[mythtv-users] Cablecard spec change undermining CCI Copy Freely flags

[Michael T. Dean]

On 08/21/2014 05:13 PM, Ronald Frazier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Eric Sharkey wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Michael T. Dean wrote:
>>>> I know Hauppauge had to go to CableLabs for permission for the change.
>>>> I found http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/542876#542876
>>>> , but can't find any more specific info.
>>> Since I was the one that posted that comment, I believe I
>>> used the wrong words (i.e. it was misleading).  I believe
>>> that SD modified the code to ignore the cgms value IFF
>>> (if and only if) the CCI flag was set to copy freely/unrestricted.
>>> A CCI of not-specified still required cgms respect.
>> I thought that was part of the spec, not a change.  As Ron put it:
>>
>>    ..cablecard copy proection is a hierarchy, where CCI flags will
>>     override CGMS flags. When a CCI 0x00 flag is present, it will
>>     override any CGMS flags.
>>
>> Are you saying that wasn't part of the design of CCI from the beginning?
>
> Notice that thread was from April of last year. That thread is about
> something different than what we are talking about here. To be clear.
>
> 1) The previous cablelabs specification required that CCI flags, when
> present, will override CGMS flags.
> 2) The device in that discussion (and note, I'm not clear from that thread
> which brand of device it was) had a bug*** which caused it to honor CGMS
> protection even when there was a CCI flag that should have overrode it.
> 3) The specification has now recently been changed. I got some confirmation
> from Ceton on this fact. And to be clear, my previous statement was
> technically incorrect. When CCI Copy Free is seen, the cablecard does not
> say it's CCI none...it just doesn't say anything about the CCI at all.
> Technically different, but effectively I think it has the same result.
>
>
> ***yes, it's possible it may not be a bug so much an an intended
> functionality based on their interpretation. However, since every bit of
> documentation up until now had indicated CCI overrides other the DRM
> schemes, and all the other devices (up until now) have implemented things
> that way, and apparently that device was even changed, that's close enough
> to consider it a bug to me (maybe not a coding bug, but a legal
> interpretation "bug").

That device was an HDHR Prime.  My apologies for adding confusion by 
saying Hauppauge where I meant Silicon Dust.

Mike