Kwaad said:
Onto some intresting kwaad theorys since 'm bored. First off. In 2011 BluRay will outsell DVD.
Second. In 2009 HD-DVD will close their doors.
BenKenobi88 will never buy a HDTV, or a HD video player, and because DVDs will not be made after 2015, he will commit suicide. When it comes to copy protection! The only reason basic DRM has been broken is because of the microsoft X-box360 HD-DVD player. IT has a major security issue, and allows a hacker the ability to retreive the decryption key. IF, the HD-DVD player was banned from all future HD-DVD videos, or blocked, from playing them. It would be impossible to copy any HD-DVD or BluRay disc. Because DRM is a universal system, the fact microsoft has a single security hole in their HD-DVD player, that security system, is not secure anymore, anywhere. Including on BluRay. That is why you can download HD-video off BitTorrent. It's nice microsoft sucks sometimes. Microsoft is now HD-DVD's biggest problem(because of the security breach). Since Sony supports DRM+ sony is no longer effected as much. A full recall should be placed on the 360 HD-DVD players, and they should be disabled from the 360. I'm actually amazed there isnt a multi-million dollar lawsuit agianst microsoft over this. The people that make DRM, lost millions of dollars becuase of them. |
2 basic flaws in your assumptions:
1) The only reason 'basic' DRM has been broken is that it is flawed in theory. The basic tenets of encryption are that 2 parties want to communicate securely, and keep any other 3rd parties from knowing what they are talking about. In most cases, this means that Alice and Bob can have a safe, secure conversation without Eve or Victor listening in.
In the case of DRM, you have Alice wanting to talk to Bob, but not have Bob listen in. This is inherently flawed. The basic reason DRM (meaning the AACS system used in both HD-DVD and BluRay, in this case) is because the media companies are trying to go against the tenets of cryptography. It is an inherently flawed system, and in this case BluRay (even with BD+) is no better - indeed, the reason more success has been acheived with HDDVD to this point is yes, because of X360 - However, it also has roots in the price difference, the earlier availability/cheapness of HDDVD, and honestly, a lot of people in the business of breaking cryptography probably just don't really like Microsoft all that much 
(I don't stand by the last part of that sentence, although it might be true).
As long as DRM exists, it *will* be broken. It is impossible to keep it from being broken - you can just keep trying to obfuscate it, and even then some college kid with access to some (relatively) cheap physics-lab equipment could probably get whatever info they need to break it with a little bit of poking around inside.
And no, there is no way to completely eliminate the possibility of breaking DRM, even through hardware/trusted computing. As long as Alice wants to talk to Bob, Bob WILL have the option to listen to her.
2) Even if Microsoft did issue a complete recall of all HD DVD drives sold and no more keys were given to them to replace them, the method used to get that key *is* repeatable ad infinitum, either on a different piece of hardware or any of the software players out there (Hey, Guess What! I have access to my RAM! I wonder what will happen if I poke around in the allocation for WinDVD a bit? Oh, look! Its the AACS key we need!).
Sure, each new piece of hardware or software would obfuscate it a little bit, and it might take a bit of time to find the new method of hiding it, but eventually the hackers will find a way to reliably get the key *AS IT IS TRAVELLING THROUGH A BUS* or *AS IT IS BEING USED TO DECRYPT THE VIDEO*. These are places where the key _cannot_ be encrypted, and all it takes is one person to do it and the DRM is broken irrevokably. This applys to both HDDVD and BluRay.
The only real solution to the problem is not only revoke the player's keyspace, but eliminate the possibility of the player being used again (with massive recalls each time). This is not only a temporary solution, but infeasable if anyone wants to make money at any point.
And honestly, even then - the space on the disk for revoked keys is only so big. Eventually they *will* run out of space. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they run out of money before that.
Which brings me to my final point about DRM. WE as consumers are being forced to pay for its development. Why should we support the development of technology that restricts our rights to watch the video on whatever I want to watch it on? I have a huge collection of legal DVDs (nearing 200 at this point). I have them ALL backed up on a server. I use a linux machine as my primary movie-watching platform. I can only do this because of DVD Jon. And honestly, I *will* not move to BluRay/HDDVD until I can do that with them. And I know that I will be able to, because of the inherent impossibility of unbreakable DRM.
If you don't believe me, just think about the real reason Apple moved away from DRM with EMI. Because whatever Jobs believes personally (I actually do think that most of what he said in his Open Letter about DRM is what he believes), the company would not have moved away from it if it wasn't economically feasable. In fact, its economically preferable, because the media takes less money to make (no need to sink money into DRM and encryption schema, same cost of production of the content), and therefore can be sold at the same price for more of a profit, or at a lower price to undercut competition, or (in apple's case) sold at a premium with added quality to convince people its a good idea *and* get more profit per sale. As soon as you add DRM (and actively try to enforce it) it becomes an arms race between you and the people trying to break you. That is the reason Apple has always kept its DRM rather weak - rather than try to force *everyone* into compliance, they did the bare minimum to keep the media conglomerates happy and allowed loopholes so that if you wanted to break it, you could.
By attempting to make a system that keeps *everyone* honest, you lose. By attempting to make a system that makes it easy for honest people or not honest people to do what they want, you break even. By attempting to make a system where you cater only to the honest people and admit that the not honest people are not the ones you want as customers anyways, you will win. Always. Don't believe me? Look at CDs. They sold *ridiculously* well, and have *no* DRM. The reason they are floundering now is because prices have not come down (they were originally supposed to once the tech was mainstream - but has it happened? cause the answer is no. RIAA and the labels lining their pockets at the expense of the consumer, if you ask me, but thats another argument), and they did not move to a new technology that people clamored for. EMI is the first step in the right direction, and I am convinced the others will follow eventually.
I know it is hard for a business that only exists because it is used to controlling everything in its power to *give up* some of what they consider theirs, but in the long run it is much more beneficial to everyone involved if they admit that pirates will not pay NO MATTER WHAT. They should just be making it cheap enough and easy enough for honest people to get what they want at a price that is fair. iTunes and eMusic have proved that people *will* pay for content if it is available. We do not *need* DRM to keep us honest.
