Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.17 To Likely Include Intel DRM Driver's HDCP Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 4.17 To Likely Include Intel DRM Driver's HDCP Support

    Phoronix: Linux 4.17 To Likely Include Intel DRM Driver's HDCP Support

    Back in November a Google developer proposed HDCP content protection support for the Intel Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) Linux driver that is based upon their code from Chrome OS / Chromium OS. It looks like that High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection support in the i915 DRM driver will come for Linux 4.17...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...el-HDCP-Likely

  • Danny3
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post

    It's inert, you are not running it, and unless you turn it on you will not be running it.
    Maybe that's the case now, but I'm pretty sure they will turn it on automatically in the future.
    I think they won't even bother informing me when that happens so I can notice it and turn it off.
    And even if they play nice at first, after a while I'm sure they will remove the turn off feature completely.
    I've seen lots of companies starting by playing nice and then went bad and very bad.
    I don't think Intel is any different.
    Seeing that Intel now requires binary blobs for thing that were open source in the past it's a sign that they are going from Good -> Bad!

    Besides, even if the feature will not be running, why it should waste my precious free space on my small SSD?

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post

    I wasn't trying to defend HDCP, nor do I plan to. Content providers, such as social media, video sharing, streaming services, etc, will put whatever restriction they want regardless of HDCP support on the current driver you're running.

    HDCP, like all DRM, can be disabled by config, or patched out, but this will not change the restrictions content providers put on their content.
    My whole point was I do not have to use those content providers, and they are not welcome in my life if they act like this.

    If any site I use suddenly won't work because they decide they want to make ads mandatory or require DRM, the only change I make is to kick the offending site out of my life, no matter what it is. If Youtube were to start requiring DRM on non-monetized video not flagged for 3ed party content(and thus monetized), I would start a campaign to get the rest of the activist community to stop using Youtube and start using Archive.org. Archive does not handle paid content at all, so they will never have an incentive to put anything behind DRM. They have streaming video that openly offers download too, and Archive is not supported by ads. I made this transition years ago for other reasons and no video of mine after 2011 (and few after 2010) can be found on Youtube unless reposted by a third party as sometimes happens.

    Youtube might impose DRM on paid/monetized content, but they would be fools to drive away producers of non-monetized video who are not demanding DRM and maybe don't have DRM supporting hardware. There are plenty of sites that do not engage in "revenue sharing" at all and will be happy to take Youtube's place. As for Youtube videos as a source to pull music from (play it with Audacity running and recording, and pulseaudio monitoring the output), that does not do anything Bittorrent can't do instead. In other words, all of Youtube is expendable. If Youtube is expendable to me as a video maker, every site on the Internet is expendable to me. I would like to see it all go back to self-hosted content on user's local machines, with the cloud providers out of the gatekeeper business as a result.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mystro256
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post

    Nobody says we have to buy paid media at all. What I would be more concerned about would be if video sharing and social media sites tried to prevent users from allowing other users to download or otherwise capture their files. In activist video this would make it much easier for a takedown demand against a single website combined with the arrest of the orginal poster to kill all availability of an important video (say, one showing Trump pinching someone's ass) as fewer backup copies would exist in third party hands.


    I wasn't trying to defend HDCP, nor do I plan to. Content providers, such as social media, video sharing, streaming services, etc, will put whatever restriction they want regardless of HDCP support on the current driver you're running.

    HDCP, like all DRM, can be disabled by config, or patched out, but this will not change the restrictions content providers put on their content.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    I know we have things like Signal being able to turn off screenshots by default on Android, but I don't know if that's just telling normal screenshot programs not to run, marking some RAM as private(possibly reusing something written for DRM purposes?), or something more robust.
    It's probably relatively weak OS-level enforcement, Android "users" are not root, so it's not hard to control their freedom of movement with normal system-level policies. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...ure-in-android

    Or at least that's what most do afaik.

    Even youtube can be convinced to do your bidding (like screencast high definition content) if you are rooted and install some OS-modification like Xposed framework (currently best way is through Magisk, itself another system that basically takes over the device at the earliest stage possible by patching the initramfs/kernel image, and can thus evade all checks made by apps to ensure that the device is not tampered with and is "safe").

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Serafean View Post
    I just want to leave this here:
    Linux being libre, nothing prevents you from patching out the HDCP code.
    The same argument produces this: nothing is preventing you to patch the kernel in such a way that the syscall succeeds, but HDCP stays disabled. Userspace software has no way of accessing the GPU directly to query the state of HDCP. Or am I missing something?
    HDCP relies on specialized hardware inside the iGPU/card answering and taking over the media stream. It's stuff that requires signed blobs to work (on Intel/AMD/Nvidia), which Intel/AMD usually provide, or are already embedded in the hardware itself. And/or relies on Intel ME (PlayReady DRM uses a ME module to ensure "security").

    Where HDCP is total crap is in the protocol and spec itself, not the hardware protecting the media in the user PC. That part usually holds water well enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
    Why am I not allowed to see what's going on between my devices that I own?
    Because you don't own the media. You own only the right to see the media from that specific support in the specific situations you are allowed to.

    All infrastructure in the hardware you buy is because of that. You don't own the content, you only have limited rights to view that multimedia content.

    Who is HDCP protecting, me or the greedy companies?
    Neither, it only causes device retrocompatibility issues. Which benefits mostly hardware manufacturers and technicians/nerds that can fetch them some boxes that override that bullshit for a honest price.

    I want my freedom!
    Stop buying crap and deluding yourself you own it when in fact you don't.

    Paying for something does not automatically mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, with said product. Like for example guns. Or realistic smooth silicone reproductions of male sexual organs. Or cars.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Creak View Post
    I thought HDCP was, like, everywhere now (displays, GPU, etc...).
    How come Linux works without this code already in the kernel?
    HDCP is only enforced by media with DRM/encryption.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post
    The truth is that at the end of the day, if content providers are pressured into requiring HDCP, they are going to do it regardless of whether or not your system supports it or has it enabled.
    Nobody says we have to buy paid media at all. What I would be more concerned about would be if video sharing and social media sites tried to prevent users from allowing other users to download or otherwise capture their files. In activist video this would make it much easier for a takedown demand against a single website combined with the arrest of the orginal poster to kill all availability of an important video (say, one showing Trump pinching someone's ass) as fewer backup copies would exist in third party hands.



    Leave a comment:


  • Djhg2000
    replied
    Fine, if the content creators don't want my money then I will happily spend it elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X