BD+ Unbreakable for 10 Years says Richard Doherty of Envisioneering Group - Page 5  

Originally Posted by thebland

Yes the studios needs do supersede consumers rights in my opinion..

Our needs are for convenience. Moreover, these luxury items (DVDs) are easily repurchased if we destroy or lose them (our fault) for $20. We are not talking about food or a roof over our head or power (electricity). This is a toy we are talking about.

If we need to replace a disc, it costs us $20. No big deal. If copying / backing up was legal, the studios would lose millions. Far more the a $20 dollar bill. I say, we protect the business's needs as they have far more to lose than me and you. We like what they sell us. It is vital to our hobby... so let's aid them rather than screw them. The world does not revolve around our own selfish needs.

Originally Posted by Paul H

Easily repurchased? If only each person in the world had the amount of money it takes to come to this point of view. I guarantee J-6-pack would be blind to this thinking and considering themselves lucky to have a library of 6 to 10 HD carefully picked titles about this point in time.

Also, if you needed to replace an OOP disc, a $20. cost is out - and could be a "big deal" for anyone.

Paul

Originally Posted by namechamps

Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.
The sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this into account,
the sooner people will start making money again.
--Bruce Schneier

Never a good idea to issue a challenge to the millions of hackers in the world.
"Hey all you punks I DARE you try and make a copy of Spiderman 3"

DRM fails for two reasons. First DRM was never designed to stop piracy. Second with digital networks if there is one digital copy it can be transmitted a million times over to the four corners of the earth. It can be converted into new formats (aka take a BD with movie file of <30GB and pirates can stamp it on HD DVD). All it takes it one copy. If BD+ holds up (unlikely) they will just find another way around.

Already a researcher showed that using a highend ($1000) VGA capture card that the data can be dumped raw onto a HDD (about 1TB for a 2 hour movies). It then can be compressed to fit the format needed. Will it be as good as the original? No. Will it be "good enough" that most people couldn't tell the difference? Yes. But wait you say J6P won't have the gear and skill to do all that. The beauty of digital copies and ultrafast networks mean he doesn't need to. All it takes is one copy. Once it's on p2p networks and the Usenet the number of copies will grow from 1 to dozen, to hundreds, to millions within a week. You can't design water this is not wet and you can't design bits that can't be copied no matter how hard you try.

Originally Posted by Shmack

Just to be clear: what I am about to say is not intended to attack the poster; rather, I am going after the content (and what it stands for).

I think the quote above is exactly what a running dog would say to its overbearing masters. "I like DRM and anything else the manufacturers want to do." This just gives me the shivers. Our hard-earned cash is the lifeblood of the studios, and they should recognize that the interplay between provider and consumer is a two-way street. Sure they provide something that we like (and don't really need), but this should not require us to scrape around in the dirt, hoping for crumbs.

I actually have no problem with copy protection on discs -- so long as it does not impede my ordinary use of the disc (or invade my home with unwanted software). I have no tolerance for pirating, and I encourage every pirate I run across to simply stop pirating and buy the discs. I have hundreds of movies on DVD, and I have never backed up any of them (even though I think I am legally allowed to make a backup copy). I have the luxury of buying any movie I want, and, if need be, I can also repurchase any movie that I damage (if I think it is worthy of a second purchase).

But the attitude expressed above is harrowing. At some point, the so-called "rights" of studios just have to let up. What I do in my own home with a copy of a movie that I have purchased should simply be beyond the reach of some studio. We don't accept intrusion into our homes in other arenas (e.g. consensual sexual conduct), so why should we allow intrusion into our other diversions and entertainments?

There is, of course, a difference between consensual sex and movie watching, but that difference, alone, should not allow a studio to reach into my home and control what I do with a copy of a movie they have produced. I recently watched with some interest the fight between various content owners and private parties who were selling edited copies of movies. The setup for this fight was as follows: certain people, who owned a legitimate copy of a movie, would purchase an edited backup of the movie from a private company that was editing backup copies. This edited backup was simply a copy of the movie with certain portions cut out. Well, needless to say, the practice enraged the content owners. For, as they saw it, this defiled their content (I'm paraphrasing). A federal court agreed with the content providers and put a stop to the practice.

What I found interesting about this fight is that the content providers and the federal court treated these copies of movies as if they were original works of art -- the editing, they claimed, was improper because it interfered with their artistic vision and altered the content from its original form. The problem with such thinking, though, is that the owners of these discs only owned copies of the original. Copies. Thus, the editing process did not alter the original work in any fashion. And, more importantly, the resulting edited copies were only being used in people's private homes. (Remember, those who bought the edited backups already owned a legitimate copy of the movie; thus, the content owners had been paid by these people.)

In other words, the playing of the edited copy in a private person's home was the virtual equivalent of a person simply skipping over or fast-forwarding through parts of the movie that the person did not like. But that was a violation of the content owners' so-called "rights." In short, content owners were expressly allowed to determine exactly how a movie would be played back in a private person's home -- and it was accomplished with the assistance of a federal court. This is frightening.

The logical result of this case is this: if I own a book (which is a copy of the original), I can't skip a page (or even a word) of it when reading it. I can't tear out a page. I can't alter an illustration in the book or remove it if it bothers me (or if I think it will bother my children). I probably can't even write in my own personal notes in the margin, because such additional "content" would tend to alter the "original" copy. Or, if I own a print of a famous painting or picture (a print is a copy), I can't deface it by coloring in a mustache. If I buy a magazine, I can't skip past all the advertisements, because then I would be straying from viewing the copyrighted material (copyright includes layout) as intended by the content provider.

I'm being a bit ridiculous, but only a bit. These are the logical results of the fight I outlined above. And this is why overbearing copy protection schemes should be kicked and beaten to death. If content providers' so-called "rights" are elevated above our own and extended into our homes, we will eventually lose rights that we currently enjoy.

And, when the fast-forward and rewind buttons are removed from our remote controls, so that we are forced to watch the film "as it was intended" by the content providers, we will simply smile and say, "Personally, I like DRM and anything else the manufacturers want to do."

I just hope that some of our smiles, in that day, are masking subversion.

Originally Posted by thebland

Bruce Schneider....Who the hell is he? Actually, don't answer. Who cares...

Analogies are idiotic. What does water have to do with DRM? Logic 101: ALL analogies are invalid.

Bottom line. It is the studios content, they can do with it what they like and BD+ is simply a measure to do so. Whether it fails or not, they are trying to protect their property from those who'd steal it . Who'd argue with that?

Bits are inherently copyable, easily and repeatedly. ... What the entertainment industry is trying to do is to use technology to contradict that natural law. They want a practical way to make copying hard enough to save their existing business. But they are doomed to fail.

For these purposes, three kinds of people inhabit the Internet: average users, hackers, and professional pirates. [b]Any security measure will work against the average users, who are at the mercy of their software. Hackers are more difficult to deter. Fifteen years of software copy protection has taught us that, with enough motivation, any copy protection scheme -- even those based on hardware -- can be broken. The professional pirate is even harder to deter; this is someone willing to spend considerable money breaking copy protection, cloning manuals and anti-counterfeiting tags, even building production plants to mass-produce pirated products. If he can make a profit selling the hacked software or stolen music, he will defeat the copy protection.

The entertainment industry knows all of this, and tries to build solutions that work against average users and most hackers. This fails because of a second natural law of the digital world: the ability of software to encapsulate skill. A safe that can keep out 99.9% of all burglars works, because the safe will rarely encounter a burglar with enough skill. But a copy protection scheme with similar characteristics will not, because that one-in-a-thousand hacker can encode his break into software and then distribute it. Then anyone, even an average user, can download the software and use it to defeat the copy protection scheme.

Originally Posted by Shmack

What I found interesting about this fight is that the content providers and the federal court treated these copies of movies as if they were original works of art -- the editing, they claimed, was improper because it interfered with their artistic vision and altered the content from its original form. The problem with such thinking, though, is that the owners of these discs only owned copies of the original. Copies. Thus, the editing process did not alter the original work in any fashion. And, more importantly, the resulting edited copies were only being used in people's private homes. (Remember, those who bought the edited backups already owned a legitimate copy of the movie; thus, the content owners had been paid by these people.)

In other words, the playing of the edited copy in a private person's home was the virtual equivalent of a person simply skipping over or fast-forwarding through parts of the movie that the person did not like. But that was a violation of the content owners' so-called "rights." In short, content owners were expressly allowed to determine exactly how a movie would be played back in a private person's home -- and it was accomplished with the assistance of a federal court. This is frightening.

The logical result of this case is this: if I own a book (which is a copy of the original), I can't skip a page (or even a word) of it when reading it. I can't tear out a page. I can't alter an illustration in the book or remove it if it bothers me (or if I think it will bother my children). I probably can't even write in my own personal notes in the margin, because such additional "content" would tend to alter the "original" copy. Or, if I own a print of a famous painting or picture (a print is a copy), I can't deface it by coloring in a mustache. If I buy a magazine, I can't skip past all the advertisements, because then I would be straying from viewing the copyrighted material (copyright includes layout) as intended by the content provider.

Originally Posted by namechamps

Who the hell is he indeed?

• Considered to be one of the fathers of modern cryptology.
• His book "Applied Cryptology" is considered a cornerstone in any cryptographic education.
• Developed the blowfish algorithm (fastest strong cypher ever designed) and then placed said algorithm in public domain to ensure it will be available for everyone despite the numerous multi million dollar offers from companies like RSA.
• Written I don't know about couple thousand articles, papers, and analysis of modern cryptographic topics.

So I am just taking a wild guess that he understands a little bit more about DRM then you do.

Why an analogy? Well based on your post history and your acceptance of anything the studios do, combined with your inability for self thought or use of a search engine it is unlikely anyone will hold your attention with a counterpoint for more than a few seconds.

The analog is valid. Anything digital it is inherently copyable. Encryption was designed to allow 2 trusted parties to communicate secretly. With DRM one party is trusted (studio) the other party (J6P/hacker/professional pirate) is not. No encryption algorithm can withstand exploitation is an untrusted party is given keys to the castle.

You do understand that encryption and DRM are not simply magical? They requre a fundamental theory in order to be implemented properly. DRM simply is not viable even at the theoretical level.

Now I know you love giving up your fair use rights and believe everything the studios tell you but try and learn something on your own.

Here is a link. It is pretty scary in that it explains why DRM is not pushed to prevent piracy. The studios are not dumb enough to believe their own lies (unlike you). The studios know DRM will NEVER EVER even slow down professional pirates. So why do they implement it?

The Futility of Digital Copy Prevention

Here is a quote.



This article is copy protected but my fair use rights allows me to copy an excerpt. I have the same right to do this with any copyrighted work (movie, tv show, documentary). DRM prevents me from using my rights given as a counterbalance to copyrights. The studios want it both ways copyright with no fair use protection. If Schneier believed in DRM he could have used some DRM technology that would require me to pay $1.99 before I could copy an exceprt of his work. It would be a violation of the fair use clause in copyright act but it would be technically possible just like CSS, AACS, BD+ and more are all possible.


So why are some people anti BD+?

Of the 3 classes of users (pirates, hackers, non tech savy users) only the J6P of the world will be affected. You have to ask yourselves why would studios implement something that affects only the group least likely (or capable) of stealing? If you guessed boosting revenue then you are right.

Want highest quality movies = Buy an HD DVD.
HD DVD doesn't play in your DVD player. = buy a DVD.
Kids scratch DVD = Buy another one (according to thebland it's only $20 more).
You have a video ipod like device and would like to put movies on it when you travel 20+ hours per week for business. Oops you want copy the DVD or HD DVD you already bought. You can buy the same movies again from iTunes for $19.95.
30 years from now BD/HD DVD go the way of VHS "sorry we aren't making players anymore". Your BD player finaly dies. Guess what happens to all your discs you "own". That's right you never owned them as long as they are encrypted. Your lease is now up. Don't worry you can buy them again on whatever format is around.

Take that MPAA cotton out of your ears. DRM is about boosting profits by having law abiding consumers buy the same content over and over and over. DRM has never and will never do anything to stop piracy.

Originally Posted by archibael

That's not how the case turned out, in fact. The federal court found that the editing service (I thought it was ClearPlay, but it may have been a clever clone) did not have the right to produce edited versions of the films as a service. The court expressly did NOT say it wasn't the consumer's right to fast forward through naughty scenes, or mute them-- in fact, IIRC one of the justices said that was perfectly acceptable-- just that the editing service was a violation of copyright law.

Which I can see: they were providing a different version of content they did not own. If I took a book I didn't own the rights to, ripped out all the chapters with sex in them, and started mass-marketing them as cleaner versions of those books, the exact same thing would (and should) happen. Or photocopied them and blotted out the offensive bits with a Sharpie, handing them back to the original purchaser of the book. Taking somebody else's work, modifying it, and selling it for profit is exactly what copyright law is there for prevent.

The edited copies being used in someone's homes was not the problem; no homeowners or customers were prosecuted. It was the editing service that got smacked down in federal court for copyright violations. Bottom line: no matter how I feel about DRM (and I am not a fan) that case was not as egregious against your personal liberties as you're making it out to be.

Personally, I like DRM and anything else the manufacturers want to do.
-- thebland

Thank you, Sir. May I have another!
-- Chip Diller

Originally Posted by namechamps
...Encryption was designed to allow 2 trusted parties to communicate secretly. With DRM one party is trusted (studio) the other party (J6P/hacker/professional pirate) is not. No encryption algorithm can withstand exploitation is an untrusted party is given keys to the castle.

Originally Posted by WayneL

How come I can buy a Ford, modify the hell out of it, sell it at a premium and Ford can't say a thing?

There's a lot more human effort and intelligence put into a car than there is any movie or book. Copyright laws have become rediculous.

These were cases where the IP owner had been paid in full for the product and there was a buyers market for a value-added modified product that was blocked. Can't rationalize that.

Originally Posted by quantumred

Exactly right. DRM is doomed to fail because everyone with a player has the key to unlock it. If you couldn't unlock it, you couldn't see the movie. They're in your HD-DVD and Blu-Ray software, they're in your hardware players.

The keys are obfuscated, but they are in there somewhere. Then it becomes a game for the hackers to find the keys. I think it becomes more of a challenge when the expectations are set, such as the title of this thread. "This is unbreakable. You will never enter the forbidden closet of mystery."

This turns into "only the most super elite with uber skillz can crack me." Kids will devote endless time to this.

So it's pointless for studios to get obsessed about over protection. namechamps is probably right. If the studios are smart, they only care to make it reasonably hard to break to stop J6P. If the studios are stupid, then they foolishly believe that "this time" no one will break it.

Originally Posted by archibael

That's not how the case turned out, in fact. The federal court found that the editing service (I thought it was ClearPlay, but it may have been a clever clone) did not have the right to produce edited versions of the films as a service. The court expressly did NOT say it wasn't the consumer's right to fast forward through naughty scenes, or mute them-- in fact, IIRC one of the justices said that was perfectly acceptable-- just that the editing service was a violation of copyright law.

Which I can see: they were providing a different version of content they did not own. If I took a book I didn't own the rights to, ripped out all the chapters with sex in them, and started mass-marketing them as cleaner versions of those books, the exact same thing would (and should) happen. Or photocopied them and blotted out the offensive bits with a Sharpie, handing them back to the original purchaser of the book. Taking somebody else's work, modifying it, and selling it for profit is exactly what copyright law is there for prevent.

The edited copies being used in someone's homes was not the problem; no homeowners or customers were prosecuted. It was the editing service that got smacked down in federal court for copyright violations. Bottom line: no matter how I feel about DRM (and I am not a fan) that case was not as egregious against your personal liberties as you're making it out to be.

Originally Posted by metalsaber

The studios should keep in mind that J6P isn't buying into next generation discs yet. Nor are J69 "illegally" copying movies. Get over it.

Originally Posted by archibael

I don't think it would be appropriate or should be legal for me to rip various copyrighted images of Mickey Mouse and edit them to show him copulating with Daffy Duck, selling the product to all of my pervy buds who would get a kick out of it... but according to your comments as long the buyers owned the DVDs the original images came from and there was "a buyers market for a value-added modified product", it should not be illegal. I disagree.

If I want to do that in my home and call my buddies over to watch, it's fine; but it's when I step over the line and offer it as a public service that it becomes illegal. And that's what this case dealt with.

Originally Posted by Shmack

The scenario you have described involves a wholly new derivative product being sold to people who have not purchased the original product from which it was derived. That is a markedly different scenario.

Originally Posted by Shmack

Copyright law is intended to make sure that content owners get paid for their work. So, if I have purchased a book or a movie, the content provider has been paid. And, accordingly, I should be able to do what I want with my copy. If I want to read it, frame it, burn it, mutilate it, or just throw it away, I should be allowed to do so. If I want to edit it for my personal use, I should be able to do that, as well. And it should make no difference if -- to enjoy it in the way I want to enjoy it in my home -- I need to bring in some kind of service provider to facilitate my needs.

Originally Posted by Icemage

You're talking about modification of existing work that is already paid for. Most everyone else is talking about copying of said work without paying the content owner. Big difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Shmack

I know. But my point is that some copy protection efforts have reached the point of prohibiting what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Icemage

They're totally separate legal scenarios. In the case of modification, the content owner has been paid in full, and can object only in the sense if any modifications you make are deleterious to the owner's IP (and even then there's nothing they can do if you're doing something like making a political statement or using it as satire; take the movie Supersize Me for instance).

When you make a replica of a copyrighted work, however, a whole new set of rules come into play (fair use, maximum damages, etc.).

Whether we like it or not, these are the rules we live by as a society. I don't say that because I think it's a great system; it's obviously not, and there are many abuses of it from both sides, ranging from piracy to nonsensical cease and desist orders to fansites. That doesn't mean that we should be tossing aside said rules out of personal convenience and greed (you can dress it up however way you like, but that's really what it comes down to).

Originally Posted by Shmack

Actually it is as bad as I said.

As you have explained, the federal court prohibited the company from providing a service that was related to producing an edited copy of a copy of an original.

The company providing the editing service was not making money off of the edited film -- they were making money from the editing service that they provided. And why should content providers (who have already been paid by the purchaser of the movie) be able to stop such services? (Remember, each person who used the editing service, had to have purchased an "original" legitimate copy from the content provider; thus, the content provider was not losing any revenue.)

What you are telling me is that I can't purchase a book, pay someone to read that book with a sharpie in hand and mark out certain words, and then give that book back to me. But that is ridiculous.

If I want to mark out the words in a book, I should be able to do it, and no one should be able to come and look through my library to see if I have kept the books in their "original" state.

Likewise, if I want to pay someone to provide that service, I should be able to pay someone to provide that service.

If I want to invite someone into my home to read my books to me, for a fee, I should be able to do that -- even if I ask them to omit certain parts that I don't want to hear. And if a reading service wants to set up their own business and invite people to bring their books in for professional readers to read to the book owners, they should be able to do that -- even if they advertise the fact that their readers are very good at omitting certain boring or sexually explicit or redundant parts of the book.

Copyright law is intended to make sure that content owners get paid for their work. So, if I have purchased a book or a movie, the content provider has been paid. And, accordingly, I should be able to do what I want with my copy. If I want to read it, frame it, burn it, mutilate it, or just throw it away, I should be allowed to do so. If I want to edit it for my personal use, I should be able to do that, as well.

And it should make no difference if -- to enjoy it in the way I want to enjoy it in my home -- I need to bring in some kind of service provider to facilitate my needs.

Originally Posted by Shmack

No, that's not what the case dealt with. What you are describing is a true derivative work. If you take copyrighted images, change them, add to them, and then sell them for profit, you are illegally profiting from the sell of a derivative work.

The editers of these movies were providing a service for people who had already legitimately purchased their original copy from the content providers. The scenario you have described involves a wholly new derivative product being sold to people who have not purchased the original product from which it was derived. That is a markedly different scenario.

It was my fault and I took responsibility for it and repurchased the disc. I suppose, like others here, I could petition the studio for a free replacement.

Originally Posted by gooki

This poorly describe dsituation seems to be comming up more and more often without being prompted form the other side.

No one is arguing a studio should send you a "fee replacement", we're arguing about ones right to expend their own time, effort, and money to make your own replacement. And perosnally i don't like being told what i can and cannot do with my own time and money.

Originally Posted by WayneL

How come I can buy a Ford, modify the hell out of it, sell it at a premium and Ford can't say a thing? .