DRM Group Set To Phase Out "Analog Hole"

eldavojohn writes "In yet another bid to make your life a little more annoying, our DRM overlords at the AACS Licensing Authority have released a new AACS Adopter Agreement. The riveting, 188-page PDF will inform you that — in the name of Digital Rights Management — there will be new limitations set on devices that decrypt Blu-Ray discs. HDMI already has the awesome encryption of HDCP between the device and the display unit. But Blu-Ray still has the Achilles heel of analog players that allow someone to merely re-encode the analog signal back to an unencrypted digital format. So if you have an analog HDTV, hang on to those analog decoders and hope they never break; by 2013 you won't be able to buy a new one. Ars points out the inherent stupidity in this charade: 'Particularly puzzling is the fact that plugging the so-called "analog hole" won't stop direct digital ripping, enabled by software such as AnyDVD HD. And even the MPAA itself recommends using a camcorder pointed at a TV as a way to make fair use copies, creating another analog hole.' And so the cat and mouse game continues. On that subject, DVD Jon's legit company just brought out a billboard ad for his product doubleTwist next to Apple's San Fransisco store. It reads, 'The Cure for iPhone Envy. Your iTunes library on any device. In seconds.' So while he's busy taunting Apple, I'm certain there are others who might have some free time to look at Blu-Ray and the 'uncrackable' AACS."

Comments

You mean Blu-ray, right?

[TPJ-Basin]

Your journalism teacher just gave you 50% off your paper for misspelling a proper noun. It's 'Blu-ray', not 'Blu-Ray'. Carry on.

Re:DRM

[AK Marc]

Maybe it is different in the US than here, but I'm not sure why you expect rights like format-shifting and time-shifting - who granted those rights to you?

I'm not sure what rights you are talking about. Before copyright, we had those rights. There was no restriction on copying, shifting in time, format, or anything else. However, the government saw people stating that the inability to commercialize such items because of the copying was harming society as a whole. The reasoning was that creators would fail to share their creations with the people, or just fail to create if they were unable to profit from it. So, copyright was invented to give a temporary distribution monopoly to creators to encourage creation of works.

There is no right to prevent someone from using them however they want once purchased. You can remix it in your own home, as long as you show no one. You can pause, shift, transfer, or whatever else you want, as long as you don't distribute it. "copy" was the word they chose for distribution, as it was a shorter word, and when a copy was necessary for distribution, meant the same thing in the time of books and presses.

However, if copyright does not promote the creation of arts and sciences, it is illegal. If copyright isn't "limited" in time, the it is illegal. Copyright wasn't created to benefit creators. Copyright was invented to benefit the people, and if it doesn't do so, it should be revoked. That's why I should expect the right to format-shift and time-shift. I have those rights, and copyright hasn't taken them from me. The copyright holders have taken them, and in a manner against copyright.