Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DVD-Audio's CPPM Circumvented

Posted by timothy on Wed Jul 06, 2005 01:19 PM
from the everything-that-rises-must-converge dept.
Bodysurf writes "After DVD-Video's CSS encryption was broken in 1999, the music industry chose a much more secure copy-protection method for DVD-Audio called Copy Protection for PreRecorded Media (CPPM). This protection scheme has remained publicly uncracked, but it was circumvented recently, providing the ability to save the unencrypted digital audio data. CDFreaks has the details."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Approaching.sanity (889047) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:20PM (#12996109) Homepage
    We deserve our free use.

    And we will take it by any and all means.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:23PM (#12996147)
      That is right! Even if it means we have to kill every single one of you mother....

      Oh, wait, all we did was hack their encryption. Nevermind....
    • by garcia (6573) * on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:26PM (#12996183) Homepage
      We deserve our free use. And we will take it by any and all means.

      That should read: We deserve our fair use and we will take it back by any and all means.
        • by garcia (6573) * on Wednesday July 06 2005, @03:27PM (#12997370) Homepage
          You're obviously trolling but I'll answer anyway...

          "free use" is not the same as "fair use" thus my suggested change...

          "And we will take it by any and all means" is hostile and makes it sound like we started this mess. The way I suggested it be rewritten shows that the media conglomorates are using their power (via their deep pockets) to steal it from us and we are going to take it back.

          I fail to see how you couldn't understand that in the first place.
          • by Arcane_Rhino (769339) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @08:54PM (#12999601)

            You are being somewhat selective in your civic values.

            I do not think so. As someone who worked as a Customs Inspector for almost a decade and seized many many hardware and software components under the DMCA, I have a keen understanding of the intention and use of the DMCA. It was implemented with the intention of curbing the flow of violative software and the hardware that enabled use of illegal software. It also enabled businesses to better control their marketing districts.

            Preventing consumers from fair use activities was never part of the stated reason for the legislation nor were we ever instructed during our briefings to look for articles that would prevent consumers from manipulating legitimate (legally obtained and distributed) software and hardware.

            My background stated, I will also assert that I have no problem putting copyright violators in jail or with the seizure of illegally produced and distributed works. I am not advocating any type of free-for-all. I believe people should be fairly compensated for their efforts.

            However,
            since my time as an Inspector, I have observe many businesses try to warp the usage of the DMCA to their own ends. And not just the usual targets of /. dislike: My favorite was the court decision that third-party garage door openers are NOT a violation of the DMCA because Congress never intended the DMCA to limit consumer options. Good ruling but this is why I have become cynical about the current usage of the DMCA. It is no longer being applied to the "bad guys" but instead is being increasingly used by corporations to lock consumers out of their rights and choices.

            The manipulation of the DMCA in effort to extort more money out of the consumer or monopolistically control the consumer is unacceptable and unethical.

            I stand by my previous statement.

    • by jdray (645332) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:27PM (#12996190) Homepage Journal
      I'm starting to wonder why anyone even bothers anymore. I'm not sure I agree that "we" (the world?) deserves free use of media content, but I think fair use would be ... fair.
          • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Wednesday July 06 2005, @05:17PM (#12998386) Journal
            The thing is...these copy protection schemes frustrate fair use badly, but don't really affect piracy. Consider this: most people pirating music online are quite happy with 128kbit MP3 files. They will also likely be happy with an analogue recording from the line-out of a DVD-A encoded at 128kbit/s. People who want to pirate music will go to the effort of re-recording the music.

            However, someone who just wants to have the convenience of hearing their music regardless of what computer they are using, or perhaps be able to listen to it on the hi-fi upstairs, and when they are working, in the computer room upstairs without having to fish out the disc are frustrated. They aren't stealing, they aren't doing anything morally wrong. The pirates will still pirate regardless of what measures are put in place, but people just wanting to hear their music anywhere will just find it annoying (and probably won't buy DVD-A discs, I certainly won't be buying any).

            The day all music is DRMed such that it can't be trivially cracked is the day I stop buying music. I'm not interested in pirating it, after all I've bought three albums of Magnatune this week and it's trivial to listen to the entire albums for free at Magnatune if you are a cheapskate. Part of the reason I'm willing to buy from them is that they do NOT drm the music, so I can put it on my PowerBook, or put it on my Linux workstation, or on my NFS server and just pick it up from anywhere in the house. Part of the reason I'm willing to buy music from iTunes is that JHymn exists and it's trivial to strip off the DRM so I can put the music on my server and listen to it anywhere.
            • by shmlco (594907) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @02:51PM (#12996985) Homepage
              I'm not required to deal with the RIAA or the artists they "represent".

              That's actually the best response anyone can make. As long as corporations perceive that people are stealing from them, they're going to defend their property with everything they have.

              Let people turn away to legal alternatives and new models, however, and they have no alternatives. Then they either change or die.

              Otherwise, the arms race will continue...

                  • by russotto (537200) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @04:11PM (#12997829) Journal
                    Scenario 3) Someone neither buys nor downloads a new record. Result: Artist doesn't get the royalty.

                    Scenario 4) Someone buys the record. Record company engages in creative accounting. Result: Artist doesn't get the royalty.

                    Seems no matter what the scenario, the result is the same. So either the result mustn't be all that's important, or every action is equally bad.
            • by Woody77 (118089) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @05:34PM (#12998535)
              It's the sample rate, moreso to me than the bits per sample. 44.1KHz's nyqust freq (22.05Khz) is close enough into the range of human hearing that artifacting can easily occur. You need VERY good filtering on A/D inputs to have sounds above say 18KHz still present, and the filter level be inaudible at 22Khz (greather than 60dB of attenuation in about a 1/4 octave, so 240dB of attentuation per octave. That's not a simple filter).

              By upping the sample rate to 96Khz, the nyquist frequency is so high (48Khz), that the filter requirements aren't nearly so high, and that any artificats that do creep in do so at frequencies well beyond our hearing.

              Even on modest gear, it makes a difference.

              And by modest, I'm putting the system price at say $2000 (receiver, dvd player, speakers).

              Granted, the D/A stage doesn't need these expensive filters that the recording stage does, but it gives the recorders a lot more lattitude to make GOOD recordings. But mass-market CDs sound like crap. The compress (dynamic compression) the hell out of the audio. A well done recording with a bit of dynamic range sounds so much better than most pop recordings do.

              16 bits gets you about 96dB of dynamic range possible. 24 bits gets you 145dB of range. Again, the 16 bit version is on the edge of hearable. The 24 bit version isn't. But 96dB is definitely not bad for most systems.

              But that's where the dynamic compression comes in, as most CDs I hear have very little dynamic range, and they push it out far enough close to the max volume that the disc can record to cover up any noise in the playback system at low signal levels.

              CD-Audio is adequate, but not capable of really replacing high quality analog. DVD-Audio's rates are (the audiophiles mostly agree that the data-rate is higher than they can distingusih, although they'll probably complain about warmth/veiled highs, etc, their perogative, I guess).

              Most modern recordings are aimed at playback on low-grade consumer hardware, both home/mobile. The noise floor in mobile audio is enough that very dynamic recordings tend to become half unintelligible, and half earsplitting. When the same CD, in a quiet room in a house, is wonderful (drums have massive impact, but quite passages are, well, quiet). Unfortunately, this is performed at the recording studio, instead of being performed in the car stereo (compressors can be cheaply implemented in the DSP that's dealing with all the rest of the sound-shaping that low-end gear does).

              So, unless the recordings really try to take advantage of the format, we'll have the audio equivalent of ball-park hotdogs served on china with silver and crystal.
    • by redheaded_stepchild (629363) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:34PM (#12996259)
      I think I'd rather wait for them to figure it out. It's not like I can't find plenty of other *gasp* decent artists to listen to without RIAA's hands in it.

      I know it gets thrown around in here a lot, but if you really wanted to piss them off and make them think about what they are doing, STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP. But more than that, don't download it either. Embargo them on all fronts. Watch them adapt or die. Too bad I'll never see this happen, what with the majority of my country (and apparently the world) being led around by the short and danglies by the RIAA. Like bands don't exist unless they have massive media hype, a video on MTV, and a shamelessly promoted 'world tour'.

      Makes me want to start my own music distribution just to show it can be done without the RIAA.
      • by TechnoGrl (322690) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @02:21PM (#12996706)
        >Makes me want to start my own music
        >distribution just to show it can be done
        >without the RIAA.

        It's called http://cdbaby.com/ [cdbaby.com]

        Enjoy !

      • by Rick.C (626083) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @02:51PM (#12996993)
        Makes me want to start my own music distribution just to show it can be done without the RIAA.

        The RIAA would be at your door within hours:

        "Say, dat's a nice group you got dere. It'd be a shame if somethin' happened to it...

        "We got dis RIAA contract we'd like you to sign... umm, sign right here. Yeah, it's a real luxury havin' a drummer with two good arms, you know... real luxury..."

      • by Armchair Dissident (557503) * on Wednesday July 06 2005, @02:53PM (#12997005) Homepage
        Like bands don't exist unless they have massive media hype, a video on MTV, and a shamelessly promoted 'world tour'.

        'The Buggles' said it best:

        "Video killed the radio star."

        It's hard to find good music these days by listening to the radio, because they're just playing the tracks that look good on television. Flashy women or six-packed men appeal to the audience that the MTV or HMV bosses can make money from; but they can't play well, and they can't sing well. Hell, even Robbie Williams is a second rate singer, both as part of "Take That" and as a solo singer.

        "You can't see tits on the radio", but that won't stop people buying Kylie Minogue, or whoever is the latest fashion in pop, because that's what it is: Music is fashion. Gucci, Niki, et al make a fortune selling tat, but they make money because they're "fashionable".

        French Connection get away with selling - in the UK - t-shirts saying "FCUK - you" to 10 year old kids, because it's fashionable.

        No one cares about music, no one even cares what ten year old kids have plastered to their chests, so long as it's fashionable.

        How do you stop it being fashionable? That is the question. A few thousand people not buying the 'Crazy Frog' single won't make one iota of difference so long as it remains fashionable. Stop the RIAA, and the BPA's records, and their stars being fashionable, and perhaps you have a chance.

        But how do you do that?
  • by Xunker (6905) * on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:23PM (#12996136) Homepage Journal
    What was that saying?

    "To view it, we have to decrypt them. If we can decrypt them, we can rip them."

    The only "secure" media format is a CD laminated between two plates of steel.
  • by KennyP (724304) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:23PM (#12996145)
    "For every lock there is a key"

    Gotta love fair use!

    Visualize Whirled P.'s
  • by Sierpinski (266120) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:24PM (#12996149)
    I bet in another 5 years, they'll come out with some ultra-new technology that is REALLY crackproof.

    Its like Tide... its new and improved? You mean there are people STILL working on Tide? (Yeah I know, Seinfeld!)
  • Learn a lesson? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by balster neb (645686) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:24PM (#12996162)
    Region coding on DVDs has caused enough headaches for people. The idea of having DVD audio disks that don't allow ripping to your computer is idiotic.

    CSS for DVDs didn't stop ripped DVD movies being downloaded by millions. Why does the recording industry think that some new encryption scheme will stop music pirates? All such encryption does is make the lives of legitimate users hard.
  • by Chas (5144) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:25PM (#12996178) Homepage Journal
    Anyhoo, this is good news.

    Now I can rip this stuff off to 64K MP3, then convert it over to Real, and finally through to it's final form as a DRM'ed WMA. ;)
    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:56PM (#12996456)
      That's what always cracked me up about the RIAA's parinoia over DVD-A. They burdened it with protections, set it so you can't get the full signal over a digital connection, etc. Why? Internet copying. Of course it seems the majority of Internet copying is 128k or less MP3s, often reencoded form another compressed format and/or recorded from an analogue line in.

      The people who trade that kind of stuff are not going to bother sending DVD Audio around. I mean it is on the order of 50MB per MINUTE compressed.

      The kind of people who have the money for a system that you can appreciate the extra detail on aren't going to squabble much about buying the discs.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:26PM (#12996185)
    CDfreaks has nothing to do with this release. The guys from RareWares are the ones taking risks to bring these tools to the community.

    http://www.rarewares.org/ [rarewares.org]
  • MIRROR / CACHE (Score:4, Informative)

    by AyeRoxor! (471669) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:31PM (#12996226) Homepage Journal
    Good old coral cache [nyud.net]
  • by milktoastman (572643) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:31PM (#12996232)
    I know this fight against the Man is so very romantic, but the companies can opt out of this arms race in which the hackers have the advantage. The more and more this encryption breaking is done, the industry will spend less and less money on developing new encryption schemes, and instead spend more and more on buying Senators and Representatives to pass draconian measures to prevent you from legally trying (thinking about how) to break the schemes.
  • Software page (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:34PM (#12996265)
    Link to software [rarewares.org]

    "DVD Audio Tools", second from bottom.
  • It's a start... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MynockGuano (164259) <{hyperactiveChip ... {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:35PM (#12996269)
    So, rather than try to compromise the DVD-Audio's encryption itself, someone has succeeded in making a patch that uses WinDVD to perform the decryption and playback, but instead pipes the decrypted audio output to the hard drive instead of the sound card.

    While certainly useful for WinDVD users who aren't able to do this natively (guessing that Windows can't do this redirection natively, hence the news story), this is really "circumvention" at its most basic level. Well, almost...one step up from sticking a tape recorder next to your speakers. Not quite the "fair use" that will "break open" the DVD-Audio market that many posters will no doubt clamor over, and nowhere near a true solution to the problem.

    And to those familiar with this patch: Is the output even in a standard format capable of more than two channels?
  • by angle_slam (623817) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:39PM (#12996313)
    I was always under the impression that the reason DVD-Audio was developed was *NOT* to repalce CD, but to create a higher quality version marketed towards audiophiles and HT enthusiasts with 5.1.

    But the reputation of the format here on /. is that it was created because they (the RIAA) wanted to prevent ripping. So which is it?

    The problem with the "prevent ripping" choice is that, AFAIK, there are no releases on DVD-A that isn't also available on CD.

    • So which is it?

      Both. It just depends on who you are.

      The CD format is hopelessly unprotected, but it's also got a huge installed base. If you want people to change you're going to have to convince them that it's an upgrade: higher bit rate, better sepration, liner notes and titles. Then they can slip in what they really want: copy protection. That's the primary goal; the other features are the spoonful of sugar to make the bitter pill go down.

      So both properties (features and copy protection) are the "
  • DVD-What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dema (103780) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:40PM (#12996328) Homepage
    I imagine the only reason it took so long is because no one gives a damn about DVD-Audio (: The last DVD-Audio disc I actually saw was the test one that came with my previous DVD player.
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:47PM (#12996377) Journal
    Plain and simple, the format allows the companies to disable your machine. Not only are they trying to control the music that you buy, but now they are wanting to control your machine.

    Funny thing is, that kids today can control the industry as they are the main buyers of the music.
  • FINALLY! (Score:5, Funny)

    by halo1982 (679554) * on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:47PM (#12996379) Homepage Journal
    As one of the 3 people in the world who actually own DVD-Audio discs I am very excited about this. Thankfully I was able to get the story and programs before the server went up in flames. I'm alredy ripping my Nine Inch Nails With Teeth DualDisc and it seems to be working quite well. I also had to rip the VIDEO_TS folder after using DVDADecrypter to get WinDVD to read the files when I loaded PPCMRipper. Now it's decoding, and I can't seem to get it to get the multichannel audio. Also, its cutting off the first few seconds of the first track on the disc, but if you hit the back button it starts reencoding the first track. Maybe I could just use a normal dvd audio ripper for this part...
  • by WoodstockJeff (568111) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:50PM (#12996405) Homepage
    A search of Amazon shows only 36 hits for "dvd-audio" in the music section, and several of those are actually SACD, not DVD-Audio. Wow. Think of the losses! It could run in the tens of thousands of Yen!
  • by RancidMilk (872628) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:55PM (#12996446)
    " scheme has remain publicly uncracked,"
    "Me fail English? Thats unpossible" --Ralph Wiggums
  • by PipianJ (574459) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @02:08PM (#12996579)
    Here's why:

    As cited in the article, this only compromised WinDVD. CPPM, like CSS, has player keys that are specific to the player hardware/software being used. This did not actually reclaim the player key from WinDVD, and even if it did, the player key can be deactivated in future releases, so that future DVD-Audio DVDs can still play. Hence, for true cracking, all of the player keys need to be discovered.

    Furthermore, if only WinDVD is compromised, it will send a signal to content companies to support such formats as SACD, as the format's design naturally prevents playback (and hence any sort of ripping) on computers entirely (as the technology has not been licensed).
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @03:47PM (#12997591)
    If this format allows revocation of keys for compromised hardware the next time you play an updated disc after your player, than mischief can certain abound.

    1: Company A cracks Company B's more successful player and distributes said crack over Usenet.
    2: Company B's keys are revoked, rendering their players useless.
    3: PROFIT!

    A 3-steps to Profit is a short pipeline indeed.

    • by Jeffrey Baker (6191) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:24PM (#12996157)
      Probably nobody uses DVD-Audio. The effort spent cracking the copy protection will be proportional to the popularity of the medium. When the DVD Audio section at your local record store is as large as the CD section, we may see some more time being spent on such things.
    • by rokzy (687636) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:25PM (#12996167)
      > I'm a little surprised--why did it take so long for someone to do this?

      because it wasn't until last week that someone actually bought a DVD-Audio disk
    • I'm a little surprised--why did it take so long for someone to do this?

      Because so few people care about DVD Audio? Most people's ears (and rooms) aren't good enough for 24/96 audio. My interest in high-end audio disc formats ends with DTS, which was a real clever hack in how it used a standard CDDA audio data stream.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:24PM (#12996158)
      DVD-Audio's CPPM can be got around with a WinDVD patch
      Posted by Seán Byrne on 06 July 2005 - 09:50 - Source: Rarewares

      When DVD-Video's encryption had been broken about 6 years back, the next generation of the Audio CD, DVD-Audio had been delayed for several months. It was originally to use the CSS2 encryption scheme, but the breaking of CSS meant the music industry no longer wanted anything to do with CSS in the new upcoming DVD-Audio format at the time. As a result, DVD-Audio took on Content Protection for Pre-recorded Media (CPPM), a much more advanced copy-protection system, which includes Key Blocks and watermarking and allows revocation (for compromised devices).

      It was not long ago that DVD-Audio playback software came to the PC. For example Creative's SoundBlaster Audigy 2 comes with a DVD-Audio as well as WinDVD's DVD-Audio add-on. So, rather than try to compromise the DVD-Audio's encryption itself, someone has succeeded in making a patch that uses WinDVD to perform the decryption and playback, but instead pipes the decrypted audio output to the hard drive instead of the sound card. The patch which includes several tools requires WinDVD 5, 6 or 7 to work.

      Several tools to work with DVD-Audio (read: ripping)
      They require WinDVD 5, 6 or 7 installed, as they don't do the decryption themselves, and instead patch WinDVD to output the decrypted stream to disk instead of the sound card.
      The tools are:

      * DVD-A ripper: Intended to decrypt CPPM protected AOB and VOB files on DVD-Audio discs.
      * PPCM ripper: Intended to capture Packed PCM (MLP) stream (stereo or multichannel) to .WAV files.
      * DVD-A Explorer: Intended to peep&grab on DVD-Audio tracks (PCM and Packed PCM).

      This tool is available at Rarewares here.

      While InterVideo is likely to update its software to block the use of this patch, it appears that DVD-Audio's CPPM has been compromised at least in DVD-Audio discs up until this time or until the keys used in the current versions of WinDVD that this tool works on are revoked in upcoming DVD-Audio disc releases. However, this would also mean that WinDVD users would be forced to update their software to play future DVD-Audio discs.
      • by naich (781425) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:43PM (#12996349) Homepage
        So, rather than try to compromise the DVD-Audio's encryption itself, someone has succeeded in making a patch that uses WinDVD to perform the decryption and playback, but instead pipes the decrypted audio output to the hard drive instead of the sound card.
        It goes back to the old adage; if you can hear it you can copy it. DRM is ultimately doomed to failure. The money spent on trying to implement a doomed technology would be better spent on setting up a syetem were it's not needed.
    • by mpe (36238) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @01:47PM (#12996382)
      Now the copyright cartel will probably just kill the format, and try again with stronger encryption.

      The problem isn't so much the strength of the encryption. It's more that they are trying to use encryption to do something encryption isn't very good at doing.

      This, of course, is not meant by me to imply that any form of mass-consumer DRM is at all uncrackable. They're all doomed in my view.

      Hence they are often combined with legislation to attempt to outlaw cryptoanalysis.
    • I doubt it will be perceptible, but I think this will have if anything a positive effect on the market. Who buys DVD-Audio? My guess is mostly audiophiles, and mostly people with tons of their own CDs ripped to their PC. Once you rip stuff to your PC, you will realize how much a format that doesn't let you do that sucks. So to a large portion of the market, DVD-Audio discs just got a bunch more useful.

      I'm not saying the effect will be huge, or even noticeable. For one, as mentioned, the industry can r

    • by angle_slam (623817) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @02:26PM (#12996747)
      So yeah, it's just a waste of money.

      That's a silly thing to say. You have a program that will let you record sounds as they come out of the sound card. So what? It's not in DVD-A format (which, in case you didn't know, is a high resolution format, much higher than CD.). Plus, your recording is in real-time, which makes it inconvenient for users to do. One reason MP3 encoding has caught on is because it takes 10 minutes to rip and encode a CD. I doubt it would be as popular if everything was recorded in real-time.

    • by SpecBear (769433) on Wednesday July 06 2005, @03:30PM (#12997405)
      The post doesn't promote piracy. While it's easy to see how this tool could be used for piracy, and it's likely it will be used for piracy, all it does is allow the user to make an electronic copy of media that's already in his physical possession. Remember, if you don't already own a CPPM-protected disk, then this utility is useless.

      The purpose of CPPM (and just about every other DRM system) isn't to control piracy. As far as the pirates are concerned, most DRM systems are rendered irrelevant before the first protected media is ever produced. I can go online right now and download a DRM-free version of "Revenge of the Sith," but I couldn't acquire a protected version even if I wanted to. So when the DVD is released and it's "protected" by CSS, who are the studios trying to protect it from?

      CPPM is similar. Connect to a P2P network and search for "DVDAudio." This stuff is already out there. If I want to get it without paying for it, I can download it right now, and this WinDVD patch is of no use to me whatsoever. If I'm a pirate, I don't give a shit. But if I'm an honest consumer and pay for my music in DVD-Audio format, then I have audio content that I can't play on my iPod. This is what this tool is useful for.

      DRM doesn't control the pirate, it controls the honest consumer.

      I feel like I make the same post every time there's a /. story on DRM. But I'll keep repeating it as long as there are people wiling to parrot the industry crap about DRM being used to prevent piracy. Either that, or the mods start flagging me as "Redundant."