![]() | This is an archive of past discussions about High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)