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.'"

11 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. waste of time by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'
    1. Re:waste of time by luckingfame · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was a great quote by Robe Zombie about those anti-piracy commercials in the movie theatres that were running for a bit. "I'm sitting in the movie theatre, what more do you want?!?"

    2. Re:waste of time by l_bratch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most confusing thing about the anti-piracy ads in cinemas (in the UK at least) is that they say something like:

      "Don't watch pirated films - you'll lose the big screen image quality, and the incredible sound, and your view won't be spoiled by the person that goes to the toilet in front"

      Whilst saying that last bit, they show a clip from a dodgy in-cinema cam job where somebody stands up in front of the camera.

      What they fail to realise is that people do that in the cinema!

    3. Re:waste of time by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In my local cinema, the sound quality is pretty poor (stereo only on most screens, and some muppet has done strange things to the equaliser that heavily emphasise the bass), and the image is slightly blurred and full of little flickers where dust has got into the film.

      A DVD and a home projector and surround sound system give much better video and audio quality, don't have adverts, and can be paused when you want to get up and go to the toilet in the middle. For the price of two of you going to the cinema, you can buy a DVD and renting is even cheaper.

      The only still-extant reason for downloading is that it takes so long for films to get from the cinema to DVD. If they did simultaneous releases, then I would expect to see piracy fall a lot. Mind you, I'd also expect to see most cinemas go out of business...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. It's okay... by Daychilde · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
    1. Re:It's okay... by digitrev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm going to attempt an analogy. This may be horribly flawed, but there is some logic here.

      The current downloading of copyrighted files is akin to drinking during prohibition. The laws were on the books making drinking (sharing copyrighted files) illegal. However, that didn't stop people from drinking, and in fact simply forced the alcohol industry underground, where it was taken over by organized crime. The temperance movement (RIAA / MPAA) did their best to keep the laws on the books forcing what they thought was a horrible thing to become illegal. However in doing this, they made criminals out of everyday folk who blatantly disregarded the less than sensible laws. Had anyone tried to enforce the, dare I say it, stupid laws in place, they would have ended up with millions behind bars.

      My point is that attempting to create or uphold laws that no one respects is futile. They can't and won't be able to prosecute every uploader of files, and eventually, the laws on the books will match the reality of what goes on in day to day life.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  3. Extremely Limited Success? by locokamil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean "failure"?

    Remember, kids: It's not torture, it's "enhanced interrogation techniques".

  4. DRM by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. The ever heard of cost vs benefit? by SSCGWLB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Umm... by fyrwurxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Does anybody else... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.