×

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!

AACS Vows to Fight Bloggers

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the guerilla-bloggers dept.

Software 601

Jonas Wisser writes "The BBC is carrying the story that AACS has promised to take action against those who have posted the AACS crack online. Michael Ayers, chairperson of AACS, noted that the cracked key has now been revoked, and went on to say, 'Some people clearly think it's a First Amendment issue. There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech.' The AACS website tells consumers how they can 'continue to enjoy content protected by AACS' by 'refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

601 comments

Cue oft-used Leia quote... (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988795)

...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Actually, as I said yesterday [slashdot.org], ignore these threats. Go out and blog. Understand that freedom of speech is NOT a government-granted freedom, it is an inherent one that all people of all citizenship must understand. The U.S. Constitution's (Bill of Rights) 1st Amendment does not say "You are free to speak," it says that Congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of speech -- NO law. Discussing encryption mechanisms is free speech, and Congress shall not abridge that. As for patents and trademark and the rest, as long as you do not mimic the mechanism in your own hardware or software, you're fine, Constitutionally. As long as you do not quote verbatim the actual code used to create this mechanism, you're not violating copyright. The DMCA is unconstitional, and regardless of what Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, or any company says, it is non-binding in terms of the moral realization that Congress, and honestly no State organization, can prevent you from freely airing your opinions. You are free to talk, but no one has to listen.

From yesterday's post I made about "legal recommendations for bloggers," go out and blog. Say what you want to say. There are more of us than there are of them -- not only can they not afford to go after everyone, they can not afford to go after even a small percentage. Let some bloggers get caught, and all it will do is show other people that non-violent actions should not be criminalized or penalized.

AACS, your days are numbered. Your salaries will end. Your powers will be diminished. It won't be because of competition from another company (that you are likely in bed with, in terms of promoting the abuse of State power), it will be because millions upon millions of people will ignore you, and all you do, in trying to revoke our inherent (and in my opinion, God-given) right to speak freely amongst ourselves.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (4, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988843)

Who would want to put 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 into their hardware or software? :)

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (5, Funny)

vought (160908) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988919)

Who would want to put 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 into their hardware or software? :)

Well, here's a screencap of HD-DVD.org showing the key [mac.com] on their own web site!

I guess they're going to have to go after themselves, now. Ve haff the evidence!

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (0)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989049)

That was quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen in years.
For those not clicking the link, its a picture of the site local search engine saying "Sorry your search for 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 was not found."

  OMGWTFBBQ!!!

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (1)

ack154 (591432) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989115)

Ya, there was a story in the 'hose yesterday about someone all excited that the MPAA site having the AACS code on it... but it just said to go to the site and search for the code.

Well no shit!

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989243)

These are jokes, you humorless freaks. Was the Hogan's Heroes-style Nazi accent not enough of a tip-off for you?

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18988993)

OK.

But posting the encryption key to the content is not the same as talking about the encryption key to the content -- not that I care about AACS or the MPAA or whichever. It's just that there's a difference. Posting a long, seemingly "authorative" post on the subject is really a disservice when you are disseminating false information.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989113)

It will also be because people don't mind stealing* so long as they think whoever they are stealing from is wealthy and annoying enough.

* stealing in the extended sense of the word. Copying someone's drawing e.g. isn't stealing in the conventional sense because you are not depriving the original drawer of his or her property, but is in the extended.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (5, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989277)

Forget stealing.

I just want a working Video jukebox solution. The major players like Sony don't seem very interested in providing one and the industry will sue anyone else that tries.

The whole point of capitalism is that the garage shops get to fill niches that the megacorps don't want to bother with.

The sad fact remains that I will easily be able to pull BR/HD-DVD's into my Myth setup before there's a proper BR/HD-DVD jukebox from Sony.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989139)

Furthermore, the countries that recognize the US law are in minority. They might be able to silence a few American guys, but that doesn't help them much since they don't have any means to censor the code from sites that are hosted in other countries.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (5, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989223)

the quesion i have is this.. say you post the key on your site.. you get a take down notice.. what does that notice say? does it say to take down the key or to take down "insert key here" - what if you post it and play dumb that you don't know it is the key.. they would have to tell you what it is they wnat taken down.. and in the document would need to be "insert key here" at that point cause it is a leagl document if they take you to court the key is in the document and is now public record.

then you take it down and repost it with a refrence to the public record document.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989227)

...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Yes. Just before the Death Star blew her home world to smithereens.

But let's hope that's not the case here, eh?

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989435)

> > ...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
>
> Yes. Just before the Death Star blew her home world to smithereens.

"I feel something hilarious has happened. As if 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 geeks cried out in laughter, and were never silenced."

> But let's hope that's not the case here, eh?

Not very long ago, on a website only a few dozen hops away, a great adventure took place.

(cue scrolling text)

Code Wars IV: A New Hope

"It is a period of civil war. Rebel bloggers, striking from all your base, have won their first victory against the evil MAFIAA Empire.

"During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret keys to the MAFIAA's ultimate weapon, the AACS, an armored DRM system with enough power to annoy an entire planet.

"Pursued by the AACSLA's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the leaked key that can save her people and restore fair use to the digital media..."

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (3, Insightful)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989285)

But, to be honest, we all know that a truly free society isn't free at all. You have to have some rules for life to continue. This may be one of them. How much does it matter if you can't speak a string of hexes for copyright/DMCA reasons? It doesn't. Some may say "this is a slippery slope", and that's partly true, but everyone knows that when they start trying to keep us from quoting a favorite line from a recent funny movie, people won't give a damn, and they'll just do it anyways. There will be people with money at that point that realize it's absurd, and when sued, will fight back. I don't see many other places a precedent relating to this Hex issue could lead. So I say it's not a big deal. In fact I would even venture to say that I would support more of this. People want to be entertained, but they're also freaking lazy. When they have to work too hard to be entertained, they'll find something else cheaper, less expensive to entertain themselves with. Have any of you been to Waldenbooks at the mall lately? I recently picked up this [amazon.com] for under $10 (by the way I'd highly recommend it; . I took a glance around and found many other cool books-- a 200 page pictured book of historically significant scientific inventions for $6, a 1" thick, 12"x18" book with nothing but pictures of planets in our solar system (and stuff about the far out ones) for $20; Barak Obama's book for $15; etc. etc.-- that had a WAY better cost/entertainment ratio than Spiderman 3 or any of those HD-DVD/Blu-ray discs. Lets see-- $20 for me [and a wife in the future hopefully] to go see a movie (not including the $8 poppcorn and $5 drinks), or $20 for any of those books I listed above that will provide hours more of entertainment? Easy choice. Eventually when this stuff is so restricted that we can't download it for free, and so expensive that we simply can't afford it, a market will be created for cheap ways to entertain yourself-- and these $10 books at Waldenbooks and Barnes and Noble will fly off the shelves. People will visit their library more. They'll go walk at the park with friends more. So while I think it's good to fight for our rights, the result wouldn't be that bad. "Burn the land, boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me..." We'll find plenty other things to occupy ourselves with. Who cares about AACS and movies and stuff when you can find something else just as, if not more entertaining, for half the price?

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (2, Interesting)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989467)

This may be one of them. How much does it matter if you can't speak a string of hexes for copyright/DMCA reasons? It doesn't.

Dude it's a number. Granted a large number, but still just a number.

Are you telling me that projects like the one trying to find the largest prime can't publish that they've tested this number as a prime?

There are certain things you should NOT be allowed to own - a number is one of them.

Since they're just using Primes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989295)

And the list of known primes is published... why not just automatically try each large prime?

Oh... I've never studied cryptography, so be gentle.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (2, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989325)

Yup, and the amendment right after that has a "shall not be infringed" clause, but there are 20,000+ laws in the US infringing on that right....

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989379)

They can knock out a whole bunch by going after their service providers. You simply must understand that censorship will prevail as long as we remain tied to the corporate wire.

Re:Cue oft-used Leia quote... (1)

ubuwalker31 (1009137) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989495)

<i>The DMCA is unconstitional<sic>, and regardless of what Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, or any company says, it is non-binding in terms of the moral realization that Congress, and honestly no State organization, can prevent you from freely airing your opinions. You are free to talk, but no one has to listen.</i>

So, who gets to decide what is constitutional? You? My grandmother? Who put them in charge? Last I checked, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional in the US.

Even under your natural rights theory, you are not free to publish libelous or defamatory statements, nor information which is a trade secret or covered under the DMCA. Copyright law has nothing to do with this issue.

I hate these AACS asshats as much as you do, but at least realize that our country is governed by laws, and not men.

BTW, I think that there is a strong argument that this is a freedom of speech issue, if people are using the code in music, tattoos, and other forms of artistic expression. Who knows how a judge would rule on that though.

Michael, you're dumb even by MAFIAA standards (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988813)

"This is the first round and will not be the last," he added.

Well, he certainly has that part right. What he fails to appreciate is that he will be on the losing end of every single one of those rounds. Even as he tries to downplay the key by saying it has been revoked, AACS has already lost the second round [arstechnica.com] (as hackers have created a hack that CAN'T be revoked).

Always a step behind, buddy. But feel free to keep wasting your money and pissing people off.

Re:Michael, you're dumb even by MAFIAA standards (3, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989077)

They most definitely won't be on the losing side in every round - they just won one, by revoking the key making it useless for future discs. There will be new rounds, and they will go back-and-forth in this fashion for quite some time.

And that Ars Technica article is widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. That hack is, indeed, irrevokable, but it is also completely impractical for anyone but the most dedicated hacker, and it doesn't give you all the data needed to decrypt a disc, but only the Volume ID.

Re:Michael, you're dumb even by MAFIAA standards (3, Insightful)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989251)

It only takes one dedicated hacker to rip the disc. Once it hits BitTorrent and IRC, it might as well be everywhere.

Re:Michael, you're dumb even by MAFIAA standards (5, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989299)

Thats an odd definition of "winning the round"...that the key won't be useful on future discs? That's kind of like a boxer getting the crap beat out of them in round 1 and then claiming they won round 1 because they are going to come back fighting in round 2.

Re:Michael, you're dumb even by MAFIAA standards (1)

phasm42 (588479) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989353)

Yeah, I think the round starts when they come out with the encryption, and ends when it is broken.

I'm not sure bloggers are the real audience (5, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989245)

What he fails to appreciate is that he will be on the losing end of every single one of those rounds. Even as he tries to downplay the key by saying it has been revoked, AACS has already lost the second round (as hackers have created a hack that CAN'T be revoked).

The real target of this action is likely a different audience, namely Hollywood. The AACS doesn't have to make their DRM undefeatable. They do need to convince their customers - and remember, that's not us - of the value of their work. And when their DRM is broken and seen to be broken, they need to convince those who want to believe that they at least have not lost faith in the cause.

So we may talk about winning and losing, and people like use may be the targets of lawsuits. But I think we may be giving ourselves airs when we assume that for the other side it's about us. If, on the other hand, we figure out who our real audience is then we have a better chance.

Re:I'm not sure bloggers are the real audience (0, Redundant)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989385)

The real target of this action is likely a different audience, namely Hollywood

+5 Insightful (sorry, I don't have real mod points.)

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988815)

RC4; Base64 Encoding; Key = "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"

mI0mUyOUE8S24UAsIVqR12Z8_P1WveIRFqpBO4FEeH_TPGuc0t Ds1V97iWQx
QDhXbGpiERffrXz6lvQpcOFlDY_AXJWGw7f9saosuSBDj7c4ex ySmgi8Bded
l4APCHQIzYXETWu"xkhR4MNnw7zI_mBf5YJOLJ3DKD6wSQ6PvG AsLVTLLTc0
ZAPkCzunB7xarymAJEOOu0fe"tdhy"rZZY5XOSiipi6vf_84xJ Yg11Y576o"
rPfhQQNneUX"JGXWhN3bgRIZwIOoIUu8c282MQ5_Grb6ALolIj Ue7R919DRx
j7cWlf2G2V467N4EjnJbR"9j_4oDCytfpkQBFX0jGOCsjRYcLl wzs_UvVSRh
HH7DzXzB2tPz7i"L1Unvljgh05d1qoFs2N38qWugtaUMGM9RXh nyCcADUH6G
yUXVAbsO9ZcD33UKD80sulFF0FiSxIr4NOiRv4EZBoIU3eY1Ff GSm7HfCs_i
yi4NfhRLz3ai50dbx0CWCJwlvti_gsXgQLJrE70ihDROzdUyjy BTwMZnuZYL
9AM2M99"s2d"hQxtoj7yTTki2M4dK3Y8_wvSyM8fp5fyyDpJWI Wn1KXh6_Rx
z3W8iYIMIObDRG1H914rayBqj3EPhUDsz2NfVhjYBIxHBPgeW2 q3ZzeFJD5M
saZXht6YNavXOyFLh24D84kXC4weBrJsI598yUpFhg41NB694Q nlxHfxzWhl
vZaHrMlSDxODtGlaU5rfJkODjrCr99Rr6hgQaegXnHE6Oe6iKj P8of4TEJU0
DwDtOw3"khTuVWYDStjRd4w2eOt2wvl24XvC3iDQBIA40uJQhk Fg3voVVPEp
29XXEh_9hplaGD1YBw6pW2yiuyW8ifdaS4Mm7IGdH"6JMgSFgn ceesWk6v0r
k8"H70be7kCOdyDSLX9jLkz"4MF_LD"yaYdWopVnoryVQ9YD5G oYSEXQH_Bo
RqZmxLv2loAoM5WFs2""qGG4yATAMz9zhyuc4wMPZZLiZJhTt_ qmXGJlSjF"
pNNm045ma6vnqBdwtEE00zdjJBhBjz5VMoqPS6EZvQbwbEyiUw wPLEWhn1kz
KJdzO7ATz47fYRWQZNWjy7Uda1P8RPnhSd2FbrL"aOegRzUX_s A1_faWxcxe
Azf

Re:09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988845)

How did you manage to get *that* past the lameness filter?

Re:09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988901)

The lameness filter is built on compression ratios and obvious problems with the post. (e.g. ALL CAPS!) Encrypted text rarely compresses well, so it passes with flying colors.

Re:09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 (5, Interesting)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989377)

RC4; Base64 Encoding; Key = "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
Very cute. If the "forbidden number" is fully suppressed, then your post can no longer be decrypted. Hence, suppression of the "forbidden number" does indeed infringe your free speech rights.

But once the information is in the public realm, it effectively becomes a lost "trade secret".
Quite right, and moreover, since it is a "lost trade secret", I would argue it has now become "common knowledge." I don't see how any law (DMCA, copyright, etc.) can be used to suppress common knowledge. For instance, Star Wars may be still protected by copyright, but no one can prevent people from quoting it to their heart's content. So many of the quotes have become a part of our culture, our communal consciousness, that they are very much ours, and no amount of government or corporate power can take them from us.

As others have noted in this discussion, this isn't merely about freedom of speech, it is a spontaneous and massive civil disobedience, basically highlighting how the citizens affected by these DMCA do not respect the law, do not want the law, and increasingly do not tolerate the law.

Re: Translation (3, Informative)

JoshRosenbaum (841551) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989417)

Here's the translation for the lazy:

While I can respect his point about the issue being a legal one rather than a free speech issue, I would argue that they took the matter too far. It's one thing to revoke the key, then prosecute the original crackers under the DMCA. (As distasteful as that is.) But once the information is in the public realm, it effectively becomes a lost "trade secret".

Re: Translation (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989471)

Except that you're missing about 3/4 of the post. When you use an online cryto program, remember that they have scrollbars. ;-)

To the AACS: Get real. (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988831)

I don't care how hard you fight the damn cat, it's out of the bag, and it's not getting back in.

One part of the article I find funny is this:

But [Michael Ayers, chair of the AACS business group] accepted that DVDs that had had their copy protection removed were 'now in the clear' and could be copied.

Isn't that the point? I'm neither trying to justify nor rebuke file sharers, but think about it, man, and be practical for a change. Among those who download and share movies, who really cares about the nitty-gritty details of how keys are cracked, who all gets them, which ones get revoked, what players are and aren't affected, and so on? Most of them only care about one thing: Can I download the HD-DVD of [insert movie titles here]?

And as long as a key out there is cracked enough for the answer to that question to be "yes," the copy protection industry has lost. They can fight all they want to, but the thing is that unless they literally shut everyone down everywhere, they're doomed. As soon as one single solitary person is able to crack a key and unlock the encrypted data, all of their massive—and expensive—efforts will be in vain.

I also thought this was funny:

He said tracking down everyone who had published the keys was a 'resource intensive exercise'. A search on Google shows almost 700,000 pages have published the key. Mr. Ayers said that while he could not reveal the specific steps the group would be taking, it would be using both 'legal and technical' steps to prevent the circumvention of copy protection.

To Mr. Ayers, I would say this: Get real. For one thing, how many times has it been proven that your technical efforts are futile? How much more time and money are you going to waste developing something that consumers at best don't want and at worst outright resent? For another, what exactly do you plan to legally do to people who live in places where publishing the cracked keys is not illegal? As much as people like you would love to have the U.S.'s misguided laws apply to the whole world, it will never happen, and even if it did, people would still break such laws in civil disobedience.

If only they could figure out how to fight a winning battle for the hearts and minds of paying customers instead of this inevitable losing battle against people who are much, much smarter than they are, maybe everyone could be happier. This industry could sure learn a few things about the direction the music industry is headed, finally dropping DRM after realizing how useless it is.

Re:To the AACS: Get real. (2, Insightful)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989499)

Their technical efforts only harm themselves, here's why I think so

When a consumer goes to buy a HD player, they expect that it'll be the same as the VHS player they bought in the 80s, or the DVD player they bought in the 90s. Which is you buy the player, then you get a tape or a disc of some sort, you put it into the player and you press play and it shows on your screen. Now when you buy a HD player there is all this stuff about plugging it into an internet connection and running an update on the device. Because some disks won't work until it's updated - all of this is counter intuitive, there is nothing about connecting your device to the internet which makes sense to a basic consumer, they think "I have the player, I have the disc, what gives?" they don't know why on earth the internet needs to be involved. Despite this being new and advanced technology it requires more work than the old technology, and all it delivers is more resolution; all of this effort for just a clearer picture and sound?

This might seem obvious, but it is not consumer friendly. Sure I bet you anyone on /. would think these steps are easy, but there are still lots of people out there who need help plugging in the cables from their player to their TV/Panel/etc. Who can't use a computer, write an email or even subscribe to an ISP.

This approach is only going to further harm the adoption of HD content. Especially when you combine this with the fact that the average consumer isn't going to care for the difference HD provides over DVD SD when all the hassle comes into play. (Remember in the 90s studios advertised that DVD was "HD", plus lots of consumers are running it on SD televisions were it's downscaled.)

It'll be a long time before we all have gorgeous panel displays which make DVD SD look like rubbish.

The consumer experience must be held above all else, otherwise the consumer will simply not buy it and the only HD players out there will be the ones shipped in PS3 and 360.

Oh, is that so? (4, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988865)

"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech."

A comparison comes to mind here. Here's a hint, Mr. Ayers. It comes from a bull and it ain't a steak.

The hubris of thinking they can ban the mention of a number, and then turn around and say they "respect free speech", is breathtaking doublethink. Part of free speech is the right to discuss things you don't like. Part of it is the right to discuss them in as specific of terms as anyone wants. And part of it is being able to mention any number one wants to, from zero either direction to infinity. There's not a bit of respect for free speech here.

Re:Oh, is that so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989233)

This isn't about "free speech." This is flat out theft. And that is what their claim is. And they are right. It is theft. You people think it is some kind of game and that you have a God Give Right to just *take* whatever you want. That is utter insanity and foolishness on your part.

Re:Oh, is that so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989257)

How is it theft to give people the ability to do what they want with the movie they purchased?

Re:Oh, is that so? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989343)

Mod parent funny. Yes, it is theft, and they are the thieves trying to keep control of something they can't own. Okay, it's attempted theft, seeing as that they will lose, and we will have our way with them. We shall dominate the dominatrix.

Re:Oh, is that so? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989359)

actually its not a god given right. Its a right given to us by US laws which they feel are different because its a different medium on which its recorded on. Thus the only people actually breaking laws, are the AACS themselves since you cant restrict fair use in your home, and thats what this encryption key does.

Its nothing different than what people tried to do with VHS and the Supreme Court slapped the shit out of them then too. They only do it out of hope of getting a crew on the bench who are stupid, or sympathetic. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesnt

Re:Oh, is that so? (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989475)

Actually it's not theft, its a number. That number is actually given to you by the movie producers on the HD-DVD disc and player that you purchased. You have to actually have a physical copy of an HD-DVD disc and an HD-DVD player in order to have any use for that number. The number itself isn't used to steal anything, it's used to decrypt the content of the movie that you purchased. All these people are doing is providing another way to get to that decrypted content, which again, you already purchased.

Re:Oh, is that so? (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989323)

The hubris of thinking they can ban the mention of a number, and then turn around and say they "respect free speech", is breathtaking doublethink.

Any piece of copyrighted information can be expressed as a number. I can take Photoshop CS3, and express it as a number.

Is anyone who supports copyright at all therefore engaged in doublethink if he also says he respects free speech?

I hate the DMCA and think that DRM is stupid, self-defeating, and violates fair use. But "it's just a number! How can you ban the mention of a number" is a bit simplistic.

Re:Oh, is that so? (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989487)

Yes, actually, I think any such efforts are silly and misguided, to put it the nicest way I can. Everything digital is a simple numeric value, when it comes right down to it. Everything digital is also trivially copied, due to the fact that it is just bits. And computers can flip bits in a predetermined pattern at an ever-increasing rate. That's what they're designed to do, they have to do that in order to work.

It's going to cause a lot of shakeups. An old business model is dying, and is going to require some quick adaptation from those who used to use it. It used to be that large operations were needed to make copies of things, because the equipment to do so was prohibitively expensive for Average Joe Consumer. That's no longer the case, and what was once was necessary is now obsolete. That happens. But reality doesn't go away because you deny it loudly enough.

Re:Oh, is that so? (5, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989339)

You just got a bad transmission. I believe the full quote was

"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss how much they love copy protection, and how good we are at building it. We respect free speech."

Surely that's what he meant to say. Otherwise he'd be some kind of idiot.

funniest bit I see on that AACS page (4, Funny)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988887)

"Read about the trusted industry names behind AACS. "
emphasis mine...

yes, intel, microsoft and sony are three of the eight on the list...

Re:funniest bit I see on that AACS page (1)

fragment1618 (958226) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989477)

Trusted to THEM. In other words, they don't mind spying on consumers (rootkit, WGA, who knows what else).

Jenny Jenny, (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18988895)

MPAA I've got your number
I need to make your HD-DVDs mine
MPAA don't change your number
86:75:30:09

Um, too late? (2, Funny)

failure-man (870605) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988897)

The key is out there. It's too late to suppress it. Game over. The wombats have left the chicken coop!

(Wait, that's not right. What's the real metaphor?)

Re:Um, too late? (5, Funny)

Churla (936633) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989089)

The bag, upon further inspection, seems to be devoid of any felines! It would appear they have recently vacated said container!

Hello World! (3, Funny)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988907)

#include <stdio.h>

int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
        char *blah = "\x09\xf9\x11\x02"
                     "\x9d\x74\xe3\x5b"
                     "\xd8\x41\x56\xc5"
                     "\x63\x56\x88\xc0";
        printf("Hello AACS world! Here's a bunch of completely random non-ASCII characters:  %s\n", blah);
        return 0;
}

I wonder (5, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988911)

I wonder if anyone has told these guys that the idea of an uncrackable DRM scheme is fundamentally flawed. Encryption is about A sending information that B can't read, but C can. In DRM, B and C are the same person.

Good reporting (5, Insightful)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988917)

It's good to see the pretty even-handed way the BBC have approached this whole issue. I fear most mainstream news agencies would probably side 100% with the AACS and their media buddies, not least due to commercial interests and parent company ownership reasons.

I guess its times like these when it is good that there still are some news organizations independent of the big media conglomerates.

Re:Good reporting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989145)

That, of course, is why the BBC is specially supported by a levy on British subjects, but NOT by a government tax.

We each pay around $250 a year so that the world can have an unbiased mass communications system which is not driven by audience ratings and can produce quality. And, in the case of radio, in all the world's languages.

It would be nice if some of the anti-licence-fee Americans on /. realised that.

Re:Good reporting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989209)

I wouldn't say that the BBC is unbiased or free from injection of political opinion into news stories, but I will give them credit for putting out material that is of higher quality than what comes from the corporate outlets.

Re:Good reporting (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989219)

I guess its times like these when it is good that there still are some news organizations independent of the big media conglomerates.

Quite right, think about how it's funded (license fee from the British people). I believe PBS is the nearest thing available in the states, maybe more people should think about donating to them? I don't know what they're reporting is like, or whether they're truly independant, but there is certainly a need for media run and governed by the people, not private corporations.

On a more on-topic note: I have memorised that key. Does that mean I am guilty of thought crime? Could the AACS send a DMCA takedown notice to my brain?

Re:Good reporting (-1, Redundant)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989265)

No it's an terrible report. It's practically a cut and paste press release, and it's full of inaccuracies, fud and lies from the AACS.

"Digg began taking down pages that its members had highlighted were carrying the key." This implies that Digg took down external sites that it's members were pointing to. They did nothing of the sort, they only took down the pointers.

"The website said it was responding to legal "cease and desist" notices" Implies that Digg thought those takedown notices were legal. The legality of the takedown notices is actually highly questionable.

"Michael Ayers, chair of the AACS business group, said it had received "good cooperation from most folk" in preventing the leak of the key." A blindingly obvious lie that the BBC should have questioned.

"But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then." Another lie that the BBC reprinted unquestioningly.

"He added that the copy protection on the HD-DVDs was "absolutely not broken"." Another lie.

Most importantly, the AACS are repeatedly calling the discovery of the key a "leak" - it's not a leak at all, it was discovered, not leaked.

Excellent product strategy (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988941)

This just might give the Chinese EDVD or EVD or whatever its called a chance.

Which would you choose; a high-def player that just requires you to put disks in, or a crazy scheme that requires your player to stay "fully patched" otherwise risk being unable to play any disks at all?

Not to mention the possibility of something going wrong in the key revocation system, and knocking out a whole line of hardware players (requiring a recall).

Pain in the ass = loose the market.

Re:Excellent product strategy (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989271)

What good is the Chinese EDVD system if none of the studios release disks in that format?

Re:Excellent product strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989397)

loose the market? As opposed to tight the market?

Two faces (4, Insightful)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988953)

I like how they are threatening people with the DMCA over the "09" key, while simultaneously pretending that it isn't a big deal. Maybe they should pick a consistent stance? Also, a better choice of words than "revoked" would be "stopped using", since the "09" key will work always work for any disks pressed before May, but it won't work for any disk made after then. Hm, I wonder how many titles that actually affects, maybe it isn't a big deal after all with such a tiny market :)

Re:Two faces (3, Interesting)

wwwojtek (246402) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989337)

It is not about this particular key. They are threatening so that the next time people think twice about spreading information about hacks. The real purpose is prevention not prosecution of what has already happened for the sake of prosecution. Now, whether it is going to work is a different story, but there is a logic to what they are doing.

Re:Two faces (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989439)

Even if they revoke the 09 key, the hackers can use the same methods to recover whatever new keys they are using. It's an endless battle. They can revoke all the keys they want, but until they are able to stop them from actually recovering the key, they haven't stopped anyone.

So? (2, Interesting)

Cheezymadman (1083175) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988955)

I didn't RTFA, but how is this anything different from everything else they're trying to do to fight copying? When they come up with a new strategy, let me know. I'll be in my room pirating every movie ever made.

if (way_of_trying_to_shut_down_pirates == "new and different")
wake me up;
else
GTFO;

this is the hallmark of the world we live in: (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#18988969)

we can all 'continue to enjoy content protected by AACS' by 'refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.'

we can all 'continue to enjoy being ignorant slaves' by 'reaffirming our desire to be shackled.'

the audacity to think of people as so supplicant to corporate will is incredible

Re:this is the hallmark of the world we live in: (3, Insightful)

muellerr1 (868578) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989319)

we can all 'continue to enjoy content protected by AACS' by 'refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.'
I took this to mean 'your HD DVD player will be broken when you get home. You are required to jump through several hoops before it will work again. You see what happens when one of you steps out of line? We punish everyone else! Let that be a lesson to you."

Get a copyright (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18988981)

I know, they should copyright the encryption key so nobody else can post it. Or maybe they could patent the process of posting encryption keys on the internet. I'm sure the USPTO would grant that one.

Protected Free Speech (4, Interesting)

Expertus (1001346) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989025)

FTA:

"But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then."
I'm not so sure you do. IANAL, but since when has it become illegal to talk about circumventing locking mechanisms (and that's assuming that simply posting the key by itself constitutes that). I'm sure we have all read MIT's guide to lockpicking - it describes in detail how to create the tools and the actual process of bypassing the lock (granted, physical locks weren't covered under the DMCA). I would like to see someone with a legal background give some insight, but I would not take any note of AACS - anyone can issue cease and desist letters.

Re:Protected Free Speech (2, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989473)

The key was a trade secret. Under state law in all 50 states its illegal to reveal a trade secret without the owners' authorization. Ordinarily you can legally reverse-engineer something in order to discover any trade secrets it embeds, but under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions it was illegal reverse-engineer the player software in order to fetch the key.

Whoever did it first is in a world of hurt if he's ever caught.

On the other hand, open publication of a trade secret ends the trade secret. Unlicensed implementations of AACS are still copyright infringement and such implementations combined with the key are still violations of the DMCA, but the key by itself is probably beyond protection... Not that it would stop the movie folks from suing and making your life more interesting than you'd like for a couple years.

IANAL, but it is a hobby of mine.

Let me first say, (1)

xxdesmus (932581) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989037)

Let me first say, 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Secondly let me say "Bring it on you douche bags." You can't stop us all. For every 1 you take down 10 more will pop up. It's a losing battle, just accept that.

Is this how the conversation went? (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989039)

[Payphone rings]
AACS: Game over, kid. You can't beat me.
Blogger: Yeah... well maybe I can't. But we can.
AACS: Give it up kid! Just give. it. up.

Ah, those crazy hacker kids.

"Protected free speech"? (2, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989041)

Michael Ayers, chair of the AACS business group, said... "But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then."
You say that like "protected free speech" isn't redundant, Mr. Ayers.

What about hardware players? (1)

llZENll (545605) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989079)

Does this effect hardware players? What if you steal a key from a hardware player, can they revoke it? Will that make your hardware player useless?

Re:What about hardware players? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989291)

s/effect/affect

Re:What about hardware players? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989423)

No, it doesn't create players.

It can, however, potentially, affect them. If a key from a hardware player leaked, they could revoke that key, and that player would no longer be able to play disks pressed after the key was revoked. Titles already out would be fine.

They never revoked any hardware keys for normal DVDs, though there was some worry when Apex released a player that could bypass region coding and Macrovision. But, since HD and BR players probably have flashable firmware, they could have new keys issued.

Re:What about hardware players? (1)

edbob (960004) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989469)

I, too, have been curious about that. I know that some early HD-DVD players are actually nothing more than Pentium 4 systems running Linux. With the proper knowledge and hardware, I would think that someone could reverse-engineer such a system. Revoking a key for such a system might be too painful for AACS backers. That being said, I am not investing in either format until two things happen: 1. One of these formats goes away. 2. Either the DRM on the remaining format goes away or is sufficiently cracked so I can make backups of the content on a PC.

Good point (4, Insightful)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989129)

They make a good point: this is not about people silencing free speech. Posting the crack online is about civil disobedience against the completely unfair DMCA. It's not about copyrighting a number. It's about keeping people from legally using copyrighted material you've legally purchased. This seems to be an important point missed by most people. It's not a First Amendment issue, it's an anti-consumer issue.

What's the problem? (1)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989179)

The hex string in question is no longer a valid AACS key, at which case now it's just a string of random hex values, so what's the problem? How are they going to prosecute someone for discussing a number? What happens when someone working at a university in security generates a key for a public key cryptographic system which just happens to be a revoked AACS key? Will they be sued too?

PROTIP: You can't copyright a number (or, at least, you shouldn't be able to).

T-shirt (3, Funny)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989191)

Someone send this man a t-shirt with the key on the front and "It's not over yet!" on the back.

Internet whack a mole is a game that (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989201)

the **AA will not win. They do not have the resources to win it, will not have the resources to win at this game, and in the end, trying to win at IWaM(TM) will only make them look more foolish than they do now.

The part where he says over 700,000 pages on the Internet reference the code is fscking hilarious. I want to see AACS group try to sue 700,000 people. Before they even get started there would be 1.4 million more references to it on Google. That is how the IWaM game works and exactly why they can't win. The sheer volume of people working against their worn out DRM business model will overwhelm both their resources and those of the court systems around the world.

In the US it appears that the courts are still willing to waste time on this. Other countries, not so much. Sure, if they find commercial pirates distributing DVDs for profit they will shut those operations down, but there just are not enough law enforcement resources to stop this hack, or any other.

Playing IWaM = stupid and the more you play, the more money you lose. period.

Certainly, some will be harmed, and there will be small wins for the AACS group and **AAs of the world, but in the end all their money will be gone. The DMCA was ostensibly implemented to protect them from exactly this. Legislating DRM doesn't work, DRM doesn't work, and if your business model depends on DRM, it won't work either. It's time that Wall Street and VC groups started to act on this one principle. If their business model is DRM it's a bad investment.

Sure, you might argue that MS is an exception but I think that the sales performance of Vista is going to prove me right on this. MS has been trying to play Whack A Mole with malicious software and spam. Yeah, that has been working out well. Their new flagship DRM laden secure operating system ... did I just say secure? ooops mea culpa. The reason that MS is working so hard to ensure that you can only use genuine MS OS products is simple, they are trying to not play IWaM, and even this attempt won't work. From what I can see, people who used illegal copies of MS products before ARE turning to Linux now. Even if that is not huge numbers yet, it is happening.

Back on topic, the lawyers for the AACS group must be staggeringly stupefied. Maybe if they make an example of Digg and Mr Rose they can send a message, and if they try, every new key will be poste in blog comments on every blogging system around the globe. They literally need to surrender and rethink what they are doing. DRM DOES NOT work.

Make your time! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989207)

All your AACS are belong to us!

I probably don't understand the technology but... (1)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989231)

Surely if one key has been cracked then it will either be quicker to crack the new key as the crackers will know what sort of algorithm was used to produced the key. Or if it was a brute force attack then about the same time on average. So surely in a few weeks there will be a new Hex string doing the rounds on the internet.

Refreshing software keys again. (1)

AmIAnAi (975049) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989287)

I wonder how 'average' consumers are going to take to refreshing their keys every time there is a crack released?

"Let's watch this DVD I just got from the store. Oh no, I need to download a software update first, install and reboot. Why not just download the movie off P2P instead."

Good luck with that! (2, Interesting)

Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989301)

Um, what, close to a million hits for the key right now on Google?

DMCA applies only in the United States.

What is that sound? A toilet flushing?

Almost Surreal.... (4, Funny)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989315)

I wonder if he actually believes that people "enjoy" content protection. How could you even say that with a straight face? It would be like a prison warden, after a jail break, saying, "soon the escapees will enjoy protection from the free world once again."

It is not intended for you. (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989329)

Slashdotters, please dont get worked up.He knows it is a stupid thing to say to a tech savvy audience. He was talking to the chumps who paid big bucks to have their movies "protected by" the DRM. Some weasel clause in the contract would say something like, "while we dont guarantee that this mechanism will never be broken, all we promise to do is to take vigorous action". He will eventually argue that issuing such ridiculous statements constitutes vigorous action. That is all.

the AACS plan (4, Funny)

hachete (473378) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989333)


"There are three things you can do:

1. Kill yourself.
2. Kill your manservant.
3. Kill everybody in the whole world."

Now 2 is fine, 1 is reccomended, but 3?

Still lying (4, Insightful)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989363)

But he accepted that DVDs that had had their copy protection removed were "now in the clear" and could be copied.

That is the part that ticks me off the most. The DVDs already could be copied without the key. Their "technology" is "playback protection", not "copy protection". The only honest sentence in the quote was earlier, where he said, "Some titles could now be played on more than one software player." Yes, THAT is what your evil scheme is trying to prevent. (Not that I will ever buy HD DVDs until I can actually play them whenever/wherever I want.)

As long as "playback protection" is working, you can't actually "buy" an HD DVD. You can only rent the privilege of playing it under conditions specified by the publisher. Whatever happened to laws against false advertising?

Kind of reminds me of the a Movie. (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989389)

I think it was called the Manhattan project. At the end of the movie the scientist asks "What are you going to do? Make them all disappear?"
Simple fact is that it is out. It is a number. You forbid them from positing it in hex then they will octal, decimal, or binary. They will just invert it or flip the first two bytes so it is no longer the same number. I have a suggestion from now one when we post any HD keys we will just add 42 to each byte. That way we are encrypting it and any attempt to subtract 42 to prove that it is a key is a violation of the DMCA.
It is impossible to prevent the copying of audio or video if people can see it.
It is also rubs people the wrong way to try and control what they do with something they own. Yes if I BUY a DVD I own the DVD. Unless you start making me sign a contract I consider it no different than buying a piece of wood. If I want to watch it on my Ipod I will. If I want to rip it and put it on my server so I can watch it on my notebook I will.
If I sell it then yea you can sue me.
Go away RIAA and MPAA. You are boring us now. You will become irrelevant. Dear music companies I am going to write my congressman and tell them I don't want them to support you suing innocent people and getting government help for what should be civil court actions. I will also point out that you have a history of supporting drug use, profanity, and violence. Helping you is hurting the children.

Game over. The music industry can be such a jucy Judas Goat.

Re:Kind of reminds me of the a Movie. (2, Funny)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989481)

I think it was called the Manhattan project.

Is that available on HD-DVD?

FIRST POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989413)

First post, faggots.

They will be fscked by their own system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18989433)

Those people created a world where middlemen get always the greater slice of the cake.
Well, if they are going to use their most known weapon (ie. lawyers) to fight who posts codes, then good luck to them: nobody on this planet can afford 700.000 lawsuits -and- the bad publicity it would bring.
They will back off or choose more direct (read: illegal) solutions.

In other words, they will be hit by their own system, and this will show one more time that when a new way of doing things fluorishes you have to adapt or die.

09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0 is an IPv6 (5, Funny)

julie-h (530222) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989445)

Dear helpdesk,
I am trying to ping my server at
09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0. However,
it seems like the address is in the unallocated space.
Perhaps there's a typo somewhere?

AACS LA:
That's the Processing key. You are not allowed to publish it.

Hacker:
No sir. That's a IPv6 address. Surely you won't deny me to have links on my website? =)

Won't Work (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#18989447)

The legitimate software player application that has had its key revoked needs to have its key updated. Fair enough. What's to stop someone from doing a bit-by-bit comparison between the "old" and "new" files, and determining the new key from there?

This whole system was never, ever going to work. It matters not one iota how many bits be in the key, the fact is that the key is on the disc and in the player -- both of which the "attacker" has access to. Even worse, the unencrypted RGB signal is available at the grids of the cathode ray tube (you'll have to recover the timing information from the scan coils, but it's eminently doable). I reckon, two 2902 quad op-amps and a bunch of resistors at most. Unless you send a policeman round to check up on everyone watching a HD-DVD, people are going to find a way to make copies. Come to think of it, even that won't necessarily work -- you can bribe a cop.

What'll be pants-pissingly funny is if they ever try to revoke a key on a standalone, TV-connected player. In the UK, that sort of thing is called "criminal damage" and can get you arrested. It's also a good way to get your products banned from sale.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...