Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DVD Drives Defeat Cactus Data Shield

Posted by michael on from the trees-obscure-view-of-forest dept.

jsepeta sends in a story about Cactus Data Shield, one of the schemes to be used for copy-protecting compact discs. A reporter for TechTV notes that DVD drives see right through the disc corruption that Cactus uses to supposedly prevent those CDs from being ripped.

5 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Now the big question: Who will cave in first? by Trepalium · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will this end up like the VHS market where VHS recorders started intentionally mis-recording Macrovision protected content, despite the fact they had fixed the original flaw that allowed macrovision copy protection to work? Or will the DVD drive manufacturers stand up to the recording industry?

    --
    I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  2. Re:Now the big question: Who will cave in first? by Fat+Casper · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Why should the DVD drive manufacturers stand up against anyone except their own customers? These are the wonderful folks who went along with CSS in the first place. Give it a couple months and we'll be seeing drives touted as having the "feature" of being able to "play" (not rip) "copy-protected audio CDs."

    People will be lining up to buy them. When they notice that they can't rip, it'll be too late- and the only response they will get is "what, you want to pirate music? You are a bad person, I ought to report you." Makes me glad that I've already got a drive.

    --
    I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
  3. Re:"fair use" is not a right. by gilroy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Blockquoth the poster:

    Having said all this, record industry does have the right to implement copy protection.

    I've thought about the following for a while. There ought to be a two-track system of copyright. Whenever anything is released for public consumption, the publisher would make a choice:
    • Forego any technical copy protection -- the data is presented in the clear. However, stringent and heavy penalties accrue for copyright infringement, and the publisher can utilize the court system to recover these penalties.
    • Encrypt the data or otherwise protect it by technical means. In this case, however, no penalties would follow from circumvention of the encyption ... the works would, in essence, be public domain, with only the encryption providing protection (= revenue stream) to the publisher.


    In other words, the content publisher doesn't get to eat his/her cake and have it, too. By restricting Fair Use access, by cordonning off the material from the public domain (essentially forever), the publisher loses the protection of the courts. If you don't want to play ball with the justice system, you don't get to use it, either.



    This approach is entirely justifiable, as copyright is a privilege granted by the state, not a right inherent in the content. As Litman and others point out, historically, copyright has been viewed as a bargain between the publishers and the public. If publishers try to unilaterally change the terms of the game -- by, for instance, encrypting data streams -- then the public has every right and justification to revoke the copyright.

    --
    The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
  4. Check out the "security" on Midbar's web site! by pointym5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a fun little diversion, go to the midbartech website and try to get information about one of the Cactus products. You'll get to a page that has a one-field form asking for a password. Get your browser to show you the source for the page, and groove on the unbelievably sophomoric obfuscated password verifier. Ha!

  5. Steve Jobs Has It Right by nbvb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jobs' recent quote when the iPod shipped was right on the money:

    "Piracy is a social problem, not a technological one."

    That really sums it up. And you can see in Apple's products that they really believe this.

    Ripping MP3's (or AIFF's) in iTunes is ridiculously simple. Like it should be. (Single click rips an entire CD)

    Copying those MP3's to a portable music device is also incredibly simple. Even automated if you use an iPod (though iTunes works great with other MP3 players too!)

    The only copy protection on my iPod is the fact that it's a one-way sync. And for what it's worth, it's a LOT LOT LOT harder to do a 2-way sync than a one-way sync. So I really don't believe the conspiracy theorists, and I think it's all about keeping things simple!

    Steve's on the right track here. He understands.

    There's no real technological reason that other companies can't do what Apple's doing. But for some reason, they "get it" and folks like MS, etc. don't.