Slashdot Mirror
BD+ Resealed Once Again
IamTheRealMike writes "It's been a few months since we last checked in on how the Blu-Ray group was doing in their fight against piracy. In December 2008, a new generation of BD+ programs had stopped both SlySoft AnyDVD HD and the open source effort at Doom9. At the start of January, SlySoft released an update that could handle the new BD+ programs, meaning that Blu-Ray discs could not be decrypted for a period of time about the same length as SlySoft's worst case scenario. The BD+ retaliation was swift, but largely ineffective, consisting of a unique program for every Blu-Ray master. Users had to upload log files to SlySoft for every new movie/region. They would then support that unique variant in their next update, usually released a few days later. Despite that, the open source effort never did manage to progress beyond the Winter 2008 programs and is currently stalled completely; SlySoft is the only group remaining. This situation remained for several months, but starting around the same time as Paramount joined Fox in licensing BD+, a new set of programs came out which have once again made Blu-Ray discs unrippable. There are currently 19 movies that cannot be decrypted. It appears neither side is able to decisively gain the upper hand, but one thing seems clear — only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+."
It's important to remember that a lot of people aren't yet focused on bluray. DVD ripping was a must have and many different open-source and closed-source programs popped up over the years because DVD had critical mass. As a previous ex-blu-ray-early-adapter, it may be that people just don't care about blu-ray the same way.. yet. I think if blu-ray ever catches on like DVD did, the story would be different.
I stopped caring about blu-rays, they became too much hassle (and too expensive) for not enough of a quality boost. Maybe in the future when they really start to overtake DVDs (on price too) I'll reconsider. But at the moment, I highly doubt I'm the only one who has no more than one or two blu-ray movies and rented the rest. The big reason I'd have wanted to rip was to keep a digital copy of my collection. Since I don't even have a collection, that will hold off till I stop caring about DVDs.
Blu-ray may yet die a horrible death..
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I don't care about your little IP war. All I know is, the first time I pop a blu-ray disc into my $300 player and it refuses to play because of one of your new little one-upmanship encryption schemes, I'm going to be plenty pissed. And I bet there are any number of ambulance-chasing trial lawyers out there are who going to be looking to make some big money off some nice class action suits everytime one of your new schemes renders all our existing players obsolete too.
P.S. And no, "Well you may be able to get a firmware update from your player's manufacturer" doesn't cut it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+
Maybe open source developers have better things to do than to do legally questionable things in order to circumvent copy protection on an overpriced, obsolete distribution format?
but one thing seems clear â" only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+.
At the moment.
I highly doubt that there's not a backdoor key in the encryption, no matter how much they try to block people from copying/backing up/ripping. Mainly because if someone buys a $300 player that can't play any current movies and has no internet connection, a law suit is just around the corner.
Time and again the drm has been cracked, why should we think otherwise for this latest iteration. I just don't think enough people are concerned / bothered about it to build up sufficient momentum in the open source arena. The closed source with a paying userbase just hasn't reached critical mass for them to devote enough resource
I've got some photographs, I'd like to show them to you. Though you don't know the girls You'll recognise the view..
50gb Blu-ray RiP or 1-3gb DVD-RiP?
It's clear that it certainly isn't a straightforward thing to buy a BluRay movie (quite legally) and "just play it" - say, in your Linux PC. It's locked down as tight as they possibly can lock it down.
So, why would anyone buy something designed to be so restrictive to legit owners? I say: don't buy, don't pirate, just ignore the damn thing entirely. The only way the industry is ever going to change their draconian ways is if no one buys their crap.
You might say, "they'll just chalk it up to piracy!" But if no one is pirating either, it hardly matters. They will either go out of business entirely and a new thing will pop up to fill that market niche, or they will change their tune. Either way, it is consumers who have the power *if we are wise enough to use it*.
I win against blue ray every day because I don't own a blu ray player and have never bought a blu ray disc. I recommend you do the same. Don't buy the discs then get pissed and try to sue. Vote with your feet.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You managed to buy that disk for only $9 because the format is dead. That's like me saying VHS is better because I can pick up tons of cassettes for pennies at yardsales.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
This is why HDCP exists. It ensures an encrypted pathway all the way to the electronics that drive the display pixels. You could capture at this point, but it would be a mammoth task in terms of data-acquisition. That said, HDCP is evil.
The arms race with BD+ mirrors exactly what happened with sattv hacking 10 years ago. The encryption starts out simple and uses a minimal implementation of the BD spec. Once that is compromised the ip holders inevitably move to the more complex implementation of the spec. Currently this involves uploading a code package with each new release that performs the decryption, blacklist checking, and ultimately a system integrity check (the latter makes sure that BD+ API has not been patched to allow unconditional decryption which is the method slysoft uses). With every release, the IP holder looks at how the system has been hacked and writes a specific code package to detect those changes. The end result of this game is that the system will become totally compromised as hackers will simply rebuild the entire BD+ VM and API in emulation and allow for patching outside of the VM implementation (e.g. the system will respond as a valid unhacked system to any checks via VM code packages but will still perform unconditional decryption) Once that happens its over for BD+ as the only possible countermeasure is to attack flaws in the emulator implementation and those are easily fixed. Give it a year or so...
This is 2009.
As long as you can get the data off of the media, and onto a computer the format will never really die.
That's the real problem of "effective" copy protection
methods. There is some risk that works will be lost
because no one can copy them. Works being copied by
people other than the author/publisher are the most
effective means of preserving them.
Far too often the author/publisher doesn't care.
They are content to let works just "rot in the vault".
If I wanted to spend 25G per title in disk space I would
be snarfing up those HD-DVDs myself. I haven't watched a
movie on it's original disk in 2 years and haven't played
audio CD's directly in more than 10.
Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It appears neither side is able to decisively gain the upper hand, but one thing seems clear â" only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+.
That's like saying "only government funded, for profit individuals have any hope of working on the space shuttle". But the space shuttle isn't represented in the majority of homes yet. Come back when enough people have BD+ to make it interesting.
For those complaining about the "high" cost... You can now get Blu-ray players for Walmart starting from $125 meanwhile Amazon is selling disks starting at $13. Sure it's not as cheap as DVD, but it's gone down in price significantly over the course of 1 year.
Does anybody reading this own an early BD player that no longer will work
due to changes in BD+? Has anybody reading this had to get their BD
player firmware updated to play existing or new discs as a result of
changes in BD+ (firmware updates to get new features such as BD live
don't count)? I know that the design of BD+ makes this possible, but
has it actually happened?
Why can't people realise that movie companies aren't running a charity? Companies release films to make money! How many of those people who are complaining about the encryption here even pay for their DVDs these days? I'd love to place a wager on that!
I don't think most people here are arguing against them making money. This is much more about fair use AFTER the physical media has been bought. Given the ability, these companies would charge you for the physical media, the hardware it plays on, AND another fee for each time you watch the movie. Hell, if they could figure out a way to detect how many people were watching it, I'm sure they'd want to charge a "movie watching fee" to each person too (as it is, I'm not even sure you can legally have a "movie night" at a university campus anymore without a license to show it, even though you've already purchased the DVD).
Sure, the companies want to make money, and I don't begrudge them that AS LONG AS they actually continue making something worth buying and don't resort to trying to destroy fair use rights to get people to buy multiple copies of the same movie or multiple movie players just to watch something they already own or trying to charge for use of the media after its already been purchased.
LVDS isn't encrypted at all, and it's usually how the bare LCD panel is driven - there's usually two (or more, but usually two for logic) PCBs in an LCD display of some kind. One takes inputs (VGA, DVI, HDMI, etc., etc.,) and outputs LVDS. The other takes LVDS and controls the individual pixels.
Not to mention, the LVDS protocols used by LCDs are simpler than TMDS, IIRC - it'd actually be easier to get the content from LVDS instead of DVI/HDMI.
Of course, DisplayPort is pushing for an internal DisplayPort standard, which would give HDCP straight to the controller driving the pixels directly.
A number of major labels have decided to no longer put the logo on their packaging even when the disc conforms to Redbook specifications.
one thing seems clear â" only full-time, for-profit professionals are able to consistently beat BD+.
In this case, the "professionals" (hah!) would be the knuckledraggers at Sony who approved this fiasco. They beat BD+ so thoroughly that I have no desire to go anywhere near it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I have a Blu-ray player and HDTV.
I still buy DVDs, even when the Blu-ray disc is available, because Blu-ray isn't enough of a quality upgrade (compared to a DVD player with a good upscaler) to be worth the functionality loss.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
"Piracy wars are not solved by solving the halting problem. Piracy wars are solved by making the other poor bastard solve the halting problem..."
This is actually a really clever and somewhat unexpected approach that the BluRay DRM folks have hit on. Rather than doing DRM, have a program and basically force those who are cracking the disks to crack every title differently. Its basically force those who want to develop ripping software to do AV style analysis on every new disk that comes out.
Yes, the DRM on any individual disk will always fall eventually because all the data must be on the disk and recoverable from the disk by the player. But it makes it very VERY annoying for those writing the unauthorized decryption software.
Test your net with Netalyzr
30Gb can't possibly deliver the definition I require for my 90,000p 200' television. That's why I use LTO tapes exclusively for my video pleasure.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
There are certain reasons people want to switch to a new format (eg. VHS -> DVD or DVD -> Blu-Ray)
1) Convenience - VHS had to be rewound, you had to wait for it to fast forward in order to skip parts. DVD can be repositioned on the fly. Blu-Ray is similar to DVD in that regard, so no win.
2) Quality - VHS degraded over time and DVD had a much better resolution. Blu-Ray is supposedly better only if the original source was better than DVD. A lot of small studios don't have 1080p camera's, a lot of consumers don't have 1080p TV's. 720p or 1080i is the current budget format and unless you're going larger than 42" it's not really noticeable.
3) Price - Maybe that should be on top but DVD in the beginning was just as expensive as Blu-Ray. The only reason it took off fairly fast was because of 1 and 2. DVD only killed VHS when the prices had come down so low that there was no real difference between a VHS or a DVD player and a VHS tape or a DVD disc. By then DVD was cracked by a certain kid named Jon.
4) Features - DVD had features that VHS couldn't give (commentary, different audio tracks, extra's) and Blu-Ray has the same exact features. However the added features of Blu-Ray (internet connectivity etc.) will hardly be used because of the inconvenience of having to put in the disk. DVD's have the capability of similar features like games etc. on some discs but again hardly anyone uses them.
The problem that Blu-Ray has which will leave it dead is that the price can never be on par with DVD if the studios are trying to keep control over the Blu-Ray format. How much does it cost to keep re-encrypting, offering firmware, fine-tuning the DRM? You can put it on a DVD and press it for cheap with or without the encryption. Blu-Ray already costs more to press it but now you're going to have to keep remastering it as well and then you'll have to contact all the vendors and let them update firmware in their current stock, at the customers' side, deal with complaints and keep exchanging units where either flashing went wrong or the customer is too incompetent to do it themselves. This will keep the cost of both players and media high and then the customer will complain to their friends that Blu-Ray players are always having issues.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Man, I see in Slashdot the smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation fighting encryption, cracking protection; slaves with DRM collars. Advertising has us chasing movies and music, using formats we hate so we can watch movies we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose of place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War is a format war; our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised by technology to believe that one day we would have universal formats, backwards compatibility, and ease of use. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
BD+ is not uncrackable but it makes it very difficult to extract the disk's volume key because a machine is required to run a program to obtain it. BD+ programs can be model specific and involve memory or timing tests making it difficult to emulate. Slysoft has just been able to cope so far because relatively few disks used BD+ and did so in relatively unsophisticated form. But if more studios come on board Slysoft is going to have severe trouble keeping up. This is ultimately what BD+ is meant to do - to delay and impede piracy (and fair use). The more disks that use it, the more cracks appear in the supported disk list. It's not inconceivable the big studios are planning a "big bang" where suddenly and in a coordinated fashion they all go BD+. Then it's lights out for AnyDVD. It will never recover from that.