Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?

"steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:03:15 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:31:20 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
In case anyone is still interested, I just want to confirm
that
the 'BBC
IMP' trial that allows users to download DRM protected BBC
programmes
shown in the last week, can indeed be hacked!

So you admit to being a common criminal then?...

snip

.......actually works with the BBC trial! Pay particular
attention
to

...the Copyrights laws...

[ the rest of your criminal activities snipped ]

What is the difference between that and recording a DTT stream
on a
PC/PVR
or just recording to VHS and keeping if for over a week.

Copyright applies to content regardless of how it is delivered.


I suggest you read up on what the OP is talking about before you
make more
of a twit out of yourself!

iMP and it's DRM protected content allows for a time-shift
(that's why
it's being developed), there is no need or point in 'hacking' the
system,
unless you intend to flout copyright laws.

IMP is only offering BBC shows a week after broadcast. You fail to
state
the difference between removing the DRM and recording off air.

I guess you need to read up on IMP before making a total arse of
yourself


No, I suggest you read and digest what the clause regarding
time-shifting (with due regard to the section about archiving) in the
Copyright Act means. The fact that the programme is time-shifted on
to a VCR, DVD recorder of onto a HHD is irrelevant. Time-shifting is
NOT the same as archiving, you have no lawful right to archive, that
also means that how long one is allowed to keep a time-shifted
recording is time limited (although not period is specified, present
and past case backgrounds would be used to determine a 'reasonable'
time in each case, I suspect).

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:34:00 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:03:15 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:31:20 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
In case anyone is still interested, I just want to confirm
that
the 'BBC
IMP' trial that allows users to download DRM protected BBC
programmes
shown in the last week, can indeed be hacked!

So you admit to being a common criminal then?...

snip

.......actually works with the BBC trial! Pay particular
attention
to

...the Copyrights laws...

[ the rest of your criminal activities snipped ]

What is the difference between that and recording a DTT stream
on a
PC/PVR
or just recording to VHS and keeping if for over a week.

Copyright applies to content regardless of how it is delivered.


I suggest you read up on what the OP is talking about before you
make more
of a twit out of yourself!

iMP and it's DRM protected content allows for a time-shift
(that's why
it's being developed), there is no need or point in 'hacking' the
system,
unless you intend to flout copyright laws.

IMP is only offering BBC shows a week after broadcast. You fail to
state
the difference between removing the DRM and recording off air.

I guess you need to read up on IMP before making a total arse of
yourself


No, I suggest you read and digest what the clause regarding time-shifting
(with due regard to the section about archiving) in the Copyright Act
means. The fact that the programme is time-shifted on to a VCR, DVD
recorder of onto a HHD is irrelevant.

Quite, that was my point - but do I hear goal posts moving?

Time-shifting is NOT the same as
archiving,

Okay, we start by stating the obvious, the only way to have credence.

you have no lawful right to archive,

No one ever claimed otherwise - classic tactic, argue against something
completely different.

that also means that how
long one is allowed to keep a time-shifted recording is time limited
(although not period is specified, present and past case backgrounds would
be used to determine a 'reasonable' time in each case, I suspect).

And were would one find this in the copyright act, left me save you time,
it does not.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

Chapter III

Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

70. "The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast
or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or
listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in
the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."

So, given some facts and please avoid armchair lawyer mode, answer the
original question

"What is the difference between that and recording a DTT stream on a PC/PVR
or just recording to VHS and keeping if for over a week."

As you were under the mistaken belief of a time limit, it is
understandable you got it so wrong, but you should at least take more care
in calling others an ass - it would also help if you actually read the
acts you refer to when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you find
yourself in.

Additionally, how is cracking DRM to enable viewing on a different
platform to the one provided by iMP violate the act - given you feel
knowledgeable of the act, state chapter and section.

In other words, justify *your assertion* that the activity is in anyway
shape or form - illegal.

Peter wrote:
In case anyone is still interested, I just want to confirm that the
'BBC IMP' trial that allows users to download DRM protected BBC
programmes shown in the last week, can indeed be hacked!

For those who don't know, the BBC are trialing a service that allows
participants to book/download BBC TV programmes to their PC. The big
problem with the service is that the programmes (Microsoft wmv files)
are protected by Microsoft's DRM technology and they expire (i.e. they
are unplayable) after 7/8 days after the original broadcast date.

Blimey - I never have these problems with my VCR, PVR, or cassette
recorder!

There's a lesson here somewhere...

The content is available FTA at high quality throughout the UK on
several platforms, recordable on various formats, trivially captured
into a PC, and easily stored for as long as you like (usual consumer
practice, though apparently not legal).

Yet there's a group of people who want to pay for broadband, download
low quality time limited copies of these FTA broadcasts, and spend an
enormous amount of time and effort, risking the stability of their PCs,
in order to hack these sub-VHS quality downloads so that they will play
beyond the time limit.

I know some people enjoy a challenge and like to kick against the
system, but surely this is a totally pointless activity?


Thinking logically, I don't see why it would jeopardise the service -
after all, the content is available anyway. However, that's probably
not how the people involved think, and there may be sound legal or
contractual reasons why they (the BBC) need to implement effective DRM
where available, even though the same content is freely available on
systems where DRM is non existent.

Cheers,
David.

"steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:34:00 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:03:15 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:

snip


No, I suggest you read and digest what the clause regarding
time-shifting
(with due regard to the section about archiving) in the Copyright
Act
means. The fact that the programme is time-shifted on to a VCR,
DVD
recorder of onto a HHD is irrelevant.

Quite, that was my point - but do I hear goal posts moving?

Not at all!


Time-shifting is NOT the same as
archiving,

Okay, we start by stating the obvious, the only way to have
credence.

you have no lawful right to archive,

No one ever claimed otherwise - classic tactic, argue against
something
completely different.

So why the need to hack DRM, unless you intend to archive and not
just watch the download?...


that also means that how
long one is allowed to keep a time-shifted recording is time
limited
(although not period is specified, present and past case
backgrounds would
be used to determine a 'reasonable' time in each case, I
suspect).

And were would one find this in the copyright act, left me save you
time,
it does not.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

Chapter III

Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

70. "The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
broadcast
or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be
viewed or
listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any
copyright in
the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."

So, given some facts and please avoid armchair lawyer mode, answer
the
original question

"What is the difference between that and recording a DTT stream on
a PC/PVR
or just recording to VHS and keeping if for over a week."

As you were under the mistaken belief of a time limit, it is
understandable you got it so wrong, but you should at least take
more care
in calling others an ass - it would also help if you actually read
the
acts you refer to when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you
find
yourself in.

I suggest you read the full Act and stop trying to cherry pick, read
up the section relating to Archiving...


Additionally, how is cracking DRM to enable viewing on a different
platform to the one provided by iMP violate the act - given you
feel
knowledgeable of the act, state chapter and section.


So in other words you are suggesting that it's OK to copy DVD content
onto a HDD (or VHS) ?...

In other words, justify *your assertion* that the activity is in
anyway
shape or form - illegal.


Go back and read the Copyright Act, FFS...

In article , David Taylor says...


You can't just copy them over to linux and play them with mplayer.

Well Knoppix 3.6.x managed to do it nicely and AFAIR MDK10.1 too.

There is also the possibility that there are DRM schemes out there
which _do_ just wrap the raw data in some pointless file that tells
windows media player (or whatever) not to play it more than X times.
That would be a rather ineffective (but cheap) system. Much better
can certainly be done, but nothing will be uncrackable, unless
hardware support (in development) catches on...

Even then it won't with features like my Audigy's "What You hear"
recording facility.


--
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

In article .com,
says...
Peter wrote:
In case anyone is still interested, I just want to confirm that the
'BBC IMP' trial that allows users to download DRM protected BBC
programmes shown in the last week, can indeed be hacked!

For those who don't know, the BBC are trialing a service that allows
participants to book/download BBC TV programmes to their PC. The big
problem with the service is that the programmes (Microsoft wmv files)
are protected by Microsoft's DRM technology and they expire (i.e. they
are unplayable) after 7/8 days after the original broadcast date.

Blimey - I never have these problems with my VCR, PVR, or cassette
recorder!

You did with your VCR when copying commercial tapes unless it was
BETAMAX.

--
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

On 14 Nov 2005 03:17:10 -0800, "
wrote:

Yet there's a group of people who want to pay for broadband, download
low quality.........

Some 'purists' seem to have problems with the quality but to my eye
and ear the quality is indistinguishable from that of Freeview. And it
has the slight advantage that you don't get those annoying 'clicks'
that some people get on Freeview if their reception is not very good.

time limited copies..........

Only time limited for those not using the crack!

of these FTA broadcasts,.......

Well you must have a dammed good Freeview recording set up. Most
people have to remember to 'set the video' and make sure there's a
blank video (or DVD) in the drive. And unless you have multiple
receivers you can't record programmes being broadcast at the same
time. Even TIVO set ups have their limitations.

With the IMP service you simply spend a few minutes telling it what
series of programmes you're interested in and it downloads them
automatically for the run of the series. Then, once a week you strip
the DRM from any programmes you haven't had time to watch.

and spend an
enormous amount of time and effort, in order to hack.......

Once the hack is set up then it only takes a few mouse clicks to strip
the DRM from a programme. And in then next few weeks someone is sure
to put a program together that will automate the procedure.

risking the stability of their PCs,

That's why I suggest using VMWare (or Virtual PC). In fact there is
another reason to use VMWare. The stupid IMP program inserts itself in
your list of 'startup programs' and even of you delete the entry it is
replaced the next time you use IMP. Installing the software on a
VMWare 'virtual machine' puts you back in control.

these sub-VHS quality

The quality is FAR better than a VHS recording from Freeview.

I know some people enjoy a challenge and like to kick against the
system, but surely this is a totally pointless activity?

Well.....maybe.......but it gets my hackles up when organisations like
the BBC try to limit what you can do with media in your personal
possession. If enough people strip the DRM from these programmes then
maybe the BBC will see the pointlessness of it. Mind you, they might
also stop the service but that raises other issues.

Thinking logically, I don't see why it would jeopardise the service -
after all, the content is available anyway. However, that's probably
not how the people involved think, and there may be sound legal or
contractual reasons why they (the BBC) need to implement effective DRM
where available, even though the same content is freely available on
systems where DRM is non existent.

If there are 'sound legal contractual reasons' then the first port of
call should be to review the contracts they sign. Interestingly, they
seem to think that including DRM in the files is sufficient to satisfy
the terms of their contracts. If the DRM can be removed with a few
mouse click then that logic sounds suspect to me.




John
..

Peter wrote:
Thinking logically, I don't see why it would jeopardise the service -
after all, the content is available anyway. However, that's probably
not how the people involved think, and there may be sound legal or
contractual reasons why they (the BBC) need to implement effective DRM
where available, even though the same content is freely available on
systems where DRM is non existent.

If there are 'sound legal contractual reasons' then the first port of
call should be to review the contracts they sign.

mmm. Let's have a think. Let's say I am a Chief Exec of a firm which
makes original material for the BBC to produce. I hold the copyright
for this material that I've made. Do I a) sign a contract which waives
all rights that I have to that copyright, thus losing myself the
economic benefit of the original material that I have produced or b)
sign a contract which makes sensible commercial arrangements about the
copyright of the material which is my lifeblood?

If the concept of basic copyright offends you so much, perhaps you
should create some highly original creative material and then publish
it. Try to make some money if anyone is allowed to reproduce and
publish without any reference to you or licence fee payable.

Interestingly, they
seem to think that including DRM in the files is sufficient to satisfy
the terms of their contracts. If the DRM can be removed with a few
mouse click then that logic sounds suspect to me.



Not sure that your average joe bloggs would consider the VMWare
installation etc a "few mouse click" (sic). Plus the downloading /
installation of pirated copies of WinXP / VM Ware etc does put you on
somewhat "dodgy" legal grounds.

I have some sympathy with your goal of circumventing DRM, given that it
puts a specific time limit on what has previously been considered a
"reasonable" length of time before time-shifted material must be
watched, but anyone who doesn't believe that there is a genuine benefit
to society of a copyright law (and the associated contracts that this
encourages between organisations / individuals) is talking rubbish.

Matt

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:19:34 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:34:00 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

news
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:03:15 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:

snip


No, I suggest you read and digest what the clause regarding
time-shifting
(with due regard to the section about archiving) in the Copyright
Act
means. The fact that the programme is time-shifted on to a VCR,
DVD
recorder of onto a HHD is irrelevant.

Quite, that was my point - but do I hear goal posts moving?

Not at all!

Really, so no need to bring in irrelevancies then

Time-shifting is NOT the same as
archiving,

Okay, we start by stating the obvious, the only way to have
credence.

you have no lawful right to archive,

No one ever claimed otherwise - classic tactic, argue against
something
completely different.

Which I see you use again later in this thread

So why the need to hack DRM, unless you intend to archive and not just
watch the download?...

As, so you are presuming motive when calling someone a criminal - may I
suggest you are into kiddie porn because you have a computer?

that also means that how
long one is allowed to keep a time-shifted recording is time
limited
(although not period is specified, present and past case
backgrounds would
be used to determine a 'reasonable' time in each case, I
suspect).

And were would one find this in the copyright act, left me save you
time,
it does not.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

Chapter III

Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

70. "The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
broadcast
or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be
viewed or
listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any
copyright in
the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."

So, given some facts and please avoid armchair lawyer mode, answer
the
original question

"What is the difference between that and recording a DTT stream on
a PC/PVR
or just recording to VHS and keeping if for over a week."

As you were under the mistaken belief of a time limit, it is
understandable you got it so wrong, but you should at least take
more care
in calling others an ass - it would also help if you actually read
the
acts you refer to when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you
find
yourself in.

I suggest you read the full Act and stop trying to cherry pick, read up
the section relating to Archiving...

Are you some kind of idiot or something. You referred to non-existent
parts of an act you clearly haven't (probably can't) read, we have already
agreed archiving is not permitted, you had made an arse of yourself
suggesting that there is a time limit on when you must view a time-shifted
program and were offered the suggestion that perhaps you ought to read the
act you are making fantasy points about - and now you are back to
archiving - the only thing I agree with you about.

So can you at least accept you were deluded or lying about the time limit
on time-shifting?


Additionally, how is cracking DRM to enable viewing on a different
platform to the one provided by iMP violate the act - given you
feel
knowledgeable of the act, state chapter and section.


So in other words you are suggesting that it's OK to copy DVD content
onto a HDD (or VHS) ?...

Evidence if ever that you have not read the act, DVDs are treated
seperately.

Can you tell me which part of

"The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or
cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or
listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in
the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."

you fail to understand, the words are quite short.

In other words, justify *your assertion* that the activity is in
anyway
shape or form - illegal.



So when I suggest you perhaps would like to state which sections are
being violated before you make a further fool of yourself you go and write

Go back and read the Copyright Act, FFS...

I guess you are saying you

a) Cannot read
b) Want to look like a ****
c) Is just some form of troll/liar unable to support their assertions yet
enjoy making a **** of themselves (okay that is also b).


You were asked which crime was being commited, you were asked to refer to
which section of the copyright act, you failed.

Conor wrote:
In article , Peter says...
I don't want to discuss it because......

1) It bores me rigid

2) I've found from past experience that there is an inverse
correlation between the number of brain cells possessed by people who
are motivated to take the moral high ground in these matters and their
willingness to lecture others. Otherwise discussion on the matter
might be interesting.
[...]
So in other words, you refuse to accept you're a thief.

So, everyone who videotapes a show is a thief to you?
I think you just proved his point about lack of brain cells.

First up, it's desirable to strip those DRM technological
restrictions to allow format conversion, longer timeshifting,
commodity off-line storage and a whole range of other
usually-permitted private uses.

Secondly, it's not theft in the usual sense: the owner is not
deprived of the item. If anything, technological restrictions
are theft of rights from private users by the producer.

It's a scandal that fair dealing can be reduced in this way.
It's high time for a root-and-branch reform of copyright to
reverse the recent increases in power of publishers and to
make the system work in the public interest again.

http://www.freeculture.org.uk/ look like they have suggestions.

There are many other reasons. Now I'm bored too, though.