squiggleslash, now you're being silly. Why is BD+ so much more expensive? BD+ is just a runtime that executes the code it is given. Code can be randomly generated you know. It would be very straightforward to (for example) create multiple BD+ apps that performs a simple mathematical calculation based off a few random bytes of some firmware version. Each batch could use different bytes and perhaps a random computation.
If there was a different BD+ scheme per batch, then SlySoft would be required to purchase discs from EVERY SINGLE BATCH to guarantee that the disc will play. And how do they collect a disc from every batch unless there is something on the label which tells them which batch? And if the computations require a genuine firmware, at what point does SlySoft expose itself to copyright infringement if it needs firmware to produce the answer?
It is quite obvious that BD+ will get more sophisticated and adopt these tactics. There is of course a QA overhead to doing this since players can't just stop working but if the cost of QA less than the loss in sales, it's something studios will do sooner or later, or farm out to certification labs.
BD+ was never claimed to be uncrackable. What it is though, and what SlySoft will ultimately discover is an increasingly expensive system to break. As the number of releases increases, and BD+ usage increases, and BD+ sophistication increases, major holes will appear in AnyDVD's support. They simply won't be able to keep up. At first it might mean waiting a week or two for a crack. Later it might mean waiting months or not getting a title at all. This is the whole point of BD+ - make it expensive and infeasible to crack every disc.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DrXym @ Jun 20th 2008 5:33PM
squiggleslash, now you're being silly. Why is BD+ so much more expensive? BD+ is just a runtime that executes the code it is given. Code can be randomly generated you know. It would be very straightforward to (for example) create multiple BD+ apps that performs a simple mathematical calculation based off a few random bytes of some firmware version. Each batch could use different bytes and perhaps a random computation.
If there was a different BD+ scheme per batch, then SlySoft would be required to purchase discs from EVERY SINGLE BATCH to guarantee that the disc will play. And how do they collect a disc from every batch unless there is something on the label which tells them which batch? And if the computations require a genuine firmware, at what point does SlySoft expose itself to copyright infringement if it needs firmware to produce the answer?
It is quite obvious that BD+ will get more sophisticated and adopt these tactics. There is of course a QA overhead to doing this since players can't just stop working but if the cost of QA less than the loss in sales, it's something studios will do sooner or later, or farm out to certification labs.
BD+ was never claimed to be uncrackable. What it is though, and what SlySoft will ultimately discover is an increasingly expensive system to break. As the number of releases increases, and BD+ usage increases, and BD+ sophistication increases, major holes will appear in AnyDVD's support. They simply won't be able to keep up. At first it might mean waiting a week or two for a crack. Later it might mean waiting months or not getting a title at all. This is the whole point of BD+ - make it expensive and infeasible to crack every disc.
It will happen, mark my words.