3 ms·
As others have pointed out, this may be a means to foist DRM on the audio output of phones, tablets, and possibly desktops/laptops. But the assumption followin
by fpgaminer 11y ago
As others have pointed out, this may be a means to foist DRM on the audio output of phones, tablets, and possibly desktops/laptops. But the assumption following that is that DRM is being implemented in an attempt to prevent piracy. That is, in my opinion, not the case. DRM's primary purpose with respect to the video/audio industry is market control. Let's start at the top of the market, the content producers (Warner, Fox, etc). They make a movie/TV show/etc, and publish it to disc. But that disc has encryption on it. So a company like Sony wants to make a device that plays the disc. To do so legally they have to sign a bunch of agreements with the owners of the encryption license. Part of those agreements requires the use of HDCP. Okay, so now the disc is playing, and outputting an encrypted video signal. So a company like LG makes a TV, but the video signal is encrypted. So, they have to sign an agreement with the holders of the HDCP license. But the holders of that license, and the license of disc encryption, are all held, ultimately, by the same media industry oligarchy that holds the rights to the content that started this chain of DRM in the first place.
The end result is that the content owners get to use DRM as a means to force all the companies along the food chain to sign agreements with them, and thus they can exercise power over the entire market. Not a single legit Blu-ray player gets manufactured without signing agreements with these companies. Not a single TV, cable box, repeater, receiver, projector, etc. DRM is not a padlock, it's a parasite. The icing on the cake is that it also nets them a tidy profit. HDCP requires both a yearly licensing fee, and a per-device royalty. It ain't cheap. And there are more aggressive requirements if you plan to implement HDCP yourself, rather than using a pre-made device. So you can either use a pre-made device, which is conveniently manufactured by the same oligarchy and is rather pricey, or make your own and suffer further agreements and expenses.
Intel is the guy that the media industry hired to create HDCP, and who currently manages it. It wasn't long ago that Intel was gung-ho about pushing video DRM on PC's along with Microsoft. Luckily that mostly died, but here we are again, same story, different day.
- signal57 11y agoWouldn't it still be possible to record the non-DRM analog signal with a USB-C to 3.5 mm adapter? The change would put the amp and DAC inside the headphones. Take it apart and connect directly to the "last leg" going to the analog speakers. If anything, it should be a better quality signal because of the shorter analog transmission distance.
- anon4 11y agoNot if USB-C to 3.5mm is illegal to manufacture. And it will be, as it circumvents DRM and is thus against the DMCA.
- pdkl95 11y agoAn adapter like that will have the exact same problems as DVI->VGA adapters: HDCP. The software will refuse to send the data to the port without an HDCP negotiation. And just like the VGA adapters, I'm sure it will be possible to make a "striper" that fakes the HDCP handshake, with all the associated legal problems.
- Natanael_L 11y agoThis is why the media industry needs to get deprecated and fade away. Their desire for controlling the market and thus a large fraction of the culture is directly harmful. Copyright maximalism has nothing to do with "rights" or "harm" or "piracy", it is instead all about this, to make sure that the largest market entities are dependent on you and follow your commands. They make themselves gatekeepers.
- pdkl95 11y agoDRM has always been about control of the client, not piracy.