Vista DRM Already Bypassed by Researcher

[Soopafresh]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1811201

"Security researcher Alex Ionescu claims to have successfully bypassed the much discussed DRM protection in Windows Vista, called 'Protected Media Path' (PMP), which is designed to seriously degrade the playback quality of any video and audio running on systems with hardware components not explicitly approved by Microsoft. "

[Moontrash]

that didn't last

[bendixG15]

Great, now they can patch it in the next release ..

[oldfart13]

What was that old adage about keeping your mouth shut? Ego can hurt you in this world.....

[InXess]

Since DRM is such a hot topic many programmers try to have their five minutes of fame by taking on it. Alex Ionescu has not proven any of his claims and already "gets nervous" about being pursued by lawyers...? ...yet he runs a very neat blog site with updates on a subject matter. He's also a student MS Ambassador! Gimme a break! All he wants is to be in a limelight to get a better job or access to important people. His code will never see a daylight and btw. this is exactly what he's banking on! Don't get too excited.

[Soopafresh]

Kinda like those guys who figured out how to decrypt the impossible HD-DVD and Blu Ray? ....Uh....WAITASEC !

[Krispy Kritter]

Of course, for most internet content, DRM doesn't really matter. The only places I've seen it in use, are sites trying to protect their copyrighted material and if you are a paying customer, you don't have anything to worry about.

[InXess]

Not so fast, read more here, very interesting:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

(read here all about Vista DRM)

the argument here is that once DRM is in place in Vista there may be more entities (!) interested in protecting whatever other content Vista DRM can be extended to, far beyond HD.

[Krispy Kritter]

I know this is a sticky subject with a lot of people. Most people who have grown with the internet have come to expect that anything you can download/view on your pc is theirs to keep/use. Again, in my experience, all of the sites I have seen utilizing DRM, they are using it to protect their own material. Doesn't matter if it is HD, SD, or audio, as long as it works as advertised, I don't understand what everyone is upset about.

[anonjon]

I believe it is the fact that the protection degrades picture quality big time. Or so I hear.

[EAO]

Great, now they can patch it in the next release ..

Big Whoop.

Conservatively within a month it will be circumvented again. Once it has been legitimately compromised a patch will not last.

[rayden54]

I'm not entirely sure what DRM means, but if it is the "protection" on Amazon Unbox that prevents you from burning the video to DVD, then I don't like it. I don't like anything that means I have to watch a video using a certain player in a certain way on a certain computer.

[jagabo]

I'm not entirely sure what DRM means,

Digital Rights Management.

but if it is the "protection" on Amazon Unbox that prevents you from burning the video to DVD, then I don't like it. I don't like anything that means I have to watch a video using a certain player in a certain way on a certain computer.

That's it.

[DereX888]

I'm not entirely sure what DRM means,

Digital Rights Management.

yet appropiate English to English translation is
Digital Restrictions Management.


As someone pointed out earlier:
DRMs 'protect' paying customers (you probably?) from enjoying the product.
To restrict and limit *paying* customers is not only outrageous, but stupid.
"Pirates" never had and never will any problems with any of the DRMs, as the short history of "DRMs" shows, so only the 'loyal' and paying customers are being restricted and limited. Its not only outrageous, its just stupid.

[jagabo]

To restrict and limit *paying* customers is not only outrageous, but stupid.

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to punish your legitimate customers for "crimes" committed by others.

[thecoalman]

I believe it is the fact that the protection degrades picture quality big time. Or so I hear.

Can't say I've ever heard of that, DRM does suck up CPU however so I guess it's possible the video could be degraded to compensate for that on underpowered machines.

[Conquest10]

if you are a paying customer, you don't have anything to worry about.

Why is that always brought up? If I am a paying customer, I expect NOT to be treated like a thief.

[Krispy Kritter]

if you are a paying customer, you don't have anything to worry about.

Why is that always brought up? If I am a paying customer, I expect NOT to be treated like a thief.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying I understand both sides of the argument. I don't see any reason to get upset about someone trying to protect their property. I suppose you also want your new car without door locks?

[Noahtuck]

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying I understand both sides of the argument. I don't see any reason to get upset about someone trying to protect their property. I suppose you also want your new car without door locks?

Well i can't remember the last time i saw someone sit their dvd down in a parking lot before they walked into a shop
But when i buy my car's i do expect to get key's to the lock's and the code or remote to bypass the security 8)

And i don't bitch at a shop when i have to wait for an employee to get a movie or game out of a locked case for me to buy
But i do bitch when i have to sit through 5 minutes of BS that i can't skip... if i wanted to watch warning's and commercials in my living room i'd turn on a damn govt. TV station

I won't even go into these crack monkeys wanting to control what i do or don't do on my own pc in my own home......

[Cornucopia]

There's "trying to protect your property/investment" and then there's "preemptive strike on fair use". By presuming that users have NO rights and producers have ALL, and by presuming that users will be wanting to bypass the NORMAL restrictions (legal, social), producers are breaking the SOCIAL CONTRACT (one of my longstanding phrases, but one I would like to see everyone take up, so I'm not going to "copyright" it ).

DRM just doesn't do what it says it's going to do (help give people "legal options"). It's like a EULA on krak.

Scott

[DereX888]

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying I understand both sides of the argument. I don't see any reason to get upset about someone trying to protect their property. I suppose you also want your new car without door locks?

EXCUSE ME, but what "trying to protect your property/investment" has to do with forcing people to watch long "Warnings" and other junk before the movie starts without option to skipp'em?
Those who stole it know they broke the law. Those who bought it don't need to know what penalty is there for stealing it (otherwise if they need to know, then why aren't we handed a flyer with the list of penalties for stealing an onions when we enter a grocery store etc?)

Lets say I have stole such dvd, so does watching the "warnings" will magically return the disc to the rightful owner, or disnitegrate/selfdestruct it somehow? Of course it doesn't, thus it has nothing to do with protecting the content.
The 'protection' is there (CSS, DRMs, whatever - it is there). Same as there are locks on every car.
Yet, even though the car is of much greater value than the dvd, its only the DVDs that force us to read law excerpts or such about penalties etc if we try to 'steal' it. Why is that? Isn't it because entertainment industry believes we 'owe them', thus they can do whatever they want?

Bullying a public in such way (and many others) and then whining later that no one pity the bully when he gets robbed is rather comical, if not outright idiotic.

[InXess]

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying I understand both sides of the argument. I don't see any reason to get upset about someone trying to protect their property. I suppose you also want your new car without door locks?

No, but I'd prefer to be the exclusive owner of the keys. Why MPAA, Studios etc. always want to have a spare key to the car you bought?

I suppose we got spoiled by the books. Since you bought it you seem to own it (at least your copy), you can read it at your time, read it anyway you like also backwards and you don't have to return it afterwards. No one tells you not to xerox it every time you grab it.
I wonder how would you react to a CD having a first unskippable audio track (DVD style) "do not steal music or else...".

First they hand you the remote control without a power button then lament that you are pulling a power cord.

[DereX888]

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying I understand both sides of the argument. I don't see any reason to get upset about someone trying to protect their property. I suppose you also want your new car without door locks?

No, but I'd prefer to be the exclusive owner of the keys. Why MPAA, Studios etc. always want to have a spare key to the car you bought?

I suppose we got spoiled by the books. Since you bought it you seem to own it (at least your copy), you can read it at your time, read it anyway you like also backwards and you don't have to return it afterwards. No one tells you not to xerox it every time you grab it.
I wonder how would you react to a CD having a first unskippable audio track (DVD style) "do not steal music or else...".

First they hand you the remote control without a power button then lament that you are pulling a power cord.

Nah, we aren't 'spoiled' by the books.
Thats the way IT IS and ought to be - you buy a product = it is yours. No some kind of "leasing" on a DVD (lol). The studios may want to conduct the business that way, but even though general public is only slightly smarter than the chimps, there are still people who use their brains and have ability to influence the general public. In past 10 years studios were able to shove the DRMs and the "leasing model" of selling their movies on DVDs, but it doesn't mean it'll last forever
If you try to copy and sell the book/music/movies, you should be punished by law, no doubt about that. It is not your intellectual property to make profit off of it.
But if you want to give your legally purchased ebook/movie/music to your wife/girlfriend/kid/whomever you please/ and the book/movie/song won't work on another computer/player/etc, you are being f*cked by the seller at this moment and there is no doubt about that.

Just because some ******** were able to buy the senators and congressmen to pull the DMCA etc laws, it doesn't change the facts theyre wrong and we shouldn't oppose them any way we can. Otherwise i.e. slavery in the southern US states would still be lawfuly binding until now if everyone would just follow the law even if it is 'bad' law.

[Krispy Kritter]

Just for the record...ALL of my comments were in reference to DRM (the topic of this thread)

...NOT having to sit through the damn "do not steal" videos on dvd's.