jeffyeh

有些事情久了,沒再去動它,就會漸漸忘了,幾年前曾在美國念語言學校,離開前的最後一篇Research Paper, 將它放在這,讓自己永遠記得,過去也曾經有過.

Disadvantages of DVD Protection

Yeh, Cheng-Chieh

Intensive English Language Institute

University of North Texas

July 10, 2002

DVD Protection 2

Disadvantages of DVD Protection

       Since DVD (Digital Versatile Disc or Digital Video Disc) was invented, it has become an important method of storage. DVD can save more data than VCD (Video Compact Disc). When we watch movies, DVD quality is better than VCD quality. DVD can save music, movies, and data. Also, we can use it in DVD player and computer. In fact, because of high technology, some people can use computer to copy data from DVD in order to save money or backup data. Many companies can’t earn much money, so they have developed a new anti-copy method, called CSS (Content Scramble System), is discovered by DoD (Drink or Die) and MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering). Because VCD doesn’t have any anti-copy method, people can copy easily. Today many companies use the new anti-copy method which is called CSS to stop illegal transfer. However, it will give customers some bad effects. Companies shouldn’t develop the new anti-copy method for DVDs because it will increase cost and because it is not user-friendly for customers. Also, it is futile.

The reason why companies should not develop the anti-copy method for DVDs is that anti-copy method will increase cost. If companies want to use CSS to protect their products which are saved in DVD, they need to get CSS license in order to use the anti-copy method. Only a few U.S. or European chip companies, who developed

DVD Protection 3

the DVD standard, have a CSS license to manufacture and sell CSS. Also, they have the master key which can decode CSS. If DVD players don’t have the master key, the DVD players can’t read DVD which has CSS. (Yoshida, 1997, ¶16). Not only is the new anti-copy method a problem for customers, but also it is a problem for manufactures that produce DVD player. Block (2001) said, “DVD title developers who operate legally have to pay royalties to both content owners and DVD technology patent holders. These royalties typically add up to several dollars or more per disc” (¶13). Therefore, customers have to pay more money for the new anti-copy method. “DVD copy protection is more expensive than our retail price on the games. The sales in the DVD-ROM category are also not high enough to justify the time and expense of adding copy protection measures to the releases” (Block, 2001, ¶12). People have been using DVD player for a few years. Because of the new anti-copy method, some older DVD players can’t read the DVD which has CSS. However, many companies don’t care about that because they just want to stop copying so that they can earn more money. One customer suit claims copy protection constitutes an unfair business practice. She could not play or copy the CD on her PC and instead had to provide personal information in order to download encrypted song files (Thorsberg & Spring, 2002, ¶11). As a result, if she wants to

Protection 4

play the CD, she has to buy a new DVD player which has CSS license. In the future, if companies develop a new DVD anti-copy method again, customers will need to buy a new player again.

        The second reason is that if companies develop anti-copy method for customers, customers will need to learn how to use it because it will not be the same as older method. It is not user-friendly. Many customers have had some bad experiences about the anti-copy method. For instance, PC games use a lot of different anti-copy methods, such as password and checking CD. When a game is played, the copy protection technology checks to see if the original CD is in the drive. If the original CD is not in the drive, the game can not be played (Block, 2001, ¶15). Because DVD can save more data than VCD, some companies try to place more games on a single DVD. One company, Greenleaf Technologies, made a new system. The system can save up to 10 games on a single DVD, but the data is scrambled into an unreadable format until a consumer pays to unlock each game at the publisher’s Web site, and then consumer can read and play it (Block, 2001, ¶24). Some music companies try to use a new anti-copy method to protect their products, but they give their customers some problems for using their products. For example, BMG, Sony, and Universal all confirm they’re testing copy protection on several sample and

DVD Protection 5

promotional CDs, but customers didn’t know that. When customers use PC to play music, Windows PCs could not read it (Thorsberg & Spring, 2002, ¶7). SafeAudio’s

protection scheme inserts small distortions that standard CD players filter out. CD-ROM and DVD-ROM drivers can’t block those distortions, so if you use your PC to play, rip, or burn such CDs the music will hiss and pop. Other technologies hide a CD’s table of contents, so your CD-ROM can not read it (Thorsberg & Spring, 2002, ¶9). Therefore, the new anti-copy method will give customers a lot of trouble. Even though customers paid the money for using their products, customers are still like thieves.

        Third, companies should not develop the anti-copy method because it is futile. In fact, because of Internet, people can get information more easily. People can watch movies, listen to music, read news, and get some information from Internet. Also, people can get some passwords that is a key to lock your program from Internet. “… Would do nothing less than encourage misappropriators to post the fruits of their wrongdoing on the Internet as quickly as possible and as widely as possible, thereby destroying a trade secret forever. Such a holding would not be prudent in this age of the Internet” (Cundiff, 2002, ¶8). CSS had protected DVD for a short time before DeCSS was invented. The DeCSS program which can copy an

DVD Protection 6

encrypted DVD file to a hard disk. No anti-copy method can protect all software forever. “A system to protect secrecy does not become unreasonable simply because

a clever thief finds a way to penetrate the security” (Cundiff, 2002, ¶9). Even though companies can develop a new anti-copy method again, people can find a way to penetrate the security again. “When rewritable DVD drives appear, you will be able to copy DVD discs as easily as copying an ordinary floppy disk” (Wang, 2002, ¶11). Therefore, the anti-copy method just gives customers some using problems. It can’t protect anything.

        In conclusion, companies try to develop a new anti-copy method to protect their products, but they still can’t find a perfect anti-copy method. The anti-copy method just increases cost and gives customers some using problems. Moreover, it is futile. I think the only way, which companies can do, is changing customers’ habit. If customers did not want to copy or use illegal products, companies wouldn’t need to develop any anti-copy method. However, if customers wanted to copy or use illegal products, companies could not stop them. Companies will still develop a new anti-copy method, and customers will still find a way to copy. It will be a big challenge for both of them.

DVD Protection 7

References

Block, D. G. (2001, June). Paying for protection. EMedia, 14(6), 58. Retrieved June

24, 2002, from EBSCOhost database.

Cundiff, V. A. (2002, May 13). Protecting sensitive computer codes. New York

Law Journal. Retrieved June 24, 2002, from EBSCOhost database.

Thorsberg, F. & Spring, T. (2002, Jan). New shackles on your CD, video copying.

PC World, 20(1), 20. Retrieved June 24, 2002, from EBSCOhost database.

Wang, W. (2000, March). Cracking DVD. Boardwatch Magazine, 14(3), 134.

Retrieved June 24, 2002, from EBSCOhost database.

Yoshida, J. (1997, May 26). Copy-protect logjam stalls DVD-PC debut. Electronic

Engineering Times, (955), 1. Retrieved June 18, 2000, from EBSCOhost

Database.