Talk:Advanced Access Content System

Is it necessary to defeat the copy protection in order to copy the media?

I keep hearing from Linux and OSS folks that CSS is not needed to make a raw duplicate of a DVD disk, and therefore the industry claims that "DeCSS causes piracy" are fallacious. Of course the argument omits the side-effect that being able to decrypt a video allows the video to be posted online in file sharing networks in decrypted form, thus greatly contributing to piracy. My question is: is decryption necessary in AACS in order to make a sector-level copy of a disk? If not, then this article is misleading; in particular, the section "Attempts at defeating AACS copy protection" should be renamed, as it would be trivially easy to copy a disk (given the right hardware), and decrypting is a different game altogether (i.e. AACS would have little to do with copying) - Connelly 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply: DVD's and HD-DVD are designed to a standard whereby there is an area on pressed discs that cannot be burnt on a writable disc. So a bit copy will be incomplete and will not play. So although you can copy a disk, the copy will not play, because the volume key (which goes in that special section) is missing.

Other reply: Yes, you can copy a HD-DVD or BluRay disc bit-for-bit -- after all, it's a physical thing, so it can be copied physically. (Asian pirate companies did this for years before DeCSS.) However, if you want to distribute it in some other form than a plastic disc (usually including transcoding to DivX or whatnot), decryption will almost always be needed. -80.202.213.115 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: ."the argument omits the side-effect that being able to decrypt a video allows the video to be posted online in file sharing networks in decrypted form". The entire encrypted content could also be posted online in encrypted form, and still be copied and played by any DVD player. Decryption tools (whether licensed players, unlicensed players or otherwise) have no specific connection with file sharing.

Reply: The above is partially incorrect. Copying an AACS disk bit for bit won't be able to play back. When you copy it, it won't copy the Volume ID, which is necessary for playback. The Volume ID is hidden on the disk, and requires special communication with the physical drive. So you can't just dd the disk to an iso file. There are two ways to copy a Blu Ray or HD DVD disk: copy the Volume ID along with it (dunno if you can do this with consumer hardware), or decrypt the disk. So the only feasible way is to decrypt it. F.synatra 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: If I remember correctly, CSS is made to prevent amateur level copying using mass market devices such as DVD+/-R burners. In industrially pressed DVD-ROMs the keys come in a sector of the disk, this sector called Control Data Zone is etched out in a mass market DVD+/-R and non-writable. See here. People having an industrial press, read said Asian organized pirates, can still copy the disks fine. Industrial press machines are AFAIK heavily regulated, purchasers being registered, and the press machines add their serial number to the disks they press. Supposedly this means they are easy to track down, but as usual, I guess there are ways around it. Quasarstrider 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I guess that it is theoretically possilbe to build equipment that would produce and exact replica of every single piece of data on the disk, if you know what I mean- sometihng that woudl press the restricted bits. So in theory, you could do it without breaking the protection, but the equipment for this would probably be so expensive you'd be better off buying the disk. Another way would perhaps be a program that can paly the disk, then analyse every single menu available to it and what the screen shows, then work out what the data on it must be, then produce it. I reckon that there will lawyas be some way aorund most protection- if a DVD player can play it on the screen, then at sme stage, someone will work out how to cpature it.

DeAACS

should someone put in the article that jon lech johanssen is so prepared to crack AACS, as he originally did with DeCSS, that he bought the deaacs.com domain name? 65.32.180.177 09:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did - mskadu

AACS

Is there any particular reason the industry choose a protection format which it appears everyone who understand about content protection seem to think one of the worst formats chosen? Was it price/royalties? Simplicity? They don't really care about protection?

Or is it not that AACS was one of the worst possible content protection systems but that the content protection idea itself is extremely flawed? I would have thought it was the later but they way the article is written at the moment IMHO it suggests AACS itself is one of the worst choices for a content protection system Nil Einne 02:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: robust (as far as is possible) copy protection on movies would involve the use of separate hardware only capable of playing and displaying special movies, and having no other use. That type of approach is not commercially viable and leads to fiascos like the laser disk. Once you have discs that play in stand-alone players, but also have compatible drives and recorders for pc's, and cater for unprotected movies as well (eg. for home movies or where the producer wants people to be able to copy) you have a foundation on which proper working drm cannot be built.

DVD jon

The statement that Jon Lech Johansen cracked CSS requires attribution. He was certainly involved in the release of the DeCSS code, but to state he was wholey responsible should not be made without a reference to a source.

Cracked already?

According to Engadget and Doom9 forums its cracked already and a program has surfaced over the internet. It requires some sort of key or hash and the program gets to work by copying its contents to disk News here: http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/27/aacs-drm-cracked-by-backuphddvd-tool/ TREX6662k5 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not cracked by any sense of the word. A crack would mean that you can decrypt the movie without keys, all this tool lets you do is decode a movie *if you have the key*. The key part of that is, *you need a the key*, and nobody has released a guide on retrieving the keys. OverlordQ 07:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not a definate crack, but certainly something to start with. If you read over his personal notes, the keys are actually loaded into memory on the PC when the disc is inserted. I don't know if that block of memory is encrypted or not, but it would seem they aren't given how fast this crack came up. Therefore, rather then having certain software or players effected by the dreaded "key revoke" feature, the recording company would actually have to revoke the movie, which isn't possible once its released. Nobody should be surprised by this event, we all knew as soon as it [AACS] entered the PC world that it was only a matter of time until it was cracked. I'd be running for one of those non-extradition countries right about now if I were muslix64 though. Ghostalker 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the AACS keys are encrypted in memory or not. If they are encrypted, they are encrypted with another key that's also kept in memory; and at one point, to actually use the key, it has to be temporarily decrypted. This is the inherent limitation of DRM systems; they can be ridden with obfuscations, but with enough time, they will be reverse engineered and broken — you can't expect something to remain secret if you provide the [potential] attacker with the cryptographic system, the encrypted data and the key to decrypt it. :) However, as OverlordQ pointed out, this is not a "crack", but just a known limitation of the system. -- intgr 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why they're working on that TPM/TCPA/Palladium/etc. stuff. To lock the memory storing the keys so that only the program which "owns" that memory can read it. Of course, that does nothing to protect the copy of the key stored in the program on disk. Even if the disk were locked, there's always packet sniffing of a download or putting the install CD into a TPM-free machine. --Ssokolow 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that illegal what he did.. if i cracked (or whatever he did) something i wouldn't publisize it to slashdot,digg,and others like he did.. i would wait until HD And blue-ray and whatever else have matured and most videos are already out, then i would release the crack and tear a new hole in these industry crooks, seems like releasing it when these formats are not heavly used yet was sort of a mistake.. but i'm glad someone did it ATLEAST! ~ 75.15.252.19

Thats the problem with the law (directed at this post above me, since they didn't sing their comment). The DMCA prohibits circumvention of copyright methods (like CSS, Macrovision, DRM, etc) but according to Fair Use laws (the same kind that allow Wikipedia to run), it is perfectly legal for you to make a copy for backup purposes. So really, it depends on the use of this program. VCRs faced this problem when they came out years ago (see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ). Of course, the same applies for DVD's and yet LightningUK got sued into collapse by the RIAA also. It's really up to the recording industry whats legal and whats not anymore. I suspect that depsite its fair use abilites, the RIAA and MPAA will use the DMCA card and have this kid sent to a prison on some god forsaken island. I'm all for them protecting their assets, but when it infringes on my rights as a consumer, theres a problem. - Ghostalker

Contrary to popular belief, people also happen to live live outside the U.S., and despite what your government might want you to believe, the U.S. laws don't have any effect outside the country. Many countries don't have DMCA-equivalent laws and some even explicitly permit reverse engineering for compatibility purposes. So it really depends on where the person lives. -- intgr 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking like that is going to generate a flame war in here intgr. The international factor was not taken into consideration because in America the recording industries are notorious for arresting little 9-yr old girls, grandmothers... and a few weeks back issued a subpoena to some WW2 veteran who has been dead for 6 months (and the recording company stands by their claim he was a pirate, and it wasn't a case of mistaken identity). So the reason we're using American laws is because your laws are better written and easier to understand. We're not ignorant to the rest of the world, but our country has been purchased by certain industries, so we're concerned with our home front first, rather then others. - Ghostalker

Actually the DMCA is pretty far reaching via the WTO and such. So to say US laws have little effect outside the US (when referring to the DMCA) is pretty misleading and in some cases flat-out false. - 81.178.71.235 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok sure it isnt completely cracked since it does require decryption but a HD-DVD title is AFAIK going to have the same volume key. Distributing this and say the contents of a HD-DVD does almost break the purpose of AACS (They could blacklist those volume keys and at the same time blacklist thousands of HD-DVD titles but thats not pratical) TREX6662k5 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As at 14th January 2007, title keys for nearly 40 movies have been released onto the net, and at least one movie is available for download from a bit torrent. The keys have probably been published in a place where the DMCA does not apply. Now the keys are out, the genie is out of the bottle on those movies - and indeed any others that have already been manufactured. Revoking title keys means that new masters will have to be made for all other titles - at tens of thousands of dollars per title. The fun has only just begun.

Moved Stuff

Masakazu Honda @ ITMedia reports about the final review version of the AACS contents management system BluRay Region Coding Announced - Japan & US Same Region Code

---

Question asked by 207.148.211.18 (talk · contribs) that i moved from the main article:

Is there a WikiPedia page for "BD+" dynamic encryption scheme? I couldn't find one other than Blu-ray_Disc#Digital_Rights_Management

You may like to read about this http://gear.ign.com/articles/691/691408p1.html Restrictions on older HDTV for BluRay and HD-DVD by AACS

Yes, there's an article titled "BD+". :) -- intgr 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood's take on this

I may not be looking at the right sources, but I haven't heard a responce from hollywood, aka microsoft, disney, yadda yadda.. My guess is that they will take legal action, change liscence agreements or try to form some aliances with outsiders, I have doubt they will just drop the ball and let Fair use and freedom reign for the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.129.96 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Reply: the original revelation was of a decrypting program which can decrypt a hd movie - provided it is fed with the decrypted title key for that movie. In fact, there is nothing amazing about that. The whole basis of the aacs system is that the methods etc are public information, and that the security itself relies on the secrecy of the keys. Otherwise, no-one would be able to develop software to work with the system. So at that stage there wasn't anything to comment about. The revelation that keys had been decrypted and published occurred on Saturday 13th January. There will be no comment until people are back at work on Monday, and the proverbial starts flying around. But even then, it has to be verified etc. It looks like all movies released to date on HD-DVD can be cracked like this. Also, where there are movies as yet unreleased, but where masters or the actual disks have been made, difficult and potentially expensive decisions will have to be made about revoking player keys. Revocation of player keys is by way on information carried on new disks. If title keys keep leaking out from an ongoing succession of different wheezes, revoking the keys could develop into an expensive saga that causes havoc with the manufacturing and distribution of disks.

The other problem with this is that because the software itself supposedly does not infringe the DCMA, that can be hosted anywhere, and if keys are discovered, they can be posted all over the net on forums, and it is almost impossible to get them removed.

The other point is controversial. What if someone uses drm to remove rights that someone has. That is an issue that needs debating - and legislating about. For example, the EEC has prohibited the use of drm to prevent people from refilling laser printer toner cartridges.(82.29.215.250 13:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Article outdated?

"However, Muslix64 claims to have found title keys in main memory while playing HD-DVD disks using a software player, and that finding them is not difficult. [1]Details of how to do this have not been revealed.

On January 2, 2007 "muslix64" published a new version of his/her program, with volume key support.[5]"

I've read on several news sites now (including digg) that people other than Muslix64 have found title keys in memory

• Arnezami seems to have done the same thing, but better. Read the Outside liks. Crakkpot 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional References

Here are some news articles that can be added to the article concerning the defeat of AACS:

• Interview with Muslix64
• AACS's Response
• Another article on the response
• Reference for when pirated movies were released

Hopefully those references will make this a better article. Xuanwu 06:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Backwards Compatibility

I think it should be mentioned in the article, how players can decode older films. To make what I mean clearer. Take film A and film B. Then take Player X and Player Y. Film A is older than B, and player X is older than Y. Then suppose, player Y is made after film A is published. It can decrypt film B, because film B has a key included for Player Y, but how does it decrypt film A? Does it use Player X's key? I think this might be in the article, but its not very clear. Could someone clarify? - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: It isn't as simple as that. Keys are not just selected at random. Also, the key to decrypt a disk is itself encrypted and placed on the disk. The player decrypts the key from the disk, and then uses the result to decrypt the disk with. The security of the system is in keeping the keys secret - not in keeping the system secret. Once someone has a decrypted disk key, they can decrypt that disk (or any other produced from the same master) and convert the movie into something that will play without any drm.

There is a mathematical relationship involved with the keys. Initially, any device key will decrypt any disk key. So the question of backwards compatibility does not arise. If a device is compromised and its key revoked, then new keys generated for disks made from then on will be created in such a way as they can be decrypted by any player key - except those which have been revoked. The device then needs to be updated and granted a new key.

There are mechanisms (eg sequence keys) whereby a copy of a movie can be scrutinised, and the identity of the player that decrypted it be determined. From that, the idea is that the devivce key can be revoked. However, that assumes that the hack is in the player itself. Recent developments (separate from the Muslix exploit) suggest that people are copying movies by cracking the data after it has left the player and is on its way to the graphics card - even though that is supposedly not possible. (82.29.215.250 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Merge from Arnezami

Please merge any relevant content from Arnezami per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnezami. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 09:07Z

The Arnezami section effectively repeats the fact that he used a USB method, perhaps this can be re-written? 143.52.5.182 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now merged these paragraphs Gryphon5 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether to publish the compromised Processing key or not

While I personally find the efforts to uncompromise the key to be rather laughable, I think that having the key in the article doesn't really fit the encyclopedic style. IMHO, from Wikipedia's perspective the important/interesting thing is that the key was compromised. Not the exact bits and bytes of the key. But it's not a very big deal to me. — Ksero 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to show the key as an illustration of one of the issues surrounding AACS. By showing the reader the key, he can ascertain if the attempts at censoring the number were unlawful or not, made sense or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FairuseAnonymous (talk • contribs) 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Should important people's names be removed from articles too? How about math formulas? What about the name "Harry Potter" isn't that copyrighted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

If someone drove a car around the world, I wouldn't necessarily write down its license plate in the wikipedia entry. Also, I don't think the key is copy-righted. It's just allegedly protected under the DMCA. But I'm not a lawyer. — Ksero 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But now the key itself is very notable, esp. due to the problems on Digg. It's published on millions of blogs now, too, see WIRED and Slashdot, etc, search Google News for more references. At what point is Wikipedia deliberately censoring material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Allow me some leverage while I illustrate the point here: There is a simple perl script and cipher with instructions in circulation in the p2p networks (I put it there) which will, when run, decode into the key in question when given the string "Wikipedia". This makes the string part of a "copy protection circumventing" device which is illegal under the DMCA. Therefore I hereby give you notice that you remove all mention of the string "Wikipedia" from Wikipedia. Thank you for your co-operation. --Miikka Raninen 01:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the key, should be noted. "Text removed" has quickly spread around the Internet as a form of rebellion. There are now well over 300,000 results when a Google search for said key is done. Also, a look at any technology news website will find that the key has been placed there as well. Digg.com, right now, is a massive clusterfuck of this key being spammed. The Pirate Bay has said key on its main page. YTMND's front page has it now, and even the epidemic Wikipedia is facing with this key further contributes to its notability. Xizer 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the DMCA might be an absurd law, but please see WP:NOT#SOAP. Also, is this discussion thread primarily about the article or the DMCA? — Ksero 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He is merely pointing out that the two main counter arguments for including the key in the article, the legal aspect and the merit of the issue, are diminishing as time goes by. He might sound 'Soapy' but he has a point relevant to this thread. And even if the key itself is left out of the article, these events warrant at least a few new paragraphs to the 'Publishing of volume keys' section of the article: including the fact that the key is now so widespread throughout the internet that there is no rolling it back, that there have been other sites being pulled by providers and hosts, that there has been widespread self-censoring in popular discussion forums and blogs to keep out the key as well as discussion of the censoring of the key etc. Even if a solid legal argument is provided by official legal advice to Wikipedia not to publish the key, these recent events never-the-less should be covered by the article now. --Miikka Raninen 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's perfectly legal to include, there's no real reason to. This is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article about AACS, not an in-depth technical paper. —tregoweth (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you guys aren't going to allow the key, at least allow SOMETHING about the May 1st 'Event' as it has become a part of internet culture! I mean, look at this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.104.17 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Apologies to Xizer, but I've edited the comment to remove the actual key value. People who want it can find it easily enough without putting the Wikimedia Foundation in jeopardy. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to a good slashdot post that sums up my feelings regarding this. Not completely fault wikipedia but the DMCA is an absolute diabolical law. I'm not sure I trust the wiki that much after seeing no mention of any of these developments on this article, or the Digg article, which are both protected from editing. NOTE TO EDITORS who see something that looks similar to the processing key: This is not the hd-dvd processing key, as the poster stated, so please don't remove it, for that reason. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233031&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18946143

"When I read this slashdot post, the first thing I thought was "I bet there's a wikipedia article on it!" Sure enough, either somebody has posted one and it's been deleted and protected, or the editors went ahead and jumped on it and protected it [wikipedia.org]. (I haven't checked yet, though there are "additional information links. Nor have I check it in other bases.)

Guess I should look into postng this to one of the "anti-censorship on wikipeida" sites.

For what it's worth, this is utter crap, but it shows a severe weakness in copyright law. Anything that can be represented with data, anything at all, can be encoded/encrpyted on anything else, given an arbitrary coding mechanism. For instance, let us create "sabre86's stanard coding scheme": add 1 to any number. After encoding we have Look, it's a different number! I guess it isn't a circumvention. Or is it?

You can extend this logic arbitarily to anything, so that not only can any string represent any other string (and thus be a "copy"), any string can be the key to an encoding scheme, meaning that posting any string is "circumvention" if I see fit to describe my encryption process such that it encrypts/encodes a copyrighted work using that string as a "key."

So all strings are copyrighted because they can derived from other copyrighted strings through an arbitrary encoding scheme and all strings are potentially circumventions of DRM/CRAP because they are both a representation of a known key in a different encoding and the key for some other arbitrary encryption algorithm that "circumvents the copyright protections."

Bullshit

--sabre86"

Funny, even China could succeed in censoring Wikipedia. ¿Is the MPAA the one that will succeed? I say no not.

The same discussion is going on at Talk:HD DVD. John Dalton 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Publishing the key(s) will hit wikipedia with one or more DMCA Section 1201-a/b lawsuits. You will invariably lose, look at the 2600 group precedent. Even fighting it in court would cost you several hundred thousand dollars. Better keep mum.

Not to mention that publishing the key would cause more universities and schools cut off campus access to wikipedia out of fear getting sued themselves. RIAA and MPAA are currently very much focused on academic sector compliance. 82.131.210.162 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Before a lawsuit is pursued in court, a notice must be submitted, after which it's merits must be weighted. This hasn't happened yet. This is a matter for there and then and for WP:OFFICE to deal with. Speculating about legal matters and spewing veiled threats from behind an IP address isn't the most credible form of arguing your case. What is happening now is that a few self-appointed wiki-police have deviced an arbitrary policy to delete any mentioning of the key from related articles or even the massive censorship that is going on all over the internet regarding the spreading of the key. Their two main arguments are 'legal' and the issue of 'merit'. Legal matters are dealt with by WP:OFFICE in an orderly process - speculation about them does not warrant the use of speedy deletion. The issue of merit has gone long past the point of a sensible argument. Digg was just taken down by massive uprising by the users and after trying to fight it the owners have now caved in and publicly stated they won't try to keep the key off their forums any longer regardless of the legal threat. --Miikka Raninen 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Keys have been redacted. Do not readd

who sais so? please sign your comments / threats. People are entitled to add anything they like on this thread if they have a good justification for it. Likewise suchs edits can be reverted or edited by anyone provided they have a better justification for it! Imperatives such as Do not readd are not based on any official policy and should be ignored. --Miikka Raninen 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to be confusing the copyright status of the key (which, as far as I know, is untested by courts in any jurisdiction), and the provisions of the DMCA Section 1201-a/bhttp://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201 which are about the "Circumvention of copyright protection systems". Publication of this key is arguably violating "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.". I think is is reasonable to record/reference the controversy over the availability of the key on digg and in other places; and the fact the key is effectively now public knowledge. As to whether the key should be recorded in the article, I make no statement, either positive or negative. WLD^talk|edits 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My favorite part is that in order to protect the pages named with the key from recreation, it requires publishing the key in the places that specify what's prohibited. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The key should not be in an encyclopedia. A mention of its discovery and a paragraph about the ensuing uproar should suffice. I should also point out that the key is invalid for all titles released starting sometime this month, so the efforts to spread it will be largely in vain. Noclip 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If any of you are annoyed with this act of censorship on the part of Wikipedia then there are many ways to get around the spamblock that has been imposed on this code. You can separate the code using other words or you could incorporate it into your signature or your user page. It is important that Wikipedians fight this censorship imposed by AACS and now by Wikipedia. Wikipedia should now bow to the interests of commercial American organizations - reclaim the Internet! Xanucia 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The key is probable going to be the biggest internet story for several weeks, there should be a page devoted to it to follow the story. Slashdot is willing, wired is willing, digg has got the message but wikipedia has takedown before the notice, doesn't even mention the story here. Charles Esson 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to write about this the event as long as you do so neutrally and cite reliable sources — Wikipedia is a wiki.

However, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an encyclopedia. While Wired, Slashdot, digg etc build communities around geeks, Wikipedia aims to be a neutral source of information for everyone; call it "censorship" if you wish, I don't. -- intgr 06:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It saddens me to see this whole mess of a story not covered at all in this wikipedia entry. A threat of a lawsuit (whether valid/justified or not) seems to be sufficient to stop Wikipedia. Quite sad.

Now, I respectfully disagree with the comment that this is a "general encyclopedia article about AACS, not an in-depth technical paper". I honestly don't think adding a paragraph or two on the details will turn this entry into an "in-depth technical paper". And on that note, who said an article can't have more in-depth stuff? IMHO, sometimes it is good to have more details. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K ideas (talk • contribs).

What "threat of a lawsuit"? Nobody can prohibit us from "covering the story" of the fact that the key was leaked. But Wikipedia is a volunteer-based effort; if you do not want to contribute the information then don't complain that noone else is not doing it.

Including the key itself on Wikipedia is the only legally questionable thing, and probably not appropriate, not to mention unencyclopedic. -- intgr 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for being so slow, the controversy is already covered at HD DVD encryption key controversy. -- intgr 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

{{editprotected}} I've been bold and restructured this article. The results are available at User:Ksero/AACS. Please replace the current article with the new version if you find it worthy. — Ksero 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I'd support switching the version on Ksero's page with the one currently online...and I think sooner would be better than later, because the longer we wait, the more new information is going to be added to the version currently here, and will have to be moved over to the restructured version afterwards. --Kadin2048 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I predict the article will be unprotected once the key posting frenzy passes. Any major rewrite should wait until then. CMummert · talk 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Add an illustration?

Since AACS uses several layers of encryption and different keys, the article might appear somewhat confusing. An image like [1] might be appropriate, defining some of the nomenclature. I kind of feel like that would be too detailed for an encyclopedic entry, but at the same time it's difficult to explain the significance of stories like [2] without those details. — Ksero 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD encryption key controversy

There should probably be a link to HD DVD encryption key controversy in the article. Also, BBC news article on the entire issue. Could an admin please add

{{main|HD DVD encryption key controversy}}

in an appropriate place in the article? See the request and discussion (part of which is copied here) on the talk page of HD DVD. Thanks WLD^talk|edits 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added that template in the right spot. CMummert · talk 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. WLD^talk|edits 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

Article is now back down to semi, now, thanks to none other than Jimbo Wales. Have at it, folks but please - keep the codespam out :) - Alison ☺ 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-Protecting Digital Content and AACS

I recently found this article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how it relates to AACS. I think we should at least link to that article somewhere. Could we call SPDC the "theoretical foundations of AACS" or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksero (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Object of the article

Surely, the primary objective of the article is to describe aacs. The issue of security breaches is ancillary to the main subject, and if it warrants extensive coverage, then that should be in a separate entry altogether. As regards publishing keys, I would dispute that publication of a key that is part of a genuine player is also a circumvention device component, and if the DMCA says that it is, then you start to extend copyright law to prohibit the dismantling or examination of owned devices, or publishing factual details of what you find inside them. But having said that, I don't see any valid reason to publish such a key here - even if it were to be determined lawful to do so. Minician 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is already covered on AACS encryption key controversy (with a reference to the actual key); there is an essay about posting the key at Wikipedia:Keyspam. Jimmy Wales has stated "Take it slow, see how things are going, don't get weird ideas about either side oppressing you" so I guess we'll see what happens. -- intgr 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that AACS encryption key controversy is now linked to from the article. DES ^(talk) 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There was already a wikilink to AACS encryption key controversy in the "Memory-space snooping attacks"-section. The Hdkeys.com site supposedly contained Volume Keys (specific for each movie). The famously leaked key was a Processing Key (which works for all movies) . Do you find the controversy to be hard to find? Should it be more prominent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksero (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Merge proposal

I propose that we merge Volume Identifier into this article. I think Volume Identifier is a bit too short to stand on its own (or should we start articles on Processing Key, Device Key, and all the other cryptographic keys used by the AACS? — Ksero 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no opposition, I went ahead and did the merger, though after looking into it I didn't find much content to move.

There was one sentence in the Volume ID article that I was a bit uncertain about:

The Volume ID is then combined with the Media Key to produce the Volume Unique Key.

It doesn't convey any useful information unless the terms Media Key and Volume Unique Key are defined in another section. Therefore, I didn't include it in the merged article — Ksero 12:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Current article

The talk surrounding the hd dvd controversy died as soon as it started. Because of the now non-issue, I have removed

from the article. Feel free to revert if you feel it appropriate.--Sludge 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New intro to th tech

For all those interested in perhaps expanding the technical section of the article a bit I would like to point at this forum thread: [3] This is a great introduction to the technology for those who have less experience with the subject. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

merging Managed Copy?

I've been looking at the Managed Copy article, and I'm leaning towards merging it into the relevant section here, leaving Managed Copy as a redirect. Anyone against? — Ksero 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)