What is Digg?44 Comments
- RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Attack AACS' weak point for massive DRM-age!
- jhaitas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It is not possible to make secure DRM... as long as the information is in the file - we're going to figure out how to view it...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Unm.. why? Would you rather pay $50 or $100 for a "legal" BluRay/HD-DVD? Why don't then look at the root cause of the problem, reduce prices and oh, possibly give us something worth watching?
- Catch_ME, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I don't understand how the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft and all these companies including apple think that this stuff will be secure. Just wait a little bit. In a few years we will have something that HDDVD2AVI that works perfect on every Computer.
These guys need to go into the street and stop the people who sell bootleg DVD's for $2 on the corner. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO WITH CONTENT THEY BOUGHT??? NOOOOOEESSS.
- datagod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9DRM = Digital Rights Management.
Does anyone know what our digital rights actually are? Are these different from our analog rights? - scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@PiGuy
If I liked the shirt and they tried to tell me how to use it when I bought it, if i could clone it (not steal it, but just make a copy) and keep the clone, I would. - rgautier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Shhhhhhhh...... Don't say Usenet in editorials, what are you, nuts!?
- micro506, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You do realize that the phrase "Clear and Present Danger" was not invented by Tom Clancy?
- inactive, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7The rich people who think they are benefiting from DRM aren't thinking ahead. They think it'll earn them an extra couple of bucks, and turn their back and stick their fingers in their ears when all that money that was spent on making AACS, or what have you, goes down the drain (in only 8 days!). There's a lot of news going around now about DRM's negative consequences (there's nothing positive for consumers) and the more people know about it, the more people there are to pressure Microsoft, Apple, and so on against implementing it.
I really hope DRM will be gone soon. Because it's bad for everyone in the long run. - HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not "digital rights". The digital refers to the type of management. "Digital Management of Rights." Rights being those of the coypright holder.
- srg13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's actually supposed to protect the "digital rights" of the content creator.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That Statement Xtrek highlights something even more powerful. Individuals coming together to fight against what they view as fascisms and doing so in a reliable way. a Strong way that cannot be crushed as in previous generations. All hail the Intertube
- XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"The overwhelmingly successful attack against HD DVD and Blu-ray represents several well-entrenched facets of the online community. Perhaps most important is the inherent cooperation that manifests itself against a seemingly common enemy - DRM (Digital Rights Management.) Attached to this cooperation are the vast resources of the online community: primarily its virtually unlimited supply of talent, intellect, and most importantly, its rapid response to a commonly perceived threat."
This statement highlights the futility of DRM. These greedy bastards will fail. - writerboyVSgod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DRM is against my religion.
- izzybomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I noticed on AACS site it says one of the advantages for consumers is: "Support a superior viewing experience delivered by next generation media formats"
So unprotected content is a lesser experience? - ogden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3DRM can never work for the following reason:
The resources of tens if not hundreds of thousands of hackers in the world can *NEVER* be matched by a private corporation. There is an order of magnitude difference between the resources in the world at large, as opposed to that which can be marshaled by a corporation, thus DRM is overwhelmed by force of numbers.
That being said, DRM is *NOT* about copy protection, it's about creating markets by selling the same product to people in different ways. You wanna watch your DVDs on your ipod? Too bad buy them again. Your PSP? Buy them again.
Blue Ray vs HD-DVD war? The loser gets to sell his movies over again in a new format. Your iTunes downloads wont play on your zune? Buy them over.
It's all a scam, all of it. I've just stopped buying DVDs for the most part. As for music I buy CDs, thats it. No DRM *****, have it ripped to a 1.5TB array where its safe, I encode it all from lossless to whatever format the mp3 player I happen to have at the time accepts. - Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm interested in what forms HD releases will take in time. As the article said, the files are 15-30GB right now. It would be nice if compressed H.264 files that maintained an HD resolution and small-ish size showed up.
- takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They meant Digital Restrictions Management.
But "restriction" is such a negative word....
BTW: I know what topic I'll be taking about on my next speech in public speech class :))) - bradwheeler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"There has also been a tendency to downplay the exchange and distribution of high definition content online. The logic behind this suggests that because of the large file size of high definition movies, typically between 15 gigabytes and 30 gigabytes, it is "impractical" to share these movies online. Again, this has some truth - if more mainstream file-sharing applications such as BitTorrent were used.
However as many file-sharers are rediscovering Usenet, the limitations imposed by BitTorrent are rendered obsolete. Because of Usenet's ultra-fast and direct nature, the amount of time needed to download a 20 gigabyte movie is not exceptional. The arguments of impracticality, which echo the same arguments used for DVD rips and XviDs, are slowly disintegrating. Those on high speed cable connections can generally expect to download such large files after a good night's sleep."
----
Wait, so the BitTorrent protocol isn't prepared for these large files? I didn't think this was the case. Is Usenet really optimized for this in capacities that BT is not? - disc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3fightclub...
- miles32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is no such thing as usenet
- Soulscribe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I saw one of these guys on an Atlanta subway train. He had a small suitcase full of dvds, and a portable dvd player to show off the quality of the rips. The best part was that he sold an off-duty cop two movies--which had just been released to theaters--for 3 dollars each.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And we will still crack it. a socialist mentality that culture is a right of everyone regardless of whether they can afford it or not. $40 for next gen movies is going to turn even more people into downloaders because it will be the only way they can afford to watch. Are they criminals because they don't have as much money as you? Are they criminals because they believe it is their right to partake in our common culture?
Why is this such a huge issue anyways, how many people of the 300 Million in America are affected negatively by pirating? Why is government so preoccupied with this subject when there are so many more pressing matters that do affect a very large portion of the country - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Stallman? Is that you?
- andycr512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good to see an article which explains clearly what actually was cracked and what wasn't.
My understanding of the issue is that AACS encryption is VERY secure, and is in practicality uncrackable by a brute force attack due to the sheer amount of possible key combinations. A non-brute force attack is, to our knowledge, impossible. This is true of all good encryption schemes. An encryption scheme that can be cracked by any method other than trying every key until you happen upon the right one is worthless.
However, the player has to know the key, so that key is stored in memory somehow. As long as the consumer can watch movies, those movies can be copied, because the stream is being decrypted, and in that decryption process is the key in question.
This is not, on the side of the movie studios, a war of creating harder and harder to crack encryption; we have done it, and it is essentially uncrackable. The war is how to hide the keys so effectively that the user cannot find them. This is, while the user can still watch a movie and debuggers are still legal, impossible. All that they can do is make it harder and harder. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For clueless people who dugg me down explanation:
I was talking about brute force attack, which is totally pointless that's why I put word >little< in the quotes. - lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3the $2 bootleg sellers are deffinatly a bigger threat than the casual "rent and rip" pirates, as people who at least rent a movie b4 ripping it are giving someone.. somewhere some money, while the real pirates are just making themselves a boat load of money at other peoples expense..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The MPAA are screwed and they know it.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, no not bought: merely a purchase of a temporary right to view under their terms. That's the saddest part of all this. If John Q. WalMart would get it through their skull they are not 'buying' anything, there would be torch-bearing and pitchfork-wielding folk at the gates of the media a-holes - and rightly so.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@netdroid
There will never be an AACS keygen program used to decrypt AACS discs. You miss the entire point of what AACS is and how it works. You have to find the key used to encrypt the disc in order to decrypt it. Different discs use different decryption keys. - xenonlight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1look at divx 6
an hour at 1080p gets compressed to like 1-1.5 gigs
it's incredibly processor intensive though, as one might guess (h.264 ain't a lightweight codec either, especially at higher resolutions) - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think h264 will become the new standard in the rip scene for a few reasons. 1) There are many options for encoding/decoding including OSS solutions. 2) Every major platform supports h264 in some form. PS3, iTV, etc. 3) The file sizes are reasonable.
- xenonlight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you can convert servers into bittorrent bots, eliminating the speed advantage of usenet, and on top of that, bittorrent is less likely to deliver a corrupt file and picks up wherever it left off if you get randomly disconnected. i think bittorrent definitely suits larger files better in the long run.
- mavere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"No, no not bought: merely a purchase of a temporary right to view under their terms."
Exactly. We know that. The average joe doesn't, but he's blissfully ignorant, so he doesn't need to be aware. However, we are already aware of the details of the transaction when we buy a movie. Despite our contempt of what it stands for, we still buy it, giving money to the studios and executives we claim to be against. Yet, after this, we go to our computer, onto our diggs and slashdots, and complain and try to circumvent the agreement we knew we made when we handed over our money.
Let me put this another way: when you buy a DVD, you know full-well that it can only be played on certain DVD players; why do you act so indignant and self-righteous when you realize that the dvd can in fact only be played on those dvd players? - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>>>"Of course, DVDs don't have those big stickers, but I don't think any of us here can claim ignorance."
We cannot claim ignorance, however we are also the high end of the technology spectrum. Your average joe doesn't understand why it's so difficult to copy that DVD to his iPod. He doesn't get why his HDTV looks like crap because of the protection doing automatic downscaling (due to lack of HDCP support). The problem with DRM goes beyond just them trying to enforce an agreement (especially one that doesn't, in fact, exist).
DRM does not prevent copying. This has been shown again and again. It can actually be proven to be an impossible thing for DRM to do.
So why do they bother? It's simple: Digital media doesn't degrade. This greatly concerns the studio system, because their whole business model is predicated on selling the same thing repeatedly. They create content, then exploit it for all the money they can get out of it. Everything they do fits this model.
Now, in the days of analog, this was easy. All that media degrades over time, for the most part. But digital, in theory, can live forever. Yes, media formats come and go, but the consumer has access to blank digital media, and a copy is just as good as the original. So we can copy the material from one generation to the next, or store it with long-term secure methodologies, and never have to purchase that content ever again. This scares the hell out of them.
But technologies change over time. What we use today to store that digital content won't be what we use several years from now. Improvements and change in this industry is now only fast, but overwhelmingly fast. And there's the out for them.
The sole purpose of DRM is to tie the digital content to the technology, so as to cause it to degrade with the technology that holds it.
Thus, when the technology changes, the DRM prevents us from moving it from the old to the new. It doesn't have to be 100%, it just has to be good enough to prevent the average consumer from doing it. He already had to buy new hardware, to keep up with the changing technology. Now he has to rebuy all that content as well, because it won't work on the new hardware. And the studios keep making money from selling him the same thing over and over. - ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes.
The service that shant be named kicks the ***** out of BitTorrent. Because Servers will always distribute content faster than home users. - ThatsNotPudding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'll get dugg-down, but I just have the feeling that Apple and even Microsoft are merely doing the bare minimum to ensure they don't get sued by the content owners. By doing just the bare minimum, they know the hackers (in the original spirit of that phrase) will kill DRM once and for all so they can focus and providing the cool stuff.
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I'm waiting for an AACS keygen program. They can blacklist individual keys, yes, but not the algorithm used to create them.
- takeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1S1ngular1ty1:
Don't make him feel bad...
Of course there can bea keygen for AACS, it will just need to think a "little" while to generate one :))) - mavere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1As much as I like to copy/transcode movies (and as much as I like downloading them), I really can't be too against DRM on a philosophical level.
Let's say I buy a DVD with a big sticker saying I can only play it on approved DVD players. Well, that would mean that I understood and agreed with the terms of the transactions, and I shouldn't care much if the manufacturer attempts to force me to follow those terms, right? If I didn't agree to those terms, I would have not given them my money, and would have spent that money on better things. After all, movies and music is not food and air, I can survive just as well without it... arguably even better.
Of course, DVDs don't have those big stickers, but I don't think any of us here can claim ignorance.
Just my 2c. Destroy it as you wish. - HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Dugg for Clancy refrence.
- PiGuy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3The typical lame excuse of "I'm not depriving anyone of anything" by pirating this. Bull. You deprive the salesmen who earns commission on the item, the artist, and so on and so forth. If Digg was a subscription service, would you pirate an account for it? If you pirate something you implicitly stating that you find it valuable in some way, and if you don't want to pay for it you shouldn't have it.
- PiGuy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1@ ebola
No one is forcing you to buy, pirate, or watch anything. If you see a shirt in a store you'd never wear, would you steal it because it was easily accessible and ugly?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is