Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Blu-Ray and content protection

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 7:37:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050810_131820.ht...;

> Hollywood (CA) - In an announcement last night, the Blu-ray Disc
> Association, led by Sony, representing one of two competing
> high-definition DVD formats, stated it will simultaneously embrace
> digital watermarking, programmable cryptography, and a self-destruct
> code for Blu-ray disc players.

> The BDA statement is unprecedented not only because its solution to
> the nagging problem of digital rights management is to embrace every
> option on the table, but also because Blu-ray appears to have
> developed its own approach--in some cases, proprietary--to each of
> these three technologies. Knowledge of this impending fact may have
> been what tipped movie studio 20th Century-Fox last week to throw its
> support behind Blu-ray, in a move that experts believe balanced the
> scales in Blu-ray's ongoing battle with competing format HD
> DVD--backed by a forum led by Toshiba--to become the next high-def
> industry standard.
>
> The digital watermarking technique, which will be called ROM Mark, is
> described in the statement as "a unique and undetectable identifier
> in pre-recorded BD-ROM media such as movies, music and games."
> "BD-ROM" is the proposed writable version of the Blu-ray format.
> Little else is known about ROM Mark at this time, except that the
> statement describes it as being undetectable to consumers. This is
> noteworthy in itself, since a previously heralded watermark applied
> to first-generation DVDs was notoriously defeated by someone writing
> over it with a permanent marker.
>
> 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.
>
> The third part of the announcement that is perhaps most surprising,
> is Blu-ray's adoption of a third DRM technique that appears to
> embrace some of the ideals of one of the technologies that had been
> considered, without actually licensing its methodology or its
> existing tools. The BDA statement introduces what it calls "BD+,"
> described as "a Blu-ray Disc specific programmable renewability
> enhancement that gives content providers an additional means to
> respond to organized attacks on the security system by allowing
> dynamic updates of compromised code."

I would think that they would be _very_ careful about causing players to
self destruct. All they have to do is get that wrong a few tims and they
will need all of their lawyers. If they were really serious about
stopping piracy they would cause the disc to self-destruct instead of
the player.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 9:20:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I would think that they would be _very_ careful about causing players to
> self destruct. All they have to do is get that wrong a few tims and they
> will need all of their lawyers.

I would think that getting it *right* a few times would even cause their
lawyers grief.

Imagine an innocent consumer who puts a pirate Blu-Ray disc in their $2000
top-of-the-line player and renders it useless forever.

This would also mean there could be no unguarded demo players in stores.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/HighTech.gif
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 9:49:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I would think that they would be _very_ careful about causing players to
>>self destruct. All they have to do is get that wrong a few tims and they
>>will need all of their lawyers.
>
>
> I would think that getting it *right* a few times would even cause their
> lawyers grief.
>
> Imagine an innocent consumer who puts a pirate Blu-Ray disc in their $2000
> top-of-the-line player and renders it useless forever.

Yes, that is my basic point. I suspect that if a few high powered
lawyers find themselves in this position because of a disc that was
"loaned" to one of their children might send a letter or two. I would
think that the content providers would be on very shaky legal ground if
they were to disable anyone's player for any reason. Does the DMAC allow
such a remedy? I don't recall, but I rather doubt it.

> This would also mean there could be no unguarded demo players in stores.

This they could manage, just as DirecTV and DiSH do. Provide some sort
of dummy authorization scheme. It's really just a license server writ
large. They could deliver a restricted license server to each store.

The business of having to have an internet connection smacks of DIVX
(spit). I guess portable players will only work in WiFi enabled areas,
not at your favorite campsite.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Related resources
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:40:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Yes, that is my basic point. I suspect that if a few high powered
> lawyers find themselves in this position because of a disc that was
> "loaned" to one of their children might send a letter or two. I would
> think that the content providers would be on very shaky legal ground if
> they were to disable anyone's player for any reason. Does the DMAC allow
> such a remedy?

No. The DMCA is part of copyright law, and the only remedy is a court
(either civil or criminal). On the other hand, if you "agree" to let
your player be destroyed when you buy it (because of a shrink-wrap agreement
for either the player of the discs), then the studios might think they
can get away with it.

> > This would also mean there could be no unguarded demo players in stores.
>
> This they could manage, just as DirecTV and DiSH do. Provide some sort
> of dummy authorization scheme. It's really just a license server writ
> large. They could deliver a restricted license server to each store.

Well, if it couldn't play abitrary discs (I bring in my favorite movie to
see if the latest model player/display is better than what I own), then
it wouldn't work. If if *could* play abitrary discs, then these sorts
of "demo servers" would end up in every home.

> The business of having to have an internet connection smacks of DIVX
> (spit).

If they really do this for standalone players, the whole rollout of HD
video would be stillborn.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Goals.gif
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:09:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:37:56 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| <http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050810_131820.ht...;
|
|> Hollywood (CA) - In an announcement last night, the Blu-ray Disc
|> Association, led by Sony, representing one of two competing

Sony ... a company with an inherint conflict of interest due to it being
both a content provider as well as being an equipment provider. This is
one reason I no longer buy Sony.


| I would think that they would be _very_ careful about causing players to
| self destruct. All they have to do is get that wrong a few tims and they
| will need all of their lawyers. If they were really serious about
| stopping piracy they would cause the disc to self-destruct instead of
| the player.

Whether they would or not depends on how well prepared they are in the
legal arena, as well as the propoganda arena. They could very well use,
or twist, any information they got over that required internet
connection, to claim the owner was (trying to) do something outside of
"digital rights", such as watching a disk that didn't have necessary
codes but did contain the watermark. If they think they are well
prepared, they could very well do a lot of this "destruction".

"Destructing" the player may actually be the lesser damage since it could
be as simple as changing a 1 to a 0 in some register that ends up causing
the player to freeze on an "FBI warning", which can be changed back only
via a "repair procedure" at some cost. "Destructing" a disk could be
more permanent (may not be repairable because the way of doing it may be
to overwrite some critical indexes). If a "destruct" done in error
results in a home recorded disk of a one time event such as a marriage or
first birth to be destroyed, this could have potentially greater
consequences (because it is likely irreversible). Such "destruct in
error" might happen if someone's camcorder happens to cross paths with
some display showing a watermarked movie (depending on the watermark
technology) ... not likely in a child birth home movie, but very possible
in the affairs following a marriage ceremony, and in many other home
scenarios.

Likely one of the impacts of new DRM is region coding. Whether "chipped"
players will be possible or available could be in question. The content
industry certainly seems to be dedicated to screwing different regions of
the world, and region coding is their tool.

But these DRM methods are still facing a steep uphill battle against many
methods of piracy, including internet file trading which has shown that
it tolerates even more quality loss than would be had by re-digitizing an
analog tap (and at this point, watermark detection can still be evaded
easily by using computers with a custom OS as the playback device).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:09:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D ddqe402bg4@news4.newsguy.com...


> Sony ... a company with an inherint conflict of interest due to it being
> both a content provider as well as being an equipment provider. This is
> one reason I no longer buy Sony.

I met an ex-executive of Sony who agreed that buying Columbia was the
stupidest thing Sony had ever done.

Like inviting Satan into your house.

so now Sony designs focus on what lawyers want and not what consumers
want... they are doomed.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:21:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:37:56 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| <http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050810_131820.ht...;

[...]

|> controversial technology would require that disc players maintain
|> permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making

What would a player do if it can't keep in contact with the content
provider? Just stop playing? This could make for a very interesting
Denial-of-Service attack on a wide scale. Taking down the servers used
by the content providers could easily render a given (and perhaps just
released to BD-ROM) movie unviewable.

Then there are likely going to be a lot of privacy issues.

And many technical issues of internet connections not working right. How
do you think a player would be connectable to the internet? Would it
work on an IPv4-only network? Would it work on an IPv6-only network?
Would it work inside a firewalled LAN? Would it have it's own security
holes that would allow hackers to take control and do things from
destructing disks to relaying spam?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Yes, that is my basic point. I suspect that if a few high powered
>>lawyers find themselves in this position because of a disc that was
>>"loaned" to one of their children might send a letter or two. I would
>>think that the content providers would be on very shaky legal ground if
>>they were to disable anyone's player for any reason. Does the DMAC allow
>>such a remedy?
>
>
> No. The DMCA is part of copyright law, and the only remedy is a court
> (either civil or criminal). On the other hand, if you "agree" to let
> your player be destroyed when you buy it (because of a shrink-wrap agreement
> for either the player of the discs), then the studios might think they
> can get away with it.

That would be an interesting thing to see in court. Especially in states
that enforce implied warrantees of "fitness for a particular purpose".
It would be a sad day if copyrights are allowed to trump property rights.

>>>This would also mean there could be no unguarded demo players in stores.
>>
>>This they could manage, just as DirecTV and DiSH do. Provide some sort
>>of dummy authorization scheme. It's really just a license server writ
>>large. They could deliver a restricted license server to each store.
>
>
> Well, if it couldn't play abitrary discs (I bring in my favorite movie to
> see if the latest model player/display is better than what I own), then
> it wouldn't work. If if *could* play abitrary discs, then these sorts
> of "demo servers" would end up in every home.

That was in my thoughts as well. Then there is the possibility of
Chinese websites that provide a universal license service for all of the
pirated movies that they are likely to sell.

>>The business of having to have an internet connection smacks of DIVX
>>(spit).
>
>
> If they really do this for standalone players, the whole rollout of HD
> video would be stillborn.
>

Yes. Final score: Lawyers-1 Consumers-0.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
August 11, 2005 3:45:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Yes. Final score: Lawyers-1 Consumers-0.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?

As an attorney I can report that in my experience it is the client that
makes the demand. These are technical issues resolved by technical people at
the direction of managers authorized to pay the bill and sign off on
decisions. The attorney's merely provide advise and drafting skills.
Sometimes their advise is not asked, and if give, not always taken. If
management does not like an attorney's advise they will find a different
attorney. Greed and self interest based judgments are not a characteristic
limited to attorneys, it is a human characteristic. Money changes
everything. If a painter could pull this off for management this is the
skill they would seek. Everything you are critical of is the product of the
technical minds hired by management, not the legal minds, yes it is. (And
yes, some painters, technical minds and managers are lawyers too).

Richard.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You are absolutely correct in that not the lawyers are responsible for
twisting the technology to protect certain interests at the expense of what
the consumer really wants. Yes, the lawyers are just a tool in the war waged
by the big corporations against the small guy; unfortunately at this point
about the only thing the small guy can do is refuse to buy the product, and
send the big business back to the drawing board. It happened before, it will
happen again.

I think the big business has forgotten money and success come as a result of
inovation and meeting the customers' demands, not twisting their arm.
Luckily this doesn't happen (yet) everywhere in the world. Samsung's example
comes to mind - a corporation that rose to global leadership status by
constantly improving their products up to the point where they are now
taking serious market share from household names like Sony.

Just my 2c...



"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aTGKe.7865$EX.1969@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Yes. Final score: Lawyers-1 Consumers-0.
>>
>> --
>> Matthew
>>
>> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
>> Which one do you want?
>
> As an attorney I can report that in my experience it is the client that
> makes the demand. These are technical issues resolved by technical people
> at the direction of managers authorized to pay the bill and sign off on
> decisions. The attorney's merely provide advise and drafting skills.
> Sometimes their advise is not asked, and if give, not always taken. If
> management does not like an attorney's advise they will find a different
> attorney. Greed and self interest based judgments are not a characteristic
> limited to attorneys, it is a human characteristic. Money changes
> everything. If a painter could pull this off for management this is the
> skill they would seek. Everything you are critical of is the product of
> the technical minds hired by management, not the legal minds, yes it is.
> (And yes, some painters, technical minds and managers are lawyers too).
>
> Richard.
>
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard (rfeirste@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> If
> management does not like an attorney's advise they will find a different
> attorney. Greed and self interest based judgments are not a characteristic
> limited to attorneys, it is a human characteristic.

If a reasonable percentage of attorneys turned down the big money and stood
by the principles of law they swore to uphold, then we wouldn't be having
this discussion. The difference between a greedy football player and a
greedy lawyer is that the football player never promised to be an officer of
the court.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
| doesn't border entirely on the negative."
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
August 11, 2005 4:23:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d652aae74db699c989efb@news.nabs.net...
> Richard (rfeirste@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdt

If a reasonable percentage of attorneys turned down the big money and stood
by the principles of law they swore to uphold, then we wouldn't be having
this discussion. The difference between a greedy football player and a
greedy lawyer is that the football player never promised to be an officer of
the court.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
> | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
> |
> | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"

Just what principles of law have these attorneys failed to uphold? If the
technology incorporated into the hardware, or the license agreements to the
industry or consumers are a violation of some principal of law it will be
some attorney that develops that argument and keeps the system honest. I
would assume that some attorney has give advise on these legal issues and it
is up to the client to accept or reject that advise. Remember, you are
dealing with an industry in bed with some of our members of Congress and
what some principal of law may not approve today can be fixed with a pat on
the back and a decisive vote on legislation written on behalf of the
industry. If you have a strong opinion now is the time to write to your
elected officials in Washington, but don't get your hopes up since money
talks in that town.

Richard.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:30:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

("Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com>) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Just what principles of law have these attorneys failed to uphold?

A lawyer who advises a company to use shrink-wrap agreement to allow
"destruction" of a piece of already-purchased equipment is pretty much
doing so knowing that there will be a lawsuit down the line that adds money
to their pocket. It's probably legal, but certainly not ethical.

> If the
> technology incorporated into the hardware, or the license agreements to the
> industry or consumers are a violation of some principal of law it will be
> some attorney that develops that argument and keeps the system honest.

Yes, but not the same lawyers. The good thing is that there are *some*
lawyers with integrity. Unfortunately, neither of them work for a movie
studio. :) 

--
Jeff Rife | "When I first heard that Marge was joining the
| police academy, I thought it would be fun and
| zany, like that movie: Spaceballs. But instead
| it was dark and disturbing, like that movie:
| Police Academy."
| -- Homer Simpson
August 12, 2005 12:37:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6571629c933063989efc@news.nabs.net...
> ("Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com>) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Just what principles of law have these attorneys failed to uphold?
>
"A lawyer who advises a company to use shrink-wrap agreement to allow
"destruction" of a piece of already-purchased equipment is pretty much doing
so knowing that there will be a lawsuit down the line that adds money
to their pocket."

But you are assuming that some lawyer advised the company to use such an
agreement. It could just be that the provision was added after receiving
advise to the contrary. Or more likely, added as a negotiating tactic to be
used in subsequent negotiations knowing that this provision would either
been unenforceable or never implemented.

If the industry goes ahead and implements this provision it deserves the
consequences.

Richard.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:27:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:59:14 -0400 ZVR <nospamever@me.net> wrote:

| I think the big business has forgotten money and success come as a result of
| inovation and meeting the customers' demands, not twisting their arm.

Unfortunately, innovation is a long term process that doesn't generally
produce quick results. Investors are demanding quick returns on their
investment and sharp market growth. Thus, many businesses have moved to
strategies that put more emphasis on locking in consumers, and generally
trying to screw them for short term gains. After the short term is
over, many executives have moved on and most investors have cashed out
(leaving new executives and investors stuck holding the bag). Who cares
about long term when their own time with the company is going to be short.
If only branding could follow who currently owns the company.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 12, 2005 10:06:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <dddr4i12bg4@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:

> > controversial technology would require that disc players maintain
> |> permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making
>
> What would a player do if it can't keep in contact with the content
> provider? Just stop playing? This could make for a very interesting
> Denial-of-Service attack on a wide scale. Taking down the servers used
> by the content providers could easily render a given (and perhaps just
> released to BD-ROM) movie unviewable.

According to "insiders" posting at AVS, the players don't have to have
connections. They can update revocation lists through the discs, which
will have code to execute in the VM of BD+ (aka SPDC).
August 12, 2005 10:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <11fktj6grk83n87@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> > I would think that getting it *right* a few times would even cause their
> > lawyers grief.
> >
> > Imagine an innocent consumer who puts a pirate Blu-Ray disc in their $2000
> > top-of-the-line player and renders it useless forever.
>
> Yes, that is my basic point. I suspect that if a few high powered
> lawyers find themselves in this position because of a disc that was
> "loaned" to one of their children might send a letter or two. I would
> think that the content providers would be on very shaky legal ground if
> they were to disable anyone's player for any reason. Does the DMAC allow
> such a remedy? I don't recall, but I rather doubt it.

With AACS, it's supposedly an independent org which will have some kind
of deliberative process before they would take such a drastic action.

My question is, lets say there was a revocation mechanism on DVD
players. When CSS was hacked, do the studios revoke and render these
players unuseable? Even if they had a renewal mechanism, where they get
new keys, maybe we would have ended up with a situation where they could
only play newer releases but not releases based on the original CSS.

How much money have they made from DVD since the CSS hack? Revocation
would have hurt them more than help them. No matter how bad DVD piracy
may be, they're raking in billions right now.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 10:31:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Richard wrote:
>>
>>As an attorney I can report that
>>The attorney's merely provide advise
>>Sometimes their advise is not asked
>>management does not like an attorney's advise
>
>Let me make you a better attorney: the verb is "advise", the noun is
>"advice".

And let me make you a better writer of English: the plural of
"attorney" is "attorneys".

I don't know what's up with the recent rash of totally extraneous and
ill-placed apostrophes, but it is really beginning to piss me off
royally.

I'm not the only one:
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 4:20:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:06:48 -0700 poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote:
| In article <dddr4i12bg4@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| wrote:
|
|> > controversial technology would require that disc players maintain
|> |> permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making
|>
|> What would a player do if it can't keep in contact with the content
|> provider? Just stop playing? This could make for a very interesting
|> Denial-of-Service attack on a wide scale. Taking down the servers used
|> by the content providers could easily render a given (and perhaps just
|> released to BD-ROM) movie unviewable.
|
| According to "insiders" posting at AVS, the players don't have to have
| connections. They can update revocation lists through the discs, which
| will have code to execute in the VM of BD+ (aka SPDC).

That will make for some interesting piracy of its own once the update
access has been cracked. And it will eventually get cracked.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
!