3 ms·

> First of all, the restriction on 4K has a lot more to do with technical limitations than anything else. That argument may have worked in a world without HDCP

by cyphar 9y ago

> First of all, the restriction on 4K has a lot more to do with technical limitations than anything else. That argument may have worked in a world without HDCP and EME, but that's not the world we live in. The requirements for becoming part of HDCP cabal explicitly state that you must degrade the quality of non-HDCP streams[1]. This is not a natural limitation of the user's machine, it's an attempt to force users to use HDCP-compliant hardware and software so that they can view their content properly. This is of course not directly relevant to the discussion of Net Neutrality, but GP's point is entirely valid given that Netflix uses HDCP and was one of the authors of EME. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content...

pedrocr 9y ago
>The requirements for becoming part of HDCP cabal explicitly state that you must degrade the quality of non-HDCP streams[1]. Your source only seems to support that if you have a HDCP stream and a non-DHCP output you need to degrade the quality. Is there actually a requirement that if I try to view my 4K family video that I captured with my own camera on a non-HDCP 4K projector that the content needs to be degraded? That would be a whole other can of worms of anti-competition. Where not even the argument that you can vote with your wallet would work (flimsy as it originally is anyway).
- cyphar 9y ago
  Yeah, that was badly worded on my part. I meant that they have to degrade HDCP content if it's not being played through HDCP. Note that any combination of {graphics card,HDMI controller,OS,browser,monitor} may result in not being able to play HDCP content and thus your quality being degraded. The point stands that the reason for doing the degradation in that instance is because of DRM and not because of technical issues. I personally am not sure how I feel about artificially removing the ability to access high-quality streams based on the current machine I'm accessing a site over (which is what GP was talking about) -- it feels user-hostile because if I want to download the stream then I can't download it in any quality available. But it's not as bad as full-blown DRM. My mentioning of DRM was to point out that not all auto-degradation is benign.
colde 9y ago
> That argument may have worked in a world without HDCP and EME, but that's not the world we live in. My argument weren't with regards to DRM. Simply with regards to performance, since we are talking quite a few more bits than 1080p. Indeed HDCP and especially EME has been great for enabling better playback experiences in browsers. But that still doesn't help with support for H.265 and for the increased bitrates needed for 4K.
- cyphar 9y ago
  My point was that not all reasons for degrading of playback are benign. HDCP has those requirements specifically to coerce users into purchasing HDCP-compliant hardware in order to be able to restrict their viewing of media. Whether or not you agree with DRM (I certainly don't), "technical limitations" is not a panacea for all of the shady things that the DRM cabal is doing. At some point you have to say flat-out that you have no problem with artificially limiting what content users can access, and removing their agency to view content they've rightfully purchased (or exercise their rights under copyright law such as public domain and fair use). While it might be "just" video and audio today, the future doesn't look bright from my perspective (not to mention that YouTube has shown to be a very strong platform for independent media).

by cyphar 9y ago

pedrocr 9y ago

>The requirements for becoming part of HDCP cabal explicitly state that you must degrade the quality of non-HDCP streams[1]. Your source only seems to support that if you have a HDCP stream and a non-DHCP output you need to degrade the quality. Is there actually a requirement that if I try to view my 4K family video that I captured with my own camera on a non-HDCP 4K projector that the content needs to be degraded? That would be a whole other can of worms of anti-competition. Where not even the argument that you can vote with your wallet would work (flimsy as it originally is anyway).

cyphar 9y ago
Yeah, that was badly worded on my part. I meant that they have to degrade HDCP content if it's not being played through HDCP. Note that any combination of {graphics card,HDMI controller,OS,browser,monitor} may result in not being able to play HDCP content and thus your quality being degraded. The point stands that the reason for doing the degradation in that instance is because of DRM and not because of technical issues. I personally am not sure how I feel about artificially removing the ability to access high-quality streams based on the current machine I'm accessing a site over (which is what GP was talking about) -- it feels user-hostile because if I want to download the stream then I can't download it in any quality available. But it's not as bad as full-blown DRM. My mentioning of DRM was to point out that not all auto-degradation is benign.

colde 9y ago

> That argument may have worked in a world without HDCP and EME, but that's not the world we live in. My argument weren't with regards to DRM. Simply with regards to performance, since we are talking quite a few more bits than 1080p. Indeed HDCP and especially EME has been great for enabling better playback experiences in browsers. But that still doesn't help with support for H.265 and for the increased bitrates needed for 4K.

cyphar 9y ago
My point was that not all reasons for degrading of playback are benign. HDCP has those requirements specifically to coerce users into purchasing HDCP-compliant hardware in order to be able to restrict their viewing of media. Whether or not you agree with DRM (I certainly don't), "technical limitations" is not a panacea for all of the shady things that the DRM cabal is doing. At some point you have to say flat-out that you have no problem with artificially limiting what content users can access, and removing their agency to view content they've rightfully purchased (or exercise their rights under copyright law such as public domain and fair use). While it might be "just" video and audio today, the future doesn't look bright from my perspective (not to mention that YouTube has shown to be a very strong platform for independent media).