Movie decryption key

[sgrizzle]

Number removed from title
There, I said it.

The MPAA can kiss my rear.

The above number the MPAA and RIAA want kept secret because that single number undoes the joke that they call security. As you can tell, it's not much of a secret. It is causing what they call a "Streisand Effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The geek(s) shall inherit the earth.

[T Badd]

ROTFL!!!  You go, man!!  I was just reading about this hex code on Slashdot and Digg this morning.

When are they going to learn that there is absolutely no way to keep a single numeric code secret in this Internet age?

Not that I think that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD are ever going to really make the kind of impact that we saw with CDs or DVDs. Cheap mass storage is becoming too prevelant, and high-speed pipes are common in most homes now. Soon enough, there will be no need to purchase movies/music on any type of physical medium, thus negating the need for either of these new HD format disks.

[cannon_fodder]

Well pirating of art is an interesting affair... we cry its too expensive and they cry its expensive because its pirated.

Artists deserve compensation for their work at fair rates.  At the highest end that rate can seem exuberant to average Americans... but if two people want Ed Norton in their movie and the bidding gets up to $5mil - so be it.  The market speaks.

That said, executives, marketers, and distributors deserve to make money for work they do.  Companies front millions to make and promote movies and records and often take all the risk.  That risk brings us big time pictures like The Matrix, Star Wars, and even Harry Potter as well as enabling bands to reach the mass market.

Andy Warhol hit the nail on the head when he commented that art is inherently commercial.  Anytime you create something that people want its going to be commercial.  How to find the happy medium between commerce and art for the masses is the present difficulty (on which Warhol - the new most expensive artist on average per work, failed).

IMHO, the RIAA will lose its strangle hold unless it conforms to low cost distribution.  At $1 per song it is already worthwhile for most people to buy their music.  At $5 per album it will be even more so.  Or, as some bands have done, changing the model to profit from concerts instead of record sales and give the music away for free.

Movie studios will be needed for the foreseeable future as special effects costs require great skill and expense.  Their model will have to rely more on profits from the box office and merchandising as many people rent and rip or straight pirate off the internet.  However, without capital it remains true, new movies will not be made.

FYI - if you have an Area 2 DVD player you can already get the new Spiderman Movie from China.  Though, in all honesty, I havent pirated movies over the net in years (not worth losing my bar license).

[RLitterell]

I googled this number exactly as written and my telephone immediately began to ring, it was the FBI[]

[sgrizzle]

RIAA (the last remains of old-school mafia) and the MPAA have been ignoring low-cost internet distribution methods for years. They constantly refuse to, or are slow to adapt to, new technologies, spend millions trying to "fight off" attackers and then charge you higher rates to not give you what you want in the first place.

Most new CD's are  almost $20 retail now. They could've embraced online music when they were only $10 in stores and made a smooth transition. I buy a decent amount of music, in both formats, and am somewhat of a DVD addict. Music should've been prevalent online in 2000, not 2005. Movies should be prevalent online now. Faster time to market, more sales volume due to lower retail costs, etc. The MPAA could've buried blockbuster by now.

Sony's last great copyright protection program was defeated with a sharpie. They spent MILLIONS of cd buyer's money. MILLIONS that neither the consumer, nor the artist, gets in their pocket on worthless "protection" that isn't protection at all.

The RIAA and MPAA try to put on that piracy hurts the people who make the works. In fact the record companies, movie companies, RIAA and MPAA have been taking larger and larger cuts themselves. Many bands are going independent and playing small venues and small cd releases and making money hand over fist what they made before. A $20 CD that costs 25 cents probably won't pay the artist a $1.

[Editor]

This isn't Tulsa-related in any way and will be removed if staff feels this post will cause any repurcussions to the Forum or TulsaNow. As of today's news, there do not seem to be any legal proceedings continuing. If they do, this post will be deleted immediately.

[RLitterell]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

RIAA (the last remains of old-school mafia) and the MPAA have been ignoring low-cost internet distribution methods for years. They constantly refuse to, or are slow to adapt to, new technologies, spend millions trying to "fight off" attackers and then charge you higher rates to not give you what you want in the first place.

Most new CD's are  almost $20 retail now. They could've embraced online music when they were only $10 in stores and made a smooth transition. I buy a decent amount of music, in both formats, and am somewhat of a DVD addict. Music should've been prevalent online in 2000, not 2005. Movies should be prevalent online now. Faster time to market, more sales volume due to lower retail costs, etc. The MPAA could've buried blockbuster by now.

Sony's last great copyright protection program was defeated with a sharpie. They spent MILLIONS of cd buyer's money. MILLIONS that neither the consumer, nor the artist, gets in their pocket on worthless "protection" that isn't protection at all.

The RIAA and MPAA try to put on that piracy hurts the people who make the works. In fact the record companies, movie companies, RIAA and MPAA have been taking larger and larger cuts themselves. Many bands are going independent and playing small venues and small cd releases and making money hand over fist what they made before. A $20 CD that costs 25 cents probably won't pay the artist a $1.

No one ever accused me of being smart. I buy an average amount of music on CD and very few movies at all.
What does the code do?

[cannon_fodder]

Editor - I would urge you to remove the Key # and not the thread, if you feel the need.  The liability of a forum is an interest area though, I admit.

[billintulsa]

quote:
Sony's last great copyright protection program was defeated with a sharpie. They spent MILLIONS of cd buyer's money. MILLIONS that neither the consumer, nor the artist, gets in their pocket on worthless "protection" that isn't protection at all.

One simple correction: they didn't spend "MILLIONS of cd buyer's money," they spent their OWN money.  Once they make the sale, they are free to do whatever they wish wish the money they've earned.

[Editor]

Key removed to avoid any legal issues:
Legal perspective on 09f9 number

[mr.jaynes]

Well, what's the bigger crime: pirating a little music and a few movies for your own enjoyment-or running these big entertainment media conglomerates that charge an arm and a leg for the privelege? I think that with the underhanded malfeasances perpetrated by the media companies, a little pirating could be considered downright respectable by comparison.