Vista DRM already broken

[Paulo Teixeira]

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/29...lready-broken/

WOW!
That was quick if it’s real.

Microsoft tried so hard to make sure that it's bulletproof.

[Jacques Swanepoel]

I believe it to be as true as 'when the sun shines, then it is day'...

Seriously though, how else. Rules are there to keep people segregated and impartial to one group's issues as apposed to another.
Some people will want "new" technology just for the sake of it, and others will question its worth and durability (never mind compliancy).

I for one, is part of the latter, and I say: "job well-done".

Is it possible to be broken... Hell yes... From 'Wikipedia':
""Cryptanalysis researchers demonstrated fatal flaws in HDCP for the first time in 2001, prior to its adoption in any commercial product. Scott Crosby of Carnegie Mellon University authored a paper with Ian Goldberg, Robert Johnson, Dawn Song, and David Wagner called "A Cryptanalysis of the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection System". This paper was presented at ACM-CCS8 DRM Workshop on November 5, 2001.[1]

The authors conclude:

"HDCP's linear key exchange is a fundamental weakness. We can:
* Eavesdrop on any data
* Clone any device with only their public key
* Avoid any blacklist on devices
* Create new device keyvectors.
* In aggregate, we can usurp the authority completely."

Around the same time that Scott Crosby and co-authors were writing this paper, noted cryptographer Niels Ferguson independently claimed to have broken the HDCP scheme, but he did not publish his research, citing legal concerns arising from the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act""


Now do not get me wrong here!

I am NOT saying it is fine to hack and deconstruct other's software. But it is clearly wrong to make a form of art (movie, music, picture) only a given to those few who have the resources (and support) to obtain it. (This is the type of Rules of Segregation I am talking about).

As for breaking the rules... I suppose it is the same as committing a crime. When you did, you broke the law, and will (sometimes) be punished accordingly. But sometimes, just maybe, some laws are not there to protect you, or me, but another segregated group that we do not belong to.
And then, that law, cannot be accepted, and that rule should be broken.

[Barry Gribble]

Originally Posted by Jacques Swanepoel

But it is clearly wrong to make a form of art (movie, music, picture) only a given to those few who have the resources (and support) to obtain it.

I'm going to have to disagree with the "clearly" and the "wrong" in that statement.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Jacques Swanepoel

...
I am NOT saying it is fine to hack and deconstruct other's software. But it is clearly wrong to make a form of art (movie, music, picture) only a given to those few who have the resources (and support) to obtain it. (This is the type of Rules of Segregation I am talking about).

Should not the creators of art work be entitled to compensation for their work? And if so, how is that to be achieved without withholding access from those who do not have the means to pay such compensation? I find nothing immoral in the fact that to enjoy a movie or a play or a concert you have to have the means to pay the price of admission into the theatre.

[Ryan Damm]

You know, our current ideas about copyright, patents, etc are a bit of a historical perversion. The notion of intellectual property is a relatively new idea, and it's explicitly founded on the idea of greater benefits accruing to the masses. In other words, the rights of the creator are strictly a concession from the rights of society at large. Powerful lobbies aside, I don't think those concessions are irrevocable.

This free book below explains it rather well. (Don't worry, it's meant to be distributed for free; I'm not pirating it.)

Don't get me wrong; I think we need a system that supports artists and creators. I don't think we need a system that must support record companies, entertainment executives, intellectual property lawyers, and all the support staff for the media industries. Those tasks are necessary evils that aren't that necessary anymore.

I mean, it's incumbent upon the media moguls to find a new way to create value, and not by trying to sue and legislate the internet out of existence (DMCA, for example). And whoever figures out how to connect viewers to filmmakers more directly will reap the rewards. If it's not the members of the MPAA, maybe we don't need the MPAA.

My money's currently on Google, Yahoo et al. They don't have the answer yet, but at least they're thinking progressively, not retrogressively. And my gut says the answer will come out of the tech sphere (but maybe that's just because I'm based in the SF Bay Area). And even if it doesn't come out of these companies, Google will probably buy them anyway.

I also don't think the winning model(s) will be advertising based. In a less-good, less-free book ("Madison and Vine"), the editor of Advertising Age thinks greater connections between content creators and advertising is the way forward. I think that's an indication of a sick industry - people are willing to pay not to be advertised to; people are willing to pay for content. Setting up a system that lets them do that is really the only missing link, and product tie-ins are a terrible, terrible solution.


So... Ideas, anyone?

[Paulo Teixeira]

I know quite a bit about Google and I’ve helped a friend get a contract to sell their TV shows and Documentaries trough Google’s video service and I can tell you that Google cares about property rights almost as much as Sony and Microsoft does. When you buy a video from Google, it’s downloaded to your computer but the creator has a right to allow DRM if he/she chooses to use it. Meaning you have to be connected to the internet in order to view the file that is already on your computer.They are currently developing a way in which you don’t have to be on the internet to view the file. Google knew that a lot of people were going to hate them for having DRM in their video service but they also knew that a lot of small independent and big Producers weren’t going to give their content to Google unless they have a way to protect the creator’s property. Apple is very much against DRMs but even they had no choice but to implement it in their services.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8637.cfm
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/samiljan/4453
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1345971.ece

[Ryan Damm]

I'm not so sure Google is wedded to DRM. Yes, they support it, but I'd venture that Google et al are really wedded to the idea of making money.

On the other end of the scale, the studios and networks want to protect their sunk-cost investment by protecting their large libraries of existing media. They further want to be able to set the terms and condition for the use of their libraries. DRM is a brute-force method to achieve that.

Currently, DRM is only one of several methods for ensuring consumers pay for their content. (Others include subscription services/streaming, banner advertising and embedded product endorsements.) All models currently have flaws.

I have a feeling the tech companies will endorse any and all schemes that allow them to make money. I am similarly certain the studios and networks will resist virtually all innovation - the historical analysis in "Free Culture" is pretty thorough and telling.

And I think the studios need the internet more than the internet needs the studios. I also have a gut-level feeling that any new model for distribution will benefit smaller productions.

So I guess I'm thinking that the studios are going to get dragged into this digital fray kicking and screaming. Independents who are willing to embrace new distribution (and profit) models will benefit by being early adopters. In fact, independents who innovate novel distribution models may benefit the most. In a sense, Hollywood has not a lot to gain but a lot to lose - which is why I doubt the innovation will come from that direction.