HDHomeRun Prime DLNA & XBMC

[eddyk]

http://youtu.be/Ml0g2l01zVM

Project:Connect - Phase 1

DLNA enabled HDHomeRun Prime streaming liveTV to XBMC.

Sign up for the beta: http://www.silicondust.com/ext/mailinglist
Download XBMC: http://xbmc.org/download/

[Diverge]

So when will beta firmware drop that lets us play too? I signed up to the beta mailing list

[DrewRWx]

Does this mean that I'll be able to send 0x02 cci flag protected channels to XBMC running on Linux?

[TeddyR]

Does this mean that I'll be able to send 0x02 cci flag protected channels to XBMC running on Linux?

At least encrypted content that is not copy protected unless SD has also paid for or developed a DTCP-IP stack for XBMC as well... Now THAT would be a welcome "Holiday Gift" to both Prime and XBMC communities....

[member]

Does this mean that I'll be able to send 0x02 cci flag protected channels to XBMC running on Linux?

At least encrypted content that is not copy protected unless SD has also paid for or developed a DTCP-IP stack for XBMC as well... Now THAT would be a welcome "Holiday Gift" to both Prime and XBMC communities....

That would be amazing! Some of the best news

[calic]

Does this mean that I'll be able to send 0x02 cci flag protected channels to XBMC running on Linux?

That's actually the start of a really good question.

Will Project:Connect support DTCP-IP 1.2, i.e. DTCP-IP with content move EMI flag? If so, will SD implement the move function proportionally to the CCI flag? or will this allow us to decouple the content from being physically tied to the recording (server) device? or perhaps the originating server device is considered to be the HDHR Prime box in which case it must support move for storage purposes?

AFAIK DTCP-IP standard does not tie a move to the source CCI.

[tcc]

Can DTCP-IP DRM be licensed to open source projects like XBMC?

Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA)
http://www.dtcp.com/agreements.aspx

[gtb]

Can DTCP-IP DRM be licensed to open source projects like XBMC?

Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA)
http://www.dtcp.com/agreements.aspx

Anyone can pay and get a private copy of the spec (but they may not share outside of their company). Since it is behind a paywall, I have not read it, but it is possible that the spec includes various RAND technologies that no open source project can license. And no implementation for which individuals can modify or extract the protected content (i.e. open source projects like XBMC, MythTV, etc.) will get licenses. For simple values, protected content is going to stay outside of the reach of open source projects for the foreseeable future.

[calic]

For simple values, protected content is going to stay outside of the reach of open source projects for the foreseeable future.

This is a complete non-issue. Since most of these projects target linux for many reasons including small footprint what is needed is a commercial DLNA DMP for linux that can be controlled, i.e. a linux version of Cyberlink's SoftDMA. Projects like XMBC, MythTV would work as the scheduler, guide, and front end (GUI) while the DMP performs playback and remote functionality. All that's needed is a remote control port similar to what ffdshow provides.

[jasonl]

You say that like it's a simple task to create such a thing. How many legal, licensed Bluray playback programs are there for Linux? Certainly a bigger market for that with the huge base of existing content than there would be for OCUR tuners, which would be limited to the US only. It's a different DRM scheme, but they all have pretty similar robustness requirements, and meeting those requirements on an open platform that isn't designed for any sort of protection is something that might not be doable.

[Diverge]

Just when calic's post was giving me some hope that it could happen somehow... Along comes Jasonl's post

[calic]

It's a different DRM scheme, but they all have pretty similar robustness requirements, and meeting those requirements on an open platform that isn't designed for any sort of protection is something that might not be doable.

Easy for an individual or small business-- absolutely not. But I have to disagree with our host on the reasons.

There's the philosophical aversion to close source software on linux. You could ask yourself how many major consumer closed source applications are there on linux? Where's Photoshop? Where's MS Office? Those would certainly rank as high as any Blu-ray player application. Similarly linux has alternatives that side step many of the financial and legal limitations with open source alternatives. These further disincentivize businesses from entering the space.

The support and maintenance issue on linux. You cannot count on linux users to run on an enterprise class platform where some level of stability in the code base is assured. In the embedded world you know that these applications already exist. Settop Blu-ray players based on linux have existed since launch. Its not what the platform runs on that makes this possible but support for the platform. Support that guarantees that the requirements are met.

Basically there is little financial motivation for major developers to create an application that would essentially be a money sink.

If I understand this why pose such as suggestion? Because the logical step is a partially open solution like Android; the hardware backend is not open but user space is. The platforms are well integrated and supported. Additionally 3rd parties have avenues to inject their creative solutions into the mix.

So I am suggesting a generic solution-- no. Can a solution come to some flavor or derivative with 3rd party support. Absolutely. Can a manufacturer obtain DLNA certification while running Android and allowing a remote control port. Absolutely. XBMC or MythTV running on such a platform-- already done. What's not done is an Android based DMP that supports both DTCP-IP and remote control. The later would be the biggest issue. Remote control access is not difficult to implement, but convincing the manufacturer or developer that value, i.e. a large use case exists, for such a feature maybe challenging.

-----

EDIT:

I also forgot to mention there's certainly some politics involved to some degree. To the point where a bias exists against linux. You try to apply for DLNA certification and say that its linux and you probably receive the same reception you get here: it can't be done, its not actually secure, or it doesn't meet requirement X or Y.

But put it in a STB or label it under the banner of Android and magically the reception becomes much warmer. Again perception-- not completely unjustified just against you should you actually claim to make a solution that works on a linux platform.

I also want to qualify my first statement; its bad form, I know. Its difficult to make succinct statements involving a somewhat hot button topic. Its not like I wrote a post and some magical door opened and suddenly everything is possible on linux. However, I wrote under the pretense that this niche of forum readers were already accepting of other niche 3rd party solutions. Whether that means buying MCE devices, CC tuners, and other devices. So If I mislead anyone to think there might be the possibility that suddenly the doors would burst wide open and life would be good-- I apologize. For this to happen you would still need to buy a specific or limited selection of devices. However, your choice of software options will greatly increase should an aforementioned integrated solution be produced.

[tcc]

I just don't think +ROI exists for something like this, even on Windows where a protected environment already exists and is built into Media Foundation.

How much do you think you will be able to charge for this software?

[calic]

I cannot tell whether you need convincing on the practicality of such a venture, or on the merits of business so I'll attempt to answer both parts.

I just don't think +ROI exists for something like this, even on Windows where a protected environment already exists and is built into Media Foundation.

This is already done. I mentioned Cyberlink's SoftDMA; which has apparently garnered enough sales to warrant a recently release second version. Thus the issue becomes less about ROI solely for a feature request that would require re-certification. This is a feature that would need to be added to the next release; which seem plausible given the existing of more than the initial release.

Furthermore there's next to zero ROI factor for adding remote control support; the bulk of the work is already done. However, there currently is not a strong argument for a use case to implement a remote control port. Additionally there maybe branding issues with customers not using their interface.

How much do you think you will be able to charge for this software?

For linux the key isn't the software; its the platform. However, if you were intrepid enough to digest my entire post I made mention to the most plausible scenario and that's Android. However, I'm still not aware of any Android based DMP that even implements DTCP-IP v1.2. Again if any current manufacturer of these devices, which are already exist in production, chooses to implement DTCP-IP it maybe worthwhile to make a feature request and ask for a remote control.

Alternatively with an Android platform the possibility exists for software DLNA certification from a small business willing to take a small ROI in exchange for "community participation." The development time is dramatically reduced for a no-frills implementation leaving a large share of the upfront cost in certification costs. The risks lies in community adoption based solely on the key feature of remote control. However, whomever is the first to implement will likely receive support from OSS media center projects; since, its basically the only game in town.

Qualcomm has already released a DLNA certified player for Android at no cost. However, it needs notice that this is Qualcomm and they have a large stake in selling Android based devices. They can afford to absorb the cost of development and certification into their marketing budget. If a small business were to commit such a venture they would need to invest a minimum 500k-1M into development and certification. The break even, based on current sales and downloads of similar apps, translates to a price point of $10-20 at launch with protracted sales around $5. Requirements are the same-- BYO Android device. An unused smartphone would likely do.

If anyone thinks they can meet the requirement and wants to give this a try jump on kickstarter; it will not only give you a better sense of the market interest but possibly supply the bulk of funds for such a project.

[tcc]

What's missing from your outline is what I referred to as a Protected Environment. This already exists in Microsoft Media Foundation, and is also available in various forms for applications via third party vendors for example, ArcSoft TMT Blu ray player uses Themida from Oreans.com

I am not aware of any type of secure execution environment within the DLNA specification, or implemented in DLNA products for example SoftDMA2, or on Linux/Android platforms. DLNA includes DTCP-IP but that only covers transport.

My understanding is that any company that wants to build a PC based player for copy protected TV also has to build or integrate a secure execution environment including scrambled on-disk binaries, otherwise the player code can be reverse engineered, binary-hacked, patched in memory, code and data can monitored and captured in the clear while executing, etc. This would defeat any copy protection present in the content.

Is secure execution environment not a requirement anymore for copy protected TV?