AACS hacked to expose Volume ID: WinDVD patch irrelevant
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Apr 10th 2007 6:04AM
posted Apr 10th 2007 6:04AM
The DRM "protecting" HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc films -- AACS -- continues to unravel at the seams. In parallel efforts, hackers in both the Xboxhacker and Doom9 forums have exposed the "Volume ID" for discs played on XBOX 360 HD DVD drives. Any inserted disc will play without first authenticating with AACS, even those with Volume IDs which have already been revoked by the AACS LA due to previous hacking efforts. Add the exposed processing keys and you can decrypt and backup your discs for playback on any device of your choosing. So yeah, it looks like last week's WinDVD update has been quickly and definitively made useless just as we expected it would be. Well, for XBOX 360 HD DVD drive owners anyway but you can see where this is heading, right? Now go ahead AACS LA, revoke the Toshiba-built XBOX 360 HD DVD player... we double-dog dare ya.
Brilliant!
What this fuz all about?
I did not even feelt any DRM restrictions, EVER!
I buying DVDs, CDs and there was never any problem to rip when I want to...
Then you obviously do not have a PMP that you wish to use your DVDs on.
There are many reasons that DRM is unreasonably restrictive. This is but one example.
Eventually, they'll realise that no matter what they do, the copy protection will be broken and that the money would be far better spent on publicity campaigns to stop people pirating.
"Eventually, they'll realise that no matter what they do, the copy protection will be broken and that the money would be far better spent on publicity campaigns to stop people pirating."
Or, you know, making movies that don't suck so bad people aren't willing to pay for them?
You hear that?
Sounds like chickens coming home to roost.
I wonder if the people breaking these copy protection schemes realize that every time they break a new copy protection scheme another will come along that is worse for the consumer. They just don't get it. They are ruining products for the rest of us.
7of7, give me your lunch money, trekkie! stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!
"I wonder if the people breaking these copy protection schemes realize that every time they break a new copy protection scheme another will come along that is worse for the consumer."
Tell it to EMI. That's the real fruit of this labor. And it's just starting.
You can't be serious. DRM is what is ruining it for everyone. We're doing everyone a favor by breaking it. Fair use is were it's at. DRM can and always will be broken. It's broken by design. You can’t have a system where you give someone the lock AND the key and expect it not to be broken. The whole premise is faulty. It doesn’t prevent distribution of copyrighted material. It’s just a huge waste-of-time that causes tech support headaches for users and wastes the money of those making products.
Seeing that the music industry is finally going DRM free, maybe the Movie industry should follow suit and start offering DRM free HD-DVD and blueray disks.
DRM doesn't do anything but annoy everyone. Most people I'll admit don't care. These are the people that will play the disks on a DVD player of sorts. But there is also a large number of us that are tech savy and do allot of things cause we can. We want to play out movies of NAS storage devices and stream them from our broadband to our mobile devices and the sorts. DRM will always get broken so it has already failed its intended purpose of preventing sharing.
Only reason I have never bought music or any media online is the simple fact that if I buy a cd or a movie online I expect to be able to play it anywhere I want to. If they start offering movies online that are DRM free then I will certainly buy them, it will guarantees me the quality of the rip. If I want it on a disk, I will put it on one when I am god dam ready for it. Why should I pay for a DVD disk and case and packaging when all I am going to do is go home, rip it, and store it on the server...
7of7 : actually the industry ruins the product by using copy protections .. not the other way round ..
@7of7:
no they don't, the DVDs protction was cracked as well, and as far as i know they just leave it at that when enough users have switched, because you can not make people "upgrade" after a certain amount of players is sold to non-enthusiasts. there are only a couple of choices, either quit patching the holes in the scheme, and let a couple of people use the media they bought like they want to use it (i.e. rip a dvd to put it on their PMP) or they update everything over and over, what means that people would have to understand that they can't play movies on their player anymore, since its key was revoced for security reasons. try explaining that to people that just bought a player.
More piracy cheerleading from Thomas Ricker? Egads, I can hardly believe what I'm reading!
Nij,
This is the second time you've called out an Engadget editor for our anti-DRM, pro fair use position. What's your problem, son? If you fail to understand the difference between our position and "piracy cheerleading" then perhaps you'd be happier posting elsewhere... or not at all.
Your mini rant has added nothing to the conversation. Contribute or be gone.
Thomas
@Nij
Try learning about YOUR/OUR rights as a consumer! Stop name calling like a 3 year old and try reading. It's NOT against the law to make 1 copy of a Disc (Movie, Music, Video Game). Now, if I give a copy to a friend or family member... well ok that's a different story.
If you want to get pissed off -- try taking your ranting ass over to China -- where they are banging out DVD's copies for 10 cents and selling them for a dollar.
I have to agree the author of this article, Thomas Ricker, and say -- you're stupid. And you're not bring anything to conversation.
I hate DRM. It is a useless, waste of money that does nothing but increase the cost of the disks. However, since those costs are all passed along to the consumer, and since the executives running the corporations have absolutely no clue about how the technology works - DRM is here to stay. IMHO, they are not trying to keep 100% of the disks from being copied - they are simply trying to make it difficult enough that the vast majority of people won't/can't copy them. If they can make DRM that prevents a pop-up window that says "Do you want to make a copy?" when the typical user puts it in the drive, they have accomplished 90%+ of their goals.
Ricker,
It's a simple enough equation:
Your gleeful posts about stripping DRM from consumer media
+
Ryan and Peter constantly talking on the podcast about how they get all of their content over BitTorrent
+
Me not being a naive fool
=
You're promoting piracy. Again.
Go ahead and ban me for calling you on what you're doing; I can't stop you. But don't think we're stupid enough to believe that the only reason you want DRM off of online media is because of the principle of the thing.
Every one of you who has been claiming they download pirated material only because the industry won't offer DRM-free material better be running to iTunes to load up on EMI songs.
You need to step up and show them you weren't lying about really wanting to pay DRM-free material. The moment the EMI material shows up on file shares or people don't buy it, every other media company will say "see people were lying, they are really willing to pay DRM-free material, they just wanted us to help them pirate our content."
You can't just make a blog post about how great DRM-free material is, now that it is available you MUST actually support it.
I see what you're saying about proving that we support DRM-free media, but I will not be running to iTunes. Ever. I thought $1 per song was too much anyway, and now the DRM-free versions are more. And I don't like how iTunes does things; you can't download stuff you bought more than once, and the whole authentication thing has screwed with me too much over the years. Apparently I can only authorize 2 more computers (out of 5) even though I've been on the same one all along.
I know a lot of people consider allofmp3.com to be a little shady, but... that's what it has to be for now.
Aaron, in reply to Peter....
You can authorize any of your machine multiple times, when you hit 5 you can then deauthorize all and then reauthorize them one by one. Apple makes it really easy to authorize machine.
Album prices are thee same for pretty good quality files.
allofmp3 is not just a "little" shady but completely illegal and pays not one penny to the artists. You are paying thieves for stolen goods.
It is because of people like you that DRM exists to begin with...
they areN'T really willing to pay DRM-free material
A summary of our favorite comments from Nij,
"Sorry, but anyone who has read Engadget for at least a month knows how much they hate the iPod and hate the iTunes Music Store; so seeing yet another pointless Apple-bashing story is not surprising, even considering that it's not even attempting to be newsworthy or address anything relevant. That's par for the course at this site."
"At least Engadget is willing to admit, through the way it covers stories like these, that it does not support content creators being compensated for the content they create."
"it never ceases to amaze me how much time Engadget spends promoting piracy with posts like this one. I guess that's the unique thing about blogs-- they don't have to pretend they have any integrity."
"Yes, let's completely rush an extremely important technological standard so that Engadget can add more useless complaining to every story they post. Great reporting, as usual."
Now he can hate us from a distance. Banned. Thanks for playing Nij,
Thomas
DRM has nothing to do with the prevention of piracy.
It's all about limiting fair use, locking out competition and increasing profits.
Banning someone simply for disagreeing with you is a far worse form of information control that any DRM.
Now it's clear; we can rag on each other all we want, but the moment we start to rag on the author, we get banned.
I think you need to lighten up a bit. People like Nij are better ignored than banned. If the group thinks they are completely off base, other commenters will let them know.
I have to completely agree with Peter...it's pretty lame to ban someone just for having a different opinion. While Nij's one line rant didn't contribute anything to the conversation, neither did the comments from paralipsis, strider_mt2k, or dan. I can ignore his comment the same as theirs, and he is certainly not an idiot fanboy.
Nij does bring up an interesting point though... Where do the Engadget editors stand on content creators being fairly compensated for their work? Are you anti-DRM simply for 'fair use' or are you really getting all of your content/software over BitTorrent? Ricker never responded to this.
Nij did seem pretty annoying, but I think banning him was kind of lame.
I hate region protection...Im an Aussie living in Japan and I have legally bought DVDs from Australia, Japan, Canada and America. I just want to play the dvds that I bought on a good dvd system. My 24 inch Imac is the Japanese region - My old ibook is the Australian region - I have a US playstation that plays the US/Canadian dvds.
Its crap !!! just give us region free movies (also to add - Im sick of having to wait for 6 + months for a movie to come out in Japan so thats why my mates send dvds to me from overseas)
Peter:
Signal to noise ratio. You can only ignore so much. Look at the forums of Ars Technica and see trolls and fanboys ruin most discussions. Want that here?
artifex, I don't think we are anywhere close to that. A large number of posts get almost no comments and most of the posts that are made are completely relevant. You can't say that even a majority of the posts here are useful and add to the conversation. (I've made my share of "robotic overload" posts).
It does seem that the authors here and at Download Squad are particularly thin-skinned about comments directed at them. They gladly let the group rip into each other with as many insults, lies and distorted facts as they want, but the moment someone makes a negative comment (true or not) about the post itself or the author they are all over him.
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it." -Voltaire
Don't you think banning the guy is a little harsh?
DRM schemes and formats do wonders for the patent holders who set up licensing bodies to collect all the royalties on their systems. So in that sense, they have succeeded even with the schemes broken. Everyone is paying through the nose to simply get on a 'common format'. No surprises who that benefits. Independent content always suffers when Hollywood itself is controlling the standards, no?
http://www.vorbis.com
http://flac.sourceforge.net
Seriously? I have to admit I am severely disappointed in the lack of maturity w/the reactionary bs on this one. While nij's comments are quite negative, they're far from the trolling types of comments that are all over this site already. If an author can't take a bit of criticism and has to resort to calling people names like 'son' and to over-react by calling a minor, sarcastic quibble a 'mini-rant', then get so overly defensive as to have to find a bunch of their comments and post them in a severly passive-aggressive fashion... jeez. I'm not sure what the point of having a comments section is if people aren't allow to make them, or to disagree with you or not like what you're doing. You can't have thin skin and take it personally, because you've just seriously undermined the value this site has to offer. I'm really disgusted by that. As far as signal to noise goes, I'd rather someone make a negative comment that relates to the topic (that could add to the discussion) than a bunch of 'buy gold for wow' and name-calling 'you suck because you like products made by some company I don't like' posts. I would have loved to have seen an intelligent rebuttal to what nij said, which may have enlightened everyone involved, but the defensiveness makes it seem like he was spot on in what he said instead. Why not just counterpoint with another viewpoint in an intelligent fashion? Why not prove him wrong or just admit he's right and move on?
All I can I think of when I read this article was Queen's We Will Rock You.
Buddy you’re a boy make a big noise
Playin’ in the street gonna be a big man some day
You got mud on yo’ face
You big disgrace
Kickin’ your can all over the place
We will we will rock you
We will we will rock you
Maybe young master Ricker would be happier posting somewhere else. Or, better yet, not at all as the tiniest amount of criticism seems to be too harsh for him.
I say good riddance to Naj. If he hates the site so much he should just keep his mouth shut and let the rest of us enjoy it.
I'm glad they banned him. "You're all pirates because Ryan talks about bittorrent on his podcast" is hardly constructive criticism.
Whoa - I am very disappointed in the staff of Engadget. The list of comments that you posted by Nij are not any worse than many that I have read in the comments here before. If you are going to ban people for disagreeing with you then a lot of people might be happier not visiting/posting here.
The fact is that Engadget is not neutral about the stories they post. Each poster has their own likes and dislikes about technologies and brands. These preferences come through loud and clear in your posts. If your blog is not neutral then how can you expect your readers to be neutral?
All this is, is the continuing over-exaduration of piracy. The movie industry makes it out to be a huge loss to them every year, when in reality, if their profits percentage is damaged into double digits I'd be very much surprised.
They over charge us for movies just to be greeted to poorly made "DONT PIRATE" movie clips and legal warnings plastered all over menus and parts of the movie. How is this fair for the large majority of people who are buying legit movies? If anything this kind of behaviour is going to piss off people and encourage them to pirate movies more than ever, not to mention they're actually reminding people they can pirate DVDs off the internet. It's madness.
Also, as much as Nij was an asshat, banning him wont win you many points from others. Here we are talking about freedom of media and you wont let others have their freedom of speech, sorry but there's nothing good coming out of that move. =/
This is how I see the above posting thread:
- Nij posts his "mini rant". While his post is a personal attack on Ricker and I believe engadget would be better without such posts, it does present his opinion on the topic at hand and thereby, IMO, he has "added to the conversation". (sort of :))
- Ricker demeaningly asks him to clarify his post: "What's your problem, son?"
- Nij does just that by outlining the basis for his jab at Ricker. He does so in a concise, easy to read fashion, clearly showing his reasoning.
- Ricker quotes from several posts of Nij, all of which "bash" Engadget. He then bans Nij. Now how does this post "add to the conversation"? In all likelihood, Ricker was already writing this post even before Nij responded and was going to ban Nij after he posted, regardless of what he said.
Now I'll just quote Peter's post because he's already said what I want to say:
"
Banning someone simply for disagreeing with you is a far worse form of information control that any DRM.
Now it's clear; we can rag on each other all we want, but the moment we start to rag on the author, we get banned.
I think you need to lighten up a bit. People like Nij are better ignored than banned. If the group thinks they are completely off base, other commenters will let them know.
"
This thread, specifically Ricker's actions, really, really undermines the integrity of, and lowers my respect for, Engadget.
Nij was banned *not* for criticizing Engadget or because I am a thin-skinned editor, but for the following reasons:
1) in just a matter of days, he publically slandered both myself and our managing editor accusing us of criminal activity (for the record, I DO NOT use bittorrent - I buy CDs and rip).
2) His comments are historically 90% Engadget bashing adding nothing to the conversation. What I shared earlier is just a tip of his hateberg for flavoring. We tolerated this for months until (1).
As a footnote: commenting is not a right. Stay on topic and treat us and your peers with respect and you can say what you want.
Well, no one ever once said 'you're all pirates' nor implied that. He felt the site has a very pro-piracy slant, and expressed his opinion. If his critisism wasn't constructive, why not rise above it and be the 'bigger person' and educate/enlighten him? Why retort w/a ban; is that in any way constructive critisism? I'd rather see the misogynistic, dismissive/p-a, offtopic crap moderated first. Moderated doesn't equal banned. It's just if someone is negative, nothing positive or good comes out of reacting to that in an equally negative fashion. And quite frankly, I have yet to hear any really good, compelling reason for why drm is bad. All I've heard is 'we want to take our media and turn it into another format'. Well, that to me seems like buying vinyl records then having to buy the CD of the same thing to play it in a different device. I can certainly see that it'd be great if someone offered a digital license that enabled me to use the product in several formats, but right now the idea seems to be that you buy one medium/format, and the license is for that. Nothing in fair use that I am aware of says anything about entitlement to change the format of the product to use on something different. Nor do I see any other type of product on the market where if I break it, I haven't lost it; if I break a disc, that's my bad, just like breaking a dish. It'd be nice if you registered the license and could get a new one, like with software, but it's not an expensive enough product to warrant that. I'd just like to hear something intelligent on the matter, that doesn't have anything to do with executives or artists, or 'evil' companies, or any entitlement bs. I'm not equating drm with piracy at all, but I do think people don't have as much appreciation for the products since they're not 'physical', and since they're a luxury item.
Well, I think you mean libel, not slander. If you're going to accuse someone of a crime in saying they accused you of a crime, at least get the right one. So now, you've just stooped to his level and accused him of a crime. I'm not sure how that makes the situation better.
He seems like a very negative/bitter individual, but I have to admit, some of those questions he asked seemed like legitimate queries, not just grumblings. I'm sure it was a mixture, and I'm sure it gets old to hear people whine and complain like that. However, it comes across as knee-jerk reactionism when you don't clearly define the rules to him (like a 'reminder of the tos' warning), then give him the option to abide by them or not. There are some topics that people are going to be very passionate about, but if you give them a choice and tell them their parameters/rules, that demonstrates respect, and hopefully fosters an environment of mutual respect. It certainly won't always work out that way, but you can try to encourage it to happen through your actions too.
Commenting is absolutely not a right, but of course many feel entitled to it, just like they feel entitled to other things that are priviledges. But there are many times where I see that derogatory comments about women go by (one instance was when someone called me 'dickless' - did that contribute to the conversation? Was that on topic? Hell no, and it's a direct tos violation), where people put down each other, and it slides by. I think it would be great if/when you banned someone to say, 'name, you've been banned for violating this tos item:' and post the violation. That might make people realize what the rules are and encourage them to 'play nice with others'. Just a thought.
OK, if he publically slandered you and/or another editor, then that may warrant a banning. HOWEVER, what/when/where is the slander?
Nothing he said in this thread, nor the quotes of his you provided prior to banning him constitute slander IMO. What they show is his disagreement/dislike/ for you & fellow editors (which you called "hate") and you yourself seem that this is what you got out of them as well:
"Now he can hate us from a distance. Banned. Thanks for playing Nij,"
(BTW, that really makes the post come off as a quick-fired retort from an agitated, "thin-skinned" editor)
The closest thing I could see is this:
"Ryan and Peter constantly talking on the podcast about how they get all of their content over BitTorrent"
But, because you specifally said he slandered you, I do not think this is to what you are referring. If it is, then I still don't think this is slander, especially if they DO talk about getting their content over BitTorrent (I do not listen to the podcasts)!
I'm not going to search the threads for the purported slander; if you can easily provide it, then please by all means do so.
Commenting is not a right. You can run the blog however you please. And staying on topic and being respectful are very good guidelines. My issue is that you are justifying your actions (the banning) with something that, judging from the evidence so far presented, is untrue.
Assuming I am wrong, and he DID slander Engadget editors, and THIS is why he was banned, then it should have been made more clear that was the case when he was banned.
"As a footnote: commenting is not a right. Stay on topic and treat us and your peers with respect and you can say what you want."
Thomas, there is another privilege that I think you are overlooking here, and that is YOUR enjoyment of our good patronage. You have just swatted a gnat, but in the process you have dishonored what is arguably the single most venerable concept of human freedom - the right to be heard. And it is offensive. It is offensive to the degree that it raises doubt on your ability to convincingly take a principled stand on ANY issue of personal or civil liberty. It is the single most self-undermining act you could possibly perform with your keyboard alone.
And yes, you are correct that it is your right to reign as you will in your kingdom. But that kingdom will shrink in proportion to the pettiness with which you rule until you find yourself with no subjects at all. You can make the rules in your playground, but it is up to us to decide if we are going to play there or not. For my part, I will not. Engadget has shown its colors and my sense of honor won't allow it. But I earnestly recommend that you apologize to the community and bring the gnat back. If for no other reason than as an example that you DO in fact understand that the price of liberty isn't merely constant vigilance, but on occasion perpetual irritation at the voices of dissension.
Banning Nij wasn't right. I've seen a whole LOT of comments on Engadget that were abusive, derogatory, pointless, or just plain stupid.
Nij's comments had some valid points in there. Engadget does have a bias against anything DRM/anti-piracy. And that's fine as long as you let the users point it out to you and take the opposite stance in the comments section.
This was a childish move made in haste.
Like it or not kids, this ain't your website. It's also not the secret police coming in the night and hauling off innocent people, so relax. It's Engadget, and the guy was being a dick for little or no reason. He wasn't disagreeing or "expressing" himself, he was being a dick. And now he's done, see?
Get off your collective soap box. You're not "better" people because you wouldn't personally have banned the guy. And Mr. Ricker is by no means obligated to tell you why Nij got banned; it's pretty clear.
What's with all the "banning" business anyway.. How do you "ban" someone from posting on a blog? Anyone can change their IP address / email / username - then come back and keep posting. Waste of time.
sure, but how do you deauthorize a computer that has fallen down a well? You can't. You lose.
Obiwan, as I said, it does not matter - once you have authorized ANY machines, 5 in all, you get an option to reset authorization to 0 - then any machine that has your tunes on it will not be able to play them until they are reauthorized. If it fell down a well, it just does not get reauthorized. This is REALLY EASY to do. See here:
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/store/authorization/
"How do I deauthorize all of my computers?
If you have authorized five computers, a button labeled "Deauthorize All" will appear in your Account Information screen. This button will deauthorize all computers associated with your account. You can then reauthorize up to 5 computers. Note: You can only use this feature once a year."
Nij was basically the forum equivelant of a heckler. Why repeatedly come here if you hate it so much? I agree that if 90% of what he said was negative then engadget had the right to give him the boot. This is a blog, people. If someone comes over to my house monh after month and criticised my food negatively after every meal I'd want him out too. Personally, I come to this site because it gives me simple, up-to-date information on "gadgets" for free. Not politics. I could care less about the agenda of the editors or how they get their music. I read the comments section because I like to see if anyone has added anything useful to the piece I just read, and it's frustrating sifting through irrelevant conversation about the ethics of the site or the product being discussed.
> If someone comes over to my house monh after month and criticised
> my food negatively after every meal I'd want him out too.
True, but not a great analogy, unless you're handing your dinner guests "how was my dinner" feedback forms. This site may be a blog, but there comment form is there for a reason.
> Personally, I come to this site because it gives me simple,
> up-to-date information on "gadgets" for free. Not politics.
What can I say, they also post about DRM, which is more than just information on "gadgets", it's clearly a political topic. The author(s) also include graphics implying their position on DRM ("down with DRM" in this post, "DRM is killing music and it's a rip-off" in the "DRM: the state of disrepair" post).
Sorry that it is frustrating to you.
> If someone comes over to my house monh after month and criticised
> my food negatively after every meal I'd want him out too.
True, but not a great analogy, unless you're handing your dinner guests "how was my dinner" feedback forms. This site may be a blog, but their comment form is there for a reason.
> Personally, I come to this site because it gives me simple,
> up-to-date information on "gadgets" for free. Not politics.
What can I say, they also post about DRM, which is more than just information on "gadgets", it's clearly a political topic. The author(s) also include graphics implying their position on DRM ("down with DRM" in this post, "DRM is killing music and it's a rip-off" in the "DRM: the state of disrepair" post).
Sorry that it is frustrating to you.
I for one salute our new Engadget editorial overlords!
P.S Please don't ban me I'm joking :-)
Content Industries (RIAA, MPAA, etc): As long as I can hear or see your content, it's mine for the taking. Give up on DRM and try harder with publicity and enforcement.
so then.. that should mean as long as I can see and hear your car, it's mine for the taking. You own your car, I want it, I jimmy the lock, and voila there I go with it.
That Nij thought Engadget is anti-Apple and anti-iPod is pretty ridiculous... Engadget.
Anyway... terrible movies are making money just because the advertising is good. Something is wrong there, you buy without knowing what you're getting. Bad thing. Same with buying a DVD. Buying movies online would help... if quality AND price would be alright. $1-2 per movie maybe. When it's more expensive than a DVD... no thanks. I prefer having a DVD sitting next to me on the shelf. Looks better. Having an upgrade path would be fine too.
The EMI offer... step in the right direction, the product itself is fine (except that I don't want AAC... give me Ogg or MP3). But the price...
"You're all pirates because Ryan talks about bittorrent on his podcast"
You DO know what quotes are right? I don't recall reading that in his final pre-ban post.
What I do find ironic is the Soviet style "down with DRM" banner and the style of dealing with dissent on the board.
Yes Comrade, Engadget is incapable of error and glorious in all manner of things. We shall never question them for the state is all-knowing.
To Peter @ Apr 10th 2007 8:47AM
Why should anyone be rushing to buy 128 kbps (read: FM radio quality) EMI tracks on Itunes? Dont you realize that the reason they are selling you a crap quality rip that it is just another form of DRM? They degrade it so that you cant do much with it and they dont care about your listening experience. Duh - why support that.
The only thing I pay for are CD's DVD's or lossless tracks from places like Bleep.com. The rest they can keep - aint paying for anything in useless sound quality I cannot rip and and play in any format I like
I already published this like 2 days ago... what a crock.
DLTV.WORDPRESS.com
I think those of us that read Engadget know that many of the writers are snide, arrogant, petulant and so forth, but it's all in fun. However, banning someone because he slandered (or libeled, I'm no lawyer) an editor without any proof whatsoever of same is overreaction. Probably 80% of the commments on Engadget newspieces are not meaningful in any legitimate sense of the word. Are we now going to be banned if our off-the-cuff comments have to be carefully vetted by us before we submit them? Engadget is not CNN or the BBC. Sometimes, it's closer to Imus. Perhaps a two week suspension, rather than a ban for both the individual who was banned AND for Engadget is in order.
Relax Optic. I'm merely saying that so long as the content is usable, it's possible to copy and share it. Technically, yes, that would apply to a car too - think of these hacks getting around DRM like a slim-jim to pop open the door and some various other tools for hotwiring the car - because the car exists, it can be done. However, just because you can does not make it right.
I am NOT suggesting anyone illegally share music - I own all my CDs. To be honest, that's mostly because no one offers high quality FLAC files for download. If the record companies offered high quality files (FLAC, high bitrate OGG, even high bitrate MP3) I'd be willing to buy online too.
And Andrew brings up an interesting point - if you could copy my car, sure I'd let you. Still not promoting illegal file sharing, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
Sure Optik, you can have a COPY of my car, as long as YOU pay for the means of copying it.
I wouldn't steal a book, a DVD, a CD, but I sure as hell will download one, because guess what, it doesnt cost anything for the copyright owner. sure they dont MAKE money, but they still have the content.
FYI, if it wasn't for this type of hacking we might never have DVD movie content on disk with a licensed card of some sort. The ability to rip a DVD was huge for the marketplace. It opened a flood gate of many man products and services.
It also opened a flood of piracy, but frankly piracy has to be looked at as a supply demand issue that old business is unable or unwilling to deal with. Fighting the YouTube bad, being innovative good.
There is nothing innovative about piling on DRM. Its a death by a yet another self inflicted prick.
This is the first time I've ever been to this site, and after seening someone beeing banned for disagreeing with a moderator (or whatever) I don't consider it a site that represents free speech or "both sides of the story" so I don't consider anything on the site worth reading, so I won't ever be returning. In retrospect the site is not objective and ends up being simply another Anti-Something site.
First and last time visit @ Apr 11th 2007 7:53AM
Hi Nij. Just get to work, did you? ;-)
I'm not going to say Nij being banned was right or wrong. Personally, from what little I've see about his posts, he looks to be nothing than an annoying twit that probably works for the MPAA or a DRM creation company and makes a living by touting the greatness of DRM and anti-fair use. Just seems like a corp shill blog comment plant and I really don't mind if he doesn't come back.
I've just never seen someone so pro-DRM, anti-fair use, and anti-piracy that actually uses a computer. Seems suspicious to me.
I was rather disappointed by the banning also. In the very least the way it was done. Seemed immature and a "knee-jerk" reaction, as someone else stated here before me.
The comments from him were his opinions, and should be treated as such. In no way am I convinced that he was falsely accusing you of piracy, but rather suspicious of your intent when attacking pro-DRM efforts.
To be honest, I haven't read his comments for months (nor have I read this site for a long time), but seeing someone get banned for mildly negative posts puts the site in a bad light. At least it did that for me, and probably most newcomers to this site.
It doesn't matter what he has done earlier, if it was tolerated then, it should have been tolerated now. Simple as that.
After Ryan's ill reasoned rant at Apple and Steve Jobs for dropping DRM (despite apparently wanting DRM to be destroyed) the other day this topic is a very worrying turn of events.
Engadget's editors seem to be unwilling to compromise in any way whatsoever. It's no DRM in any way at all for them and its utility in areas such as subscription music is . Anyone who opposes their viewpoint is banned, free speech is ignored and accusations based on what the managing editor of the site laughingly hints at on podcasts are decried as 'slander' (a) it's libel and b) libel needs an accusation to be false and clearly so).
They claim to be pro 'fair-use' a winderful term that they seem to have interpreted much more widely than any judge or statute ever has. Fair use does not mean you can make unlimited copies of material under copyright, it permits you the right to backup your material and make limited copies. Apple fairplay DRM lets you do this, Ryan's criticism of it the other week is undeserved, unreasonable and illogical as it allows you to do nothing less than under the law. You may as well criticise the existence of a police force.
ACSS is a type of DRM that doesn't permit you to use the material according to fair use. Therefore your criticism of that makes more sense, but it's the unrelenting stance on this site that I disagree with and how you do seem to completly ignore the existence of piracy.
In order to be taken seriously by anyone you need to give credit where credit is due, so stop with the jabs at Steve Jobs and tart giving a reasonable alternative to DRM that provides for compensation of artists. The Register does it (flat fee 'tax' on copyrighted material meted out depending on use of it), why can't you?
Fairplay is Windows/OSX only. There's more to fair use than playing it on my neighbors PC. I'd like to be able to use it, too.
I guess in the myriad of topics here, the ability to get any real information or rationale on why drm is so evil is lost. I see people saying things that boil down to 'if I want something, I should be able to have it without paying for it'. Well, that's all well and good if the owner of it decides to give it to you for free. Otherwise, it's just theft. I see some bizarre, illogical 'copying' analogy. So if they made a copy of you, -in order to- stop paying you for your time and skills, that would be okay? Toyota et. al. would be okay with not being paid for the time, effort, craftmanship, and overhead that went into putting their product to market? I don't think those analogies are comparible at all. I see arguments that someone should be able to take a product that is provided in one format, and change it to a different format, because it'd be convenient for them. I can see the benefit to that, but in a way, I don't see that the content owners have any obligation whatsoever to even allow a CD/DVD to be modified to a different file format; if it is allowed at all is thier decision to make, and if they want to restrict those parameters I respect their right to decide how their product is used. Unfortunately, buying a DVD or a CD is not owning the content contained on it; it's owning a license to use the product as specified. While people may want to do other things w/the content, that doesn't make it okay to break the law to do it. I do think that piracy is another issue altogether though, because I equate that with replicating copies for profit, which is different than other types of theft.
Chicksta I agree with the general tone of yur post. However copyright violation is not theft. Part of what is wrong with theft is the deprivation of something that the owner has at that time. In this context there is no way you've deprived them of either the copyright of the movie or the movie itself. Therefore it is not theft. The movie and record industries might try to tell you different. They're wrong at least in English Law and it would greatly surprise me if it was any different across the Pond.
The law has however chosen to protect the copyright on certain products in order to protect the people who make them and so the works can be sold efficiently. However this can and should be time limited (the Beatles will be out of copyright in the UK inside of ten years so they better hurry up with getting their stuff on itunes). Until the time that copyright is exhausted we have fair use rights for the material we buy and that is it. No one should advocate breaking the law to copy songs or films as they please.
You are correct about the purcahse of CDs and DVDs only conferirng a license to use the content they contain in accordance with copyright law. This is one of the things engadget doesn't seem to get as well, they moan about consumers having rights but ignore the right to freedom of contract, treating us all a mindless sheep that MUST buy films and so should be protected from the evil DRM masters because movies are essential to our existence. If you don't like the terms you're offered in a contract then don't agree and go and donate your money to charity.
That's because those ripping programs have already cracked the DRM for you, years ago. This DRM is more difficult to crack but as you can see, it's already being done.
What this fuz all about?
I did not even feelt any DRM restrictions, EVER!
I buying DVDs, CDs and there was never any problem to rip when I want to...
What this fuz all about?
I did not even feelt any DRM restrictions, EVER!
I buying DVDs, CDs and there was never any problem to rip when I want to...
So, if my 360 HD-DVD gets device revoked, i expect a full refund or replacement with a non revoked device. It wasnt my fault someone used the device to cheat DRM.
It'll probably be a firmware upgrade.
Mike, yep it would require MS to do a recall or firmware update which would be useless because the next device or updated version that would replace it could have the same thing done to it or the hackers could always move to any other USB based device (for that matter any SATA or IDE as well, just may be a little bit more tricky there). A lot of money burned from a corporations coffer which I'm sure MS would not appreciate.
I didn't even read through all the posts..but..
someone has an opinion that Engadget is promoting the cracking of DRM (hence promoting piracy) - it is someone's point of view.
They get banned?
I am out of here .. have fun with your power trips Ricker. You seem to be under the impression that you are doing people a favor by letting them post ("posting is not a right") - time to take myself elsewhere. It's not like there was something obscene posted - just something that seemed to hit a nerve with you.
The guy not only dissagreed he libeled the editors, basically said/heavily implied they were engaged in illegal activity, he's lucky he only got banned he could be sued.
Nij was a troll, and a tosser. GYOFB and stop coming to engadget to start fights over something that they're so obviously right about.
I've gotten into it with Engadget before (ironically, on the other side of the argument!), but I had the sense to do it on my own blog. Doing it here is, come on, seriously, heckling.
http://www.mullingitover.com/wpress/2005/06/23/not-fit-for-production-or-consumption/
:P
I don't believe in bootlegging creative works. It's stealing to do so. George Strait and Bruce Willis deserve every dime they make.
However, when I pay my hard-earned money for a legit, store-bought CD or DVD, I expect to enjoy the work that I've paid to experience. The box itself says I can, and no where does anything say I can't play it in a Microsoft-approved computer, a Toshiba HD-DVD player, a Linux super-cluster, or that old 8 track in my pickup. I paid for a license to use it, and it's nobody else's business how I'm able to hear King George sing "Amarillo by Morning" or watch Bruce in "Die-Hard, a Baker's Dozen" (That's Die-Hard 13, currently in concept.)
If you catch someone bootlegging Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue," hang 'em from the rafters of the Astrodome, but leave the folks alone who just want to listen to their music and watch their movie on whatever gadget they have.
To all you hackers out there: Rock on. Just be sure to post your source code so Canonical can work it into the next release of Kubuntu!
Happy Trails,
Loye Young
http://www.IYCC.net
Laredo, Texas
Chicksta - I'm sure that if you look through the engadget archives you'll find an edition of the clicker that gives you a nice, long explanation of why DRM is such a stupid idea. But I'll give you the short version (which may, in fact, be a bit different from the way engadget would phrase it):
First, some clarification:
Big music companies that force DRM are not evil. They're not even bad. They very, VERY stupid and short-sighted (more on that later) but being short-sighted is a far cry from being evil. In order to be evil they would have to (at the very least) be withholding a neessary product, or even have a monopoly on it. They have a monopoloy on he music they've promoted but if their behavior truly annoys you then go to emusic. com where you'll find plenty of wonderful music (and plenty of bad stuff, too) all DRM free, all high quality, and none of it with the major marketing behind it that makes people buy it like sheep. The trade-off is you won't be listening to the same music your friends do until you wean them off the major labels, too.
Now... why I say they're stupid and short-sighted:
1) They assume that all people are criminals. The main argument for DRM is that people will NOT pay for what they can get for free. Never. I take issue with that; the only people I know of who will steal something *just* because it can be stolen are children (and that includes 20 year olds who haven't gotten around to developing even a rudimentary sense of economics) and record label executives :-) The rest of us are perfectly happy to pay a fair price for a fair product, because we expect to get paid fairly for the work that we do. If the price *isn't* fair for what you get the vast majority of us will complain about the price and then not buy it. If you were translate the arguments for DRM into the brick & mortar world you'd have body cavity searches on the way out of wal-mart because obviously 95% of their customers are wanton thieves (which isn't to say that there *aren't* wanton thieves out there. It's just that they're *such* a minority that wal-mart, knowing a lot about ROI, isn't willing to spend more to catch them than the damage they cause).
2) They honestly believe that they know what's best and no one else out there can possibly have a good idea. Mp3 players are just the new walkman; there was no reason to be afraid of them and every reason to welcome them. As a content producer you want your content to be available to a consumer in the absolute most convenient form possible so that they're exposed to it more often. Someone who listens to the music they bought 1 hour out of the day is far less likely to buy lots and lots of music than someone who listens to the music they bought 16 hours a day. It would be fairly easy to say that that music is 16 times more useful to the second person. Similarly, windows is *not* the only game in town anymore. Wal-mart now sells linux-based computers as a way of cutting costs. When you build your DRM, are you going to build it for every conceivable operating system? Or does it make more sense (read: you spend less money and get access to more customers) to release things in a standard, unencumbered way and let your customers using those low-market-share devices do your development work for you? How many other instances in life do you get the chance to spend *less* money for *more* profit? As a concrete example, my collection of 300+ DVDs would be a collection of about 5 if I couldn't play them on my linux media center (those 5 being the 5 I bought when I had my first DVD player, before I decided that I should be able to access my movies with the same ease and uniform interface that I have with my music that was formerly constrained to my CDs).
3) As for your point about terms of use - that's where DRM starts to get political for me. Originally breaking DRM was breach of contract, just like any other contract that you make. Now thanks to the DMCA it's been made "special" as a criminal offense. As a proponent of small government I find that personally offensive. But here I have to correct you on one small economic point: breaking a CD is fundamentally different from breaking a camcorder. When you buy a camcorder you're paying (and this is made up) 80% for parts and 20% for research. When you buy a CD you're paying 1% for parts and 99% for research. The cost of replacing a CD if you should break it is negligible; as a poster before (possibly you?) pointed out it would cost them more to have a system in place to trace the fact that you own the CD than it would to just replace the CD. So given the fact that you're paying for the content and the CD (or DVD or HD-DVD or blu-ray disc) is just the medium to get that content to you, don't you think it's silly to try to say that you paid for the medium? Not that they *can't* say that - anyone who owns something can set whatever silly terms for sale they want to - I'm just saying (and so is engadget) that it's stupid and short-sighted, and in general businesses that are stupid and short-sighted find themselves passed up by forward-thinkers.
Any barrier to the free spread of information of any kind needs to be demolished. I'd pay $365 a year for unlimited access to all data. Easily. Pay for individual things all over the place? Uh, no. There's always a better investment, another problem, another closed standard,a nother lawsuit. For now, my solution to piracy is using open source and creating works under the creative commons liscence. This industry has earned its death with all the stuff it tries to pull, and I'm sick of it. No pity at all. But like I say, $365 a year for everything? Yes. Gladly. Absolutely and certainly! How many fellow "criminals" would agree?
And by the way, speed limits should be expressedly weather-dependent. That way, instead of 98% percent of our populace being criminals, it's only 2% or 3%. Oh yeah, get rid of lobbyists. That needs to be made a crime. Or we'll have to implement direct democracy. And it can be done. Make a site that lets people vote on issues and eventually will apply so much pressure on politicians that the first one to go against the will of the people never sees office again. Software is more reliable than humans for coordinating stuff well anyway.
I'm sorry, but I had to express my opinion. Divert flaming here: ethana2@gmail.com