Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

345 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Congratulations! (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596341)

A hearty congratulations to the brilliant programmers of Doom9, including Oopho2ei - who claims not to be a "professional programmer".

Re:Congratulations! (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596449)


Seconded. I have managed to play Blu-Ray discs on my Linux box, but it has been one Hell of a struggle. If this moves things closer to the ubiquity of breaking CSS, then hearty congratulations to these heroes! :D

But can someone just clarify seeing as that is rather a lot of posts to read though... does this mean we don't need keys, a la the way we can break CSS? If so, that's very impressive, but how did they do it? Not by breaking the encryption but by finding some way around this, presumably? And equally importantly, is this a permanent fix or can it be superceded by updates from the supplier, like when keys are revoked? Explanations and implications, please? :)

As the article says... (5, Informative)

Angstroem (692547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596497)

...start reading on page 15, it'll discuss (a) what they did and (b) how resistant it is against potential counterattacks by the BD+ people.

Mind you, the idea was not to break the underlying encryption scheme (breaking AES could still turn out being hard for the next couple of years...), but rather disable the BD+ security layer.

Yay! Pirates score another one! Yay! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596519)

Yay! I got mail! Yay!

Re:Yay! Pirates score another one! Yay! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25597335)

no no no no,

It's "I have mail"

Re:As the article says... (5, Informative)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596813)

As far as I can tell, it wasn't actually disabled though. What they guy did is write his own BD+ VM. An impressive feat for sure, but that attack was always anticipated. As the dude says later,

Apart from that the purpose of the program (called "content code") running inside the player on a virtual machine is to detect any known compromised players or known unlicensed emulators (like ours). The content code is give a wide range of opportunities to do that. For example it has (limited) access to the player memory and can even execute arbitrary code on the machine though we haven't seen that yet and our emulator doesn't support this either.
As long as we have access to a working (licensed) players all these measures are useless as we can record traces from this player and adjust the data "injected" in the virtual machine address space by traps or events to perfectly match our recordings. Even if whitebox attack resistant AES or ECDSA algorithms are used and nobody manages to break them we can still use the obfuscated algorithms and their keys.

So basically the disk authors can keep up for as long as they can trace the VM of an existing licensed player. They don't need to do that currently because no publishers are searching for their VM specifically.

They'll probably be able to do this for as long as publishers want their discs to be playable on software players, simply because it's quite easy to reverse engineer x86 code on a PC, when you have a debugger and plenty of Jolt. I don't know what the BluRay player market looks like. If most BluRay players are hardware based, then as a movie studio I'd be tempted to simply write some BD+ code that looked for existing software players and banned all of them. Then the "trace a licensed player" step outlined above suddenly turns into a silicon reverse engineering problem instead of a software reverse engineering problem. Much harder.

That said, I doubt they'd actually do that. Presumably they allowed software players for a reason, despite knowing they were way easier to hack than hardware players.

Re:As the article says... (2, Insightful)

squisher (212661) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597067)

...
Presumably they allowed software players for a reason, despite knowing they were way easier to hack than hardware players.

Uhm, you do realize that actually watching a BD movie on a laptop or computer is done in software? Obviously this has to be supported, even big companies are not that dumb. Heck, I bet BD is decoded in software on the PS3.

Re:As the article says... (3, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597119)

Yes I know. What I meant was, what proportion of BluRay watching people watch the movies on their laptops or desktops, vs a dedicated hardware player or PS3. And yes I expect the PS3 does a lot of it in software too. Point is, I also expect tracing the BD+ VM in a PS3 to be quite hard.

Re:As the article says... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25597295)

That's the most obvious "insightful" post I've seen in a while. Obviously those run on computers are done in software. Everyone knows that. Its clear the poster knew that. But you didn't understand that he knew that. That doesn't make you insightful, it means you have poor reading comprehension. people actually lose insight when they read your postings.

Re:As the article says... (4, Interesting)

c (8461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597105)

> If most BluRay players are hardware based, then as a movie studio I'd be tempted to simply write
> some BD+ code that looked for existing software players and banned all of them. Then the
> "trace a licensed player" step outlined above suddenly turns into a silicon reverse engineering
> problem instead of a software reverse engineering problem. Much harder.

Even then, you can still run the BD+ code in the VM, and trace it under the VM, and figure out what makes it fail, and ensure that it sees a VM environment which doesn't look like an existing software player. Or any kind of software player. And you may have the ability to modify the software player to explore what triggers the problem (a lot of people who's software players no longer play the latest releases would be rather thankful for a patch).

Harder, but a boatload easier than tracing silicon.

The BD group pretty much has to outlaw software players entirely to avoid this kind of attack.

c.

Re:As the article says... (4, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597233)

I agree that the BD group may eventually be backed into a corner over software players, at which point it'll boil down to pure economics. I read that the vast majority of BluRay players in the world are PS3, although of course, that doesn't mean the vast majority of used BR players are PS3s.

I honestly have no idea what proportion of BluRay watchers watch via their PCs, but the equation is simple - take a graph of disc sales. Presumably at some point its BD+ program is cracked and sales will fall as high quality rips show up on the internet - I'd imagine the graph looks like a sharp rise upwards on release week followed by a gradual decay into nothingness over time, with a sharp drop around the time the BD+ program is cracked (assuming it lasts long enough that you can even get a sales baseline, ie, not within a few days).

Now let's say 10% of BluRay watchers use a PC, so reduce your project sales by 10% but remove the sharp drop due to piracy, take the integral of both graphs and see if the difference is positive. If it's big enough it might be worth abandoning PC playback to avoid the piracy (or shift that sales cliff to a point where sales were low anyway).

If the economics don't look like that, then the BD group needs to try and get PowerDVD and friends seriously buffed up, security wise. It's certainly possible to make x86 code annoying and difficult to reverse engineer, but very few people can do it well. I'd imagine most of them don't work for BluRay player software companies.

I'd be very interested in a chart of every BluRay title released and when it was cracked, but I doubt such information is publically available.

Re:As the article says... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597325)

Most bluray players will probably be software based, at least some of the toshiba hd-dvd players were linux based and quite hackable.
Besides, if you can't play your bluray content on any computer then the number of people who might want pirate copies increases significantly... Even people who don't have an HDTV usually have a computer monitor capable of 720p at least. In my case, i travel a lot, and always have a laptop with me (travelling for work, need the laptop), 720p video looks much better on it than low resolution dvd does so i will watch the higher resolution video if i can get it. Sitting close to the screen makes the difference more obvious too.

Re:As the article says... (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597161)

"can even execute arbitrary code on the machine"

Oh excellent. I think I'll skip BD, thank you.

As always with DRM (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596505)

The content must contain sufficient information for the content to be decoded. Anything one software can do, another software can do (see Knuth, et seq). Therefore if there's an available software that can decode the encrypted content it must be possible for open software to decode the encrypted content. Removing the encryption using open software eliminates the protections against copying provided by the closed software and the game is over.

Thus DRM is a fool's errand. It always has been.

The illusion of protectability is however easy to sell for vast sums of cash to content owners who desperately want it to be possible.

Re:As always with DRM (5, Insightful)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596713)

Therefore if there's an available software that can decode the encrypted content it must be possible for open software to decode the encrypted content.

Possible != Feasible. It is possible for me to brute force AES-256 but it isn't feasible for me to do so.

Re:As always with DRM (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596759)

-1 Woosh!

Re:As always with DRM (2, Insightful)

thaig (415462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596923)

Sure, but if your blu-ray player can decode the disc then there must be a fixed key stored in it's memory. It would have to be the same key for all players too. That would mean that one only had to find the key once to be able to play all discs.

It would be rather nasty if the players didn't store the keys but downloaded them. It will probably be a long while before consumers are prepared to accept a player that has to have a net connection to work.

Re:As always with DRM (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596927)

There's sufficient information available so that the "authorized" players don't need to brute force AES-256, so it must be possible for open players to find that information and play the movie. There's nothing "magic" about the authorized code.

Re:As always with DRM (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597025)

Therefore if there's an available software that can decode the encrypted content it must be possible for open software to decode the encrypted content.

Possible != Feasible. It is possible for me to brute force AES-256 but it isn't feasible for me to do so.

The point is, the 'legitimate' (w/ DRM I use that term loosely) doesn't brute the key, and the legitimate software can be watched in action. That means that reverse engineered Free software can be created to do the same thing.

Hardware trickery to make it harder to do that also increases the incentive to find a way. Somebody somewhere will find a way to dissect it.

The job is even harder since it will always be a plaintext attack.

Re:As always with DRM (0, Offtopic)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596815)

The content must contain sufficient information for the content to be decoded.

You do remember that we are talking blueray discs here? What user content could possibly be on them that is not available in a cheaper, already broken format? Brand-spanin' new movies?!? If those movies were worth watching, people would be paying for them. People are not paying because all the new movies are garbage. A single, random good movie (Dark Knight) will not be enough to get people to move to this quagmire of technology.

Re:As always with DRM (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596925)

good one, pirate justification that reads like it was written by a 16 year old. add that you're going to stick it to the evil corporate man and it's a hat trick

Turing machine (0, Offtopic)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596857)

Some pedant like me is going to bring this up so it might as well be me. The abstract machines such as the "Turing Machine" defined this before Donald Knuth was even born, but the revered doctor has contributed much to practice with theory and example.

Re:As always with DRM (-1, Flamebait)

PingXao (153057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597077)

And then they can run to the .gov for more protection from the Copyright Czar in the form of draconian penalties for DMCA violations. Whining to the .gov and bribing the Congress to bail them out of their broken business models is the latest fad, don'tcha know? And seeing as how one of the only things we still export for profit is our "entertainment culture", it's only a matter of time before they try yet again to put a stop to it. Not that they will be successful in the long run, but they will try anyway. DRM Rat Fuckers.

OT (0, Troll)

PingXao (153057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597239)

Whoever modded that post "Troll", thanks for letting me know it's OK to troll-rate a post for absolutely no reason other than "I feel like it".

Re:Congratulations! (2, Informative)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596495)

And thank you. As long as the DRM continues to be broken quickly as this, we will be able to exercise the freedoms that it was designed to take away from us. Yes, it doesn't solve the problem, but it brings a relief, when the unpleasant possibility that the DRM scheme might actually work this time is crushed. DRM or not, you will still be able to exercise your right to play the movie you bought, your fair use rights or whatever you believe you are in the right to do.

I don't think this is so much of a bad news for the MAFIAA, as their benefit from the DRM scheme will still be whopping, but it's good news for everyone that would have been hurt by it.

The end of DRM is good news for content owners (1, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596765)

A lot of people are just not buying content - even though they would like to buy content - because they know that money spent that way is wasted and they don't want to throw their money away again. Of these I believe that many are just avoiding the content rather than downloading it through any of the myriad options for that, and that's demand destruction. Once the content is available unprotected, a huge market of people is opened up who would prefer to pay for what they get if they can pay for it in a way that's not stupid. See the MP3 sales of Amazon and iTunes and even Walmart.com [walmart.com] .

Making content available DRM-free is actually a huge win for the content industry, even if it makes it harder to prove unauthorized distribution. Hopefully soon they'll see this.

OTOH, brick and mortar content sales outlets are pretty much toast. They sell a digital product in a digital age with an analog method. And, they close. The Internet doesn't close.

Re:The end of DRM is good news for content owners (5, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596865)

A lot of people are just not buying content - even though they would like to buy content - because they know that money spent that way is wasted and they don't want to throw their money away again.

At the risk of my karma, I'm going to mention that no one I know seems to fall into your generalization of people not buying Blu-Ray discs or players because of DRM. The most commonly cited reason for discs is lack of ubiquitous players (in cars, portable players, friends houses, etc) and the most common reason cited for players is the expense of a Blu-Ray mechanism. In fact, breaking the DRM makes Blu-Ray riskier for investors and therefore likely will increase costs (higher risk means higher cost) in the short term.

All in all, because Blu-Ray is 10x the bandwidth of any online "HD" movie source (and I use that term loosely for online offerings) and because online DRM is so much worse, I don't see it going away. Instead I see it likely to win over DVD-- DRM or not-- but not until manufacturing costs ramp down due to better technologies and economies of scale.

Consider this. Is a DRM-free H.264/AAC mp4 file more convenient, or is a DRM-laden disc that you can play in your car, computer, PS3, portable system, or friend's house by carrying around a 16 gram disc? I suspect for geeks it's the former, but for most consumers it's the latter, and it's really just about making players ubiquitous. The odd player out is, of course, the iPod. It's the one thing that is both ubiquitous and doesn't favor the disc. If the Blu-Ray consortium came to some agreement with Apple there it would go a long way towards gaining acceptance.

These are important points for dialog (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596993)

no one I know seems to fall into your generalization of people not buying Blu-Ray discs or players because of DRM.

We shall see. Most people don't know really why they're not trusting of innovation in content technology. The advantages of open content though are immediately obvious and so when the content owners open up the content it starts flying out the door.

All in all, because Blu-Ray is 10x the bandwidth of any online "HD" movie source (and I use that term loosely for online offerings) and because online DRM is so much worse, I don't see it going away. Instead I see it likely to win over DVD-- DRM or not-- but not until manufacturing costs ramp down due to better technologies and economies of scale.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes." Technology has passed this one by, but the truth of it remains. Content providers would do well to sell the right to the content separately, and let people figure out how to get the content on their own. If they must, they can offer content at kiosks you take your external hard drive to. The tree huggers should like the idea of transport-media free content distribution at the very least - that's less mylar disc in the landfill.

Consider this. Is a DRM-free H.264/AAC mp4 file more convenient, or is a DRM-laden disc that you can play in your car, computer, PS3, portable system, or friend's house by carrying around a 16 gram disc?

For the car and portable system a downrezzed movie that fits on an 8GB SDHC card are sufficent, and that form factor is considerably more convenient than a disc that doesn't even fit in your pocket - and is too fragile to carry that way anyway. People do this on their EEE all the time. A 360GB external 2.5" USB drive is bigger and heavier but smaller than a BD with case so it still fits in your pocket, is less susceptible to scratching, fits multiple movies on one disk, and has many other advantages.

Open content means you can make backups. You can convert to your target platform. You can move your content to where you want it and any technology that can play it will continue to play it for all time. DRM content does not have any of these advantages. Most importantly that last one.

Re:The end of DRM is good news for content owners (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597159)

Consider this. Is a DRM-free H.264/AAC mp4 file more convenient, or is a DRM-laden disc that you can play in your car, computer, PS3, portable system, or friend's house by carrying around a 16 gram disc? I suspect for geeks it's the former, but for most consumers it's the latter, and it's really just about making players ubiquitous. The odd player out is, of course, the iPod. It's the one thing that is both ubiquitous and doesn't favor the disc. If the Blu-Ray consortium came to some agreement with Apple there it would go a long way towards gaining acceptance.

People said the same thing about MP3 and ACC. Jump forward a few years after their initial release and the device support for these formats was plentiful! First CD players that handled Mp3, then car stereos, then dvd/cd players, etc (get the picture). Heck the Zune even supports ACC now.

I suspect the video formats will follow the same course...

Re:The end of DRM is good news for content owners (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597199)

"Consider this. Is a DRM-free H.264/AAC mp4 file more convenient, or is a DRM-laden disc that you can play in your car, computer, PS3, portable system, or friend's house by carrying around a 16 gram disc?"

Consider the reality: is a DRM-free H.264/AAC mp4 file that you can transcode to whatever you want using free and easy to use software (and more importantly, load on you iPod) more convenient, or is a DRM-laden disc that you can play in your home theatre setup and MAYBE your notebook more convenient?

The Pirate Bay isn't popular because of it's high quality and reliability.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597095)

As long as the DRM continues to be broken quickly as this, we will be able to exercise the freedoms that it was designed to take away from us. Yes, it doesn't solve the problem, but it brings a relief, when the unpleasant possibility that the DRM scheme might actually work this time is crushed.

About the only reason for a DRM scheme not being "broken" quickly is if there is little or no content people are interested in using it. No matter how good the cryptography (ab)using encryption in this way is fundermentally flawed.

Re:Congratulations! (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596521)

What's more impressive is that the thread was started August 24th,
which means it took them 5 weeks and a few days to break BD+.
Kudos to them.

Is this just for MKBv7 (Media Key Block) or is BD+ permanently broken?

Re:Congratulations! (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596935)

Is this just for MKBv7 (Media Key Block) or is BD+ permanently broken?

For the most part it is permanently broken. BD+ is just a very simple virtual machine - these guys reimplemented the virtual machine. So the disc publishers can write all kinds of new copy prevention code in the BD+ 'language' but the doom9 guys' VM will be able to execute it pretty much like any sanctioned BD+ VM would. The disc publishers might start exploiting non-standard or undefined behavior in the BD+ VMs (presumably most hardware players all just run the same BD+ VM from macrovision, so any bugs in it should be the same across most if not all hardware players) but such shenanigans won't be too hard to reverse engineer and include into the clone VM.

Now when the publishers switch to MKBv8 that will be a new set of AACS keys that will need to be rediscovered, but that's independent of and in addition to BD+.

Re:Congratulations! (2, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597195)

It's not broken yet. The work is still very much ongoing, and this Slashdot story is an exaggeration.

There's great work being done for sure, but it's not FINISHED yet by any measure.

Re:Congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596779)

You could say that the Doom9 researchers have fragged BD+.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

alex4u2nv (869827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597103)

Congrats indeed. Now how long until DIGG.COM crashes?

Re:Congratulations! (2, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597171)

Sure, congratulations on getting this far, but the Slashdot story is entirely exaggerated. People are working hard on BD+, and it'll probably fall sooner or later, but it certainly isn't "solidly broken" yet.

To quote Oopho2ei himself:

The whole project consists of three major tasks:
1. vm instruction processing (95% done)
2. trap implementations (80% done)
3. event/callback processing (10 % done)

I'm sure they'd be happy to get some help, though. There's a lot of programming gruntwork to be done.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597289)

Well, I was somewhat mistaken on that, that post was older than I thought. Progress has been made since that. I'm fairly sure it's not quite "solidly" broken yet, but at least it can decode a couple of discs.

Getting it to handle ALL discs is likely to take some further work still, though.

Explain to me why we are giving these guys props (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25597287)

When Slysoft did this in March. I've had those versions of AnyDVD and CloneDVD for several months. Why is this news? Seriously, not trolling here, but even the submitter mentions this and links to the original Slashdot article on it.

Unfortunately (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596357)

Unfortunately this will probably just mean that a ton of consumers will be SOL when they implement new encryption schemes on BluRay that aren't supported by some existing players.

Re:Unfortunately (5, Insightful)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596389)

Wonderful. Finally, people won't look at me like I'm from Mars when I tell them that DRM affects legitimate paying customers like them.

Obsolete the installed base? I think not. (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596441)

Sony isn't having a ton of luck building an installed base of users of BD, even after buying their competition into submission. If they obsolete their installed base they have to start over again with thet negative examples of HD-DVD and the additional strike of cyclic obsolescence against them. It would be too obvious that the purchase of their content is actually a short term lease. That would be the death of BluRay before it's even well started, and it wouldn't even buy them an additional year before it was cracked again.

It's more likely that we're nearing the end of this DRM nonsense forever. Finally!

Or am I too optimistic of their intelligence? History does weigh heavily against my hopefulness here.

Re:Obsolete the installed base? I think not. (2, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597149)

Nah, this DRM nonsense is just starting to heat up. There's a new Copyright Czar on the job now, and Hollywood will throw more cash than ever at lawmakers to try and shore up their busted protections. This will continue since US export numbers are propped up by Hollywood's entertainment distribution network. They'll see this as a "must-protect" industry. In the end they'll fail, but anyone who thinks the supporters of DRM are about to give up should think again.

Re:Unfortunately (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596523)

Oh I hope so. I hope that Sony and the rest of those idiots over-react hard and screw most all customers with BluRay players.

Disrupting the consumers from viewing the new shiney will actually make them sit up and pay attention. I hope this screws a lot of people really hard to the point they say "HEY! WHAT THE HELL!"

Now they need to crack HDCP.

Re:Unfortunately (5, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596695)

Disrupting the consumers from viewing the new shiney will actually make them sit up and pay attention. I hope this screws a lot of people really hard to the point they say "HEY! WHAT THE HELL!"

I think this has actually happened a couple times. My first negative experience with DRM was as a kid - I bought a video game that kept insisting I 'insert the original disc'. Turns out they fubared the pressing such that even the original disc was seen as copied - didn't impress me with the quality control. It was something where pulling even a single disc and trying it out would have found the problem.

My second was with an E-Book program. I decided to check out this 'ebook' thing, downloaded the one Stephen King wrote years ago - the idea was that if you liked the book, you paid for the next installment. While I found the installment nice, the reader broke so many things that after reading it I uninstalled the reader and therefore the book. Never again. For example, it mostly broke copy/paste, as well as various other things in attempting to stop screen captures.

I mean, if I had wanted to copy the book, it would have only taken a few hours of my time to [i]retype the bloody thing[/i] using dual screens or even two computers. It wasn't a hugely long book, and I am a trained(if out of practice) typist. If I wanted to do a lot of books, some sort of OCR system would work.

Or just find & download it off the internet today.

Especially with the popularity of MP3 players that are quickly turning into media players, the 'average user' is seeing the effects of DRM more and more. Especially when they buy that DVD duplicator and discover it won't work for 'copyprotected' discs.

Re:Unfortunately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596805)

HDCP has been cryptographically cracked since 2001. Furthermore, there are "non-behaving" HDCP devices that accept HDCP input but output non-protected digital. Spatz tech's box for example.

Re:Unfortunately (3, Interesting)

init100 (915886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597243)

Unfortunately this will probably just mean that a ton of consumers will be SOL when they implement new encryption schemes on BluRay that aren't supported by some existing players.

Good! Maybe then the consumers can start to understand why DRM sucks, especially systems where their decryption keys can be disabled after the purchase. It's unfortunate that they'll have to learn this the hard way, but there is not much we can do about that.

cool! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596383)

The best part of all: the DMCA makes it perfectly legal to use with Linux since OEMs don't provide linux codecs.

Re:cool! (4, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596433)

Now, that sounds interesting. I would like to hear a legal opinion on that matter, though.

OTOH, wasn't there something about this kind of hack making copy protection "inadequate" and therefore unenforceable, i.e. legally circumventable in Finland?

Re:cool! (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596513)

Ed Felten called HDCP "A hook onto which to hang lawsuits" when if first came out.

I haven't heard much on BluRay Super Duper Double Plus Awesome DRM... but I've been ignoring it. I figure the whole HD-TV market is based on deception. I don't have the patience or tolerance to unravel all of it in order to make an informed purchase.

Hopefully HD-DVD, BluRay, HD-TV will all completely fail and something else a lot more open will take its place.

Re:cool! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596655)

Hopefully HD-DVD, BluRay, HD-TV will all completely fail and something else a lot more open will take its place.

You're joking, right? Digital broadcasts are just the start (and required by law). Soon, all broadcasters will be foregoing "regular" digital for HD broadcasts complete with broadcast flag.

Re:cool! (0, Redundant)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596943)

Digital != HD.

Re:cool! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596983)

English comprehension != reading comprehension. I explicitly kept the concepts of digital and HD separate in GP.

Re:cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596667)

Ed Felten called HDCP "A hook onto which to hang lawsuits" when if first came out.

Surely that's "a hook on which to hang lawsuits". The other way just sounds weird.

Re:cool! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596529)

Since the court of appeal thinks CSS is still quite adequate I'd say no for now.

See http://www.turre.com/blog/?p=156

Re:cool! (3, Insightful)

repvik (96666) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596581)

Fortunately, citizens outside the United States of Asshats* doesn't have to bother with this whole DMCA crap.

* Referring to lawyers et.al.

Re:cool! (1)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596773)

HEY!!! I'm American, and I'm offen.... oh wait. Never mind.

WIPO (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25597049)

Member of WIPO [wikipedia.org] ? Then yes you do [wikipedia.org] .

Freedom Fighters (2, Insightful)

PenGun (794213) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596407)

Well done.

Re:Freedom Fighters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25597189)

Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?

They never mention that part to us, do they?

Kudos to them (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596431)

That being said BluRay burners are expensive enough, and the blank media is expensive enough that I'll probably still buy my BluRay movies on Amazon.com (where I routinely find cheap deals as opposed to retail stores charging $35 per movie).

Re:Kudos to them (5, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596537)

> That being said BluRay burners are expensive enough, and the blank media is expensive enough that I'll probably
> still buy my BluRay movies on Amazon.com.

Which is perfectly good. I didn't buy my first DVD though until the protection was broken and I have no intention of buying anything BD until it is broken. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Who wants to buy a BD movie until they can pull a copy to a DVD for portable players off in the rest of the house, the in car players, etc. Until we can yank clips out of one. Until we can play then on our non-Windows machines.

Once stable build of mplayer support this stuff and the battle of key revocation settles down I'll think about investing in the stuff. Not before.

Re:Kudos to them (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596657)

Consider it a backup at the same time.

However I'm in the same boat as you; I find it is a bit sad we don't have 100% working blu-ray playback yet. Ripping is good enough, though. Are they still recorded in MPEG2 or did they step up to h.264 yet for commercial films?

Re:Kudos to them (1)

weber (36246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597307)

Why burn a copy? You can just rip & re-encode it (x264 [free-codecs.com] ) to an MKV [matroska.org] -file on an (external) harddrive, and play it using popcorn hour [popcornhour.com] or similar. That way you can also take your movie collection with you when you visit friends.

Thats not THAT impressive... (0, Flamebait)

Zathain Sicarius (1398033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596443)

I could do the same thing with a slege hammer and 30 seconds. ...Though I don't know how useful a pile of broken circuitry would be. Congrats, I haven't liked Sony too much lately.

last barrier (2, Interesting)

peas_n_carrots (1025360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596457)

Looks like the last barrier against BR adoption has been bypassed. Cue the cheap players and burners and BR might actually rise from its coma and take the market from DVD.

I'm hoping that won't happen because a world ruled by Sorny is surely worse off. But don't fret, Sorny will do everything in its power to prevent mainstream adoption.

Re:last barrier (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596479)

Samsung has a $200 player which comes with 4 free movies. Given that the movies retail for $35 a pop, that is $140 in free movies with a $200 player. The rumors is said player will go for $150 on Black Friday. A player for $150 with $140 in free movies is a pretty good deal.

The biggest problem with BluRay is retail stores charging $35 for movies. DVDs are often selling for $10 or less. Knock BluRay prices down to $25 a movie or less and I'll bite.

Re:last barrier (1)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597011)

You're justifying the $200 price tag with the free "$35/movie" price tag, which is an arbitrary inflated value of the movies that we shouldn't be paying in the first place.

Re:last barrier (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597247)

I'd contend a hidef movie player is justified by itself at $200 with no free movies. Getting free movies makes it a pretty damned good deal.

Buy a nice big screen. Watch low-res TV and notice how the flaws are amplified by blowing up the picture to a large size.

Now get a really good up-scaler to 1080p for standard DVDs and/or a BluRay player to play 1080p content on the same TV.

Trust me, $200 is well worth it.

Not quite the last barrier for linux (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596503)

For reading BD+ BRs on Linux, the problem is they had to use patched firmware. This doesn't bode well for widespread adoption on Linux by non-technical users. Patching firmware is scary for most consumers, who will face the possibility of bricked drives.

The key will be to either bypass the drive's firmware with virtualization or to somehow have the firmware patch to happen safely and automatically on as many drives as possible. Hopefully something that could be done in the Linux kernel drivers for the BR drives and/or the SCSI drivers.

Or a reputable Linux user could... (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596567)

Skip the BD player deal, buy the Disc at retail and then download their platform shifted unencrypted movie backup through P2P*. The full BD+ library should be available within a few days, if it wasn't already.

* Even though it's inherently fair, this method may not be legal in your jurisdiction. Consult your attorney before using.

Re:Or a reputable Linux user could... (1)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596825)

So... what you're saying in reality is that DRM will now only currently hinder law-abiding non-technical users. Hmmm.... Weird that nobody's thought of that before...

Re:Not quite the last barrier for linux (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596687)

Patching firmware is alrealy something that any BD user needs to get used to.
This has nothing to do with Linux. All of the HD video technology from cable
to high definition DVD formats are all inherently problematic and thus
ultimately user hostile.

Re:Not quite the last barrier for linux (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597041)

For reading BD+ BRs on Linux, the problem is they had to use patched firmware. This doesn't bode well for widespread adoption on Linux by non-technical users.

The fact that BD playback works with unpatched drives on Windows means that this
limitation will probably fall in the not-so-distant future.

Neat, I will finally be able to buy a BR drive.

And YET AGAIN... (4, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596477)

The common man proves that if man can make it, man can break it.

This is a lesson companies will NEVER LEARN when it comes to DRM.

Like those uesless bank vaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596749)

When will banks learn, if you make a vault, someone can break in.

By freetard logic then, Don't use bank vaults is The Answer

Re:Like those uesless bank vaults (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596961)

Except bank vaults don't also vastly decrease the usefulness of banks for legitimate customers...

Re:Like those uesless bank vaults (1)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596999)

If banks had to hand out a copy of their vault and it's contents to all their customers, they would be very silly to use them.

Re:And YET AGAIN... (1)

Memroid (898199) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597211)

The common man proves that if man can make it, man can break it.

thus we need Skynet to build the next generation of DRM... to keep us mere humans from penetrating it!

Forget copying, I want to play my BR under Linux (5, Insightful)

janek78 (861508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596507)

I don't really care if I can copy my BluRay disks or not (I'm too lazy to back up my movies - if I break a disk and I like the film, I get a new one).

But I would love to be able to play my legally bought films under Linux without having to reboot (or having to go to jail for that matter). Maybe one day. :)

Re:Forget copying, I want to play my BR under Linu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596571)

Yep!, hope MPlayer team could include the codes, in their next release :)

Re:Forget copying, I want to play my BR under Linu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596671)

Congratulation the team.
Hope MPlayer Team can integrate the codes to their next version of Mplayer.

Re:Forget copying, I want to play my BR under Linu (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596777)

I don't really care if I can copy my BluRay disks or not (I'm too lazy to back up my movies - if I break a disk and I like the film, I get a new one).

Clearly you have no children living with you.

Re:Forget copying, I want to play my BR under Linu (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596861)

I don't really care if I can copy my BluRay disks or not (I'm too lazy to back up my movies - if I break a disk and I like the film, I get a new one).

But I would love to be able to play my legally bought films under Linux without having to reboot (or having to go to jail for that matter). Maybe one day. :)

Tell that to Sony then stop buying the discs until you can.

So this might be the breakthrough for BluRay? (3, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596555)

Maybe this breakthrough will finally make BluRay a popular format, so far I haven't seen much (or any) pick up.

How does it work? (4, Insightful)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596587)

Hoping some expert can describe how this all works to the masses out here. From a quick glance through the forum, this is what I think is happening...

BD+ movies are released with corrupted data
A conversion table is required to fix the corruption
The conversion table is built using code on the BD+ disk that runs on the BDVM.

The bulk of the work on the forum thread seems to be an effort to reverse engineer the opcodes and libraries (called TRAPs?) available in the BDVM, and to reimplement the VM.

I'm not a security or crypt expert, but I can't imagine how anyone can expect this kind of security to remain secure for 10 years.

10 years? Yeah if you are on WASP-12b (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596611)

Blue-Ray copy protection lasted a bit more than 10 years, if you are on this planet [newscientist.com] .

Your secure edifice... (5, Insightful)

nzgeek (232346) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596613)

I think a quote from a famous internet wordsmith [penny-arcade.com] is in order here:

Someone needs to emphasize this in such a way that the right people see it: people who pirate software enjoy cracking it. The game itself is orders of magnitude less amusing. And their distributed ingenuity will smash your firm, secure edifice into beach absolutely every Goddamn time. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Re:Your secure edifice... (2, Insightful)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597051)

Yup. The crackers will find out a way past it, the normal users will feel hindered and annoyed by it, and the very people you were trying to stop will be completely unaffected and find a way to pirate it anyway.

Physical access FTW (1, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596615)

Which just goes to show that the analog hole is alive and well. If you give someone something that they can touch and feel and experience, it can be recorded or cracked, its just a matter of time and effort.

I have a blue ray drive (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596701)

and the stupid DRM never worked (it just go on reading and reading and do nothing). Maybe now I have hope to read my legally owned discs, I hope this come as some sort of reader for windows.

Great (2, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25596859)

I'm sick of my VirtualBox/WinxP/AnyDVD-HD setup. I'd MUCH rather a native Linux command-line tool to automate the process when inserting the disc. ;-)

Thank you to all developers! Great work!

And the Cold War continues...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25596863)

Given that the studios can't give away films they'll simply come up with even more draconian crippling measures. I already can't play Blu-Ray disks on my computer drive because they are afraid of rippers. It's easy to blame the studios and distributors but I blame the pirates for making my life miserable. When the format wars started there was no copy protection. It wasn't until large numbers started pirating that it became an issue. DRM would stop if piracy stopped but no one wants to stop pirating and the studios are funding by selling films so they can't stop. The ones hurt are the fair use people in the middle but most of those blame the studios for spoiling things. It's a stand off and it will only get worse so the only end that is possible is the studios come up with a rock solid security system but the only way to do that is to severely limit what they will play on which largely kills off fair use which will eventually be a victim of the Cold War. Can't happen? I wouldn't bet on it. I've already seen proposals for uncrackable systems but they aren't pretty. The move so far had been to make movies more computer friendly but Blu-ray already reversed that trend. One obvious victim will be playing on computers. The future is likely to be dedicated players that either have bundled screens or are locked to a compatible screen so that the signal is useless outside the pairing. People may want to see Blu-ray die because of DRM but the next format is likely to be far less friendly.

DNS (1)

speedingant (1121329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597007)

Yeah, they may have found out how to remove the DRM from BD+, but they still don't know how to configure their bloody DNS properly!
http://doom9.org/ [doom9.org]

Congratulations! (2, Insightful)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597027)

I own over 500 DVDs, I love to collect movies and my favorite shows and I look forward to collect BD as well, but I will never support any kind of "protection" that punishes a honest person. I travel all over the world and I often pick up movies from other countries, why shouldn't I have the right to play them back at home, in my living room? The region protection was stupid and any protection is stupid because it doesn't keep pirates away but just honest people like myself who paid dearly for their discs. If my DVD Player had not been unlocked I would not have spent a good chunk of that money on DVD. And I'll go even further: I should be able to send my original DVD of movie XY (not related to Kyle ;) ) and upgrade for a reasonable cost to the same movie on BD, after all it's movie studios that pushed the new standard.

Did anyone else... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25597097)

Did anyone else read this and think some future sequel of a popular video game needed more space than would fit on a BD?

Obviously, "10" was in binary... (5, Funny)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597137)

Subj.

A fly on the wall with brilliant minds! (1)

Z-MaxX (712880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597259)

The Doom9 thread is a really fascinating read, and worth checking out. It's really cool to follow how they reverse engineered the BDVM instruction set and built a tight C++ disassembler for it. Since I usually don't get to sit in on this kind of awesome discovery/development, following the thread is like sitting in the room with these brilliant hackers.

Oh lol (2, Interesting)

skulgnome (1114401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25597299)

They estimated that it'd last for 10 years. It took the Doom9 forum people 5 _weeks_ to hack it. That's like, less than a hundredth of the estimate (i.e. 5/520).

I wonder. They must not have heard that architectures with an obfuscated instruction set are also reverse-engineerable? I distinctly remember reading an article on the Transmeta VLIW machine's opcode and instruction packet format... and that one has never been officially released at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>