# HDCP Master Key Leaked on Twitter



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

So. This week the HDCP master key was leaked on Twitter. The tech news guys are saying that we may be able to start capturing HD content on devices soon, but I'm thinking you'd have to have a legal HDMI input on a recording device with the Key for this to work. Obviously TiVo isn't going to be able to take advantage of this, or do you think the result of this key being leaked will impact TiVo at all?


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

I don't think it will have any impact on TiVo at all.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

What the leak means is that people can make devices that accept HDCP HDMI connections and then spit out nonHDCP HDMI connections. What this means is anything passing through HDMI can soon have it's data copied and altered. 

For the non-technical, wich I myself am, think of this as the old cable decoder box for the new age. Except instead of getting payperview free, etc.. you can now record it for later or share it across the internet.

I'm feeling mostly positive on it. I like the idea of being able to record the Indy 500 regardless if ABC decides someday that you can't. And I do think we were sadly heading that way (pay per every watch). But on the other hand, this may slow the idea of first run movies in the home via payperview and more crackdowns on TV related bittorent files. As is, you can find most payperview events on bittorent sites.. so overall this isn't that much of a game changer.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

The fact that there is a 'master key' is a huge fail IMO.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

It was not leaked on Twitter (at least not initially) and is not yet confirmed to be real. But it might be.

This has no impact on TiVo. It affects HDMI and HDCP+DVI only. TiVo has no HDMI inputs. You may see someone come up with a device that takes an HDMI input and records it, but it won't be an "official" product.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Even if it's cracked I don't think there's going to be affordable consumer grade hardware any time soon that can capture uncompressed video at 8+ Gb/sec and encode it real time on the fly to a format that is useful for playback on media players.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

If it's real, how would anyone be able to legally make and sell a device that accepted an HDMI input and converted it to an unencrypted signal? Also if indeed this turns out to be confirmed, do you think that an HDMI input may one day make it into a TiVo? How much data comes across that cable and since it's digital is it as much as an analog counterpart?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Even if it's cracked I don't think there's going to be affordable consumer grade hardware any time soon that can capture uncompressed video at 8+ Gb/sec and encode it real time on the fly to a format that is useful for playback on media players.


Ahem...

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...CODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=VRqCjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE

Yeah, $85 is a little steep, but I think a consumer could maybe swing it.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

wmcbrine said:


> Ahem...
> 
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...CODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=VRqCjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE
> 
> Yeah, $85 is a little steep, but I think a consumer could maybe swing it.


 I stand corrected. But that device doesn't circumvent HDCP (for recording purposes) I would presume, so for most useful sources of HDMI video it won't do you any good. Of course there are plenty of capture devices for component video that have been around for a long time, but ultimately means you are still re-encoding video on the fly so takes a quality hit.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

moyekj said:


> I stand corrected. But that device doesn't circumvent HDCP (for recording purposes) I would presume, so for most useful sources of HDMI video it won't do you any good. Of course there are plenty of capture devices for component video that have been around for a long time, but ultimately means you are still re-encoding video on the fly so takes a quality hit.


Isn't that the Analog hole though that companies have been trying to close? I thought they were successful on Blu-rays for example going forward, but I may be thinking of something else.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

innocentfreak said:


> Isn't that the Analog hole though that companies have been trying to close? I thought they were successful on Blu-rays for example going forward, but I may be thinking of something else.


No. (Well it isn't _just_ the analog hole. The description does say it also has analog inputs).

The analog hole is that there's no way to apply back-wards compatible copy protection to analog outputs. So a blu-ray play that can talk to an old SD television can't prevent any devices (like a VCR or DVR) from recording that analog signal. Anything it did to 'protect' the signal would prevent the TV from displaying it. (So the only way to close the "analog hole" is to refuse to output content for old analog TVs. Force it to go only over HDMI connections (digital) that are protected but HDCP copy protection/DRM)

But this card will also record high definition _digital_ content; as long as that content doesn't have HDCP copy protection.

If someone used the HDMI master key to build a passthrough device that stripped HDCP protection you could use it in conjunction with this card to record anything transmitted over HDMI, protected or not.

The passthrough device would have a valid HDCP key (derived from this leaked master key) and would do the DRM handshake with the unmodified device outputing the protected HDMI signal and then the device could decrypt it and output the now unprotected signal through a 2nd HDMI port.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> No. (Well it isn't _just_ the analog hole. The description does say it also has analog inputs).
> 
> The analog hole is that there's no way to apply back-wards compatible copy protection to analog outputs. So a blu-ray play that can talk to an old SD television can't prevent any devices (like a VCR or DVR) from recording that analog signal. Anything it did to 'protect' the signal would prevent the TV from displaying it. (So the only way to close the "analog hole" is to refuse to output content for old analog TVs. Force it to go only over HDMI connections (digital) that are protected but HDCP copy protection/DRM)
> 
> ...


Many years ago most movies on VHS tape had some protection so you could not copy a protected movie from one VCR to another, I purchased a small box that went between the two VCRs and and that allowed such coping, I guess someone could now make such a box for HDMI that took out the HDCP, but there is not a lot of recorders out there that could make use of such a box. With BD movies the computer can do anything you want by just adding some software for under $60 (and you must have a BD player/recorder on the computer)


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> No. (Well it isn't _just_ the analog hole. The description does say it also has analog inputs).


I wasn't thinking backwards compatible but just on new players going forward.

This is what I was thinking about and wasn't talking specifically about the capture card.
http://hd.engadget.com/2010/03/18/analog-hd-from-blu-ray-isnt-going-anywhere/


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

stevel said:


> It was not leaked on Twitter (at least not initially) and is not yet confirmed to be real. But it might be.
> 
> This has no impact on TiVo. It affects HDMI and HDCP+DVI only. TiVo has no HDMI inputs. You may see someone come up with a device that takes an HDMI input and records it, but it won't be an "official" product.





> Intel confirmed to CNET yesterday that code posted anonymously to the Internet earlier this week is the secret master key to the HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) protocol. Intel created HDCP to be used for ensuring that only authorized devices are playing copyright-protected video and audio, and it licenses the technology to hardware manufacturers
> 
> Read more


Look like it's been confirmed.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Yup. I think the practical impact of this is low. It's a shame in some ways because HDCP has mainly been a pain in the rear for consumers and no barrier at all to illegal copying.


----------



## PeterP (Oct 5, 2008)

stevel said:


> Yup. I think the practical impact of this is low. It's a shame in some ways because HDCP has mainly been a pain in the rear for consumers and no barrier at all to illegal copying.


Which is exactly the goal of HDCP.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

PeterP said:


> stevel said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. I think the practical impact of this is low. It's a shame in some ways because HDCP has mainly been a pain in the rear for consumers and no barrier at all to illegal copying.
> ...


Wait - what?


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I have to disagree with low impact. HDMI was supposed to be the lock and key for content. It would be hard to come out with a newer locked HDMI version as most homes already have HDTVs, etc.. that cannot be changed. So your stuck supporting HDMI 1.x for now. Oh well.. guess the plans for first run movies is out now.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I agree that it's likely to be low impact. In the article the company rep clearly stated they'd go after anyone producing a device that allowed for circumvention. That's not to say black market items won't become available.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> I agree that it's likely to be low impact. In the article the company rep clearly stated they'd go after anyone producing a device that allowed for circumvention. That's not to say black market items won't become available.


The HDCP workaround device would have to made and sold outside of the US, and even then a US buyer would have to jump on ordering one before the corporate overlords had US Customs stop them at the border.

Maybe by selling chips and kits there could be a longer window of availability.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

netringer said:


> The HDCP workaround device would have to made and sold outside of the US, and even then a US buyer would have to jump on ordering one before the corporate overlords had US Customs stop them at the border.


Not necessarily. I could see someone producing a simple HDMI capture card like the AverMedia one posted above but with simple enough hardware that a "hacker" could modify the firmware to include the decryption routine. As long as the card wasn't sold with the purpose of bypassing the encryption and the software was hosted overseas there isn't much anyone could do to stop it.

Dan


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Not necessarily. I could see someone producing a simple HDMI capture card like the AverMedia one posted above but with simple enough hardware that a "hacker" could modify the firmware to include the decryption routine. As long as the card wasn't sold with the purpose of bypassing the encryption and the software was hosted overseas there isn't much anyone could do to stop it.
> 
> Dan


You can purchase software (for your computer that has a BD player/recorder) to copy a blue ray DVD now (and make a perfect copy back onto a blank BD DVD) so somebody has gotten by the encryption long before the* KEY *was made public. I don't think this* KEY *thing will have much impact in the market.


----------



## PeterP (Oct 5, 2008)

orangeboy said:


> Wait - what?


DRM on consumer devices has always been about preventing the consumer from doing what he wants to do with the content. Commercial pirates can easily circumvent just about any copy protection scheme. CCS, AACS, HDCP, etc are no barrier to them.

Consumer DRM is about preventing you from making copies for your own purposes whether that be uploading to a server, putting it on a portable media device, or sharing it with a friend. The goal is to make it just difficult enough that the average consumer can't easily do it.

Why do you think that DVDs are still CCS encoded even though it was broken 12 years ago?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

lessd said:


> You can purchase software (for your computer that has a BD player/recorder) to copy a blue ray DVD now (and make a perfect copy back onto a blank BD DVD) so somebody has gotten by the encryption long before the* KEY *was made public. I don't think this* KEY *thing will have much impact in the market.


Actually that's an entirely different encryption system, known as AACS. HDCP is the one that's used on HDMI ports, as well as some DVI ports.

With Blu-Ray, the AACS crack is more useful, since it gets at the original compressed data, while with the HDCP crack you'd have to reencode (lossily). But the HDCP crack could provide access to non-Blu-Ray "protected' content.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> But the HDCP crack could provide access to non-Blu-Ray "protected' content.


Exactly! Like the signal coming from your HD cable box. If cable companies try to get tricky and start protecting everything then this key could be used to circumvent that and allow you to record the uncompressed digital stream coming across the HDMI output.

Dan


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Exactly! Like the signal coming from your HD cable box. If cable companies try to get tricky and start protecting everything then this key could be used to circumvent that and allow you to record the uncompressed digital stream coming across the HDMI output.
> 
> Dan


But there are much better methods which exist today to get the source bitstream in the clear.

Yawn-HDMI uncompressed capping is a big waste of time.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Exactly! Like the signal coming from your HD cable box. If cable companies try to get tricky and start protecting everything then this key could be used to circumvent that and allow you to record the uncompressed digital stream coming across the HDMI output.
> 
> Dan


If you leave out the computer and capture cards there not much consumer electronics out there that can take a HDMI input that is not encrypted and record it without loss. TiVo could if they had a HDMI input, but they don't and most likely never will. 
I wonder if there is much demand to take the HDMI output from your cable box, remove the encryption (using this KEY), than feed it into your computer (with a capture card that has a HDMI input) to record a show onto your computer hard drive.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Umm.. search for portable cellphone jammers. Illegal in all 50 states, yet I can order one online and have it show up via UPS. This passthrough will be easily available.

I agree ripped Bluray is my preferred item (I like movies). But I can see wanting ripped payperview concerts, etc. Also, the ability to stream across the internet a payperview event is kinda cool.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> If you leave out the computer and capture cards there not much consumer electronics out there that can take a HDMI input that is not encrypted and record it without loss.


My Slingbox has an HDMI input. I'm not sure how it handles HDCP content, since I've never tried, but I assume that it must simply rejects it. Although I think the main use for this would be PC based. Just like the encryption key for DVDs and BluRays are used on a PC. PCs are very open and flexible which makes them ideal candidates for circumvention technology like this.

Dan


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> My Slingbox has an HDMI input. I'm not sure how it handles HDCP content, since I've never tried, but I assume that it must simply rejects it. Although I think the main use for this would be PC based. ...


It's the other way 'round. With HDCP, the source device will refuse to output to devices that it doesn't recognize as being mere human eyes outputs. You've seen those here who have gotten the "no way" message in the blue box on the TiVo, and how the component and analog outputs get turned off when the HDMI output is connected to a TV with HDCP active.

As I understand it it one of the reasons that Blu-Ray players are constantly in need of firmware updates is the get the new list of legal TVs. They're supposed to be able to _revoke_ authorization of sending to some devices. As I recall the early idea was that new DVDs would have code on them to do the updates when you played them. Now you know why your BD player has that long wait with the spinning disk on it and "Please wait" (while _we_ decide if _we'll let your stuff keep working_.)

Once again we get to _pay_ to have this DRM "feature" put in our stuff.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> My Slingbox has an HDMI input. I'm not sure how it handles HDCP content, since I've never tried, but I assume that it must simply rejects it. Although I think the main use for this would be PC based. Just like the encryption key for DVDs and BluRays are used on a PC. PCs are very open and flexible which makes them ideal candidates for circumvention technology like this.
> 
> Dan


Which Slingbox do you have? Mine doesn't have one...


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

My biggest problem with HDMI connections to date has been the number of devices and displays the simply do not work because the DRM scheme is broken. Have run into it numerous times. Updating TV firmware is a major pain or impossible.

A HDMI to HDMI pass through filter that fixes the DRM issues but sending un-encrypted video and audio data could fix most of these issues and make HDMI a useful interface. I'd buy such a device just to allow me to use the interface for its originally intended purpose...display the content on my display panels I already own, without DRM in the way and preventing it from working. HDMI has been broken since inception, perhaps this 'leak' will lead to a simple device that could fix the issue.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> My biggest problem with HDMI connections to date has been the number of devices and displays the simply do not work because the DRM scheme is broken. Have run into it numerous times. Updating TV firmware is a major pain or impossible.
> 
> A HDMI to HDMI pass through filter that fixes the DRM issues but sending un-encrypted video and audio data could fix most of these issues and make HDMI a useful interface. I'd buy such a device just to allow me to use the interface for its originally intended purpose...display the content on my display panels I already own, without DRM in the way and preventing it from working. HDMI has been broken since inception, perhaps this 'leak' will lead to a simple device that could fix the issue.


Agreed -- the most annoying part of HDCP is when you switch inputs, or make resolution changes, and the device and the TV have to handshake and re-sync all over again -- resulting in ugly transitional blue screens. The ability to strip off HDCP for this purpose alone, without even the idea of copying raw uncompressed signals, is very desirable to me.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I would be quite astonished if BluRay players used firmware updates to recognize new brands of TVs, as that implies all HDMI outputting devices would need the same and many have no provision for firmware updates. In the case of BluRay players, the updates tend to deal with better support for the Java code BluRay menus use.

The HDCP master key leak primarily enables recording of streaming video, though the bandwidth required sets a high bar. Despite repeated references in the press, there's nothing special here relative to BluRay.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

parzec said:


> Agreed -- the most annoying part of HDCP is when you switch inputs, or make resolution changes, and the device and the TV have to handshake and re-sync all over again -- resulting in ugly transitional blue screens. The ability to strip off HDCP for this purpose alone, without even the idea of copying raw uncompressed signals, is very desirable to me.


I haven't really run into this issue yet (knock on wood), but I'd probably buy a couple of these HDCP strippers if/when they become available, just so I'd have one on hand if I ever did need it.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

stevel said:


> I would be quite astonished if BluRay players used firmware updates to recognize new brands of TVs, as that implies all HDMI outputting devices would need the same and many have no provision for firmware updates. In the case of BluRay players, the updates tend to deal with better support for the Java code BluRay menus use.
> 
> The HDCP master key leak primarily enables recording of streaming video, though the bandwidth required sets a high bar. Despite repeated references in the press, there's nothing special here relative to BluRay.


BluRay players want to update from the disk so newer encryption used on the newer disks will play, fixing the menus and other things on your BluRay player is done when you connect to the Internet with your BluRay player or get a disk from the manufacturer for such an update. My copy of say Aliens in the Attic is not going to contain the updates for the menu and operating system for every BluRay player out there.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

It matters to TiVo, because they will need to update their HDCP keys, if it comes to that. TV manufacturers would also need to provide updates. It would be a big mess, especially for those with older TVs "beyond support), or if the manufacturer is out of business.

No legitimate electronics manufacturer will jump on and make an HDCP recorder that uses the leaked key to make an HDMI recorder.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

classicsat said:


> It matters to TiVo, because they will need to update their HDCP keys, if it comes to that. TV manufacturers would also need to provide updates. It would be a big mess, especially for those with older TVs "beyond support), or if the manufacturer is out of business.
> 
> No legitimate electronics manufacturer will jump on and make an HDCP recorder that uses the leaked key to make an HDMI recorder.


That true BUT if a black market HDCP stripper box was available than a co could come out with a HDMI input recorder (for your home BD movies etc) that would work on any HDMI output that went through the black box. I don't think that will happen soon as it (record unencrypted HDMI) can now be recorded on a PC for about $200 in hardware added to the PC.


----------



## collin (Jan 2, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> My Slingbox has an HDMI input. I'm not sure how it handles HDCP content, since I've never tried, but I assume that it must simply rejects it.


actually, it doesn't. the discontinued model slingbox pro (not pro-hd) had an hdmi-looking connector that is used for the component input dongle. it wasn't an actual hdmi input though.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I've already seen what looks like serious electrical diagrams based on this key leakage. So I would expect China to be selling the devices in the next few months.

I'm just happy that this will probably reverse TV's desire and push toward more restrictions in recordings. At this point, they probably do not want to give you more reasons to buy this device apart from Payperview. So I think they whole possible plan of: Can't store The Big Bang Theory for longer than 30 days or transfer it, after wich, pay $4.99 for each old episode... is now gone forever. Yippee!


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Sadly, I expect the opposite. Studios are going to be stingier about providing content because of the "added" thread of piracy this implies.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

stevel said:


> Sadly, I expect the opposite. Studios are going to be stingier about providing content because of the "added" thread of piracy this implies.


I think you are right on the money. Once an encryption scheme is broken, the holders mostly go to the next 'more secure' method, paying customers be damned.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Ok.. so what is more secure? Nothing. So what can they go to? I also doubt they will hold out for next version of HDMI or connection to become mainstream, that would be like 4 years from now. If this was the first week HDMI was out ok.. but at this point.. they're screwed. 

And if they DO add more restrictions to recordings.. then expect these HDMI HDCP strippers to become very mainstream even though illegal and sold everywhere online and off. Money trumps everything as seen by Radar Detectors, Cellphone Jammers, High Powered Lasers, Drug Paraphenalia, etc.. HDCP is dead.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

jcthorne said:


> My biggest problem with HDMI connections to date has been the number of devices and displays the simply do not work because the DRM scheme is broken.


It's not just the DRM scheme that's broken. The signaling scheme is too. They could have chosen to use serial-digital over coaxial cable, which allows cable runs of hundreds of feet without repeaters. Instead they copied DVI, which is parallel over twisted pair. Twisted pair is cheap to manufacture, but at HD video data rates it creates huge problems with clock skew and impedance mismatch, to the point that cable runs more than ~10 feet are iffy and handshaking at any distance is prone to errors.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Gregor said:


> I think you are right on the money. Once an encryption scheme is broken, the holders mostly go to the next 'more secure' method, paying customers be damned.


There will never be a "more secure" method, not that this prevents the morons who own content from trying. In order to be compatible, every device must have a copy of the master key in it. Encrypting the master key in ROM doesn't work because at some point it must be decrypted and stored somewhere to be used. Storing it hardcoded in silicon doesn't work because content providers wanted to be able to revoke keys. The fact that your old blu-rays will stop working if they actually revoked the old master key, combined with the nasty fallout from millions of angry customers, means they'll never revoke a key. Ergo, as a previous poster said, encryption can't stop piracy.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

This has very little to do with BluRay. The confusion is somewhat understandable because BluRay has its own encryption method, AACS, that relies on keys which can be revoked. But this is completely independent of HDCP.

There is nothing technological the industry can do to put the HDCP genie back in the bottle. The smartest thing to do would be to ignore it, let Intel sue anyone who dares to make unauthorized HDMI devices, and to keep on the path to more streaming content.

History tells us that the industry isn't that smart. What we'll see is content providers becoming less willing to provide streaming content (think Hulu) since some executive will point to this exposure and say that their precious content is now unprotected against pirating.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

tivogurl said:


> There will never be a "more secure" method, not that this prevents the morons who own content from trying. In order to be compatible, every device must have a copy of the master key in it.


Except HDCP already showed it's possible to have a system where the devices don't have a master key. That's why recovering it wasn't just a matter to pulling it off a ROM or catching it decrypted in working memory.

It required the sub-keys of 40 some odd different devices and a bunch of math to reconstruct the HDCP master key which has never been placed on any end-user device.

(But your larger point, that security against end users with access to the hardware that performs the security is doomed to failure, it still true)


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

stevel said:


> ...History tells us that the industry isn't that smart. What we'll see is content providers becoming less willing to provide streaming content (think Hulu) since some executive will point to this exposure and say that their precious content is now unprotected against pirating.


Which is the argument those very execs used to get the DRM in the first place and more ominously, when they - unsuccessfully so far - pushed for the broadcast flag. They argued that they wouldn't make premium HD digital content available earlier unless it could be locked down.

Note that they still have analog shutdown capability _presently_ in HDCP, although they haven't activated it yet. (With that they can turn off composite and component outputs. I'll guarantee you that your HD TiVo supports that now just as much as now and HD TiVo will display the "Device not authorized" message under the right failure modes. Due to that kind of SNAFU, some users could "legitimately" require HDCP circumvention to watch content from their own devices on their own TV.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

The analog hole shutdown has nothing to do with HDCP. It's a flag in the incoming content that is honored by the device (such as a TiVo).


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

lessd said:


> That true BUT if a black market HDCP stripper box was available than a co could come out with a HDMI input recorder (for your home BD movies etc) that would work on any HDMI output that went through the black box. I don't think that will happen soon as it (record unencrypted HDMI) can now be recorded on a PC for about $200 in hardware added to the PC.


The only way scrupulous vendors would build an HDMI recorder, is of there were a significant legitimate use, the only (I can think of) one being the recording from HD Camcorders. Manufacturers will not because of the leaked HDCP key or availability of illegal HDCP strippers.


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

classicsat said:


> The only way scrupulous vendors would build an HDMI recorder, is of there were a significant legitimate use, the only (I can think of) one being the recording from HD Camcorders. Manufacturers will not because of the leaked HDCP key or availability of illegal HDCP strippers.


Quite a few of the new Android smartphones have HDMI out. Recording that is a perfectly legitimate use.


----------

