There’s been a lot of hoo ha over the copy protection system of Windows Vista that is supposed to prevent people from copying protected the next generation DVDs. I’d rather we didn’t get into the merits of this system here.
But my question is, why can’t I set up a Linux partition on my drive and use that to burn these disks? (OK, the fact that I don’t have a HD-DVD player will slow me down, but let’s assuem that I did.)
It seems like this is a very simple work around that makes all of the aggravation associated with Vista poointless. Linux systems are free. I assume that there will be drivers for HD-DVD burners availble fior Linux simply because of various competition laws. So why not just set up a small Linux partition that I only ever use to burn DVDs?
Note: This isn’t a thread about making illegal copies. I don’t even own a HD-DVD burner, nor do I know anyone who does. I don’t want a detialed “how to” on ways to do this.
I am simply wondering iof ths apparently simple work aorund has been overlooked by MS or whether there is something I’ve overlooked.
Microsoft only cares about Microsoft. If you find another way to do in on another partition, MS isn’t going to care. It isn’t their responsiblity to make sure that you don’t. MS just doesn’t want legal problems with their software. They could care less about linux and other partitions, and what it’s capable of.
Well that is DRM (defective by design). Sometimes it is easier an quicker to just download pirated content from the internet than to get “trusted media” to play on “trusted devices”
It is really hard to try allow people to view things in one manor but restrict them from viewing them in another manor. You basically want to trust them and not trust them at the same time.
The problem gets much much harder if you want to allow arbitrary anonymous people to have access to the content as is the case with people buying pre-made DVDs at the local store.
What competitions laws are you speaking of?
Many Pure open source Linux distributions do not allow you to play DVDs without obtaining 3rd party DVD playing software because there are no licensed open source DVD players that can play copy protected DVDs. The DVD copy protection encryption protocol is totally broken and tools of dubious legality allow you to play DVDs on Linux. But most of the tools to do such things are not properly licensed and the use of them have murky legal issues which I feel unqualified to make definitive statements.
Many industrialized countries have laws similar to the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Which make it illegal to bypass the encryption on DVDs and the new HD formats, blu ray of HD DVD.
Ok, I’m sure there’s a whole host of reasons related to their own welfare, copyright laws, and DRM. I don’t really want to debate that either, and it wasn’t my intention.
Not sure what this has to do with OS’s on other partitions and Microsofts responsibility for them. Microsoft shouldn’t be responsible for what other operating systems are capable of on another partition.
As usual, this topic brings out a lot of misinformed, knee-jerk responses. Unfortunately, ParentalAdvisory and gazpacho are providing their emotional responses at the expense of truth.
The DRM systems incorporated into both Blu-ray and HD-DVD would have to be implemented (or cracked, I suppose) on Linux in order to copy the discs. You might remember the furor around the DeCSS crack that permitted unlicensed playing of DVDs on Linux. Simply copying the raw data may well be possible, but actually viewing the movie on Linux won’t be possible without either licensed software, or a workaround.
Various nations including the US and bodies such as the EU and so forth have laws encouraging competition and banning third line forcing. Most of them are quite explicit that Sony, for example, can not sell hardware that will only run on Microsoft’s operating system. Either they have to write their own drivers for Linux or make the necessary information reasonably available to anyone who wishes to write their won.
I knew that. The point is that, while such driver smay have their own DRM inputs, they won’t have the ability to bundle that protection with the hardware monitoring that Vista uses. That makes the whole system much less secure than Vista. It’s just a case of someone writing an open source DVD reader and ultimately a ripper, wheres under Vista if my understanding is correct the hardware itself is monitored to prevent any copying whatsoever fom protected drives.
Of course they do. Obviously that hasn’t stopped anyone much since MS feels the need to add several other layers of security to the Vista system.
As I said, I don;t want to enter this debate here, but it seems indisputable that Miscrosoft has no responsibility for what users are capable of on Windows partitions. They ahve nonetheless addressed this issue despite that lack of responsibility.
Cerowyn, I’m simply pointing out that what one does with another OS on another partition, in which Vista may be on the same disk, is irrelvent to Microsoft and any oversight made by them. In which I doubt any oversight has been made by MS to begin with, but that there’s simply nothing MS can do about it.
And to clarify my points, with a couple of the OP’s points:
Maybe you can (albeit illegally), assuming such technology and/or hacks are available for Linux and any possible HD copying technology.
I’m just wondering what “work around” has been “overlooked” by Microsoft? Your statement to me means that Microsoft should be preventing Linux and potential cracks running on Linux be prevented by Microsoft. By point is that MS isn’t responsible for it. On preview, I see you have acknowledged this in the quote below, but your wording seems funny about bringing up a “debate”. I’m simply acknowleding your original points in your OP, which may be poorly worded, but implys MS responsiblity for other OS partitions and their capability.
----------------- here’s my contention with your posts…
VS.
It implies that MS should be accountable if I’m reading it right.
This is the bit that seems puzzling to me. Most westernised countries have very clear laws against third line forcing, so you can’t legally make a player that will only work on a MS machine. That means that their are going to have to be Linux compatible software for HD-DVD burners as far as I can tell.
Or are you saying that Linux is going to have to incorporate the physical, system monitoring methods of Vista in order to meet the standards of the DRM system?
Nope, I know one perosn who runs Linux, but I am in essence totally ignorant of the system and its history.
So what was the problem in that case? I would have thought that anyone who wants to can legally write a driver for a peice of hardware that they own? Did MS really have a total monopoly on DVD players in PCs? I’m surprised that wasn’t challenged under various third line forcing/anti-trust laws.
It implies nothing of the sort. It states quite explicitely that Microsoft has gone to what are legally unnecessary and extraordinary lengths to stop people copying disks on MS machines. In the process it has generated a lot of bad press for itself and presumably spent a lot of money. MS has no legal or ethical obligation to do this.
Yet despite going to these lengths it would appear that MS has done nothing whatsoever to curb illegal copying. My understanidng is that it will be almost as easy to install a Linux systsem as it is is to install the software needed to copy the CDs. My understanding of the Linux community os that within a couple of months you will probably be able to download a disk image with the Linux system, burning software and necessary drivers all bundled together. So it will at best slow down that 5% of the population who can’t partition a drive/find someone to do it for them.
That is my point, and it has been stated quite explicitely. MS has gone to great lengths to prevent copying. Despite this they seem to have achieved nothing. The never had any ethical or legal reposniblity to do this, so they haven’t fulfilled any repsonsibilities, and if Linux can be used as a simple workaround then they haven’t succeeded in their basic objective of curtailing illegal copies.
This seems like a massive oversight if it really is as simple as installing a Linux system on another partition along with the Linux equivalent of DVD shrink. It;s ratherlike boarding up allthe windows against theives and leaving the doors wide open. This leads me to conclude thta the workaround can’t be as simple as I think.
(I’ll go back and address your earlier points in a moment, but I want to clear up this misunderstanding first.)
Windows, by itself, cannot play DVDs.
You have to install a licensed driver in order to do so, and Microsoft does not provide one.
Similarly, simply running Microsoft Vista does not allow you to view HD-DVD or Blu-ray movies. Vista simply complies with the “trusted” components requirements to be able to run licensed software. There is nothing to prevent a Linux (or BSD, more likely, given the respective licensing restrictions) distribution from having the necessary prerequisites to support a licensed high definition player. Microsoft have simply complied with a standard that permits certification of drivers for their OS.
Ok, I think I understand where you’re coming from.
Microsoft may have been a failure in regards to copying data and prevention. There’s no dispute there. But it cannot be an oversight on Microsofts part in regards to Linux on another partition. Boarding up the windows and opening up the doors doesn’t work here. Look at it like neighbors on the same block. Neighbor A might have gone to extreme lengths to board up the windows and failed to lock the doors. But neighbor A cannot do anything about the security and/or any of the vulnerbilities of neighbor B. Operating systems coexisting are seperate entities on the same block. The failure of one to curb copying, doesn’t mean they also failed if neighbor B on their block also fails in regards to copyright protection.
If “they” in your example is Microsoft, they cannot curb potential copying on a Linux install on the same machine.
ParentalAdvisory is correct, contrary to my own knee-jerk response.
Some of the bad press generated by the trusted platform debate has come from people who imperfectly understand what’s actually going on (and, if you’re relying on the smear campaign of a certain Australian professor, he is willfully ignorant on a lot of points that would shame the most junior of commentators in the field). I suppose in one sense, Microsoft could be open to criticism for not using its market strength to bully the copyright holders into accepting a less restrictive rights management system, but that’s unlikely from a company that makes its money selling IP. They implemented the AACS standards in order to permit third parties to get their drivers certified on their platform.
I gathered that. But I didn’t see any practical diference. Either a device works on Windows/Linux or it doesn;t. Whether the driver itself is third party doesn’t seem to make any difference to the end user. I niether know nor care whether my DVD driver is from windows or Ben-Q, all I know is that I can watch DVDs and is can use DVD Shrink.
OK, so there’s the rub. You’re saying that ATM Linux doesn’t meet DRM standards and so doesn’t have access to the the necessary drivers.
Since we are talking about activity that is already illegal, practially speaking do you expect unauthorised HD-DVD ripping software to appera for Linux, assuming someone beats the actual encryption?
So that is your answer to my quetsion then is it? MS have spent billions and tarnished their image in a totally fruitless attemt to prwvent something they know thay can not curb in any way?
That seems odd. I have to say that I find Cerowyn’s repsonses somewhat more plausible.
Microsofts tarnished image of failing to prevent copying copyrighted data on their own platform doesn’t mean they also fail if it happens that Linux is also able to burn copyrighted data. Nor should they voluntarily come up with, or be mandated to come up with, a solution to do so. Linux is not their software, and Linux on another partition doesn’t belong to Microsoft.
Yes, that’s my answer. Cerowyn basically said the same thing I did here…
As I understand the respective “next gen” systems, an HD-DVD hack is already plausible. Blu-ray supports the concept of a black list that disables suborned manufacturer’s codes. Until the actual AACS security system is hacked, the Blu-ray consortium will be able to produce movies that won’t play on “bad” devices. Any single approach system is, of course, ultimately vulnerable to hacking, so it’s only a matter of time before the AACS DRM is hacked, allowing either high definition format disc to be played.
Of course, by then, Microsoft’s insidious plan to do away with physical media will have come to fruition, and you’ll be downloading all your movies anyway…
There are cracks and workarounds for the DRM on HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs for both Linux and Windows. I should point out that someone who has a legit disc of an HD/Blu-Ray DVD and intends only to watch it on their PC can run afoul of the DRM on their Vista PC because they don’t have 100% DRM compliant hardware. Naturally, because of the Reader’s stance on copyright matters, I can’t provide any links, but the stuff’s out there. IIRC, the discs were on the market for about a month or so before they got cracked.
It is vital to keep in mind YOU CAN COPY WITHOUT DECRYPTING. Thinking you can’t is bizarre and on the level of thinking thieves can’t steal a hard drive because opening a laptop would take too long.
The only thing encryption really does is prevent you from playing the disk. That is why people get so annoyed with DRM: The schemes all prevent people from using what they bought without even slowing down thieves. The guys selling pirated DVDs on eBay or in China don’t give a rat’s ass how the data is encrypted as long as they can suck it from one disk and spit it back out onto thousands of others. Encryption only comes into play when someone like me, who has chosen to not support Microsoft or Apple more than an absolute minimum, wants to watch something he bought from Amazon or Best Buy in the environment of his choice.
In fact, you can get a disk physically shipped to you for free. It doesn’t contain the decryption tools but setting it all up is trivial.
The drivers aren’t the issue. The issue is that it’s illegal to implement the decryption without licensing it from someone and obeying all of their rules. The (American) Linux world isn’t dependent on anyone else for software, but it is hamstrung by the laws restricting “circumvention devices” as defined by the DMCA.
The encryption is already broken. It took eight days. Man, they’re getting slow!
Look at it this way: It’s a bunch of random programmers, many of them in Europe, organized loosely around Internet forums and programming in their free time versus major multinational corporations with the full support of large governments and teams of coders obeying their whim. It isn’t even a fair fight: The companies never stand a chance. Watching it feels like watching Godzilla step on Bambi … over and over and over. Even companies have gotten in on it: Slysoft, operating out of Antigua, sells software that rips HD-DVDs and BluRay disks.
What the cartel is trying to do is theoretically impossible and practically way too difficult: They’re trying to keep secrets without actually keeping anything secret (they have to distribute all of the encryption keys along with the players or nobody would get to play anything) and they have to maintain an absurdly high (military-grade, in fact) level of hardware and software security to prevent a bored geek from cracking it over a long weekend. That means everyone has to maintain the security, especially the el-cheapo Taiwanese factories churning out massive numbers of players for export.
Thanks to all for the responses, esp Derleth and Cerowyn.
So the quetsion then is whether it’s even necessary to have a Linux system. Is it possible for the average mug user to make copies of HD-DVDs under Vista depsite all the security?
