So claiming to have worked for Google is proof...grow up.
jimc115
I said or implied no such thing. I only said it's not an unbelievable claim. You're statement that Chameleon was pretending to know everything when, again, no such claim was made however, was pretty childish. Maybe you should consider your own advice. It was this, and not any particular claim about the CDMs or switchover that prompted my comment.
Google released a schedule of dates and times when updates are released and when CDM's are invalidated. CDM's are not commonly deactivated which is why OLD CONTENT continues to work.
New content encrypted with the NEW CDM does not get decrypted by old CDM's.
Did you ever take a minute to think of why OLDER CONTENT still works and new content stops when a new CDM is added?
jimc115
I want to reiterate that my comment wasn't based on any of this, but I want to answer rather than dismiss your comments and questions.
I don't have knowledge of the chain of events that starts with an unencrypted media file and leads to an encrypted media file being delivered to the endpoint. Storage level encryption would be useful to prevent, or at least slow, the dissemination of the source (read: on-storage) media in a viewable form through non-official means, but it would be a grossly inefficient way to deal with things like StreamFab. I did a quick search, and I must admit I am rather surprised - storage level encryption seems to be the way the file is handled end-to-end. Considering how decryption keys are typically handled in DRM systems, I did not expect the actual DRM key to be implemented at the point in the chain that would require the highest energy and time expense to change the CDM or even just the encryption key for any particular file. I admittedly had thoughts about why older and/or lower res. content still worked, but I resisted the idea that any system used for such a thing would be designed to make changing CDMs (or even keys) so resource consuming.
Providers are not normally required to upgrade and can continue using older CDM's as long as Google allows it.....meaning they don't have to re-encrypt all content.
NOW, once a year, ALL CDM's for browsers are killed and only new CDM's work. Be thankful for the pushback....Google wanted this to happen every three months.
Think before you attack someone else.Oh wait...that might require a functioning brain.
If in fact as Chameleon stated that only ONE CDM exists at a time, StreamFab would not be able to decrypt any content PERIOD when a new one was released until it was cracked.
If you actually took the time to look in the Streamfab directory, you'd see THREE different CDM's listed and in use.
jimc115
I've gone back to re-read each of your posts in this thread. At each point your comments specifically about the CDMs make sense to me. At the same time, Chameleon's statements leave me wondering about how TVs deal with new CDMs if they aren't receiving an update each time a new CDM is rolled out. However, Chameleon, while not offering any kind of verifiable evidence, has stated that he has first-hand knowledge for why he believes what he has posted. While the claim doesn't have the same weight as verifiable evidence, he has been an active part of the community for longer than I have, and I have never seen any of his posts that were dishonest or intentionally misleading. Weighing between what seems to make sense to me (with me being someone with little to no knowledge of the subject matter) vs. what someone that is willing to put their community reputation on the line says when claiming first-hand knowledge isn't easy. But, unless Chameleon's claim of first-hand knowledge is debunked, or his honesty is shown to be questionable, I find what doesn't make sense to me more believable. Having studied law, medicine, business admin., and sign language at the college level I have learned that the way things really work aren't always the way that makes sense to any particular person. If you've got knowledge, experience, or anything else to support what you are suggesting, please throw it out there. Again, my original comment to you was not about any of this - just your specific response to Chameleon. Either way, if you've got something, I am always willing to reconsider things (for whatever value that may or may not hold for you) - I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
