Slashdot Mirror
Give Your DVD Player The Finger
sebFlyte writes "Wired is reporting on some scary new DRM tech being developed. From the article: 'At the store, someone buying a new DVD would have to provide a password or some kind of biometric data, like a fingerprint or iris scan, which would be added to the DVD's RFID tag. Then, when the DVD was popped into a specially equipped DVD player, the viewer would be required to re-enter the data.'"
I like my idea for a bimodal hand geometry/voice recognition system better, me giving the MPAA the finger while telling them to "bite my shiny metal ass."
"biometric data, like a fingerprint or iris scan, which would be added to the DVD's RFID tag."
Can I just use the finger that I found at Wendy's?
Seriously though, what if you wanted to buy a gift for somebody? This isn't going to work all that well.
How about on-line purchases? Would they take a 'sample' and keep it on file to encode something at a later time. Who is going to trust the security of that?
I don't see it happening.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
that seems like a very user friendly system; way to go!
Couple quotes from TFA:
Unfavorable bovine comparisons notwithstanding, these two statements sum up nicely why this will never happen:
Add to all this the increased costs of manufacturing the 'specially equipped DVD players' mentioned in the article, and it's easy to see why this idea is a non-starter.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
such as this will never work. Because people will not buy products with this stuff on it.
I hope.
Meh.
Looks like my collection of severed fingers FINALLY has a use!
I for one would go back to a VCR before submitting to this. Simply insane to think that I need to be treated like a thief when BUYING something they think I may STEAL later. (making available)
This is nuts.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
You'd have to keep running back to the DVD player every time they wanted to watch one of the 10,000 Disney and other assorted DVDs that they like to watch endlessly.
This is crazy talk, really, and really prevents the fair use rights we have now (loaning to friends, etc.)
Why don't they just sell tickets every time we want to watch a DVD? "They're $2 cheaper per viewing than going to the theater!"
Then, when the DVD was popped into a specially equipped DVD player, the viewer would be required to re-enter his or her password or fingerprint. The system would require consumers to buy new DVD players with RFID readers.
The market has already proven this won't work.
Gadh said he could not reveal specifically how the system would work, as it is still in the research stage. A prototype will be available by the end of the summer, he said, and at that point, it will be shopped around to movie studios and technology companies.
Thanks for giving this company free advertising to the media conglomorates Wired/Slashdot, the market appreciates it!
When something strinkingly familiar was posted a couple of days ago here, I said almost exactly what I am going to say here: How does this product enable me to enact fair-use?
It doesn't.
I, for one, would never purchase a product that required this level of security for my home entertainment. The only time I would consider giving my fingerprint or some other biometric data would be for a HIGH security job.
I don't trust any person at electronics stores with my SS#, why would I trust them with more personal information?"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
Or optionally, if you happen to come across a finger in your Wendy's Chili, can you use that to watch their DVD collection?
My kids have put about a million fingerprints on all my dvds.
I'm used to being able to do whatever I want with my current DVDs. I can take them to any region of the world and play them with no problem. If I want to fast-forward through the several minutes of commercials at the beginning of a DVD, no problem. If I want to make a backup copy in case the original gets destroyed, the movie companies have bent over backwards to make this easy.
DVDs have never been horribly crippled in any way in the past, so they shouldn't be in the future.
I'm a big tall mofo.
FYI, current generation DVD players are not DRM-less, the DRM is just transparent to most users so they can ignore it. With a system like this, the DRM just becomes obvious to the average Joe. Of course, maybe this is what we finally need to happen to give the average Joe a kick in the ass to be opposed to DRM.
So, after dad dies, I'm gonna hafta keep his finger around to view his pr0n collection? That's doubly creepy...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
This would screw over libraries. How sick.
How ironic that www.boingboint.net linked to an article How to fake a fingerprint just yesterday ;)
So, if this comes to pass, huge numbers of people will buy the DVD, take it home, enter their fingerprint ONCE, and rip it to a non-protected copy. Then, they'll just use the much-more convenient copy.
In other words, everyone will have and regularly use a DVD copier. And, once you're copying it for yourself, what's the difference if you make a few extra copies? Hey, while I'm sitting here, Aunt Martha might enjoy this movie too.....
"Hello?"
"Mommy, movie broke again."
"Honey, I told you that when I'm at work I cannot authorize, er unlock the movie for you."
"Mommy, I wanna watch my movie!"
"I know, sweetheart, but I can't come home until later. Please play with your toys until then, or let your older brother play one of his movies for you instead."
"Yuck! Hate "Kill, Kick, & Maim!" I wanna watch "Honeydumpling Sweethearts" again."
"I understand, but you'll have to wait."
"WAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
(Silently cursing DRM)
Perhaps this is being nitpicky, but it's worth pointing outh that "Fair Use" (and parody for that matter) are not "rights," per se. Only authors/creators of the work (not the public) are granted rights under the Copyright Act.
As a dotrine, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement. This means the person claiming Fair Use has the burden of proving that their actions did not constitute infringement.
The obvious problem, if you are defending an infringement claim is that it is extremely expensive to succssfully raise a Fair Use or Parody defense, which, if it fails, causes the heavy hammer of infringement and all its penalties falls down upon you. Because of this, it's common to hear, "Yes, it's probably fair use. You will spend a billion dollars to get a chance to prove that." Just ask these guys .
Bush Lies On the Record.
I doubt it will be used for retail DVDs as it wouldn't be cost-effective.
However, it may yet be useful in securing workprints and pre-release copies. That would decrease bootlegging. A workprint of Star Wars III hit the BitTorrent networks yesterday. You can be sure George is looking to employ this technology when he makes his next Indiana Jones.
Those are already watermarked. No reason to add an additional (and expensive) level of encumberance. Also, how exactly would they prevent someone simply playing the disk in a player that has no hardware to "honor" the RF tag restriction? We're not talking a new DVD format here, just a boondoggle tacked to the disk.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
They need to make things EASIER and more attractive to the consumer, not less!
If a restrictive, half-baked scheme like this went through, it'd be easier to buy the damn media, and then download a cracked copy off your favorite p2p so you can easily view the movie you paid for on your laptop.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The finger-in-the-food story about Wendy's was a scam. That lady has a history of suing fast food companies for putting body parts in her food. Please don't continue to spread this FUD that Wendy's doesn't deserve.
In order to fake a fingerprint, one needs an original first. Latent fingerprints are nothing but fat and sweat on touched items. Thus to retrieve someone elses fingerprint (in this case the fingerprint you want to forge) one should rely on well tested forensic research methods. Which is what's to be explained here. (Figure 1).
A good source of originals for our counterfeits are glasses, doorknobs and glossy paper. The standard method of forensic research makes them visible: Sprinkling it with colored powder, which sticks to the fat (Figure 2).
Another solution involves Cyanoacrylat, the main ingredient of superglue. A small amount thereof is poured into a bottlecap, which is then turned upside down and put over the fingerprint. (Figure 3).
The Cyanoacrylat gasses out and reacts with the fat residue to a solid, white substance (Figure 4).
The further treatment involves scanning/photographing (Figure 5) and a bit of graphical refurbishment (Figure 6).
The goal is to get an exact image of the fingerprint, for further use as mold, out of which the dummy is made. The easiest way is to print the image on a transparency slide (the ones normally used for an overhead projector) with a laser printer. The toner forms a relief, which is later used similar to letter press printing. Wood glue is suitable for producing the dummy (Figure 7)
A small dash of glycerene may be used to optimize humidity and workability. After thorough mixing, the dummy gets coated with a thin layer of the compound (Figure 8,9).
After the glue has dried (Figure 10), it is pulled off the foil (Figure 11) and is cut to finger size.
Theatrical glue is used to glue the dummy onto the own finger (Figure 12).
The new identity is ready!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I can't see the public buying it. Do you remember DIVX? DVDs that automatically degrade after 48 hours? Me neither; they all crashed in flames, because the DRM was too intrusive. The public will put up with a certain amount of unintrusive DRM, like that in current DVDs, but when it gets in-your-face they reject it. And this is about as in-your-face as it gets: what happens when the kids are being baby-sat but Dad buys the DVDs? Every family would have to make a list of who bought which DVDs so as to know which finger to give the machine.
There is no way the public would touch this with a barge pole - I can see it being useful for oscar pre-releases etc. but if the firm that came up with the idea thought it had any mass-market potential they need their heads examining.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Not everything can be reverse-engineered effectively. As far as I know the latest DirecTV encryption technology hasn't been broken yet, and it's been out for a while. Then again, maybe it can be broken (or has been broken) but it's just easier for people to hack another provider's encoding/encryption scheme.
That sounds like a pretty big chunk-o-change to throw out the window. Not even the MPAA is that stupid.
maybe.
-S
my dad's *incenced* he can't fast forward through commercials. when he puts a dvd of cartoons on for his new granddaughter, they both have to sit through around 10 minutes of adverts and trailers before it starts - this is a *long* time to an 18 month old's attention span.
solution? burn an unencrypted copy using dvdshrink, and then they can fast forward to their heart's content - and also it doesn't matter if little'un scratches the disk.
Unintrusive? No. Effective? Apparently.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
do the studios ever take action to trace ripped copies?
Yes. They can and they have traced them back to the person the screeners were given to (see third paragraph from the bottom). Did the studios do anything?
Yes, they sued and got a default judgement for $300k. Sounds effective to me.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Hell YEAH! Soon those pathetic alternatives to our monopolistic cable plants will be bankrupt and we can get back to offerering minimal services for maximal prices.
Slashdot for one will welcome their new cable provider overlords!
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
IMHO, this goes back to the "greed is good" binge of the 1980's, which was really an economic transformation of the US. (and beyond) Prior to the transformation, GM/Ford/etc was in the business of making cars, and sold those cars to make money so they could go on making and selling cars, and reward their employees and stockholders. The ??AA were in the business of making music and movies, and selling/showing them so they could go on...etc.
After the transformation, it seems that every business is first and foremost in the business of making money. The products they market are mere incidentals, necessary evils in order to further their primary mission. Witness that GM revenue is divided 1/3 - 2/3 between selling cars and selling financing. (forget which third is which) They're making a significant amount of their revenue dabbling in what used to be banks' business. Or consider that a sizable part of Microsoft's revenue comes from playing financial games, and that their multibillion dollar war chest gives them a lot of ability to do this.
There's a more subtle shift here, too. Prior to the transformation of the 80's, employees were valuable resources, especially those with experience. Now employees are annoying expenses, and a drain on profits. Customers used to be valued, hoping for return business. Now, at least in some industries, they're "thieves."
I had a discussion with my son about this last night on the way home. He received several downloaded songs from friends of a European group called, "Nightwish." He now has 5 of their 6 CDs, and my daughter has 2. (and as soon as my son can find the 6th, actually their first, he wants to buy it.) I asked how likely he would have been to plunk down $17 for a CD never having really heard their music, and of course he said, "not at all." A few downloaded songs have translated to 7, potentially 8 sales, in my immediate family.
Oh, some time ago, after he had begun his Nightwish collection I sternly cautioned him about any trading in downloaded songs.
The ??AA is also more than a little STUPID in counting every downloaded song or movie as a lost unit of revenue. Case in point, me. I think long and hard before plunking down $15 for a CD. If CDs (that I like) were $7.50, I'll bet I'd buy more than twice as many. If they were $5.00, I'll bet my purchases would more than triple. At some point, I'd reach my limit of storage and clutter.
But for the guy the RIAA is suing with 10,000 songs, or whatever, he NEVER HAD the kind of money to buy that much music. Even if he had a good income, when it costs real money, you balance your music against food, rent, clothing, gasoline, eating out, going to the movies, going to concerts, etc. The only reason he would have that collection of 10,000 songs is because they were (at the time) effectively free, costing only bandwidth and space.
Choke off ALL downloads, filesharing, etc, and I suspect the ??AA wouldn't see more than even a 10% increase in their sales. Lacking the "free" source, I'll bet those people would simply choose not to buy, most of the time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...for many, many reasons that have all been listed above.
In addition, if this were implemented and someone broke into your home and stole your DVDs, they'd also want your finger too. Great. So now human fingers become a commodity on the black market; beautiful.