wappinghigh Posted July 22, 2016 Author Share Posted July 22, 2016 If content providers want to protect their content - great! But do this by locking just the content. Do NOT do this (as is currently being done), by locking the technology that plays and distributes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 33 minutes ago, wappinghigh said: there would be no need for solutions like "Zone Lock" if HDMI became "open"... No, unless 'eventually' there would not be any more improvement and it all comes to a standstill - this might be CAUSED by everything being 'open', but wouldn't be a positive thing. Again, zone lock has NOTHING to do with content protection. 2 minutes ago, wappinghigh said: If content providers want to protect their content great! But do this by locking just the content. But do NOT do this (as is currently being done) by locking the technology that plays and distributes it. Such as putting copy protection on discs? How would THAT rime with some of your other threads? How would you implement that on streaming content? Only way would be to 'lock' the streams to specific apps (and thus in the end to specific devices) - how would THAT rime with some of your other rants about everything needing to be open? Understand that I'm NOT saying that HDMI and HDCP are THE way of doing it, let alone that I somehow have the answer. Just that neither, clearly, do you. I'm merely pointing out that, once again, you're targeting the wrong people/companies with the wrong ammo - indeed with NO ammo other than rotten tomatoes. You rant, you complain, but you come with no solutions, no method or plan to achieve what you desire. None. And no 'suggesting things should be 'open' is not a solution, neither is constantly saying that you thing someone else needs to figure it out for you. Sounds a lot like a certain character you seem to be drawn towards in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 Ok. Sorry. I just assumed everyone would already have realised there may be other "solutions"... Are you suggesting there is no other way of locking content : other than to the playing/distributing technology? Be it HDMI, disc, specific player or whatever? Why not just have a simple unlocking code sent to<>fro directly to the content provider at point of sale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 ( BTW it aint a "rant"). ... Nor is it personal. It's a call to action. To gain traction. A call out to the AV and CEDIA industry (via you guys) to do something about the mess (on the consumers behalf). Consumers have no influence. Other than taking stuff back. They cannot be members of the industry associations right? I'm not phased in the slightest and will always go to "plan B". Take are all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msgreenf Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 ( BTW it aint a "rant"). ... Nor is it personal. It's a call to action. To gain traction. A call out to the AV and CEDIA industry (via you guys) to do something about the mess (on the consumers behalf). Consumers have no influence. Other than taking stuff back. They cannot be members of the industry associations right? I'm not phased in the slightest and will always go to "plan B". Take are all... I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think people on this forum have influence w the MPAA Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 52 minutes ago, wappinghigh said: Consumers have no influence. That's is where you are wrong. 'The Consumer' would have the ONLY real power - the power to not accept any of it. To not buy any of it. 'The Consumer' however, doesn't WANT to do that. 1 hour ago, wappinghigh said: Why not just have a simple unlocking code sent to<>fro directly to the content provider at point of sale Sure - go ahead and design that, in a way that is universally acceptable by all content providers AND content deliverers, unbreakable without adding major cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, Cyknight said: 1 hour ago, wappinghigh said: Consumers have no influence. That's is where you are wrong. 'The Consumer' would have the ONLY real power - the power to not accept any of it. To not buy any of it. 'The Consumer' however, doesn't WANT to do that. That said - that doesn't mean you'd be able to get it all for free. As long as there is demand there will be supply - but if there is no demand, that doesn't mean supply will remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMHarman Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Incorrect. I am not against paying for content. All my content is always paid for. My main argument is the way content providers have gone about controlling and protecting content, has placed an extra cost/burden/hassle and poor viewing experience onto good law abiding citizens. In effect they end up with a WORSE experience than the cheats. Most consumers in a 1 device to 1 hdmi relationship at the back of the TV do get a better experience though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 14 hours ago, ILoveC4 said: HDMI has had the goal of content protection since it's inception. Is this actually fact? Here are the names of the original founding 7 HDMI companies (according to Wikipedia). Only one in this list was also a content provider at the time right? Wait. What was Silicon Image Inc's role in all this? Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Silicon Image Inc. Sony Corporation Technicolor SA Toshiba Corporation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, SMHarman said: Most consumers in a 1 device to 1 hdmi relationship at the back of the TV do get a better experience though Yes. The problem arises with multiple devices... This is entirely why it's relevant to a company like Control4 (as you know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 1 hour ago, wappinghigh said: Is this actually fact? Here are the names of the original founding 7 HDMI companies (according to Wikipedia). Only one in this list was also a content provider at the time right? Wait. What was Silicon Image Inc's role in all this? Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Silicon Image Inc. Sony Corporation Technicolor SA Toshiba Corporation Nope, more than 1 - but that's beside the point anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 1 hour ago, wappinghigh said: Yes. The problem arises with multiple devices... This is entirely why it's relevant to a company like Control4 (as you know). Just not in a the way you think you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 Ok I agree!!! HDMI is just AWESOME and works flawlessly every time.. Yes that's right folks!... the HDMI rollout by the cartel has worked brilliantly. As more and more people over the years have had to purchase multiple HDMI sources (forced upon them actually by the Cartels instance of linking DRM to specific devices) and want to watch content in more than one room, the HDMI Cartel has worked tirelessly to make the audio/visual experience of law abiding paying consumers seamless and just "tickety boo" HDMI is just DANDY! Cheerio Chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMHarman Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Yes. The problem arises with multiple devices... This is entirely why it's relevant to a company like Control4 (as you know). Correct. Your point was it is bad for all consumers or some such statement. For 99% of consumers HDMI achieves the cheap one cable goal. Distributed video is already am edge case in the design scenarios. They built out lowest common denomination to cover this but that's not what many want so zone lock was as solution. In a Control4 environment it's usually the case that the multi channel space has dedicated sources and an avr anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMHarman Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Ok I agree!!! HDMI is just AWESOME and works flawlessly every time.. Yes that's right folks!... the HDMI rollout by the cartel has worked brilliantly. As more and more people over the years have had to purchase multiple HDMI sources (forced upon them actually by the Cartels instance of linking DRM to specific devices) and want to watch content in more than one room, the HDMI Cartel has worked tirelessly to make the audio/visual experience of law abiding paying consumers seamless and just "tickety boo" HDMI is just DANDY! Cheerio Chaps. And Moores law has made these sources cost cents on the dollar. A $10k plus video switch or (in the US) a TiVo mini and a roku 3 behind each TV for $200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blub Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 USB was also "the only cable you will ever need" - mmhhh hiw many different connectors did we have with v1.0-2.0 (not even counting USB 3).....same sh** different devices.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blub Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 So you don't think content owners should be able to control how their content is consumed. That is your main argument, right? Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk No I think his main argument is that if all HW and display is HDMI and hdcp compliant - so other word "the chain is compliant" it just should work! - and it often doesn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 4 hours ago, blub said: No I think his main argument is that if all HW and display is HDMI and hdcp compliant - so other word "the chain is compliant" it just should work! - and it often doesn't Multiple version compliance is a different matter. HDMI compliance was never MADE for CI type situations. Thus by default, it's not compliant. This SUCKS - but the point is that the comparison doesn't stand. 9 hours ago, wappinghigh said: HDMI is just AWESOME and works flawlessly every time.. NOBODY was stating that this is the case WAP - but once again, you're jumbling arguments around that have nothing to do with each other, making connections in a chain of command that doesn't exist. You're border lining conspiracy theories on who did/does/influences what in ways that are just not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blub Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 19 minutes ago, Cyknight said: Multiple version compliance is a different matter. HDMI compliance was never MADE for CI type situations. Thus by default, it's not compliant. Sorry what does "CI" mean? thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Custom Install Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Africa C4 user Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Cyknight said: Custom Install And here I thought it was Wap's Confidential Informants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanE Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Cyknight said: ... once again, you're jumbling arguments around that have nothing to do with each other, making connections in a chain of command that doesn't exist. You're border lining conspiracy theories on who did/does/influences what in ways that are just not true. And you're keeping the thread alive by arguing with someone who can't realize that bitching about HDMI in a Control4 forum isn't likely to do anything other than annoy people who know it's not the right place to complain about it. And so am I by replying. RyanE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 3 hours ago, RyanE said: And you're keeping the thread alive by arguing with someone who can't realize that bitching about HDMI in a Control4 forum isn't likely to do anything other than annoy people who know it's not the right place to complain about it. And so am I by replying. RyanE Oh I'm well aware . Not doing much at e the moment though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy.trochez Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecodeman Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Well, OP isn't wrong. I even did a guest spot on the HomeTech.FM podcast, co-hosted by another great member here, @seth_j, about this very topic of HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2. So if you want to hear me ramble like Wap about it you can check that episode out. But they have a lot of other better episodes, too - one a week. */shameless on-topic plug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.