Comments on: RipGuard ‘copy blocker’ reloaded

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:56:53 +0000

If you have a time base corrector to strip the macrovision analog copy protection out of the sync signal, nothing. It actually removed the entire original sync signal and inserts it’s own sync. What is funny is that is another piece of equipment that was threatened(though it was never mentioned) by the DMCA. Imagine a vital piece of equipment to every video prfessional everywhere, whether SECAM, PAL, or NTSC, not being legal. Tv stations can’t run without them, but in a consumer’s hands (they make little chap ones for personal use) they can be used to circumvent the ONLY copy protection ever devised to prevent unauthorised recording to an analog source, i.e a VHS. So no more time base corrector, no more TV staions. Thats a real h00t!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:06:31 +0000

I have the ultimate copy protection solution.
Apply a flame directly to the media in question. Works for all known media types.
I know the MPAA and RIAA don’t care if the comsumers can play it or not. Perhaps I should sell them my idea?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:31:18 +0000

Not sure if “hackers” is the best choice of words. When a T-rex company like Macrovision makes these kinds of claims they are just BEGGING to have their beloved new DRM baby cracked. There’s a big bunch of bragging rights up for grabs to the first Davey who hits the Goliath square in the head. This too will pass…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:11:13 +0000

It’s always amusing to watch these companies spend huge sums of money to come up with an ‘unbreakable’ copy protection – only to have it immediately defeated with the crudest of devices.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:10:24 +0000

Many tricks have been tried in the past to protect “original” copies of software and media; many involve manipulating oddities in the firmware of the players on the market. Nevertheless, as far as I know, nobody has ever developed a technique that was useful (i.e. resistant to reverse-engineering) for broad distribution models. If nothing else, the rule of thumb states that if a playback device is available for the media, the media’s functionality can be duplicated (a computer complete with disc drive and operating system being the “playback device” in the case of software). The most successful means of copy control for a broad audience developed so far is the high-overhead one employed by MMOG’s (i.e. Everquest). In Everquest, the value of the product is not embodied in the software itself but in the centrally-hosted multiplayer service operated by Sony/Verant. However, this model is useless for pre-recorded media (music, single-player games, and movies), as the host company has little beyond the recorded material itself to offer. If all that is desired is playback, the raw video, data, and audio feeds from the player can be hijacked in various ways and directed to an alternative format (i.e. mp3/divx/iso).

I firmly believe that this anti-ripping tech will be good for little in a purely technological sense; however, it MAY give anti-piracy lawsuits a bit of fresh ammunition (i.e. adding legitimacy to content distributors’ claim of incorporating sufficient “preventative measures” to make infringement non-trivial). I’d bet my white hat that this technology’s ramifications will be negligible beyond 2006. Yaaaawn…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:24:22 +0000

>>here’s something i’ve thought about every once and awhile. whats so special about the encryption? you write a program to copy a dvd byte for byte, bit for bit and then just burn the exact copy to a blank dvd and then you have a copy of the encrypted dvd that will play in a standard dvd player…am i missing something? <<

yes you are…you are missing quite a bit..

simple statement by someone who doesn’t know much ado about this subject.

No offense but I am surprised you aren’t on their side with that logic.

Just curious, do you know the difference between a bit and a byte?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:23:13 +0000

>> … am i missing something?

Why, yes. Yes you are.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:29:28 +0000

here’s something i’ve thought about every once and awhile. whats so special about the encryption? you write a program to copy a dvd byte for byte, bit for bit and then just burn the exact copy to a blank dvd and then you have a copy of the encrypted dvd that will play in a standard dvd player…am i missing something?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:12:59 +0000

So what’s to stop someone from first copying the
film to high-end video tape and then copying the film
to computer from the tape? Or how about the old
school bootleg: simply tape the film direct from
a plasma screen with a high-end camera, and then
copy to the computer from the camera?

Maybe the Internet bootleggers use ripping software,
but most of the street bootleggers never did.

Obviously Macrovision is trying to sell the Brooklyn
Bridge.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:27:14 +0000

I expect this form of DRM to be easily circumventable.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:18:29 +0000

Finally someone who tells the truth!!! The Media sucks!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:12:55 +0000

“new technology touted to block 97 percent of the DVD-copying software used by Internet pirates”

- So release groups will have to use the remaining 3% and everything remains the same… congratulations!