Choking on HDCP
-
Lately, I've come to the realization that non-HDCP video cards will diminish to a point where I don't have much say in the choice of characteristics. (Example: I won't be able to find a SLI video card with 1 GiB DDR3 memory and no HDCP, but I will probably find a 128 MiB video card with DDR memory and no HDCP.) Therefore, I've progressed to the stage where I'm trying to convince myself it's not evil and I can benefit from it (exactly what the MPAA would want). I've come up with some pretty ridiculous ones:
- HDCP will protect my video signals from being wiretapped. (Of course, we know HDCP isn't foolproof.)
- HDCP makes my video signals tamperproof so I know what my computer wants to display is displayed on the monitor.
Does anyone else want to supply me with some good reasons I should accept the evil HDCP?
ROFLOLMFAO
-
Lately, I've come to the realization that non-HDCP video cards will diminish to a point where I don't have much say in the choice of characteristics. (Example: I won't be able to find a SLI video card with 1 GiB DDR3 memory and no HDCP, but I will probably find a 128 MiB video card with DDR memory and no HDCP.) Therefore, I've progressed to the stage where I'm trying to convince myself it's not evil and I can benefit from it (exactly what the MPAA would want). I've come up with some pretty ridiculous ones:
- HDCP will protect my video signals from being wiretapped. (Of course, we know HDCP isn't foolproof.)
- HDCP makes my video signals tamperproof so I know what my computer wants to display is displayed on the monitor.
Does anyone else want to supply me with some good reasons I should accept the evil HDCP?
ROFLOLMFAO
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
HDCP will protect my video signals from being wiretapped. (Of course, we know HDCP isn't foolproof.) HDCP makes my video signals tamperproof so I know what my computer wants to display is displayed on the monitor.
well... HDCP has its own channel process to minimize encryption overhead and pass through as often as possible to the next stage without ever decrypting it. All in all, I think putting benefits on it is iffy, I would stick with "HDCP is" and leave it at that. It is a fact we are having to live with, you can beat your head against the wall, or live with reality. There are alternative display methods for your video, just know what you need and the overhead of your choice vs. alternatives. If it fits, leave it be, if it doesn't, use an alternative. I wouldn't go farther than that myself.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
HDCP will protect my video signals from being wiretapped. (Of course, we know HDCP isn't foolproof.) HDCP makes my video signals tamperproof so I know what my computer wants to display is displayed on the monitor.
well... HDCP has its own channel process to minimize encryption overhead and pass through as often as possible to the next stage without ever decrypting it. All in all, I think putting benefits on it is iffy, I would stick with "HDCP is" and leave it at that. It is a fact we are having to live with, you can beat your head against the wall, or live with reality. There are alternative display methods for your video, just know what you need and the overhead of your choice vs. alternatives. If it fits, leave it be, if it doesn't, use an alternative. I wouldn't go farther than that myself.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
There are alternative display methods for your video, just know what you need and the overhead of your choice vs. alternatives. If it fits, leave it be, if it doesn't, use an alternative.
:: sigh :: I'm very aware of the alternatives: video cards with DVI and/or HDTV component output only. The thing is, pretty soon, all video cards will have some HDCP functionality in it, whether active or dormant. I'm trying to convince myself that the wasted silicon space for encrypted video signals is worth the loss in possible maximum performance if the space was dedicated to more pipelines, etc. Yeah, I know it's a very anal way of thinking about it.
ROFLOLMFAO
-
Lately, I've come to the realization that non-HDCP video cards will diminish to a point where I don't have much say in the choice of characteristics. (Example: I won't be able to find a SLI video card with 1 GiB DDR3 memory and no HDCP, but I will probably find a 128 MiB video card with DDR memory and no HDCP.) Therefore, I've progressed to the stage where I'm trying to convince myself it's not evil and I can benefit from it (exactly what the MPAA would want). I've come up with some pretty ridiculous ones:
- HDCP will protect my video signals from being wiretapped. (Of course, we know HDCP isn't foolproof.)
- HDCP makes my video signals tamperproof so I know what my computer wants to display is displayed on the monitor.
Does anyone else want to supply me with some good reasons I should accept the evil HDCP?
ROFLOLMFAO
The fact is that there are two growing yet opposing forces. One, the demand for encryption and security, two, the demand to reveal more and more information to track and identify. The first refers primarily to information, the second primarily to people. The collision occurs when dealing with information about people or businesses, be this a social security number, a phone conversation, or a proprietary information/property. The end result will be more rules and regulations on information imposed by businesses and government, and less rights to the individual, eventually to where laws will be passed that individuals cannot encrypt their own data streams (which already exist, if I'm not mistaken). Marc
-
Lately, I've come to the realization that non-HDCP video cards will diminish to a point where I don't have much say in the choice of characteristics. (Example: I won't be able to find a SLI video card with 1 GiB DDR3 memory and no HDCP, but I will probably find a 128 MiB video card with DDR memory and no HDCP.) Therefore, I've progressed to the stage where I'm trying to convince myself it's not evil and I can benefit from it (exactly what the MPAA would want). I've come up with some pretty ridiculous ones:
- HDCP will protect my video signals from being wiretapped. (Of course, we know HDCP isn't foolproof.)
- HDCP makes my video signals tamperproof so I know what my computer wants to display is displayed on the monitor.
Does anyone else want to supply me with some good reasons I should accept the evil HDCP?
ROFLOLMFAO
-
El Corazon wrote:
There are alternative display methods for your video, just know what you need and the overhead of your choice vs. alternatives. If it fits, leave it be, if it doesn't, use an alternative.
:: sigh :: I'm very aware of the alternatives: video cards with DVI and/or HDTV component output only. The thing is, pretty soon, all video cards will have some HDCP functionality in it, whether active or dormant. I'm trying to convince myself that the wasted silicon space for encrypted video signals is worth the loss in possible maximum performance if the space was dedicated to more pipelines, etc. Yeah, I know it's a very anal way of thinking about it.
ROFLOLMFAO
according to nvidia/ati the manufacturing cost to implement it is only a dollar per card. That said when they first implemented their part in the design/GPU many of the card makers didn't put the required chip (buy an activation code????) needed to make it work, as a result there are alot of cards with HDCP capable GPUs that can't actually do HDCP because the card maker decided to save a buck. Meanwhile the studios brought mandatory HDCP into play several years earlier than when they originally said they were. :doh: :mad: IIRC both manufactures are mandating it be enabled for their current product lines but I'm not sure when the cutoff was.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Because undoubtedly someone will crack it sooner or later so it will not be an issue anyway.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
This makes me even more upset. :(( I have to pay for a card that supports something that won't even do its job correctly—to keep me from "pirating" videos. LOL
ROFLOLMFAO
-
according to nvidia/ati the manufacturing cost to implement it is only a dollar per card. That said when they first implemented their part in the design/GPU many of the card makers didn't put the required chip (buy an activation code????) needed to make it work, as a result there are alot of cards with HDCP capable GPUs that can't actually do HDCP because the card maker decided to save a buck. Meanwhile the studios brought mandatory HDCP into play several years earlier than when they originally said they were. :doh: :mad: IIRC both manufactures are mandating it be enabled for their current product lines but I'm not sure when the cutoff was.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
dan neely wrote:
the manufacturing cost to implement it is only a dollar per card
I'm less worried about the financial cost than the performance cost. Obviously, the more circuits you put bits through, the slower the card, although I'm very aware it's negligible. The real cost is the chip designer's opportunity to add circuitry that would make the card more powerful. The silicon space that would've otherwise gone to extra features are now used for HDCP, which has even been proven to not work (or be ineffective). So now we have a vestige of crap in every video card and it's going to cost a dollar to keep it there. More money for less functionality. Damn it. I just convinced myself why I hate HDCP in the first place. :doh:
ROFLOLMFAO
-
The fact is that there are two growing yet opposing forces. One, the demand for encryption and security, two, the demand to reveal more and more information to track and identify. The first refers primarily to information, the second primarily to people. The collision occurs when dealing with information about people or businesses, be this a social security number, a phone conversation, or a proprietary information/property. The end result will be more rules and regulations on information imposed by businesses and government, and less rights to the individual, eventually to where laws will be passed that individuals cannot encrypt their own data streams (which already exist, if I'm not mistaken). Marc
The demand for encryption/security also works both ways: security for and against an entity. Here's my interpretation of the current demands: The demand to invade privacy of an entity works hand in hand with security against an entity to give birth to something known as the demand to control others.
ROFLOLMFAO