Vista DRM Hacked, too?

Boing Boing: "Vista launched this week, and it's already broken. As with previous multi-year DRM development efforts, this one disintegrated like wet kleenex on contact with the general public. Now that Vista, HDCP, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are all broken, it seems like the millions of dollars and thousands of work-hours sunk into these systems was mis-spent. The only benefit that these anti-copying systems confer to the companies that developed them is the right to sue competitors -- and that benefit could have been had by shellacking a one-atom-thick layer of token DRM onto their systems, just enough to be able to invoke the DMCA. Everything else was just gold-plating, wasted money."

Here's how it was done: Alex Ionescu’s Blog.

Why do they even bother?

Comments

[CJ]

"Why do they even bother?"

Because that's the only way "they" can get the content owners to put the contents out there. Besides 98% of the people aren't into breaking encryption systems, and those that are only really cause minuscule losses to the content owners.

So I'm all for encrypted DRM schemes if it allows something I want to be available. And I don't have any problem with those that crack the schemes either...

[hueristix]

They should spend money on nurturing compelling content and not harebrained and customer alienating limitations on the media we buy. Otherwise, people will continue to "not buy" in addition to the money lost developing such encryptions.

[Aron]

What DRM and all the efforts of the media companies to shut down piracy accomplish (beyond simply making more money which is true also) is to fight the notion that content is 'free'.

It's easy for people to find themselves in a wonderful P2P and DVD ripping world where any kind of digital content is available and essentially free. At that point, the rational part of their mind simply functions to dismiss any arguments against indulging themselves of it.

As Ben Franklin said "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. "

[Hunter McDaniel]

The problem with DRM is that, in addition to squeezing out fair use, it creates a "hard boundary" that is too inflexible and based entirely on one party's (the copyright-holder) view of their agreement.

Many rules and laws are only acceptable if citizens can sometimes choose to ignore them based on their own common sense as to what is fair and appropriate. I don't think the public would have much tolerance for speed limits that were enforced by computer chips inside their cars - what if I needed to pass a truck to avoid an accident?

[Rusty Ramrod]

DRM (Draconian "Rights" Management) is always bad, always. It does absolutely nothing to stop the real problem and punishes people who are putting foods in the mouths of the content "producers".

I have never heard a reasonable argument *for* DRM, ever.

The closest thing I’ve read is listed in one of these threads in as far as it being a thin veil to allow for legal action.

And Hunter, it's funny you know because virtually anyone with a late model car does have that type of surveillance built in from the factory. While it might not get you a speeding ticket, have a bad accident and the first thing the insurance company comes after is the so-called black box. Heck even closer to your example are the new “Cop free” speeding ticket boxes and stop light cameras.

I *love* technology but when ones steps back and reflects it's some scary sh1t these days. GPS phones to track your every move, black boxes in common cars, surveillance cameras at gas stations, on traffic control posts, in stores, in parking lots, in fast food restaurants, in schools, you name it.

Watch "The Island", I believe we are headed that way.

[BoB]

Die DRM, Die!

[Chris Knows]

I've looked all over the internet and can't find anywhere what was hacked/what Microsoft's DRM exactly is...Can anyone explain that?

[gir]

No offense, but did you read Alex Ionescu’s Blog entry? It explains it pretty accurately.

Alex found a way to load unsigned drivers without the OS flagging them. If the condition isn't flagged, software players won't know and will play protected content, oblivious to the fact that there may be a driver in the stack 'unprotecting' the content as it's played.

Alex is concerned about the DMCA, so he's not releasing his hack. I don't get the impression it was particularly hard (much easier than actually writing a driver), so there are probably 10,000 code gurus out there that can duplicate it.

[FrankLev]

It's easy for people to find themselves in a wonderful P2P and DVD ripping world where any kind of digital content is available and essentially free.

Incorrect. DVD ripping would almost always involve paying the rights holders for content. If you look around most people own the DVD and seek a way to back them up or won them and view them on different a platform (like their cell phone).

Then there are some people who rent for the purpose of time delay. That is different legally, but actually since the rights holders get the same money it isn't really an ethical problem, and certainly isn't free.

In is interesting you should mix p2p with ripping of disks as the same thing, when actually the issue is cause and effect. DRM causes people to move from ripping (where content owners get the money in most cases) TO p2p (where content owners get nothing).

Take the upcoming ace with HD and Blu ray dvd. The titles are all now one the p2p networks. This happened much faster than standard DVD because of the more draconian protection.

Assuming a two to three day turnaround for Netflix or blockbuster, with a normal household broadband connection you can get an HD or Blu Ray high definition title in full resolution six times faster on p2p (overnight).

Isn't that a HUGE irony? Due to pressure created by the draconian DRM, making it harder for an individual to make a backup than SD DVD (at this point), the easiest way is off of p2p. Not easier because it is free, but because you don't need a $1,000 player (you just need a $75 video card hooked to your HD TV or high definition computer monitor), and because you can do the traditional things like have a safe copy of the disk you bought.

[Edward R Murrow]

The studios would have to be insane to let their content out of the barn if they want to protect it if the distributors are using DRM. I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other regarding DRM.

I'm just saying that the studios have a financial vested interest in protecting the content and DRM is clearly not the way to go.

[type-cast]

"What DRM and all the efforts of the media companies to shut down piracy accomplish (beyond simply making more money which is true also) is to fight the notion that content is 'free'."

First, it has nothing to do with piracy. DRM doesn't stop piracy. It forbids fair use and destroys any concept of the public domain. I have trouble seeing how you can justify that when copyright law is not a "natural right", but rather a social contract. We give rights owners a LIMITED copyright, in return for an addition to the public domain at some future time. If it keeps being pushed back by 20 or so years, so we never see any major addition to the public domain (for ex: Mickey Mouse), what is our incentive for respecting the law of copyright? The contract is null and void. Also, you will need to prove that DRM allows the studios to make more money. I will argue that it reduces profit and revenue.

"It's easy for people to find themselves in a wonderful P2P and DVD ripping world where any kind of digital content is available and essentially free."

It's not essentially free, unless computers, electricity, DVD burners, blank DVDs, cases, markers, and other supplies have no value. I would also say that the user's time has some value. They could spend it other ways, which might provide more benefit to themselves. So it's not clear they will just go wild with a DVD ripper and p2p application.

"At that point, the rational part of their mind simply functions to dismiss any arguments against indulging themselves of it."

When we see copyright terms extended, over & over again, the "rational part of our minds" (whatever that is) might also shut down. And we might find ourselves asking, why should a copyright bargain be honored when the terms are perpetually extended beyond the original Constitutional basis, and we'll be lucky if Mickey Mouse enters the public domain during our life times? Every time we give an inch, the content "owners" take a mile. Soon we'll have nothing and they'll have everything.

"As Ben Franklin said..."

As Thomas Jefferson said, "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." As usual, your quotes are highly selective and biased.