backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by flatrock.. on Sep 24 at 12:38 PM


The MPAA is arming itself with a team of lawyers. Now that Blu-Ray is cracked, those pesky customers will think they can do whatever they please, like make backup copies.  (Source: Photobucket)
Release of working key opens gate to new hardware, software ripping solutions

When Intel Corporation devised High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) it delighted the entertainment industry.  At a time when the industry was cooking up high definition television and Blu-ray movies, they now had the perfect scheme to lock customers in and prevent pesky activities they hated -- like piracy or creating backup copies (HDCP worked alongside AACS to lock Blu-Ray movies in common hardware/media pairings).

The scheme was working out pretty well, until this week when someone using the account IntelGlobalPR let slip the scheme's master key on Twitter, confirming that it wasn't quite as secure as was believed.  While that account appears to be in no way related to Intel, Intel is confirming that the information is accurate.

Intel spokesperson Tom Waldrop comments, "We have tested this published material that was on the Web.  It does produce product keys... the net of that means that it is a circumvention of the code."

This means that it should be trivial to create hardware boxes that directly rip HDCP protected Blu-ray or other content, without having to resort to directly intercepting the video stream like current hardware schemes.  It could also open the door to software ripping solutions.

The industry will likely now have to resort to pricey litigation to try to sue to prevent such products from reaching the market.  A similar scenario played out when the Content Scrambling System that protects DVDs was cracked.  Companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape released hardware rippers to the market, but were sued by organizations like the RIAA.  They eventually lost in court, as the current U.S. courts precedent is that customers never have the right to circumvent DRM to make backup copies.

We may never know who exactly posted the key to Blu-ray's DRM, but what matters is that it is now effectively dead, despite Intel's protests that it's still a good content protection tool.

The instruction for using the master key to generate source and sink HDCP keys, according to the confirmed post are:

This is a forty times forty element matrix of fifty-six bit hexadecimal numbers.
To generate a source key, take a forty-bit number that (in binary) consists of twenty ones and twenty zeroes; this is the source KSV," the instructions say. "Add together those twenty rows of the matrix that correspond to the ones in the KSV (with the lowest bit in the KSV corresponding to the first row), taking all elements modulo two to the power of fifty-six; this is the source private key.
To generate a sink key, do the same, but with the transposed matrix.

The breaking of HDCP is not a surprise to secure expert Scott Crosby.  Way back in 2001 Scott Crosby published a report on weaknesses and flaws in HDCP 1.0 (today's implementations use HDCP 1.3).

Mr. Crosby comments, "I have no way of knowing if this is the actual master secret, but if it is, I am not surprised.  I am not the only one to predict that this could occur; the master secret can be calculated from the secret keys stored on as few as 40 TV's, computer monitors, video cards, or video players and millions of HDCP supporting video cards and TV's are in people's homes all over the world."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

NOT Blu-ray DRM
By icrf on 9/17/2010 12:20:25 PM , Rating: 5
Blu-ray uses AACS, not HDCP. HDCP may be used by various players and set-top boxes, but all this leak does is re-opens the "analog hole" style rippers, which isn't how most content is ripped these days, and certainly not most Blu-ray content. It may help ripping TV off cable or satellite boxes, but that's about it.

But it is a shining example of DRMs usefulness, and that always makes me smile.




RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By FITCamaro on 9/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By Spuke on 9/17/2010 2:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But no they can't just make a copy of the disc like you can with DVDs.
Yes you can. This is just another way.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2010 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
This does not allow 1 to 1 copies of the disc.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By mcnabney on 9/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By consumerwhore on 9/17/2010 6:58:34 PM , Rating: 5
Capturing the decompressed data stream is not better. Because you now have one terabyte of data for which you need to use lossy compression to re-compress it to a more manageable size. Just like re-encoding to MP3 the analog signal of a decoded MP3 file. Result: an MP3 file that's worse quality than the original MP3 file.

It's the cracking of Blu-Ray's DRM that has allowed to capture the actual digital data stream straight off the disc. (Which, as mentioned above, has already happened quite a while ago.)


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By Samus on 9/20/2010 2:32:31 PM , Rating: 3
An Intel Core i7 can compress an 8 channel HDCP stream on the fly. you would never have a one terabyte file. This is nothing like re-encoding MP3's, as the quality loss is in the realm of 1%.

25-50GB BR content > "1 terabyte" uncompressed HDCP coded into 4.7GB MKV will result in an excellent rip.

The obvious downside is the real-time 'dubbing' effect where you have to spend 2 hours playing a capture stream...but it's not a real loss because the i7 920 can only encode 55-65FPS 720p in realtime anyway, so at most your spending double the time opposed to ripping the disc content directly.

Where this is useful is DVR capture, satellite/cable broadcast capture and for those that'd be interested, XBOX/PS3 content capture (if it were encoded)


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By walk2k on 9/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By Lerianis on 9/17/2010 3:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently, someone here (walk2k) hasn't seen the NUMEROUS Blu-Ray rippers on the internet. AACS was cracked a LOOONG time ago.

This allows 'high-definition' stuff that is encrypted out the wazoo and supposed to only be able to be played on DVI or HDMI connections to be played on regular old VGA by making the computer or device in question 'think' that the VGA connection is a DVI or HDMI connection.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2010 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Has AACS been cracked? It might've been a while ago in which case I've forgotten.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By walk2k on 9/17/2010 5:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't know the difference between AACS and HDCP.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By futrtrubl on 9/17/2010 6:30:36 PM , Rating: 3
I think that neither of you know that you are both arguing on the same side.
You are both saying AACS (bluray) already cracked. HDCP (encrypted transport links) now cracked.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By gfxBill on 9/18/2010 4:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
Now, somebody explain it to Jason Mick. Because this article seem horribly confused about what HDCP is.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By walk2k on 9/19/2010 3:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By mindless1 on 9/18/2010 6:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
1) You don't have to store it all decompressed, you can compress the stream on the fly.

2) The quality loss of recompressing something to the same (codec) is nowhere near as much as it was the first time it was compressed. If you found the initial compression acceptable, odds are you won't mind the recompression much especially if it gives you alternatives to DRM and media or players.

In fact, most people are watching more highly compressed, more lossy copies over their CATV or satellite every day and still buying HD TVs to get the crisp detailed picture and praising it over plain old analog of yesteryear.

The goal isn't some hypothetic "crack" or "perfect" thing, it's just to be able to watch a movie/etc without it looking bad enough that the quality level is distracting.

Similarly, the TV set itself is not perfect nor are your eyes even if you have supposed "perfect" focal vision, so arguing for the absolute highest standard in one aspect and ignoring the others is far from reasonable.

The pursuit for perfection is mostly a huge egotistical waste of life when "good enough" achieves the same practical end.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By sprockkets on 9/17/2010 3:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Cable TV man, cable TV. But some HD cable stuff is already available, like The Daily show is posted in 720p on that infamous site :)

The only way I know to get 720p is through that component video recorder. It can do 1080i but isn't reliable at that res.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By walk2k on 9/17/2010 5:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes this would help you rip cable (or satellite) TV from HDMI. But you are still losing a generation re-compressing it, you do not have access to the original MP* stream.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By CZroe on 9/17/2010 11:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
My brother works for a local cable co that sends all digital channels "in the clear" over Clear QAM. He, or any other of their expanded basic customers (they have A LOT), could rip The Daily Show with his basic ClearQAM dual tuners, of which he has two for four simultaneous recordings (just a Win7 MCE HTPC).

Just because you can't doesn't mean everyone else can't. He has asked the higher-ups and they seem to think that their contracts with the content providers REQUIRE them to provide it as ClearQAM if it's provided to analog expanded basic customers, though I'm pretty sure someone is interpreting that wrongly.

I see thus breakthrough as meaning that we can now have HDMI capture devices unencumbered by HDCP and nothing more. It's like having SD analog capture devices that ignore Macrovision. The analog hole for HD analog component at optimal resolutions was never really there for much content due to flags and down-sampling required on those outputs on many devices and formats. This HDCP crack fixes that for many of those as well, but renders it needless for most at the same time.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the exact encode ripped from ClearQAM stream than a decompressed and recompressed version from some digital box's output.


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By mindless1 on 9/18/2010 6:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, "almost" everyone can't... and FWIW, I have heard that our CATV provider's existing contracts with the content providers do require encrypted channels on everything beyond basic tiered channels. I have no idea what you mean by "expanded basic", our tiers are Basic, then Classic which includes channels such as TNT, Disney, AMC, pretty much everything except community access, government, and local ATSC broadcasters.

Obviously in a perfect world we'd all like to capture the QAM stream, but a /reasonable/ person could make do with a recompressed version. After all, you did watch TV before everything went digital and HD did you not, and found it enjoyable enough to watch something else instead of swearing never to watch a TV again?


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By CZroe on 9/18/2010 8:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
"Basic" cable is usually only the local broadcasts channels, an information or cable access channel, and perhaps a home shopping channel force on them by their rebroadcast contract with the national broadcast networks. It's usually about 15 channels with none of the major cable networks. "Normal" cable TV *IS* expanded basic.

And, yeah, I think they read their contract wrong and yet they are providing a major metropolitan area with ClearQAM for all expanded basic customers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRZeBaJwmJs

You can see it in action there (video made to point out an unrelated glitch).


RE: NOT Blu-ray DRM
By walk2k on 9/19/2010 3:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
QAM has NOTHING to do with the transport stream, which is still ENCRYPTED MPEG2 (or MPEG4 for better satellite systems).

"CLEAR" QAM just means you can TUNE it and watch it. It does NOT mean you can freely record the MPEG stream.


As always...
By Motoman on 9/17/2010 11:52:45 AM , Rating: 5
...DRM never punishes anyone but the legitimate consumer.

Any and all forms of DRM should be made illegal, as they interfere with the consumer's law-given right to create a backup copy of the product they purchased.

And the court ruling that says the interest of the corporation outweighs the interest of the citizen (making it illegal to bypass DRM to exercise your law-given right to make a backup) is one of the most heinous examples of corporatism ever seen. A shining example of what a total failure our legal system is.




RE: As always...
By Flunk on 9/17/2010 12:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think there is a case to make that it's actually DRM anti-curcumvention laws that hurt the legitimate consumer. Since I live in Canada I am perfectly able to break the DRM on any product I purchase a legal license to so the DRM isn't really hurting me (because I can destroy it).


RE: As always...
By bitterman0 on 9/17/2010 12:48:16 PM , Rating: 5
That makes Canadians the happiest people in the world, I presume... Oh, wait, Canada participates in ACTA. Never mind, then.


RE: As always...
By Taft12 on 9/17/2010 3:18:43 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a Canadian too, but the DRM *IS* hurting you through the inconvenience of its existence in the first place.


RE: As always...
By seraphim1982 on 9/17/2010 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
1 Acronym, ACTA....

Canadians pirate days are dwindling by....


RE: As always...
By Chudilo on 9/17/2010 12:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
You should also be able to buy a media upgrade as technologies change. Meaning if you actually spent the money to purchase a movie on some medium, you should have some sort of a right to use this content for personal viewing purposes, whatever that may be.
Furthermore, you should be able to upgrade the medium for a nominal fee. If the studio did not spend millions on re-shooting the movie and just reconverted the movie to a new medium, they should carry the savings through to the consumer. If they choose not to, I choose not to waste my money on re-purchasing the same content. Especially since most recent movies aren't even worth watching more then once.


RE: As always...
By Motoman on 9/17/2010 12:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
No, there should be no fee. If you bought a movie on, say, VHS, and later wanted to dub it to DVD, there should be nothing impeding your from taking that 100% legal action.

No fee. No trade-in from the manufacturer. No nothing. Especially in the case that the manufacturer maybe doesn't even exist anymore.


RE: As always...
By adrift02 on 9/17/2010 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 4
I'm completely against current copyright reforms (ACTA) and precedent in the US, as they are too far reaching and probably constitutionally gray in some cases.

However, before we just assume we own the rights to everything because we bought it once, we need to take a closer look. If you want the DVD or even Blu-Ray version of a movie you bought on VHS, understand that these copies wouldn't exist without people being paid to polish them up (higher bitrate video/audio, extras, etc). A small fee seems fair to upgrade in this case as you wouldn't expect a company to provide lifelong support for every product you bought just because they upgraded it (yes, some DVD/Blu-rays are horrendous quality and don't qualify here).

Obviously this argument falls short in many areas as the industry has been just plain greedy in many cases. But, lets not forget that the answer to this copyright war lies somewhere in the middle. It's just hard because the consumer has been screwed in so many ways by this industry they are happy to steal or get whatever they can for free while flipping the bird =)


RE: As always...
By adrift02 on 9/17/2010 1:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify, Motoman, if you were talking about taking your VHS and making your own DVD copy than you are absolutely correct. If that's illegal it falls into the overreaching copyright area =)


RE: As always...
By theArchMichael on 9/17/2010 1:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's such a cluster F, though. Because your answer seemed really common sense until I thought about whether if someone Ripped a BluRay Disc to a different file format container...
Like Matroska or even encoded the same bit stream in another format like XVID, in your example that should be legal...


RE: As always...
By Motoman on 9/17/2010 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 3
The point is that what the consumer pays money for is the content - not the format of the content, or the container of the content. Regardless of what the legalese says, the consumer is *not* buying a DVD, or a BD, or a VHS tape, or whatever. They are paying money with the expectation of being able to use the content.

Therefore, if I want the movie I bought on VHS to be on DVD instead, then I should be able to copy said movie unhindered by DRM...for my own personal use. Or any other example of format/container changes, like CD to .mp3.

Naturally, copying for the purpose of distribution/sale in an unauthorized manner is illegal, and I'm not proposing that people should be allowed to do that. The one and only thing I'm talking about is the right to copy the material you paid for for your own use.


RE: As always...
By mindless1 on 9/18/2010 6:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you in principle, about what is fair to the consumer in an era where formats, media, and playback devices keep growing in numbers, given the current market state I can't agree with the base premise.

Since the entertainment industry is using DRM tech, operating their business fully aware of the illegality of breaking content protection, they are effectively not selling you a license to use the content anywhere except on a compliant player designed to use that format.

Let me clarify. If they sell you a VHS, the *product* they are offering is not so broad as to be "the content" on that tape, they are only selling you a right to play the content on a player compatible with the VHS standard.

Another example - If you go see the movie in a theater, that doesn't grant you a right to copy it by taking a video recorder in and recording it.

It's not that I am in favor of all this content protection since it makes paying customers suffer things the pirates don't have to, but rather I am suggesting that if you don't want a restricted license to only play the content on the provided media, the best thing to do is not buy this content license at all, only through REAL (opposed to made-up numbers re:piracy losses) revenue losses will they be forced to offer a more desirable product and service.


RE: As always...
By Motoman on 9/21/2010 1:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
I get what you're saying - and the fact of the matter is that producers are obfuscating the "product" in this manner via the legalese that comes tied to the media you buy.

My point is that that is completely different from what the consumer's intent is in making the purchase...and in fact, I would say that the practice is unethical while being totally legal. There is no way that consumers are buying such products with the "this movie on this format" mindset - intending to buy the movie again on the next format that comes along - they are buying "this movie" with the reasonable expectation that they'll be able to view that movie (or whatever) in whatever way most suits their needs at any given time.

That is the reasonable expectation. Current legalese allows producers to screw consumers out of that reasonable expectation. Legal != ethical/moral/correct.


Logic
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2010 11:54:29 AM , Rating: 4
DRM does not use it.

No matter how complicated, it will always be broken. Maybe some good will come of this and Blu-ray prices will start to fall to keep the public paying and happy.

Granted, few have the ability to burn Blu-rays or store a lot of uncompressed rips of Blu-ray movies. I wonder if next the RIAA will sue hard drive manufacturers for giving people large, cheap hard drives with which to store their pirated movies.

But hey 2TB hard drives are under $150. :)




RE: Logic
By SunAngel on 9/17/2010 12:00:22 PM , Rating: 3
Been awhile since you've last checked, huh?

http://www.frys.com/product/6299020


RE: Logic
By Shig on 9/17/2010 12:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
3TB are coming this year ;)


RE: Logic
By DEVGRU on 9/17/2010 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Holy F**k. How long would THAT thing take to format?!?!


RE: Logic
By mcnabney on 9/17/2010 5:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Quickformat? About 5-10 minutes.

A full format, overnight.


RE: Logic
By SunAngel on 9/18/2010 1:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
A quick format, try 8 secs.

A full format, more like 10hrs 11mins 43secs.


RE: Logic
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2010 12:20:40 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently you missed the word "recertified" on it. I'm talking new. Now looking on newegg, yes you can get a 2TB drive for $100 for a Seagate 5900 rpm drive. But I typically only look at 7200 rpm drives.

And those are in the $130+ range. And notice how I say "under". Not that they cost $150.


RE: Logic
By Fritzr on 9/17/2010 12:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
He's right on all counts...the sub $100 is a one off special.

Try this link instead
http://www.pricewatch.com/gallery/hard_removable_d...


RE: Logic
By Taft12 on 9/17/2010 3:29:39 PM , Rating: 3
Why must a storage-only drive be 7200RPM? The slower spindle speeds mean lower temperatures and better reliability.

Frankly, there has not yet been released a 7200RPM drive > 1TB that has had a reputation for reliability.


RE: Logic
By mcnabney on 9/17/2010 5:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Only boot/application/cache/swap drives need speed. A true media drive only benefits from speed when it is being filled or backup-up.


RE: Logic
By dark matter on 9/18/2010 3:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
Just whack three of them on a striped raid 0 array. Or 4 even.


RE: Logic
By Reclaimer77 on 9/18/2010 1:51:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why must a storage-only drive be 7200RPM?


Just because it's a storage drive doesn't mean you'll never transfer big files to and from it. That's painful enough on a 7200RPM. Anything slower than that, forget about it. No thanks.

Storage drives don't magically fill themselves. They have to be written to, and the faster you can write, the better.


RE: Logic
By mindless1 on 9/18/2010 6:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
With lower platter RPM, higher density is possible. You're not transferring anything to a full hard drive and in the grand scheme of things the difference in transfer rate for large files between a higher platter density 5900 RPM drive or a lower platter density 7200 RPM drive is not significant enough to mention.

There is such a thing as "good enough", being a tech snob that just claims everything "needs" to be better/faster/whatever, largely misses the point that in the end it only has to work, plus you aren't required to babysit a file copy activity, there is such a thing as multitasking.


Even when they win they lose
By MrTeal on 9/17/2010 12:42:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The industry will likely now have to resort to pricey litigation to try to sue to prevent such products from reaching the market. A similar scenario played out when the Content Scrambling System that protects DVDs was cracked. Companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape released hardware rippers to the market, but were sued by organizations like the RIAA. They eventually lost in court, as the current U.S. courts precedent is that customers never have the right to circumvent DRM to make backup copies.


So, even though the RIAA was successful in suing Real, how well were they able to contain CSS and keep it secure? Once it was out there, the game was over for them.

Honestly, this doesn't look like something that was reverse-engineered like CSS was. This was a leak from someone who was intimately familiar with HDCP. No matter how technically brilliant the DRM is, it will never be really secure for just this reason. You can build your castle as strong as you like, but if the guards keep bringing home wooden horses...




RE: Even when they win they lose
By bitterman0 on 9/17/2010 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Honestly, this doesn't look like something that was reverse-engineered like CSS was. This was a leak from someone who was intimately familiar with HDCP. No matter how technically brilliant the DRM is, it will never be really secure for just this reason. You can build your castle as strong as you like, but if the guards keep bringing home wooden horses...


Read the end of the article. Given enough end-user encryption keys the master key (or an equivalent) can be derived by pure mathematical calculation. Nobody had to "leak" anything in this case, it appears to be a weakness (in terms of encryption strength) of the algorithms used in HDCP.


RE: Even when they win they lose
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2010 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
Well any encryption algorithm uses math. Even if its by pure brute force, eventually you can crack it. It's just a matter of time.


RE: Even when they win they lose
By ekv on 9/17/2010 2:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
True. The better the encryption, the more time it takes.

NSA is rumored to have built a special purpose 56-bit DES cracking machine. Highly parallel, very costly. But, a highly parallel brute force attack cut down on the time, hence they thought it was worth it.


RE: Even when they win they lose
By catavalon21 on 9/18/2010 9:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
EFF (a non-profit company) built one in 1998 for roughly $250k (in 1998 US dollars).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker


RE: Even when they win they lose
By ekv on 9/19/2010 4:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
cool 8)

DES was getting long in the tooth by late 90's, and "Deep Crack" would explain why there was a push for AES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_S...

which by most accounts is pretty (damn) good. Work estimates to crack a 256-bit key are "2^70 time for a 11-round version. 256-bit AES uses 14 rounds, so these attacks aren't effective against full AES." As the saying goes, time is money.


Why is everyone still buying movies?
By Mitch101 on 9/17/2010 1:42:32 PM , Rating: 1
Why is everyone still buying movies?

When I think about it most movies aren't worth owning especially since they are instantly available through Netflix or played every 3 hours on HBO/Showtime. If I must have the movie in full quality then I can have the movie sent to me via netflix on BLU-RAY.

I wonder why must some people own every movie they ever saw when most weren't that good to begin with and almost all dont have replay value. If you keep it down to must have movies only 3-6 movies a year are worth buying.




By FITCamaro on 9/17/2010 1:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
And thats about how many movies a year I buy. Next I plan to get is Iron Man 2.


By Spuke on 9/17/2010 2:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
I hardly buy any movies. I don't have many DVD's and no blu-ray's at all. I rent blu-ray's from Netflix. The only blu-rays I plan to buy are the Matrix trilogy and Inception when it's released.


RE: Why is everyone still buying movies?
By Lerianis on 9/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why is everyone still buying movies?
By SunAngel on 9/17/2010 3:37:27 PM , Rating: 3
Who and what gives you the right to PAY for cable tv? Your so stupid. Why not just cut into your apartment's wall and tap into your neighbor's cable connection? You would save a ton of money doing it that way. I tell you some people refuse to use common sense.


RE: Why is everyone still buying movies?
By Lerianis on 9/18/10, Rating: 0
By SunAngel on 9/18/2010 9:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Okay I understand your point. But why spend so much money? Get yourself a Netflix subscription for $10 instead of paying $100 for cable and still tap into your neighbor's line and still download movies off the web. Why spend so much for cable when you can have so much more and pay less? And sorry for saying you don't use common sense.


RE: Why is everyone still buying movies?
By Bateluer on 9/18/2010 12:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with the sentiment that people shouldn't be made to pay multiple times for the same content in different formats or versions, such as to play on different devices they own, you're still an idiot.

If you don't feel the movie is worth buying or paying for once, then don't buy it at all, stream from Netflix, etc.

If you purchased it once, then knock yourself out. Rip and encode to as many devices as you feel you need to.


RE: Why is everyone still buying movies?
By Lerianis on 9/18/10, Rating: 0
By mindless1 on 9/18/2010 6:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
You must have had a lot of numbers up your arse to pull them out for that post.

People over 30 are far more adjusted to the digital reality, because to adjust you have to have something to contrast against, while the youngest adults don't realize there was a reality in which we weren't suing everyone, making IP grabs, overrun by pron, and thinking twittering about your facebook stalker on myspace is a good use of one's life.

People over 30 are far less likely to blow money on music and video in the first place, much less likely to be addicted to the idea that they "need" the newest MP3 track or to see Transformers 4 the same day it leaks on the internet.

I do not think you an idiot for your prior statement about paying for CATV, but do think you are a bit ignorant of pricing models that include the fact that when something is in high demand, when it is new, it almost always fetches a higher price and this pricing is an agreement between a buyer and seller, with the seller not agreeing to grant a license for the content at low CATV price per viewer until their content has been devalued from displacement by newer content.

What is the digital reality really? It's kids infringing content instead of using political fights to change the laws. It's kids making the world a worse place by allowing these laws to get out of hand then choosing to break them instead of making their voices heard like Americans used to do, under the same principles that founded the US in the first place.

We could think it was civil disobedience if it were done in public but it is considered a private offense that these kids hope and/or assume they won't be caught or prosecuted for which in itself concludes an abandonment of openness rather than a public discourse necessary to affect change.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/18/2010 11:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm exactly 30, and I can say that when I was 20, I would have totally agreed with the majority of the under 30s - I may have pirated mp3s myself (this was before video piracy took off). As I've gotten older, I've become less and less pro-piracy. It's not a matter of adjusting or not adjusting to the "new digital reality", it's a matter of getting older and adjusting priorities that accounts for the schism in the anecdotal numbers you're providing. I have every expectation of being anti-piracy by the time I'm 40, because I realize that who I am now is not who I will be for the rest of my life, and for most people, the change is fairly predictable.

To be clear, I'm not saying your priorities are wrong or that older people's priorities are right, only that the viewpoints aren't different for the reasons you indicate. And when you are 30 or 40 (assuming you're in the under-30 category now), I'm sure the young people will say you don't understand the 'new reality', and you'll complain that kids today are worse than when you were young. It's the way of the world.


By Lazarus Dark on 9/17/2010 7:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
I probably bought about 100-150 Blurays in the first two years of release, but that is largely catalog favorites that I know I will watch once a year or so. In the last year I've bought maybe 5 blurays, I figure that should be about the average going forward from here. There are at best 10 movies made each year worth owning.


My take on DRM
By HoosierEngineer5 on 9/17/2010 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
Assume I license content by purchasing it. Also assume that DRM is preventing me from using the product due to the unavailability of a method to decode the DRM. Should the manufacturer be compelled to remove the DRM?

Case in point; I do not have access to wideband internet. I therefore cannot play StarCraft 2 in single player mode. If I purchase the game, what is my legal recourse?




RE: My take on DRM
By Bateluer on 9/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: My take on DRM
By Lerianis on 9/18/2010 5:17:04 PM , Rating: 3
Ah, but it didn't make it clear that an active BROADBAND internet connection is necessary... or did it? From the way you stated it, they were stupid and just said that a internet connection was necessary instead of making clear that you needed a X-speed or higher internet connection.


RE: My take on DRM
By flatrock on 9/24/2010 12:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Assume I license content by purchasing it. Also assume that DRM is preventing me from using the product due to the unavailability of a method to decode the DRM. Should the manufacturer be compelled to remove the DRM?


No they should not be required to remove the DRM, unless the law changes so that they are required not to add the DRM. At most they should be required to refund your money. You don't have a right to have copyrighted contrent provided to you in a particular way. If the law changes so that you are able to legally bypass the DRM yourself regardless of the license agreement, then you would be able to do so.

What we need to do is to quit buying products if we feel the DRM is too restrictive, rather than illegally circumventing it. However, it has to be a mass effort, or it will have negligible effect.

quote:
Case in point; I do not have access to wideband internet. I therefore cannot play StarCraft 2 in single player mode. If I purchase the game, what is my legal recourse?


Your legal recourse is to not buy the game. If you bought the game with the belief that you would be able to take full advantage of it, then you should try to get a refund if you don't feel what you received was worth the purchase price.

You do not have a right to demand Blizzard release Starcraft in the manner you want. However, if enough people choose not to purchase it because of the restrictions, it becomes more likely that they will remove the restrictions, or at least not use them on future products.


HA
By Treckin on 9/17/2010 4:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Corporatists are the most anticapitalist people around. In a true market, these movies wouldnt exist because people are CLEARLY unwilling to pay as much to see them as they cost to make. The only reason they exist is because we have a corrupt political process whereby the laws protect the interests of the wealthy few (movie/music producers and executives) instead of the weak and impoverished.

If the RIAA wants to sell more DVD's then Cheng Foo down in China Town, they have to make their products more compelling. That is capitalism people. The market has spoken. Will they listen?





RE: HA
By Spuke on 9/17/2010 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Corporatists are the most anticapitalist people around.
You make a great point. I really question if these people are truly interested in making money or do they simply want power and control with making money #5 on the list.


Just in time
By fic2 on 9/17/2010 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 3
Just in time for Talk Like a Pirate Day!

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html




The equipment can be legal
By Fritzr on 9/17/2010 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
It is technically legal to sell unlicensed equipment that is capable of decoding HDCP IF the code is installed in the firmware. Couple that with an open source firmware download from a Canadian (or other country not subject to US law) of the firmware required to enable the function without license.

US will quickly outlaw it, but this method will probably be seen everywhere else :)




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki