4 ms·

Representation is arbitrary. IP laws identify "intellectual property" by representation. IP laws are not adapting, and they aren't able to adapt. The situation

by rw 18y ago

Representation is arbitrary. IP laws identify "intellectual property" by representation. IP laws are not adapting, and they aren't able to adapt. The situation is hopeless and unenforceable: encrypt a DVD-rip or music file and then ask someone to identify it as such. It's impossible. We have to move beyond believing in copyright and IP laws because they are not enforceable.

tptacek 18y ago
Why is this true? Why do you think DVD copy protection is doomed to fail? Smart tech people who think this are usually falling into the trap of assuming DVD copy protection has to be perfect. It doesn't; it just has to make large-scale copying and distribution economically irrational. So far, the BD+ scheme on Blu-Ray disks has had to be bypassed title by title, with Slysoft's breaks being corrected by Macrovision and Slysoft averaging 2.5 weeks on each of the refreshes. Nobody has come up with a scheme that completely defeats BD+. And BD+ is the first system of its kind; subsequent systems will be even more of a bitch to deal with. Add to that the fact that Slysoft has a really smart team that does almost nothing but this. Take another example: DirecTV. The current DTV smartcards are unbroken, despite a ~7 year track record of breaks leading up to them. Take another example: iTMS FairPlay. Last time I checked, there still isn't an equivalent break to JHymn, which does a direct decryption of audio files. Take still another example, of protected media pathways on Windows kernels; currently shipping Intel hardware has chipset-enforceable RSA/SHA/AES locks on kernel integrity, which is something you want anyways, because without it you can't trust your kernel against malware. And of course, all of this assumes that the goal is to keep people from copying at all. The industry could also solve the revocation problem, so that when copies are detected, players are shut off, accounts are closed, or people are sued. Ed Felten beat early watermarking attempts, but come on, do we really think watermarking is an intractable problem? It's the covert channel problem turned around to favor the defender; the media companies will win it. I'm not making a moral stand here (although I really think that if you don't want to pay for DRM'd Miley Cyrus tracks, or pay for Miley Cyrus at all, you simply shouldn't give your money to Warner Music Group). But I object to the knee-jerk dogma that copy protection can't work. I think it can.
- rw 18y ago
  To make copy protection work, consumers have to be coerced/convinced into using locked-down systems. If we use systems that we have total control over, then copy protection will never succeed. There still is the analog hole, as well.
  - khafra 18y ago
    > coerced, convinced--or without mainstream alternatives: "Starting in 2006, many new laptop computers have been sold with a Trusted Platform Module chip built-in... Intel is planning to integrate the TPM capabilities into the southbridge chipset in 2008..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module Or simply unaware, and with little chance of ever finding out: http://isis.poly.edu/csaw/embedded http://isis.poly.edu/csaw/embedded (and assorted talks at HOPE, Defcon, Shmoocon, etc. on hardware and firmware covert channels)
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Consumers don't care about locked-down systems; if they did, the dominant portable MP3 player would run Linux. It doesn't; it's the iPod. The analog gap isn't an unsolveable CS problem. Yes, you can't encrypt photons. But you can watermark and trace them. Preventing copies is CS-hard. Preventing covert channels is also CS-hard. Watermarks are a defensive application of covert channels. Watermarks -> revocation -> economic disincentive to copying transactions. Watermarks -> evidence -> lawsuit -> economic disincentive to copying at all. Also, none of these things has to work perfectly. The industry's goal isn't to stop copying. It's to capture the maximum amount of revenue per title.
- mindslight 18y ago
  You're concentrating on the wrong side of technology. In order to prevent copying, one has to do so on _every_ computing/playback device, not only the content producer blessed ones. As long as we've got private communications, it will become ever easier to share media over the internet. It only takes one "Pirate_0" to break the copy protection (even if it requires digitizing LCD signals). And if breaking the protection requires substantial capital, the market will oblige.

by rw 18y ago

tptacek 18y ago

Why is this true? Why do you think DVD copy protection is doomed to fail? Smart tech people who think this are usually falling into the trap of assuming DVD copy protection has to be perfect. It doesn't; it just has to make large-scale copying and distribution economically irrational. So far, the BD+ scheme on Blu-Ray disks has had to be bypassed title by title, with Slysoft's breaks being corrected by Macrovision and Slysoft averaging 2.5 weeks on each of the refreshes. Nobody has come up with a scheme that completely defeats BD+. And BD+ is the first system of its kind; subsequent systems will be even more of a bitch to deal with. Add to that the fact that Slysoft has a really smart team that does almost nothing but this. Take another example: DirecTV. The current DTV smartcards are unbroken, despite a ~7 year track record of breaks leading up to them. Take another example: iTMS FairPlay. Last time I checked, there still isn't an equivalent break to JHymn, which does a direct decryption of audio files. Take still another example, of protected media pathways on Windows kernels; currently shipping Intel hardware has chipset-enforceable RSA/SHA/AES locks on kernel integrity, which is something you want anyways, because without it you can't trust your kernel against malware. And of course, all of this assumes that the goal is to keep people from copying at all. The industry could also solve the revocation problem, so that when copies are detected, players are shut off, accounts are closed, or people are sued. Ed Felten beat early watermarking attempts, but come on, do we really think watermarking is an intractable problem? It's the covert channel problem turned around to favor the defender; the media companies will win it. I'm not making a moral stand here (although I really think that if you don't want to pay for DRM'd Miley Cyrus tracks, or pay for Miley Cyrus at all, you simply shouldn't give your money to Warner Music Group). But I object to the knee-jerk dogma that copy protection can't work. I think it can.

rw 18y ago
To make copy protection work, consumers have to be coerced/convinced into using locked-down systems. If we use systems that we have total control over, then copy protection will never succeed. There still is the analog hole, as well.
- khafra 18y ago
  > coerced, convinced--or without mainstream alternatives: "Starting in 2006, many new laptop computers have been sold with a Trusted Platform Module chip built-in... Intel is planning to integrate the TPM capabilities into the southbridge chipset in 2008..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module Or simply unaware, and with little chance of ever finding out: http://isis.poly.edu/csaw/embedded http://isis.poly.edu/csaw/embedded (and assorted talks at HOPE, Defcon, Shmoocon, etc. on hardware and firmware covert channels)
- tptacek 18y ago
  Consumers don't care about locked-down systems; if they did, the dominant portable MP3 player would run Linux. It doesn't; it's the iPod. The analog gap isn't an unsolveable CS problem. Yes, you can't encrypt photons. But you can watermark and trace them. Preventing copies is CS-hard. Preventing covert channels is also CS-hard. Watermarks are a defensive application of covert channels. Watermarks -> revocation -> economic disincentive to copying transactions. Watermarks -> evidence -> lawsuit -> economic disincentive to copying at all. Also, none of these things has to work perfectly. The industry's goal isn't to stop copying. It's to capture the maximum amount of revenue per title.
mindslight 18y ago
You're concentrating on the wrong side of technology. In order to prevent copying, one has to do so on _every_ computing/playback device, not only the content producer blessed ones. As long as we've got private communications, it will become ever easier to share media over the internet. It only takes one "Pirate_0" to break the copy protection (even if it requires digitizing LCD signals). And if breaking the protection requires substantial capital, the market will oblige.