Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

alexrad.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#141

Post by rhino369 »

xorcist wrote: post #137
rayiner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about control. It's about the studios always having a seat at the bargaining table when new products/devices are being floated. They fear becoming a commodity supplier. The only way the studios would become a commodity supplier is if there were numerous other sources of content people would pay money to watch. That's what it means for your product to be a commodity. E.g. consumer PCs are a commodity because if…

The studios are also distributors, and it is on distributors the pull of DRM is the strongest. You are indeed a commodity if the consumers can get their Harry Potter fix from anyone. (And that is basically what "pirates" have been saying for ages, that distributors are ice block sellers in the refrigerator age, and that distribution is destined to move up the value chain in the digital age.)

There won't be a value chain if the content creators don't get compensated. Piracy, digital or otherwise, only works if you are skimming off the top of a viable business model.

The distribution channel is really the commodity. Hell, pirates do it for free.

I'm a pirate, but I realize the worst thing that could happen is widespread piracy. Someone has to pay to create the media.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#142

Post by seanp2k2 »

Thlom wrote: post #98
davidgerard wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hollywood know perfectly well that DRM will not stop a determined pirate and a movie only has to be ripped once to be pirated indefinitely. You know, I'm really not convinced they do. Everything I see from these people leads me to think they literally think this stuff is magic , and they want the snake oil so badly they'll believe the people selling it over the people telling them the disappointing truth, every time…

As far as I know the DRM on DCPs (Digital Cinema Package) isn't broken. Yet. Maybe because relatively few people have access to the encrypted content. I guess the most important thing for the movie industry is to have the cinema window free from pirated copies.

Where/how is this used? I ask because screeners are definitely a thing.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#143

Post by zaroth »

acdha wrote: post #136
zaroth wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the larger purpose of IME is actually exactly as a platform for persistent undetectable system compromise. Purpose built for TAO? As conspiracy theories go it's hard to explain the existence and full capabilities of IME in this decade without some NSA involvement.

Please take the conspiracist nattering somewhere else. As explained in the second paragraph of the article, the features of IME were requested by large corporate IT departments and pushed mainstream by marketing pressure, with the addition of DRM bits as requested by the large tech vendors who need them to negotiate licenses with members of the copyright cartel. You look at this and see a secure rootkit. A corporate…

What impressed me the most was how it's not only hard-coded, but that it can still reliably halt the system even when forcibly disabled. If only it could be fully and truly disabled in the BIOS, or even better, isolated as a separate SKU, then I would be much less irate about it's existence.

You can literally wipe all configuration from NVRAM and the platform is still available for "zero-touch remote configuration".

This truly is a PC beside the PC. The level of complexity is astounding; they built everything but a way to turn it off.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#144

Post by xorcist »

rhino369 wrote: post #141
xorcist wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The studios are also distributors, and it is on distributors the pull of DRM is the strongest. You are indeed a commodity if the consumers can get their Harry Potter fix from anyone. (And that is basically what "pirates" have been saying for ages, that distributors are ice block sellers in the refrigerator age, and that distribution is destined to move up the value chain in the digital age.)

There won't be a value chain if the content creators don't get compensated. Piracy, digital or otherwise, only works if you are skimming off the top of a viable business model. The distribution channel is really the commodity. Hell, pirates do it for free. I'm a pirate, but I realize the worst thing that could happen is widespread piracy. Someone has to pay to create the media.

I have yet to hear a "pirate" (in the political sense) argue creators should not get compensated. The argument is mostly, as I said above, that distribution is a commodity.

Note that a commodity still exists, but it would probably mean that the age of exclusive distribution deals would be over. It also implicates prices should go down, so more money should reach creators.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#145

Post by zaroth »

acdha wrote: post #136
zaroth wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the larger purpose of IME is actually exactly as a platform for persistent undetectable system compromise. Purpose built for TAO? As conspiracy theories go it's hard to explain the existence and full capabilities of IME in this decade without some NSA involvement.

Please take the conspiracist nattering somewhere else. As explained in the second paragraph of the article, the features of IME were requested by large corporate IT departments and pushed mainstream by marketing pressure, with the addition of DRM bits as requested by the large tech vendors who need them to negotiate licenses with members of the copyright cartel. You look at this and see a secure rootkit. A corporate…

Anyone who requested the feature of "able to send and receive packets which are not seen by the OS" is either not really asking, or should be told no.

I mean, even if I have a pfSense or whatever box running in between, if I'm reading this correctly, there could be packets traversing the network I can't see?

And all of this has a "zero-touch" configuration capability. You know what that means, right?

The two together, simply put, it's a factor to consider when buying this hardware. People should be aware this feature exists, and what it's capable of. More than anything, it feels like this is unreported and under-discussed.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#146

Post by fit2rule »

jrockway wrote: post #27

This is all ultimately pointless because it's not like the video decoder checks the integrity of its own code or the CPU running it or the compiler that compiled it or that the OS it was tested against is actually running. (Reflections on trusting trust.) Nothing actually cares about secure boot or end-to-end code validation; Apple doesn't even include equipment on their mainboards to do this anymore. Meanwhile, if y…

You can't rip movies with an iDevice. The future of movie companies is, ship hardware devices.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#147

Post by [deleted] »

lelandbatey wrote: post #101
jrockway wrote: post #27

This is all ultimately pointless because it's not like the video decoder checks the integrity of its own code or the CPU running it or the compiler that compiled it or that the OS it was tested against is actually running. (Reflections on trusting trust.) Nothing actually cares about secure boot or end-to-end code validation; Apple doesn't even include equipment on their mainboards to do this anymore. Meanwhile, if y…

Question about capturing at the link layer: Does anyone have any resources for capturing HDMI, stripping HDCP and recording on a computer?

[deleted]

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#148

Post by Thlom »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #142
Thlom wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the DRM on DCPs (Digital Cinema Package) isn't broken. Yet. Maybe because relatively few people have access to the encrypted content. I guess the most important thing for the movie industry is to have the cinema window free from pirated copies.

Where/how is this used? I ask because screeners are definitely a thing.

Most digital cinema releases are AES 128 bit encrypted. For specifics refer to the DCI specification [1].

Screeners are from DVD/Bluray copies sent to academy members and such? If I'm not mistaken?

[1] http://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI_DCSS_v12_with_errata_...

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#149

Post by rhino369 »

xorcist wrote: post #144
rhino369 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There won't be a value chain if the content creators don't get compensated. Piracy, digital or otherwise, only works if you are skimming off the top of a viable business model. The distribution channel is really the commodity. Hell, pirates do it for free. I'm a pirate, but I realize the worst thing that could happen is widespread piracy. Someone has to pay to create the media.

I have yet to hear a "pirate" (in the political sense) argue creators should not get compensated. The argument is mostly, as I said above, that distribution is a commodity. Note that a commodity still exists, but it would probably mean that the age of exclusive distribution deals would be over. It also implicates prices should go down, so more money should reach creators.

What do you think they mean when they say "Data should be free!"

Even a cursory look at their position that places like pirate bay should be allowed to be openly run would lead to creators not getting compensated.

Of course if pressed on it, they'll say, "oh, they can work on donations or whatever people feel like paying." But that's forcing content creators to act like street beggars. Like a movie theatre is going to put a hat in front of the Avengers 2 movie to raised 300 million of Avengers 3. It is ridiculous.

Re: Why Rosyna Can't Take a Movie Screenshot

#150

Post by xorcist »

rhino369 wrote: post #149
xorcist wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to hear a "pirate" (in the political sense) argue creators should not get compensated. The argument is mostly, as I said above, that distribution is a commodity. Note that a commodity still exists, but it would probably mean that the age of exclusive distribution deals would be over. It also implicates prices should go down, so more money should reach creators.

What do you think they mean when they say "Data should be free!" Even a cursory look at their position that places like pirate bay should be allowed to be openly run would lead to creators not getting compensated. Of course if pressed on it, they'll say, "oh, they can work on donations or whatever people feel like paying." But that's forcing content creators to act like street beggars. Like a movie theatre is going t…

You keep putting up a silly proposition just to argue against it. I know it's easier for you, but it's also intellectually dishonest.

I've had a small bit of dealings with political "pirates", and I have yet to encounter the position you describe. "Information wants to be free" (which I guess you really mean) is really an old catch phrase more associated with the cyber liberty movement of the early 90s and the crypto wars, more than with modern political pirates.

Nobody has suggested movie theaters run on donations alone, but there has been suggestions that movie theaters should be free to license movies outside the distribution agreements. Again, the underlying idea is that distribution will become commodity. Argue against that instead and I will gladly explain the situation further.

The situation with sites like The Pirate Bay is not a matter of letting them operate or not, but a matter of where the common carrier status lies and where the legal responsibility falls (with the uploader, the downloader or the various infrastructure providers).

Post reply on HN