Wayland Gets Hardware-Accelerated Screen Capturing

[Ancurio]

Oh no, gstreamer! Let us add a few more backends, hack everything through phonon. Just make it half-baked and tell people to shift backend if they hit a bug. If you don't add a gazzilion lines of unmaintainable but complex code you havn't a good enough job. It is all about choice mann. Remember to make portable to windows and Blackberry, C++ is a plus. Give the power users CHOICE!!!

You sound like someone who spend a reasonable amount of time working with the gstreamer codebase. Mind to share some success/failure stories of that time?

[Luke]

Let DRMed content providers take a hike

Screen capturing is subject to a second DRM that is usually outside of realm of an usual Linux user - Digital Rights Management. If a new technology will give a better ability to capture perfect digital copies then content owners will fight that system.

I say proceed with the screen capture, make no attempt to please Hollywood. To keep high quality screen capture out of Linux distros for fear Hollywood would not serve us content would be the decision Microsoft made with Vista. If they don't like it they can choose not to offer their DRM'ed content to Linux users, many of us don't even want it anyway. They CAN'T sue a distro for not implementing digitial rights management. Nobody is under any obligation to provide support for commercial DRM-or ANY other application-in any operating system.

The only way they can fight it is to ensure that no DRM scheme they release will run on Wayland. Other than that, they can't do shit about it, as we have no contracts with them and Wayland is presumably not based on anything to which they hold patents. They want to fight, I say bring it on.

[Ancurio]

Screen capturing is subject to a second DRM that is usually outside of realm of an usual Linux user - Digital Rights Management.

Got any sources to back up your fear mongering?

[dee.]

Got any sources to back up your fear mongering?

It's pretty obvious, really. It's the logical endgame of the DRM escalation game. Heck, it's already been attempted with HDCP and their "trusted display devices" - there's DRM in the media, DRM in the player, DRM in the cable and DRM in the monitor/TV. Only problem is that HDCP got broken pretty much instantly, and now it's kind of irrelevant and no one uses it...

However, the aim of that DRM was to make a "trusted" (ie. DRM-crippled) chain all the way from the media to the screen. The player would refuse to play the media file if the connection to the screen wasn't secure. This was done exactly make it impossible to do screen capture. As a side effect, the media player could not be open source, because it would have to be part of the DRM chain. That's where Windows Media Player (the media player that deletes files on your hard drive if it considers them "illegal") comes in...

Now we have windows 8, which provides "trusted computing" features, built-in DRM that uses TPM 2.0 to provide tamper-proof authentication (this is mandated by 2015 as no opt-out, always on "feature") which means that the OS will not let you view "pirated" content (no matter if it's fair use), use "unauthorized" software (no matter if it's a legal backup), there's DRM built right into the OS itself, and it sure as hell won't let you screen capture any DRM-protected video...

[Ancurio]

It's pretty obvious, really. It's the logical endgame of the DRM escalation game. Heck, it's already been attempted with HDCP and their "trusted display devices" - there's DRM in the media, DRM in the player, DRM in the cable and DRM in the monitor/TV. Only problem is that HDCP got broken pretty much instantly, and now it's kind of irrelevant and no one uses it...

However, the aim of that DRM was to make a "trusted" (ie. DRM-crippled) chain all the way from the media to the screen. The player would refuse to play the media file if the connection to the screen wasn't secure. This was done exactly make it impossible to do screen capture. As a side effect, the media player could not be open source, because it would have to be part of the DRM chain. That's where Windows Media Player (the media player that deletes files on your hard drive if it considers them "illegal") comes in...

Now we have windows 8, which provides "trusted computing" features, built-in DRM that uses TPM 2.0 to provide tamper-proof authentication (this is mandated by 2015 as no opt-out, always on "feature") which means that the OS will not let you view "pirated" content (no matter if it's fair use), use "unauthorized" software (no matter if it's a legal backup), there's DRM built right into the OS itself, and it sure as hell won't let you screen capture any DRM-protected video...

I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood. I was asking for sources showing that screen capturing software is subject to DRM claims.

[Luke]

Windows users need to uninstall Windows Media Player if it deletes files!!

It's pretty obvious, really. It's the logical endgame of the DRM escalation game. Heck, it's already been attempted with HDCP and their "trusted display devices" - there's DRM in the media, DRM in the player, DRM in the cable and DRM in the monitor/TV. Only problem is that HDCP got broken pretty much instantly, and now it's kind of irrelevant and no one uses it...

However, the aim of that DRM was to make a "trusted" (ie. DRM-crippled) chain all the way from the media to the screen. The player would refuse to play the media file if the connection to the screen wasn't secure. This was done exactly make it impossible to do screen capture. As a side effect, the media player could not be open source, because it would have to be part of the DRM chain. That's where Windows Media Player (the media player that deletes files on your hard drive if it considers them "illegal") comes in...

Now we have windows 8, which provides "trusted computing" features, built-in DRM that uses TPM 2.0 to provide tamper-proof authentication (this is mandated by 2015 as no opt-out, always on "feature") which means that the OS will not let you view "pirated" content (no matter if it's fair use), use "unauthorized" software (no matter if it's a legal backup), there's DRM built right into the OS itself, and it sure as hell won't let you screen capture any DRM-protected video...

This kind of shit means Windows users need to get rid of Windows Media Player right now! Even if a "disable premium content" option still exists, such a player should be considered malware. Any machine running this software should never be used for file storage. It can't delete "pirated" files from a DVD or a CD, of course. The way it's going, the time will come when a lot of Windows users have to mount their filesystem from Linux to manually delete DRM files from their machines, maybe run it over some descendant of Stoned Bootkit just to get control over the kernel so they can root their computer like a smartphone. I know "secure boot" is supposed to kill that, but I suspect that new firmware flashed to the board after running an exploit would be the end of secure boot by that time.

The phone companies thought they could lock their devices down, but thanks to buffer overflows and the usual exploits, most get rooted and instructions for doing so published soon enough. Windows users will be forced to do the same, and to prohibit all auto-updates by blocking microsoft's servers at the router or an external hardware firewall. On the other hand, someone getting their hard drive wiped by Windows Media Player just might decide that's all the reason they need to throw away MS Windows, maybe even discard any hardware that has not been rooted and cannot run free software like the Surface tablets nobody is buying.

Windows 8 is turning into an utter flop, so soundly rejected that PC sales as a whole are going down faster than they were before. At some point the PC makers will realize they don't want to go down with that ship, sinking under "another Vista." At a minimum PC makers are going to have to continue to offer the option of unlocked boot (for older versions of Windows as well as Linux!) and reject any "Windows 9 certification" that makes it too hard to install other operating systems. Windows on ARM is probably going to die. Even Windows might be forced to offer a "disable premium content" option with no checking licenses and no DRM support in that mode.

[dee.]

This kind of shit means Windows users need to get rid of Windows Media Player right now! Even if a "disable premium content" option still exists, such a player should be considered malware. Any machine running this software should never be used for file storage. It can't delete "pirated" files from a DVD or a CD, of course. The way it's going, the time will come when a lot of Windows users have to mount their filesystem from Linux to manually delete DRM files from their machines, maybe run it over some descendant of Stoned Bootkit just to get control over the kernel so they can root their computer like a smartphone. I know "secure boot" is supposed to kill that, but I suspect that new firmware flashed to the board after running an exploit would be the end of secure boot by that time.

The phone companies thought they could lock their devices down, but thanks to buffer overflows and the usual exploits, most get rooted and instructions for doing so published soon enough. Windows users will be forced to do the same, and to prohibit all auto-updates by blocking microsoft's servers at the router or an external hardware firewall. On the other hand, someone getting their hard drive wiped by Windows Media Player just might decide that's all the reason they need to throw away MS Windows, maybe even discard any hardware that has not been rooted and cannot run free software like the Surface tablets nobody is buying.

Windows 8 is turning into an utter flop, so soundly rejected that PC sales as a whole are going down faster than they were before. At some point the PC makers will realize they don't want to go down with that ship, sinking under "another Vista." At a minimum PC makers are going to have to continue to offer the option of unlocked boot (for older versions of Windows as well as Linux!) and reject any "Windows 9 certification" that makes it too hard to install other operating systems. Windows on ARM is probably going to die. Even Windows might be forced to offer a "disable premium content" option with no checking licenses and no DRM support in that mode.

On that note, did you hear? Ballmer just got the boot...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/technology/ballmer-announces-retirement-from-microsoft.html?_r=0

Or "retires" or whatever - rats leaving the sinking ship, or board getting tired of mismanagement and failures? You decide...

So now, MS is going to want someone who "understands mobile" in the monkey suit. They're going to be having a tough time if they want to struggle up from that 4% market share, because not only will they have to compete with Android, there's going to be Sailfish, Tizen and Firefox OS as well - and each of those are able to leverage open source code in their development, which brings costs down. No one sane will offer windows phones, only Nokia, and it's only a matter of time before Nokia either tanks or kicks out that moron Elop - which is why MS wants to depend on their own hardware.

So either we're going to see a change of direction, with MS trying to look at Android and other Linux-based mobile OS's and see if they can emulate their success, or they'll stick to their guns and go full-on apple, but the problem with that is, Apple has tons of loyal iFans who eat up their iProducts, which makes them able to gouge on prices and stay afloat by pretty much just branding... MS brand is really weak, most people kind of just put up with MS because they think they don't have any alternatives.

[GreatEmerald]

The way it's going, the time will come when a lot of Windows users have to mount their filesystem from Linux to manually delete DRM files from their machines, maybe run it over some descendant of Stoned Bootkit just to get control over the kernel so they can root their computer like a smartphone. I know "secure boot" is supposed to kill that, but I suspect that new firmware flashed to the board after running an exploit would be the end of secure boot by that time.

Actually, something like that already has been done, ever since Windows 7 (or Vista?) with their mandatory driver signing. Just to get something utterly simple, like access to more than one partition on a USB drive, you need to either use a MS licensed tool (they don't exist, and the developers of the available tools don't want to pay MS for certification), or enable Testing Mode, which is done by changing bootloader settings. I'm not sure how long Testing Mode will stay in, though. As for Secure Boot, that at least allows you to self-sign executables (unlike the whole driver thing).

[mrugiero]

Actually, something like that already has been done, ever since Windows 7 (or Vista?) with their mandatory driver signing. Just to get something utterly simple, like access to more than one partition on a USB drive, you need to either use a MS licensed tool (they don't exist, and the developers of the available tools don't want to pay MS for certification), or enable Testing Mode, which is done by changing bootloader settings. I'm not sure how long Testing Mode will stay in, though. As for Secure Boot, that at least allows you to self-sign executables (unlike the whole driver thing).

I don't think they are going to remove the testing mode, because its reason to be there is for devs to test their drivers before signing them. Removing it would be harmful for their business (imagine if they need to pay the signature just for the testing, they'd probably release the first version that "kinda works" to avoid paying extra, and then Windows stability goes down, and with it their user base).

[GreatEmerald]

I don't think they are going to remove the testing mode, because its reason to be there is for devs to test their drivers before signing them. Removing it would be harmful for their business (imagine if they need to pay the signature just for the testing, they'd probably release the first version that "kinda works" to avoid paying extra, and then Windows stability goes down, and with it their user base).

I'd think they would provide a single-day signing tool for that use case instead. That way the developers can sign and load their drivers, but the signature expires in a day, so they have to repeat that every day. And the tool would only run if it is signed itself, and wouldn't provide a non-interactive option.

All right, I should stop giving Microsoft ideas