vaughnc

If the MPI is just looking at DVI to restrict HQ copying then why would they need to restirict display devices. Let the HQ signal work everywhere except in devices capable of recording at that quality. Require those recorders to be licenced to use the DVI protection scheme to restrict reproduction quality accoring to licence.

This kind of reminds me of Digital audio tape. They wanted us to pay a surcharge on blank media so they could recoupe supposed lost revenues from copying. The big difference here is that they want you to pay a surcharge for the recorder, the STB and the Monitor. Oh yeh, I guess I'll have to pay for the two screens embedded in the back of the headrests in the car if I want them to look good.

How many times do I have to buy a copy of a movie in a different release or media before I own the damn thing? It's the same movie!

TheBigE

Not sure, but I would imagine the problem is that to have a display device be able to process an unencoded format would also require that the transmitting device (STB, HD-DVD, etc) also output and unencoded stream.
I dealing with encryption in the data networking world you find that encryption, to truly be secure, needs to be an all-or-nothing proposition. ANY link, anywhere in the process that is NOT encrypted renders the entire scheme open and vulnerable.

Harvey S

Exactly right. The plan is to keep the signal encrypted until it is inside the display device. Otherwise someone would build a recorder that taps into the unencrypted signal. It is not possible to "Let the HQ signal work everywhere except in devices capable of recording at that quality" without doing it the way it is being done. Unfortunately if your display doesn't have the internal deencrypter you won't be able to add it externally, because an external decdoder wuld make available an external deencrytped signal.