PDA

View Full Version : Don't memorise this number...



Zilla
April 30th, 2007, 10:18
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Or they'll try to sue your brain! (http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=3218) :borg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System

smcd
April 30th, 2007, 10:42
So you post it here and hope to get emutalk liable for infringing material? Funny? Yes. Nice and/or well thought out? Not really ;)

Zilla
April 30th, 2007, 12:44
It does point out though the stupidity of the DMCA, since anyone with basic math skills could take that number and represent it in a myriad of other ways, binary for example:

0x00001001
0x11111001
0x00010001
0x00000010
0x10011101
0x01110100
0x11100011
0x01011011
0x11011000
0x01000001
0x01010110
0x11000101
0x01100011
How do you copyright basic maths? ;)

Jakob
April 30th, 2007, 23:48
Whether or not the dmca is ridiculously overreaching is a valid topic of conversation, however, AACS key's are not. If you could all refrain from posting such material in the future, it would be appreciated.

EmuFan
May 2nd, 2007, 08:44
Join Date: Jan 1970..............................
........................................ ..............
........................................ ..............
...............WTF?? WHAT THE F*CK? Are you a ghost or something? Lol

Jaz
May 2nd, 2007, 09:21
Join Date: Jan 1970..............................
........................................ ..............
........................................ ..............
...............WTF?? WHAT THE F*CK? Are you a ghost or something? Lol

Ghost/Admin hacking bastard -- same thing. :)

ScottJC
May 2nd, 2007, 10:05
January 1970 is the lowest unixtimestamp (also known as CTime) that can be used thats why it is as such =)

JKKDARK
May 2nd, 2007, 15:22
there was internet in 1970

BlueFalcon7
May 2nd, 2007, 21:36
Whether or not the dmca is ridiculously overreaching is a valid topic of conversation, however, AACS key's are not. If you could all refrain from posting such material in the future, it would be appreciated.

That says a lot coming from a Canadian :P

But in all seriousness, This is living proof that no matter what somebody does to protect something, it will be cracked! They should seriously stop trying. It wastes my money for businesses to hire guys to make these stupid algorithms.

Jakob
May 3rd, 2007, 00:23
I just find it amazing that large companies seem to think that throwing large sums of money around will defeat simple logic(anything that can be read, can be copied).

Cyberman
May 3rd, 2007, 01:31
Should really be the subject of this. :D
Recently business patents have 'suffered' a huge blow lets hope other stupid ideas do as well. People want to protect things save they don't understand that anything that they think up can be copied. It's not a matter of IF it's when and if it's even desireable.

Getting rid of the junk patent problems in the UK and US will be the start of different patent litigation. Namely the expunging of redundant patents like that of an incandesent lamp.

Cyb

smcd
May 4th, 2007, 19:40
update: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6623331.stm

BlueFalcon7
May 4th, 2007, 20:37
Hes contradicting himself! Hes saying that he will take legal action. That shows that its been broken. He later sais that it isn't cracked. If you say so...

This whole DRM is BS. Seriously, Its not like theres plagiarism involved.

Toasty
May 4th, 2007, 21:51
Remember back when they had that crazy freedom of speech thing? Guess now you're only free to speak if someone else hasn't already spoken what you want to speak.

smcd
May 5th, 2007, 12:48
Please remember that "freedom of speech" is not absolute. (in the U.S.) It seems to be further and further restricted anymore, but that's another issue.

Toasty
May 5th, 2007, 21:29
Still, it's ironic that I'm free to recite the lyrics of my favorite song, but if I even mention the number that governs my access to them, then I'm a pirate. It seems like protecting the actual content has taken a backseat to protecting the flawed system that protects the content.

smcd
May 6th, 2007, 01:18
Toasty: certainly. You're allowed to make an archival copy for personal use, yet copy prevention methods (safedisc, securom, CSS, AACS, etc) do not allow for this... we've become a society run by corporations and not people