Rather then writing my own article I'm going to quote Tom Smith from facebook.
"What is it?
It’S the original HD-DVD Processing Key for most movies released so far. This means the number is precisely the key you need in order to decrypt and watch HD-DVD movies in Linux (Insert VLC, etc).
It seems though at the moment that all DVD's made after April 23rd have a new Processing key. Some people are skeptical but others say that a new processing key should be out in a matter of week's.
The number caused a huge controversy on May 1st, 2007 on the famous news site "Digg.com". It was posted originally under the article "Spread this number. Now" and was deleted well after 10,000+ Digg's. The deletion of the story though upset Digg users as they we're trying to have a moment of true "Freedom of speech" while also "Sticking it to the man". Another story soon spout up called "Spread this number. Again." and got well over 15,000 Digg's before it was deleted. After that story was deleted users were reporting that they were banned from digg.com for digging the story and/or commenting on the original stories. Campaigns shot up fast to spread the number faster and for the first time on the Internet a widespread organized revolt happened. Users posted hundreds upon hundreds of stories including the number and spammed the comment boards on digg, and they didn't stop there. Domains were created with the Processing key inside the domain and more. Finally May 2nd came around and after countless battles digg finally gave in to the community and posted their own story that included the key and said "We will side with the community, no matter what". The key has made much publicity on sites ranging from "woot.com" to other well-known sites.
Many news publications describe May 1st, 2007 as the official day for the "1st Digital Revolt". One can only imagine what will happen when the next key comes out.
With that in mind, the best way to describe the whole thing is to quote the New York Time's itself:
“For most people this is about freedom of speech, and an industry that thinks that just because it has high-priced lawyers it has the final say”"
<Removed code.>
Argue (I'd prefer "discuss," actually) the topic if you like, but posting the code is not really acceptable here. --PJ
[ May 07, 2007, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Bloggers "crossed the line" when they posted a software key that could break the encryption on some HD-DVDs, the AACS copy protection body has said.
Thousands of websites published the key, which had been uncovered in a bid to circumvent digital rights management (DRM) technology on HD-DVD discs.
Many said they had done this as an exercise in free speech.
An AACS executive said it was looking at "legal and technical tools" to confront those who published the key.
I heard about this. Brought down Digg for a while.
quote:"Some people clearly think it's a First Amendment issue. There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech.
"They can discuss the pros and cons. We know some people are critical of the technology.
"But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then."
Hmm. My not-legally-educated-gut is inclined to agree with him.
(And I have to add -- and please don't take this as an attack -- if Digg received a cease-and-desist because there are copyright issues, then our hosts might not appreciate the code being reposted here.)
--j_k
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Considering their stance on these types of issues, I would recommend removing it.
As soon as possible.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I think if you have the cd, you ought to be able to use it on any media device you own.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I agree. I recently purchased season 2 of "The Office" on DVD, and was quite incensed that I had to, essentially, resort to extralegal means to watch my bought-and-paid-for material on my preferred form of media (my iPod). It's ridiculous and annoying, and punishes those who actually buy DVDs (or CDs, or whatever form of digital media hobbled by DRM). Case in point: I could have easily downloaded the entire season via Bittorrent in less time than it took for me to figure out how to convert my DVDs to an iPod-readable format.
I paid for it. I should be able to watch it however the hell I want, whether it's on iPod, Linux box, or Myanmar-region DVD player.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wonder how long the various media conglomerates will take to realize that this sort of thing actually hurts them more than it helps.
I rarely buy music or movies any more without doing research, because I've bought a couple in the past year which I couldn't play, or couldn't play easily. I've taken games back to the store when the copy protection prevented me from playing my legal version, while I knew people playing pirated versions and having a great time.
I now buy much fewer movies, CDs and games, and rarely make an impulse buy like I used to, because I want to be able to use my purchased media in one of my electronic devices, instead of as a coaster.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
While it admittedly is a very niche market, PDF roleplaying games have steered pretty clear of "anti-piracy" protections on their products.
Because it is a very small market, it is easy to see how small adjustments to a company's business plan affects their sales. Companies that did things to "lock" their content did little to slow down pirates, and only served to frustrate their customer base. Companies that implemented such piracy-prevention saw their sales fall, and abandoned those efforts.
You're not going to stop a dedicated pirate - the longer your product is on the market, the longer they have to break your ever-aging protections. However, if through your efforts you've alienated or angered your paying customers, who is hurt most?
Don't drive away customers to prevent pirates. If anything, use the pirates to increase your paying customer base by offering free sample products that can be shared around to boost your market presence.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I agree. I recently purchased season 2 of "The Office" on DVD, and was quite incensed that I had to, essentially, resort to extralegal means to watch my bought-and-paid-for material on my preferred form of media (my iPod). It's ridiculous and annoying, and punishes those who actually buy DVDs (or CDs, or whatever form of digital media hobbled by DRM). Case in point: I could have easily downloaded the entire season via Bittorrent in less time than it took for me to figure out how to convert my DVDs to an iPod-readable format.
I paid for it. I should be able to watch it however the hell I want, whether it's on iPod, Linux box, or Myanmar-region DVD player.
I agree with this point completely.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm really not sure where I stand on this. I'm instinctively drawn toward the digg community and those spreading this around. But that in large part may just be due to my anti-authority/"stick it to the man" nature.
When I stop to really think about this I get two arguments going back and forth. On the one hand, legally the AACS is probably in the right. The only reason this code would go out is to circumvent the DRM and allow people to pirate the DVDs. I'm still slightly morally torn on piracy.
On the other hand, I sorta feel like the whole entertainment industry is fubared at this point. Seeing them come crashing down and get reformed might not be a wholely bad thing. And their attitude stated quite nicely in the quoted New York Times article,
quote: an industry that thinks that just because it has high-priced lawyers it has the final say
pisses me off like there's no tomorrow.
So I dunno, I think I tend to side with the 'rebellion' as it were. But I don't think I could make a good legal argument for why. Hell I dunno if I could make a good logical argument for why other than that I think the entertainment industry needs to be very seriously humbled.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The music industry, and to a lesser extent other media groups, act like bullies. Rather than working with their clients, and providing a product that people want to pay for at a price that they feel is fair, the music industry provides an often sub-standard or unwanted product, hypes it up, tries to force feed it to people and tell what they can and can't do, and acts the martyr when nobody wants what they're selling.
Enough of us remember when it was fun to buy records and tapes, when we could share music with our friends, take records to a party, make mixed tapes, and enjoy our music and movies how we wanted to, and we aren't willing to give that up.
Music has elements of self-expression, rebellion, and personal tastes embedded into our perception of it. We don't want a greedy corporation trying to convince us we want to listen to something we don't, or telling us that they get to charge us an arm and a leg for an album, and then once they have our money, take back the music or make us buy their service to keep listening.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Which is why we need to go back to the system of musician patronage. The good musicians get a wealthy patron to pay for everything, the patron enjoys the prestige, the musician writes what he wants as long as it provokes people to want to listen and go to concerts.
Bye Bye evil record companies.
Posted by JumboWumbo (Member # 10047) on :
I'm not sure if this tidbit is valid, seeing as it comes from my (errant) teacher in a lecture I had last week, but it's relative. I believe the Grateful Dead actually encouraged Piraters to setup and record their live shows and distribute them to their friends for free. This resulted in a larger Dead fanbase, because their music spread more quickly. And even if they were getting the music for free, I believe a study was conducted to prove that these same people were mnore likely to purchase the next CDs and apparel.
But I do agree with JTK, even though I'm not legally savvy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The only reason this code would go out is to circumvent the DRM and allow people to pirate the DVDs.
People on this thread have already mentioned reasons (e.g. playing the DVDs on Linux or other non-DRM complaint platforms) that this code could be used for legitimate purposes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do think people should drop the "how can they copyright a number?" argument. It's not whether people have the right to spread a number around -- they do -- but whether they have the right to spread around a number that they know will allow people to break the law. Release of this number, accompanied with the context (it lets you crack HD-DVD DRM), is a breach of proprietory information and that is something protected by law.
My PIN number is not copyrighted, and posted without context means nothing. But if someone were to post it and say "here's Chris Bridges' PIN, go wild," that would endanger my privacy and finances and would be highly unethical besides.
I think the studios -- movies and music -- need to throw everything they have at one goal: get back the audience's trust. If so many people didn't see them as soulless, money-grubbing corporations who treat their customers as enemies, there wouldn't be nearly as much glee derived from screwing them over. If I sent a letter asking a forum to remove a post containing my personal info and PIN number it would be removed without question. But the perception is that the studios "deserve" the inconvenience this brings.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I don't think it's just a matter of public perception. Or rather, I think their bad reputation comes from concrete objection to their business practices, which (legal or not) are viewed as stifling of artistic innovation and unfair to consumers. Effectively, the middleman is screwing over both the folks he represents AND the folks to whom he is selling product. If the studios and record labels want to "get back the audience's trust," they need to realize that it's a whole new world and find a solution that benefits their "clients" on both sides. Ditching the endless escalation of DRM is the first step in winning back the public trust.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, I agree. I never said the public perception wasn't earned...
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Here's Chris Bridges' pin:
3613
Go wild.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*goes feral*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Short trip?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How ya doin', Will?
Are you ever gonna be funny?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Now you too can own a 128-bit number! Head to Freedom-to-Tinker.com and generate your very own encryption key, which will be used to encrypt acopyrighted haiku. That means that dissemination of your number will be illegal. Reserve yours today!
Mine is 85 30 55 AF 42 DE E5 C6 D0 B5 BC 91 F0 35 22 43. Please do not read it or attempt to use it in any way, or my legal hordes will overrun you.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*gets her own number and copies Chris's number for good measure*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)