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!

Work Around for New DVD Format Protections

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the oops dept.

466

An anonymous reader writes "For the new Blu-ray and HD-DVD formats, Hollywood implemented a complete copy protection scheme; almost everything has to be encrypted and authenticated. Despite the crypto-stuff in Advanced Access Content System and High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection, they left the backdoor wide open — they forgot about the PrintScreen button. Using this function you can create exact digital copies of a film picture-by-picture and reassemble them into a stream."

cancel ×

466 comments

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

hrmm (5, Insightful)

paradigmdream (915171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675237)

thats quite a bit of work to copy a movie

Re:hrmm (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675271)

Writing a single script is a lot of work to remove the protection from an any number of movies?

Re:hrmm (1, Redundant)

preppypoof (943414) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675272)

do you really think it would be that hard to create a program to do this for you?

Re:hrmm (1)

paradigmdream (915171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675318)

not at all

Re:hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675479)

Way to spoil the joke - I too had the vision of some ne'er-do-well in a lockup being forced to sit there pressing printscreen 60 times a second for hours on end.

Re:hrmm (1)

adamlazz (975798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675280)

Of course, you're sacraficing quality. But you hit the nail on the head when you said that. It just wouldn't be worth it. Firstly, it would probably take a week. Secondly, Sound synchronization would prove to be hard to say the least, and finally, NOONE would want to do this. The 'time-spent: money-gained ratio' would be horrible.

Re:hrmm (2, Funny)

winnabago (949419) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675376)

Sacrificing quality. A week? Bah! Just get some neighborhood kids, a box of crayolas, and a jumbo size box of tracing paper. Then, profit. Nobody said that you have to spend the time.

hrmm-Doing the fanny-wave. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675377)

Well see now, the analoge hole argument ignores little details like that, and plays up the "see! see! you can't stop us from getting what we want". It's basically a game of one-upmanship, not of technical superiority.

Of course everyone misses the point that DRM and other mechanisms isn't about stopping every "infringer", any more than having police is about zero crime. One just needs to keep the problem to the background noise level.

Re:hrmm (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675399)

when trying to capture a scene from a DVD for an animated GIF using previous versions of Intervideo's stuff, I was surprsied to realize there's a mismatch between what you see on the screen and what came up in the screencapture directory. Using at least the default players there wasn't an easy way to capture a series of even spaced stills.

Re:hrmm (2, Insightful)

govtpiggy (978532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675417)

But how long would it take to create a program that does it and syncs the audio as well? I'm sure there's a way to stream the images onto a single large file rather than dealing with compiling millions of saved images. Even if it does take a week to run on an average computer it only has to be done once before it gets spread around the net. And there will always be pirate groups that will do it regardless of the "time spent:money gained" ratio. The real question is whether it'll prove to be less effort to replicate them this way or to find a more direct way around the encryption.

Re:hrmm (1)

adamlazz (975798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675468)

Well, I wouldn't care about how long it took to get me the movie, as long as it wasn't horrible quality. I guess you could say I'm a little anal about the effort it would take to PrintScreen every frame v.s. beating encryption. Beating encryption would ensure better quality videos and it would get the movies out faster than the various frame by frame methods.

Re:hrmm (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675519)

Huh?

Surely you aren't assuming that someone's going to press Print Screen millions of times...?

The program you write would simply grab every frame as the movie's playing at normal speed.

Sheesh....

Re:hrmm (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675331)

If you really want to copy a blue-ray movie, there are easier ways, such as decrypting HDCP. [dataloss.nl]

Re:hrmm (2, Funny)

Yurka (468420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675336)

No work is big enough for a very small script.

Re:hrmm (1)

Flimzy (657419) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675379)

Yes, it is a bunch of work. But it won't be long (relative to the likely lifetime of HD-DVD/BluRay) before hardware that can do this very efficiently will exist. It used to be nearly impossible to copy a CD. Even when CD burners came out, the initial investment was huge ($1000+), it took an hour to burn a disc, and cost $10+ for a blank media. Then DVD burners came out. And the burners were expensive, the media cost $10+, and it took a long time to rip and burn the media. And to recode the DVD to another format, we had to wait quite a while for the loose-DRM to be hacked.

All in all, it's my opinion that it will be just a matter of time before we can copy HD-DVD/BluRay with ease. Either because the HD frame-grabbing hardware will become cheap (quad-core CPUs will be a commodoty soon), and/or because someone can find a way around the DRM. Most likely both.

Of course I still think DRM sucks, even if I don't think it will keep me from copying HD content for very long.

Re:hrmm (1, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675390)

If the "Print Screen" key can do it, so can 3rd party screen grabbers.
They may be able to block the key, but there is no way to block the 3rd party programs unless they hack the OS. (Not that, i.e., Sony would mind doing that).

Re:hrmm (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675445)

Thank you for trying to sound fancy with latin abbreviations. Please try again next time.

i.e.
Function: abbreviation
Etymology: Latin id est
that is

e.g.
Function: abbreviation
Etymology: Latin exempli gratia
for example

Re:hrmm (5, Funny)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675411)

Not if you script it.

Alternatively you can "script" a sufficient number of those little slave hands instead of using them top make "Action Man" figures for Tesco.

In either case, there are not that many frames in a movie. Even if you use "slaves" it will take less than 500£ to recover all frames in Lord of the Rings this way somewhere in the middle of nowhere in China.

Re:hrmm (1)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675500)

Doesn't matter since your sound will be out of synch and the whole thing will look like shit. There are much better ways to skin this cat.

Not so much, really (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675499)

It would be a lot of work, if you did it manually. The print screen button is really just a proof of concept idea. Remember that the device is a computer and they excell at repetition.

For example, it wouldn't be too hard to write a DirectX driver for a virtual display device that simply passes every frame it sees into a filter for recording. Same should work for audio, really. Just take the inbound stream and stash it somehwere. As long as you've got the bandwidth inside the machine to move the data and the space to store it, why not?

This is why MS is pushing so hard for that "driver verification" thing. User created drivers can bypass the DRM just before the media gets pushed out to the hardware. The Windows box simply isn't built for DRM level trust at all points in a broadcast. Yet, anyways. It's still possible to break the chain somewhere and extract content. I'm guessing that'll always be the case too, at least for a good long while. Only way to get around that with what we have today would be if MS started selling PCs that are welded shut.

For that matter (0, Redundant)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675238)

You could just hook up your DVD player to a VHS recorder. Ever think of that?

Re:For that matter (2, Informative)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675296)

This doesn't work well even with regular DVDs. Ever think of Macrovision?

Re:For that matter (1)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675316)

True- Macrovision was a problem.
However I'm sure that somewhere someone will make a TV that allows you to pass output after the stream was decrypted. They did it with the DVD...

Re:For that matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675337)

Certain types of high-end tape recorders (editing quality) completely ignore macrovision output, or allow you to enter your own black level signal.

Macrovision (2, Informative)

dividedsky319 (907852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675365)

You could just hook up your DVD player to a VHS recorder. Ever think of that?
I'm sure they've thought about that as well... since you can't even do that with a current generation DVD player. If you go directly into the input jacks on a VCR, Macrovision protection will kick in and result in a scrambled picture or a picture that fades from dark to light. Details from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Plus, what's the point of going back two generations? Sure, you could watch the movie, but you're not getting a high definition picture anymore... So why not make a copy of the regular DVD, which as we know are easy to rip/decrypt. Otherwise, it would be like going from a CD to an 8 track. And I don't think there's too many people out there doing that. ;-)

Re:Macrovision (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675424)

"Sure, you could watch the movie, but you're not getting a high definition picture anymore"

Who cares? Most people I know including myself watch a film to see the story, not
to go "ooooh , look at how many pixels its got!". I still watch VHS , doesn't bother
me at all.

form. This "front" is obvious. (4, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675240)

problematic for other reasons

This copy protection quagmire (we need to come up with a withdrawal plan)... it creates problems in other ways on other fronts.

Consider the long discussed issues in general with DRM and DRM's interference with easy adoption of new (and really potentially very cool) technology for consumers. This has been discussed to death on slashdot as well as other forums -- and remains one of the foremost threats to the success of HD in any

What may be less obvious is what starts to happen when these tiny holes appear in the digital dike, and the industry discovers they're gaping holes, and the patching begins, to the detriment of other accepted technology.

In the case of this described "hole", a screen print? This becomes the DRM's worst nightmare? If they succeed in lobbying the PC industry and others and get this hole blocked, all of a sudden a long-accepted practice, i.e., screen printing, becomes suspect and may even be taken away as an option because it is potentially used for pirating.

Don't discount the possibility this could happen. A few years ago all may have pooh-poohed the idea as preposterous because computers just plain old didn't have the horse power and storage to pull this kind of feat off. Today they do. And if someone does start pirating DVDs this way it would be predictable the MPAA could go after that technique, maybe successfully.

Unintended consequences. I would find it highly objectionable to see the capabilities of my computers to expand and my ability (or permission) to use those capabilities diminished.

Re:form. This "front" is obvious. (2, Informative)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675343)

Whatever happened to the "I bought the DVD, I should do what the fuck I want with it"?

Re:form. This "front" is obvious. (1)

RichardX (457979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675474)

Whatever happened to the "I bought the DVD, I should do what the fuck I want with it"?

You've still got that right, just as you always have!
You can use it as a drinks mat, a frisbee, a wall hanging, a-...
Ohhh... you meant movie contained on the DVD?
Why do you hate freedom?

Re:form. This "front" is obvious. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675538)

You never did have the right to do what the fuck you want with it. You never were allowed to copy it and sell it. You never were allowed to charge people to see it. You never were allowed to rip it and upload it to random others whom you don't know.

What you have had the right to do is view it for your own private entertainment, to loan the disc to a friend, and to give away or sell the disc provided that you don't keep any copies of it. What you should have the right to do is make a backup copy for safekeeping, or for viewing on a device that doesn't have a DVD drive/player (notebook PC, iPod, whatever).

Re:form. This "front" is obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675410)

I'm a digital dike, you insensitive clod!

Work Around (1, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675241)

I was trying to view this story but it kept telling me ...

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

But I found a work around!

My finger is going to be sore (0, Redundant)

WinDOOR (741468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675248)

Copying The DaVinci Code frame by frame

Re:My finger is going to be sore (5, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675309)

If you spill soda in the exact spot right under the Print Screen button, it becomes much easier.

Re:My finger is going to be sore (3, Funny)

WinDOOR (741468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675350)

Or I can get one of these [ncsu.edu]

Re:My finger is going to be sore (1)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675409)

I hope that you remember what happened when Homer tried to control the Springfield Nuclear Power plant with that device in "King Sized Homer."

Re:My finger is going to be sore (1)

WinDOOR (741468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675430)

Best episode EVER

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675249)

FP

Get right. (4, Insightful)

RedOregon (161027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675256)

Hollywood didn't implement squat.

They browbeat/bribed the companies that developed the software to implement it.

Splitting hairs, maybe, but Hollywood would have trouble implementing a flush toilet.

Re:Get right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675344)

Toilets & Hollywood & Crappy movies... There is a joke in there somewhere.

Re:Get right. (1)

MisterSquiddy (905066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675447)

"Splitting hairs, maybe, but Hollywood would have trouble implementing a flush toilet."

But at least they'd remember the horizontal mirror, eh?

*knowlingly taps nose*

Re:Get right. (5, Funny)

Ours (596171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675484)

Splitting hairs, maybe, but Hollywood would have trouble implementing a flush toilet.

What a shame, with all the crap they come up these days they would sure have good use for it.

Get right-MJ's: Beat IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675489)

"They browbeat/bribed the companies that developed the software to implement it."

Obviously noone here sees the catch-twenty-two.

1: DVD player company has player they want to sell.

2: Said player is mostly useless without something to play on it.

3: Most content comes from commercial sources (that applies to TV too).

4: Commercial content creators have product they want to sell.

5: Said content is mostly useless without a player to play it on.

6: Most players are produced by commercial companies.

Now the question is whom has the strtonger standing in this equation? Player? Content creator?

I'd say the content creator.*

*One little detail. Sometimes content creator and player manufacturer are one and the same. No browbeating needed.

lots of pictures (0, Redundant)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675260)

30 frames/sec * 60 seconds/minute * 150 minute movie = 135000 pictures, no? That's an awful lot of times pushing the print screen button. Even if you can "print" to an image file, and use a script to "push" the button continuously, once you factor in reassembling it, that'll still take a while.

Re:lots of pictures (2, Insightful)

paradigmdream (915171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675277)

and you would still have to rip the audio stream and add that in

Re:lots of pictures (3, Funny)

RedOregon (161027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675293)

Not with a beowulf cluster!

(sorry, I couldn't NOT do it.)

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675353)

any decent video app worth it's salt [hell, even blender, the 3d app] can treat a sequence of numbered images as any other animation file

[that said, I'd expect them to be using video overlays to play hd video just like every other video player [except flash]... though I could see an option to not use an overlay as a fallback, I can't see any computer less than 10 years old unable to do video overlays]

Re:lots of pictures (0, Redundant)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675359)

The wonders of hacking. If the print screen button works and it sends it to a file, hardware hackers will find what the button calles and call that directly. Then they find the location,software that does the final dump. That way they can avoing hitting the button and probably in 3 or 4 hours they can get a perfect backup.

Re:lots of pictures (2, Informative)

redmond_herring (839209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675378)

30 frames/sec * 60 seconds/minute * 150 minute movie = 135000 pictures, no? That's an awful lot of times pushing the print screen button. Even if you can "print" to an image file, and use a script to "push" the button continuously, once you factor in reassembling it, that'll still take a while.

Do you really think that no one will write a quick script to do this automatically???

Re:lots of pictures (1)

psybre (921148) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675414)

Considering 135000 "pictures," you gotta really feel for the CGI artists ... its a bit more time consuming (but a lot more fun) than pushing a button.

~ psybre

Oh No! (5, Funny)

JamesP (688957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675262)


1 - Shift key - DMCA circumvention
2 - Print Screen - DMCA circunvention

Let's hope they don't take our entire keyboard to protect their stuff from the thieves...

Hmmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675267)

Yes I will spend hours hitting print screen frame by frame so that I don't have to buy the DVD. TAKE THAT MPAA HAHAHA SUCKERS

Re:Hmmmm.... (3, Funny)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675307)

You see, on a computer you can run these things called 'programs'...

Of course you don't hit print screen yourself, you get a macro package to do it for you and automate the whole thing.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Hmmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675461)

*salutes Captain Obvious*

I was going for the crazed MPAA-hater type, I'm always taken too literally :(

Printscreen? (4, Funny)

dalmiroy2k (768278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675268)

Printscreen?
Give me a break, somebody please send a HD-DVD/Blu-ray drive to DVD Jon so he can start doing his stuff.

Re:Printscreen? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675408)

Wouldn't he become HD-DVD John (or Blu-Ray John), then? ;-)

Re:Printscreen? (1)

localman (111171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675455)

DVD Jon moved to the US, so I don't think he'll be doing any more of those little tricks :/

Cheers.

Re:Printscreen? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675523)

He continued to do them with iTunes

Re:Printscreen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675486)

All he did last time was in fact making the GUI part. Hell, I could make a GUI this time if someone does the rest.

And then you shall all know me as "HD-DVD Anonymous coward"

Re:Printscreen? (1)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675509)

Will this make him HD Jon, or Blue-Ray Jon? Ray Jon?

Not really a backdoor (-1, Redundant)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675270)

I wouldn't necessarily call taking 2 trillion screen captures a great hack. Thats like filming the movie with a highdef camera off of your LCD and saying they left another door wide open! I'll be more impressed when some 16-year-old kid completely H4x0Rs the entire system and movies start flowing over eMule and Bitorrent. Until then, I'm not impressed.

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:Not really a backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675348)

Put that shit in a signature.

Re:Not really a backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675420)

If he puts it in a signature, he can't PageRank-whore for his site now, can he?

Re:Not really a backdoor (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675437)

Filming off your monitor is subject to all kinds of degredation.

Capturing the printscreen output is subject to output colour adjustments and the quality of your decoder. Beyond that, however, it's perfect digital output in full resolution.

Re:Not really a backdoor (1)

duffahtolla (535056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675439)

Thats like filming the movie with a highdef camera off of your LCD and saying they left another door wide open!

Actually, they are already trying to plug that hole using Camera DRM [bbspot.com]

"I tried to send a picture of my daughter to her Uncle Tim, but this window popped up saying it was blocked. I decided to print it out and mail it to him. There was a 14-page license agreement that printed out first that I had to fill out and fax to Sony so they could send me an authorization code to print out the picture."

I also remember reading about a proposed DRM that consists of a watermark in the video stream that would disable future digital cameras. Cant find a reference for that, but I'm sure if it can be done, they will do it.

Re:Not really a backdoor (1)

duffahtolla (535056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675498)

I forgot to add <funny> to the quote.. My bad.

But the reference to a video watermark was true. Can someone find a reference?

Re:Not really a backdoor (5, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675512)

This *is* a backdoor. The digital data is in the frame buffer, but cannot be extracted (programs that are not trusted cannot be run). The Print Screen function is trusted, and so can run even with end-to-end crypto. The Print Screen function has access to the entire frame buffer. I don't know of another way to do this -- this one is actually brilliant.

And, Print Screen can be scripted. The player can ALSO be "scripted". As in, pause, and single step ("consumer" features). As to the speed of such a utility -- I would estimate that the re-encode process for a typical movie would take around 400 minutes (on a "typical" high end PC, see next paragraph for the amount of data involved). Ripping the audio track is more difficult (especially in full 5.1+ glory), but the technology for that is known. Time for that is real-time. Pulling a figure out of my ass, I would think a usable rip would take 800 minutes.

It's not "2 trillion" screen captures. It is a lot of data, though. At maximum resolution (1920x1080p) its 2 million pixels per frame. At 24bpp, that's 672 GB per hour (108,000 frames). The data HAS to be jammed through an encoder right away. This, of course, introduces new artifacts (its not going to be a "perfect" first generation copy). But its still going to be better than DVD quality.

I believe that the keys for this software will be revoked, and the current users (if any) "upgraded".

The point that this attack makes is that "DRM" is actually rather laughable. Your audience needs the decrypt keys, and yet can't be trusted with the decrypt keys... It just isn't stable.

Ratboy.

BWAAhahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675275)

Hollywood makes me L-O-L

Never safe... Until (2, Interesting)

SirCyn (694031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675285)

No consumer content will be safe from copying until they can beam it straight into our heads.
Both video and audio, you can always plug the output device into an input capture device and copy it that way. And with new digital transmission mediums the quality can be kept very high (compared to those who remember the VCR-to-VCR via RCA cables days).
Not to mention that any encryption scheme that can be decoded can be broken. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Never safe... Until (1)

Lurker187 (127055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675374)

And then they will sue all those with eidetic memory, and saying "Remember the car chase scene..." will be piracy.

Re:Never safe... Until (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675429)

No consumer content will be safe from copying until they can beam it straight into our heads.

Well... No... If we could beam the images straight to our head, we would understand how the brain works. In that case it would be pretty much trivial to intercept the beam and re-encode it to normal images.

In other News (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675289)

the MPAA has started legal proceedings against keyboard manufacturers for their "Deliberate and malicious attempt to circumvent our government guaranteed profits."

Also, Copyright Lawyers all over the planet needed new pants in order to cope with all of the involuntary orgasms.

More news at 7.

Re:In other News (1, Funny)

the2cheat (986144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675363)

In response to legal pressur from the MPAA, keyboard manufacturers have begun slowly removing keys, starting with thge function and printscreen buttons, and slowly makng their way to the tilde. They took my tilde, now I cannot cheat in Half Life 2! NOOOOOOO! But honestly, no one's gonna printscreen an entire movie.

Re:In other News (3, Interesting)

Compholio (770966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675450)

They took my tilde, now I cannot cheat in Half Life 2! NOOOOOOO! But honestly, no one's gonna printscreen an entire movie.

The concept of taking full-blown movies of your desktop is very old and is used a lot for computer training programs, it would be incredibly simple for one of those recording programs to record the video and audio of a playing movie and save it without the copy protection.

Re:In other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675485)

Not manually, no, but I imagine it would not be too difficult to write software to do this for you.

Real pirates DUPLICATE (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675330)

To make "other" copies is too troublesome. As always, real pirates will use the means they always have. They will work "off hours" at DVD publishing sites making uncounted copies indistinguishable from the counted copies. They will have the production equipment in their homes to make exact duplicates.

This is not about stopping piracy because these measures to nothing to address the two primary methods. What it does thrwart is casual consumer copying to better ensure that the consumers will buy multiple copies of the same stuff.

What I am saying is not new and has been repeated since the creation of the first DVD format.

On the Graphics card ram at some point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675338)

Wouldn't it be easy to reprogram the PCI-Express graphics card to slave the images to another graphics card which would then output the full glory without protection?

Unless they protect the image in memory we can always sniffz it :)

You're kidding? (1)

VlartBlart (948166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675347)

Is it April fools day?

If I recall correctly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675352)

On HDCP protected hardware, if you use PrintScreen, the frame will be completely blank (solid black).

So you had to tell the world? (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675356)

Really, I resent the fact that some DVD players block image capture for the occasional still frame. I would hate to see the software players remove the feature from the high def software players because some clueless weenie had to announce it to the world.

Re:So you had to tell the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675462)

This is usually a side effect of the video overlay device and has nothing to do with DRM.

A stretch (1)

jdwclemson (953895) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675361)

That really is a stretch, the analogy about the camera filming the screen nails it, at least that way you get properly synched sound. Speaking of which, you forgot to mention that you should open up sound recorder so you can capture the audio in sub par format as well. Of course there are applications that could be created and probably already exist that would allow the recording of each frame the computer displays. This would prove to be ineffective, inefficient, and probably low quality as well when you attempted to compile the frames for distribution. I know that we aren't big fans of the encryption features, but its probably not good use of Slashdot to fill its boards with absurdly obvious "hacks" that don't work.

An exercise in futility (2, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675364)

This just shows that whatever the content industry (not the content creators, btw) do to protect their distribution monopoly is doomed to fail. After all it requires just one good enough rip and the thing is out there. This specific security hole is extremely stupid, since the attack is one of the most obvious things to try. Even if ripping is harder and the domain of technology enthusiasts, distribution via P2P filesharing is easy and P2P filesharing is by now basically unkillable.

Still I think there is hope: The stuff Hollywood had been producing in the past few years is now so bad, that soon it will not be worth the bandwidth and disk space to download it, let alone the time to look at it.

Those Idiots (5, Insightful)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675366)

Now was not the time to splatter this information all over the world. If they had waited for wider deployment, this hole could have been kept wedged open as closing it on hundreds of thousands of clients wouldn't have been terribly practical.

Remember would be DVD-Jons, if you find DRM holes in new media tech SHUT YOUR YAP UNTIL EVERYBODY AND HIS DOG HAS BOUGHT SOME. THEN RELEASE THE INFO. When you do release the information, do so complete with "mom friendly" utilities and use warez "spreaders" to be sure everybody and his dog can start using it right away. This also complicates shutting the hole in various social and technical ways.

The Obvious Comment (0, Redundant)

SecretAsianMan (45389) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675371)

Ooh, can I make the obvious comment?

Oh boy, I can't wait until the MPAA takes away my PRINT SCREEN key!

If Print Screen fails, a workaround (3, Funny)

Revolver4ever (860659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675372)

I'm just throwing out ideas here, but could a pirate with decent art skills redraw every frame of the movie on paper? A few thousand pieces of computer paper would be all that's needed. Staple it all together and BAM, sell on the subway corner for 2 bucks a pop. Piracy will never end!

DMCA and Circumvention (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675388)

Err... Isn't even this post a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its anti-circumvention terms? The law basically says it's illegal for you to fix a design defect (like DRM). I believe it's also illegal to share information on how to point toward a way to fix a DRM problem. Hmmm....

I can't believe prison is a threat for someone writing news like this. Too bad the poster of this news had to be anonymous to engage in free speech! Time to kill this stupid law!

Yeah right (5, Interesting)

Britz (170620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675392)

So the new copy protection sheme is supposed to keep professinal pirates (the guys that copy the movie and then sell th ecopies in large quantities) from gaining a copy? Gimme a break!

And it is supposed to be a hurdle to those "release groups" (the guys that compete with each other to be the fastest to release a movie to the p2p networks)? Yeah, right!

This hole (and there will be others) is another prove that there is no protection against those two groups. They will simply find another way.

But it puts a major obstacle in the way of paying customers that just want to watch movies. The movie studios don't realize it because there is no pressure from an alternative. That is also called a monopoly. And who is going to break it up? The movie industry and the record industry both seem to need a little "help" to get some competition back into their respective markets.

DirectX recorder (3, Insightful)

cjb-nc (887319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675397)

DirectX recorders exist, primarily used for recording videos in games. I'm pretty sure most DVD player apps use the same directx layer, and so could easily be recorded by such a program. This is just an idea off the top of my head.

Result: watch for the MPAA to start outlawing your favorite DirectX recorders in the near future. Seems they will always find it easier to prosecute the loopholes than to fix their own stuff.

And just to make things easier... (5, Interesting)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675404)

You can automate the whole process using the two software below:
  1. AutoIT [autoitscript.com] to create a script.
  2. IrfanView [irfanview.com] to grab the entire screen and/or apply optional transforms to the captured image. This is optional, since AutoIT can probably send the "PrintScreen" command itself, and move the resulting file(s) into a capture directory.


Just set your DVD software to play frame-by-frame. The rest is taken care of by the automated script. Sure, it may take a couple of attempts, but once you have the formula down, ripping an entire DVD movie should not take more than 4x or 5x the normal duration of the movie. Just let your computer run all night and you can have a brand new DiVX in the morning.

Now, what I'd like to know is: how do you rip the soundtrack off those uber-protected DVD? Hook the DVD player to an MP3 recorder? Or do you use one of the software that pretends to be a valid sound card?

*GASP* - Another hole found! (5, Funny)

GogglesPisano (199483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675405)

Check this out:

Using my 733t hax0r sk1llz, I can use my EYES to COPY the movie to my BRAIN, where I can remember it OVER and OVER again -- for FREE!

Eat THAT, MPAA!

Re:*GASP* - Another hole found! (1)

MaXiMiUS (923393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675530)

*next week on /*...*

Does HDCP solve this? (5, Insightful)

MasterC (70492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675416)

High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection [wikipedia.org] (HDCP) "protects" DVI & HDMI interfaces but for this to work on a regular PC then the OS has to be in on the deal as well, right? So if a drive and video card support the devil that is HDCP, does this "back door" work if the OS is in on the HDCP? I would venture a "no" on that one.

Taking print screens is a weak solution, but a solution nonetheless. All it takes is one person to have the patience or scripting skills to automate this for a copy to hit the internet. One. That's the problem with DRM in that it may deter most people but to be totally effective it requires determent of everyone. Feeding millions of individual frames to an encoder is not beyond some people, I'm sure. Especially since hollywood raised the stakes.

If this is a back door, then it's one of those miniature clown doors. When someone figures out a way to completely strip out AACS (like what was done with CSS) then we can call AACS hacked and laugh again at the never-winable battle that is DRM.

DRM is unwinable because you have to give the decryption key to the user so that they can use the product. If you don't give them the key then they can't use it. So DRM gives the encrypted data and the decryption key to the user every time.

Star Wars Print Screened Will No Copies Be (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675440)

Using this (printscreen) function you can create exact digital copies of a film picture by picture and reassemble them to a stream

George Lucas found out about this, had a fit, and now will release another set of 'Star Wars' DVDs & HD-DVDs that disables this printscreen copy method in order to in his words, 'restore the monetary balance and order to the market force.'

Is it April 1 already? (1)

elgee (308600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675460)

I seem to have lost track of time.

This is a joke, right?

If it can be seen it can be copied (3, Insightful)

sxmjmae (809464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675496)

Anything that appears on my computer screen I can copy - even streaming video.
It is not that hard of thing to do, even if you have to write the code yourself.

"security hole"? (2)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675504)

"Toshiba confirmed the security hole found by c't"

In what way does being able to do a screen grab constitute a threat to my computer's security, or anyone else's?

Here's to the day when we read:

"In response to the recently-discovered security flaw -- which could, if uncorrected, allow terrorists to molest your children -- the developers of WinDVD have ensured that only the encrypted data is displayed on-screen."

Feature not a bug... (2, Insightful)

Distan (122159) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675520)

Neither of these formats is going to go anywhere unless there is a way to make backup copies. This so-called "hole" is actually a feature, not a bug.

I predict that this format war will end when one of these two formats finally has a robust backup solution. At that moment in time, the other format will be dead.

Time to.... (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15675533)

Buy a copy of fraps then i guess, sucking data strait out of the video cards output buffer would be the best way of doing this.

Would be a small guess but with the user level drivers in vista, couldn't you wrapper a program within another program, and intercept all driver commands, pretending you are not listening but grab that framebuffer at a nice smooth 30fps? Of course doing this in realtime would be nasty, sucking in that big an image at 30fps in full frames AVI would be very very bad, last time i recorded a 1600x1200 25fps vid i was useing a gig every 5min.

We own you... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15675536)

"When asked to comment, Toshiba confirmed the security hole found by c't, which affects the computers already sold, and announced updates for the player software and graphics card driver. These new software versions should disable the screenshot function."

So, basically, not only does Hollywood own the playback hardware you buy, but they can remotely disable your application software and drivers, too?

NEW AND IMPROVED! HIGH DEFINITION DVD! BUY NOW!

Oh, and, by the way, if we don't like how you are viewing our product, we'll remotely break it.

Remind me again why I should pay any money for something I won't actually own?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>