Can someone tell me what this means?

[Buckeyefan 1]

Is this a good thing? I'm lost here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oZGYb92isE

 

[Sheep]

It means that HD DVD and Blu Ray are not safe from the downloading generation.

SheepStar

 

[MACCA350]

Is this a good thing? I'm lost here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oZGYb92isE

What does CD and DVD have in common?

cheers

 

[racquetman]

Is this a good thing? I'm lost here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oZGYb92isE

Ya, it means you and I paying twice as much for software because a-holes like this guy think we should be able to have whatever we want for free. Not only that, but we should be able to tell everyone else how to steal stuff as well.

It means interconnects with HDCP, it means everything needs to be encrypted, it means flags in our software to recognize A/V components, etc. . . .

OK, end of rant ...............

 

[nav]

The software he's distributing is not a means for HD DVD key decryption, just a means for using a key to which you already have access to decrypt the content. As-is, it's more-or-less a completely benign AES implementation as found anywhere else on the Internet. Apparently he has managed to borrow some title keys from an existing piece of hardware or software to make that video, but I haven't seen a distribution of that software as of yet.

Also, just like with DeCSS and DVDs: actual content pirates DO NOT NEED this software or the software that will actually allow full key decryption. They just copy the HD DVD fully encrypted. Your HD DVD player will play the pirated, still-encrypted, perfect copy no worse than an unencrypted copy. So, the pirates just copy it still encrypted just they do with DVDs today.

Ya, it means you and I paying twice as much for software because a-holes like this guy think we should be able to have whatever we want for free. Not only that, but we should be able to tell everyone else how to steal stuff as well.

If we pretend my reasoning above wasn't relevant and what you said above and below wasn't effectively a straw man argument: As someone who has written software (some of it commercial), I fully feel the software companies that are currently known for high prices wouldn't change their fees if software piracy disappeared tomorrow. Besides, he already owns the HD DVDs he's ripping. Given that, I hardly see how he's causing anyone to lose out on real income regardless of what he thinks he or others should have to pay for licensed content or goods. Even if his message or code was more nefarious: absolutely we should be able to tell anyone whatever we want.

We'll just not get into theft versus copyright infringement, I suppose.

It means interconnects with HDCP, it means everything needs to be encrypted, it means flags in our software to recognize A/V components, etc. . . .

Regardless of the reason for the punishment, we're stuck with the mentality now; another step toward fair use can only be a good thing. Maybe they'll give up someday and circumvention won't even be necessary?

 

[abboudc]

Maybe they'll give up someday and circumvention won't even be necessary?

Not likely. Microsoft went through extensive pains to make sure encryption and content protection would survive at least as long as everyone uses Vista:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36570

 

[MACCA350]

Also, just like with DeCSS and DVDs: actual content pirates DO NOT NEED this software or the software that will actually allow full key decryption. They just copy the HD DVD fully encrypted. Your HD DVD player will play the pirated, still-encrypted, perfect copy no worse than an unencrypted copy. So, the pirates just copy it still encrypted just they do with DVDs today.

Try copy and pasting a DVD to your hard drive without any decryption, you end up with garbled garbage. You need decryption software to be able to rip a DVD to your hard drive and then burn it to a blank DVD.

cheers

 

[nav]

Try copy and pasting a DVD to your hard drive without any decryption, you end up with garbled garbage. You need decryption software to be able to rip a DVD to your hard drive and then burn it to a blank DVD.

Yes, I do . But those that can afford entire DVD pressing factories for their pirated content (which I would assume is a bigger problem for the industry than you or I, but I suppose the media industry's behavior indicates differently) can also afford hardware replicators that bypass the whole mess to make their master. Not to say that a cracked encryption/scrambling scheme won't be misused at all, I just think its fair-use benefits to everyday people outweigh the negatives to everyone; use the legal system to fight illegal activities, not user-annoying technical runarounds.

 

[jonnythan]

Copyright violation is not theft.

All of you people who call pirating "stealing" have just been suckered into thinking that by the RIAA and the MPAA.

Did you know that there is no legal way to view DVDs on Linux? DeCSS served a legitimate fair use purpose, and it's the only way to view DVDs on Linux - yet it's still illegal.

Any video disc encryption scheme is going to be broken until we have Trusted Computing where encryption is done all the way to the hardware level. TC is a rat's nest of problems, and I don't know if we will ever see it implemented.

 

[MACCA350]

Yes, I do . But those that can afford entire DVD pressing factories for their pirated content (which I would assume is a bigger problem for the industry than you or I, but I suppose the media industry's behavior indicates differently) can also afford hardware replicators that bypass the whole mess to make their master. Not to say that a cracked encryption/scrambling scheme won't be misused at all, I just think its fair-use benefits to everyday people outweigh the negatives to everyone; use the legal system to fight illegal activities, not user-annoying technical runarounds.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think they still need to decrypt the DVD to create the master stamp for pressing. Why do I think this? Because a few months ago I bought a few DVD's online through Ebay and because the titles had been released by the studios, the site insisted they were genuine and the price right I believed they were legit until they arrived and stuck them in my pc to check.

Even though the covers said what region they were and they were pressed dual layer:
1)they had no region control
2)they were not DeCSS or RCE encrypted or had macrovision

So I emailed the F***ers and reported them to Ebay, I was so pissed that I paid for a genuine product but all I got ripoff s**t

cheers

 

[racquetman]

Copyright violation is not theft.

All of you people who call pirating "stealing" have just been suckered into thinking that by the RIAA and the MPAA.

Whatever, dude. If you want to try and justify your own illegal activities that's fine, but don't try and tell everyone else that there is nothing wrong with it.

If you rent a DVD, burn a copy, and then return the rented copy, guess what - you just stole it.

By the way, here is some updated info about the pertinent topic taken from thedigitalbits.com:

"Well, we've been doing a bit of research on the reported AACS crack this afternoon... and we've learned that there's good news and (just maybe) bad news. Our old friend Andy Patrizio sent over some links for further reading (thanks, Andy!), and it seems that the whole system hasn't been cracked... just a tiny part of it. According to tech blogger Chris Lanier, this all started because the current version of Cyberlink's PowerDVD player leaves the title keys for individual HD-DVD titles unprotected for a short time during the playback operation. A memory dump allows those keys to be revealed, and then the keys must be fed into the BackupHDDVD utility in order to allow those specific discs to be copied. Cyberlink is expected to release a patch/update which will end this vulnerability. The newly-updated software will likely use new device keys, and the old version's device key will likely be revoked, meaning that the old version of the software won't work anymore (after it receives the revocation orders, which would arrive on new HD-DVD movie software). So AACS itself hasn't been compromised - just the title keys to select titles. That's the good news."

It seems that AACS isn't so cracked after all.

 

[jonnythan]

Whatever, dude. If you want to try and justify your own illegal activities that's fine, but don't try and tell everyone else that there is nothing wrong with it.

Uh, what? When was I justifying anything?

Copyright violation is against the law. So is theft. So is murder. These are all very different crimes, however. It makes no more sense to call copyright violation "theft" than it does to call theft "murder."

If you rent a DVD, burn a copy, and then return the rented copy, guess what - you just stole it.

No, I didn't. I broke two laws, the first of which was the DMCA by breaking the encryption. I then broke copyright law by making an unauthorized copy of the disc.

At no point did I commit theft. At no point did I steal anything. I could not be prosecuted for theft.

Now.. if I went into Wal-Mart and slipped the DVD under my shirt and walked out, that would be stealing.

 

[racquetman]

No, I didn't. I broke two laws, the first of which was the DMCA by breaking the encryption. I then broke copyright law by making an unauthorized copy of the disc.

At no point did I commit theft. At no point did I steal anything. I could not be prosecuted for theft.

Now.. if I went into Wal-Mart and slipped the DVD under my shirt and walked out, that would be stealing.

Oh, you were just splitting hairs. I see. I thought you were saying that nothing illegal was being done.

How you categorize the crime isn't really that important, is it?? Unless you are worried about being prosecuted!!

 

[jonnythan]

How you categorize the crime isn't really that important, is it?? Unless you are worried about being prosecuted!!

I think it is important. It's just not theft, end of story. It's not murder, it's not racketeering, it's not embezzlement, it's not tax evasion, it's not antitrust violation, it's not larceny, it's not burglary, and it's not theft. It's copyright violation.

 

[BostonMark]

I think it is important. It's just not theft, end of story. It's not murder, it's not racketeering, it's not embezzlement, it's not tax evasion, it's not antitrust violation, it's not larceny, it's not burglary, and it's not theft. It's copyright violation.

Which is still a violation of the law, for which you can be imprisoned or fined heavily. As an attorney, I can tell you that although the PAPERS may say you were on trial for "theft" the District Attorney's Office will have all the charges under the proper Federal Statutes.

Theft is simply a laymans term for a number of crimes against property and it is commonly understood. We aren't in Law School here, its an audio forum.

By your argument, there really isn't any such thing as plain ole murder either, there is homicide, premeditated homicide, justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter etc.

 

[jonnythan]

By your argument, there really isn't any such thing as plain ole murder either, there is homicide, premeditated homicide, justifiable homicide, involuntary manslaughter etc.

No, because all of those actually are murder. A homocide charge requires an act of murder.

Copyright violation and theft of property are two completely different things. It isn't a slight technicality. Copyright violation is not a category of theft. It's not a specific type of theft. It's something that's completely different.

When you steal something, you are taking a piece of property away from someone. When you commit copyright violation, you make an unauthorized copy of something. Theft necessarily deprives someone of the piece of property you took. Copyright violation does not.

 

[racquetman]

No, because all of those actually are murder. A homocide charge requires an act of murder.

Copyright violation and theft of property are two completely different things. It isn't a slight technicality. Copyright violation is not a category of theft. It's not a specific type of theft. It's something that's completely different.

When you steal something, you are taking a piece of property away from someone. When you commit copyright violation, you make an unauthorized copy of something. Theft necessarily deprives someone of the piece of property you took. Copyright violation does not.

It seems you are continuing to beat a dead horse for no apparent reason.

We get your point. It's a crime. You pointed out we put it in the wrong category. Let's move on, shall we. As BostonMark said, this is an audio forum, not law school.

Do you have anything interesting to say about AACS? Seriously. I'm hoping this thread does a quick 180 degree turn and starts talking about the ramifications that could easily ensue from this. Like all those movie titles on that video being rendered useless. That might anger a few people if they have to exchange discs.

 

[abboudc]

The media companies seem to like the model they have in place...you scratch up a CD, they make you buy a new one at full price. However, if you make a copy, they claim you actually bought a license and not the CD itself. They can't have it both ways.

You either bought a license to use the music how you wish, or you didn't. The license should grant you the ability to buy as many formats/copies of the media (within reason) that you want at the physical cost of the media. If i buy Pirates of the Carribean on DVD, i should be able to buy it on PSP for the cost of the disc, since i already own the license.

The problem is they want their cake and to eat it too. They want to charge you, full price, for every different format, copy, replacement that they can. They want to lock your hardware so you can't use the items you bought in the way you want to use them. Suing your customers isn't a successful business model, no matter what economic theory you subscribe to.

The record companies are going to have to change their business model if they want to survive. No longer is it necessary to have promotion and radio play to sell music as it was in the past. Viral marketing, the internet, and word of mouth is now as effective as radio play. Any band can get heard and sell well if they have good songs without needing a label.

 

[MACCA350]

The studios complain about piracy, but what makes a format successful? Have a look at CD and DVD. They apparently are the most pirated formats in history yet they are the highest selling and most successful formats available. DVD has been constantly breaking sales records, and CD didn't even blink as the uncrackable DVD-A and SACD came and went.

Ignoring legality, DVD and CD are the most versatile formats around. The consumer can choose how they listen to the music and watch the movie, on standalone players, computer, HTPC, MP3 player. And being able to rip the music/movie to a pc allows the user to choose how they listen/watch in so many different and convenient ways.

Lets face it, people want the to choose how they use music/movies, if you restrict a media type too much people wont bother with it and it will fail. This is a major problem with Sony's mentality, they like propriety products that only work with their own stuff and then they wonder why it doesn't take off. It's simple, their restricting it too much.

People want the choice, remove that and you've got a failure on your hands.

cheers

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

No, because all of those actually are murder. A homocide charge requires an act of murder.

Copyright violation and theft of property are two completely different things. It isn't a slight technicality. Copyright violation is not a category of theft. It's not a specific type of theft. It's something that's completely different.

When you steal something, you are taking a piece of property away from someone. When you commit copyright violation, you make an unauthorized copy of something. Theft necessarily deprives someone of the piece of property you took. Copyright violation does not.

I was reading your last paragraph, and have to disagree with you. Copyright violation does not deprive someone of the piece of property you took? Think about that for a minute.