Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft DRM Code for Netflix Streams Hacked
reddburn writes "Macworld has posted a story by IDN News Service about a hacker who posted instructions for saving streaming movies from Netflix, defeating Microsoft's DRM code designed to prevent users from saving the content. From the article: 'A hacker who calls himself Dizzie wrote late last month on the Rorta hacking forum that "Netflix doesn't easily allow you to save the flicks and watch them at your leisure because the films are entrapped in some ... Windows Media DRM wrapper," referring to Microsoft's DRM system. Word of his hack spread more widely this week in various blogs and Web sites...He writes that the process for removing the DRM could take a few attempts, and the process does not remove the time limit imposed by Netflix on viewing the content. The Netflix site was down for maintenance early Thursday, although it was unclear if it was related to the hack. The site was back up later Thursday morning.'"
Very depressing that people are now hacking content they paid for
Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
But then, I wonder if anyone cares!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Sounds a lot more like 'bits can be saved'. The *real* DRM, the time limit, is still in place.
TODO: Something witty here...
I'm a happy customer of Reeltime. Streaming online movies, no fuss no crap. They're expanding their library of movies all the time.
Check 'em out.
(not an employee, just a satisfied customer)
The more you restrict it, the greater the desire to break it.
Open up, please.
ilovegeorgebush
This isn't new at all; the DRM crack is still FairUse4WM, which has been around for years, all the "hacker" has down is document how to discover the file URL and download it, nothing more.
DRM gets hacked all the time. Then repaired, then hacked, then repaired, then hacked, ...
Do we really need a story every time this happens?
Slashdot's story quality is going down the toilet fast.
Okay, if this is to watch the videos on a non-Windows system or if you have being forced into Windows/IE, fine. I'm okay with that as long as you manually adhere to the rental terms and delete the file. I know the reality of that, but on principle I agree that the DRM stripping can be a viable option for fair use for those who don't have or like Windows/IE.
s guise-of-Fair-Use crowd (you know who you are, and Slashdot unfortunately has a lot) are going to only look at this as a method of piracy even though there are lots of other ways to do obtain pirated media, including just getting the DVD from Netflix.
But if anyone wants to do this to download and keep the file, I really have to question WHY?? The only way to do this is if you have a Netflix account. So, if you're hell-bent on keeping a copy, you might as well go through the whole process of having the DVD sent to you and then do a rent-rip-return. At least that way you'll get the whole thing in full DVD quality with all of the bells, whistles, commentaries, and additional material.
Not only do you need a Netflix account, but you also obviously need to have a broadband connection. In that case there are plenty of other outlets from Usenet to P2P to IRC to obtain copies of movies that already have any DRM stripped off.
And if it's a movie that you really would like but don't want to pay $20 for a new DVD, why not just pay $5 for a used DVD from Netflix from whom you already are paying $xx per month for the subscription? I did that for a movie that my wife wanted, and the movie was in our mailbox in three days, complete with Amaray case and cover art.
I honestly don't see why this is a big deal. There are so many other outlets to get movies illegally, even the complete DVD images. I know very well that the Linux crowd would love to make this an example of how people don't want DRM in order to enforce Fair Use with non-Windows systems and I agree with that. But we all know that the conspiracy-loving media, the studios, and the only-pirates-talk-about-removing-DRM-under-the-di
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
you forgot to make the "becoming like digg" comment. at least then you would have got modded for flamebait.
Broadcast TV is a horse of a different color. This is a rental; The rules are different.
People have been saying this for years now...are you folks really trying to tell me that slashdot was once so awesome and amazing that not even god could have handled it?
Living With a Nerd
Stories like these always remind me of the quality in the good old days... :-(1 41224
http://meta.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/01/
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Seems like I see articles like this every other day. Don't these people realize they're going to pay a $2 billion file and go to prison for 1700 years??
Did something happen while I was asleep or is there still a DMCA?
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Oh shut up.
You whiners are half the reason linux has made so little progress as a desktop platform.
This is a rental model -- they want some sort of control to stop people from downloading everything once and than dropping the service. What does linux offer that can do that? Anything?
And remember, this is an EXTRA service that they've given to their customers WITHOUT any additional charge. If you don't have a compatible computer (or broadband, or any computer at all) you aren't being cheated out of anything. You're just missing out on the free bonus.
Does it strike anyone as strange that the article is on Macworld about how to exploit a Microsoft DRM in an application that only works on Windows?
Oh come on - /. has plenty of lame-ass stories besides April Fools versions.
Besides which, that post doesn't really work without the OMG Ponies theme - I had to scrub my eyeballs after that one.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
The DRM code wasn't hacked for the site. they simply found a way to download the encrypted movie, and then proceeded to use an existing program that strips the WMP DRM. there isn't a specific DRM for netflix.
netflix needs to control their streams better.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
...you're a sly one...
Living With a Nerd
As FairPlay has proved, DRM technology does not have to be perfect in order to be effective. If DRM prevents 99.99% of users from pirating movies, then it is a success.
...if these morons cause Netflix to have to shutdown this service before they even get the good content on it. Good fucking grief... just learn to quit stealing shit. It isn't that complicated.
I understand that people here think all DRM is always bad, but I don't have a problem with Netflix DRM, apart from it making me boot up Windows in a VM. I don't want to buy the damn movie, I just want to watch it once. Now if I was paying $10-20 for the thing I'd be pissed and want to hack it, but I'm paying 13-something a month for DVDs and these downloads. Why someone thinks they are entitled to own a movie they paid about a buck for (depending on how much you value these "free" downloads as part of your account) is beyond me.
If you're going to reply to the comment chain, at least read the parts you're replying to. The discussion above was about CDs that you purchase and those most definitely aren't rentals. The subject changed, please keep up.
Look at my first two sentences, emphasis mine: "Okay, if this is to watch the videos on a non-Windows system or if you ha[t]e being forced into Windows/IE, fine. I'm okay with that as long as you manually adhere to the rental terms and delete the file."
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
If ya don't like it then why don't ya fuck off and post somewhere else?
"netflix needs to control their streams better."
I'm certain that dropping the service will be all the "control" that's needed. After all the DVD rental business is still doing well. Now how the consumer benefits from them doing so is the $24,000 question?
So you are telling me that say... Will Smith will be ok if I purchase one of his CDs and play it, in my business while I use it to help me make money? Or that he'd be ok if I played it to a "concert" of 200 people, that I charged for? Come on... why do you think businesses have to pay royalties to record labels? There is a fair use line, and Netflix has said that "fair use" does *not* include copying the streaming video so you can play it later. ..iF they are smart they will work something out so you *can* download and play later, however. (I'd love that. I use netflix a lot.)
"It isn't that complicated."
Apparently it is.
You Must Be New Here
McDonald's corollary to Murphy's Law, Murphy was a optimist.
Purely for educational purposes, did a google search seems this is like that hex number so far, next week this may be plastered all over the net.
Woops... looks like I should've been up a level there or something.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Paid for a single use? Are you kidding me? That may be a media salesman's wet dream, but that's not how it works in reality.
Um, last time I checked, when I rent DVDs at the store the rental typically is for a week's duration. And the DVDs are typically 2-hour long movies.
So I have the ability to watch that DVD eighty-four (84) times in a week. Anyone trying to limit my viewership to a number below eighty-four (84) times is ripping ME off, not the other way around.
Ripping movies you have rented is perfectly legitimate, in order to time shift the 84 viewings which the rental entitled you to.
Luxury!
Back in my day, questions were a lot more expensive. Nigh on $40,000 more expensive, if'n I recollect...
DRM doesn't work?!? STOP THE PRESSES!!!!
This is the part of the post where I defeat the lameness filter that doesn't allow me to post my +1 Funny comment in all caps.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Hold on there, friend - what is or is not "Fair Use" is not Netflix's decision!!! That's a matter for the government to decide (whether we, or Netflix, or anybody else, agree with their decision is irrelevant). The Supreme Court of the US ruled almost 25 years ago that "time-shifting" DOES fall within "Fair Use". Therefore, what this hacker has done absolutely falls within that ruling (in the US). What's more, even if he were to break it futher still and remove all time locks (including the expiry) from the content, it would still be Fair Use - and your established right as a US citizen (or visiting foreign national, if you are one).
I'm not sure about the latest round of exemptions for the DMCA, but it might even be legal there as well.
That's not to say that you can legally sell it, copy it for your friends, etc. - this only applies to the time-shifting aspect of the crack.
You kids have no idea how to complain about declining standards! Why back in my day, luddites would write 50 page essays on why everything was better when they were young. They were articulate, well written, and full of substance, not like the "posts" you softies from the internet generation generate every day.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Ok so the time shifting may be legal, but still, doing it in a way that Netflix does not want you to do it in - break the +Netflix+ terms of service, no? Which would, in effect, be "illegal" according to Netflix.
That's where my beef is. Fair use or not, getting the data through Netflix means you have to deal with it in the way Netflix wants you to deal with it.
Just like, if I allowed you to walk through my house (free coffee and beer) while on your way to work and I said that you had to finish your beer before leaving my house... would it not be against my "policy" if you hid your beer under your coat and took it with you for use later?
I see your point, but I think your analogy is slightly flawed.
For starters, I don't care what the terms of service say - any company infringing on my government-issued rights isn't getting any sympathy from me. Amy I not supposed to use my PSP for homebrew just because Sony doesn't like it? Or not install my extra legal OSX license on non-Apple hardware just because Apple says I shouldn't?
Second, this isn't a free-coffe and -beer scenario. As generous as your offer is, Netflix is not so giving. They are not giving these things away - they are renting them to me. What would you do if Blockbuster told you that the DVD you rented from the store could only be played between 1am and 6am on Thursday, and you could only play it on the DVD player in your basement next to the furnace? Just because a company claims something in their "terms of agreement" doesn't make it law - otherwise companies would be making the law, which they have no right to do.
The difference here is that Netflix has been given a tool to enable them to enforce something which isn't the law, and the community has responded by breaking that enforcement.
Good points, but they are deeper than you make them sound like they are.
:P ), Netflix is not so giving. They are not giving these things away - they are renting them to me. (Emphasis mine)
any company infringing on my government-issued rights isn't getting any sympathy from me.
They are not. They are saying, "If you want to use it through us, through our bandwidth, you have to use it this way." Much like a toll road, no?
Am I not supposed to use my PSP for homebrew just because Sony doesn't like it? Or not install my extra legal OSX license on non-Apple hardware just because Apple says I shouldn't?
No, you shouldn't and no you shouldn't. Why? It may be Uncle-Sam-Legal to do those things, but if it violates a terms of service, don't look to the company for any such support any longer? Kind of like voiding a warranty, etc. That said, I'd use my DS for homebrew stuff any chance I could get... but I understand that that violates a warranty and effectively makes that physical piece of hardware no longer a nintendo DS.
As generous as your offer is (It is Natural Light, not Guinness, sorry.
What would you do if Blockbuster told you that the DVD you rented from the store could only be played between 1am and 6am on Thursday, and you could only play it on the DVD player in your basement next to the furnace?
I would do exactly what everyone who disagrees with a terms of service should do: Take my business elsewhere.
Squeezing blood from a turnip may be possible, but it may also be against the Netflix TOS to do so, which in that specific case you are violating not the legal side of the media, but the Terms of Service side...
Just because a company claims something in their "terms of agreement" doesn't make it law
This is very true. However, if a company says in order to be "on par" with the TOS you have to break the law they do not have a legal terms of service. If a company says you have to watch a DRM'd video while watching it through their subscription service - then you have to. It is not illegal to DRM stuff, and it is not illegal to say "If you do this in my space on my time, you have to do it my way." (See my analogy re: beer.)
A second thought, using part of my earlier reply:
:P )
Just like, if I allowed you to walk through my house (free coffee and beer) while on your way to work and I said that you had to finish your beer before leaving my house... would it not be against my "policy" if you hid your beer under your coat and took it with you for use later? Even if Uncle Sam said it was legal to drink beer outside of a home?
(Underlines mine. Well actually underlines are new stuff.
All I am concerned with is the people who think that this does not violate the Netflix TOS and that if Netflix gets upset at them for doing this that Netflix is in the wrong... Netflix if they ever fired customers over this, may pull the "You cracked DRM" card, but really what they will be upset over is violation of the terms of service.
It's called BitTorrent.
Realistically, if NetFlix has a DVD for rent, chances are it's already been ripped to DivX/Xvid and floating around the intertubes.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Ok so the time shifting may be legal, but still, doing it in a way that Netflix does not want you to do it in - break the +Netflix+ terms of service, no? Which would, in effect, be "illegal" according to Netflix.
Just because Netflix thinks that means nothing. It would be for a competent court to decide which of Netflix's terms and condictions are valid and applicable.
For starters, I don't care what the terms of service say - any company infringing on my government-issued rights isn't getting any sympathy from me.
The general term is "law of the land" which is the collection of statute, case and common law applicable to whereever you happen to be. The terms of a contract/service are only valid where they operate within this framework.
What would you do if Blockbuster told you that the DVD you rented from the store could only be played between 1am and 6am on Thursday, and you could only play it on the DVD player in your basement next to the furnace? Just because a company claims something in their "terms of agreement" doesn't make it law.
A lot of times companies will use bluff and put in terms they know are questionable (even void).
otherwise companies would be making the law, which they have no right to do.
Problem is that all too often they are. Since someone paid (either by business or extreamist political interests) to lobby politicans is far more able to get their message across than a random member of the public who has a job and a life.