JVC Announces Technology To Prevent Software Copying

An anonymous reader writes: "JVC and Hudson soft Co. of Japan have created a technology that they claim to have tested on 200 CD-ROM devices that prevents users from copying software CDs. They plan to have special encryption keys hidden in software and which are pressed onto CD-ROMs and which can not be read with ordinary procedures. They claim that the location, length and number of embedded keys can vary making it more difficult to hack."

Legacy Drives

[sjgman9]

If one of these discs dont adhere to the ISO cd rom format like those audio CD's that dont adhere to the red book audio cd format, I wont risk my equipment on something that pretends to be what it isnt. I would feel much happier if CDs with this scheme came with a warning label similar to the ones on cigarette packs.

"Warning: This CD does is not a standard data cd and could disrupt your hardware. Caveat Emptor"

how long

[Jonny Ringo]

They plan to have special encryption keys hidden in software and which are pressed onto CD Roms and which can not be read with ordinary procedures.

So how long will it take to come up with "unordinary prodedures". :-)

Information will be free

[buffy]

You keep setting these "proprietary" schemes up, and we'll keep knocking them down. Only after these companies have lost enough money will they learn the basic tenet that information will be free.

Silly rabbits..

Re:security

[kasperd]

it's there to annoy legit users

What prevents legit users from modifying the software on the disc so it doesn't check for the keys anymore?

I have a floppy with an old program that contained some kind of copy protection. Even when installed on the harddisk, the program could not run without the floppy in the drive. But when the floppydrive stopped working I had to do something. Actually I didn't modify the program, instead I just modified the floppydriver to return the values expected by the program.

I don't even think this is illegal. (If I thought so I wouldn't be talking loud about it on slashdot.)

Here we go again

[Rupert]

If I can read the contents of the disk, I can write it to another disk. If I can't read it (with my existing hardware and software) then it's broken.

Besides, how many warez d00ds are actively swapping copied CDs, anyway? Isn't it all ISO images in these days of broadband?

prevention

[Satai]

Ok, if anybody here knows more than what the article says -- presumably, the key will be accessible through direct-level calls to the CD-ROM to read specific tracks; what is to prevent the user from either intercepting these calls or monitoring usage of the CD-ROM, in order to determine where the keys are placed on the CD? I imagine an API implementation like WINE would be able to intercept these calls, with parameters, to find the specific locations.

But, I assume, this has been thought of by JVC. Why wouldn't it work?

To save everyone the usual comments

[Anonymous Coward]

1) We don't care if you buy all your software, or alternatively, don't play games, think free (beer) Linux is l33t, and that we should too. This comes from a Debian Woody/Win2k dual-booter. *Yawn*

2) Yes, one single point of failure. Someone cracks it, and suddenly cracked copies float all around the 'net on every P2P we can imagine. So the tech is mostly useless. Yes, we all know this too. As for copying from friends: most even non-computer-literate people know how to use point & drool P2P nets now to download W4r3z, pr0n, eBooks, and anything else we can imagine. The number of times I've actually physically had to pirate a CD in the past two years can be counted on one hand.

Lastly, something perhaps vaguely original: having just read the GPL article, and the main incentive being given for development as 'reputation', and seeing as how warez and cracker groups operate the same way, one wonders if a comparison article is in order...

So, presumably it's in the subcode

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, like that is any great innovation - the subcodes have been sitting there unused for ages.

Actually, as most CD-burners can't write all of the subcodes it sounds like a good idea. At least it would be standards compliant.

Infact, I think that is an excellent idea - standards compliant, easily implemented, and above average difficulty to bypass. Well done JVC. I'm all for preventing copyright theft, and this is about the most sensible way to do it.

Re:So...

[junkpunch]

You have a right to make a backup copy of your software, IF you are capable of doing so. The manufacturer does NOT have to provide the software in a medium which you can copy.

Think about when software first became available on CD. CD copying technology was not widely available to the consumer, and was very expensive. Were your rights being violated? Of course not. Same thing with software on DVD.

People should take this into account when purchasing their software. Can I make backups of the software, to prolong its life? Yes? That's a feature and a positive for buying it. No? Perhaps you should look elsewhere.

Re:security

[Doug-W]

Actually that's what the black ink on a red card was referring to. text was imprinted on a manual and then covered over with other text such that when viewed through a red filter you could read the underlining text. of course if you tried to photocopy the page all you would get is a black block that could not be read.

Re:security

[harlows_monkeys]

So what's to prevent hacker group x from modifying the software on the disc so it doesn't check for the keys anymore?

Noting but time. The software developer can make it hard to figure our how to modify the software.

For example, back in the late 80's, Deluxe Music Contruction Set for the Mac was a pain to crack, because most of the code was encrypted, so disassemblers, even great ones like MacNosy, were not too useful. The decryption key was derived from a checksum of the code that loaded and decrypted the encrypted code segments, and since the 68k did not have hardware breakpoints, setting a breakpoint in a debugger involved writing a breakpoint instruction into memory, which changed the checksum, which borked the decryption.

The loader/decrypter also took steps to kill any debuggers that were running, so that you could not just hit the interrupt button after the program was decrypted and dump memory.

They didn't quite cover everything....there was a place you could put a breakpoint that was outside the range of memory that was checksummed, but was executed after the key had been derived, so crackers got in...but it was clear that with a bit more effort, they could have delayed cracking for a lot longer.

Remember that the software developer doesn't have to make their program uncrackable. They just have to make it so time consuming as to not be worth the effort.

Re:And when have we heard this before?

[Graspee_Leemoor]

There still is a point to copy-protection. Software companies know that there are 2 kinds of piracy- people who download the cracked version without going anywhere near an original disk, and people who say "That's cool, can I borrow it for the weekend ?" and then burn off a copy.

Copy-protection stops the latter case. They will never stop the former.

graspee

Re:Backups are a non-issue.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"It is NOT your choice what laws you are going to follow and which you are going to ignore."

Mr. Lincoln said it better:

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that this government

of the people, by the people, for the people..."

The laws (being used against the people) are unfair. I want to rip my Matrix Revisited DVD to my computer so that I can test 'greenscreen compositing' using footage the DVD contains. This is for educational purposes as it directly pertains to my job as an animator. The laws that used to allow me to do this have changed. All this because the *AA is unwilling to change their business plans for fear that they'd only make a fair profit instead of an extortionary profit.

What would REALLY work (a little better)

[Myco]

Everyone's already pointed out the obvious flaws in this scheme. So try another one on for size:

CDs containing commercial software have a key written in a special area of the disc, which is designated "read-only." Through legislation or industry standards, it is enforced that no CD-RW available to consumers can be permitted to write to that area of a disc, but they can all read it just fine.

Ignoring the problem of legacy hardware and legal issues (who gets the privilege of owning a CD-writer that can write to the special area?), how would this scheme be cracked?

This reminds me of when...

[randomErr]

Remember when you had to use Copy ][ plus to copy 5 1/4" floppies on an Apple ][?

Remember when you brought copyrighted software that had purposeful holes punched into a diskette? Those holes emulated bad sectors and if you copied that data of the disk to another disk the sectors when be reordered. The new disk didn't have any bad sectors so it just tried to save space and compact the sectors. The pirated software would read the reordered sectors and go into a nasty recursive loop.

It took about 1-2 months for hackers on BBS's and FidoNet to find ways to create programs that locked out corisponding sectors and created new security sectors on the floppies.

How long do you think it will take for the internet community to find a similar loop hole on CD's?

Re:What would REALLY work (a little better)

[bnenning]

how would this scheme be cracked?

Patch the code that reads the key off the CD to instead return a known valid key. As long as the user controls what software runs on his computer, any scheme like this is doomed. This control is of course what Palladium and the CBDTPA seek to eliminate.

Copy prevention is in conflict with the law

[PsyQ]

Well, at least in Switzerland they can't legally prevent you from copying software. I'd be amazed if other countries didn't have a similar law.

Rough tanslation of Swiss copyright law, article 24/2:

"Whoever has the right to use a computer program may make backup copies thereof. This privilege cannot be revoked by contract."

Awesome, huh? So we can just blast through any copy prevention legally, I guess.