Slashdot Mirror
AACS Revision Cracked A Week Before Release
stevedcc writes "Ars Technica is running a story about next week's release of AACS, which is intended to fix the currently compromised version. The only problem is, the patched version has already been cracked. From the article: 'AACS LA's attempts to stifle dissemination of AACS keys and prevent hackers from compromising new keys are obviously meeting with extremely limited success. The hacker collective continues to adapt to AACS revisions and is demonstrating a capacity to assimilate new volume keys at a rate which truly reveals the futility of resistance. If keys can be compromised before HD DVDs bearing those keys are even released into the wild, one has to question the viability of the entire key revocation model.'"
If they put this much effort into making crappy movies not suck instead, they'd save a lot more money than trying to control every customer's lives
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
...I'm sure someone will solve the problem by writing more laws.
That's always the solution, isn't it?
(oy.)
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
Damn you long-haired smellies! Why can't you get with the program and just passively CONSUME!
you had me at #!
You mean "failure"?
Remember, kids: It's not torture, it's "enhanced interrogation techniques".
This is quickly making DRM look less like rights management and more like digital restrictions mockery. Of course, we knew this from the start. Any security strategy that depends on giving the attacker both the key and lock is doomed to fail.
The guys who make this DRM know its flawed but they still get paid when it fails. They must be quietly laughing all the way to the bank. Yet like morons the record labels keep handing money over. It's no wonder CD sales are declining when you're *that* clue-proof.
EMI has the right idea. Shock horror, if you give the customer what they want, they'll pay you for it. I never would have guessed!
Simon
How is this economical for these companies? It should be simple:
ProfitA = $MEDIA_INCOME - DRM R&D - DRM content - lawsuits - alienated customers - recalls (i.e. rootkit)
ProfitB = $MEDIA_INCOME - piracy loss
I would bet that ProfitB is significantly larger then ProfitA.
I don't think hackers are always going to publically tell which software they found vulnerable, or if they went for the hardware, or exactly what. But it's quite clear they now understand where to look for the keys, so just changing them won't help anymore. And when you know the protection structure, I think this system is now pretty much as busted as the DVD protection became. GG
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
It amazes me that the movie industry remains convinced that they save more money by developing and implementing DRM than they would lose to piracy. The cost for a system like AACS must have been well into the millions, and I hope they realize that with all DRM systems it takes orders of magnitude less money to bypass them then it does to create them (and once a crack is known, that's all it takes). At the very best, DRM only buys them some time until it is cracked, and at worst is frustrates consumers to the point that they boycott the product. While the number of pirates may increase a bit if all media was DRM free, I don't believe it would be a significant increase from the amount who pirate now. I do believe the amount lost to new piracy would be less than the amount spent developing DRM, and perhaps the increase in sales due to people who only pirate because they hate DRM will off set that even more.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
I never understood the MPAA/RIAA's approach to curbing piracy and increasing legitimate sales by imposing restrictions on those who pay for content. Think about it: a pirated album or movie comes with zero DRM and thus can be used for any purpose on any player an unlimited number of times. If I pay for that same album and purchase it through iTunes, I can only listen to it on my computer and my iPod. So here's my choice: pay for restricted content or download DRM-free content FOR free. Umm, who in their right mind would elect for the former?
A more proactive approach to curbing piracy would not restrict the rights of the consumer, but expand them. Instead of pouring millions of dollars into encryption schemes that are cracked before they're released, invest that money into innovations like exclusive or pre-release content for paying customers. I might feel better about buying an album online if a) I knew I could use that album any way I want and b) got a little extra in return, like an interview with the band, an exclusive track, preferential treatment for concert tickets, or whatever. I know these exclusive tracks and interviews could just as easily be pirated, but it's the thought that counts. If you (the RIAA/MPAA) respect my right and desire to use my movies and music how I want, I'll be more likely to respect your right to compensation for said goods. Either way, putting digital handcuffs on your paying customers is definitely *not* the right approach.
And then the utter fuckpuppets go on to say: "Buying pirated DVDs is stealing." This really gets my goat. Buying pirated DVDs is buying pirated DVDs. Stealing pirated DVDs would be stealing. Cnuts.
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
More likely the other way around: the people who actually care about the art will let anybody experience it, while the people who only care for money will charge unnecessary costs.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Any law that makes a criminal out of the majority is a bad law by definition.
But I liked your analogy too.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?