SageMCTuner - use a cablecard in Sage!

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Well from a search I found at least one passing reference that Sage "should" play DRM'd WMA. Also found references to MusicMatch Jukebox using DRM WMA for their digital downloads a while back. And you could always try yourself, by DRM-ing a CD you rip, that's always an option.

Also found that the V5.1 release added detection for WM DRM.

WM DRM is different from PlayReady.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The point is more though that we don't know the certification issues of trying to get that worked out. Will MS certify one PC playing content tied to another or are CC recording irrevocably locked to the recording PC?

MS's implementation is based on a single PC model. AFAIK there's nothing that stops Sage from using a domain model to authorize multiple PCs for playback.

Originally Posted by stanger89

It's more an open question than anything, Sage brings a lot of new complications to the table that they'd have to work out and get certified.

And as for linux, no PlayReady isn't Windows-only, but IIRC Sage uses mplayer for playback on linux (and Mac and Placeshifter too I think). mplayer is GPL which I think would make it quite "interesting" getting PlayReady built into Placeshifter.

I agree that it is a complication (using/linking non-GPL binaries from GPL binaries); but even if insurmountable, it could be one of those things that doesn't work in placeshifter.

My understanding is that the files play directly on the extender so I'm not sure mplayer is involved in the server + extender model.

[Fuzzy]

the actual CableCard specs do allow in-house sharing across devices. (they actually allow unprotected output of most content at reduced resolution as well (520k pixels), though no one has implemented that either)

[Brent]

IF CableCard ever came to SageTV here's what would have to happen as I understand it:

1. PlayReady License for server software (done)
2. PlayReady License for each hardware model (not sure)
3. CableLabs Certification of SageTV Software (extra cost each new full version)
4. CableLabs Certification of SageTV Extender Hardware by model

As far as I know, you could not ever connect to a CableCard recorded (or live) stream from one PC to another so SageTV Client would be out of the question.
Streaming to Linux or Mac PC's are irrelevant since you can't stream from computer to computer.
You CAN stream CableCard from a single server to multiple extenders - I think up to 5 based on feedback from MediaCenter users.
Not sure if you could ever license CableCard to a Linux or Mac OS Server, but you certainly CAN license CableCard playback on a linux-based extender.

Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong here, but this is what I remember from many discussion on this topic.

Again, I do not think full CableCard support is in the near future for SageTV. But I don't really know for sure. That's why I haven't posted any "news" on this topic to www.GeekTonic.com since we discovered the PlayReady license. I don't know enough to publish yet. I would LOVE to see CableCard as an option and I'm not afraid of it like SHS is, but I do think it's a very tall order for a very small company to do.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

WM DRM is different from PlayReady.

Oh, guess I sorta thought PlayReady was the extension/evolution of MS/WM DRM.

MS's implementation is based on a single PC model. AFAIK there's nothing that stops Sage from using a domain model to authorize multiple PCs for playback.

Right, but would CableLabs approve a "domain" implementation of PlayReady? Would Sage have to pay for that?

I agree that it is a complication (using/linking non-GPL binaries from GPL binaries); but even if insurmountable, it could be one of those things that doesn't work in placeshifter.

Right but then we start getting into a very fractured, and potentially confusing system. Just imagine if you had a HDHR Prime and an HD PVR, one day, you'll be able to play recordings off HBO on your Mac client, and maybe the next episode you won't.

It seems like a rather "dangerous" game Sage would be playing if they started accepting that some things just won't work on some platforms (right now DVD rips are, AFAIK, the only thing that applies, probably BD rips too).

My understanding is that the files play directly on the extender so I'm not sure mplayer is involved in the server + extender model.

Right, I'm not really worried about extenders, we already know that's possible to get certified.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Right, but would CableLabs approve a "domain" implementation of PlayReady? Would Sage have to pay for that?

Cable companies can do MRV, why can't Sage?

Originally Posted by stanger89

Right but then we start getting into a very fractured, and potentially confusing system. Just imagine if you had a HDHR Prime and an HD PVR, one day, you'll be able to play recordings off HBO on your Mac client, and maybe the next episode you won't.

It seems like a rather "dangerous" game Sage would be playing if they started accepting that some things just won't work on some platforms (right now DVD rips are, AFAIK, the only thing that applies, probably BD rips too).

As you note, it wouldn't be the first time we've accepted fragmentation. Also, I have wonder how may users would be affected by the scenario (PC Server + Mac client).

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Cable companies can do MRV, why can't Sage?

.

As does wmc with it's extenders as long as drm stays in tact when traveling the network I see no issue here either.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Cable companies can do MRV, why can't Sage?

Well WMC doesn't do domains right? Other PCs on the network can't play protected recording. Why didn't MS enable domain protection

As you note, it wouldn't be the first time we've accepted fragmentation. Also, I have wonder how may users would be affected by the scenario (PC Server + Mac client).

PC+Mac was just an example, Linux server+clients is another. Or the big one is probably PC Server+PC clients which would require other PCs to play recordings, which even MS can't do (talking separate from actual softsled here).

The only thing that can definitely be done is PC+Extenders and that would leave out a lot of users.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Well WMC doesn't do domains right? Other PCs on the network can't play protected recording. Why didn't MS enable domain protection

MS didn't need to enable domains because they chose a different extender model long before cable card.

Originally Posted by stanger89

PC+Mac was just an example, Linux server+clients is another. Or the big one is probably PC Server+PC clients which would require other PCs to play recordings, which even MS can't do (talking separate from actual softsled here).

The only thing that can definitely be done is PC+Extenders and that would leave out a lot of users.

OK, let me repeat for linux clients (which must have a pretty limited experience anyway using mplayer for decode and VPP). Besides, isn't linux server/client an OEM only product (i.e. not intended for general consumption)?

How MS implemented CableCARD is just one way to do it; I don't understand why you're using their approach as the only approach (see above).

Clearly this is all speculation, but a PlayReady license isn't cheap ($30k+) I don't think they'd put down that kind of $ for nothing (or go through the trouble of submitting a comment to the FCC regarding CableCARD requirements if it wasn't something under consideration)...

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Clearly this is all speculation, but a PlayReady license isn't cheap ($30k+) I don't think they'd put down that kind of $ for nothing (or go through the trouble of submitting a comment to the FCC regarding CableCARD requirements if it wasn't something under consideration)...

That's my thinking as well. I don't think Sage would plunk down a whole bunch of money unless they had something in the works. We'll just have to wait to see what that something is.

Tom

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

MS didn't need to enable domains because they chose a different extender model long before cable card.

But Domain security would have allowed WMC machines to share CC recordings right? Why would they not have wanted to do that?

OK, let me repeat for linux clients (which must have a pretty limited experience anyway using mplayer for decode and VPP). Besides, isn't linux server/client an OEM only product (i.e. not intended for general consumption)?

Linux is, but Mac is retail.

How MS implemented CableCARD is just one way to do it; I don't understand why you're using their approach as the only approach (see above).

Because they're the only ones who have managed to get a PC system approved. Maybe it's not the only way, but if PlayReady supports domain security, and MS supports sharing recordings amongst WMC machines, why would they not have chosen domain security for their CableCard security? Unless Cable Labs wouldn't accept that?

Clearly this is all speculation, but a PlayReady license isn't cheap ($30k+) I don't think they'd put down that kind of $ for nothing (or go through the trouble of submitting a comment to the FCC regarding CableCARD requirements if it wasn't something under consideration)...

Are all PlayReady licenses that much? Or is there a "free" provisional license like I think some solutions (AACS?) offer, to allow you to start development and not pay until certification and product shipment...

Look, I hope you guys are right, but I just can't be that optimistic given Jeff's comments about DRM and the history of "premium" content access on PCs.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

But Domain security would have allowed WMC machines to share CC recordings right? Why would they not have wanted to do that?

I can't answer to why they make the decisions they do, but I suspect that they chose an approach and are sticking with it. If there was a PC client you could make the negative argument, but as it stands there isn't enough evidence either way to make a defensible assertion.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Because they're the only ones who have managed to get a PC system approved. Maybe it's not the only way, but if PlayReady supports domain security, and MS supports sharing recordings amongst WMC machines, why would they not have chosen domain security for their CableCard security? Unless Cable Labs wouldn't accept that?

For the same reason they didn't make PC extenders - it's not in line with their custom installer approach.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Are all PlayReady licenses that much? Or is there a "free" provisional license like I think some solutions (AACS?) offer, to allow you to start development and not pay until certification and product shipment...

There are different licenses for different purposes, for e.g. the PC application license is $15k and a device is is b/w $10-$50k up front. None of the licenses are cheap. I'm not aware of any free or trial licenses.

[Naylia]

Originally Posted by Brent

IF CableCard ever came to SageTV here's what would have to happen as I understand it:

1. PlayReady License for server software (done)
2. PlayReady License for each hardware model (not sure)
3. CableLabs Certification of SageTV Software (extra cost each new full version)
4. CableLabs Certification of SageTV Extender Hardware by model

As far as I know, you could not ever connect to a CableCard recorded (or live) stream from one PC to another so SageTV Client would be out of the question.
Streaming to Linux or Mac PC's are irrelevant since you can't stream from computer to computer.
You CAN stream CableCard from a single server to multiple extenders - I think up to 5 based on feedback from MediaCenter users.
Not sure if you could ever license CableCard to a Linux or Mac OS Server, but you certainly CAN license CableCard playback on a linux-based extender.

Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong here, but this is what I remember from many discussion on this topic.

Again, I do not think full CableCard support is in the near future for SageTV. But I don't really know for sure. That's why I haven't posted any "news" on this topic to www.GeekTonic.com since we discovered the PlayReady license. I don't know enough to publish yet. I would LOVE to see CableCard as an option and I'm not afraid of it like SHS is, but I do think it's a very tall order for a very small company to do.

My question is are #3 and #4 actually required for SageTV. Since the SD and Ceton tuner are CableLabs certified and hence, already ensuring that the content is correctly wrapped in DRM and flagged approriately, is CableLabs certification required for the rest of the playback chain?

It seems to me that once the video is packaged in DRM, products which particpate in said DRM scheme should be able to playback the content. I'm not sure why you would need CL to certify SageTV. If Sage at any point violated the PlayReady DRM, they could just revoke Sage's decryption keys.

I pretty much agree with everything else in your post...

[Naylia]

Originally Posted by babgvant

There are different licenses for different purposes, for e.g. the PC application license is $15k and a device is is b/w $10-$50k up front. None of the licenses are cheap. I'm not aware of any free or trial licenses.

Cheap is a relative term...I have no idea how many users Sage has...or what their annual revenue is...but I did spend a few years employed as a financial analyst for software devlopment efforts.

I'm pretty sure the company is larger than 1 employee. With software development and hardware development I suspect they have at least a couple more employees.

Let's say a generic software dev company has 5 employee and is located in the greater LA area. Cost of living is not as bad as the Bay Area, but it's also not the mid-West. Using PayScale.com, a Java developer with a MS and 10 years experience has an average salary of $91k in LA. Factor in benefits, employer taxes, etc, and the cost of each employee could easily be $120k+.

So to run a generic 5 person software company you're looking at $600k / year in labor. Plus office space, phones/internet, web hosting, etc.

Even on a shoestring budget with a development team working for love rather than money, you'd be looking at $400k a year to run a small dev company. For how long Sage has been around, the team can't be living off of the hope of an IPO. It's a stable successful company, not a start up anymore.

And considering I've been using Sage since 2004, and they keep putting out a new upgraded product year after year, I'd like to think that Sage is generating a profit or at least breaking even and continuing to feed said dev team.

$15k + $10k / version or whatever is just not a significant enough cost that it concerns me. It seems like a necessary investment and and would only be a small portion of their yearly budget. And actually a small enough cost, that those licensing fees could easily be borne by the customer.



So that was a really long winded way of saying I'm not worried about Sage having enough money for licensing costs to enable capability that in the future will very likely be necessary for the survival of the product. Even if CableCard is eliminated, any future ethernet based gateway solution will still require DRM and Sage is going to have to support new methods of recording content. And while it might not be PlayReady, it will be something and Sage is going to have to include that line of thinking in their business model and cost structure. I believe they already are.

[kmp14]

Man, I wish SageTV would just make some kind of announcement that CC support is coming, if it is. It is not like they would be showing the cards to all the competition, since their really isn't any in the space (except MCE, and they already have CC). Pages and pages of discussion, but if they just gave us a hint, the pages could be about the excitement that it is coming!

[kmp14]

Will you be able to watch live TV, or does the step that recontainers the MC file into a TS file happen after a recording is stopped? I realize it is all still experimental, but I went ahead and ordered a Ceton...

Sorry if this was already asked, I searched the thread and did not find anything about live tv.

[Tiki]

I wonder what they mean by "domain" in this context. In normal Microsoft parlance a domain is a very specific thing and it is not just any old home network. In fact the home editions of MS Windows doesn't even support creating or joining a domain (you need professional or higher for this).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by kmp14

Man, I wish SageTV would just make some kind of announcement that CC support is coming, if it is. It is not like they would be showing the cards to all the competition, since their really isn't any in the space (except MCE, and they already have CC). Pages and pages of discussion, but if they just gave us a hint, the pages could be about the excitement that it is coming!

It's not in the V7 beta, I think that says a lot right there.

[Naylia]

Then maybe we should start an "It's awfully quiet in the V8 beta forums" thread....

[doncote0]

Too many negative Nancys and many of the facts are being skewed.

A license is granted to a single client (such as a media player) or a domain (such as a home network). The license will not function on other clients or other domains.

There for it will kill the Home DVR server with muli client in case more then one HD-200 and PC client.
I and min other here DO NOT WANT THIS CRAP DRM.
There only a small hand user that want cable card and are will have put up with DRM carp wail the other 99% here say NO WAY.
__________________

It will not kill the home dvr server ...see the (such as a home network) from your own post.

DRM is here, if you don't want it then don't use it. You shouldn't need it unless you are using a technology that requires it (for now anyway).

99% might be a bad estimate. See the survey results for more information. The survey only captured the information from individuals to whom CC support was very important but not those who were interested or thought it might be nice.

DRM does not increase this risk for anything that you can currently do legally without DRM. If it is at risk now, it's due to it's nature, not due to DRM.

[doncote0]

For those that are wondering about the tuner inputs and streams, the CC technology specifications can support up to 6 independently addressable channels from the same input. Only 1 cable card is required per device. This means that you could effectly record up to 6 programs (Ceton Infinity uses 4, HDHR prime only uses 3) that would normally require 6 digital comcast boxes (HD or otherwise).

Let's see what it would be using the minimum of 3 (HDHR prime)

3 CC at $2 each $6
3 digital comcast boxes (non HD) $5 each ...$15
3 HD comcast boxes $10 each $30
connections required = 3
USB-IRT required
TOTAL COST TO COMCAST monthly of $21 to $36

compared to

CC card to the CC device $2
connections required = 1
USB-IRT not required or desired
TOTAL COST TO COMCAST monthly of $2

Interested now? (Don't answer that question--it's rhetorical.)