COPPs and Robbers

As promised yesterday, during Microsoft's "How To Implement Windows Vista Content Output Protection" session today at WinHEC, I bought up my concerns regarding the lack of HDCP mention in the Vista "Get Ready" program. And as expected, Microsoft dodged the issue. Twice, actually; I first brought it up during the earlier "Windows Vista Video Pipeline Architecture and Implementation" session, where an answer was deferred to the later tutorial. Microsoft's position is neatly summarized in this foil delivered by David Marsh, Microsoft's Program Manager for Windows Audio and Video; "it's only a problem if the content owners make it a problem, and we only provide the content protection framework….it's up to the content owners whether they implement it or not."

Partway through Microsoft's presentation, things got very surreal. Marsh invited Pete Levinthal, ATI Technologies' Director of Software Engineering, on-stage. In an attempt to blunt the audience's concerns over low-quality downscaled (or in Microsoft terminology, 'constricted') content delivered to viewers in response to a HDCP-less link between graphics subsystem and display, Levinthal proudly pointed out the ability of ATI chips and drivers to intelligently up-scale (to match the end display resolution) and edge-sharpen the 'constricted' material in such a way that it was virtually indistinguishable from the 'un-constricted' high-definition source content.

Levinthal was spot-on; the 'constricted'-then-up-scaled material looked very good on the 1024×768 pixel large-screen projection. But his pitch re-raised an issue in my mind that I've voiced many times in the past. If up-scaled standard definition material is sufficient in the vast majority of viewing situations, can someone remind me just what's the point of high definition, especially considering its DRM and format-uncertainty hassles??

I had the chance to meet 1:1 with Levinthal today post-presentation over lunch, where he addressed some of my issues (although he dodged my inquiries into the in-progress lawsuit filed against ATI by unhappy customers who'd been seduced by the company's inaccurate 'HDCP-ready' claims of the past few years). He reminded me, for example, of something that the Wikipedia entry for PVP-OPM also points out; today's Windows XP also implements an output protection scheme called COPP (Certified Output Protection Protocol). However, COPP only operates at the application programming interface level and is easily circumvented by a 'rogue' program or driver; conversely, "PVP-OPM operates with the Windows media components in the Protected Environment" that's deeply linked to the operating system kernel and requires signed applications and peripheral drivers in order to function.

Levinthal and I also brainstormed possible content owner response options in response to a copy-unprotected video link scenario. I agree with his general 'gut feel'; that if the content playback system is presented with graphics hardware or a display device that doesn't implement HDCP, it'll likely just 'constrict' the content. But if this 'constriction' will occur over both analog and digital outputs, or if the digital output will be completely disabled, is content owner-dependent (as I previously mentioned, Blu-ray and HD DVD don't for now plan to 'constrict' analog outputs, but I feel this is a special, and temporary, case due to the lack of HDMI support in today's predominantly early-adopters' living rooms).

However, when presented with an unsigned graphics driver, or with a display that's been HDCP-revoked, Levinthal suspects (and I agree) that most content owners will instruct Vista to completely disable both the analog and digital video outputs. This response might seem extreme at first glance, but it would prevent the possibility that a rogue software program or display-mimicking device tethered to the PC's video output could obtain an easily-duplicated and -distributed copy of the high-definition video content.

In spite of Marsh's smooth attempt to redirect the "Vista Ready" HDCP debate away from Microsoft and towards the content owners, I'm still left with a bad taste in my mouth. Admittedly, companies like Microsoft and ATI are stuck 'between a rock and a hard place'. On the one hand, from a consumer ease-of-use standpoint, they'd probably prefer to not hassle with DRM and the expensive tech support calls they'll inevitably incur as a result of it at all. On the other hand, the content owners are insisting on DRM as a prerequisite to access to high definition content. And new features such as access to high definition content are what sell new graphics chips and new operating systems. But for Microsoft to completely omit mention of the HDCP issue from its consumer-targeted collateral, thereby 'hooking' consumers on an O/S upgrade they might later regret, is in my mind unconscionable.