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!

JVC Announces Technology To Prevent Software Copying

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the sounds-better-than-dongles dept.

Technology 536

An anonymous reader writes: "JVC and Hudson soft Co. of Japan have created a technology that they claim to have tested on 200 CD-ROM devices that prevents users from copying software CDs. They plan to have special encryption keys hidden in software and which are pressed onto CD-ROMs and which can not be read with ordinary procedures. They claim that the location, length and number of embedded keys can vary making it more difficult to hack."

cancel ×

536 comments

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

AC Announces Technology (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4158923)

to Provide First Posts.

Booyah.

security (1)

aaronsb (138360) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158926)

So what's to prevent hacker group x from modifying the software on the disc so it doesn't check for the keys anymore?

Re:security (3, Informative)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158941)

Nothing. Didn't you know that copy prevention isn't there to stop pirates, it's there to annoy legit users :)

Re:security (2, Interesting)

kasperd (592156) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159033)

it's there to annoy legit users

What prevents legit users from modifying the software on the disc so it doesn't check for the keys anymore?

I have a floppy with an old program that contained some kind of copy protection. Even when installed on the harddisk, the program could not run without the floppy in the drive. But when the floppydrive stopped working I had to do something. Actually I didn't modify the program, instead I just modified the floppydriver to return the values expected by the program.

I don't even think this is illegal. (If I thought so I wouldn't be talking loud about it on slashdot.)

Re:security (1)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159126)

Maybe not illegal for yourself, but you might be violating the DMCA by distributing a "circumvention device" if you gave the rest of us the code you used to do it.

Re:security (2)

topham (32406) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159138)

generally, depending on jurisdiction, it isn't illegal to do, it is illegal to provide the tools to others.

That used to be the standard way to skip past some copy protections under dos. First you run TSR, then you run the program/game.The TSR would capture the BIOS request to read the floppy and return the results without reading the disk.

It is relativly easy to modify a program for the same effect. I used to do it back in the days of DOS for games I bought. (seriously, it was a fun thing to do, and trying to read black ink on a red card was more painfull, never mind looking up word 5, page 45 paragraph 2....)

These young wippersnappers around here think you need sourcecode to modify programs...

Re:security (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159040)

I was going to say ethics, but then I forgot we've desperately been trying to replace those annoying things with technology that would just prevent us from being bad. It's the corperate software makers dream: If you can do it, it must be ok!

Of course, they dont seem comfortable sticking to this mantra when their software doesn't work as designed or is exploitable. Hows that for irony?

Re:security (5, Informative)

Peeing Calvin (580935) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159055)

The problem is the software install files will by encrypted, and can't be decrypted without the keys, which are located on "uncopyable" (except by special JVC hardware) areas of the disk.

DVDs have a similar copy-protection scheme. The CSS decryption keys are located on sectors of the DVD that are unwritable in the DVD-R (or +R, or RAM, etc.) media formats. So, if you copy a CSSed DVD, you get an encrypted copy with no accompanying keys.

So, a hacker group would have to gerry-rig a CD burner that could write to these "unwritable" areas of the CD-R, so that keys could be copied along with the encrypted software. Very difficult thing to do.

Frankly, I'm surprised something like this hasn't been tried already.

Re:security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159158)

I remember hearing about copy protection on (Atari software) floppies. The manufacturer put an extra hole in the disk in what would normally be a data area, then the software was coded not to read that portion of the track. If some pimply faces theiving bastard tried to diskcopy it, the disk drive would sequntially read the disk, dropping the head into the hole and destroying both the disk and the drive.

Then there was a similar scheme that burned off a whole track with a laser. Once again, the software on the disk knew not to read the damaged portion.

This was back in the 1980s. And as software companies found out in the 1980s, physical copy protection just doesn't work. It annoys legitimate users, and the real pirates soon find a countermeasure.

Looks like the media companies are going to have to learn the same lesson. Too bad the hackers have 20 years head start on them.

17th post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4158928)

yep.

Anyone want to lay bets... (0)

jandrese (485) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158931)

...on how long it will take for this to be cracked?

Re:Anyone want to lay bets... (2)

return 42 (459012) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158974)

If widely deployed, less than six months.

Re:Anyone want to lay bets... (4, Funny)

unicron (20286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158994)

Mayor Quimby: Now that prohibition is over, how long will it take you to flood with town with booze?

Homer: No thanks, I'm out of that business.

Fat Tony(leaning in): About 6 minutes.

I'll lay down 2 to 1 odds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159015)

that this gets cracked within 2 months of public release.

Re:Anyone want to lay bets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159044)

0 day.

Yeah, right. (1)

renehollan (138013) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158933)

Where have we heard all this before?

Oh yeah, everywhere

u r teh PEINS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4158958)

Slow down cowboy!

And when have we heard this before? (0)

flinxmeister (601654) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158939)

The crackers will love this. Yet another challenge and chance to prove 'skillz'. Do they actually think that people are simply burning copies of the disk?

Re:And when have we heard this before? (1)

chfn (604241) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158975)

It's a never-ending cold war. The better the protection, the better the crackers will get. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The best they can do, as has been said many times before, is raise the effort required to crack the protection high enough that the majority of users will just give up and pay the $$

Re:And when have we heard this before? (2)

mskfisher (22425) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159024)

Except that the efforts of a few are easily transmitted to the masses.
The majority just has to find the work of the few good hackers.
In 2 years, do a Google search for "JVC CD crack" and see what Russian websites you end up on.

Re:And when have we heard this before? (1)

chfn (604241) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159054)

Good point. Just like the point-n-click SMBdie proggie ;) All it takes is one person and a method of distribution. I guess there really is no point in trying to copy-protect.

Re:And when have we heard this before? (1, Offtopic)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159041)

"The crackers will love this. Yet another challenge and chance to prove 'skillz'. Do they actually think that people are simply burning copies of the disk? "

The first time I read this I thought you were making a racial slur. You should probably avoid using the words 'crackers' and 'burning' in the same post. Heh

Re:And when have we heard this before? [OT] (1)

tdelaney (458893) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159143)

Um - what does "cracker" have to do with a racial slur (I really want to know)?

Remember, not everyone is from the US ...

Not bad (1)

chfn (604241) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158942)

But you still need to make sure the software that looks for the keys doesn't get cracked. Why bother trying to duplicate the hidden keys when you can disable the software that checks for them?

please, please (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158944)

will someone caress my balls. They are tender and in great need of attention.

So... (3, Insightful)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158945)

... what about my right to make a backup copy of my software? Nobody's ever described a CD as durable.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4158984)

D00d, th1$ izz AMERIKA. j00 g0t n0 r1g|-|t$!!

Re:So... (5, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159079)

"D00d, th1$ izz AMERIKA. j00 g0t n0 r1g|-|t$!! "

I think reading your post caused me to violate the DMCA.

Misprint (5, Funny)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159090)

There was a misprint:

This is actualy a system to prevent users from BUYING CDs.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

matman (71405) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159132)

Hah! I have actually read some EULAs, and many state that you may KEEP your CD as a backup, not make a copy of your CD as a backup, unless the original media is required in order to actually use the software. Arguably, you may make a backup copy of something like Office or Windows, as they often ask for the CD to support new things (especially office now adays).

Relevant spot from W98 license:

After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

(from http://nl.linux.org/geldterug/license.html)

Just curious (5, Insightful)

sheepab (461960) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158955)

But how does this differ from the keys on a dvd you have to circumvent when you rip them? I dont think any company can possibly safegaurd their software with a system that is up against millions of users....eventually there will be a way to get past it.

Bring it on baby! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4158957)

I got my sharpie ready!

Another million dollar attempt at twocent hacking. (1)

MikeDX (560598) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158960)

This sounds awfully familiar to the protection used on the playstation emulator "Bleem" [bleem.com] .
Fair enough it took them a while to hack, but they did!

I think what these copy protection people are forgetting, whilst spending these millions of dollars in research on anti piracy techniques is that at the end of the day, the data STILL NEEDS TO BE READ in order for it to be of any use to anybody.
They arent stopping the professional pirate. They will just annoy the mediocre pirate and frustrate consumers.

Shouldnt be too tough (2)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158964)

All we'll need to do is hack up Wine [winehq.com] to report (But still perform) "strange" CD-ROM accesses. Then we'll know just what the program is looking up on the CD, and we could even get a traceback of the code (EIP, registers, etc). Then, just make a crack that swaps a JMP instruction for a JZ/JNZ...

10.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.....Hacked (2)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158965)

Yeah thats was probably just enough time...
I'll expect first proof of concepts compies of the Hack on source forge by morning...

Thanks...to who ever it was that just hacked it....

If they build it... (1)

dunar (575371) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158967)

... I (or someone else) will hack!!!

Re:If they build it... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159115)

Looking at your profile, I'm guessing the "someone else" part.

Simple Relationship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4158969)

Silly anti-piracy measures.
There are no absolutes anymore; It's only really a matter of time-- Usually, time being directly proportional to the strength of protection.

Doesn't seem to help (4, Insightful)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158970)

sounds like it is designed not to allow a cd-cd copy.

Why can't I just rip an image, or at least open the cd and copy the files to my hard drive?

Why can't I patch the program after the above not to decrypt?

I seem to remember that DeCSS came about cause of these "no one will ever get our keys" security.

What about older CD drives?

noduh (1)

nege (263655) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158978)

They spend thousands only to have it hacked in the first month by some 16 year old kid. It never fails, when will they learn?

Hacked Programs (1)

irritating environme (529534) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158979)

I agree, this will just lead to people hacking the program installs thus encouraging the creation completely bypassed software versions.

If the write-protection is a minor bother, it will stop most casual users since the l00t haX0rs won't deign to crack it. If its like this, heck, that's just a gauntlet thrown down.

They will just be more likely to create easily distributed hack patches.

I'm confused... (1)

Allaria (547479) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158981)

Wouldn't the key have to be burned into the CD anyway? So the program could read it in the first place. Doesn't this mean that bit-by-bit burners would copy it fine?

I always thought that's how the other 'copy-protection' algorithms worked, and how they could be thwarted.

What does this technology have that the past doesn't (besides better encryption)?

Re:I'm confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159106)

A bit-by-bit burn will never fail...they're trying to annoy the kiddies using Verio CD Copier Pro.

Until somebody creates a CDROM Drive that does all of that encryption internally (? maybe), these will always be copyable.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

mwjlewis (602559) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159108)

That is the first thing that i thought. Why not make an image of the disk on your hard drive, and copy the image bit by bit back to CD.

Also, Isn't that going to raise CD cost's marginally, if they have to change the key on each CD? ( I didn't read the article in true slashdot style. )

Re:I'm confused... (1)

mathgod79 (148423) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159122)

I thought the exact same thing when I read this.

If these keys are going to be used to verify that a CD is legit, the software HAS to be able to read the keys off of the CD somehow, otherwise there would be no point, since the software wouldn't be able to distinguise a copied cd from a legit one.

I can see something like this working for a console, if they wanted to modify the CD drive to read additional things that a PC couldn't. I can't see this working on a PC, though, because the disc has to be read/played with a standard PC cd-rom.

Anyone want to offer an explanation?

On no! Encryption keys! (3, Funny)

Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158983)

Wow... that makes this stuff as secure as, say, SSL or something! We'll never be able to backup our warez agai... oh, wait a sec...

*Sigh* (5, Insightful)

Knife_Edge (582068) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158988)

Why do people think that it is possible to make bits uncopyable? Have we not been over this before? Has this changed since the last time we went over it? I am not even going to bother reading the article for this 'technology.' A design for digital copy protection is like a design for a perpetual motion machine - It may be interesting to look at, but you know from the start it is impossible to build.

"...very difficult to hack..." (1)

astapleton (324242) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158989)

Don't you mean "...very new and entertaining to crack and distribute..."?

Root Technology? (2)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#4158995)

I think they're calling it 'root technology' because of the effect it's going to have on its consumers.

Re:Root Technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159064)

Nano...

re: your sig

I don't think you need an apostrophe there.
P.S.- it's RIGHT ON.

Re:Root Technology? (0, Offtopic)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159119)

Think so? The reason I added it is that 'enpimpins' kinda hides the word 'pimp' without it.

Whatcha think?

Well (1)

ChrisMG999 (308536) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159001)

Maybe if they didn't inflate the price of software so much it wouldn't be pirated so often. Really, is this going to make it so that people can't go out and download the software that they want? No, people will find a way around it. If they really want to pirate it, they will. Companies should lower their prices on software to combat piracy rather than stupid stuff like this that doesn't work.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159026)

Ever looked at the price of console games compared to PC games?

Which are generally cheaper?

The industry is a bunch of thieves.

Re:Well (1)

leabre (304234) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159057)

Crap. WinRar is $29 and WinZip is $29. Yet they are incredibly heavily pirated. You think all those warez dudes actually paid for WinRar and almost all their warez are in Rar. Therefore, that software being too expensive is crap. $29 isn't too much money. Not any different than $2,900 if it's still cracked or serial generators are easily findable with a simple search on your favorite "security" related search site.

Thanks,
Me

Re:Well (1)

burnetd (90848) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159113)

$29 for a GUI for zip....You could knock one up in VB in 5 minutes so I'd say yes it is to expensive.

And why does anyone pirate WinZip anyway, its not like the thing stops working is it.

It won't be long... (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159002)

If there is a drive in existance that can read the media, someone will develop a drive that can write what it has read.

Wrong use of the tech (4, Insightful)

Lysander Luddite (64349) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159005)

Why not make CD copies have this instead of the original source discs?

For example, making backups of your software or music files. At least then you can guarantee copies of the original you own and prevent multi-generational copies of copies.

I would think both the software barons and the customer would find this win-win.

Legacy Drives (2, Interesting)

sjgman9 (456705) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159008)

If one of these discs dont adhere to the ISO cd rom format like those audio CD's that dont adhere to the red book audio cd format, I wont risk my equipment on something that pretends to be what it isnt. I would feel much happier if CDs with this scheme came with a warning label similar to the ones on cigarette packs.

"Warning: This CD does is not a standard data cd and could disrupt your hardware. Caveat Emptor"

Re:Legacy Drives (2)

penguinboy (35085) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159098)

By the same token, why do you have a defective CD-ROM drive that can't handle unusual data patterns?

Re:Legacy Drives (1)

sjgman9 (456705) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159164)

Thats not what Im arguing. I worry that the error correction on my drives (a 2 year old 16x TDK VeloCD burner and a Cendyne (Pioneer) dvd rom drive from last year) would fail with all this garbage being thrown at it. Im also interested in getting a titanium powerbook and want discs to not get stuck in there.

Consumers should have the right to know wether discs wont corrupt their hardware by being made in a nonstandard format. CDRom drives might be different from Audio CD players, but I dont want error correction hardware hosed. Its probably all a scam to get everyone to buy new hardware

how long (3, Interesting)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159010)

They plan to have special encryption keys hidden in software and which are pressed onto CD Roms and which can not be read with ordinary procedures.

So how long will it take to come up with "unordinary prodedures". :-)

Re:how long (5, Funny)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159053)

"So how long will it take to come up with "unordinary prodedures"."

You might have to wait all the way until tomorrow.

Re:how long (2)

elmegil (12001) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159085)

But that's what the DMCA is for!

Wait.... (1)

3rd_Floo (443611) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159018)

What I dont get is, if its imbedded into the CD, and they expect the program to be able to read this key or layer somehow, what stops the user from doing the same thing? Or what would stop Johny Programmer from decompiling/decoding the software calls and keys and finding ways around it? It seems to me that all these new anti-copy techniques are just ways to make it more complicated to reverse-engineer and copy, but dont really work in the long run without new hw.

The only solution I can see is they build a new media hardware format, and try to market and sell that. But who will want to buy company X's new drive and media when it wont work with Company Y's newest product, and wont support your legacy CD Media?

Obfuscation (1)

chfn (604241) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159019)

"The location, length and number of embedded key codes can be customized for each CD-ROM title, making it more difficult for hackers to find and decrypt the codes."

It has to be predicatable some how - otherwise the software "decoder" wouldn't know where to look for the the keys and how many to check.

don't belive this (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159028)

from the article: "The keys are not copied properly when software on the disk is copied to a CD-R or CD-RW disk, thus thwarting illegal duplication, the companies said." Somehow, I have a hard time believing that.....I can make an exact duplicate (sector interleaving, etc.) of a CD-R or CD-RW with the proper software, hidden keys and all.

Re:don't belive this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159134)

Sure you can. Let's try something simple, go out and make a copy of a playstation game. Try to start it up in an un-modded playstation.

Re:don't belive this (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159165)

Try to start it up in an un-modded playstation.

How large is the market for un-modded playstations?

Re:don't belive this (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159136)

thus thwarting illegal duplication

How do they distinguish illegal copies from legal copies. (Don't claim all copies are illegal, in my country we have laws legalizing backup copies no matter what the company selling the software says. And BTW some years ago I read about a company in my country that claimed to be able to do exactly the same.)

Information will be free (2, Interesting)

buffy (8100) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159030)

You keep setting these "proprietary" schemes up, and we'll keep knocking them down. Only after these companies have lost enough money will they learn the basic tenet that information will be free.

Silly rabbits..

History lesson (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159032)

This current trend for copy protection reminds me of the home computer boom of the 80s, when everyone jumped on the copy protection bandwagon producing new and improved ways to "stop the pirates". Eventually all the schemes were cracked, and the companies stopped protecting the software because it cost too much and it was too much hassle. Rember "lenslock" anyone?

Then it was 3.5" discs, but if you copied your Amiga game on a PC, or a Mac, or an Acorn (remember them?) it might work. So they gave up...

And then it was dongles. I see a lot less of them these days.

History shows that these anti-copy schemes get cracked and then they get forgotten. When will they ever learn....

X-Copy (1)

johnstown (471249) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159035)

And X-Copy [emuunlim.com] allowed folks to copy any copy-protected disk on the Amiga; which had some pretty tricky disk encoding schemes available to it if you banged on the hardware a bit. It'll get cracked. Everything does.

Insert... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159037)

Slashdot reader complaining about their rights being violated <here>.

<insert PENIS here>.

Duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159042)

Wouldn't these companies be better off by NOT publicly announcing such measures?...

Dear Rebel Alliance,

We have implemented a new forcefield around the Death Star. It's impossible to bypass.

Yours truly,
Darth Vader

Re:Duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159112)

Oh yeah and we patched that exhaust port problem on the last one, so go ahead and try it.

Here we go again (4, Interesting)

Rupert (28001) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159046)

If I can read the contents of the disk, I can write it to another disk. If I can't read it (with my existing hardware and software) then it's broken.

Besides, how many warez d00ds are actively swapping copied CDs, anyway? Isn't it all ISO images in these days of broadband?

Thank goodness (2, Insightful)

secondsun (195377) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159047)

It is about time some one comes up with an unhackable security standard. I am tired of having to make back up copies of all my games and apps (esp VS. NET academic, 7 fucking cd's). Now with this technology deployed I can simply ask for a replacement disk when one of mine fail.

Wait, companies don't offer that protection even if my media fails? You mean I will have to pony up another 50-300 dollars for a piece of software?

Damn damn damn, I hope it gets cracked faster than IIS on a bad day.

Has anybody (1)

sofist (556213) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159049)

have a soft-tip pen to borow - last time when there was a uncrackable CD protection that did the trick... ;)

Is it worth all the trouble? (2)

jsimon12 (207119) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159052)

I wonder if it is really worth all the trouble to get people not to pirate. Sure the industry comes up with numbers in the millions or billions, but the real question is would these people really buy a legite copy if they had to? Or would the reaction be similar to what is going on with the RIAA and "un-copyable" CD's? Has anyone actually proven that making a CD uncopyable will do anything good? Or will someone just figure out how and get put in jail (a la DVD and DeCSS).

Nice to see 90s-style hubris is still in fashion (3, Funny)

ArcSecond (534786) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159056)

Whenever I see these claims of "better, stronger, faster" anti-copying schemes, I wonder if these guys are noticing that the counter-anti-copiers develop new tactics faster than a bacterium can split in two.

What would this scenario look like if we translated it into WarCraft 3?:

"I AM THE MIGHTY THRALL! SEE THE INPENETRABLE WALL OF TURRETS THAT SURROUND MY BASE! I AM INVINCIBLE! NO-ONE WOULD DARE... HEY! STOP THAT! NOOOO!! PLEASE!! STOP!! ARRRRRGGGH!"

it's all about the 95% (1)

rta (559125) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159060)

As usual, they're not going to stop dedicated crackers from copying the software on these disks. However, it will be much harder than just sticking a disk in your cd rom , another one in your CD-RW and hitting the copy button.

so this will cut down on a high percentage of copying by normal users.

no comment on fair use issues or whatever, but from the point of view of cutting down on casual software piracy this seems like a good idea to me.

Hmm, I dont think so (-1)

piznut (553799) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159066)

This idea is hardly new. SafeDisc, SecuRom, Laserlock and friends are all crackable and copyable using widely available tools. Why should anyone believe that this is any different?

If the software that you are running on my computer can read this key to decrypt it's content, what is going to stop me from using a low level method to read the key on my machine? A license agreement that tells me not to reverse engineer? Guess what, the people cracking protected software probably dont have legal compliance at the top of their priority list. Give this what...a week before it's cracked?

They don't get it! (2)

ryanwright (450832) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159070)

When will these people get it?! First, you can't copy protect something. It will be hacked with 48 hours of release, if not sooner. Second, all it takes is one person to put it on Kazaa and it's everywhere.

Meanwhile, millions of honest, law abiding people will have to deal with the bullshit problems that this will create. I use no-cd hacks for most of my games. With data storage going for close to $1 per gig, who the hell wants to insert a CD every time they want to play a game? Copy the whole CD to the hard drive and throw it in a box. Saves time and effort every time I fire up the latest version of (insert game here).

"All CD-ROM drives could read software with the encryption keys without any trouble," a JVC spokeswoman said.

Yeah, we'll see. Trust me, this time will be no different than the last eight times they've said this.

Reminds me of the 3DS Dongle (5, Informative)

thesolo (131008) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159073)

This reminds me of the 3D Studio Max hardware dongle issue. To protect the software from piracy, the authors of 3DS Max had the program check for a dongle on the serial port of the computer. The dongle would return a unique key requested by the program, depending on the activity you were doing in the program at the time. The thought was with all the combinations that the dongle/software combo could possibly have, it would be impossible to emulate with software, thus keeping 3DS secure.

What happened?? 3DS was one of the fastest-cracked pieces of software I've ever seen. Instead of trying to emulate the dongle, crackers simply went through the program and removed all the calls to the dongle! 3DS was circulating around the internet in less than a week after it's official commercial release, paired with a fully-functional crack.

I expect this technology to be no different. People won't try to copy the original, they will figure out a way to get around the checking mechanism, then copy the cracked version. As the saying goes, where there is a will, there is a way.

Re:Reminds me of the 3DS Dongle (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159155)

As the saying goes, where there is a will, there is a way.

I've heard that before. This Will character certainly seems to be held in high esteem.

Well I know what I'm gonna do... (5, Funny)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159074)

... I'm gonna start scanning my CD's. Eventually the DPI will be enough to make it work.

Lets just get this over... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159084)

`lectual" property owners! I am bending over right now. Why not save the effort in the future and just FUCK me in the ass right now? Get it out of your system! I am sure it will make you feel better. Heck Hillary Rosen, you can just strap on your plastic penis you root your "significant other" with right now...well after you get the RIAA web site back up after the hack job it received this morning--threaten to hack us and you will be hacked first! Did you like the "special message" that was left?

Time and Desire (1, Offtopic)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159088)

My wife and I visisted a mayan city when we were on our honeymoon in Cancun. I was amazed by the incredible amount of pure information they had ammassed in regards to astronomy.

Our guide was really helpful in explaining that this amazing feat was possible because the people figuring all the stuff out had tons and tons of time to work on it over years and years.

Just imagine all the people out there w/nothing but time and desire (I'm willing to bet there are more people that will work to break this than there were Mayans studying moon/stars/seasons). What system can stand against that onslaught?

.

A very special technique... (2)

jukal (523582) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159089)

From the Hudson Soft release [hudson.co.jp] : " The new technology developed by Hudson and JVC uses a special technique to keep the key hidden"

I wonder if this special technology is security by obscurity :)) If the magic can be read by the cd-rom drive, I really don't see what would be so hard in developing a "special technique" for recording the disc while playing back data from the original to create a new record without this silly copy-protection.

prevention (4, Interesting)

Satai (111172) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159099)

Ok, if anybody here knows more than what the article says -- presumably, the key will be accessible through direct-level calls to the CD-ROM to read specific tracks; what is to prevent the user from either intercepting these calls or monitoring usage of the CD-ROM, in order to determine where the keys are placed on the CD? I imagine an API implementation like WINE would be able to intercept these calls, with parameters, to find the specific locations.

But, I assume, this has been thought of by JVC. Why wouldn't it work?

Couldn't they just.. (2)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159100)

...sniff the IDE channel and dump the data from it somewhere on a hard drive?

Whatever (2)

Auckerman (223266) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159101)

"special encryption keys which are hidden in software that's pressed onto a CD-ROM and cannot be read with ordinary procedures."

"The development team has already verified the compatibility of the Root encryption key system with about 200 models of CD-ROM drives on the market."

Unless those CD-ROM drives are using abnormal means to read those little 0's and 1's these statements are mutually exclusive. All one would have to do is a raw device dump and burn the resulting disk image on their favorite CD burner.

Greedy bastards! (1)

mustangdavis (583344) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159107)

I wonder how much money was wasted doing this (soon to be futile) "research" .... again!

How can these "researchers" actually take a paycheck for this "work" and live with themselves?

To all researchers on this project: Would it hurt that much to become a productive member of society? For God's sake, flipping burgers would be more benificial than wasting time and resources trying to re-invent a wheel that has (and will be) broken time and time again!

Just keep building the mountains taller and taller ... hackers need exercise too!

Even if this thing did work.... (2)

ebyrob (165903) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159114)

It certainly won't be profitable in the game biz. Show me a game that can't run without [gamecopyworld.com] the CD and I'll show you a game no one wants to buy.

I have an 8x DVD drive that takes about 2 years to spin up, there's no way in luserland I'm going to wait for that delay anytime during game play, or application use for that matter.

Backups (4, Insightful)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159124)

Well, at work we make backup copies of our software then store the master copies in a safe place, that way we can send the copies out with our techs so if they get scratched and stuff it's no big deal.

Fair use is a nice thing, and it actually saves us money because we don't have to buy new copies when one gets scratched.

To save everyone the usual comments (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4159137)

1) We don't care if you buy all your software, or alternatively, don't play games, think free (beer) Linux is l33t, and that we should too. This comes from a Debian Woody/Win2k dual-booter. *Yawn*

2) Yes, one single point of failure. Someone cracks it, and suddenly cracked copies float all around the 'net on every P2P we can imagine. So the tech is mostly useless. Yes, we all know this too. As for copying from friends: most even non-computer-literate people know how to use point & drool P2P nets now to download W4r3z, pr0n, eBooks, and anything else we can imagine. The number of times I've actually physically had to pirate a CD in the past two years can be counted on one hand.

Lastly, something perhaps vaguely original: having just read the GPL article, and the main incentive being given for development as 'reputation', and seeing as how warez and cracker groups operate the same way, one wonders if a comparison article is in order...

Technology to prevent software copying (2)

suso (153703) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159154)

They call it... The baseball bat.

Oh Great.... (1)

graphicartist82 (462767) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159157)

Quoth the article: JVC intends to charge between 20 cents and $1 per disk for the encryption service, depending on the complexity of the key codes.

Yay, 1 more thing to drive up the price of CD's.. This reminds me why I don't buy CD's..

features special encryption keys which are hidden in software that's pressed onto a CD-ROM and cannot be read with ordinary procedures.

Couldn't this be overcome by doing a raw copy of the CD? AFAIK, as long as it's not a hardware-driven protection mechanism, a raw write would just transfer the data to the new CD..

MORE difficult? (2)

telstar (236404) | more than 12 years ago | (#4159160)

"the location, length and number of embedded keys can vary making it more difficult to hack."
  • So that means it'll take like two days, instead of one?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?