1 / 22

Copy Protection for DVD Video

Copy Protection for DVD Video. J.Bloom, I.Cox,T.Kalker,J.P.Linnartz,M.Miller, and C.B.S.Traw 1999. Aline Martin alinemartin@wisc.edu ECE 738 Project – Spring 2005. I - Introduction. 1996: First DVD players. Movie-> MPEG-2 & encryption->DVD. Pros. Cons. High quality video.

zahur
Download Presentation

Copy Protection for DVD Video

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Copy Protection for DVD Video J.Bloom, I.Cox,T.Kalker,J.P.Linnartz,M.Miller, and C.B.S.Traw 1999 Aline Martin alinemartin@wisc.edu ECE 738 Project – Spring 2005

  2. I - Introduction 1996: First DVD players Movie-> MPEG-2 & encryption->DVD Pros Cons High quality video copy perfect reproduction vs VHS Late 1999: DVD recorders Copy Protection

  3. I - Introduction • Encryption not enough: Decrypted content Back of DVD player Additional protections needed

  4. Encrypted content Key exchange between compliant devices only IEEE 1394 cable Agenda II - DVD Copy Protection system in1999 III - Content Protection During Digital Transmission IV - Watermark System Design Issues Watermark: Copy once Copy never … DVD recorder copy1 V - Copy-Generation Management copy2 copy1

  5. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 1996: CPTWG (Copy Protection Technical Working Group) • Discuss technical pbs of protecting digital video piracy • No official decision-making power • 1998-1999: design major part of copy protection system • • 2 major principles guided the CPTWG’s work: • - Copy-protection system not mandatory • - Copy-protection system cost effective • “Keep honest people honest”

  6. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 components built: • CSS: Content Scrambling System • APS: Analog Protection System • CGMS: Copy Generation System CSS: Low cost method of scrambling MPEG-2 video (Matsushita) Lead in Lead out 2 keys read by compliant drives only Prevent byte-for-byte copies of an MPEG stream from being playable since copy does not include keys

  7. header II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 components built: • CSS: Content Scrambling System • APS: Analog Protection System • CGMS: Copy Generation System APS: Encodes NTSC/PAL signals so cannot be recorder on VCR but play on TV (Macrovision) MPEG stream Not NTSC/PAL encoded encoder VCR

  8. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 components built: • CSS: Content Scrambling System • APS: Analog Protection System • CGMS: Copy Generation System CGMS: Pair of bits in header MPEG stream CCI Copy_freely Copy_never Copy_once header MPEG stream

  9. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 components built: • CSS: Content Scrambling System • APS: Analog Protection System • CGMS: Copy Generation System • 3 additional components being considered: • Protection Transmission system • Media identifiers • Watermarking

  10. Encrypted content Key exchange between compliant devices only IEEE 1394 cable II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 additional components being considered: • Protection Transmission system • Media identifiers • Watermarking Protection Transmission system:

  11. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 additional components being considered: • Protection Transmission system • Media identifiers • Watermarking • Media identifier: • Identify recordable media • Identify whether a compliant recorder has produced the disk • Distinguish between original ROM disks and a piracy copy

  12. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 • 3 additional components being considered: • Protection Transmission system • Media identifiers • Watermarking Watermarking: - For a more secure form than CGMS: Record control Do not survive D/A conversion Non compliant player strip out copy-control bits Watermark encoding the same info: - Survive D/A conversion - Not too easily strip out Copy_freely Copy_never Copy_once header MPEG stream - Reduces the value of illegal, unencrypted copies by making them unplayable on compliant devices: Playback control

  13. II - DVD Copy Protection system in 1999 Without Watermarking With Watermarking DVD RAM without CSS or CGMS No keys Strip out CCI: copy control bits Cannot remove the CCI: watermark Analog RGB to appropriate non compliant recorder IEEE 1394 standard Most devices will be compliant

  14. III - Content Protection During Digital Transmission transmission • DTDG (Digital Transmission Discussion Group) decided: • Content: encrypted • - Exchange of CCI: robust • AKE: Authentication for compliant devices • Key exchange: keys to exchange encrypted content

  15. III - Content Protection During Digital Transmission

  16. IV – Watermark System Design Issues Economic Costs: - Watermark detector must fit onto unused silicon already in the drive False Positives Rate: - Detector should be good at deciding whether a watermark is present • Interaction with MPEG compression: • - Watermark adds details that MPEG encoder tries to preserve -> reduce bits available for content • minimize this effect - Watermark detectable in both compressed data stream and reconstructed video

  17. IV – Watermark System Design Issues Detector Placement: In the Drive Within the Application Pros: Pirated content will never leave the drive and or will never copied onto a disk Pros: MPEG Codec and detector can share a lot of resources. Cons: Dual system -> sol: compliant drive & compliant application program Cons: Additional complexity

  18. IV – Watermark System Design Issues • Robustness: • • Common signal processing: • Geometric distortion • Scaling • Cropping • • Intentional Tampering: Watermark more difficult to find

  19. V – Copy-Generation Management Record video “Copy-no-more” “Copy-once” Copy-generation management requires that the “copy-once” state be detected and changed to a “copy-no-more” state as the video is being recorded. • 2 Approaches: • Secondary watermark • Removal of additional information: Tickets

  20. V – Copy-Generation Management Secondary Watermark: Record video Watermark #1 for “Copy-once” Watermark #1 + Watermark #2 for “Copy-no-more” Computationally inexpensive Insertion in both baseband and compressed video domain Robust Unobtrusive More susceptible to tampering => Want to make the 2nd watermark undetectable

  21. V – Copy-Generation Management Tickets: Solution to tampering T: cryptographic counter implemented as a multi-bit random number contents # n of playbacks & recording generations allowed T T’

  22. Questions?

More Related