HDCP strippers

[Michielvsb]

If a HDCP stripper supports 1.1 and 1.2, and the device outputs 1.3, what happens? It won't work or it will work with the specifications of 1.2 ?

[yoda313]

If a HDCP stripper supports 1.1 and 1.2, and the device outputs 1.3, what happens? It won't work or it will work with the specifications of 1.2 ?

It probably won't work. However its only guess work on my part as I don't have one. I use anydvdhd or my hauppauge hdpvr for high def copying needs.

[jagabo]

Ask Moome.

But my guess is that an HDMI 1.2 stripper won't work with HDMI 1.3 data. You can probably work around that by setting the source device to output a HDMI 1.2 compatible signal -- no more than 1080i30 with 8 bits per channel (HDMI 1.3 increased the spec to 1080p60 and 10 bits per channel).

[fooledagain]

My understanding is that all versions of HDMI are compatible (not like software) the higher version numbers have more features but the output signal is still the same so that a 1.2 device will handle a 1.3 signal just fine but will not perform the additional tricks that 1.3 may contain.

[Michielvsb]

It would be logical that all versions are compatible because when you have an old TV... but the same thing happened with the introducing of HDCP.

Another question ... the device has only DVI-out but DVI = HDMI without audio? So an DVI -> HDMI is available without any quality loss?

[jagabo]

Normally the display and the source will talk to each other to negotiate what's acceptable for both of them. I'm not sure what happens when you have an HDMI stripper between them. Presumably the stripper will pass the EDID information from the display to the source.

Yes, you should be able to use a DVI->HDMI cable. All it does is route the signals to the correct pins.

[Seeker47]

I'm not keen on managing a $500 collection of dongles and power bricks just to enable simple day-to-day recording. I'll be waiting for a one-box HDMI>component>composite>S-Video converter: a few prototypes are available now, others of better quality should follow. If they don't, we'll be stuck using the HD Fury + additional converters: workable, but not a picnic. My cousin is currently testing such a setup because he's paranoid he won't be able to buy this hardware later on. From what I've seen, its a PITA: I'll take my chances and wait.
. . .
Personally, I'd rather sleep in an airport during a three day snowstorm than deal with PC capture, but the majority here seem to prefer gear like the Intensity.

Agreed . . . but I guess it depends on what the options are and will be. PC capture would be better than nothing.

I too am quite interested in a good one-box HDMI solution (for the time when it will be needed), and hope that if any come along this will become known here.

Incidentally, as far as a changeable keys feature is concerned, what is wrong or difficult or overly exotic about having some sort of EEPROM as part of said box ? Either that, or the commonplace means by which we have applied firmware updates to various devices, from a CD or thumb drive ? Ought to be doable, and I hope that anyone selling a solution for significant dinero would have taken this factor into consideration.

Like file sharing though, I imagine there will be a workaround in the making for this stuff...there always is.

Bet on it ! The Scene ain't going away.

Some older versions of Tivo in the USA save the decrypted video and allow transfer to a PC. Some satellite broadcasts outside the USA are unencrypted. Some capture cards, like Hauppauge's HD PVR, ignore Macrovision and will happily record any analog video source.

There are still many holes in Hollywood's quest for complete control. But they are slowly closing. Newer Tivo's don't allow transfer to a PC. Newer non-USA satellite broadcasts are encrypted and the PVRs don't allow export. Blu-ray players manufactured after 2012 won't be allowed to output analog video at all. Etc.

Are you sure about that -- and what would the dividing line (specific models) be ? Different relatives and friends got Tivo Series 4 HD -- at different parts of 2010 -- and although I haven't really had a chance to look closely at the boxes, this series still definitely promotes "Tivo 2 Go." What else could that possibly be, other than that vaunted export over ethernet ? It may be more technical than a lot of Tivo users would ever care to deal with, but I think there is a good chance it was still there as a capability -- recently.

[orsetto]

My understanding is that all versions of HDMI are compatible (not like software) the higher version numbers have more features but the output signal is still the same so that a 1.2 device will handle a 1.3 signal just fine but will not perform the additional tricks that 1.3 may contain.

This is how its supposed to work, but already we have compatibility issues even with the simplest totally legit hookups. A surprising number of people (for example) are tearing their hair out with recent Samsung televisions that are not backwards-compatible with earlier HDMI hardware, everything from DVD players to cable boxes to switches and AV receivers. Samsung, as usual, stonewalls in response or points to their typical ridiculous fine print product disclaimers that essentially say "we do not warrant this TV will work at all, with anything, ever, PERIOD: buy at your own risk."

[Brad]

I think most of the pirates moved away from satellite after DirecTV and Dish secured their systems and now take advantage of the current FCC regulation requiring firewire for cable boxes (the legacy of DVHS).

Are recordings made with CableCARD tuners like the Ceton encrypted and DRM'd against conversion?

[jagabo]

I think most of the pirates moved away from satellite after DirecTV and Dish secured their systems and now take advantage of the current FCC regulation requiring firewire for cable boxes (the legacy of DVHS).

In Europe satellite caps are still very common.

Are recordings made with CableCARD tuners like the Ceton encrypted and DRM'd against conversion?

At least some of the recordings are. The net is full of people asking how to watch their HBO recordings on other computers.

[fooledagain]

My understanding is that all versions of HDMI are compatible (not like software) the higher version numbers have more features but the output signal is still the same so that a 1.2 device will handle a 1.3 signal just fine but will not perform the additional tricks that 1.3 may contain.

This is how its supposed to work, but already we have compatibility issues even with the simplest totally legit hookups. A surprising number of people (for example) are tearing their hair out with recent Samsung televisions that are not backwards-compatible with earlier HDMI hardware, everything from DVD players to cable boxes to switches and AV receivers. Samsung, as usual, stonewalls in response or points to their typical ridiculous fine print product disclaimers that essentially say "we do not warrant this TV will work at all, with anything, ever, PERIOD: buy at your own risk."

True words indeed. Unfortunately there is not enough consumer protest to stop the march off the cliff into a world where personal (not for profit) recording is possible. Once the analog hole is closed, it will be nothing but junk DVRs (that you just rent) and DRM flags that mean paying some extra monthly fee or subscription. All content will be pay per view, and not all content will be in the cloud.

[Cornucopia]

In my opinion, one more reason NOT to rush headlong to an All-Streaming or All-Virtual library. Discs, by nature of their set-in-stone standards are at least able to be "massaged into agreeability" by needful and inventive consumers.

Scott

[Michielvsb]

My understanding is that all versions of HDMI are compatible (not like software) the higher version numbers have more features but the output signal is still the same so that a 1.2 device will handle a 1.3 signal just fine but will not perform the additional tricks that 1.3 may contain.

This is how its supposed to work, but already we have compatibility issues even with the simplest totally legit hookups. A surprising number of people (for example) are tearing their hair out with recent Samsung televisions that are not backwards-compatible with earlier HDMI hardware, everything from DVD players to cable boxes to switches and AV receivers. Samsung, as usual, stonewalls in response or points to their typical ridiculous fine print product disclaimers that essentially say "we do not warrant this TV will work at all, with anything, ever, PERIOD: buy at your own risk."

In your case is a recent TV not compatible with a lower HDMI-version. In my case, it's a 'old' device that is/isn't (?) compatible with a higher HDMI-version. Will that make a difference?

[MrKaon]

So still there is no HDCP Stripper?

[jagabo]

The DMCA has made HDCP strippers illegal in the USA. The few places that sold them have been forced to stop. At the behest of the MPAA and RIAA the USA has been using its diplomatic muscle to force similar laws on other countries. We have the best laws corporate money can buy.

[MrKaon]

The DMCA has made HDCP strippers illegal in the USA. The few places that sold them have been forced to stop. At the behest of the MPAA and RIAA the USA has been using its diplomatic muscle to force similar laws on other countries. We have the best laws corporate money can buy.

my friend do you have a link to actual product?

[jagabo]

The HDFury devices are still available. They strip HDCP but output analog video. The MUX HD, (HDMI+HDCP in, clear DVI out) isn't available at places like monoprice any more. It might be available if you talk to Moomecard directly. The Spatz device disappeared soon after it was announced. Google them.

[null()]

I'm looking into writing an IP core for an HDMI transmitter, and then I find out about this HDCP crap... So, do HDMI displays *require* HDCP-compliant devices to display anything? There's not much info out there about any of this.


Thanks in advance.

[jagabo]

HDCP is a content protection mechanism. It is the source devices decision whether or not to require HDCP. Displays don't care.

[usually_quiet]

Major retailers don't seem to be carrying any of the HD-Fury products anymore either. I did a search on a whim, and looked at monoprice.com. I found nothing but listings marked "discontinued".

When I looked for a reason, I found something that claimed Intel's licensing agreements for HDMI precludes its use for digital to analog converters like the HD-Fury devices or HDMI strippers. Even if the DMCA did not exist, selling or making unlicensed products that are still under patent could result in a lawsuit. I do not doubt that Intel obtained patents in every country that would allow it.

[MrKaon]

I've find Mux-HD for $285 which is good but problem is sound (Tos Link). It is just not good as DTS.

[mail2tom]

You can buy the HDFury III directly from http://www.hdfury.com.

[MrKaon]

You can buy the HDFury III directly from http://www.hdfury.com.

that is another option: HD Fury3 + Hauppauge HD PVR

[null()]

Essentially, an HDCP stripper seems to be nothing more than a chip that decodes the HDMI input and re-encodes it without the HDCP bits. However, it would technically have to be HDCP-compliant or else it wouldn't even work... $300 is a very reasonable price for this thing.

Is there an HDMI-to-HDMI HDCP stripper out there? That would be awesome, and not *too* involved to make.

EDIT: duh, that'd be the mux-HD.

[jagabo]

Essentially, an HDCP stripper seems to be nothing more than a chip that decodes the HDMI input and re-encodes it without the HDCP bits.

Obviously.

$300 is a very reasonable price for this thing.

Not really. A 50 cent chip, a box to put it in, and a power supply. You're paying for the black market nature and scarcity of the device. If it wasn't illegal in many countries it would sell for $20.

[Casio1987]

Hey folks,

I've just registered to this forum to give my point of view regarding the topic's title matter.

Essentially, an HDCP stripper seems to be nothing more than a chip that decodes the HDMI input and re-encodes it without the HDCP bits. However, it would technically have to be HDCP-compliant or else it wouldn't even work... $300 is a very reasonable price for this thing.

Is there an HDMI-to-HDMI HDCP stripper out there? That would be awesome, and not *too* involved to make.

EDIT: duh, that'd be the mux-HD.

No, it's not reasonable priced. Just like jagabo said, it's using a cheap chip and circuit board, an enclosure and a ps.

Now I'm amazed that still no one have mentioned the product "AVerMedia AVerTV HD DVR", which is for sale at a relatively cheap price.
It's basically a pci card with a hdmi input and -output. It can display hdcp content, but not record it.

This makes me believe that when hdcp keys gets revoked, we can still flash the firmware using the master key and we are good to go. The only problem in this scenario is, is that the rom needs to be flashed (because I doubt the key is located on pc, rather than persistent on the card itself).
As for the recording, we can reverse engineer the software's code.
This card is basically the stripper.

It only takes time until a skilled dissembler is stepping up, when keys get revoked.

What I want to say is that a solution exists for a respectable price and that the end of hdcp is coming to an end.
I've read the responses from the HDFury staff at their website, where the link to it is reffered in this topic, where a mod repeatly said that revoking hdcp keys will never happen. You and I know this is not true and it's funny how he's trying to keep the sheeps calm. Revoking keys might happen, as this is one of the last things that can be done to keep hdcp in business for a longer time, before it eventually will fade away.

Im looking forward for your feedback and ideas regarding this matter.

[jagabo]

The HDCP master keys have already been cracked:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedly-released-unlocks-hdtv-copy-protect/

Intel later admitted that initial report was correct. Anyone can generate working HDCP client keys now.

[Casio1987]

Casio1987, you're way behind the times. The HDCP master keys have already been cracked:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedly-released-unlocks-hdtv-copy-protect/

Intel later admitted that initial report was correct. Anyone can generate working HDCP client keys now. There's no need to reverse engineer anything.

Please don't offend me and read carefully what I've said:

we can still flash the firmware using the master key

reverse engineer the software's code

It only takes time until a skilled dissembler is stepping up, when keys get revoked.

This means that we have to reverse engineer the firmware to update the keys, cause it's all binary... The source will never get public from the manufacture.

And I know that the master key has been cracked for over a year now and I still got the source on my PC, which was found first on: http://pastebin.com/BKTnqRmS. That's why I mentioned it in my statement. As you can read, the problem is not to get the master key, but to generate a new child / client key and implement it.

[usually_quiet]

This means that we have to reverse engineer the firmware to update the keys, cause it's all binary... The source will never get public from the manufacture.

And I know that the master key has been cracked for over a year now and I still got the source on my PC, which was found first on: http://pastebin.com/BKTnqRmS. That's why I mentioned it in my statement. As you can read, the problem is not to get the master key, but to generate a new child / client key and implement it.

Reverse engineering something like that would be a tall order and flashing the ROM is not something most people can do at home.

It isn't truly necessary either. There already is a method available that allows the AVerMedia HD DVR PCi-e card (with its oldest drivers) to record HDCP protected material using third-party software. However, the card doesn't allow recording HD audio. It isn't a matter of drivers. The card lacks the necessary hardware to provide that.

[Casio1987]

Reverse engineering something like that would be a tall order and flashing the ROM is not something most people can do at home.

It isn't truly necessary either. There already is a method available that allows the AVerMedia HD DVR PCi-e card (with its oldest drivers) to record HDCP protected material using third-party software. However, the card doesn't allow recording HD audio. It isn't a matter of drivers. The card lacks the necessary hardware to provide that.

Yes, for most people it will be, but sooner or later and especially after a few years when hdcp on bd over analogue is not allowed to be made or sold anymore, people are bound to use hdmi if they can't use analogue anymore when those are the only interfaces available. You already can see this with the new Playstation 3 K-model. They got rid of hd over analogue to comply the agreement that the aacs have put up.
This will be the start that people are looking for alternatives and create open source projects for firmware and apps that work on specific chipsets that can control the in- and output of hdmi. It's always been like this and I've been in few projects as this myself.

What exactly do you mean with the last two sentences?
- Do you mean that the latest drivers get rid of the screenrecording (using dx in their software) using 3rd party software (with other words, that they block another instance using directx)?
- What do you mean with that the card can't record hd audio? Do you mean the software or the chipsets on the card (for both analogue as digital)?
I'm confused what you are saying here, cause they claim they can and I've seen prove in the form of footages that show the card CAN record hd audio: 1) Using component, 2) using hdmi and 3) using hdmi with hdcp using 3rd party recording the window in their software.

I'm looking forward for your reply.