Disney+ Currently Won't Work On Linux Systems Due To Tightened DRM

[ssokolow]

• the plumber example is not completely wrong, although the "ongoing fees for the water" makes no sense as the plumber does not own that water anyway.
  I guess the answer is that they get away with that because we let them. If someone could muster some force to go and break the Media Mafia everyone would benefit. Because really, most small and midrange artists aren't really benefitting much here, and are also much closer to their userbase and they know oppressive DRM and silly licensing is not cool. It's the big corporations with the big celebs racking the big cash.

To be fair to Rick Falkvinge, I was just using the plumber as a concise example of my own design. His article questioning why one group of entrepreneurs should get special privileges was much better thought out, but not as easy to make that concise.

(He's also done a great article on how the old canard of "But how will artists get paid?" is actually a veiled insult to artists.)

[Naquatis]

DRM is the stuff that adds stupid limitations that affect only people that paid for the media and play by the rules.

Any attempt to remove the DRM is just as wrong as stealing it. You didn't pay for a DRM-less media, you paid for a media with shitty limitations.

Yep, thats totally true! The fact that stripping DRM is that easy will rise the question why they put it into the stream anyway?

[Mystro256]

Even with a fully signed stack does not mean OS is not running in a VM or equal so with man in middle software. There comes a point do you trust the hardware encryption id and that communication to the hardware is encrypted secure enough or not.

Indeed, hence why a strong DRM would rely on keys. The HW has a set of keys, which are used to produced derived keys that the server side can verify against a CA before sending content. It still can be brute forced, but with key rotation, it gets pretty impossible to work back and derive the original HW key. If the HW does get cracked though, the CA can revoke the HW key and usually a FW update is required to change the key.

[Mystro256]

I'm not sure I understand what it does, but it seems it is working with keys https://forum.xda-developers.com/and...vices-t3307241
Latest script thing is here https://github.com/longseespace/netflix_patch

For Android, a crucial library for this process is called liboemcrypto (as removing it causes the system to degrade from L1 max security to L3 minimum security) and it is part of Android's media DRM framework https://developer.android.com/refere.../MediaDrm.html

Looks like someone leaked a key. I'm surprised they haven't revoked it yet. Perhaps google doesn't know, or there's a fatal flaw.

[coats]

Go figure the company that spends millions to extend copyright forever also uses the most offensive amount of DRM.

And that from a company who stole Osamu Tezuka's Kimba the White Lion (among others). Protection only for Disney; they want to be able to steal from everyone else!

[oiaohm]

Indeed, hence why a strong DRM would rely on keys. The HW has a set of keys, which are used to produced derived keys that the server side can verify against a CA before sending content. It still can be brute forced, but with key rotation, it gets pretty impossible to work back and derive the original HW key. If the HW does get cracked though, the CA can revoke the HW key and usually a FW update is required to change the key.

This idea is in fact flawed. HDCP v1 there is documentation how to extract the HW key then once you have extracted HW from 12 devices you can solve out the CA master key of HDCP v1. So HDCP v1 is complete busted as a partly could make a device that every time it starts up makes a new hardware key and self signs as being signed by CA. At this point revoke lists come pointless against HDCPv1. You need a whitelist solution not a blacklist one.

Whitelist one would mean having to run servers to record every device that is make and is acceptable this would cost. The CA method is in fact the cheap out method.

HDCP v2.0 to 2.2 is open to man in middle where something sitting in the middle between real approved hardware and content sender can decode the key. So Blacklist (revoke lists) and Whitelists don't help here. This could be a hardware device or done in software.

So this forces you to HDCP v2.3 or if you hardware is not 2018 and newer forget being able to play anything right? No there is another flaw.

There are Chinese companies that do recycling let say there has been a batch of monitors that the shipping container got dropped at the port and they are broken they savage the HDCP decode chip out of the monitors and place this in a capture device. So you have a capture device that to the OS looks like some brand of monitor including taking firmware updates for that monitor so these of course allow you to capture HDCP v2.3 content.

Yes what these Chinese firms have done in hardware is like those who were push drm said could be done for archive content. Remember they said you could point a video camera at the screen and record the output. The chinese hardware skips the screen and photo capture and lenes. Basically connect a video encode chip for a camera to the output of a valid monitor chip-set so it always has perfect alignment to screen. This is really turn lemons into lemonade and its not going to stop happening.

The reality is Digital Rights Management does not in fact work in the way you as content product would hope.

How Digital Rights Management really works at the moment is the following.
1) Copyright infringement who upload your content on to competing illegalish services have no trouble doing so for less than 100 USD because Digital Rights Management is bugger all hindrance todo this and they make this back with advertisement revenue and other income streams. They are in fact making a profit because of Digital Rights Management so they are going to keep on doing this while its profitable. Being well funded like this means they have the funds to break what ever new method is come up with.

2) You are losing customers to these Copyright infringement people because when customers pay the Digital Rights Management stuff block people from watching content they have paid for. So they get disgruntled and find the copyright infringement sites and end up not paying for your service because the infringement stuff is more dependable.

Lot of ways it would be simpler just to watermark the send out content so you can trace to who you sold content to for providing it illegally and so your customers can always play what they paid for. This would make infrignment sites taken-downs more disruptive than legal acquire content.

Yes the hard reality is Digital Right Manager failures to allow valid paying customer to play the content they have paid for way more frequently than the speed copyright infringement sites get taken down and replaced.

It would be one thing if these content providers were pushing for Digital Rights Management and it worked to reduce copyright infringement but it does not in fact.

Digital Rights Management encourages copyright infringement and encourages not paying content producers because the current methods of Digital Rights Management like it or not don't work right and most likely can never be made work right because there is too much profit to be make breaking them..

At a min content produces should provide a downgrade quality copy for those that do not meet Digital Rights Management to at least reduce the temptation to look else where to attempt to cut off at least some of the income going to Copyright Infringement people.

The only thing HDCP in fact works for is making capturing your screen remotely harder. Reality for Digital Rights Management like HDCP is just smoke and mirrors pretending to offer something while in reality its basically offering nothing.

Yes if the base tech at hardware level of HDCP is screwed does not matter what you do above it like Widevine is also screwed. We really need to start being truthful about this that Digital Rights Management does not work in it current form.

It would be a complete different arguement if when you looked at Digital Rights Management the stuff could work.

[Mystro256]

This idea is in fact flawed. HDCP v1 ...

I wasn't talking about HDCP. I mean I don't really care about HDCP. I'm quite aware of it's flaws and how it pretty much makes all DRM useless in the end.

I was just talking about HWDRM as per widevine/playready, Or more precisely HWDRM between the server and the GPU, opposed to HDCP, which is specifically used as DRM from the GPU to the monitor.

Personally I'm like most people here; I have no love for DRM, but from a technical perspective, it's still interesting.

[oiaohm]

I wasn't talking about HDCP. I mean I don't really care about HDCP. I'm quite aware of it's flaws and how it pretty much makes all DRM useless in the end.

I was just talking about HWDRM as per widevine/playready, Or more precisely HWDRM between the server and the GPU, opposed to HDCP, which is specifically used as DRM from the GPU to the monitor.

Personally I'm like most people here; I have no love for DRM, but from a technical perspective, it's still interesting.

The hardware HWDRM between cpu and gpu of widevine/playready is TEE.

https://github.com/Open-TEE/tee-engine

Good fun can be emulated by those attacking and the software will work as if it really in hardware TEE.

Yes the level 1 TEE of widevine was only broken basically 6 years ago.

The reality is every level is useless and broken. I don't know when we are going to see a digital right management solution that is in fact secure and works if ever because none exist currently.

[CochainComplex]

...I got the impression we will have a new wave of piracy ...prepare and hoist the flags

[oiaohm]

...I got the impression we will have a new wave of piracy ...prepare and hoist the flags

Not at all this is not a new wave this is a old wave of well funded copyright infringement that Disney actions will play into keeping funding and running.

Most cases running websites is not free.

The ones that are profiting big time exists in the Surface Web the stuff you can get at with normal web browser and google. Other than change sites some of the groups behind this Surface Web copyright infrignment are over 20 years old.

Yes it seams like being more restrictive to content makers this will bring them more money when in fact it bring those other groups lots more money.