Slashdot Mirror
After DeCSS, DVD Jon Releases DeDRMS
An anonymous reader writes "Jon Lech Johansen, who reverse engineered FairPlay back in January, and wrote the decryption code that was later used by an anonymous developer to create the playfair utility, has released a similar utility: DeDRMS. It's only 230 lines. T-shirts anyone?"
If you attempt the impossible -- and make no mistake, copy-prevention is physically impossible, not just difficult -- then you will fail. You might be able to fool people into thinking you have succeeded, for a short while; but, sooner or later, your lies will catch up with you. All copy-prevention technology is pure snake oil, and can never work. It will always be defeated. Once a single CPT-free version has been created, then every penny anyone ever invested in that particular copy-prevention technology is wasted.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Who says that "Dilbert" has sold out? You? Just because the strip portrays a view of downloading content that you find disagreeable, doesn't mean that the RIAA's got Scott Adams in their pocket.
It could just be that the man believes that you ought to pay for what you use for entertainment, if the creator of that entertainment wants payment.
http://cylan.deviantart.com/gallery/
this is pretty cool, and a technical achievement... but why bother stripping the DRM from your m4p files? just make a functional iTunes clone that doesn't care about the DRM :)
or maybe i'm wrong... is it up to the player software to enforce the DRM? i thought i read somewhere that the iPod just ignores it...
You know, I saw that this morning, and I thought it was actually a pretty good wrap up (well, for what a comic can do anyway) of several of the main positions in the debate.
First, there are all the people who go snag copies of music because they're too a) lazy, b) stupid, c) cheap, or d) all of the above to either go buy a copy or just not buy it at all (don't give me shit: you think it costs too much or has too much filler, blah blah blah... don't buy the fucking thing, don't be a little baby about it). Then, there's the theiving nature of all the execs in the industry ripping off the artists. There's also the problem of overproduction, and the mentality of major artists that they have to make money but no, no... they're still doing it for the art.. really.
I thought it was a very good bit of satire, all around.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
You know, of the people I know who have for love or money had to work with C#, exactly zero of them have complaints about it. According to all accounts I've heard, it's a well-thought out language that's easy to work in.
D may be the next iteration, but let's give props where props are due.
I think that basically what you're missing is that 'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.
Replace 'they' with any manufacturer.
I could buy an apple that said "not for use as food." And I could then proceed to eat that apple - they have no say in what I do with it. If, for some reason, I should injure myself by eating that apple, they warned me and wouldn't be held liable. That's it. Laws come into play when I throw that apple and kill someone with it. Or try to sell it, claiming it is a pair.
Now, the argument here is that it is illegal to decrypt the 'protections' a company puts on their music. And it is here where it gets smelly realy, really quickly.
Sure, it might be the law, but it is written to be a pretty shitty law. (DMCA, etc). No, that's not an excuse to break the law, but it is one to cause sympathy for someone who does. There are very legitimate reasons for breaking the DRM on these files. There are also very illegitimate ones. Piracy comes to mind. You know, real piracy. Not some 14 year old girl that wants to give her friend some songs, but the people who mass produce and sell these songs on the black market.
The black market being, by the way, about every outdoor market I've been to in Asia or South America.
And you're right. DVD Jon shouldn't fall under any US laws. But the RIAA et al. will surely find a way to change that. Bastards.
I don't see the point you're trying to make. DVDs may not explicitly state that you have to do X or Y, but with CSS encryption combined with the DMCA, they might as well.
I think DVD Jon's being totally consistent here - if you pay to listen/watch/whatever something, you should have the right to do so on whatever platform or medium you choose, and not be limited by some artificial restriction imposed on you by the media companies.
So now people with Linux boxes can play their legit iTMS songs on their Linux boxes. Personally, I'm not bothered by this. There are other, easier ways for people to pirate music if they really have their heart set to it, so opening up a way for people to use something they've paid for in a way they see fit, while it may technically violate the license, is nothing I see worth getting up in arms over.
You mean to the Java folks, then?
buh-dum ching! Thank you, I'll be here all weekend! Try the buffet!
That said, C# does seem cool... basically Java++. Now if only MS would make a legally binding document saying they won't sue the Mono guys...The Free desktop that Just Works
I mean, really. Why do you need much speed in anything other then a 3d game or some high-end server stuff that's going to be running constantly (like a web server or database).
Not to mention C isn't much faster then C# and java for most tasks these days.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I've never used C#. It's M$-sponsored, and I don't really like M$. I know that Java is less Free, but I really like the language. I feel that it's very clean and well-deisgned. The default API is also well thought out and I really enjoy using it. Just because I like Java, though, doesn't mean you have to like it :)
;)
I also like the fact that pretty much anyone can run my program. If this weren't the case, then Windows users would be pretty much out of luck if they wanted my program. I'm not going to port it.
I'm sure C# people think the same about Mono. It's "cross-platform". "It's great that Linux users can run my program", I'm sure they think. They weren't going to port it to Linux either
Oh well, when there are choices, there will be arguments about an individual's choice. It's better this way, I suppose.
My other car is first.
If pointers to info are 'illegal' (*cough*2600*cough), then I would also like to state that you cannot buy weed at the park. If pointers to pointers are safe, then I would like to say that it's safe to dereference my friend Joey for the same pointer to the park.
Ah, but if you recall, 2600 was enjoined by the court from providing hypertext links to DeCSS, although they were still allowed to publish the URLs themselves because of First Amendment concerns. (You had to cut and paste them into the address field yourself- no HREFs.)
I, on the other hand, can't get rid of the hypertext link underneath my post that says "Parent".
That's the same exact thing. Those crypto functions are included in C# as either extra libraries or 1000 extra lines of code.
It's not magical, or fundamentally different in any way.
Unlike the reason Sun created Java, which was to increase love and understanding in the world and had nothing to do with turning a profic...and the reason IBM is pushing Linux...because they think it spawns a world of open friendship, not because they make a mountain of cash consulting.
Evil Microsoft, trying to make money. How dare they!
I can't believe these comments still get modded as funny.
A speech...
make no mistake, copy-prevention is physically impossible, not just difficult
This is like observing that perfect algorithmic encryption, other than a one-time pad is impossible. So what? Who cares? Of course, I can't create a lock-and-key on my house that will keep all thieves out, all the time. So what? Who cares?
Whether or not my door can be physically manufactured to bar you forever from entry, makes it not one whit more legal for you to do so. All locks are rated, not in terms of their binary perfection, but rather in terms of the time and cost to defeat them. So what? Who cares?
You might be able to fool people into thinking you have succeeded, for a short while; but, sooner or later, your lies will catch up with you.
I suppose there are folks who are naive to think they live behind perfect locks. So what? Who cares? Where is the lie? What does it matter that technological solutions can be defeated? They are helpful, and substantially helpful to keep generally honest people honest, and stupid people (who represent most users) out. Smarter, less honest people, can of course get in any time. So what? Who cares?
For those smarter, less honest people, we have laws. Some will be smart enough to circumvent all of them and go free. Most will not.
Security is not a question of binary perfection. It is a question of doing as well as you may. Likewise with digital rights management.
There has always been piracy of musical content. Always. Some good, some bad. So what, who cares?
Just like DeCSS, playfair will be available to the less honest, smarter of us, or rebuilt by those who understand how it works. Those who think that this fact is useful have missed the point. These facts do not help our cause. To the contrary, it only helps those who insist that technology regulation, such as DMCA is required, and prevents the repeal of very bad laws.
Darn, I wish the smarter and less honest of us were just a little bit smarter about the ways of the world. For the smarter, honorable and ideologically motivated of us, such as Mr. J., we should excoriate, not praise, this sort of thing.
Our problem is that our arguments prove too much -- we demonstrate the "necessity" of the DMCAs, certainly to the satisfaction of the governments who will enforce them. The problem is NOT that there exists DRM, the problem is that the DRM is implemented and legally enforced in a manner that limits the scope of good new technology. It is that problem that WE, the technologists will have to solve -- hard or impossible it may be -- because the RIAA and MPAA certainly have no incentive to do so.
Then in the future you better make sure that you get paid upfront for the scarce (and sometimes NOT so scarce) WORK of creation, since you can't depend on artificial scarcity enforcement without a global police state.
If you've previously earned some goodwill/respect/whuffie, I'm much more open to funding your future efforts, and even *gasp* paying for that effort indirectly by volunteering to buy a non-scarce token copy of your OLD WORK.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Reminds me of a story. Let me tell you about my tent.
I like going to SCA events. While we're there, we camp. And that means having all of our expensive gear in our tents, all our food, and our booze. Some of our gear can run in the thousands of dollars.
At my favorite event, we camp near the edge of the camp. And idiots from the local village sneak over the fence and rip us off every so often.
So I made a tent with a locking door. I built a yurt, and built into the frame a full sized, 1/2" thick, wood and iron reinforced door. With a working brass good-enough-for-your-house lock.
And while camping one year, a neighbor made fun of me for my efforts. "There's no way that would keep a determined criminal out," he said. It was still a canvas tent, albeit with a wood lattice frame. You could cut a hole through the canvas and break the lattices, easy. The door was too thin, you could kick it down. The lock could be defeated.
And I explained to him that the point was not to be burglar proof, just more burglar resistant than my neighbors.
At that moment, he was enlightened.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
By saying Apple's DRM is good, you're falling right into the content companies' "trap" (scare quotes because I'm not convinced it was intentional, though the result is still the same). This is the same way many bad laws get passed: proponents of the bad law propose a law that's several times worse, wait for the backlash, then "fall back" to what they wanted to push through in the first place--and most people will agree that it's an improvement and let it go.
Distribution of copyrighted material is already illegal. DRM can always be circumvented. People will probably be willing to pay reasonable prices for songs online if they're guaranteed quality and the freedom to do what they want with the file, though I'll grant that payment methods are still a mostly unresolved issue. Hence there's no need for DRM, and even DRM as "fair" as Apple's is an improper infringement on users' rights. (Unless you believe content really belongs to the creators rather than to the culture--but that's not the stance the Framers took.)
I'm reminded of an old saying I heard about negotiation tactics: "If you want Australia, ask for the world and give away five continents."
Or with debian:
./DeDRMS.exe
apt-get install mono binfmt-support
mcs DeDRMS.cs