CableCard OEM Restriction Lifted!!!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't think you understood what I meant. This is perhaps a bit on the extreme end, but you seem to be essentially advocating a sort of buy once, play anytime, anywhere paradigm. I'm saying that's not the current business model.

But it is, or it has been. If I buy an LP, I can play it anywhere I want, on any device that can spind the disc and put a needle in the groove. If I want to listen to it in my old car, I can hook the LP player up to a casset recorder and make a cassete out of it. I can record parts of different LPs onto a single tape and make my own custom "mix" CD.

Now granted, the content providers never liked this, but this is, without question the paradigm for content "ownership" for the past what, 50 years?

DRM seeks to reverse this paradigm, to put the place/space/time/media shifting rabit back in the perverbial hat.

There's a clear value to being able to play media on different sorts of devices (since its something that we want to do), even if its rather hard to put a price on it.

There is, but the right way (IMO) to go about that is to embrace it, to embrace the iPod, DVD server, and all the other new cool devcies. If the content industry made it easier, more convenient, and more valuable to buy a second copy of a movie for your media server, people would be all over it.

Just look at iTunes, the public has embraced it like no other because it offers convenience and ease of use over CDs. Sure people could buy the CD and rip it, but for tons of people, buying the song off iTunes is easier. This is what I'm getting at, embracing new formats and technologies is a far better solution than trying to lock down existing formats from being used on other technologies.

But, not everyone cares about being able to load a show on their video iPod, or play an episode on their laptop. Why should those people have to pay for that?

I agree, but IMO the DVDs, the CDs, the Blu-rays, the full quality, retail packaging, "Two disc extra special edition" should be the version that allows all that, because precident is that the physical copy you buy, you can use for anything within the bounds of Copyright. If you want to buy a copy of Transformers 2 that can only be played on one specific player, that's fine, but since that version is so much more limited it should be priced appropriately less.

This is the paradigm with Netflix, iTunes/Amazon unbox, etc. They sell versions that are much more limited in functionality than the DVD or Blu-ray and are appropriately priced cheaper.

If we moved to a buy once, play anywhere paradigm people would have to pay more.

Again, we've had that paradigm for the last 50 years. Up until DVD, there were no restrictions on what you did with any physical media you bought. DVD and Blu-ray. Prior to digital cable, there were no restrictions on what you could do with recorded TV shows.

These new DRM schemes serve only to remove functionality/freedom we've had for years.

Digital media really is quite destabilizing for the current business model. It makes sense that businesses would be moving slowly. You could argue that media companies aren't really making money off of sales for personal video devices right now, and that would be true. But, that doesn't mean its not a (potentially) a lucrative market in the future.

No doubt, but removing functionality from current products, while charging the same price, or more, and requiring all new equipment (HDCP) to view/enjoy it is not the way to capitalize on these new market. The way to capitalize is to embrace things like iTMS, Amazon Unbox, XBL Marketplace, etc.

And honestly, it isn't clear to me that completely unrestricted playback on media files would be a good thing for most people.

The music industry is showing us exactly that right now. They spent years trying to lock down CDs and remove functionality from them, the same way the video industry is, and it failed them misserably. They've now started to realize that it's in both their, and their customer's best interest for their product to be as compatible and convenient as possible. Hence the move to DRM free music downloads by most lablels.

But, I think innovation can co-exist relatively peacefully with DRM. You just need a decent way of implementing DRM on third party devices. Probably the best way for this to happen is to get MS to include DRM in PC operating systems in a way that is accessible to third-party software. They could also include it in the CE platform to make it easier for consumer electronics devices, like extenders, to include DRM.

DRM has it's place, but that place is for providing new and innovative products and experiences. For example Netflix Watch Now functionality is something that is great, but is something which requires DRM to really work.

But that's OK because it's clear going in, when you sign up for watch now what the limitations will be. Unlike movies and music on physical media, where we have decades of precident for our expectations.

It's not clear a lack of DRM would be much better. A lack of DRM sometimes just means content creators/providers won't be willing to try certain things at all.

The music industry is proving the contrary. They're proving that DRM free is the way to sell things.

Movies companies have been very reluctant to do any sort of Internet streaming, though they're starting to come around pertially because they think current DRM schemes might be able to provide enough protection.

But streaming is a new/innovative system, one for which we don't have precident of free use, and thus we know going in that we'll be able to view but not keep/change/modify, and we accept that because we're getting instant access to a huge library of titles. for a low price.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I don't agree with Stranger and I will leave it at that. I know I don't own the content I record from tv so if they want to restrict it within my house I am fine with that.

That's your perogative, but we've been able to place/space/format shift TV since the advent of the VCR without restriction. Taking that ability away reduces the value of the service.

I don't agree with encryption or anything on dvd's or blu rays that I buy and own, but I don't own anything aired on the networks and don't expect ownership rights.

But the courts have upheld that we have the right to time (and IIRC space) shift it.

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm always amazed by these "DRM and the industry are evil" discussions. IMHO the studios have created the product, they own the product and they can sell the product any way they wish - even if it's a stupid way.

You should read very careful what's been posted. Nobody has claimed that the content producers don't have the right to do it. Of course they do. The argument is should they, is it good for their margins, the market, and the customer for them to do it.

Ford has every right to make a car which requires you to phone up Ford every time you want to start your car, and ask for permission, and make it such that it will only operate on federal and state roads (no county/city/back roads). You could argue that such a system would reduce car theft because theives would not be authorized and thus would be unable to use the car.

But such a car would be an utter flop and Ford would be stupid to make it. Such restrictions, while they might reduce car theft, would drastically reduce the value of the vehicle and would end up doing more harm to Ford's profits than benefits.

The same idea is true for DRM. Sure, the content owners can DRM the crap out of their media, make it so they only play on certain approved devices, and only over approved connections. But that does little but reduce the value of their product, and make it harder to use.

If you do not like it, don't buy it, but don't steal it either. If we all get in the mindset that it's OK to steal something because we do not like the terms on which it is offered for sale, and we are able to steal it with little effort, the results will not be good for anybody.

I agree with stuckless on this one. This really burns me. The idea that if you're not "for" DRM, you're a pirate. Apparently in the eyes of the "pro" DRM group it's impossible for someone to have a principaled argument against DRM but still respect Copyright and not be a criminal.

Frankly, if I were a Pirate, I wouldn't give a rip about DRM because pirated copies don't have any DRM. I'm "angry", I speak out aboud DRM, specifically because I am not a criminal, I am one of the honest, content purchasing people who because I don't pirate am directly affected by DRM.

This is the point of the Darknet article I linked. It's essentially impossible to prevent piracy, the breaking of DRM, and the free distribution of content over the internet. Thus nothing the content owners can do will significantly affect the pirates/downloaders, the ones they can affect most are the ones they make their money off of, the ones like us who buy their product.

And regarding not buying it, that's tough because that won't send the right message anyway. The way the industry thinks, if everybody started boycotting DRM'd media, the conclusion they'd draw is that their DRM isn't "strong" enough, not that people are boycotting it on principal.

Now, if you want to have an "DRM and the industry are stupid" discussion, I'm all in for that!

That is exactly the argument we've been having.

Originally Posted by samgreco

Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. In theory, it is against the law for us to rip our DVDs and our CDs to our systems.

This is incorrect, there is nothing illegal about ripping CDs or DVDs. What is illegal (per the DMCA) is circumventing "technological measures" that prevent access to a work. Since CDs (usually) don't have any copy protection there is nothing illegal about ripping them.

And even beyond that, if you go read through the DMCA, one interpretation is that it's legal to circumvent for personal use and compatibility copy protection (distinct from access control, which I interpet to be like Nagra 2 on satellite), it's only illegal to build and distrbute the tools.

Every time you rip a DVD you are bypassing their protection scheme. As for CDs, they've just given up.

But again, for CDs, with no copy protection nothing is illegal, and as for DVDs, well the prohibition on removing copy protection has not been tested in court so we don't know if the courts will interpret the way I have. Then again, it probably never will be becuase nobody will probably ever be charged for breaking encryption on DVDs.

So I guess we are all just arguing about what degree of rule/law breaking we are willing to accept.

We're not even talking about that, we're talking about the problems with DRM on media, and whether it's good or not. Well actually we're talking about CableCard, and how good the news is and how restrictive the DRM on the recoridngs will be. Nobody is talking about breaking it.

As someone that is sometimes involved with the creating content side of things, I can tell you that I believe in the creators getting paid. ut the system has gone completely haywire. And it's not because of the artists or writers. It's the big guys that actually own their work.

I agree completely. I just don't think DRM is the right answer to the problem.

Originally Posted by reggie14

I'm not sure where you're getting this. Either way, whether you're buying a DVD, Internet video stream, or a OTA/cable/satellite broadcast, you've paid for and received a bitstream. The difference is how its transmitted. You seem to accept playback restrictions for certain types of transmissions, but not others. I don't see what's so special about physical possession of media as opposed to logical possession.

Well regarding differing acceptance of DRM, I think that's OK. I have problems with DRM when it's employed on things I've "bought". If I have purchased a permanent copy, ie a physical disc or a non-expiring download, I expect to be able to use it as I see fit, asside from redistributing it.

If I've rented, or signed up for a service (Netflix) then I don't have the same expecation of usage freedom.

There is one "intermediate" position that I go back and forth on. That's along the lines of when you purchase, say, a DVD, you're buying the ciphertext. You can do whatever you want with that ciphertext, knowing there might only be one "supported" way of using it (e.g., playing it in a DVD player). So, content creators/providers are free to do whatever they want to try to lock things down with DRM, but I'm free to try to bypass it (without it being considered a sort of theft). This position, of course, doesn't go well with the DMCA.

Technically they've sold you they cyphertext and the key, and published the cypher so... And like noted above, it's not clear that the DMCA prohibits the actual removal of copy protection by the end user.

I go back and forth on that because I think in a lot of ways we've accepted that purchases can include fairly arbitrary and artificial restrictions. Software licenses for academic or non-commercial use is one example. I don't see why that can't extend to media. I may not like it, but I don't see why its fundamentally wrong or illegal.

The big difference is Software provides you with an EULA that you can read, that clearly spells out what rights you do and don't have, and that you must accept before using. And those rights don't change over your ownership of the work.

With the DRM on digital media, especially DRM on recordings from CableCard, the rights are a moving target. You aren't told clearly up front what you can and can't do. And what you can and can't do can change from day to day. That is the biggest issue with DRM on on CableCard recordings.

[robmarch]

the ceton multichannel (4 or 6, depending) looks like a great device to integrate with sage. hope this is just the tip of the iceberg for making it easier to DVR the cable company's encrypted HD channels.

[Fuzzy]

Actually, I think when you were talking about your 'fair use' rights, you were, in fact, implying that your 'fair use' rights (whatever yo umean by that, as it's not relaly legally defined in this context) trumps their rights to lock it down. That certainly sounds like yo uare stating they don't have the right to do it. That may be the disconnect here. If you agree that they DO have the right to lock it down, please realize that you also have th right to not purchase their services. Most here, it seems, would still purchase it, and therefore, they have proven that even locked down, it still has value to most.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Actually, I think when you were talking about your 'fair use' rights, you were, in fact, implying that your 'fair use' rights (whatever yo umean by that, as it's not relaly legally defined in this context) trumps their rights to lock it down. That certainly sounds like yo uare stating they don't have the right to do it. That may be the disconnect here.

They're stupid for doing it IMO, and I think more people need to make more noise about it. I find it quite frustrating that so many think that just because the content providers have the right to do something, it means we don't have the right to complain about it and be angry about it.

Most here, it seems, would still purchase it, and therefore, they have proven that even locked down, it still has value to most.

I did not purchase a single HD optical disc that I was unable to rip. Of course I'm a pragmatist, and the "battle" is long lost to have HD discs DRM free, so now that I can rip them, yes I purchase them. Not purchasing them would only accomplish two things:
1) I'd be depriving myself of the best quality source of movies
2) I'd be sending the message that people aren't interested in Blu-ray, not that people aren't interested in DRM.

That's the problem with the "Don't like it, don't buy it" argument/philosophy, it's a monopoly, we don't have a legal alternative source, so we can't support the DRM free option, because there isn't one. So the only way to get the message across is to educate our friends, and generally voice our concerns.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by stanger89

They're stupid for doing it IMO, and I think more people need to make more noise about it. I find it quite frustrating that so many think that just because the content providers have the right to do something, it means we don't have the right to complain about it and be angry about it.

The problem is two-fold. One, the people who are complaining are the technically minded minority. Two, unless it affects the daily lives of the layperson, in other words the majority, there isn't going to be very much noise overall. While I don't agree with DRM the majority of people aren't affected at all. They buy or rent their DVD's or BD's and put them in their player to watch them. End of story. They have no idea DRM even exists because it does not impact their lives or their ability to watch the media. Otherwise it's just a bunch of geeks talking nonsense to them. They really couldn't care less.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

While I don't agree with DRM the majority of people aren't affected at all. They buy or rent their DVD's or BD's and put them in their player to watch them. End of story.

Tell that to the people who get Fox BDs that don't play in their brand new set-top BD players. Or the people who've had HDCP handshake issues, or the people without HDCP....

They have no idea DRM even exists because it does not impact their lives or their ability to watch the media. Otherwise it's just a bunch of geeks talking nonsense to them. They really
couldn't care less.

That is a problem IMO.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Tell that to the people who get Fox BDs that don't play in their brand new set-top BD players. Or the people who've had HDCP handshake issues, or the people without HDCP....

You don't have to have hdcp to play blu rays? you can play out of component just fine. Yes the possibility exist for them to downcovnert out of analog like they do with dvd's in a blu ray player(can't upconvert) but no studio is using that yet.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Actually, I think when you were talking about your 'fair use' rights, you were, in fact, implying that your 'fair use' rights (whatever yo umean by that, as it's not relaly legally defined in this context) trumps their rights to lock it down. That certainly sounds like yo uare stating they don't have the right to do it. That may be the disconnect here. If you agree that they DO have the right to lock it down, please realize that you also have th right to not purchase their services. Most here, it seems, would still purchase it, and therefore, they have proven that even locked down, it still has value to most.

Sure they have the right to lock it down, but it's a problem that the industry used the DMCA as an end run around fair use. DRM is an unnecessary inconvenience and ultimately only devalues the content; personally I don't opt into formats where I can't exercise fair use.

Originally Posted by stanger89

They're stupid for doing it IMO, and I think more people need to make more noise about it. I find it quite frustrating that so many think that just because the content providers have the right to do something, it means we don't have the right to complain about it and be angry about it.

I agree that it's frustrating; but it's an issue that the amoral market will sort out eventually, just like music.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

The problem is two-fold. One, the people who are complaining are the technically minded minority. Two, unless it affects the daily lives of the layperson, in other words the majority, there isn't going to be very much noise overall. While I don't agree with DRM the majority of people aren't affected at all. They buy or rent their DVD's or BD's and put them in their player to watch them. End of story. They have no idea DRM even exists because it does not impact their lives or their ability to watch the media. Otherwise it's just a bunch of geeks talking nonsense to them. They really couldn't care less.

Give it time. We care because we're effected, as the tech we use becomes more mainstream the everyman will take notice.

I think the original topic for this thread is a good indicator of things to come.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

You don't have to have hdcp to play blu rays? you can play out of component just fine.

For BD I was referring to the AACS refresh and especially the BD+ problems that affect you whether you are using HDMI or component.

I was referencing HDCP in general.

[MeInMaui]

Originally Posted by robmarch

the ceton multichannel (4 or 6, depending) looks like a great device to integrate with sage. hope this is just the tip of the iceberg for making it easier to DVR the cable company's encrypted HD channels.

How dare you try to get this discussion back on topic! Shame on you.

[SWKerr]

Originally Posted by Clift

Not I. I don't want to "own" anything in such a digital format. Some of the advantages of physical media is that I can let me friend borrow it, or re-sell it or take it with me in an easy way. Until someone comes up with a standard and easy way to take my downloaded media with me, I'm not interested.

To me there is a difference between music and video. Music I would like to own but video is generally fire and forget. I am a watch it once kind of person and there are very few things I would care about having in my permanent library. The only DVDs and Blu-Rays I own are kids shows because they will watch it over and over. DVD rental works well for me in this regard.

I would love to get my video in all digital formats but because of DRM it just is not practical. Netflix is great but you can't get much decent content. I suspect there will eventually be a premium option but if based on experience I suspect that Media companies will want to squeeze more revenue from it than I pay for renting the same thing on Netflix. They will charge more and use the excuse of piracy to justify why you should pay the extra. Fact is they don't really want to offer and new products and services because that success might effect existing revenues. Digital delivery is a much more efficient means of delivery but you will never see that savings passed on to the consumer.

The pointless part is the DRM they use to try to prevent people from stealing never works for those who have intention of not paying for it but it certainly makes life difficult for the honest guy. I don't have a problem with content providers trying to make money and maximize profits I just can see why they can't learn from history. DRM does not accomplish the desired result. It just ends up creating a illicit market for the product and turns off people that would pay.

I really believe that if they charged less and took off the DRM that the expanded market they would create would make up the difference 2x. The problem is Wallstreets focus on short-term profits would never allow a media company to try such an exercise so they will continue to try to win an un-winable war against pirates.

[samgreco]

Funny, my wife just told me last night that someone she knows had released a film online and had a click through to buy a physical copy. Seems that even though the user could watch as often as they liked, they still bought the physical product in large numbers.

I wish that Hollywood would figure that out. Every time they fight one of these battles and eventually lose, they end up making lots more money than they did before. They fought Cassette, Beta/VHS, MP3, etc., etc... And only recently has the music industry started to falter and I think that's because there's just not that much out there that's very good.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

But it is, or it has been. If I buy an LP, I can play it anywhere I want, on any device that can spind the disc and put a needle in the groove. If I want to listen to it in my old car, I can hook the LP player up to a casset recorder and make a cassete out of it. I can record parts of different LPs onto a single tape and make my own custom "mix" CD.

I didn't say things like this were impossible; I said this isn't, and hasn't been, the business model. You've never had the ability to play media on any devices you had laying around. If you had an LP player, you bought an LP. If you later got a walkman cassette player, the expectation was that you'd buy a cassette tape. Not only was this the expectation, it's what was done 95% of the time (ok, that number is made up).

Now, with TV shows, the idea is your going to give the studio a bit of money (indirectly through advertising) when its originally broadcast on TV. Next you buy the series on DVD, giving them a bit more money. At some point maybe you decide you want to watch it on your iPod, so you buy an episode or two off of iTunes for a bit more money. And maybe you decide you want to stream it to your laptop off Hulu, generating them more advertising revenue.

So yes, while it was technically possible to dub from one device to another, it wasn't typically done because it was a pain to do, and there was usually a non-trivial loss in quality. Neither of those is a particularly big problem with digital media. In addition, even with DRM its still technically possible to do it. You can use things to remove the DRM (perhaps illegally). You can use things like the HD-PVR. Or, if all else fails, you can get a nice TV and camcorder, since you're apparently OK with quality loss.

It's only been the case that you could use the same media source on different types of devices if you were determined- either by willing to spend a bunch of time on it and/or a bunch of money on equipment. I don't think its likely that DRM will make it completely impossible to do these sorts of things anytime in the near future, and I'm not convinced you think it will either.

There is, but the right way (IMO) to go about that is to embrace it, to embrace the iPod, DVD server, and all the other new cool devcies. If the content industry made it easier, more convenient, and more valuable to buy a second copy of a movie for your media server, people would be all over it.

Perhaps. I know that would be convenient for me, in theory at least. But, once you buy a high-quality, unrestricted digital copy, there's little reason to ever buy another copy. You might as well just get software that will do the conversions for you when you transfer something to your iPod or phone. So, the media companies that were previously expecting to get two or three payments from me over the "lifetime" of the creative work are only going to get one. So, they're going to charge me more for it. If I was going to buy another copy for my iPod anyway then I probably come out ahead. If not, then I probably don't.

Just look at iTunes, the public has embraced it like no other because it offers convenience and ease of use over CDs.

Right, but you don't see a lot of people buying both CDs and iTunes music. Yes, I'm sure there are people out that do that- particularly people concerned about sound quality- but that's not mainstream. We're quickly getting to a point where music playback is almost completely on personal playback devices, where iTunes is king.

And I'm not convinced iTunes is a great case study for the failure of DRM. iTunes flourished before DRM was removed because most people didn't care, since they just wanted things to play back on their iPods anyway. I wonder how many people even knew they couldn't play things back on other players. And I think because of the massive availability of songs online that were easy and fast to pirate online, recording companies came to understand DRM wasn't really getting them anything. It's not quite the same situation with video, partly because the availability is smaller, partly because the files are so much larger to download.

I agree, but IMO the DVDs, the CDs, the Blu-rays, the full quality, retail packaging, "Two disc extra special edition" should be the version that allows all that, because precident is that the physical copy you buy, you can use for anything within the bounds of Copyright.

I don't see why you wouldn't expect it to cost more. Again, the media company would ordinary expect to get money from you multiple times, thinking that if you really like it you'll buy it again when PinkRay drives come out. If you get a nice, unrestricted digital copy then there would be little reason to ever do that.

If you want to buy a copy of Transformers 2 that can only be played on one specific player, that's fine, but since that version is so much more limited it should be priced appropriately less.

How do you know that isn't how they're pricing it now? To you it might not seem like a fair price to play for only the ability to play it back in a DVD/Blu-ray player, but apparently a lot of other people disagree.

Up until DVD, there were no restrictions on what you did with any physical media you bought.

There were. They were based on the equipment you had, the time you were willing to spend, and the quality loss you were willing to tolerate. And that's still basically true, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. You the ability to nearly automatically move media between different types of devices with little-to-no quality loss. You've never been able to do that.

For example Netflix Watch Now functionality is something that is great, but is something which requires DRM to really work.

I don't see why, if you're arguing you don't need it for things like Blu-Ray. You just need some sort of access control, which is a little different than DRM.

But streaming is a new/innovative system, one for which we don't have precident of free use, and thus we know going in that we'll be able to view but not keep/change/modify, and we accept that because we're getting instant access to a huge library of titles. for a low price.

Digital media is a new system, that opens the door to all sorts of innovative devices. I don't agree with your argument here that there's a precedent for unrestricted use, but even if I did I don't see why digital media wouldn't meet your criteria for a DRM exception.

And, I don't really buy the argument that physical possession is at all meaningful. The difference between Blu-ray and purely electronic media is just the transmission method. I just don't see the significance of that.

This is the point of the Darknet article I linked. It's essentially impossible to prevent piracy, the breaking of DRM, and the free distribution of content over the internet. Thus nothing the content owners can do will significantly affect the pirates/downloaders, the ones they can affect most are the ones they make their money off of, the ones like us who buy their product.

While I agree that DRM is mostly about keeping paying customers "under control", I think that can have a non-trivial impact on piracy. Sure, you're not going to stop the downloaders, but you'll put a big dent in copying media for friends.

Well regarding differing acceptance of DRM, I think that's OK. I have problems with DRM when it's employed on things I've "bought". If I have purchased a permanent copy, ie a physical disc or a non-expiring download, I expect to be able to use it as I see fit, asside from redistributing it.

I think this is probably a big reason why we look at this differently. While I'd love to have unrestricted media, I have no expectation for it. I never considered analog media terribly easy to work with, so DRMed digital media doesn't seem so different.

[dfitz43]

Hey all,

just recently came across a link about the Ceton cablecard device, and subsequently this thread.

I've read through most of this, and it seems like it much of it can be distilled into philosophical objections against DRM vs. practical limitations that DRM would actually impose on day-to-day usage.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think DRM would have any impact on my typical usage. Basically, I would be ecstatic to record 4 concurrent premium HD streams with one card (not to mention potential savings by paying for one multistream cablecard versus multiple boxes and concomitant HDPVRs, R5000s etc). Plus, I definitely think there is something to the fact that plugging in one card (and one cable) to my SageServer would make for an elegant (and likely more reliable) solution. Maybe add HDHR for more local tuners as required.

Basically, all I would want is the ability to record these streams and view throughout the house. I have no desire to burn to DVD, placeshift, comskip, etc. I know that others would like these abilities, but I don't use them now, and wouldn't miss what I don't use.

It seems like getting it licensed on the extender could be prohibitively expensive. That would be a major drawback, as the extender has dramatically increased my WAF over 4 years of Sage.

Can anyone say with any certainty (Opus, Narflex?) whether there is even a remote possibility of bringing the Ceton device to Sage? Again, can't speak for anybody else, but I would definitely be willing to pay for this, $300-$400 bucks easy. And maybe I'm wrong, but I would somehow imagine that there's 100 of us out there (=40K). Is that even close to the licensing cost, or are we talking like 500K or something? Anybody have any actual idea?

I love Sage, but as has been mentioned several times, I will definitely wade into the W7 MC waters to check things out if there's never going to be support for this device.

cheers all,
Dave

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by dfitz43

Can anyone say with any certainty (Opus, Narflex?) whether there is even a remote possibility of bringing the Ceton device to Sage?

I can say with quite a bit of certainty that Sage will not say anything until they are ready to release a public beta of support. They've been burned too many times for telling us about features that were far more certain than "even a remote possibility" but didn't come to fruition for various reasons (Hulu anyone?).

And also that's not implying I think they have anything in the works. I think it's a remote possibility, but the key word there is remote. It might be worth reminding us of Jeff's interview with Brent:

Originally Posted by Jeff Kardatzke

At some points along the way it has been a conscious choice and at other points it’s just been better for our consumers to avoid DRM in those ways. We try to empower the consumer to get access to their purchased media collection and when you have DRM involved there’s so much more complication you can create a lot of dissatisfaction from your customers... When we add that kind of stuff into the product, we need to do it in a way that doesn’t cause issues like this for our customers – because we don’t want people to have a negative experience and that in many cases is what DRM has caused...

And specifically regarding cablecard:

Originally Posted by Jeff Kardatzke

I’m not sure what’s going to be happening in that area. CableCard is a tricky thing and can be quite costly. It's also not easy or cheap to do so it requires a company with pretty deep pockets like Microsoft to do that.

If Sage did it right I think CableCard would be good for it. But I'm not holding my breath. WMC has already shown how problematic and limiting it is.

Again, can't speak for anybody else, but I would definitely be willing to pay for this, $300-$400 bucks easy. And maybe I'm wrong, but I would somehow imagine that there's 100 of us out there (=40K). Is that even close to the licensing cost, or are we talking like 500K or something? Anybody have any actual idea?

You're saying you'd pay SageTV $400 just for a cablecard supporting version? That would be like an $800 investment then by the time you get the card. FWIW, there is a cheaper way to "support" CableCard, my understanding is these OCUR devices do all the CableCard "stuff" and simply convert from the Cable encryption to WM DRM (PlayReady IIRC). Theoretically if Sage supported PlayReady (or whatever MS DRM it actually is), they could utilize CableCard.

But that's a sticky thing, since SageTV is cross platform, how would they go about integrating MS DRM into the Linux and Mac versions?

I love Sage, but as has been mentioned several times, I will definitely wade into the W7 MC waters to check things out if there's never going to be support for this device.

Frankly if CableCard means that much to you, you might as well go, I just don't see things happening soon. Though you'll probably be very disappointed in the extenders if you use your SageTV extenders for anything beyond TV.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by dfitz43

And maybe I'm wrong, but I would somehow imagine that there's 100 of us out there (=40K). Is that even close to the licensing cost, or are we talking like 500K or something? Anybody have any actual idea?

Actually I do now:
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/OCPricing.pdf

If I read this right, it's $35,000 to get your product reviewed for compliance.

If you are compliant, it's another $20,000 to get the certificate

Then it's $20,000/year to have your license.

And another $0.07/device, with a minimum of 10,000, so another $700.

That to me looks like $75,000 just in CableLabs fees (doesn't include development costs), and just in the first year. After that it's $20,000/year to keep it.

Hm, this one says it's $80,000 to get an OCUR device certified:
http://www.cablelabs.com/downloads/Cert_Fees.pdf

Looks like you could License WMDRM 10 (one of the DRM's approved by CableLabs for CableCard) and get the source code for $10,000 for a networked device:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...-06_Sample.pdf

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Actually I do now:
http://www.opencable.com/downloads/OCPricing.pdf

If I read this right, it's $35,000 to get your product reviewed for compliance.

If you are compliant, it's another $20,000 to get the certificate

Then it's $20,000/year to have your license.

And another $0.07/device, with a minimum of 10,000, so another $700.

That to me looks like $75,000 just in CableLabs fees (doesn't include development costs), and just in the first year. After that it's $20,000/year to keep it.

Hm, this one says it's $80,000 to get an OCUR device certified:
http://www.cablelabs.com/downloads/Cert_Fees.pdf

Looks like you could License WMDRM 10 (one of the DRM's approved by CableLabs for CableCard) and get the source code for $10,000 for a networked device:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...-06_Sample.pdf

This ought to cover it. And keep the change,



Gerry

[reggie14]

If, and I think it's a really big if, that document describes the cost of certification, that doesn't sound so bad. I'm sure it probably sounds like a ridiculous amount, but I think it sounds surprisingly cheap. The US and Canadian governments run a program to test and validate cryptographic modules. Not full applications or products- just hardware chips or software libraries that perform cryptographic functions and key management. A lot of things factor into the cost of FIPS 140 validation, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000-$150,000. There is also a testing and certification process for voting systems that is much more expensive. There are a lot of factors that go into the cost of that as well, but a good estimate is something around $500k-$1million. That's a lot of money, but you'd expect it to be a lot since it's a fairly complicated full system, compared to just a little crypto module. Keep in mind validation and/or certification only applies to one version of the system/module. If you change the code or hardware at all you'd be subject to additional testing fees in order to renew your validation. How much those fees would be would depend greatly on the extent of the change.

$20k a year in licensing fees doesn't sound too bad. I'm not really sure what's being licensed exactly and what type of services are provided in return. But, it doesn't sound exorbitant. Neither does the cost of testing. If those really are the correct numbers for CableCard certification, I really don't think cost is really what's holding things back. FIPS 140 validation is probably about as much, and there are a lot of FIPS 140 validations each year.

I really expected the cost would be much higher. In fact, I'm guessing there's a good chance it is much higher and that document only gives us a very incomplete picture of the fee structure.

Of course, I understand that even moderately small fees like that are probably still too much for relatively small companies like Sage. I'm just saying that I've heard a lot of people picking on CableLabs over certification costs, and, if those numbers are accurate, I don't think that's fair criticism. Hardware/software testing is expensive.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

If, and I think it's a really big if, that document describes the cost of certification, that doesn't sound so bad.

Well it's the document referenced by the license adopter agreements.

I'm sure it probably sounds like a ridiculous amount, but I think it sounds surprisingly cheap. The US and Canadian governments run a program to test and validate cryptographic modules. Not full applications or products- just hardware chips or software libraries that perform cryptographic functions and key management. A lot of things factor into the cost of FIPS 140 validation, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000-$150,000. There is also a testing and certification process for voting systems that is much more expensive. There are a lot of factors that go into the cost of that as well, but a good estimate is something around $500k-$1million. That's a lot of money, but you'd expect it to be a lot since it's a fairly complicated full system, compared to just a little crypto module. Keep in mind validation and/or certification only applies to one version of the system/module. If you change the code or hardware at all you'd be subject to additional testing fees in order to renew your validation. How much those fees would be would depend greatly on the extent of the change.

Oh, trust me I know about verification of software. Verification of avionics is not cheap

$20k a year in licensing fees doesn't sound too bad. I'm not really sure what's being licensed exactly and what type of services are provided in return. But, it doesn't sound exorbitant.

In CE space (or government/aerospace), no, but IMO (and maybe I'm vastly underestimating Sage) it sounds very high for Sage. They'd have to sell quite a few more copies of Sage every year to support that.

The big difference for Sage is their products cost several orders of magnitude less than aerospace or military/goverment crypto modules.

Neither does the cost of testing. If those really are the correct numbers for CableCard certification, I really don't think cost is really what's holding things back.

Well yeah, that's just the licensing fees, that's just the easy part. The really hard, and probably expensive part is actually developing the product. The way I read that is it's $35k/test. So if your software fails and has to be retested, it's $35k each time, so if you've got to do it three times, that's a quick $105,000. And does each release need to be retested? If it needs to get retested and revalidated each release, that's $55,000/release. Even if it's just semi-major releases (eg 6.5 to 6.6) I think that would mean the end of free incremental updates.

And that's not counting the cost of the actual development work.

Of course, I understand that even moderately small fees like that are probably still too much for relatively small companies like Sage. I'm just saying that I've heard a lot of people picking on CableLabs over certification costs, and, if those numbers are accurate, I don't think that's fair criticism. Hardware/software testing is expensive.

It really depends on how often testing an certificates are needed. If it's every minor software release that's huge cost. Sage does probably at least 3 releases a year so that could be $105k.

And the real problem as I've gathered, is how tough it is to get something certified, which could be interpreted to mean many, many "tests" which would get incredibly expensive very fast.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

In CE space (or government/aerospace), no, but IMO (and maybe I'm vastly underestimating Sage) it sounds very high for Sage. They'd have to sell quite a few more copies of Sage every year to support that.

Right, I agree it's probably well beyond what Sage could do, unless I'm vastly underestimating their customer case. Mainly I'm just saying I think it's reasonable to expect a moderate cost involved in CableCard certification. That might put it out of reach of small companies like Sage, but that's OK. Perhaps not ideal, but OK.

I don't mean to suggest that you think CableLab's fees are too high. It's just that I've seen other people basically write that.

The big difference for Sage is their products cost several orders of magnitude less than aerospace or military/goverment crypto modules.

FIPS 140 validated crypto modules aren't necessarily that expensive. OpenSSL has a validated version and that's free. But yes, typically you have to pay a premium to get something with a validated module. IronKey is a good example of that.

But, crypto modules and libraries are commodity items that find their way into lots of products. I think a lot of the chips find their way into quite a few products. So, the cost gets spread out a lot more than with niche products, like Sage.

Well yeah, that's just the licensing fees, that's just the easy part. The really hard, and probably expensive part is actually developing the product. The way I read that is it's $35k/test. So if your software fails and has to be retested, it's $35k each time, so if you've got to do it three times, that's a quick $105,000. And does each release need to be retested? If it needs to get retested and revalidated each release, that's $55,000/release. Even if it's just semi-major releases (eg 6.5 to 6.6) I think that would mean the end of free incremental updates.

Maybe. I really don't know how they'd handle updates and/or failed tests. I don't even know under what conditions CableLabs requires updated certification tests. I'm sure it's required in certain situations, but I doubt they repeat all the tests and charge the full fees for renewals. Obviously I don't know, but I'd guess they don't require renewals unless the DRM portion of a product is updated in some way.

A big problem might be that companies don't know what they have to do to get certified. There are standards for voting systems and crypto modules that those things get tested to. I think CableLabs has some documents that describe required functionality in devices, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are a lot of things that are unclear.

And the real problem as I'vegathered, is how tough it is to get something certified, which could be interpreted to mean many, many "tests" which would get incredibly expensive very fast.

Perhaps. I still think the main reason we don't see more CableCard devices is a lack of interest by consumers. That limits the customer base to enthusiasts mostly, and it's probably pretty difficult to get enough customers to pay for development, licensing and testing. That's sort of what you said, with a different twist to it.

I'm still skeptical of those numbers though. I don't see how certification could be a fixed cost like that. Some types of devices will be more expensive to certify than others. There has to be some wiggle room on cost, and I wonder how much there is.