Apple Incorporates HDCP (Copy Protection) in New Laptops

[Diaresi]

I don't care that Apple added HDCP into the new MacBooks. I don't think anyone in here would care (well, they'd "accept" it) if they were getting this message on Blu-Ray movies or HD iTunes downloads.

I DO care when they use it on standard definition downloads (that, being from the iTunes Store, are already severely limited compared to a DVD)!

The idiots.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So let me get this straight. Apple has decided to use this new propriety "mini-display port" instead of the industry STANDARD HDMI connection in ALL its future products? Um, is it just me or does that just SMACK of them doing that purely so they can charge big money for conversion cables and NO OTHER REASON. I mean HDMI ports are TINY. They're at least as small as Apple's new display port so what's the point in using that port instead of HDMI other than to try and reap more money from the consumer?

I mean people gripe about Microsoft not supporting STANDARDS in things like web browsers and here you have Apple purposely making up new video ports instead of using industry standards like HDMI that have been around for several years now. That's just ridiculous, IMO. I'm glad I got the previous generation MBP that has a full sized DVI connector. It's not HDMI, but at least it WAS a common standard before HDMI.

I wonder if the next wave of AppleTV units will use the new Apple "display port" instead of HDMI.... Nevermind what the rest of the world uses, Apple. Roll your own. Does this mean that Appletalk ports will come back and start replacing gigabit ethernet on the next models too?

 

[alaskan314]

let's play the blame game

Looks like it's up to the application to make use of a functionality (unfortunately) provided by Apple. Apple should make sure that they share the blame. Projection is BIG and will get even bigger. Most of all, we don't want to have an erosion of trust that the next presentation will make us look like an idiot because the projector does not work with the computer. Walking a fine line here to please the blue-ray dudes.

 

[Catch Them]

and i take it that the previous line of ACDs (23" and 30") will not able to view this content ..... Yay!

 

[blackpond]

<rant>

To all the people screaming:

"I bought it, I should be able to do what I want with it." ...

YOU DID NOT BUY IT.

Do you believe that it costs $20 to produce a quality, modern movie? Try adding a hundred million or so to your iTunes bill if you want to actually BUY that title. Which brings up another point. If you actually did invest $100 million into a single movie, wouldn't you want to be sure that the people who watch it compensate you for it's entertainment value?

Get over yourselves. You don't own the film, the music, the software or whatever. You are purchasing the right, under the SELLERS TERMS to view, listen to or use that intellectual property (once again, under the SELLERS TERMS).

If you don't like the terms don't buy it. If it doesn't work on your VGA projector don't buy it.

But, oh no, it won't play on my device the way I want it to! That means the producers are evil and wrong. What? And your response is, "well, I'll just go steal it then. hmf... evil studios." What the heck People? You have NO RIGHT to that content.

</rant>

 

[wallaby]

There are times when I'm glad for old hardware. I'll be sticking with my 2006 MBP, DVI-connections, and good 'ole DVDs for some time to come it seems. I'll vote with my dollars, and I'm not buying into the whole HD scene with its horrid content management.

 

[devman]

No, no no! You have options: Don't support HDCP-enabled content. Don't support DRM. You have plenty of options. If you want to watch HDCP-enabled content, you have to buy HDCP-compliant hardware. Is that so hard to understand

It's easy to understand. What you don't seem to understand is that neither the content (ITMS movies/tv shows) and the hardware (new MBs and MBPs) are advertised as HDCP enabled or compliant.

 

[MrCrowbar]

This is with ANY retail store you go to. Its not the store's fault that you can't return it. Its the copyright laws, if retail stores were to violate the law there would be a huge amount of lawsuits and violation fees because of this. It really bothers me that consumers expect retail stores to take back something that is open just because they "don't like it" or "wasn't what they thought it is". You can exchange the product for the same thing, but not for a different product. So, walking out of the store throwing a fit is only just going to make you look embarrassing and not going to help you get your refund.

Apple has stated that you can't get a refund on music or videos purchased through their store. Once you spent the money thats it. This is pretty much the same thing as the copyright laws that retail stores have to follow.

To clarify, I wasn't mad at the store, but it was a music store (only Audio CDs). I wasn't able to play the thing back at all due to DRM. This was years ago by the way, befor wikipedia and all. I usually educate myself (quite obscessively actually) about a product before I buy it: I read reviews, search for potential problems on forum, download and read the operations manual, check pricing, etc. I ALWAYS know much more about the thing than the clerk in the store. It's all false advertizing anyway.

 

[JPark]

I don't really see it being a big deal. How often would you connect up a projector to watch a movie like this?

For watching potentially HDCP-encoded media? Maybe 6 times a year. When I have big groups of friends come over. You know, those times when you really really don't want to run into something like this.

 

[JPark]

<rant>

To all the people screaming:

"I bought it, I should be able to do what I want with it." ...

YOU DID NOT BUY IT.

Do you believe that it costs $20 to produce a quality, modern movie? Try adding a hundred million or so to your iTunes bill if you want to actually BUY that title. Which brings up another point. If you actually did invest $100 million into a single movie, wouldn't you want to be sure that the people who watch it compensate you for it's entertainment value?

Get over yourselves. You don't own the film, the music, the software or whatever. You are purchasing the right, under the SELLERS TERMS to view, listen to or use that intellectual property (once again, under the SELLERS TERMS).

If you don't like the terms don't buy it. If it doesn't work on your VGA projector don't buy it.

But, oh no, it won't play on my device the way I want it to! That means the producers are evil and wrong. What? And your response is, "well, I'll just go steal it then. hmf... evil studios." What the heck People? You have NO RIGHT to that content.

</rant>

Were the SELLER'S TERMS reasonably available for the consumer to view before making the purchase? It doesn't sound like it.

 

[137489]

Errr... don't most DVDs strictly tell you (for a whole freaking minute) you're not to show the video to an audience? They all didn't pay to see it! In some places, you can even get into trouble when you're listening to loud music because your neighbors could hear it too, thus consuming the media without paying.

I see your point - but a lot of schools use DVD's. And as far as paying for it, that gets into the whole fair use for education purposes and whether you paid to take that class (which is WAY OFF TOPIC to try to discuss all the gray areas here).

As for the loud music - umm, ok I can see about breaking noise ordinances; but as for gettng into trouble due to people consuming media they did not pay for.

Truthfully, the whole sharing of files and bit torrents is what started this whole mess; and that was because people were pirating software.

I remember reading a clause or article one time that, if you were recording from the air (in other words you did not have a descrambler box - just used your antenna, paid cable connection, radio, free over-the-air TV), and it was being broadcasted to anyone - then you could record it without recourse; just you should'nt redistribute it.

this whole thing is geting ot of control because of a few bad seeds.

 

[gothamm]

right, like HDCP is going to prevent piracy

 

[devman]

That would have always been the case.

I would hardly call it stealth, but more a matter of 'let the buyer beware', doing your research and planning ahead.

Um ok, show me the buyer beware research you did previously that proved ITMS content was HDCP enabled and that the new laptops are HDCP compliant. Neither of these facts are stated by Apple. If that isn't stealth I don't know what is.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not getting into the HDCP good or bad argument, nor am I saying that existing displays should be HDCP enabled. I agree, they were never going to play blu-ray content due to lack of HDCP. But I KNEW THAT. My complaint is that it was unknown that ITMS content had HDCP and that the new hardware enforces it. All Apple had to do was state this and then it truly could be buyer beware as you say, or buyer informed as I would rather put it.

 

[cleanup]

So, DRM is basically why I still physical CDs/DVDs, and on occasion, pirate it. I used to purchase music online, when AllOfMP3 was still up. Not because it was substantially cheaper; I'd gladly pay $0.99 a song, but because of DRM. iTunes Plus is a decent step forward if they didn't charge more for it... but of course that's a product of the recording industry, not iTunes. But now if I purchase a movie on iTunes, I can't output on a projector/non-Apple-LED-display for my friends/family to enjoy?

I'm pretty sure the consensus reaction is:
Okay. F*** you. I'll take my business elsewhere.

And as for that bullsh*t about publicly viewing a movie that others haven't "paid for" or "purchased," what else do they want us to do? Have everyone purchase a copy? Even then, how are we all supposed to watch it together in a communal way? We can't. This is about the entertainment industry claiming the "right" to deserving money from people who view/listen/experience their content on a pay-per-view basis. That's completely ridiculous. Even if they did have their way, how on earth would they regulate/charge people for something like that? Pretty soon, if I purchase a movie, I'll be the only person who's allowed to watch it. I won't even be able to watch a movie with my girlfriend, or my family, without them somehow paying the studios because they haven't purchased a copy as well. And even if they have, they probably aren't allowed to watch my copy. I won't be able to play a CD at a party because my guests may not own a copy of the CD as well. Then I suppose the speakers plugged into my computer are also going to eventually have DRM. Sorry, you can't play this song without headphones because your speakers are not DRM authorized. Honestly, what the ****?

 

[dejo]

So let me get this straight. Apple has decided to use this new propriety "mini-display port" instead of the industry STANDARD HDMI connection in ALL its future products? Um, is it just me or does that just SMACK of them doing that purely so they can charge big money for conversion cables and NO OTHER REASON. I mean HDMI ports are TINY. They're at least as small as Apple's new display port so what's the point in using that port instead of HDMI other than to try and reap more money from the consumer?

I mean people gripe about Microsoft not supporting STANDARDS in things like web browsers and here you have Apple purposely making up new video ports instead of using industry standards like HDMI that have been around for several years now. That's just ridiculous, IMO. I'm glad I got the previous generation MBP that has a full sized DVI connector. It's not HDMI, but at least it WAS a common standard before HDMI.

I wonder if the next wave of AppleTV units will use the new Apple "display port" instead of HDMI.... Nevermind what the rest of the world uses, Apple. Roll your own. Does this mean that Appletalk ports will come back and start replacing gigabit ethernet on the next models too?

DisplayPort is not proprietary. In fact, it is VESA-backed and a no-royalties, scalable, extensible, open-standard. You can't say the same about HDMI, which has an annual fee and royalty structure. Granted, this Mini DisplayPort that Apple is using seems kinda proprietary.

 

[Lumeswell]

I think it is funny that many of you all think HDCP is evil.

Many of us just want their video to playback and look good. this system is good because it means that the laptops could be upgraded to Blu-Ray compatible, and... you can playback to compliant monitors.

i bet that several models of monitors, hopefully hdmi on them also, come in january. I want blu-ray on my mac's. tired of buying titles and not being able to watch on laptop while i travel. and i don't want to buy digital, rent or otherwise. so i am pretty happy apple is refreshing their Mac entire product line very shortly. well... i hope. they did tackle laptops, next up ... desktops.

let the fun come in january. this isn't so bad!

This would sort of make sense if the new mac books came with BR drives - but they dont. So you are saddled with the copy protection required by BR, which just screws people with older equipment. As previous posters have said - go buy the same movie from iTunes on an old MacBook and it will play on anything, buy it on a new MacBook and you are limited.

Its the same with dropping FW400 because USB3 will be better. OK, but these MacBooks don't have USB3 either, so your still screwed - they are lame ducks.

When MacBooks come out with BR drives and USB3 I can sort of see all this other garbage making sense, but at the moment they are just crippled hardware in a state of transition.

 

[QuarterSwede]

So let me get this straight. Apple has decided to use this new propriety "mini-display port" instead of the industry STANDARD HDMI connection in ALL its future products?

DisplayPort IS the new industry standard. Apple didn't invent it they just made mini displayport so that they could make their MacBooks and MacBook Pro's thinner.

I mean HDMI ports are TINY. They're at least as small as Apple's new display port so what's the point in using that port instead of HDMI other than to try and reap more money from the consumer?

HDMI takes up a LOT more space than mini DisplayPort.

HDMI and DisplayPort

Mini DisplayPort

 

[benpatient]

How would you feel if you were a movie producer and 25% of your viewers pirated your movie? That would be a 25% loss. Would you rather have 100% revenue over 75% revenue?

that's a false argument. If you go to the grocery store and they are handing out free frozen pizzas, and you take one, does that mean that you were going to buy one anyway, so you deprived them of a sale? Almost certainly, the answer is no. A few people will have actually gone to the store to get a frozen pizza, maybe even the specific one that's being given away for free, and those people you could count as "lost sales" or "marketing expenses" or whatever you wanted. Lets say they give away 2,000 frozen pizzas during the promotion. Lets say they normally sell 300 frozen pizzas during that same amount of time on a non-promo day. Now, lets say that the cost of producing each pizza over 300 pizzas is zero dollars. Any pizzas they sell over 300 are 100% profit, and any they give away over 300 are 0% loss. Now imagine in this increasingly weird scenario that the company giving away the pizzas tries to claim that every pizza given away was actually a 100% loss.

It is an absurd argument, but I don't blame you for bringing it up because that's one of the industry talking points that has been spread around for the last few years.

If a movie costs 100 million dollars to do, and the box office is anywhere near 100 million domestic, then the movie is profitable. People with a cut of the net profits in those situations stand to make a LOT of money. Tens of millions of dollars. They are the ones most likely to "hurt" from illegal downloading. Brad Pitt gets a bigger cut of the DVD sales through net residuals than he does up front if the movie is a big success.

Keep in mind that when a movie costs 100 million dollars to "do" that cost includes paying all of the people who make the movie happen. The industry likes to say that if you download a movie for free, that joe the set painter won't get paid for the work he did on the movie. The truth is that he already got paid. If he's not happy with the amount of pay he's getting, he should change careers or hold out for a better offer.

Stealing is wrong. Morally, downloading something for free is wrong. Profiting from others' hard work is wrong.

But don't let them guilt you into changing your evil ways with stories about gaffers not getting paid. The only thing that will stop them from making movies is a WGA strike or an SAG strike or something similar. You don't see the SAG members paying the kraft service workers' salaries during an actor's strike, now, do you?

 

[devman]

While I agree that Apple needs to support HDCP in their hardware there is absolutely no reason Apple needs to use the HDCP flag themselves on content in the iTunes store (which is already DRM protected with Fairplay). Further, it is also disappointing that Apple has chosen to employ this extra layer of DRM for content in their store without letting the customer know. The iTunes store has previously only used Fairplay DRM and informed the customer of the limitations that this DRM created. Apple is not being equally forth coming about HDCP flagged media in their store. This means that random titles that have been flagged by HDCP will suddenly stop working for people with these new computers.

They do need to use the flag on content in the iTunes store to prevent digital copying via the display path (whether they should be is a different argument. The iTunes store content is not full bitrate in the first place...) Fairplay does nothing for copying in this way. As for everything else you've said, I totally agree. +1

 

[KindredMAC]

That is a good example of bad DRM gone... bad!

It really isn't a good example of such things.

DVD Region Coding is really meant to stop foreign markets from getting their hands on DVDs that haven't been released for their region yet. Do I agree with it? No but I can see the studios side on it.

Let's look at something like The Dark Knight and throw out some true and made up dates. The DVD/BDR is being released in the UK on 12/08/08 (true) while North America gets it on 12/09/08 (true) and the Land of Oz gets theirs on 12/10/08 (also true). Now other regions or countries like China, Japan, Russia, Israel and such don't get their copies until 1/06/09 (made up) or much later.

If someone in China could get the North American Region copy and play it in their player at home in China on 12/09/08, why should the studios work at releasing a native translation version of it?

Some would say then don't offer it and let people get what they want where they want, while that would be a true comment there would be just as many people on the other side of the coin bitching and moaning about how they don't have access to a native version.

Then at the same time you have to be mindful of pirates out there that are looking to make oodles of copies and sell them before they ever come out in their region.

So I don't think DVD region codes are as bad as HDCP or even in the same category.

Now for those complaining about the MacBook connected to a monitor issue that this is, I can see the pain involved.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Um ok, show me the buyer beware research you did previously that proved ITMS content was HDCP enabled and that the new laptops are HDCP compliant.

I don't buy content from the iTMS store. Nor do I care about current laptops; I'm not buying one for a while. So there's no reason for me to look into these things except being aware of HD standards when I buy my next display and Mac.

Besides, your post was about your cinema display which doesn't have an HDMI socket. I'm not entirely sure how you were hoping to play HDCP-tagged content on it. That's the only point I was making.

 

[Lumeswell]

<rant>

If you actually did invest $100 million into a single movie, wouldn't you want to be sure that the people who watch it compensate you for it's entertainment value?

</rant>

I get what you are saying here - but you could also argue that if you want people to compensate you for that work you should make it possible for them to easily watch it as well, not just take their money and then have them find out they cant view it, and then refuse to refund them while hiding behind copyright laws.

Does iTunes throw up a warning that this will only play on HDCP compliant hardware before you hit the buy button, or is it hidden deep in the T&Cs?

 

[LimeiBook86]

This has a pretty negative effect for people who download videos from iTunes. Consider this, say somebody downloads their videos for free via some fancy place on the internet. They can do whatever they want with the file, convert it, resize it, shoot it up to a projector etc. Also Apple should at least mention this to their customers.

But, if you buy the video from the iTunes store, you're limited to what you can actually do with it. This is why I hate DRM. But a year from now Apple will have an iTunes Plus version of videos, tell everyone it was their idea, and then slowly this will all go away. I hope.

I wonder if this HDCP effects playing back of videos on iPods and iPhones to TVs. If anything this sort of DRM is encouraging ways to get around the protection, and even pirating material. Then again it's not really Apple's fault, the movie industry and their fear of piracy is to blame.

 

[paul.b.davis]

What is this fascination with maximizing profits? I would think it would be more gratifying to one's vanity to be known as a saint, rather than a billionaire.

Because they are corporations, and the main goal of any corporation (should be) maximizing the intrinsic value of the company, or maximizing shareholder's wealth. Maximizing profit is one of the ways to accomplish this.

(In the voice of Marshall Ericson) You've just been financed!

 

[Snowy_River]

So let me get this straight. Apple has decided to use this new propriety "mini-display port" instead of the industry STANDARD HDMI connection in ALL its future products? Um, is it just me or does that just SMACK of them doing that purely so they can charge big money for conversion cables and NO OTHER REASON. I mean HDMI ports are TINY. They're at least as small as Apple's new display port so what's the point in using that port instead of HDMI other than to try and reap more money from the consumer?

I mean people gripe about Microsoft not supporting STANDARDS in things like web browsers and here you have Apple purposely making up new video ports instead of using industry standards like HDMI that have been around for several years now. That's just ridiculous, IMO. I'm glad I got the previous generation MBP that has a full sized DVI connector. It's not HDMI, but at least it WAS a common standard before HDMI.

I wonder if the next wave of AppleTV units will use the new Apple "display port" instead of HDMI.... Nevermind what the rest of the world uses, Apple. Roll your own. Does this mean that Appletalk ports will come back and start replacing gigabit ethernet on the next models too?

Just settle down there. DisplayPort is neither Apple's nor proprietary. It is an open industry standard. (Wikipedea on DisplayPort). HDMI, on the other hand, while it is a standard in the consumer electronics industry (i.e. televisions), is neither a standard in the computer industry, nor is it open. HDMI is proprietary, and requires licensing fees, etc.

So, from my perspective, this is much like Apple's adoption of USB (I can still remember the clamor over that one, too...). In any event, check your facts before you go off on a rant...