Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica)"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica)Posted Feb 24, 2012 13:11 UTC (Fri) by slashdot (guest, #22014)In reply to: "Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) by khim Parent article: "Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica)
You can make copy protection work perfectly on software running on dedicated hardware, but only if you assume that chips are black boxes whose behavior cannot be determined and from which keys cannot be extracted (which is probably false due to the existence of electron microscopes).
However, all video and audio DRM is trivially defeated by pointing a camera or microphone at the thing that is showing you the content, hence the technology is useless.
(Log in to post comments)
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) Posted Feb 24, 2012 14:51 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You can make copy protection work perfectly on software running on dedicated hardware, but only if you assume that chips are black boxes whose behavior cannot be determined and from which keys cannot be extracted (which is probably false due to the existence of electron microscopes). Sorry, but it's not that hard to make a chip which fries itself when you try to open it to study using electron microscopes. These are developed for military used (the probability that hostile country has access to such equipment is much higher then the probability that Joe Random Hacker has access to such equipment), but can be used for other things, too. However, all video and audio DRM is trivially defeated by pointing a camera or microphone at the thing that is showing you the content, hence the technology is useless. You assume that such cameras and microphones are not outlawed. Currently you are forbidden to use them in cinema (but people use them anyway), but they can be outlawed everywhere. Or, even better, you can make DRM mandatory on the player side: if counterfeit is played once player is locked forever. In this case you don't need to catch every piece of stolen video: one out of 100 will be enough. IOW you are partially correct: pure technical solutions will not work. But we are not talking about pure technical solutions here. We are talking about government mandates with far-reaching consequences. These can make technology work, but is it Ok to even consider the technology with requires such a drastic meddling with people's life?
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) Posted Feb 24, 2012 23:05 UTC (Fri) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
Don't a lot of printers/scanners have copy protection for bills ?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
Why not camera's ?
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) Posted Feb 25, 2012 21:42 UTC (Sat) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
You throw around the term "defeated" rather easily. Lossy capture methods lead to degradation of quality. This hardly marks DRM useless, if the goal of a DRM scheme is to protect the content in it's originally delivered form. Lossy capture often also rises above the convenience threshold for most people, making the DRM-protected content better value.
DRM is hardly the all or nothing proposition for implementers that you make it out to be
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) Posted Feb 26, 2012 1:36 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Sure, but there are two problems:
0) SD is good enough for large swaths of the population, depending on usage 1) A DRMed movie need only be cracked once to be playable everhwere in its original quality. Unless playback of *any* medium requires permission of some entity somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||