How can you make the key non-fixed if you are selling people HD DVDs, which you will never be able to modify again? Plus, according to Fred, at least they tried to be a little smarter than with CSS in that there are several keys, and 09 F9 was just the one that got all the publicity.
Yes, I know only a few people need the key. That is the modern problem with DRM. The way the industry envisioned DRM was that it wouldn't be an end-all to piracy but it would be a "speedbump" to mostly moral people who would rather pay than figure out how to decrypt their own DVDs. As long as they strictly policed people who distribute DVD-ripping software, the mostly moral people would be kept helpless enough to keep paying. The ease of filesharing in modern times has absolutely destroyed that theory. It only takes one person in Sweden to crack the DVD, and then unprotected copies are all over the internet. And note that none of these downloaders is liable for circumvention because they never did anything to break the encryption. (Obviously, they're still liable for direct infringement.) The "speedbump" theory simply fails. That, as I understand it, is what the Darknet paper was all about. So much for DRM.
I'll fight to the death before they take away my scissors! :P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-12-10 06:24 am (UTC)How can you make the key non-fixed if you are selling people HD DVDs, which you will never be able to modify again? Plus, according to Fred, at least they tried to be a little smarter than with CSS in that there are several keys, and 09 F9 was just the one that got all the publicity.
Yes, I know only a few people need the key. That is the modern problem with DRM. The way the industry envisioned DRM was that it wouldn't be an end-all to piracy but it would be a "speedbump" to mostly moral people who would rather pay than figure out how to decrypt their own DVDs. As long as they strictly policed people who distribute DVD-ripping software, the mostly moral people would be kept helpless enough to keep paying. The ease of filesharing in modern times has absolutely destroyed that theory. It only takes one person in Sweden to crack the DVD, and then unprotected copies are all over the internet. And note that none of these downloaders is liable for circumvention because they never did anything to break the encryption. (Obviously, they're still liable for direct infringement.) The "speedbump" theory simply fails. That, as I understand it, is what the Darknet paper was all about. So much for DRM.
I'll fight to the death before they take away my scissors! :P