Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Your Rights Online

AACS Vows to Fight Bloggers 601

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the guerilla-bloggers dept.
Jonas Wisser writes "The BBC is carrying the story that AACS has promised to take action against those who have posted the AACS crack online. Michael Ayers, chairperson of AACS, noted that the cracked key has now been revoked, and went on to say, 'Some people clearly think it's a First Amendment issue.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.' The AACS website tells consumers how they can 'continue to enjoy content protected by AACS' by 'refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AACS Vows to Fight Bloggers

Comments Filter:
  • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:10AM (#18988795) Homepage Journal
    ...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

    Actually, as I said yesterday [slashdot.org], ignore these threats. Go out and blog. Understand that freedom of speech is NOT a government-granted freedom, it is an inherent one that all people of all citizenship must understand. The U.S. Constitution's (Bill of Rights) 1st Amendment does not say "You are free to speak," it says that Congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of speech -- NO law. Discussing encryption mechanisms is free speech, and Congress shall not abridge that. As for patents and trademark and the rest, as long as you do not mimic the mechanism in your own hardware or software, you're fine, Constitutionally. As long as you do not quote verbatim the actual code used to create this mechanism, you're not violating copyright. The DMCA is unconstitional, and regardless of what Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, or any company says, it is non-binding in terms of the moral realization that Congress, and honestly no State organization, can prevent you from freely airing your opinions. You are free to talk, but no one has to listen.

    From yesterday's post I made about "legal recommendations for bloggers," go out and blog. Say what you want to say. There are more of us than there are of them -- not only can they not afford to go after everyone, they can not afford to go after even a small percentage. Let some bloggers get caught, and all it will do is show other people that non-violent actions should not be criminalized or penalized.

    AACS, your days are numbered. Your salaries will end. Your powers will be diminished. It won't be because of competition from another company (that you are likely in bed with, in terms of promoting the abuse of State power), it will be because millions upon millions of people will ignore you, and all you do, in trying to revoke our inherent (and in my opinion, God-given) right to speak freely amongst ourselves.
    • by Tuoqui (1091447) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:13AM (#18988843) Journal
      Who would want to put 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 into their hardware or software? :)
    • by Amouth (879122) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:35AM (#18989223)
      the quesion i have is this.. say you post the key on your site.. you get a take down notice.. what does that notice say? does it say to take down the key or to take down "insert key here" - what if you post it and play dumb that you don't know it is the key.. they would have to tell you what it is they wnat taken down.. and in the document would need to be "insert key here" at that point cause it is a leagl document if they take you to court the key is in the document and is now public record.

      then you take it down and repost it with a refrence to the public record document.
    • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:35AM (#18989227) Homepage Journal

      ...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

      Yes. Just before the Death Star blew her home world to smithereens.

      But let's hope that's not the case here, eh?

      • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:49AM (#18989435)
        > > ...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
        >
        > Yes. Just before the Death Star blew her home world to smithereens.

        "I feel something hilarious has happened. As if 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 geeks cried out in laughter, and were never silenced."

        > But let's hope that's not the case here, eh?

        Not very long ago, on a website only a few dozen hops away, a great adventure took place.

        (cue scrolling text)

        Code Wars IV: A New Hope

        "It is a period of civil war. Rebel bloggers, striking from all your base, have won their first victory against the evil MAFIAA Empire.

        "During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret keys to the MAFIAA's ultimate weapon, the AACS, an armored DRM system with enough power to annoy an entire planet.

        "Pursued by the AACSLA's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the leaked key that can save her people and restore fair use to the digital media..."

      • by saboola (655522) on Friday May 04, 2007 @01:48PM (#18991569)
        Let's not forget since this is an HDDVD related discussion, the scene after this one in the new HDDVD special edition, in which Han shoots ET with a walkie talkie.


        C-3PO: I would much rather have gone with Master Luke than stay here with you. I don't know what all this trouble is about, but I'm sure it must be your fault.
        R2-D2: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
        C-3PO: You watch your language!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bdjacobson (1094909)
      But, to be honest, we all know that a truly free society isn't free at all. You have to have some rules for life to continue. This may be one of them. How much does it matter if you can't speak a string of hexes for copyright/DMCA reasons? It doesn't. Some may say "this is a slippery slope", and that's partly true, but everyone knows that when they start trying to keep us from quoting a favorite line from a recent funny movie, people won't give a damn, and they'll just do it anyways. There will be people wi
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rainman_bc (735332)
        This may be one of them. How much does it matter if you can't speak a string of hexes for copyright/DMCA reasons? It doesn't.

        Dude it's a number. Granted a large number, but still just a number.

        Are you telling me that projects like the one trying to find the largest prime can't publish that they've tested this number as a prime?

        There are certain things you should NOT be allowed to own - a number is one of them.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by HTH NE1 (675604)

          Are you telling me that projects like the one trying to find the largest prime can't publish that they've tested this number as a prime?
          I doubt they'd bother: it ends with a zero.
        • by orasio (188021) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:05PM (#18989685) Homepage

          This may be one of them. How much does it matter if you can't speak a string of hexes for copyright/DMCA reasons? It doesn't.

          Dude it's a number. Granted a large number, but still just a number.

          Are you telling me that projects like the one trying to find the largest prime can't publish that they've tested this number as a prime?

          There are certain things you should NOT be allowed to own - a number is one of them.
          All information can be codified as a number. As much as I disklike copyrights themselves,saying it's just a number doesn't change the issue one bit.
          • by ClassMyAss (976281) on Friday May 04, 2007 @01:04PM (#18990709) Homepage

            All information can be codified as a number. As much as I disklike copyrights themselves,saying it's just a number doesn't change the issue one bit.
            However, what might change the issue is the fact that this is not a creative work, or anything even remotely resembling one. Rather, it is a purely functional number, essentially the equivalent of a password (which are not copyrightable). You are correct, people skew the issue by focusing on the fact that it is a hexadecimal number; the real issue is that it contains no expression of anything, it is merely a key to a digital lock somewhere, likely spat out by a random number generator. The distribution of such a key might be illegal as well (trade secret perhaps?), but I see absolutely no reason it should be prohibited based on copyright.

            From what I can tell, the AACS are not actually claiming copyright protection for the key, though, they are instead invoking part of the DMCA, claiming that the key's distribution violates the prohibition on releasing software to circumvent copyright protections. This is a separate issue, and one that is not easily resolved. To be honest, in spirit, they are probably right - people who distribute this key are doing so to stick it to the industry, and by the spirit of the law (whether you agree with it or not - I do not), should probably be considered to be doing something illegal. But I don't really think the key itself could reasonably qualify as software, and I think the DMCA is very specific about banning software that undoes copy protection, and never mentions a password that could be USED in software to undo copy protection, so everyone might be on fairly good legal ground, technically at least. Then again, I'm no lawyer, so who knows...I imagine judges get annoyed at people for this stuff since at root, people disagree with the laws in place and are pushing the boundaries of those laws just to piss on them, so I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig that tests out this stuff in court...
            • by Wyzard (110714) on Friday May 04, 2007 @05:01PM (#18994927) Homepage

              But I don't really think the key itself could reasonably qualify as software, and I think the DMCA is very specific about banning software that undoes copy protection

              Actually, it isn't. What it actually says is:

              No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

              • is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
              • has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
              • is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

              (Emphasis mine.) I think the AACS LA could easily argue that the processing key is at the very least a "part thereof".

        • by OrangeTide (124937) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:07PM (#18989705) Homepage Journal
          The source code to Windows Vista is "just a number" too. Alan Turing described all this decades ago. Although I think we can all agree that it is protected by copyright.

          I don't think you can copyright 14 bytes. But the issue is not copyright, it is the violation of DMCA by providing a tool necessary to break any sort of copyright protection measures.

          you can't post plans to view scrambled cable TV anymore (in the US), you can't post utilities designed to decode CSS so you can watch your DVDs on your computer. etc.

          What's dumb is these companies going after average joes rather than people who are pressing boatloads of DVDs and importing them to the US. Or people who are hosting huge pay torrent sites to download movies. Or couriers posting the latest films on Usenet to be distributed to sites all over the world.

          so will I be in trouble? My DNS resolves any string you give it, so if someone goes to http://09f911029d74e35bd84156c56356.rm-f.net/ [rm-f.net] they will get a page. (although not [currently] related to those keys)
          • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:48PM (#18990411)

            The source code to Windows Vista is "just a number" too. Alan Turing described all this decades ago. Although I think we can all agree that it is protected by copyright.

            No we cannot. Many of us believe that for that very reason (attempt at "ownership" or integer numbers, in defiance of the very phillosphical ideas of "ownership" or "trade") the so called "copyrights" are nothing but a scam, although they might have originated as an badly thought out, naive scheme to promote arts and science.

            All of the so-called "intellectual property" schemes invariably fail the test of basic logic when analysed in depth, primarily due to the fact that they attempt to treat information as an entity which is subject to "trade" or "private ownership", for which information simply lacks the required attributes.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Miseph (979059)
          True, but then again they haven't actually said they own the number. They use the number in context, and are upset because it is being distributed as a specific component of their product. There hasn't been any mention of suing anyone who came to this number independently for unrelated reasons, because it's just a number.

          I'm not saying this because I agree with AACS on this, or because I even remotely support DRM, I'm just opposed to straw men.
        • by inviolet (797804) <slashdotNO@SPAMideasmatter.org> on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:47PM (#18990395) Journal

          Dude it's a number. Granted a large number, but still just a number.

          +1 Funny, -1 Dishonest.

          To wit: Can I publicly post your credit card number, expiration date, and CVN? They're just numbers... and how can ordinary numbers have implications for property and finances?

          In fact, I have a list here of 10,000 valid bank-account and PIN numbers. My right to distribute them is a First Amendment Issue, damnit!

          • inapt analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

            by underwhelm (53409) <underwhelm@gmai l . c om> on Friday May 04, 2007 @01:33PM (#18991249) Homepage Journal
            Every one of the words in your post can be used as a password. That doesn't justify prohibiting their publication.

            The AACS key is a password that's, in effect, distributed to everyone who owns a HDDVD and is furthermore useless to you unless you possess an HDDVD. It's an open secret. In that respect it's different from a credit card, and your analogy is inapt.

            And it's not illegal to post a string of digits that may or may not be a credit card, without more, and the same should apply in the case of the HDDVD key.
      • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:57AM (#18989551) Homepage Journal
        But, to be honest, we all know that a truly free society isn't free at all. You have to have some rules for life to continue. This may be one of them.

        I disagree. A free society is one where all citizens are equally free from legal force that gives power to some and takes power away from others, without their express consent (ie, a contract). In a free society, you and I can contract to limit each other -- but the State can not unless we individually tell them that they can. Also, a free society is one where an individual can make any decision they want, as long as they do not directly harm the physical property or body of another individual. Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is. The effect of the speech could be a physical reaction, but if that physical reaction is performed by a person other than the speech giver, the speech giver has not caused harm.

        People will visit their library more. They'll go walk at the park with friends more. So while I think it's good to fight for our rights, the result wouldn't be that bad. "Burn the land, boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me..." We'll find plenty other things to occupy ourselves with. Who cares about AACS and movies and stuff when you can find something else just as, if not more entertaining, for half the price?

        Entertainment has more to do with time preference decisions than just saving "money" doing something that might seem entertaining. Someone who is very busy and who has a high hourly-value to the market may want a quick relief of "getting away from reality" and may be more than happy to pay $150 per person to see an Opera. Someone who is not so busy, and may not command a high hourly-value to the market may be more entertained reading a book, which could take hours or days or weeks. It all boils down to how you (and the market) value yourself.

        Personally, I see nothing wrong with paying $20+ to buy a movie -- if I can use it the way I want to. I prefer to live in a tiny home so that I do not have to pay for extra unused space. This means I have no room for the clutter of physical movies (DVDs, VHS, etc). Instead, I have a great Media Center PC (yes, Microsoft), and I have 1TB of movies and TV shows available to watch based on my mood. This is considered illegal, even though I have paid for all the movies and shows I watched. I also used my own time/labor to put those movies/TV shows on that PC. I've harmed no one physically, so the law is unjust and ridiculous. Provide me with a process to reimburse the authors/distributors/producers of a given content, and also allow me to put that content into a system that works with my life, and I will pay AND continue to be a customer. I don't believe in NOT reimbursing those actively involved in the creation of content. I have no desire to pay for the lawyers, DRM researchers, or those who lobby the State to use force against me to uphold their monopoly.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by i.r.id10t (595143)
      Yup, and the amendment right after that has a "shall not be infringed" clause, but there are 20,000+ laws in the US infringing on that right....
    • by orangesquid (79734) <orangesquid@noSPaM.yahoo.com> on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:42PM (#18990285) Homepage Journal
      I just wrote this:
      #include <stdio.h>
      #include <stdlib.h>

      unsigned char key[16] = {
        0x09, 0xf9, 0x11, 0x02,
        0x9d, 0x74, 0xe3, 0x5b,
        0xd8, 0x41, 0x56, 0xc5,
        0x63, 0x56, 0x88, 0xc0};

      int main() {
        int s; /* start char */
        int b; /* byte # */
        for(s = 65 ; s <= 75 ; ++s) {
          printf("Start = %c: ", s);
          for(b = 0 ; b < 16 ; ++b) {
            fputc(s + ((key[b] & 0xf0) >> 4), stdout);
            fputc(s + (key[b] & 0x0f), stdout);
          }
          fputc('\n', stdout);
        }
        exit(0);
        return 0;
      }

      And its output:

      Start = A: AJPJBBACJNHEODFLNIEBFGMFGDFGIIMA
      Start = B: BKQKCCBDKOIFPEGMOJFCGHNGHEGHJJNB
      Start = C: CLRLDDCELPJGQFHNPKGDHIOHIFHIKKOC
      Start = D: DMSMEEDFMQKHRGIOQLHEIJPIJGIJLLPD
      Start = E: ENTNFFEGNRLISHJPRMIFJKQJKHJKMMQE
      Start = F: FOUOGGFHOSMJTIKQSNJGKLRKLIKLNNRF
      Start = G: GPVPHHGIPTNKUJLRTOKHLMSLMJLMOOSG
      Start = H: HQWQIIHJQUOLVKMSUPLIMNTMNKMNPPTH
      Start = I: IRXRJJIKRVPMWLNTVQMJNOUNOLNOQQUI
      Start = J: JSYSKKJLSWQNXMOUWRNKOPVOPMOPRRVJ
      Start = K: KTZTLLKMTXROYNPVXSOLPQWPQNPQSSWK

      Let's just start making blog posts where the first letter of each word fits one of these patterns (and include the key via the subject line).  Hell, you could write the README to a hddvd playing program so that each paragraph started with one letter, and the Makefile could generate the key from the README, so you wouldn't be distributing the key with the program...
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:11AM (#18988813)

    "This is the first round and will not be the last," he added.

    Well, he certainly has that part right. What he fails to appreciate is that he will be on the losing end of every single one of those rounds. Even as he tries to downplay the key by saying it has been revoked, AACS has already lost the second round [arstechnica.com] (as hackers have created a hack that CAN'T be revoked).

    Always a step behind, buddy. But feel free to keep wasting your money and pissing people off.

    • by Goaway (82658) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:26AM (#18989077) Homepage
      They most definitely won't be on the losing side in every round - they just won one, by revoking the key making it useless for future discs. There will be new rounds, and they will go back-and-forth in this fashion for quite some time.

      And that Ars Technica article is widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. That hack is, indeed, irrevokable, but it is also completely impractical for anyone but the most dedicated hacker, and it doesn't give you all the data needed to decrypt a disc, but only the Volume ID.
    • by Geof (153857) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:36AM (#18989245) Homepage

      What he fails to appreciate is that he will be on the losing end of every single one of those rounds. Even as he tries to downplay the key by saying it has been revoked, AACS has already lost the second round (as hackers have created a hack that CAN'T be revoked).

      The real target of this action is likely a different audience, namely Hollywood. The AACS doesn't have to make their DRM undefeatable. They do need to convince their customers - and remember, that's not us - of the value of their work. And when their DRM is broken and seen to be broken, they need to convince those who want to believe that they at least have not lost faith in the cause.

      So we may talk about winning and losing, and people like use may be the targets of lawsuits. But I think we may be giving ourselves airs when we assume that for the other side it's about us. If, on the other hand, we figure out who our real audience is then we have a better chance.

    • by Kadin2048 (468275) * <slashdot DOT kadin AT xoxy DOT net> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:56AM (#18989519) Homepage Journal
      (as hackers have created a hack that CAN'T be revoked)

      I spent a while trying to get my head around AACS last night, and the bottom line is that what comes out of the un-revocable hack that you mention isn't the same thing as what's being posted around the internet, and what the AACSLA has the whole revocation scheme for.

      Oversimplification ahead, and I may have some of the details wrong or, but this is the gist of it: the content -- the movie itself -- is encrypted with title keys. These title keys are encrypted with a volume unique key (VUK). The VUK is composed of two parts, a media key and a Volume ID.

      The Media Key is the thing that you get with the code that's being posted all over the Internet (the Processing Key). Processing Keys can be revoked, but only for new discs -- so the discs that are out in circulation as of the compromise of the Processing Key, are out. They're cracked. However, future discs will use a new Processing Key, and that one that's around on the internet won't work ... so the hackers will need to go back and sniff/debug an updated software player to figure out the new Processing Key.

      The "un-revocable hack" you mentioned, doesn't have anything to do with the Media Key, it's all about the Volume ID. The purpose of the Volume ID is to prevent bit-for-bit copying. In a lot of ways it's very similar to parts of the CSS system used on DVDs right now; it's a key specific to each batch of pressed discs, written to the disc in a way that's difficult to read off manually (the drive isn't supposed to let the user see it at all), and impossible to write to a blank disc ... so if you made a "bit-perfect" copy of a disc, the Volume ID wouldn't be there (because you can't read it and/or because you can't write it to the new disc) and you'd be missing one of the elements required to decrypt.

      So: while the Volume ID hack involving the XBox360 drive is a major step forwards (backwards if you're the AACS!), it's not a silver bullet, and it doesn't make future titles trivial to compromise. There's still going to be a cat-and-mouse game in the near future, where the AACS will try to revoke Processing Keys and try to discourage the publication of new ones as discs are released. (It's been pointed out by several people now, that the AACS' over-the-top reaction to publication of the processing key, may indicate that they've realized that their revocation procedures aren't nearly as fast or as flexible as the people who are going to be compromising them.)
    • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:01PM (#18989617) Homepage
      Here's Michael Ripley from back before AACS was finished.

      "Backers of the protection method are betting that AACS technology will finally thwart unauthorized copying of DVDs while allowing consumers to distribute movies legitimately over networks within their homes, play them on a variety of devices (standard televisions, portable movie players, and laptop computers), and store them on home media servers. "We wouldn't be investing our time otherwise," says Michael Ripley, the chairman of the AACS alliance's technical working group."

      Well, Michael(s): any high school student could've told you this would never work. The reason is the same as always: you have to provide the machine with everything it needs to play back the disc. It's difficult (college students would say "impossible") to provide those things to the machine without providing those things to the machine. Cf. Cory's age-old piece;
      http://craphound.com/hpdrm.txt [craphound.com]
  • RC4; Base64 Encoding; Key = "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"

    mI0mUyOUE8S24UAsIVqR12Z8_P1WveIRFqpBO4FEeH_TPGuc0t Ds1V97iWQx
    QDhXbGpiERffrXz6lvQpcOFlDY_AXJWGw7f9saosuSBDj7c4ex ySmgi8Bded
    l4APCHQIzYXETWu"xkhR4MNnw7zI_mBf5YJOLJ3DKD6wSQ6PvG AsLVTLLTc0
    ZAPkCzunB7xarymAJEOOu0fe"tdhy"rZZY5XOSiipi6vf_84xJ Yg11Y576o"
    rPfhQQNneUX"JGXWhN3bgRIZwIOoIUu8c282MQ5_Grb6ALolIj Ue7R919DRx
    j7cWlf2G2V467N4EjnJbR"9j_4oDCytfpkQBFX0jGOCsjRYcLl wzs_UvVSRh
    HH7DzXzB2tPz7i"L1Unvljgh05d1qoFs2N38qWugtaUMGM9RXh nyCcADUH6G
    yUXVAbsO9ZcD33UKD80sulFF0FiSxIr4NOiRv4EZBoIU3eY1Ff GSm7HfCs_i
    yi4NfhRLz3ai50dbx0CWCJwlvti_gsXgQLJrE70ihDROzdUyjy BTwMZnuZYL
    9AM2M99"s2d"hQxtoj7yTTki2M4dK3Y8_wvSyM8fp5fyyDpJWI Wn1KXh6_Rx
    z3W8iYIMIObDRG1H914rayBqj3EPhUDsz2NfVhjYBIxHBPgeW2 q3ZzeFJD5M
    saZXht6YNavXOyFLh24D84kXC4weBrJsI598yUpFhg41NB694Q nlxHfxzWhl
    vZaHrMlSDxODtGlaU5rfJkODjrCr99Rr6hgQaegXnHE6Oe6iKj P8of4TEJU0
    DwDtOw3"khTuVWYDStjRd4w2eOt2wvl24XvC3iDQBIA40uJQhk Fg3voVVPEp
    29XXEh_9hplaGD1YBw6pW2yiuyW8ifdaS4Mm7IGdH"6JMgSFgn ceesWk6v0r
    k8"H70be7kCOdyDSLX9jLkz"4MF_LD"yaYdWopVnoryVQ9YD5G oYSEXQH_Bo
    RqZmxLv2loAoM5WFs2""qGG4yATAMz9zhyuc4wMPZZLiZJhTt_ qmXGJlSjF"
    pNNm045ma6vnqBdwtEE00zdjJBhBjz5VMoqPS6EZvQbwbEyiUw wPLEWhn1kz
    KJdzO7ATz47fYRWQZNWjy7Uda1P8RPnhSd2FbrL"aOegRzUX_s A1_faWxcxe
    Azf
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ivan256 (17499)
      How did you manage to get *that* past the lameness filter?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:29AM (#18989127)
      For those of you having trouble reading that, there's a Javascript RC4 decrypter here:

      http://shop-js.sourceforge.net/crypto.htm [sourceforge.net]
    • by kebes (861706) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:45AM (#18989377) Journal

      RC4; Base64 Encoding; Key = "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
      Very cute. If the "forbidden number" is fully suppressed, then your post can no longer be decrypted. Hence, suppression of the "forbidden number" does indeed infringe your free speech rights.

      But once the information is in the public realm, it effectively becomes a lost "trade secret".
      Quite right, and moreover, since it is a "lost trade secret", I would argue it has now become "common knowledge." I don't see how any law (DMCA, copyright, etc.) can be used to suppress common knowledge. For instance, Star Wars may be still protected by copyright, but no one can prevent people from quoting it to their heart's content. So many of the quotes have become a part of our culture, our communal consciousness, that they are very much ours, and no amount of government or corporate power can take them from us.

      As others have noted in this discussion, this isn't merely about freedom of speech, it is a spontaneous and massive civil disobedience, basically highlighting how the citizens affected by these DMCA do not respect the law, do not want the law, and increasingly do not tolerate the law.
    • Re: Translation (Score:3, Informative)

      by JoshRosenbaum (841551)
      Here's the translation for the lazy:

      While I can respect his point about the issue being a legal one rather than a free speech issue, I would argue that they took the matter too far. It's one thing to revoke the key, then prosecute the original crackers under the DMCA. (As distasteful as that is.) But once the information is in the public realm, it effectively becomes a lost "trade secret".
  • by KingSkippus (799657) * on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:11AM (#18988831) Homepage Journal

    I don't care how hard you fight the damn cat, it's out of the bag, and it's not getting back in.

    One part of the article I find funny is this:

    But [Michael Ayers, chair of the AACS business group] accepted that DVDs that had had their copy protection removed were 'now in the clear' and could be copied.

    Isn't that the point? I'm neither trying to justify nor rebuke file sharers, but think about it, man, and be practical for a change. Among those who download and share movies, who really cares about the nitty-gritty details of how keys are cracked, who all gets them, which ones get revoked, what players are and aren't affected, and so on? Most of them only care about one thing: Can I download the HD-DVD of [insert movie titles here]?

    And as long as a key out there is cracked enough for the answer to that question to be "yes," the copy protection industry has lost. They can fight all they want to, but the thing is that unless they literally shut everyone down everywhere, they're doomed. As soon as one single solitary person is able to crack a key and unlock the encrypted data, all of their massive—and expensive—efforts will be in vain.

    I also thought this was funny:

    He said tracking down everyone who had published the keys was a 'resource intensive exercise'. A search on Google shows almost 700,000 pages have published the key. Mr. Ayers said that while he could not reveal the specific steps the group would be taking, it would be using both 'legal and technical' steps to prevent the circumvention of copy protection.

    To Mr. Ayers, I would say this: Get real. For one thing, how many times has it been proven that your technical efforts are futile? How much more time and money are you going to waste developing something that consumers at best don't want and at worst outright resent? For another, what exactly do you plan to legally do to people who live in places where publishing the cracked keys is not illegal? As much as people like you would love to have the U.S.'s misguided laws apply to the whole world, it will never happen, and even if it did, people would still break such laws in civil disobedience.

    If only they could figure out how to fight a winning battle for the hearts and minds of paying customers instead of this inevitable losing battle against people who are much, much smarter than they are, maybe everyone could be happier. This industry could sure learn a few things about the direction the music industry is headed, finally dropping DRM after realizing how useless it is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by catwh0re (540371)
      Their technical efforts only harm themselves, here's why I think so

      When a consumer goes to buy a HD player, they expect that it'll be the same as the VHS player they bought in the 80s, or the DVD player they bought in the 90s. Which is you buy the player, then you get a tape or a disc of some sort, you put it into the player and you press play and it shows on your screen. Now when you buy a HD player there is all this stuff about plugging it into an internet connection and running an update on the device.

    • by Ford Prefect (8777) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:56AM (#18989521) Homepage

      I don't care how hard you fight the damn cat, it's out of the bag, and it's not getting back in.

      Have you checked Google recently?

      Results 1 - 10 of about 746,000 for "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0". (0.11 seconds)

      The cat isn't just out of the bag, it's having kittens...

    • by evil_aar0n (1001515) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:39PM (#18990211)
      > I don't care how hard you fight the damn cat, it's out of the bag, and it's not getting back in. This is easy. Turn the bag inside-out. Put your hand in the bag, and use that hand to grab the cat. Then, flip the bag right-side-out. Problem solved. :-)
  • Oh, is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl@exc ... m minus caffeine> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:14AM (#18988865) Journal

    "There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech."

    A comparison comes to mind here. Here's a hint, Mr. Ayers. It comes from a bull and it ain't a steak.

    The hubris of thinking they can ban the mention of a number, and then turn around and say they "respect free speech", is breathtaking doublethink. Part of free speech is the right to discuss things you don't like. Part of it is the right to discuss them in as specific of terms as anyone wants. And part of it is being able to mention any number one wants to, from zero either direction to infinity. There's not a bit of respect for free speech here.

    • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:43AM (#18989339) Homepage
      You just got a bad transmission. I believe the full quote was

      "There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss how much they love copy protection, and how good we are at building it. We respect free speech."

      Surely that's what he meant to say. Otherwise he'd be some kind of idiot.
  • by way2trivial (601132) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:15AM (#18988887) Homepage Journal
    "Read about the trusted industry names behind AACS. "
    emphasis mine...

    yes, intel, microsoft and sony are three of the eight on the list...
  • by failure-man (870605) <failureman AT gmail DOT com> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:16AM (#18988897)
    The key is out there. It's too late to suppress it. Game over. The wombats have left the chicken coop!

    (Wait, that's not right. What's the real metaphor?)
  • by CoolVibe (11466) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:16AM (#18988907) Journal
    #include <stdio.h>

    int
    main (int argc, char **argv)
    {
            char *blah = "\x09\xf9\x11\x02"
                         "\x9d\x74\xe3\x5b"
                         "\xd8\x41\x56\xc5"
                         "\x63\x56\x88\xc0";
            printf("Hello AACS world! Here's a bunch of completely random non-ASCII characters:  %s\n", blah);
            return 0;
    }
  • I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rycross (836649) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:16AM (#18988911)
    I wonder if anyone has told these guys that the idea of an uncrackable DRM scheme is fundamentally flawed. Encryption is about A sending information that B can't read, but C can. In DRM, B and C are the same person.
  • Good reporting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by malsdavis (542216) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:17AM (#18988917)
    It's good to see the pretty even-handed way the BBC have approached this whole issue. I fear most mainstream news agencies would probably side 100% with the AACS and their media buddies, not least due to commercial interests and parent company ownership reasons.

    I guess its times like these when it is good that there still are some news organizations independent of the big media conglomerates.
    • Re:Good reporting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:30AM (#18989145)
      That, of course, is why the BBC is specially supported by a levy on British subjects, but NOT by a government tax.

      We each pay around $250 a year so that the world can have an unbiased mass communications system which is not driven by audience ratings and can produce quality. And, in the case of radio, in all the world's languages.

      It would be nice if some of the anti-licence-fee Americans on /. realised that.
  • Two faces (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SnowZero (92219) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:18AM (#18988953)
    I like how they are threatening people with the DMCA over the "09" key, while simultaneously pretending that it isn't a big deal. Maybe they should pick a consistent stance? Also, a better choice of words than "revoked" would be "stopped using", since the "09" key will work always work for any disks pressed before May, but it won't work for any disk made after then. Hm, I wonder how many titles that actually affects, maybe it isn't a big deal after all with such a tiny market :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wwwojtek (246402)
      It is not about this particular key. They are threatening so that the next time people think twice about spreading information about hacks. The real purpose is prevention not prosecution of what has already happened for the sake of prosecution. Now, whether it is going to work is a different story, but there is a logic to what they are doing.
  • we can all 'continue to enjoy content protected by AACS' by 'refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.'

    we can all 'continue to enjoy being ignorant slaves' by 'reaffirming our desire to be shackled.'

    the audacity to think of people as so supplicant to corporate will is incredible
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:20AM (#18988981)
    I know, they should copyright the encryption key so nobody else can post it. Or maybe they could patent the process of posting encryption keys on the internet. I'm sure the USPTO would grant that one.
  • by Expertus (1001346) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:22AM (#18989025)
    FTA:

    "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."
    I'm not so sure you do. IANAL, but since when has it become illegal to talk about circumventing locking mechanisms (and that's assuming that simply posting the key by itself constitutes that). I'm sure we have all read MIT's guide to lockpicking - it describes in detail how to create the tools and the actual process of bypassing the lock (granted, physical locks weren't covered under the DMCA). I would like to see someone with a legal background give some insight, but I would not take any note of AACS - anyone can issue cease and desist letters.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Spazmania (174582)
      The key was a trade secret. Under state law in all 50 states its illegal to reveal a trade secret without the owners' authorization. Ordinarily you can legally reverse-engineer something in order to discover any trade secrets it embeds, but under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions it was illegal reverse-engineer the player software in order to fetch the key.

      Whoever did it first is in a world of hurt if he's ever caught.

      On the other hand, open publication of a trade secret ends the trade secret. Unlicens
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by terrymr (316118)
        "Unlicensed implementations of AACS are still copyright infringement"

        Under what legal theory ? I could see a patent infringement claim but writing your own software to play the disc isn't copyright infringement.

        Could it be a DMCA violation - possibly ... however I don't think the limits of reverse engineering for interoperability have been tested yet.
  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:23AM (#18989041)

    Michael Ayers, chair of the AACS business group, said... "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."
    You say that like "protected free speech" isn't redundant, Mr. Ayers.
  • Good point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by illuminatedwax (537131) <<ude.ogacihcu.inmula> <ta> <egnardts>> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:29AM (#18989129) Journal
    They make a good point: this is not about people silencing free speech. Posting the crack online is about civil disobedience against the completely unfair DMCA. It's not about copyrighting a number. It's about keeping people from legally using copyrighted material you've legally purchased. This seems to be an important point missed by most people. It's not a First Amendment issue, it's an anti-consumer issue.
  • T-shirt (Score:3, Funny)

    by ProteusQ (665382) <dontbother@nowhe ... Nom minus author> on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:33AM (#18989191) Journal
    Someone send this man a t-shirt with the key on the front and "It's not over yet!" on the back.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:34AM (#18989201) Journal
    the **AA will not win. They do not have the resources to win it, will not have the resources to win at this game, and in the end, trying to win at IWaM(TM) will only make them look more foolish than they do now.

    The part where he says over 700,000 pages on the Internet reference the code is fscking hilarious. I want to see AACS group try to sue 700,000 people. Before they even get started there would be 1.4 million more references to it on Google. That is how the IWaM game works and exactly why they can't win. The sheer volume of people working against their worn out DRM business model will overwhelm both their resources and those of the court systems around the world.

    In the US it appears that the courts are still willing to waste time on this. Other countries, not so much. Sure, if they find commercial pirates distributing DVDs for profit they will shut those operations down, but there just are not enough law enforcement resources to stop this hack, or any other.

    Playing IWaM = stupid and the more you play, the more money you lose. period.

    Certainly, some will be harmed, and there will be small wins for the AACS group and **AAs of the world, but in the end all their money will be gone. The DMCA was ostensibly implemented to protect them from exactly this. Legislating DRM doesn't work, DRM doesn't work, and if your business model depends on DRM, it won't work either. It's time that Wall Street and VC groups started to act on this one principle. If their business model is DRM it's a bad investment.

    Sure, you might argue that MS is an exception but I think that the sales performance of Vista is going to prove me right on this. MS has been trying to play Whack A Mole with malicious software and spam. Yeah, that has been working out well. Their new flagship DRM laden secure operating system ... did I just say secure? ooops mea culpa. The reason that MS is working so hard to ensure that you can only use genuine MS OS products is simple, they are trying to not play IWaM, and even this attempt won't work. From what I can see, people who used illegal copies of MS products before ARE turning to Linux now. Even if that is not huge numbers yet, it is happening.

    Back on topic, the lawyers for the AACS group must be staggeringly stupefied. Maybe if they make an example of Digg and Mr Rose they can send a message, and if they try, every new key will be poste in blog comments on every blogging system around the globe. They literally need to surrender and rethink what they are doing. DRM DOES NOT work.
  • Good luck with that! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:40AM (#18989301)
    Um, what, close to a million hits for the key right now on Google?

    DMCA applies only in the United States.

    What is that sound? A toilet flushing?
  • by misleb (129952) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:41AM (#18989315)
    I wonder if he actually believes that people "enjoy" content protection. How could you even say that with a straight face? It would be like a prison warden, after a jail break, saying, "soon the escapees will enjoy protection from the free world once again."
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:42AM (#18989329) Journal
    Slashdotters, please dont get worked up.He knows it is a stupid thing to say to a tech savvy audience. He was talking to the chumps who paid big bucks to have their movies "protected by" the DRM. Some weasel clause in the contract would say something like, "while we dont guarantee that this mechanism will never be broken, all we promise to do is to take vigorous action". He will eventually argue that issuing such ridiculous statements constitutes vigorous action. That is all.
  • by hachete (473378) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:42AM (#18989333) Homepage Journal

    "There are three things you can do:

    1. Kill yourself.
    2. Kill your manservant.
    3. Kill everybody in the whole world."

    Now 2 is fine, 1 is reccomended, but 3?
  • Still lying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CustomDesigned (250089) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:44AM (#18989363) Homepage Journal
    But he accepted that DVDs that had had their copy protection removed were "now in the clear" and could be copied.

    That is the part that ticks me off the most. The DVDs already could be copied without the key. Their "technology" is "playback protection", not "copy protection". The only honest sentence in the quote was earlier, where he said, "Some titles could now be played on more than one software player." Yes, THAT is what your evil scheme is trying to prevent. (Not that I will ever buy HD DVDs until I can actually play them whenever/wherever I want.)

    As long as "playback protection" is working, you can't actually "buy" an HD DVD. You can only rent the privilege of playing it under conditions specified by the publisher. Whatever happened to laws against false advertising?

  • by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:46AM (#18989389) Homepage Journal
    I think it was called the Manhattan project. At the end of the movie the scientist asks "What are you going to do? Make them all disappear?"
    Simple fact is that it is out. It is a number. You forbid them from positing it in hex then they will octal, decimal, or binary. They will just invert it or flip the first two bytes so it is no longer the same number. I have a suggestion from now one when we post any HD keys we will just add 42 to each byte. That way we are encrypting it and any attempt to subtract 42 to prove that it is a key is a violation of the DMCA.
    It is impossible to prevent the copying of audio or video if people can see it.
    It is also rubs people the wrong way to try and control what they do with something they own. Yes if I BUY a DVD I own the DVD. Unless you start making me sign a contract I consider it no different than buying a piece of wood. If I want to watch it on my Ipod I will. If I want to rip it and put it on my server so I can watch it on my notebook I will.
    If I sell it then yea you can sue me.
    Go away RIAA and MPAA. You are boring us now. You will become irrelevant. Dear music companies I am going to write my congressman and tell them I don't want them to support you suing innocent people and getting government help for what should be civil court actions. I will also point out that you have a history of supporting drug use, profanity, and violence. Helping you is hurting the children.

    Game over. The music industry can be such a jucy Judas Goat.

  • by julie-h (530222) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:50AM (#18989445) Homepage
    Dear helpdesk,
    I am trying to ping my server at
    09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0. However,
    it seems like the address is in the unallocated space.
    Perhaps there's a typo somewhere?

    AACS LA:
    That's the Processing key. You are not allowed to publish it.

    Hacker:
    No sir. That's a IPv6 address. Surely you won't deny me to have links on my website? =)
  • The problem with barring publication of an encryption key, without more, is that it really is impossible--and I don't mean in a "the internet will route around censorship" fashion.

    One of the following series of hex values, according to the AACS, cannot be published by anyone besides them:

    09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BF
    09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0
    09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C1

    Trying to bar one of them from publication will necessarily reveal what it is. As Wikipedia is discovering [wikipedia.org], you have to be able to describe what you're not allowed to publish in sufficient detail in order to effectively prevent its publication.

    With other forms of intellectual property, the problem is avoided in various ways: in order to obtain a patent, the description itself becomes public domain. In copyright, the description is bounded by the creative content of that which you create. Trademarks are delimited by "confusion in the marketplace," and trade secrets are delimited by that which is actually kept secret.

    The DMCA purports to create a fifth type of intellectual property, not limited in time, that would bar distribution of information (rather than just physical devices), but has no boundaries on the AACS's theory of what constitutes a "part" of an circumvention device. The boundary becomes "whatever the AACS moves to protect as a part of a circumvention device." But in order to enforce that right, we all have to know what we're not allowed to distribute.

    So maybe the AACS, in order to avoid the paradox, can seek to protect a *range* of values. The scenario just gets even more absurd.

    No. The answer is really that the key, without more, cannot be afforded protection as "part" of a circumvention device. It has to be a accompanied by something more, at the very least a description of how it can be used to circumvent. Otherwise it's just a string of text.

    And that's where the DMCA falls apart, as people with an interest in circumventing can always break apart the information to such a degree to avoid any one part being classified as a "part."

    It's a tough problem, and it should be brought to a court to evaluate. The court in Remierdes had an easy time, because the circumvention device was whole. Fair use will have to be read into the DMCA at some point when it comes to these alleged partial circumvention devices.
  • by JamesP (688957) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:56AM (#18989523)
    continue to enjoy content protected by AACS

    reads like

    "continue to enjoy having a sword through your lung"
  • by mengu (452383) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:56AM (#18989525)
    https://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=114476 [spreadshirt.com]I want a t-shirt....

  • by kimvette (919543) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:57AM (#18989543) Homepage Journal
    You cannot copyright a number. Good luck with that wild goose chase!
  • by OldeTimeGeek (725417) on Friday May 04, 2007 @11:58AM (#18989565)
    Completely aside from the question of whether the new key, the old key or any other key assists me in "enjoying my protected content", your response covers seems to cover only software-driven players.

    What about hardware-only players?

    Assuming that the old key was imbedded in the the player firmware, and that the existing crop of HD-DVD/BluRay players are as locked down as their DVD brethren, how do you plan to "update" standalone players to work with newly-released content? A recall?

  • by lullabud (679893) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:22PM (#18989937) Homepage

    The AACS website tells consumers how they can continue to enjoy content protected by AACS by refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.
    Mom: My new dvd player isn't working anymore.
    Me: You probably need to refresh the AACS encryption keys.
    Mom: *blinks* ...what?
    Me: Your encryption keys need to be refreshed in order for you to play protected content.
    Mom: I don't have encryption keys or protected content, whatever those are, I just have this movie that won't play.
    Me: Right... in order for your movie to play you need to refresh the encryption keys that unlock the protected content on the disc.
    Mom: I never had to do that before.
    Me: No, no you didn't.
    Mom: So how do I do that?
    Me: I'm not really sure... I heard the assholes that made this all so hard in the first place have instructions on how to fix this mess on their website. I don't know if that applies to your model of HD DVD player though.
    Mom: So if it doesn't, then what?
    Me: Then you'll have to get the owners manual for your HD DVD player out and look through it.
    Mom: Why does this have to be so difficult? I just want to watch my movie...

    Or something like that. Then she'd start crying because she's easily frustrated by technology when it doesn't work. My parents have called me from half-way across the country because they didn't know what button to press on the remote to get sound out of the TV. There's no way they'll be able to "refresh their AACS encryption keys" if it's not automatically done for them. It's not like there's a "Refresh AACS encryption keys" button on the remote that I can tell them to press...

    DRM = media content + frustrating, crippling, broken security
  • by giafly (926567) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:30PM (#18990039)

    AACS has confirmed that an additional key (called a "processing key") has been published on public websites without authorization. This is a variation of the previously reported attack [aacsla.com]
    "Attack"? (They use this word repeatedly.) What planet are these guys on that re-publishing a number which is already in the public domain counts as an attack? I guess this means journalists are terrorists and the noble AACS are the moral equivalent of American troops.

    The AACS Founding members [aacsla.com] IBM, INTEL, MICROSOFT, PANASONIC, SONY, TOSHIBA, WALT DISNEY and WARNER BROS should be ashamed.
  • Oh noes! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:33PM (#18990087) Homepage
    I hope they don't "take action" against the digital painting I did, which is featured on the front page of my website and incorporates the key. I also hope they don't "take action" against the HDDVD song I wrote here: http://www.myspace.com/stevepordon [myspace.com] (I made an arp synth line by converting to binary and using C1 for zeros and C2 for ones). Both of these things are, naturally, original works of art and are clearly protected by the first amendment, DMCA or not.

    Fuck you, AACS, and fuck you, MPAA.

    Ironically, I wouldn't be so eager to kick the MPAA in the balls if they hadn't claimed under perjury that I was hosting DeCSS about a year after I voluntarily removed it from my site. Oops!
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:33PM (#18990095)
    Now, it may sound as something bad when they start revoking keys. Bah. My hacked key doesn't work anymore.

    Kids, the mafiaa revoking keys is a good thing in the fight against DRM. Find more keys and publish them, so they revoke them! The more the better!

    What happens when a key gets revoked? Some player stops working. Actually, a whole batch of players stop working. And thus, Joe Shmoe Average might get a clue. It might not matter to him that DRM exists ("Duh, I buy my movies anyway"). It might not matter to him that DRM restricts him ("Duh, I don't copy them anyway"). It might not matter to him that it takes away his ability to actually play that content on other media ("Duh, I only use it in that DVD player anyway, not the computer").

    But it does matter to him when that new blockbuster doesn't work in his DVD player anymore.

    It does matter to him when his DVD is "broken" and he has to get a new one or has to get his fixed. It is a hassle. He might not know how to update his player. He might have to get a friend to do it. He will get angry 'cause why the heck doesn't it "work" anymore the way it used to?

    Maybe, just maybe, it's a wakeup call for Joe Average. And maybe he'll stop buying crap that suddenly stops working.
  • we need MORE mirrors (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:35PM (#18990115)
    He said tracking down everyone who had published the keys was a "resource intensive exercise". A search on Google shows almost 700,000 pages have published the key.


    only 700k sites?

    come on guys, get CRACKIN'.

    if you want to really make their jobs harder, embed that number EVERYWHERE. keep their minions searching for this for YEARS.

    afterall, they have nothing better (truely) to do with their time ;)

  • by JBv (25001) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:40PM (#18990231) Journal
    I hope they publish the new keys. I don't want to post some random number and find myself in court because of it.
  • by Guppy06 (410832) on Friday May 04, 2007 @12:49PM (#18990419)
    "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."

    Yeah, we can "discuss copy protection" as much as we want so long as the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Act still stand, hm?

    It's funny how everybody agrees that speech should be free so long as that speech is completely impotent. It's the speech that empowers, empassions, that enables legitimate users to do with their purchased media what they will that suddenly gets declared "unprotected."

    "We respect free speech."

    This from the same industry that wants to ban cell phone usage from movie theaters not because they annoy the rest of the audience, but because they don't want to let people warn others just how bad a particular movie is?
  • by rbarreira (836272) on Friday May 04, 2007 @01:45PM (#18991505) Homepage
    I would never say what the AACS key is... I just say what it is NOT (see sig).
  • Hey *AA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Friday May 04, 2007 @01:56PM (#18991765) Homepage Journal
    Whenever you get done suing the owners of that over half million pages on the Internet with your number in it, I have some shit I'd like to see you try to put back in the dog.

    How about while we wait for them to get back to me on that we start a little political activism to start bringing consumer rights back to consumers in our various countries? Writing your representative is OK but if you really want to get their attention you need to be wielding a block of about 200,000 voters. Hop to it!

  • This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The Internet's response to censorship is very much stronger than that... the Internet is built on protocols that are designed to avoid information loss and enable communication no matter what. It's got an abhorance of any kind of censorship... no matter how valuable and useful that censorship might be... baked into its genes, and that is one of the things that's made it so successful. Even if you tried to replace it, it can and will outcompete any closed environment that doesn't have that attribute.

    So it's not a free speech issue, it's a "you can't win this race" issue. They're not so much *wrong* to try and fight, they're simply foolish and doomed.

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

Working...