AACS hacked to expose Volume ID: WinDVD patch irrelevant
By Thomas Ricker 
posted April 10th 2007 6:04AM
posted April 10th 2007 6:04AM
The DRM "protecting" HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc films -- AACS -- continues to unravel at the seams. In parallel efforts, hackers in both the Xboxhacker and Doom9 forums have exposed the "Volume ID" for discs played on XBOX 360 HD DVD drives. Any inserted disc will play without first authenticating with AACS, even those with Volume IDs which have already been revoked by the AACS LA due to previous hacking efforts. Add the exposed processing keys and you can decrypt and backup your discs for playback on any device of your choosing. So yeah, it looks like last week's WinDVD update has been quickly and definitively made useless just as we expected it would be. Well, for XBOX 360 HD DVD drive owners anyway but you can see where this is heading, right? Now go ahead AACS LA, revoke the Toshiba-built XBOX 360 HD DVD player... we double-dog dare ya.
Nij was basically the forum equivelant of a heckler. Why repeatedly come here if you hate it so much? I agree that if 90% of what he said was negative then engadget had the right to give him the boot. This is a blog, people. If someone comes over to my house monh after month and criticised my food negatively after every meal I'd want him out too. Personally, I come to this site because it gives me simple, up-to-date information on "gadgets" for free. Not politics. I could care less about the agenda of the editors or how they get their music. I read the comments section because I like to see if anyone has added anything useful to the piece I just read, and it's frustrating sifting through irrelevant conversation about the ethics of the site or the product being discussed.
> If someone comes over to my house monh after month and criticised
> my food negatively after every meal I'd want him out too.
True, but not a great analogy, unless you're handing your dinner guests "how was my dinner" feedback forms. This site may be a blog, but there comment form is there for a reason.
> Personally, I come to this site because it gives me simple,
> up-to-date information on "gadgets" for free. Not politics.
What can I say, they also post about DRM, which is more than just information on "gadgets", it's clearly a political topic. The author(s) also include graphics implying their position on DRM ("down with DRM" in this post, "DRM is killing music and it's a rip-off" in the "DRM: the state of disrepair" post).
Sorry that it is frustrating to you.
> If someone comes over to my house monh after month and criticised
> my food negatively after every meal I'd want him out too.
True, but not a great analogy, unless you're handing your dinner guests "how was my dinner" feedback forms. This site may be a blog, but their comment form is there for a reason.
> Personally, I come to this site because it gives me simple,
> up-to-date information on "gadgets" for free. Not politics.
What can I say, they also post about DRM, which is more than just information on "gadgets", it's clearly a political topic. The author(s) also include graphics implying their position on DRM ("down with DRM" in this post, "DRM is killing music and it's a rip-off" in the "DRM: the state of disrepair" post).
Sorry that it is frustrating to you.
I for one salute our new Engadget editorial overlords!
P.S Please don't ban me I'm joking :-)
Content Industries (RIAA, MPAA, etc): As long as I can hear or see your content, it's mine for the taking. Give up on DRM and try harder with publicity and enforcement.
so then.. that should mean as long as I can see and hear your car, it's mine for the taking. You own your car, I want it, I jimmy the lock, and voila there I go with it.
That Nij thought Engadget is anti-Apple and anti-iPod is pretty ridiculous... Engadget.
Anyway... terrible movies are making money just because the advertising is good. Something is wrong there, you buy without knowing what you're getting. Bad thing. Same with buying a DVD. Buying movies online would help... if quality AND price would be alright. $1-2 per movie maybe. When it's more expensive than a DVD... no thanks. I prefer having a DVD sitting next to me on the shelf. Looks better. Having an upgrade path would be fine too.
The EMI offer... step in the right direction, the product itself is fine (except that I don't want AAC... give me Ogg or MP3). But the price...
"You're all pirates because Ryan talks about bittorrent on his podcast"
You DO know what quotes are right? I don't recall reading that in his final pre-ban post.
What I do find ironic is the Soviet style "down with DRM" banner and the style of dealing with dissent on the board.
Yes Comrade, Engadget is incapable of error and glorious in all manner of things. We shall never question them for the state is all-knowing.
To Peter @ Apr 10th 2007 8:47AM
Why should anyone be rushing to buy 128 kbps (read: FM radio quality) EMI tracks on Itunes? Dont you realize that the reason they are selling you a crap quality rip that it is just another form of DRM? They degrade it so that you cant do much with it and they dont care about your listening experience. Duh - why support that.
The only thing I pay for are CD's DVD's or lossless tracks from places like Bleep.com. The rest they can keep - aint paying for anything in useless sound quality I cannot rip and and play in any format I like
I already published this like 2 days ago... what a crock.
DLTV.WORDPRESS.com
I think those of us that read Engadget know that many of the writers are snide, arrogant, petulant and so forth, but it's all in fun. However, banning someone because he slandered (or libeled, I'm no lawyer) an editor without any proof whatsoever of same is overreaction. Probably 80% of the commments on Engadget newspieces are not meaningful in any legitimate sense of the word. Are we now going to be banned if our off-the-cuff comments have to be carefully vetted by us before we submit them? Engadget is not CNN or the BBC. Sometimes, it's closer to Imus. Perhaps a two week suspension, rather than a ban for both the individual who was banned AND for Engadget is in order.
Relax Optic. I'm merely saying that so long as the content is usable, it's possible to copy and share it. Technically, yes, that would apply to a car too - think of these hacks getting around DRM like a slim-jim to pop open the door and some various other tools for hotwiring the car - because the car exists, it can be done. However, just because you can does not make it right.
I am NOT suggesting anyone illegally share music - I own all my CDs. To be honest, that's mostly because no one offers high quality FLAC files for download. If the record companies offered high quality files (FLAC, high bitrate OGG, even high bitrate MP3) I'd be willing to buy online too.
And Andrew brings up an interesting point - if you could copy my car, sure I'd let you. Still not promoting illegal file sharing, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
Sure Optik, you can have a COPY of my car, as long as YOU pay for the means of copying it.
I wouldn't steal a book, a DVD, a CD, but I sure as hell will download one, because guess what, it doesnt cost anything for the copyright owner. sure they dont MAKE money, but they still have the content.
FYI, if it wasn't for this type of hacking we might never have DVD movie content on disk with a licensed card of some sort. The ability to rip a DVD was huge for the marketplace. It opened a flood gate of many man products and services.
It also opened a flood of piracy, but frankly piracy has to be looked at as a supply demand issue that old business is unable or unwilling to deal with. Fighting the YouTube bad, being innovative good.
There is nothing innovative about piling on DRM. Its a death by a yet another self inflicted prick.
This is the first time I've ever been to this site, and after seening someone beeing banned for disagreeing with a moderator (or whatever) I don't consider it a site that represents free speech or "both sides of the story" so I don't consider anything on the site worth reading, so I won't ever be returning. In retrospect the site is not objective and ends up being simply another Anti-Something site.
First and last time visit @ Apr 11th 2007 7:53AM
Hi Nij. Just get to work, did you? ;-)
I'm not going to say Nij being banned was right or wrong. Personally, from what little I've see about his posts, he looks to be nothing than an annoying twit that probably works for the MPAA or a DRM creation company and makes a living by touting the greatness of DRM and anti-fair use. Just seems like a corp shill blog comment plant and I really don't mind if he doesn't come back.
I've just never seen someone so pro-DRM, anti-fair use, and anti-piracy that actually uses a computer. Seems suspicious to me.
I was rather disappointed by the banning also. In the very least the way it was done. Seemed immature and a "knee-jerk" reaction, as someone else stated here before me.
The comments from him were his opinions, and should be treated as such. In no way am I convinced that he was falsely accusing you of piracy, but rather suspicious of your intent when attacking pro-DRM efforts.
To be honest, I haven't read his comments for months (nor have I read this site for a long time), but seeing someone get banned for mildly negative posts puts the site in a bad light. At least it did that for me, and probably most newcomers to this site.
It doesn't matter what he has done earlier, if it was tolerated then, it should have been tolerated now. Simple as that.
After Ryan's ill reasoned rant at Apple and Steve Jobs for dropping DRM (despite apparently wanting DRM to be destroyed) the other day this topic is a very worrying turn of events.
Engadget's editors seem to be unwilling to compromise in any way whatsoever. It's no DRM in any way at all for them and its utility in areas such as subscription music is . Anyone who opposes their viewpoint is banned, free speech is ignored and accusations based on what the managing editor of the site laughingly hints at on podcasts are decried as 'slander' (a) it's libel and b) libel needs an accusation to be false and clearly so).
They claim to be pro 'fair-use' a winderful term that they seem to have interpreted much more widely than any judge or statute ever has. Fair use does not mean you can make unlimited copies of material under copyright, it permits you the right to backup your material and make limited copies. Apple fairplay DRM lets you do this, Ryan's criticism of it the other week is undeserved, unreasonable and illogical as it allows you to do nothing less than under the law. You may as well criticise the existence of a police force.
ACSS is a type of DRM that doesn't permit you to use the material according to fair use. Therefore your criticism of that makes more sense, but it's the unrelenting stance on this site that I disagree with and how you do seem to completly ignore the existence of piracy.
In order to be taken seriously by anyone you need to give credit where credit is due, so stop with the jabs at Steve Jobs and tart giving a reasonable alternative to DRM that provides for compensation of artists. The Register does it (flat fee 'tax' on copyrighted material meted out depending on use of it), why can't you?
Fairplay is Windows/OSX only. There's more to fair use than playing it on my neighbors PC. I'd like to be able to use it, too.
I guess in the myriad of topics here, the ability to get any real information or rationale on why drm is so evil is lost. I see people saying things that boil down to 'if I want something, I should be able to have it without paying for it'. Well, that's all well and good if the owner of it decides to give it to you for free. Otherwise, it's just theft. I see some bizarre, illogical 'copying' analogy. So if they made a copy of you, -in order to- stop paying you for your time and skills, that would be okay? Toyota et. al. would be okay with not being paid for the time, effort, craftmanship, and overhead that went into putting their product to market? I don't think those analogies are comparible at all. I see arguments that someone should be able to take a product that is provided in one format, and change it to a different format, because it'd be convenient for them. I can see the benefit to that, but in a way, I don't see that the content owners have any obligation whatsoever to even allow a CD/DVD to be modified to a different file format; if it is allowed at all is thier decision to make, and if they want to restrict those parameters I respect their right to decide how their product is used. Unfortunately, buying a DVD or a CD is not owning the content contained on it; it's owning a license to use the product as specified. While people may want to do other things w/the content, that doesn't make it okay to break the law to do it. I do think that piracy is another issue altogether though, because I equate that with replicating copies for profit, which is different than other types of theft.
Chicksta I agree with the general tone of yur post. However copyright violation is not theft. Part of what is wrong with theft is the deprivation of something that the owner has at that time. In this context there is no way you've deprived them of either the copyright of the movie or the movie itself. Therefore it is not theft. The movie and record industries might try to tell you different. They're wrong at least in English Law and it would greatly surprise me if it was any different across the Pond.
The law has however chosen to protect the copyright on certain products in order to protect the people who make them and so the works can be sold efficiently. However this can and should be time limited (the Beatles will be out of copyright in the UK inside of ten years so they better hurry up with getting their stuff on itunes). Until the time that copyright is exhausted we have fair use rights for the material we buy and that is it. No one should advocate breaking the law to copy songs or films as they please.
You are correct about the purcahse of CDs and DVDs only conferirng a license to use the content they contain in accordance with copyright law. This is one of the things engadget doesn't seem to get as well, they moan about consumers having rights but ignore the right to freedom of contract, treating us all a mindless sheep that MUST buy films and so should be protected from the evil DRM masters because movies are essential to our existence. If you don't like the terms you're offered in a contract then don't agree and go and donate your money to charity.
That's because those ripping programs have already cracked the DRM for you, years ago. This DRM is more difficult to crack but as you can see, it's already being done.
What this fuz all about?
I did not even feelt any DRM restrictions, EVER!
I buying DVDs, CDs and there was never any problem to rip when I want to...
What this fuz all about?
I did not even feelt any DRM restrictions, EVER!
I buying DVDs, CDs and there was never any problem to rip when I want to...
So, if my 360 HD-DVD gets device revoked, i expect a full refund or replacement with a non revoked device. It wasnt my fault someone used the device to cheat DRM.
It'll probably be a firmware upgrade.
Mike, yep it would require MS to do a recall or firmware update which would be useless because the next device or updated version that would replace it could have the same thing done to it or the hackers could always move to any other USB based device (for that matter any SATA or IDE as well, just may be a little bit more tricky there). A lot of money burned from a corporations coffer which I'm sure MS would not appreciate.
I didn't even read through all the posts..but..
someone has an opinion that Engadget is promoting the cracking of DRM (hence promoting piracy) - it is someone's point of view.
They get banned?
I am out of here .. have fun with your power trips Ricker. You seem to be under the impression that you are doing people a favor by letting them post ("posting is not a right") - time to take myself elsewhere. It's not like there was something obscene posted - just something that seemed to hit a nerve with you.
The guy not only dissagreed he libeled the editors, basically said/heavily implied they were engaged in illegal activity, he's lucky he only got banned he could be sued.
Nij was a troll, and a tosser. GYOFB and stop coming to engadget to start fights over something that they're so obviously right about.
I've gotten into it with Engadget before (ironically, on the other side of the argument!), but I had the sense to do it on my own blog. Doing it here is, come on, seriously, heckling.
http://www.mullingitover.com/wpress/2005/06/23/not-fit-for-production-or-consumption/
:P
I don't believe in bootlegging creative works. It's stealing to do so. George Strait and Bruce Willis deserve every dime they make.
However, when I pay my hard-earned money for a legit, store-bought CD or DVD, I expect to enjoy the work that I've paid to experience. The box itself says I can, and no where does anything say I can't play it in a Microsoft-approved computer, a Toshiba HD-DVD player, a Linux super-cluster, or that old 8 track in my pickup. I paid for a license to use it, and it's nobody else's business how I'm able to hear King George sing "Amarillo by Morning" or watch Bruce in "Die-Hard, a Baker's Dozen" (That's Die-Hard 13, currently in concept.)
If you catch someone bootlegging Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue," hang 'em from the rafters of the Astrodome, but leave the folks alone who just want to listen to their music and watch their movie on whatever gadget they have.
To all you hackers out there: Rock on. Just be sure to post your source code so Canonical can work it into the next release of Kubuntu!
Happy Trails,
Loye Young
http://www.IYCC.net
Laredo, Texas
Chicksta - I'm sure that if you look through the engadget archives you'll find an edition of the clicker that gives you a nice, long explanation of why DRM is such a stupid idea. But I'll give you the short version (which may, in fact, be a bit different from the way engadget would phrase it):
First, some clarification:
Big music companies that force DRM are not evil. They're not even bad. They very, VERY stupid and short-sighted (more on that later) but being short-sighted is a far cry from being evil. In order to be evil they would have to (at the very least) be withholding a neessary product, or even have a monopoly on it. They have a monopoloy on he music they've promoted but if their behavior truly annoys you then go to emusic. com where you'll find plenty of wonderful music (and plenty of bad stuff, too) all DRM free, all high quality, and none of it with the major marketing behind it that makes people buy it like sheep. The trade-off is you won't be listening to the same music your friends do until you wean them off the major labels, too.
Now... why I say they're stupid and short-sighted:
1) They assume that all people are criminals. The main argument for DRM is that people will NOT pay for what they can get for free. Never. I take issue with that; the only people I know of who will steal something *just* because it can be stolen are children (and that includes 20 year olds who haven't gotten around to developing even a rudimentary sense of economics) and record label executives :-) The rest of us are perfectly happy to pay a fair price for a fair product, because we expect to get paid fairly for the work that we do. If the price *isn't* fair for what you get the vast majority of us will complain about the price and then not buy it. If you were translate the arguments for DRM into the brick & mortar world you'd have body cavity searches on the way out of wal-mart because obviously 95% of their customers are wanton thieves (which isn't to say that there *aren't* wanton thieves out there. It's just that they're *such* a minority that wal-mart, knowing a lot about ROI, isn't willing to spend more to catch them than the damage they cause).
2) They honestly believe that they know what's best and no one else out there can possibly have a good idea. Mp3 players are just the new walkman; there was no reason to be afraid of them and every reason to welcome them. As a content producer you want your content to be available to a consumer in the absolute most convenient form possible so that they're exposed to it more often. Someone who listens to the music they bought 1 hour out of the day is far less likely to buy lots and lots of music than someone who listens to the music they bought 16 hours a day. It would be fairly easy to say that that music is 16 times more useful to the second person. Similarly, windows is *not* the only game in town anymore. Wal-mart now sells linux-based computers as a way of cutting costs. When you build your DRM, are you going to build it for every conceivable operating system? Or does it make more sense (read: you spend less money and get access to more customers) to release things in a standard, unencumbered way and let your customers using those low-market-share devices do your development work for you? How many other instances in life do you get the chance to spend *less* money for *more* profit? As a concrete example, my collection of 300+ DVDs would be a collection of about 5 if I couldn't play them on my linux media center (those 5 being the 5 I bought when I had my first DVD player, before I decided that I should be able to access my movies with the same ease and uniform interface that I have with my music that was formerly constrained to my CDs).
3) As for your point about terms of use - that's where DRM starts to get political for me. Originally breaking DRM was breach of contract, just like any other contract that you make. Now thanks to the DMCA it's been made "special" as a criminal offense. As a proponent of small government I find that personally offensive. But here I have to correct you on one small economic point: breaking a CD is fundamentally different from breaking a camcorder. When you buy a camcorder you're paying (and this is made up) 80% for parts and 20% for research. When you buy a CD you're paying 1% for parts and 99% for research. The cost of replacing a CD if you should break it is negligible; as a poster before (possibly you?) pointed out it would cost them more to have a system in place to trace the fact that you own the CD than it would to just replace the CD. So given the fact that you're paying for the content and the CD (or DVD or HD-DVD or blu-ray disc) is just the medium to get that content to you, don't you think it's silly to try to say that you paid for the medium? Not that they *can't* say that - anyone who owns something can set whatever silly terms for sale they want to - I'm just saying (and so is engadget) that it's stupid and short-sighted, and in general businesses that are stupid and short-sighted find themselves passed up by forward-thinkers.
Any barrier to the free spread of information of any kind needs to be demolished. I'd pay $365 a year for unlimited access to all data. Easily. Pay for individual things all over the place? Uh, no. There's always a better investment, another problem, another closed standard,a nother lawsuit. For now, my solution to piracy is using open source and creating works under the creative commons liscence. This industry has earned its death with all the stuff it tries to pull, and I'm sick of it. No pity at all. But like I say, $365 a year for everything? Yes. Gladly. Absolutely and certainly! How many fellow "criminals" would agree?
And by the way, speed limits should be expressedly weather-dependent. That way, instead of 98% percent of our populace being criminals, it's only 2% or 3%. Oh yeah, get rid of lobbyists. That needs to be made a crime. Or we'll have to implement direct democracy. And it can be done. Make a site that lets people vote on issues and eventually will apply so much pressure on politicians that the first one to go against the will of the people never sees office again. Software is more reliable than humans for coordinating stuff well anyway.
I'm sorry, but I had to express my opinion. Divert flaming here: ethana2@gmail.com