Vista's DRM cracked!

[nweaver]

The claims of "losses" due to piracy are a joke...they are a huge number arbitrarily pulled from the air, big enough to cause a "wow" factor to the common person, so they think it's OK to jump through hoops.

Piracy caused the start of DRM (simple CD checks and such) and is wrong, but to think that something like Starforce is going to stop the truely determined is like being blind. At this point, the only way to stop this is that the average consumer needs to step up and demand DRM free product, and stand up and be responsible, buy the media you want. I think the second is something most folks find reasonable (hence the popularity of paid download sites). The public is to apathetic to support the first though.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: rajasekharan
The whole concept of making profit of softwares is crap . Cause its not a PHYSICAL commodity . You dont write it for every individual every time . Just ask them to pay for support is ENOUGH. The company makes millions these days and gets greedy all time . In old times softwares cost was for support . Later it became business thats when things started to suc*.Linux is atleast doing it right . So are few applications under windows 🙂.

Do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to create complex software?
I can't say I know how many man hours(nah, make that years) Microsoft have invested in Vista, but I bet it's in the tens of thousands(years that is).

Linux and the BSDs are ample evidence that you can produce quality software without charging for it, but that development process isn't a business model.

bluerredvision, DRM isn't copy protection, it's usage restrictions, and it's also a load of horse ******.
I'm lucky enough that pretty much every artist I listen to is rather small time, and albums are sold through small time labels that neither bother with DRM, nor charge ridiculous prices(usually the discs I buy are in the $7-13 range), so I never have a problem buying CD's, but if I actually wanted something from a major label, I'd have to shell up retardedly big bucks, and the way things are going, I'd soon be forced to piracy just to not get anally invaded in the process.

 

[tatteredpotato]

MS has to implement the DRM and make it look like they care about the files, really MS probably could care less if you steal music.... just don't steal windows

 

[InlineFive]

Doesn't surprise me. I think one time Bill Gates made a slip and basically said that DRM is a piece of junk that doesn't work properly.

 

[drag]

DRM isn't copy protection, it's usage restrictions, and it's also a load of horse ******.

Exactly.

It _claims_ to be copyright protections, that way it gets covered under the DMCA. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent any sort of digital copyright protection sceme.

Before DMCA it was legal to buy things such as descramblers for cable television and such things. It wasn't legal to use them to violate copyrights, but to produce them and own them wasn't a big deal.

For instance without the DMCA you'd have companies, right now, that would be providing devices that decrypted HDMI connections so that you can play the output on normal computer monitors and HDTV sets that don't support it with no loss in quality. It wouldn't be legal to use them to steal content, but it would be legal to produce them and own them and use them.

So the DMCA is _suppose_ to be designed to prevent violating copyright protections, but in fact what it accomplishes is that it puts people like the Movie Industry or Porno industry in charge of dictating hardware and software design and deciding what sort of devices and software is legal for your to make and legal for you to own.


The most prominate example of this is Apple Itune's and their Ipod.

In every song they sell they impliment DRM. Now there are easy ways for your to circumvent it.. for example Apple purposely provides the ability to burn songs to cdroms, which then you can rip and get non-DRM versions of your songs. Also there are numerious programs (maintained in non-DMCA caring countries) that can strip out the DRM from Itunes files. The average time for a new song to appear on Itunes before it appears on some place like Kaazza is about 30 seconds.

So Itune's DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy.

But what it does accomplish is that it's illegal in the U.S. to make any mp3 player that is compatable with Itunes. It's illegal for you to produce software that can be compatable with Itunes. So effectively the DMCA is used to dictate software and hardware design. Apple uses this to prevent compatable products.

Apple is in trouble with this in some countries. They have their Itunes DRM declared illegal in Norway, with Germany and France probably following closely along with a few other European countries.



So what is the real point behind AACS, PMP, HDMI, Vista Signed drivers, etc etc if it's not to prevent piracy (which it won't)(you may ask) ??


The real point is that they don't want normal people buying devices and software that allows them to have multiple copies.

_THAT'S_ the dirty little secret that they don't talk about with DRM.

You see back in the day the record companies made a ****LOAD of money from cdrom sales. Absolutely insane amounts of money. (so much money that it destroyed half the industry) This is because cdroms were new and Hippies had turned into Yuppies. All these people had all these vinyl records from the 50's on up that were getting worn out or were unaviable. When the cdrom came out it promised much higher quality sound and it was much more convient format then what anybody ever had before. So you had all these people re-buying Beatles albums and re-buying all their favorite songs from this or that now-defunct band.

So you had millions of people re-buying old songs at 10-20 bucks a pop, but for the record companies it was a free ride. They didn't have the re-pay the artists, they didn't have to do studio time or promotionals or anything like that. All they had to do was digg up old studio recordings and play them into a machine that stamped cdroms.
_thats_it_.

Aside from the cost of cdroms it was free money. All of it was done because they owned the 'IP'....


So with HD content and DRM and digital media delivery systems they want to do that all over again.

So there are a few things that you have content sold for:
musical cell phone ringtones.
DAP (aka mp3 players) devices.
your computer.
internet rental downloads.
your HDTV set.
personal video player.

So.. Say I have a cdrom. Right now I can buy a single cdrom, make a duplicate of it and use the duplicat so I don't f-up the original copy in my car. The RIAA considures that 'piracy'. If you want a backup they want you to buy a second copy. I am not kidding about this.

And on that single cdrom I can rip it into mp3/ogg/flac format and play it back on a ipod or iaudio device. RIAA-type folks considure that piracy also. They want to sell you the media that will play on that.

If I have a nice cell phone that I can plug into the computer I can upload my own mp3s and get custom ring tones that way. If I like a song I can record it off the radio or rip it from a cdrom and copy it to my cell phone. RIAA folks say that is piracy. They want to sell me copies of ringtones.

But in either case they can't do anything about it. Since there is no copyright protections on cdroms it's legal for people to produce software and hardware to duplicate cdroms and the music on cdroms. If the cdroms used DRM it would be illegal to do that.

So they figure.. Use DRM, invoke DMCA. They sell me, cell phone ring tones, individual songs for dap, and songs I can play on my computer, as well as online services were I can download songs and play them 5 times in a month. So that now they sell me the same peice of copyrighted music 4 or 5 times were if it wasn't for the DMCA they'd only be able to sell me one copy since I would simply buy a device or software that did the rest for me automaticly.


Same thing with the movie industry. Having a store front costs lots of money, but downloads from the internet do not. So they would like to sell me downloads were they can control how many times I can watch it and how long I have to watch it. Just like blockbuster can, but without having to have physical stores.

So that is one copy.

Then If I like the movie I would have to buy it, instead of just copying it.

So that is two copies.

Then if I want to watch it on my personal video player I would have to buy another copy.

So that is three copies.

Then they want to charge me money if I watch on HBO or the online equivelent.

So that is four copies they sold me. Four copies. hahahaha.


Were as with DVDs I just buy one copy and then just rip it to fit into my personal video player (aka my laptop right now) I such a evil person.


These are the very same execs that flipped out when VCRs came out because, omg, I could buy one copy of a movie, invite freinds over, and watch it with them and they had NO WAY OF CHARGING MY FRIENDS FOR WATCHING THE MOVIE!!! They watched it for FREE! (damn pirates.) End of the freaking universe.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: BD2003
What I'd really hate, is if the owner of the lemonade stand chained a 20lb mug to my arm in order to buy some damn lemonade.

Well, if so, you should blame it on everyone stealing the lemonade that invoked such actions, not the owner of the stand. If the stand owner lets people continue to steal lemonade, one thing and one thing only will happen. He/she soon won't have enough money for any more lemons and sugar, then there is no more product.

No one would steal it if it wasn't priced at $20 per glass.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
No one would steal it if it wasn't priced at $20 per glass.

...you could just drink water. And some people might steal it just because they don't like the guy running the lemonade stand, or just because they can. People love getting something for nothing, especially if it seems 'victimless'.

So.. Say I have a cdrom. Right now I can buy a single cdrom, make a duplicate of it and use the duplicat so I don't f-up the original copy in my car. The RIAA considures that 'piracy'. If you want a backup they want you to buy a second copy. I am not kidding about this.

The RIAA may not like it, but copyright law says that sort of thing is legal (in general; it's more complex than can be easily gotten into here). Part of the problem is that the laws have not really caught up to the technology; IMO the whole idea of centering legal definitions around 'copies' of content is badly flawed, especially now that the act of 'copying' something is frequently trivial.

Where things get screwy is that you have the DMCA saying that it's illegal to bypass DRM -- period -- and copyright law says that a lot of things that would normally be considered 'fair use' are being stopped by DRM. This is an enormously complex issue that has not really been decided on by US courts. Copyright owners do have control to some extent over how their content can be used and distributed, but where that control should end (and what technological means can be used to enforce that control) is an issue where both sides are unlikely to ever agree. Some copyright owners will want complete control over as much as possible, and some consumers will not be happy if they are legally prevented from doing anything with content they "own" (again, questions of what you really "own" when you buy a CD or DVD from a store rapidly become complex.)

Ultimately, though, the market is what decides whether a particular DRM solution is viable. Media companies might *like* to sell you the same thing four or five times just because they can, but frankly, I don't think consumers would really go for it. The DIVX DVD format died off due to overly restrictive DRM compared to regular DVDs (which are copy-protected, but don't do things like making you repurchase the movie every time you want to watch it).