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!

BD+ Successfully Resealed

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the effort-vs.-reward dept.

Encryption 443

IamTheRealMike writes "A month on from the story that BD+ had been completely broken, it appears a new generation of BD+ programs has re-secured the system. A SlySoft developer now estimates February 2009 until support is available. There's a list of unrippable movies on the SlySoft forums; currently there are 16. Meanwhile, one of the open source VM developers seems to have given up on direct emulation attacks, and is now attempting to break the RSA algorithm itself. Back in March SlySoft confidently proclaimed BD+ was finished and said the worst case scenario was 3 months' work: apparently they underestimated the BD+ developers."

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

Getting Old (3, Funny)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102435)

I can tell I must be getting old when one of my first responses is 'Cmon, just go buy the movie already'.

Re:Getting Old (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102459)

The problem isn't that people aren't buying the movie, its because when I buy the movie I can't convert it to use on several devices. For example, say I have 3 desktops and one has a Blu-Ray drive. I don't want to spend ~$400 on Blu-Ray drives for the other 2 of my desktops so it makes more sense to rip the movie, stream it across the network or put it on a high-capacity external hard drive and read it from there.

Re:Getting Old (0, Flamebait)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102517)

If you have access to a network or external drive ... than why not use your single BR drive on that network or as external drive ?
You're just looking for excuses to allow cracking of copyrighted material.
Let's try this approach:
I don't want to spend x$ for y -> then don't buy it.

Re:Getting Old (3, Insightful)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102547)

I thought the BR DRM prevented you from streaming the movies in full quality over the network from an external drive. If it works then there is a fairly major hole in there DRM system.

Re:Getting Old (-1, Redundant)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102577)

streaming video != network drive

Re:Getting Old (0, Flamebait)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102783)

You.. STREAM the video over the NETWORK. What part of that is hard to understand?

Re:Getting Old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102949)

You would be setting it up so that the software accesses the fully encrypted BD over the network and the decrypts it locally. It's not streaming VIDEO over the network, exactly, because it largely looks the same to the BD Drive and software. Dunno if this works tho, just saying it is different than just streaming video.

Re:Getting Old (1, Insightful)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102973)

The part that NO ONE BR+ decoder allows you to do that, stream it contents.

Re:Getting Old (1, Redundant)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103335)

The part where you have 19 MegaBYTES per second of bandwidth...(full 1080p stream from disc) that's higher than 100Mb (100M bits/ 8 bit.byte ~ 12MB) can push.

Even with Gig, you couldn't run many other machines or they'd shut you down unless you had good switches (not consumer junk). They don't let you stream the display, so you'd have to stream the file, from physical media, to the PC, to the network fast enough to keep up with playback.

good luck with that.

Re:Getting Old (3, Insightful)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102557)

I would presume that most people who buy a movie would be more interested in watching it than cracking it. That said, they would also prefer the options of making backups and storing it on hard disks, or whatever devices they may choose without having to worry about DRM issues.

Re:Getting Old (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102685)

And he never said why he needed to be able to play it on all desktops either...

Sure, breaking it makes sense for all bluray-devices which aren't players, whichever those are ..

Re:Getting Old (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102893)

I own about 300 movies on DVD, and a number of TV series on DVD. I've probably purchased about half of them, and the other half were given as gifts. Several of these were replacements for VHS tapes of movies. Every one of them is ripped to DVD and stored in h.264 on a large network drive. That means that I can watch it on my TV using my HTPC, or on my laptop wherever I am in the house, or on my desktop in my office while I'm doing something else. I can stream it to work if it's a slow day, and when we're on vacation, we don't have to plan on what we may want to watch and bring a lot of extra clutter. When I'm at home and watching a movie, searching through the list on the HTPC is much more convenient than looking through a bookshelf, and it also means that I don't have to keep all of my DVDs physically accessible. More space in the house, less clutter, and less obvious temptation for thieves.

I hadn't yet made the jump to Blu-ray because of the DRM. I want the same convenience that I have now, and with DRM, I can't get it. My record shows that I'm pretty willing to spend money on my media, and even replace movies I already own with higher-quality versions. All I want is to be able to exercise what I consider to be my fair use rights over the copies of the movies I've purchased.

Technology is progressing at an amazing rate. It's supposed to make our lives easier and more convenient. Everyone should be able to have a box of movies which lets them watch their media wherever they want. It's really fantastic. But for me, it won't be based upon Blu-ray.

Re:Getting Old (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102993)

because it is a real f*^kin pain in the ass to get up and walk clear across the house to change discs. That's why. It makes way more sense to have them stored in a central location on mass storage where any of them can be streamed on demand to any other location in the house... Or, how about this scenario: oops, I dropped it and it scratched. What now, you want me to buy another blu-ray/DVD/flying-saucer-drm-machine? Why can't I use the "license" from this one?

Re:Getting Old (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103373)

You're argument assumes that the only purpose in circumventing the protection is to use it to commit copyright infringement.

Personally, I would like to be able to use my Mythbox to play HD content. Fairly similar to how I can play DVDs.

Unfortunately it does appear I'm going to have to sacrifice some device to free up an input for a stand alone player.

Re:Getting Old (0, Flamebait)

ijitjuice (666161) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102689)

So your economic circumstances are what has driven you to breaking the law? Sounds like a defense a rapper would use in court. The studios have made concessions like digital copy, but again, its a copy, the problem comes in when folks ask, well how many copies do you need? So you buy a book for Kindle on amazon, its electronic, you save it to CF, how many copies do you need? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Re:Getting Old (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102725)

If you don't have any plans to play it back on a 5 foot screen that you sit 8 feet (maybe even closer...) from, it makes the most sense to buy the DVD.

Re:Getting Old (3, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103329)

I can easily tell the difference between 480p and 1080p on my 15" laptop. If you can't, you need glasses.

Re:Getting Old (-1, Flamebait)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102901)

The problem isn't that people aren't buying the movie, its because when I buy the movie I can't convert it to use on several devices.

Some A-list Blu-Ray titles like The Dark Knight are already shipping with a digital copy for your PC and portable devices in the box.

Unlimited Blu-Ray rentals will add $1 a month to your Netflix account. The devices which can play Netflix video streams are multiplying like rabbits.

By this time next year, "portability" will have become a piss-poor excuse excuse for piracy.

Re:Getting Old (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103119)

So netflix streams in BR quality now?

Damn, I wish I had the connection speed to support that. Or that the stuff that's on BR (ie new stuff) was streamable. Or that'd I'd have a constant wireless connection for all my portable devices.

Re:Getting Old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26103225)

>Some A-list Blu-Ray titles like The Dark Knight are already shipping with a digital copy for your PC and portable devices in the box.

Unfortunately, those digital copies aren't encoded at the same quality. BR is supposed to be high-quality HD format, so that's the king of content we want to get from it.

Also, don't dismiss centralized storage and playing of movies throughout a house. If it wasn't a good idea, Kalaidascape wouldn't be in business.

Re:Getting Old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26103299)

To my non-existent Netflix account? "You can pay a corporation to do the same thing!" is not a substitute.

Re:Getting Old (2, Insightful)

TheFlamingoKing (603674) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103349)

The Digital Copy versions on these discs are often DRM laced Windows Media files, or iPod formatted. My preferred format is neither.

If I can't use it on my devices in a way I want, then I don't own it. How hard is that to understand?

Re:Getting Old (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103287)

Your reply is exactly why Thyamine is 'getting old'.

Rewind to the 80's, if you will. There were no DVD players - you'd be lucky to have a CD player - and certainly no computers that would be playing back high quality video (exceptions aside, I know the Archimedes did some pretty nice things, but I wouldn't quite call it 'high quality'.).

So if you had 2 TVs in the house - say, 1 in the living room and 1 in the bedroom - and 1 VCR (let's not ponder where). So you buy a VHS (or beta or Video2000.. 'tis the 80's, after all), get home, and then curse the heavens that The Corporate Man is keeping you down by not allowing you to magically play back that same video on both TVs, just for the pathetic excuse they bring forth that you would need a 2nd VCR? .. probably not. You'd just eventually get another VCR.

If you purchased a CD, would you kick up a shitstorm about not being able to play that back on your walkman? .. probably not. You'd just get your tapedeck and record the CD straight to tape.

Fast forward to 'now'.. instead of you saying "well, I guess I'll just get a blu-ray drive for that machine as well" or "I guess I'll just have to record the video with a capture card / my computer's video-out"... you realize it's well past the 90's, everything is digital, and by jove that means you have the right to duplicate and format shift the media's content as you damn well please, and screw the corporations for making this difficult for you.

I'm not saying that that is a wrong stance on things... but the change to digital has changed how we all view these things as well. The old ways (getting a second drive, or recording to a different media - yes, you may get quality loss) still work, but now we resist due to the changed mindset that came with going digital.

Re:You kids and your newfangled slide rules (4, Insightful)

Ada_Rules (260218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102529)

I can tell I must be getting old when one of my first responses is 'Cmon, just go buy the movie already'.

Yes you are getting old but not for the reason you think.

I don't have any movies/songs that I did not buy but I also won't buy any BlueRay players or Disks until they are broken.

While I am not a huge purchaser of DVDs (I probably own less than 200 counting a few TV series that come on multiple disks) I do buy the movies/shows that I really like but I hate having to go through the cabinet, find the disk, remember to have the kids put away theirs when done, etc.

I want my movies on a central server in my house for easy access. This is not practical with stand-alone disks. I'd even be willing to pay a few dollars more for a version where the license specifically allows me to transfer the item to a server like this.

Re:You kids and your newfangled slide rules (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102751)

200 DVDs is a lot. Most people rent.

(I'm sure it isn't the most, but it is way above typical and average)

Re:You kids and your newfangled slide rules (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103015)

It depends upon your circle of friends, I guess. DVDs have been on the market about 10 years, so 200 DVDs represents two purchases per month.

If you buy everything brand new anywhere you can get it, that's maybe $40-$50 per month on DVDs. If you get stuff in the 'previously rented' DVD bin at Blockbuster and wait a year after releases hit DVD so prices come down, figure an average of maybe $8 per DVD. That's $16 per month, something almost anyone can afford.

Re:You kids and your newfangled slide rules (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103111)

It isn't about affordability, it is about making sense to people.

As much as anything, I have no desire to store and manage 200 discs, just so that I can watch that many movies on demand (or feel good about having them on storage). I don't think it is uncommon to have hundreds of movies on hand, but I'm sure it isn't typical.

I've cured myself of the notion that they won't be available in the future (if anything, content will be more available), which helps with the human tendency to hoard things.

Re:You kids and your newfangled slide rules (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103419)

Interesting story I suppose.

I had went home to visit and found my family had a ton of movies. It was pretty much the norm to purchase one or two titles. (christmas usually boosted that by some more).

I asked why they were not renting more.

a) The kids in the family would watch a flick multiple times.
b) They had some disputes with late charges a long time ago (multiple times) and consequently ceased renting.

Now, b) is actually my fault because even after I moved out I used the family rental card for years ;)

Re:You kids and your newfangled slide rules (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103071)

I want my movies on a central server in my house for easy access.

The studios made their views on this pretty clear when they sued a company that designed and installed such setups. They prefer you to pay once for a fragile disc and then pay again after your kids use it as a frisbee. The slog back and forth to a shelf of discs is just a daily affirmation of whose bitch you are.

Re:Getting Old (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102611)

I'm confused by this in a different way... How can they change the algorithm after it's broken already? Do the bluray players update themselves or something? Wouldn't any changes make older players not be able to play the newer movies? I'm confused...

Re:Getting Old (2, Informative)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102715)

The player runs a type of virtual machine, but the actual code is contained on the disc itself. This code executes on the VM running on the player and authenticates the player/environment before it will allow the disk to play.

I'm not completely familiar with the crack of BD+, but I think they didn't complete crack the algorithm, just found a work around. Apparently they were able to change the coding slightly such that it breaks the work-around while still running in players.

Re:Getting Old (4, Informative)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102805)

From my understanding the crack was to emulate the VM to the point it could run existing programs, these new disks come with a more complex program their emulated VM can't handle.

Re:Getting Old (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102643)

That's the entire point - I *want* to buy the movie, but I won't until it plays on my hardware.

I have hardware that is capable of playing HD content, but the content providers are erecting artifical barriers to prevent me from doing it. Once the stupid DRM is cracked, I'll buy it.

A list of movies NOT to buy (2, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103105)

I *want* to buy the movie, but I won't until it plays on my hardware.

That's truth right there. After being burned a few times and wasting a lot of money, I decided a while back never to buy music or movies on a medium that I can't transfer. I've lost too many CDs, scratched up too many DVDs, had too many things go mysteriously bad to continue wasting money on such an archaic concept as DRM.

It's a really simple rule. If a company treats me like a criminal from the outset, even though I have done absolutely nothing wrong and they have no reason to believe that I might, then I won't do business with them. Until I'm confident that I can copy these movies for my own personal use to back them up and play them on whatever devices I own, I consider any list of movies like this as a "do not buy" list.

Re:Getting Old (4, Insightful)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102665)

The problem is I can't watch the damned thing under Linux, until BD+ is forever broken.

Re:Getting Old (-1, Flamebait)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102885)

And do you even have a bluray reader in your Linux machine? If not get a dedicated player and stop making excuses.

Re:Getting Old (2, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103101)

why the fuck would he buy a reader he knows won't work in his machine? That's a stupid fucking question, even if it was rhetorical.

Re:Getting Old (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103115)

And do you even have a bluray reader in your Linux machine? If not get a dedicated player and stop making excuses.

Nice solution. I really want to drag yet another piece of hardware with me while traveling.

A dedicated player has another problem, even when I'm at home: My younger kids tend to destroy optical disks. A video server has been a great solution for DVDs, and until it will work for Blu-Ray, I have no interest in buying Blu-Ray movies for them.

Yet another issue is that I like watching movies on my laptop screen, in bed. Can't do that until Blu-Ray is broken. My kids often watch movies on their computers, too, which also run Linux. Can't do that until Blu-Ray is broken.

The bottom line is that while some people -- maybe even most -- have no problem with the studios' idea of how we should watch movies, it doesn't work for others.

I don't pirate anything. Every movie and every song in my house was legitimately purchased, but EVERYTHING is ripped and the original optical disks are rarely used. When I can watch Blu-Ray content the way I want to watch it, then I'll buy it. Until then, I'll stick with DVD.

Re:Getting Old (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102759)

I do buy the movie already. but putting in a Disc is so arcane it's not funny. I have a high end media server system that will play HD very well. I want that movie on my system so I can pick the film and watch it WITHOUT all the useless crap and menu garbage.

So I BREAK and rip every disc.

Re:Getting Old (2, Insightful)

Elder Lane Hour (1430813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102773)

You know what's really getting old? DRM, and it's not getting old gracefully. DRM doesn't work. It never did work, it probably never will work. Maybe it's about time that big movie execs started thinking along the lines of satisfying customers, rather than forcing them to bend over with every purchase. Fuck Bluray. They obviously don't want our money.

Re:Getting Old (4, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102931)

DRM doesn't work. It never did work, it probably never will work.

I'm pretty sure this story is about how DRM does work. It keeps people from copying the movie in full HD resolution, without getting in the way of 90% of consumers, and stays within the bounds of the law. That's pretty much the definition of successful DRM, from the industry's perspective. Until there is a crack available, BD+ is the current and best example of working DRM.

You know what would change the movie company attitudes about DRM? Massive public outrage, something that just hasn't happened yet for movies (for games, on the other hand, it has, somewhat). Most people never run up against the limitations imposed by DRM. I think we have to wait until people become more accustomed to the potential of ubiquitous media sharing before they care widely about movie DRM.

Re:Getting Old (4, Interesting)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102779)

Why do I have to buy movies again if I already own the DVD ? What is it exactly that I'm buying when I purchase a DVD or CD ?

Do I pay for a license for the movie/album/etc. meaning I can get a replacement copy for just the production costs of the disc if it breaks or a new format is introduced ? Or am I buying a physical object that I'm free to do with as I please ?

Re:Getting Old (2, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103375)

What is it exactly that I'm buying when I purchase a DVD or CD ?

In the case of a DVD, you're buying the right to watch the movie in standard definition when playing off the physical disc. Legally, you have no right to copy the disc, rip it, or duplicate its content in any way.

Why should you pay for a Blu-ray movie when you already own a DVD? Perhaps you think high-def remastering is done for free by beneficial elves? Or how about Blu-ray menu programming, which I assure you is no cake walk?

The price of a DVD, Blu-ray, or even a CD is not just the price of the content recorded or stamped on it. It's also the price of everyone who mastered the disc, the facility that stamped it, the art department that designed the disc and jacket label, the shipping, the warehousing...and a small profit for the retailer who sold it to you so they can keep people employed and the lights on (or the website up as the case may be).

The problem with a crusade against "Big Media" is it's going to hurt a lot more people than just the big boy fat cats people loathe so much. There are plenty of working stiffs out there who don't make millions of dollars a year. For that matter, I'm sure there's a sizable geek presence throughout the industry maintaining the production networks, storage, and compute clusters. Care to see them unemployed? It could just as easily be you.

Re:Getting Old (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102801)

Surely this quest by programmers / crackers (call them what you will) is not about buying the movie or getting it "for free" on torrents. It's about breaking the discs to break the (apparently legal) movie / music cartels, breaking enforced regionalised disc sales, and breaking enforced device viewing so you can view the content you paid for on any device.

With VHS analogue tape, the only thing setting you back was the PAL/NTSC/SECAM conversion problem, but a VHS tape could be played anywhere in the world. Now in the digital age, you can't do that with the latest standards. This is about competition, and competition the media providers don't like.

Re:Getting Old (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103097)

I can tell I must be getting old when one of my first responses is 'Cmon, just go buy the movie already'.

And it's sweet revenge that the "unbreakable" titles are the must-haves for the Geek. Titles like Firefly and Futurama.

Re:Getting Old (0, Flamebait)

Cally (10873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103177)

Yeah, great idea! Punish those pondscum copyright mafiaa types for their insidiously evil attacks on personal freedoms and human culture by giving them money. They'll put collect it all into a huge pile of gold, put it into a hedge fund and wake up one day to find they've lost the lot. That'll show 'em!

Re:Getting Old (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103309)

I'm not buying a Bluray movie until I can rip them. Why? (1) I want to play in a player which will skip region coding and UOP [wikimedia.org] crap. (2) I want to play them on any device, and a frequently rip DVDs and move them around at the moment.

Am I a dirty "pirate"? No. In fact I've only ever made an unauthorized copy of one movie, and that was because the movie is unavaiable [wikimedia.org] through any other means. (Great film by the way ...)

I have stacks and stacks of purchased DVDs at home.

Rich.

Re:Getting Old (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103331)

I can tell I must still be young when one of my first responses is 'Cmon, just go download the movie already'.

Give it some time. (5, Insightful)

sinserve (455889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102441)

The fact that it's well done makes it all the more attractive to crack.

Re:Give it some time. (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102533)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but then end of February is less than 3 months away, so how did Slysoft underestimate the BD+ developers like the summary says?

Re:Give it some time. (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102673)

They said it was less than 3 months away in March, 2008.

Re:Give it some time. (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102741)

Actually... They said it in Dec. You can clearly see the posting date..

I hope that they are not just going after it with some sort of brute force attack and hoping for the best. Speaking of that... Maybe they should have implemented a distributed work flow model in their software. I am sure that a million or so computers working at the same time on the problem would speed things up a bit..

Re:Give it some time. (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102753)

You get an F in reading comprehension.

Future releases will undoubtedly have a modified
and more polished BD+ protection, but we are well prepared for this
and await the coming developments rather relaxed". Van Heuen adds
jokingly: "The worst-case scenario then is our boss locks us up with
only bread and water in the company dungeon for three months until we
are successful again".

Re:Give it some time. (2, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102581)

Yes, and I'm very disappointed that I can't get put an uncracked HD version of Space Chimps on a movie server.

Re:Give it some time. (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102699)

I disagree... If you look at the later revisions to the Direct TV card encryption, the earlier versions were easy to crack, but the later revisions proved much too difficult for the average person to take on.

Meaning... If done right, the BD+ can easily prove uncrackable for many years to come. Having things done right in the corporate world, however, is rare..

Re:Give it some time. (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103151)

I disagree... If you look at the later revisions to the Direct TV card encryption, the earlier versions were easy to crack, but the later revisions proved much too difficult for the average person to take on.

Meaning... If done right, the BD+ can easily prove uncrackable for many years to come. Having things done right in the corporate world, however, is rare..

Not the same issue. DirecTV uses a smart card system with an embedded ASIC. There are "secrets" in the card that cannot be discovered without extremely expensive equipment. These secrets are what make it secure. Early cards had flaws that allowed attackers to load software patches onto the card. The new cards are inaccessible. Bluray disks have all their data in the open. There are no secrets, just encryption.

Re:Give it some time. (1)

fluffykitty1234 (1005053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103239)

This is a little bit different, DirecTV has a huge advantage in that there is a hardware assisted encryption mechanism. The smart card that you insert in the directv box knows how to get a valid DES key, but the smart card is pretty hard to tear open. Being able to peer inside the PC, and tear apart software like PowerDVD to see how they work make things much much simpler.

No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102443)

This type of shit (is why I won't *EVER* buy a Blu-Ray drive. I'll just keep downloading the rips off of newsgroups. Thanks MPAA for making me not want to buy your garbage.

Re:No thanks! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102521)

This type of shit (is why I won't *EVER* buy a Blu-Ray drive. I'll just keep downloading the rips off of newsgroups. Thanks MPAA for making me not want to buy your garbage.

Nice justification. If it truly were "garbage", you wouldn't want it at all.

Re:No thanks! (2, Interesting)

loonycyborg (1262242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102615)

He was referring to disks themselves as garbage, not to their content. You can only buy/sell disks, buying/selling movies just plain doesn't make sense.

Re:No thanks! (0)

ijitjuice (666161) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102653)

So ok, no movie industry then, just buy books, oh, thats right, you dont buuy anything because all content should be free and all consumers should be able to get as much as they want and share as much as they want with no regard for the original content creator, yeah thats it, DMCA be damned!!!

Re:No thanks! (1)

loonycyborg (1262242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102797)

Industry is something that manufactures goods or services(in this case disks). If goods that it produces doesn't satisfy requirements of consumers, bankruptcy is a logical consequence.

Re:No thanks! (1)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103053)

So ok, no movie industry then, just buy books, oh, thats right, you dont buuy anything because all content should be free and all consumers should be able to get as much as they want and share as much as they want with no regard for the original content creator, yeah thats it, DMCA be damned!!!

Back into your hole shill!

Re:No thanks! (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102979)

Nice justification. If it truly were "garbage", you wouldn't want it at all.

and you wouldn't be laying out the big bucks for that 30" LCD desktop monitor or the 65" home theater display.

Re:No thanks! (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102523)

And when those rips run out because they can't decode BD anymore?

Re:No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102887)

>And when those rips run out because they can't decode BD anymore?

Then the world ends, obviously.

Re:No thanks! (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102985)

If you can download the rips it must have been cracked and in that case there's no problem for you buying the movies.

If you don't want to buy them because they haven't been cracked longer, how are you supposed to be able to get actual rips?

Bullshit... Unless you accept re-recorded content or something such, but then you could do it yourself to, though maybe you don't want to pay for it if you have to.

Futurama and Firefly? (5, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102465)

That sounds like a direct challenge! If it weren't, Sense and Sensibility, Desperate Housewives, and other chick flicks would be on the list, but no! It's Futurama and Firefly! Two of the geeks Holiest series!

Next, as a double dare to the Geek community, they'll make Star Trek and Star Wars unrippable! This is war!

Re:Futurama and Firefly? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103029)

No discs go safe from my brute force cd crack:
http://cdcrack.istheshit.net/ [istheshit.net]

Re:Futurama and Firefly? (1)

Elder Lane Hour (1430813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103377)

They target us because we are the most likely to make best use of the disks. Why sell it to us once, when they can suppress backups, and sell it to us multiple times?

BD+ (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102479)

Wonder how much cash is being poured into this, instead of making decent movies to begin with. I think they need to face up to the fact that whatever they do, it WILL be broken eventually

Re:BD+ (3, Informative)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102493)

instead of making decent movies to begin with

Learn a second language, you'll see there's no shortage of quality movies.

Re:BD+ (3, Funny)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102505)

Is the welsh language film industry really that active?

Re:BD+ (4, Funny)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102531)

before 2008 they made a movie for every Welsh-speaking community per year, after that they went into Welsh porn and the whole thing kinda got commercial.

Re:BD+ (3, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102877)

I'm sure they all started feeling sheepish after that.

Re:BD+ (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102605)

Learn a second language, you'll see there's no shortage of quality movies.

I think he means quality in terms of storyline, not special effects -:)

I guess I can't count (5, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102511)

"and said the worst case scenario was 3 months work: apparently they underestimated the BD+ developers"

Okay, so they said worst case scenario was 3 months work [presumably in case BD+ was changed in some way]. And the developer said February 2009 was their date for "fixing" things. Let me do the math slowly:

December 2008 - 0.5 month (half-way through)
January 2009 - 1.0 month
February 2009 - 1.0 month
TOTAL - 2.5 months

So since 2.5 months is less than 3 months, how did they "underestimate" anything?

Re:I guess I can't count (3, Insightful)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102613)

As you all know, journalism and reading comprehension don't mix.

Re:I guess I can't count (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102757)

How do I play my movies, then?

Re:I guess I can't count (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102619)

Those movies were probably already available for some months, so you'll have to add that too. The forum post is from a thread from 30th October.

Re:I guess I can't count (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102637)

Read the summary.

From the summary:

Back in March SlySoft confidently proclaimed BD+ was finished and said the worst case scenario was 3 months work: apparently they underestimated the BD+ developers.

Back in March. That's quite a while ago.

Re:I guess I can't count (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102843)

Read it again and think through. Think think think.

1) They said last march that they'd broken the protection
2) They said last march that if the protection was changed again it would take them 3 *further* months to break the protection
3) In December they said the protection was changed
4) In December they said it would take 3 more months to break the protection

Do you kinda get it now? Do you see how you have to actually comprehend what they said and then apply it to the situation?

Seriously man, reading comprehension is your friend.

Re:I guess I can't count (1)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102661)

I was just about to comment correcting you (saying the "worst case" was from the perspective of those cracking BD+), but I just actually read the relevant article, and apparently the submitter can't read.

The 3 months is the worst case for how long it will take them to break the long-expected "modified and more polished BD+ protection" which is now here. So let's check back in March.

Re:I guess I can't count (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102703)

Back in March SlySoft confidently proclaimed BD+ was finished and said the worst case scenario was 3 months work.

Read the first half of that sentence.

Re:I guess I can't count (2, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102763)

Read the source of that sentence:

Future releases will undoubtedly have a modified
and more polished BD+ protection, but we are well prepared for this
and await the coming developments rather relaxed". Van Heuen adds
jokingly: "The worst-case scenario then is our boss locks us up with
only bread and water in the company dungeon for three months until we
are successful again".

Counting has nothing to do with it. (1)

Rigrig (922033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103401)

how did they "underestimate" anything?

FTFS:

A month on from the story that BD+ had been completely broken, it appears a new generation of BD+ programs has re-secured the system.

I'm amused and somewhat pleased (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102525)

I actually like the idea of a technical battle of merit. This might drive advances in softwaretech. I admire the people who create and try to protect the BD+ protection scheme although that doesn't mean I support BD+ itself. This technological game of chess is not over yet, even if Slysoft proclaimed that the BD+ king was dead. Now, the move is unto the cracking camp lead by Slysoft and supported by people of the Doom9-forums and other amateurs.

For those who don't understand this, I regret not being able to make a fitting car-analogy.
A virtual cookie for the person who can do that.

Re:I'm amused and somewhat pleased (1)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102561)

the car can be started from outside but it's impossible to get in or drive it.

Open source devs have not given up (4, Insightful)

bugnotme (1138795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102633)

The open source dev has not given up. He, and others, are looking *concurrently* at weaknesses in the RSA implementation. "BD+ Successfully Resealed" is an overstatement. Although some movies currently aren't rippable the prevailing attitude is that it is only a short matter of time to fix defects in the open source VM.

Achieved their goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26102697)

You have to remember that the movie studios make an absurd percentage of their DVD revenue during the first 30-90 days of a movie's release. If systems like BD+ can keep rippers locked out during that time period, they've achieved most of what the studios want them to.

Ultimately Slysoft or some other company will produce a break, which is probably a good thing for archival purposes. But it won't mean that BD+ is "broken" in any meaningful way, as long as the studios can renew security by issuing a new BD+ update in the next batch of releases. The only way this model doesn't make sense to the studios is if developing new BD+ disks becomes more expensive than the monetary losses due to ripping.

I may be old and conservative, but I'm generally in favor of a model like this. It allows the studios to recoup their investment through "early adopters" (people who just have to see Men In Black XXIV when it comes out on disk), but doesn't aim for (as much) of the long-term lockout that comes with other DRM formats. I would still like to see some laws ensuring archival and general copyright reform (but I'd also like a a pony too...)

Re:Achieved their goal (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102987)

Assuming you believe the lie about DRM being to prevent piracy...

That's not what it's about at all, pirates will just watch a lower quality version (DVD, even a camera rip) or wait for the drm to be cracked, they're not gonna suddenly go out and buy an expensive drm'd version just because it hasn't been cracked yet.

The only people hurt by DRM are legitimate consumers, who want to do perfectly reasonable things like put the movie on a media server, make a backup copy so that their kids don't scratch the original and convert the media to play on a portable device like an ipod. The purpose of DRM is to force these people into buying multiple copies of the same media, ie screwing more money out of existing paying customers.

For the obligatory car analogy, consider the codes common on car stereos, if the battery power is lost you have to enter a code... Thieves already know how to bypass or reset these codes, but a law abiding user who lets his battery drain or disconnects it, now has to go to the dealer and pay money to have the code reset. I have been in this situation myself, but luckily i knew a "thief" who would unlock the radio for half as much as the dealer.

Break the RSA algorithm? (5, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102735)

I'm no cryptographer, but isn't this like realising you can't crack a safe, and deciding it'd be easier to invent a machine that will undo the metallic bonds that hold its constituent atoms together?

Re:Break the RSA algorithm? (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102787)

Seems so, the key is 1280 in length so it would probably take a silly amount of time to break.

Re:Break the RSA algorithm? (3, Funny)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102793)

How *else* are we going to get matter disintegrators?

Isn't that how Science makes progress?

Re:Break the RSA algorithm? (4, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102799)

Yeah, its pretty much like that. If I were one of the BD+ developers, I'd be pretty proud of the fact that the DRM-hackers thought that RSA was most vulnerable part of my DRM scheme.

But seriously, if real advances are made in integer factorization because of attempts to crack BD+, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

Re:Break the RSA algorithm? (4, Informative)

devman (1163205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102905)

The key phrase is "their implementation". RSA the algorithm is sound as far as anyone can tell right now, but that doesn't mean they (BD+) didn't introduce a subtle flaw in their particular implementation of it.

Re:Break the RSA algorithm? (1)

darkstar949 (697933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26103243)

I think if they managed to find a flaw in the BD+ implementation of RSA then that would still be a pretty respectable breakthrough. Given the number of systems out there are use their own implementation of the algorithm, if a flaw is present in BD+ then there is a pretty good chance that it is present in the other implementations as well.

Bad pirates! (0, Troll)

danwesnor (896499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26102809)

I wish they would cut this cracking crap out, I'm getting tired of loading new firmware into my player.

Just say no to blu-ray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26103327)

I just can't be bothered. From vhs to dvd was an interesting step forward. Now everyone needs a huge flatscreen with 2000 watt soundsystem and a blueray player. I'm not forking out 30 euros for an even more in your face and in your ears version of the latest extremely poorly written hollywood film. Sodd that!

Fuck slysoft in the ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26103347)

Yes, fuck them in the ass. Stupid imbeciles who make a profit off people who "backup" their media. And their piece of shit software is developed for the incompatible and obsolete Microsoft system that nobody has cared about since 1998.

Glass

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?