Home About The Codist RSS Feed

Will Industry Ever Learn, Copy Protection Never Works
May 01, 2007 13:21 perm link Readers: 708

All the storms today about the infamous HD DVD key seem like old news to me. Copy protection has never worked, and as far as I know, never will.

In the olden days (early 80's) game manufacturers first started putting weird hacks on the floppy disks that their games came on. Usually they would take advantage of odd hardware features to try and subvert the ability to duplicate and run the disk. One scheme would work for a while until someone found a way to defeat it, and then a new one would appear. That too would be defeated, and so on it went.

The problem with any such scheme was that the software at some point would have to actually run in the computer. You couldn't really hide it all that well. Sometime people would have simple code in their games to check for passing the complex copy protection.

if (pass)
{
  playgame();
}

This of course was a laughable bit of code to circumvent.

Over the years companies have tried virtually every kind of scheme since then, and without exception all have eventually fallen. As long as you have to (or it can be forced to) run the code on a computer it will be found. The whole idea of having a single key for all HD DVD's is itself laughable; it's like having a single key to all the houses in the country; lose it once and everyone's unsafe.

Only a complete fool would expect this to be kept secret.

Then again we are talking about the MPAA and their good buddies the RIAA, for whom bad sense would be an improvement. Today their lawyers are trying to deliver cease-and-desist letters to every site that even points to an article with the key in it (ie Digg, Google, etc). Yet the more they try the wider spread the key gets. The more they try the funnier it gets as well. This is the best kind of security theater.

You can't order the internet and its users to cease-and-desist and expect it to happen. Even governments try and fail.

Maybe these folks should check out a little history and discover the title to this article is old hat.

My Tags:

  • somedude: May 01, 2007 13:24

    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

  • : May 01, 2007 16:38

    Know what? Bank safes never worked either. Laughable against oxyacetalene torches and nitroglycerine.

    Yet banks still use them. Beats leaving the money out on the streets, protected solely by laws against taking it.

  • damian.nikodem: May 01, 2007 17:21

    Lol.. If theres money left on the street theres no law against taking it...

    Id consider the HD DVD Key (and to a lesser extent CSS) to be a step or 2 up from something that you can circumvent with 1 well placed 'no-op' abd a hex editor...

    As for creating unbreakable copy protection.. its not really that hard, its just expensive. all you have to do is make sure the end user (or a detirmined hacker) cannot run any executable code on your 'player'.. Then embedd all the logic of your entire player on a single microcontroller and if there is a 'programming interface' still left for it then it should be disabled in the factory or have those pins 'removed' before it reaches a customer..

    so... You would need to stream 'raw' data directly from a HD-DVD directly to a IC that could then drive a TV or moniter... All the actual decoding happening away from the the PC's CPU/RAM block would make it a mightly fine would make it mighty difficult to reverse engineer the algorythm, but because it can be played in some form then its still rather trivial to dump a movie out in analogue form and re-digitize in on its way back in, but it would make it difficult to get the 'perfect digital' copy ad it would have to go through a D-->A and then a A-->D before being compressed and considered 'copied'....

  • Paul: May 02, 2007 08:07

    The bank vault is a poor analogy. If a bank vault was broken into and emptied, the bank would replace the door and instigate extra security. Only that vault would be compromised, and only once. You wouldn't have to upgrade every vault in the world, and once repaired, the cracked vault would be at least as secure as it was, requiring a completely new effort to break it a second time. Even if you were stupid and left the keys or access code lying around beside the door, only that one vault would be vulnerable, and once the break-in was discovered, the lock could be changed.

    Compare that to DRM and software protection schemes, where one out of the millions of copies or players is compromised, causing EVERY copy of that product, or every single player, to be compromised too. You can't just "change the locks" because every copy or player in circulation would have to be replaced or upgraded. Even after doing all that, the cracked copy is still available; it will have been stored somewhere, and put online all over the place (and trying to track down, let alone shut down, all the warez sites and stored copies would be nigh-on impossible). With DRM and copy protection, once broken means forever broken.

    The only thing copy protection achieves is to delay the inevitable, and seldom for very long. The harder you make it to break, the more intrusive it becomes to the legitimate purchaser, but eventually it will still be broken.

    For something like a DVD movie, a music album or a software package, the protection will be broken long before the product's lifecycle ends, unless it's made so intrusive that your customers leave in droves anyway. Current DRM schemes are a hair's breadth away from "too intrusive" for the average consumer.

  • c: May 03, 2007 09:27

    Actually Damian, there is a law against taking money left on the street especially if you know it belongs to the bank - it's still theft (at least in the UK it is).

    It only becomes OK to take it if you can't take reasonable steps to find out who owns it and return it to the rightful owner otherwise it's dishonest appropriation.

  • Kevin: May 04, 2007 09:07

    Isn't it obvious to everyone that they WANTED the key leaked?

    In order to go to congress and ask for legislation protecting them, they have to be able to show the only way they can protect themselves is through legislation -- having exhausted all other alternatives.

    It's a win-win for them.

  • Add Comment

We Are All Open Source Billionaires
Apr 25, 2007 08:20 perm link Readers: 1387

After reading Where Are All The Open source Billionaires, which made very good points, I thought to myself "we are all open source billionaires". This was echoed in some of the comments.

Yes, we don't have the money, but we gain the benefits of the work of thousands of folks toiling away on something they love and giving it free to the world. As a Java programmer I can build complex web applications and not spend a dime on anything (although I choose to use IntelliJ and Textmate). Same is true of PHP, Python, Perl, Ruby, LISP, Scheme, Smalltalk, etc.

The web probably wouldn't even exist without open source contributions like HTML, Apache, Linux, etc.

Imagine you had to pay for everything you use. Some companies refuse to consider anything they haven't paid a bundle for. I worked for such a company, and we wasted gazillions buying stuff on the assumption that it was of higher quality (dubious at best), had better support (too funny), and had a broad customer base so it must be well tested (so does internet porn). I'm not saying for pay software is necessarily better or worse; in many cases the ROI doesn't make much sense if you can get something similar for nothing, and you still have to spend the same money on development, infrastructure, interconnectivity. Does it make sense for most people to buy a $1,000,000 license for Oracle or use Postgres and spend the money on a better DBA staff? For some things Oracle is the only choice, but often people assume they need it just because it's Oracle.

Naturally the overwhelming choices in the open source world themselves can be a hindrance, and much of it is not useful or represents an extreme experiment not a usable tool. But the rapid evolution and even revolution that comes from the intense open source competition creates new development possibilities at an amazing rate. If all we had was Microsoft's ideas of invention, where would be the world be?

So consider yourself rich beyond compare that you live in a world where amazing software and tools can be had for less than a 99 cent song. It's a wealth that benefits everyone.

My Tags:

  • Shawn the Rock: Apr 26, 2007 04:07

    MS always dull our mind and killing our creativity.OpenSource is the only hope can beat MS in this battle.Think about MS's product like as MFC even .net framework,if we really get used to it then we would forget essential and what is funny things in programming.

  • Luis Ramirez: Apr 26, 2007 08:39

    The only reason for Microsoft getting cheaper, better because it does, .NET vs VB6 is a huge difference. And the reason, the competence, the same goes for Vista, even Leopard has copied stuff from Linux (Multiple desks, which is pretty cool) without Open Source, we would still be in Windows 95 or whatever. We all have benefit from Open Source, everyone, even the guy who buys every MS Op Sys on a regular basis, it would be a lot more expensive if it weren't for Open Source, he might never understand it, but who cares!.

    Yep, maybe there are no billionaires, but a lot of work has been around, working for a Company that supports that Open Source software (Novell, Red Hat, whatever) or starting up your own (Interface 21), what would have happened to them if they had gotten stucked with MS

    everyone benefits but not everybody promotes or support

  • Stephen: Apr 26, 2007 14:14

    It's not just software. There's also Project Gutenberg. I have an electronic library at my command. Not only that, my town also provides me with a library of dead trees (and movies and audio). And if they don't have it, i can ask for it via inter-library loan.

  • Add Comment

FBI Overreaches On McCain Prank
Apr 01, 2007 07:53 perm link Readers: 401

FBI Overreaches On McCain Prank

This guy posted a comment on to Senator McCain's website, and included an image, which the site apparently supports. The comment was approved, but later that evening he switched the image (which resided on his server) to something far less "supportive".

The next day the FBI and a local Sheriff came and hauled away all of his computer equipment and other items based on a search warrant.

What kind of a country are we living in where the FBI has the manpower and can get a warrant so fast to investigate what isn't even a crime, yet the government's nuclear weapons agency has lots of missing computers?

I can almost guarantee you that the judge that signed the warrant wasn't told that a single comment posted by the "perpetrator" was later changed. The FBI probably told the judge that they had evidence that this individual had changed content on the Senator's website, which is a crime. Has they been told that only the one comment had been changed, and only by switching the image properly linked to by the comment, the judge should not have granted the warrant.

Copyright of a work in the US belongs to the creator, unless you explicitly wave it. The only thing I can do with your comment is not show it. If I allow you to edit your comments, my only recourse is to delete them if you say something evil. Likewise if I allow you to post an URL or put an image URL into a comment, I have no right or expectation that it won't or can't be changed. I don't allow commentors (other than me) to do this for that exact reason. The comment and links belong to you. Period.

That the FBI is either stupid, or incompetent, or quick to support loyal Bushies like McCain, is still no excuse to take someone's computers away based on a false understanding of the law, or even a wild misrepresentation of the facts.

The judge (assuming he is even aware of the real facts) should immediately overturn the warrant and order the FBI to return everything they took from this guy.

The Senator himself, if he has any honor anymore, should also apologize for the situation, and then order his staffers to no longer allow images or urls to be posted in the comments on his website unless he obtains copyright clearance to copy the data to his own server.

Maybe we should in the future vote for people who have a clue about how the internet works, unlike this guy.

My Tags:

  • codist: Apr 01, 2007 08:00

    BTW, note the date :-) That the FBI would do this however wouldn't surprise me.

  • K: Apr 01, 2007 08:44

    Are you sure that it's not real?

  • codist: Apr 01, 2007 12:32

    Read his help link.

  • Add Comment

Name:


Optional URL:


Comment:


Save Cancel

Copyright © 2007 By Andrew Wulf