Sky enabling HDCP

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky enabling HDCP

1 | 2 | 3

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2313366 9-Sep-2019 07:55

cyril7: Regardless hdcp was mandatory since 2004, even though your manual does not mention it I would find it odd it did not have it, have you actually tried any of the premium sky channels ie movies, or any BD player will require it off a major movie.

Cyril

My Panny HDD recorders had it, these were pre the analogue TV shutdown.

fe31nz

1295 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 423

#2313868 9-Sep-2019 22:45

cyril7: Regardless hdcp was mandatory since 2004, even though your manual does not mention it I would find it odd it did not have it, have you actually tried any of the premium sky channels ie movies, or any BD player will require it off a major movie.

Cyril

Why on earth would I buy gear that requires HDCP when my TV does not do it? No, I do not have a BD player, or anything else that requires HDCP. And I do not subscribe to Sky Movies. However, when Sky gave me free Sky Movies access for a week last year, that worked fine on the one movie I tried it on.

And no, HDCP is not mandatory, and never has been. In 2009 when I got my TV, only a few had it in NZ. All TVs sold in NZ will likely now have it, but there is no law requiring it in NZ, or preventing you from disabling it, so I think the best answer to all the problems HDCP causes is one of those Aliexpress splitters that does away with it at the source.

Does anyone here seriously believe that any TV manufacturer, or Sony in particular, would make a TV that has HDCP and not bother to mention it? Especially in 2009 when people were looking for HDCP in a TV?

I have found a copy of what appears to be my manual on the Sony NZ site:

https://www.sony.co.nz/electronics/support/res/manuals/4131/41314821M.pdf

and also another updated manual that covers my TV and a greater range of other models:

https://www.sony.co.nz/electronics/support/res/manuals/4136/41361111M.pdf

Searching those PDF files for "HDCP" gives zero matches.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2313876 10-Sep-2019 00:10

Its part of the licensing for HDMI logos and stuff to support it. I expect that sony would be honoring those licenses, and until HDCP2.0 came along it was a given thing that it was supported so no reason to even mention it in the manual.

Richard rich.ms

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2313952 10-Sep-2019 08:24

fe31nz:

Does anyone here seriously believe that any TV manufacturer, or Sony in particular, would make a TV that has HDCP and not bother to mention it? Especially in 2009 when people were looking for HDCP in a TV?

What testing haver you done to know your TV does not support HDCP? I'd be very surprised to find a TV from 2009 that didn't support it. While there will be some devices post 2005ish that don't support it, they would be pretty rare, and typically limited to monitors.

I would not necessarily to see a TV manufacturer mention HDCP support in the manual, because while it's a different standard it's really just part of the HDMI spec

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2313960 10-Sep-2019 08:42

Hi as others have said, for a device to sport the official HDMI logo it MUST support HDCP, and this has been since HDMI inc required at around 2004, and yes there are a very small number of devices in that transition time that did not have HDCP support.

Regardless, I happen to have a nearby mate that has the exact same model, last everning I got him to test his BD player with a recent prime move that requires HDCP and it works, so just because the manual does not mention means jack sh1t

Cyril

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2313994 10-Sep-2019 09:18

Actually, I happen to have a non-HDCP TV. It no longer works and I can't remember exactly when I bought it but it was many years ago. It is 42 inch and one of the first relatively inexpensive flat screen TVs. I think I paid around $2,000 or maybe $2500 for it. I bought it from Disk Smith and it was branded DSE. I know for a fact it was non-HDCP because I played around with it at the time and bought a splitter to use it with my DVD player.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2314038 10-Sep-2019 09:48

HDCP is only required for 1080 material, lower resolutions do not engage with it, so not sure if a DVD player would be impacted.

Cyril

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2314110 10-Sep-2019 11:00

Good point. It might have been something else. I don't remember but I do know I needed the splitter for something.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#2314178 10-Sep-2019 11:56

fe31nz:

sbiddle: What TV do you have that is so old it has HDMI but no HDCP?

There were really only a handful of early model flat screens from maybe 2004ish that suffered this limitation. Considering your TV won't even be full HD from that era the 1440*1080 will still exceed your panel resolution. 😀

My non-HDCP TV is a model that was new in 2009, so I do not know where you are getting 2004 from. It is a Sony Bravia KDL-32V5500. I bought it on 11-Dec-2009. My recollection at the time was that HDCP capable TVs were available in NZ then, but it was only on the very expensive ones.

I am pretty sure that there will be heaps of Sky customers like me who only buy a new TV when forced to - preferably after at least 10 years of service. Mine is still working just fine and is in no need of upgrading. I would never use the "smart" features of a new TV - I use my MythTV box, phone and tablet for that. So I certainly would not want to pay for those features on a new TV. And I do not need any speakers either - my sound goes via S/PDIF to my DAC and hifi system. I am not watching any 4k content, so there is no need for that yet - maybe if Sky or Freeview started 4k transmissions there would be a reason to get a new TV. But certainly not just because Sky wants to turn on HDCP. That said, I have to repeat what Sky told me when the new decoders arrived - yes, they do have HDCP on channels (they did not say which ones), but if the decoder was connected to a non-HDCP TV like mine, it would simply disable HDCP at its end and everything would work. That does appear to be the case, as I can watch all my channels (Sky Basic + Sky Entertainment), and most of those channels are now in HD. So unless they are also changing the decoders to stop that process, then any changes to channel HDCP settings will not affect me.

Hmmm....scratches head and tries to think back 10-15 years.

I was under the impression that HDMI always included HDCP. All the way back to the 1.0 spec.

You used to be able to get TVs back in the day that had DVI inputs rather than HDMI.

And you definitely had to check the spec sheet very carefully to see whether that DVI input supported HDCP before handing over the cash.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#2314222 10-Sep-2019 13:04

I had a Phillips TV I brought before HDCP.

Two years later HDCP came out, I can’t remember if TV had HDMI or just DVI.

If it was just DVI had a HDMI to DVI cable. No video would play through it which I think was because of HDCP.

Took it back to store, manager was trying to say tough technologies change, and I was saying I have a reasonable expectation for connection to work, as it doesn’t work not fit for purpose.

He even rang Philips and there response was "the connection is not meant to work", which I said to the manager that’ll go down well in court, put a connection on a TV that is not meant to work.

He spent up to two hours with a blue ray player, I went did other things while he was trying to get it to work. And then said would give money back or a big discount off a TV that would work on. I took the discount.

If he could’ve got the blue ray player going he wouldn’t of, so I’m glad he wasn’t trying with a DVD player or would’ve been big argument. Not long after that Phillips stopped making TV’s this side of the world.

Had an LG TV it did support HDCP, but it crapped out and had no Sky picture. A repair place came out, plugged in blue ray player and it wouldn’t work either. They gave a loan TV and took It away under warranty. When they got it to store the TV was working. They replaced a circuit board anyway just to make sure, so disconnecting TV from power was all that was needed to get it working.

Later discovered pushing simplink button knocks out the HDCP, but unplugging and plugging in TV fixes it. Don’t know if it will on LG’s latest, don’t want to risk it on the C8.

I see that 4K needs hdcp2 maybe a point version, but for 1080 only hdcp 1.0? Is being enforced as there is 1080 TV’s out there don’t support the higher HDCP.

I can’t find anything on Sky’s media realeases or searching internet, so wonder if it’s happening for Sports as it could create costs for Pubs, Gyms etc, and after all these years why would the rights holders suddenly want HDCP for 1080.

When HDCP came out in my case it created costs (probably elsewhere to), except for maybe distribution systems shouldn’t create costs now.

Edit; Can’t see simplink button on C8, that solves that.

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2314446 10-Sep-2019 19:05

fe31nz:
cyril7: Regardless hdcp was mandatory since 2004, even though your manual does not mention it I would find it odd it did not have it, have you actually tried any of the premium sky channels ie movies, or any BD player will require it off a major movie.

Cyril

Why on earth would I buy gear that requires HDCP when my TV does not do it? No, I do not have a BD player, or anything else that requires HDCP. And I do not subscribe to Sky Movies. However, when Sky gave me free Sky Movies access for a week last year, that worked fine on the one movie I tried it on.

I think to answer this it would be an idea to understand why it exists. Here are my thoughts.

A way I like to think of it is there is low value broadcast and high value broadcasts. One does not require any [HDCP] security to receive the low value transmission.

Note: if one wants to know how HDCP works, happy explain.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#2320128 19-Sep-2019 09:45

networkn:

What legal reason do you have for needing your Sky content without HDCP?

If you are using it for non-legal reasons, then Sky won't miss you as a customer and the number of customers who they will lose as a result of this is likely single/double-digit.

Off the top of my head, there are two legal uses I can think of:

One would be a TV distribution system to pipe video around the house that chokes on HDCP. A colleague of mine had this issue about 10 years ago as he had he had put component video wiring in his house walls so that he could watch video on bedroom TVs etc as well as the living room. It was well done, professionally installed with wall plates, and worked very well - component is able to handle HD up to 1080. But then he got one of the (then spanking new) new MySky HDi boxes, which insisted on only outputting HD content this over HDMI outputs, which impacted his nice (legal) cabling setup. From memory he resolved this easily and relatively cheaply with an HDFury, that ignored HDCP and converted the HDMI signal to component in HD for distribution.
Someone recording the show for timeshifting using their own recorder with HDMI inputs rather than paying Sky $15/mo to enable this on the box (timeshifting video like this is legal in NZ).

So not everyone for whom HDCP causes issues is necessarily up to something nefarious or illegal, and it's not really appropriate to infer that they automatically are.

However, I think the whole thing is a bit of a non-issue myself. Firstly, there are only a very small number of users for whom this should be an issue. Secondly HDCP is utterly ineffective and (except for 4K signals using HDCP 2.0+, which is a bit trickier, but not insurmountable), can easily be removed from the signal using readily available kit that costs less than $25. Moreover, I would expect that virtually all people for whom HDCP is an issue because their TV doesn't support it etc would already have such kit in place and connected.

As to why Sky is doing this, I have no idea. Unlike movies the value of sport is pretty ephemeral, and a recording of a game from a week or more ago is of limited interest to many people, or of material commercial value. Sport is only really valuable live, or near live. Plus, it's technically so trivial to bypass I doubt any serious pirate would even be inconvenienced by it, much less stopped.

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2320652 19-Sep-2019 18:44

As I understand it -High value content is protected by HDCP, low value content is not. You cant watch high value content on a TV that is only cable of handling low value content.

I am not sure what one is referring to in removing from the signal as I am not aware of there being anything in the signal. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this?

...they/their/them...

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#2321230 20-Sep-2019 14:03

I used the term "signal" perhaps too loosely. I was referring to the output from the Sky box (or any other media source that uses HDCP), rather than the incoming signal. Perhaps "video output" might have been a more accurate term.

Anyhow, put simply when HDCP is enabled then the source device does handshaking with the target device. If the target device isn't HDCP-compliant then the handshaking fails and the video won't play.
You can get inexpensive devices that sit between the source and the target. They take an HDMI/HDCP input and do the handshaking. They then spit out an unprotected video feed on the output side that doesn't have HDCP, and is receivable by any device that can take an HMDI input, even if it's not HDCP compliant and incapable of performing the handshaking. This might be an older TV. It can also be a recorder. There are plenty of recorders that can record HD video over HDMI once the HDCP is dealt to.

These devices are often referred to as HDCP strippers, and can be purchased for less than $NZ 25. Googling "HDCP stripper" or "HDCP removal" will give you a wealth of information on this.

There are also many, many discussions on the legality of this. But that's quite complicated, and is another issue for another thread. My point here was that it's unclear why Sky is doing this as it may inconvenience some legitimate users, and is anyway futile for avoiding recording as it's so easily bypassed.

1 | 2 | 3