ZDNet UK


Skip to Main Content

ZDNet.co.uk - Winner of Best Business Website 2007
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
  4. Reviews
  5. Prices
  6. Resources
  7. Community
  8. My ZDNet

 

ZDNet UK RSS Feeds


IT Jobs

Security threats Toolkit

Copy protection broken by hitting 'shift'

John Borland CNET News.com

Published: 08 Oct 2003 08:50 BST

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

A Princeton University student has published instructions for disabling the new anti-copying measures being tested on CDs by BMG -- and they're as simple as holding down a computer's shift key.

In a paper published on his Web site this week, Princeton PhD student John Halderman explained how he disabled a new kind of copy-protection technology, distributed as part of a new album by BMG soul artist Anthony Hamilton.

Under normal circumstances, the anti-piracy software is automatically loaded onto a Windows machine whenever the Hamilton album is run in a computer's CD drive, making traditional copying or MP3 ripping impossible. However, simply holding down the Shift key prevents Windows' AutoRun feature from loading the copy-protection software, leaving the music free to copy, Halderman said.

The technique was confirmed by BMG and SunnComm Technologies, the small company that produces the anti-copying technology. Both companies said they had known about it before releasing the CD, and that they still believed the protection would deter most average listeners' copying.

"This is something we were aware of," BMG spokesman Nathaniel Brown said. "Copy management is intended as a speed bump, intended to thwart the casual listener from mass burning and uploading. We made a conscious decision to err on the side of playability and flexibility."

The ease with which Halderman and others have disabled BMG and SunnComm's latest copy-protection techniques illustrates the delicate balance that record labels and technology companies are trying to strike in protecting content without angering listeners.

SunnComm's technology is the most flexible version of CD copy-protection to hit the market yet. It includes "pre-ripped" versions of the songs on the CD itself, each of which can be transferred to a computer, burned to CD several times, or transferred to many kinds of portable devices. These differ from unrestricted MP3 files in that only limited copies can be made, and not every portable music device can play them.

The Anthony Hamilton CD is the first release in this new generation of copy-protected CDs that come preloaded with these "second session" tracks designed for use on a computer, a strategy also being pursued by SunnComm rival Macrovision. Record labels have pushed for these tracks, mostly provided in Microsoft's Windows Media format, to be included on copy-protected CDs in order to ameliorate consumers' concerns about not being able to use their music on computers.

SunnComm chief executive Peter Jacobs said the technology -- which will be improved in future versions -- should still be attractive to record companies. Though simple, the act of holding down the shift key in order to enable copying does let computer users know they're doing something unauthorised, he said. That alone will dissuade many people from making copies, he added.

"This is not an all-or-nothing thing," Jacobs said. "People can break into your house, because there's lots of information out there on how to pick locks. But that knowledge doesn't mean you don't buy a lock."

In order to fully prevent the anti-piracy software from loading, a listener has to hold the shift key down for a long period of time, at exactly the right time, every time they listen to the CD on a computer. Moreover, anyone who doesn't load the software won't get access to the second session tracks, which on future CDs will increasingly include videos and other bonus material, record company insiders say.

For his part, Halderman says the workaround is so simple that it's hard to fix. Nor is he worried about falling afoul of laws that make it illegal to describe how to get around copy-protection measures.

"I hardly think that telling people to push shift constitutes trafficking in a (copy-protection technology) circumvention device," Halderman said. "I'm not very worried."

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly Print with HP

Did you find this article useful?
90 out of 139 people found this useful


Full Talkback thread

1 comment

  1. Unfortunately as many as 97% of UK business doesn’... Nigel A. Smith

Related Jobs

IS Helpdesk Assistant

I would be looking for either a second year student or a 3 / 4th year student which wishes to gain some experience working in an IT department. Job ...

Cisco Engineer - Immediate start

We are seeking a candidate with experience of providing 24x7 support for Cisco networks, working on a shift basis. Rates are 300 per shift ...

Gas Shift Controller Leading Global Oil and Gas Major

Our client is one of the worlds most established and largest integrated oil and gas companies, spanning a number of countries with a huge workforce ...

Sentry Posts Blog

www.globlefashion.com Tiffany wholesal...

www.globlefashion.com Tiffany wholesale, wholesale Tiffany, bvlgari jewelry www.globlefashion.com,Tiffany jewelry,Gucci jewelry,Tiffany&co www.globlefashion.com ,18K GOLD Tiffany... More

5 comments

How many headshots does one chairperso...

We got a strange request last week from the head of PR from Russian security experts Kaspersky. It seems although the company was very happy with the interview we recently carried with... More

Post a comment

Google sponsors open source security p...

Google has announced it is to sponsor oCERT, an open source computer emergency response team. In a blog post on Monday, Google security engineer Will Drewry said that one of the... More

Post a comment

Featured Talkback

On the contrary, if vendors were forced to stand behind their products it should increase innovation. It would force more, and better , testing before hitting the sales floor, resulting in fewer updates and less downtime for the consumer. At present the EULA removes responsibility from the vendor, and moves it to the user, which is a step backward. Make the vendor responsibility for their code.

By: ator1940

Read full story:
RSA: Vendor liability may stifle innovation