Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection/Archive 2011

Article still quite biased
I had a quick look through the archives and I can see that some of you have made a genuine attempt to clean up this article - I applaud that. However I came here and was about to link to this article for a basic definition of HDCP in a piece I'm writing, when in reality it is still far too biased to link to. It almost exclusively deals with the negatives and issues surrounding HDCP, and has very little in the way of description and more in the way of critique.

Anyway I encourage someone to perhaps have a go at cleaning it up, but for now it's virtually useless as an objective article on HDCP and should be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.201.39 (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you point to an example of this excessive negativity in the page? HDCP is a technology designed for the sole purpose of preventing people from doing things, avoiding negative terms is impossible.  Please be specific. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if the article is really biased (which I disagree with), you should still link to it; so others can see the bias and edit themselves, all the while, they'll learn what HDCP is. Michael miceli (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I suspect my M237WD-PZ stopped displaying PS3 image (or rather PS3 stopped sending image) over hdmi just suddenly because of some HDCP update. Now I have a useless TV and useless gaming console sitting there and cannot even get money back. How can I prove this is the problem since it is specific to this combo and both devices work fine on their own? Imo HDCP brings nothing good to the customer while possibly introduces a host of problems that nobody is responsible for. --Neikius (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

HDCP 2.1
Recently HDCP added a new version. It was done silently without any press release. A quick scan showed that the real motivation is to block downstream HDCP 1.x Receiver and HDCP 2.0 Repeater from getting Type 1 content (usualy refers to Audio with SCMS copy control data) Those lead me to beleive they lost some battle that enforced them to block their own devices, and therefore avoided any press release. Can anyone shade light on what exactly happened behind the scenes, what is the use case that considered copyright infrigement, what was the resolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkeidar (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)