PDA

View Full Version : sony's blu-ray DRM techniques



WildTangent
August 10th, 2005, 10:40 PM
i gotta say, Sony is evil....

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050810_131820.html

the part that enrages me most is this:

One part of the announcement that had been anticipated by experts was Blu-ray's embrace of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), one version of which has also been adopted by the HD DVD Forum. This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making it possible for discs that fail a security check to trigger a notification process, enabling the provider to send the player a sort of "self-destruct code." This code would come in the form of a flash ROM "update" that would actually render the player useless, perhaps unless and until it is taken to a repair shop for reprogramming. The Blu-ray statement noted that certain elements of AACS have yet to be formally approved by the BDA.

-Wild

SKLP
August 10th, 2005, 11:23 PM
i... hate..... DRM ](*,)

basse1989
August 10th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Oh.. somewhat like palladium. I hate those greedy companies.... evil is the word. :mad:

SKLP
August 10th, 2005, 11:30 PM
hmm i dont think they are "evil". they simply want profit :P

macgyver2
August 10th, 2005, 11:33 PM
One part of the announcement that had been anticipated by experts was Blu-ray's embrace of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), one version of which has also been adopted by the HD DVD Forum. This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making it possible for discs that fail a security check to trigger a notification process, enabling the provider to send the player a sort of "self-destruct code." This code would come in the form of a flash ROM "update" that would actually render the player useless, perhaps unless and until it is taken to a repair shop for reprogramming. The Blu-ray statement noted that certain elements of AACS have yet to be formally approved by the BDA.
I don't see how they can do that. Are they going to require notebooks or portable DVD players to do that? What happens when I want to watch something on my portable player on an airline flight? Are they going to demand that anyone who wants a player in their car must shell out for mobile satellite internet? I just don't see how that'll ever pass consumer approval. And if they make exceptions for portable players, I'll just get one of those and hook it up to my TV. I just don't understand how their idea is even remotely feasible, but then again that's just from reading this article. Can anyone expand on this any further?

Kyral
August 10th, 2005, 11:37 PM
I'd think that would be illegal, flashing the ROM on people. Then again, you know that even if they did do it, there would be a way around it within a month

RastaMahata
August 10th, 2005, 11:43 PM
heh, sounds like what steam does already...

This is simply dumb. How far can they go with this? Now they can charge me as much as they want for a movie ($$$), they tell me what player to use ($$$), because if I use another one, the media i BOUGHT from them might burn in pieces, and if I use a backup, my player (the one they told me to buy) would break until i take it to them and PAY even more money for a fix ($$$).

So I end up paying more, being afraid of what I can play or not and where I can do it...
Bah, If only regular people would know about DRM :(

basse1989
August 10th, 2005, 11:43 PM
I tought of that too, and I don't know. I just think it's really greedy of them to even think of something like that.

OttoDestruct
August 11th, 2005, 12:37 AM
Now, maybe I'm overreacting......

but isn't the control which companies are going after here resembling nazi germany?

poofyhairguy
August 11th, 2005, 01:28 AM
Now, maybe I'm overreacting......

but isn't the control which companies are going after here resembling nazi germany?

Damn. Godwin's Law has come out:



There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Some would argue, however, that Godwin's law applies especially to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotions as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared to, which are classic logical fallacies. Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a good comparison to anything besides other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin's law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface, would seem to be a reasonable comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

OttoDestruct
August 11th, 2005, 01:37 AM
Damn. Godwin's Law has come out

I'm quite familiar with Godwin's :grin:. I'm just saying, this level of control is beyong trying to protect copyright, it's physically limiting what the consumer decides what they can and can't do.

poofyhairguy
August 11th, 2005, 02:28 AM
I'm quite familiar with Godwin's :grin:. I'm just saying, this level of control is beyong trying to protect copyright, it's physically limiting what the consumer decides what they can and can't do.

A company deciding what people can do with their products is far different that a government deciding what people do with their lives.

We must use moderate, reasonable comparisons or we can never deliver the message that "DRM is bad" to the masses of non nerds in the world.

RastaMahata
August 11th, 2005, 03:34 AM
A company deciding what people can do with their products is far different that a government deciding what people do with their lives.

We must use moderate, reasonable comparisons or we can never deliver the message that "DRM is bad" to the masses of non nerds in the world.
damn! there goes my 1984 quote :P

BWF89
August 11th, 2005, 04:05 AM
One part of the announcement that had been anticipated by experts was Blu-ray's embrace of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), one version of which has also been adopted by the HD DVD Forum. This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making it possible for discs that fail a security check to trigger a notification process, enabling the provider to send the player a sort of "self-destruct code." This code would come in the form of a flash ROM "update" that would actually render the player useless, perhaps unless and until it is taken to a repair shop for reprogramming. The Blu-ray statement noted that certain elements of AACS have yet to be formally approved by the BDA.
Wouldn't the disc only fail the security check if you were useing a pirated copy and thus breaking the law?

How is that evil?

WildTangent
August 11th, 2005, 05:19 AM
Wouldn't the disc only fail the security check if you were useing a pirated copy and thus breaking the law?

How is that evil?
because it limits legal uses of copying movies, IE to make backups for your personal use. also, what if someone were to figure out a way to flash other peoples players, rendering them useless.

-Wild

nocturn
August 11th, 2005, 07:30 AM
i gotta say, Sony is evil....

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050810_131820.html

the part that enrages me most is this:


-Wild

I hope they do the self-destruct bit. Under Belgian law, they'd be buying me a new player every time (modding is not illegal, something like they do is).

agger
August 11th, 2005, 07:32 AM
Wouldn't the disc only fail the security check if you were useing a pirated copy and thus breaking the law?

How is that evil?

DVD discs break very easily and are very expensive.
What if I made a backup copy and used that in order to save the
original from harm?

What if I burnt my own home videos on a DVD in order to watch - they would
fail the check!

And what about movies, programs, etc., I recorded from TV in order to
watch them later - they would ALSO fail the check!

And, worse: Would we ever see some sort of moral pressure on vendors
not to supply DRM "authorized" copies of certain kinds of content, e.g.
sexually explicit or politically controversial content?

Then we might see a repetition of the hysteria which created the
Comics Code and forced the sutdown of all of ECs horror, war and
SF titles.

If you want an apt comparison without resorting to Nazi Germany or the
East Block, there you go: EC and the Comics Code, which effectively
meant two decades of censorship for mainstream American comics.

macgyver2
August 11th, 2005, 05:01 PM
A company deciding what people can do with their products is far different that a government deciding what people do with their lives.
When you say it like that, I agree. However, in my opinion it's not so simple a binary situation as you put it.

What happens when the companies limit your personal freedoms and the government backs those limitations?

What if Sony wins out and they do require all blu-ray players to have that internet callback feature enabled. So now I can't watch any HD-DVDs without having an internet connection. That limits the personal freedom of anyone who wants to watch HD-DVDs. I have a few relatives who would be harmed by that. They like buying and watching DVDs but they couldn't care less about the internet. Now they're supposed to start shelling out $30 or $40 extra dollars a month just to watch movies? How is that fair? I say it's not.

Yet if someone comes up with a way to circumvent the need for an internet connection (say software that overwrites the ROM) that person will be hit with a lawsuit, and looking at the judicial climate today would probably be ordered to cease and desist. If I'm found to be in possession of that software, I get in trouble too, even if I'm not doing anything illegal with it.

Now how is that right?

Here is how I see it: I buy a DVD player...it is now mine...the money I paid for it is now the company's. If the company wants to use my money to help expand its corporate offices, they can. It's now the company's money. And if I want to modify the DVD player why should I not be able to do that. It's now my DVD player. Of course it would be possible for someone to do something illegal with the modification (just as it would be possible for the company to do something illegal with the new office space).

Just because there's the possibility that the modification can be used for illegal purposes, I just don't see how the modification can be shown to be inherently illegal.

Anyway, I'm drifting away from my original point...which was that the companies keep giving themselves more and more rights at the expense of my personal freedoms...and the government upholds those grabs.

WildTangent
August 11th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Anyway, I'm drifting away from my original point...which was that the companies keep giving themselves more and more rights at the expense of my personal freedoms...and the government upholds those grabs.
welcome to todays capitalistic world. if you dont like it, talk to your local member of office, write letters to senators (yes, write on paper! its worth more than any email)

-Wild

macgyver2
August 11th, 2005, 05:41 PM
welcome to todays capitalistic world. if you dont like it, talk to your local member of office, write letters to senators (yes, write on paper! its worth more than any email)
Oh I do. But sometimes I wonder how effective it really is, at least in my country, when the corporations can say more with one campaign donation check than thousands of people can say with letters, or even face-to-face visits with members of Congress...especially when the government works to prevent transparency in the process of governance.

BWF89
August 11th, 2005, 06:02 PM
So were going to have to connect your HD-DVD and Blu Ray players to the internet so we can watch movies?