best solution is if HDMI licensors had to certify compliance. It seems reasonable given they have a negative vote. That is not fair either.

No one likes to be challenged. I had already stated the necessary points that needed to be made. There was no need for me to bother Ed with additional questions. I think your behavior and prejudices have been shown in specific relief. I'm not going to bother debating what I conclude is now self-evident.

My signature is a quote from a movie. Yours is that your write for Widescreen review. It is disingenuous to maintain the pretense that you are not a writer when you publicly underscore it.

Don't bother debating me. Who am I? As I told Ed, it's not me he needs to worry about. He continued to answer because he is speaking to the members of this board. I may be a verbose asshole but at least I have integrity. If you bother responding do so to this board's members, not to me. I'm not going to respond further.

Alan

I am worried about CI community learning more about these products and was following a path to get us there. Sure, it is different than your method of badgering the insider and then saying you respect him as if that debating technique really works with anyone who has an IQ > 30. You are alienating the very people you want answers from and come and blame me instead for being polite and showing proper courtesy.

I am sure there are people working for companies who read this forum and are now feeling even better about their internal rules to not engage in this kind of back and forth: [Link: wilsonaudio.com]

"Less understandable is the number of established manufacturers who regularly do battle in the forums. My experience is that this is a colossal waste of time. There is very little in the way of thoughtful discourse within forums. Moreover, fundamentalists are rarely converted. And ultimately, there is very little relationship between these conversations and actual commerce. Spending time in unwinnable mêlées, often against unknown or even illusory virtual foes, is time better used building relationships with actual, flesh and blood customers."

I can't tell you how unhappy I get when I read company principals say stuff like this about Internet forums. There is so much to learn from the community and so much to give back. But here you go, giving them the ammunition to stay out of the discussion by stomping the toe of the person who dares to come here and answer questions.


I am a believer in full disclosure so a movie quote is out of the question :). I list everything I do professionally. I need Ed and the rest of you to know everything about me as you interact with me. I also use my real first name and not a random alias.

I don't force these standards on anyone though. Your alias is just fine. But please don't go make fun of what I do for the sake of making some other point. It is simply unprofessional.

Well, we heard that once before in this very thread and here you are again and you keep saying you are logical. :) If that is logical, I don't really know what heck the word means :D. 100 bucks says you are hitting refresh on your browser every minute trying to see what I say back to you! Don't worry, I am as bad as you :D. We all love a good fight but hopefully, it is OK if each one of us has a different technique....