5/1/07 Never Forget

[Andrew]

Apparently there is a little bit of internet controversy going on today. It concerns a key used in HD-DVD. Apparently this key circumvents security.

Apparently this key infringes intellectual property rights, although I'm not sure how a alphanumeric key has rights.

Digg.com tried censoring this key and all related stories about it (probably because HD-DVD sponsors them). This has led to a bit of a revolt there with some users posting the key in most posts.

Slashdot article/comments about this debacle. Omg warning it contains the key! Don't go there if you do not want to see the key as it infringes intellectual property rights! Viewing an alphanumeric key is illegal! I'd think it's more what you do with it that warrants illegal activity.

The funny thing about RIAA and MPAA is that they try to enable these protections (DRM etc), which only make things more difficult for people who legally purchase from them. And since the pirate groups get around them easily, people can easily pirate them anyways. So the only people who lose with these security things is people who legally purchase the products and then find out they can only play it on certain devices.

Remember Sony installing rootkits on computers from their music CDs? Same thing.

Google has almost 10,000 pages with this key on it (around 200 new pages each hour, ok not anymore).

So any comments?

EDIT:

http://digg.com/  most front page stories have to do with the key now.

What's even more interesting is that this key was cracked February 11 2007, and was even reported on then by many sites then. I guess trying to censor it actually does the opposite. (apparently a decrypter was released yesterday so that's why it's back in the news).

Anyone remember back when napster was around and the RIAA was like "You can download all the songs you ever want for FREE. But it's illegal so please don't do that." RIAA complaining about illegal downloads only made more people aware that 'zomg I can download songs for free?! No more purchasing a CD for only one song?'. Also the fact that pirated music can have higher quality than is possible with legal download sites which only offer certain bitrates.

I mean napster was 7 years ago (with illegal mp3s being around for much longer), and the industry is not even trying to do anything about attempting to sell to consumers the way they want to get the product. Hell iTunes only announced last month that it was changing to non DRM. Even The Economist claims that DRM is bad.

So once again the MPAA sent out DMCA to everyone after most people had forgot about this key or why they even care about it, and now lots more people know it and resent the RIAA MPAA even more. Mission Accomplished.

The thing on digg.com is kinda like a bad flashmob.

EDIT:

Ok 1.5 hours after my last edit, digg.com is getting extremely flashmobbed with spam and crap everywhere. Funny how stories are getting 1000 diggs in minutes. Gonna be interesting to see in the morning.

[Acriku]

Site is now down. Damn! missed the action.

So what's the key? lol...

[Egeides]

hex09BOOf911029d74e35bBOOd84156c5635688c0BOOBOOBOO!

It is illegal to write this specific key. I've put a few BOOs so it's not illegal ;D

[erjin999]

Fixed it to make it easier to read :P

hex09BOOf911029d74e35bBOOd84156c5635688c0BOOBOOBOO!

Best bit is, I dont even kow what this is all about  ::)

[Andrew]

Exactly. And no one would if censorship didn't happen.

But now I've got the urge to make sure I remember the key, in case for some reason I purchase a HD-DVD that for some reason wont play on my hardware. Because they love to cripple something I pay for.

And Kevin Rose (founder of digg.com) has given in to demand and is going to not censor the number anymore.

http://blog.digg.com/?p=74?

Of course he had no other alternative, because digg would have continued to be flashmobbed for a longer period of time.

If these companies spent less on "security" and lawyers, I bet they could decrease the prices to compete with pirates...

[erjin999]

Careful where you are going with that logic, Mr Andrewson. It could get you in trouble.  8)

[Andrew]

Apparently fark.com is going through some censorship of it's own. In one thread they deleted all the pictures and moved several threads back to totalfark only. This thread had lots of pictures which were removed yesterday. Another thread about volleyball had all it's pictures deleted. And apparently several threads were moved to totalfark. No explanations given.

And Drew stated in a thread that they will not allow the key to be posted because "Fark isn't in a financial position to stand up and take on the DMCA/MPAA/WTFOMG in a head to head legal battle, they'll crush us into fine paste."

That's interesting, I thought fark.com made a million in revenue a year. Also the fact that farktv is hosted on superdeluxe.com which was recently bought out by Turner Broadcasting System (The big media company). This shows a possible conflict of interest and it is anyones guess whether fark will be bought out.

Sadly 2 sellouts yesterday. Whom don't give a crap about its userbase, and its userbase is what generates the revenue for them.

If google can index and cache every website, even those that host "illegal" stuff, why hasn't google been shut down? Those laws are rediculous and unenforcable. Kinda like in Canada where they had laws to make it illegal to let citizens on the west coast know the results from the east coast until voting was over for everyone. This is impossible in the information age where you cannot black out numbers from people. I'm pretty sure they changed that law, or are going to for the next election.

EDIT:

Drew explains the removal of pictures from threads.

EDIT:

Drew explains the real reason

A couple of questions to answer

1) why not make NSFW stuff opt in -and-

2) why not make the thread NSFW

Answer: advertisers don't like that crap

That has nothing to do with the SFW boobies. Not surprisingly to anyone who has watched TV, advertisers don't care about bikini chicks or implied nudity. It's plausible deniability or something, I don't pretend to understand it.

[erjin999]

Its not really happening until the Beeb report it :P

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6615047.stm

[gryphon]

What's the big news. Every software of system has a backdoor and the company supporting the product in question will always have a legal point of view to disallow your knowledge of that.

What if some ones posts the way to read your personal data from your credit card. Would you allow the information to be passed out freely to every one. Or whould you take sides and demand that information be kept secret.

The news is about two things.

First, digital copyright enforcement. Which is crazy but unless people realise that having schooled people doing to job instead of cheap outsourced workers, expect a lot more crazy pattents and laws.

Second. a key to bypass copyright protection on digital media. So what. You really thought no such thing existed in the first place.

Apparently this key infringes intellectual property rights, although I'm not sure how a alphanumeric key has rights.

The F1 key is patented, so is ALT - TAB or the phrase Think Different. You really thought that a security key is not ?

It's time news on the Internet get's reported based on content and not for commercial, flaming reasons just to make another point.

Digital copyright enforcement is crazy but does serve a purpose. The whole story behind the key is just a blow up to get some attention.

[Andrew]

The F1 key is patented, so is ALT - TAB or the phrase Think Different. You really thought that a security key is not ?

A cease and desist letter is being sent to you now for repeating that text.

Wait I just quoted it! Now I'm gonna get it as well and get sued.

The key is not patented, trademarked, or copyrighted. It's under some DMCA crap that makes no sense and is impossible to enforce (prohibiting an alphanumeric number is hard to do).

Apparently it is wrong to even link to the #. If that were true Google would be bankrupt.

Also the # is published in the takedown notices, which then becomes public which means people can publish the takedown notices that have the actual # in it!

EDIT:

P.S.

The digg revolt wasn't about digg banning the number, it was about digg admin banning users for discussing the number (while not posting it) and criticizing digg.

I'm pretty sure that identity thieves already have equipment that can read your cards. They use it at banks to steal personal info/money and your pin.

[nemafakei]

The key component you're missing, Gryphon, is the symbolism. 99% of people who post, recommend, or link to the code have no intention of ever using it. But it's the principle of solidarity and resentment at the media institutions as a whole that causes people to undertake a little risk for their fellow internet users.

09 It's

f9 not

11 just

02 about

9d hacking,

74 it's

e3 that

5b we're

d8 prepared

41 to

56 resist

c5 corporations

63 en

56 masse

88 that

c0 counts

[Kiyouta]

Here's me thinking 5/1/07 was an important day to remember.

I almost felt guilty for not knowing why it was significant. :(

Terrible thing that DRM.

[Andrew]

GASP!

Apparently a crack has been developed to bypass any AACS anticopying system!

boingboing link

See, the amount of time and money spent on this crap could have been used to create a better way to distribute media to consumers.

Apparently music sales is plummeting (down 20% in past year) and apparently this is because of pirates. I got a great idea! Maybe if we invent some security features and sue millions of people, somehow everyone will go back to buying CDs! And we can somehow continue to screw consumers over by overpricing CDs like we did in the 1990's! I can't wait to get the new britney spears CD with some rootkits on it! Maybe if corporations weren't slow to adapt to the market, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Did anyone back in napster days think to themselves "I think I'm gonna go purchase 20 cds, just so I can make a custom mix cd, because I only want one or two songs per cd". Yah I can picture people spending $400 just to make a custom CD. Oddly no one got sued when people made custom mix cassette tapes.

Anyone wondering why indie bands are more popular than ever? That shouldn't be possible without the sale of lots and lots of CDs! But for some reason these indie bands sell out most concerts. Hmm.. Musicians getting paid to perform, what's that?

It's also great to see the corruptness in the US government.

Congressmen take money from RIAA/MPAA, then threaten universities on their behalf. Or how about the MPAA/RIAA sending notices to schools, to notify about students that may be doing something illegal? Trying to get the schools to do all the legalwork.

The industry refuses to change, even though most people have (at least according to the RIAA/MPAA who complain about everyone pirating). What's that you say? People like to download and watch/listen to stuff on demand? Pirated quality/convenience is better than what you can purchase, that's unpossible!

Anyone else go to the movies to watch 20 minutes of previews and 10 minutes of advertisements? How about advertisements when you purchase/rent DVDs? Maybe consumers do not want to pay for that, maybe they want to pay for the actual movie.

Maybe the industry shouldn't pay an actor/actress $20 million, then complain about not making enough money on the movie.

I also like how the RIAA think that each time something is pirated it is worth $150,000 or so, so they can inflate their "losses" which they assume if piracy disappeared that people would run to the nearest store to purchase it.

According to one article, the RIAA loses 6 times the GDP of France each month. link

That was more than a year ago, so they are probably losing more money now.

[Andrew]

Awesome, a Canadian government official who is in charge of copyright, was paid off by the entertainment industry.

Oda faces heat over aborted fundraising event

Minister's riding association still cashed donations from senior members of broadcasting industry, records show

Why should consumers trust anything to do with the big entertainment corporations? They don't give a shit about consumers.

Here is the boingboing link.

[gryphon]

The key component you're missing, Gryphon, is the symbolism.

It's not missing. Just interpreted differently.

If you hate the big mean company and the system behind it. Ignore it. Don't act like a little child who can't get his lolly pop and starts cursing at everything.

Why should consumers trust anything to do with the big entertainment corporations? They don't give a shit about consumers.

You don't have to. But ironically like Nema pointed out. People still do. Just look at this topic. Who cares what they do with DVD's. Don't use them if you dislike it so much. And don't give them the attention they like as you are kicking to a big company rock which is not gonna bend by kicking at it. Stop using it and they lower the price or remove the DRM.

[Andrew]

People do stop purchasing DVDs. Then the media companies complain about everyone pirating (because sales are down). So they put more security things and advertisements into the DVD. It's a circular thing.

[nemafakei]

Unfortunately, private companies make up a large proportion of the economy. Their power is not merely a fiction, or convention of status that can be dispelled by ignoring them.

In any case, even if your analysis that I (as of my previous post) and others are "like a little child who can't get his lolly pop and starts cursing at everything" is true, that's exactly the sort of things that's newsworthy these days, whether it's politicians saying "I want my nukes, it's all America's and Israel's fault" or corporations saying "I want my profits, it's all the pirates' fault, and governments for not doing more to protect our profit margins"...

[gryphon]

People do stop purchasing DVDs. Then the media companies complain about everyone pirating (because sales are down). So they put more security things and advertisements into the DVD. It's a circular thing.

People stop purchasing DVD's. - More security on DVD's which people don't buy any way.

I don't see a circle if they are protecting media that less people are buying.

Nema, all roads lead to Rome.

99% of the people claiming and spreading a certain fact which is of no importance and no use to them do that only to old school bully the person to who it is important. And whatever your point or statement may be. In my opinion that never is a good tactic to harden your point of view.

And you are right that sadly grown up's acting like little children in a fight over oil, land, freedom or DRM rights is newsworthy these days. That doens't rectify your ( not personal :) ) willingness in believing in that news without forming your own opinion and thinking about it first. The news and commercials have to big of an influence on our opinion but yet they are the most biased sources of information.

back on the DRM topic. Apple iTunes (the biggest seller of online music) is offering DRM free music downloads. It's not all bad in the DRM managed music world. ;)

[Khan]

People stop purchasing DVD's. - More security on DVD's which people don't buy any way.

I don't see a circle if they are protecting media that less people are buying.

The security makes it harder to copy the DVD so people have to buy it legally.

[nemafakei]

"99% of the people claiming and spreading a certain fact which is of no importance and no use to them do that only to old school bully the person to who it is important."

Poor little victimised RIAA, have the nasty internet trolls hurt its feelings? It's a response to longstanding bullying tactics by a large and powerful organisation. If you want the playground analogy, it's the equivalent of every child in the playground who's been beaten up, jeered at, excluded, etc., as well as other who haven't but feel compelled to help the victims turning round on the ringleader and saying "Look, we won't take this any more."

Now, sure, it isn't a sophisticated economic and ethical analysis of the situation, but those arguments have been made well enough elsewhere - and yet policies like DRM still continue. Why? Because winning the argument has nothing to do with winning the fight. In our society, it largely doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, if you're backed up with economic, political, or military weight. We have to resort to tactics like these because the people like the RIAA are simply never going to say "oops, you're right, sorry, we'll just pack up and forget about this whole intellectual property thing", no matter how concrete and 'mature' your arguments.

[gryphon]

The security makes it harder to copy the DVD so people have to buy it legally.

That is what DRM is for. You have no right copying a DVD if it's not legit. You are mad at DRM because you can't steal stuff ?

You probably are against carkeys to as they don't allow you to get into any car you please and drive away in it.

and yet policies like DRM still continue. Why?

First. What does DRM do. It prevents legit material to be copied if you don't own the original media. If you do own the original media with DRM protection on it. Apple's iTunes nor Windows Media Player will keep you from making as many copies from any song on the disk as you please. iTunes even get's the track names for you during the copy and Windows has the option to backup anything you put in you XboX to the harddrive.

So what's this all realy about. Any media you have legally purchased has no limitations of DRM.

Ok, true that Nero won't copy a protected DVD. But as you all are found of Linux here anyway do a disk copy and you never notice the DRM. It's just Nero (which I bet you havn't payed for either) which limits you.

I'd love to believe we have to fight a large monopolistic or otherwise powerful company. But hounestly don't see that with DRM.

The Sony root-kit for one was crazy and deserved such a fight. But a copy right protection system that let's me do with any legally puchased CD or DVD as I please does not sound like a bad company nor bad politics.

You like to stand up and fight against a big bad company who is limiting you. But truly. Which limitations does DRM pose upon you that arn't created due to your own illegit actions.

That said. I know that even Apple, Disney and some other company admitted that they have been committed to DRM tacticks in order to maximise profits and keep selling origional media. Then, DRM on audio CD's has not been used on any disk producted by Sony after the root-kit mistake. Almost no Audio CD has limiting DRM protections on it. For DVD's. Be creative and don't use Media Player (which you all hate anyway). The only DRM limitation you find is Nero not being able to copy the thing. Guess what. a DVD was never intended to fit on a DVD-r anyway. Which means you have to convert it. Which results in you having no troubles with the DRM protection after the conversion.

So please tell me, in which way is DRM limiting you in order to use your media ?

[Acriku]

gryph, as I understand it, DRM - specifically Apple's DRM - prevents the song to be copied more than ~5 times and prevents software not "selected" for the DRM to play it. I can't play DRMed WMA files on my Ipod, nor can I play my DRMed m4a files on WinAmp or Windows Media Player. That's baaaad. Especially for those who've downloaded THOUSANDS of songs through the iTunes store (spending money!) and only being able to play them on an iPod. When their iPod breaks, they're stuck with iTunes on that computer. Over the course of backups, crashes, and hardware changes, you'll be copying your music left and right. But wait! Apple's DRM prevents it to a certain low amount. Oh the woes! The terrible woes!

[gryphon]

That's correct about any song you downloaded and bought from iTunes. Not from any legit CD you put in your computer and copy with iTunes.

The difference. Anything you buy (not any more as iTunes has DRM free music you can download now) from iTunes you buy under the conditions that you can only play it on 5 computers and on as many iPods you like. You know that before you buy the song. And under those conditions you buy the song.

DRM in the iTunes songs is simply limiting you into doing things with the songs you never bought it for and you knew about before you bought it.

The DRM in downloaded iTunes songs sucks. I agree and bought 10 (yea just 10) songs with iTunes a while back. After changing computer and not remembering my iTunes account and password those songs where lost. Truly 10 Euro's not well spend.

Then, when I bought the songs for 90 cents, I knew I am not allow to copy them on more then 5 computers, and can't copy them back from my iPod. Still I did.

I made the choise between buying a CD and importing that in iTunes. Or buying a song with iTunes DRM limitations. The choice is yours. Not theirs they force upon you.

[erjin999]

Guess what. a DVD was never intended to fit on a DVD-r anyway.

Computers were not invented to play games on either, but that is relevant how ?  ???

[gryphon]

DRM management exists on DVD's and audio CD's. An audio CD can be copied without hassle. And a DVD's data capacity is larger then the capacity of a DVD'r. Meaning without compression or some other trick you won't be able to burn a DVD on a DVD'r. That conversion makes the DRM inert. Again resulting in no use for DRM.

That's how it's relevant. :)

Most other forms of DRM can be found in console games, or downloadable audio. The most annoying is the last. Which is music being sold to you under strick conditions. Those conditions are enforced with DRM. Can't live with that. Down't download it. But don't download and then disagree with the conditions under which you downloaded it.