Sony software updates breaks movie theater projectors

Post by coder543 » Mon, Jan 01, 2024, 2:08 AM UTC

alexvoda wrote: post #90

coder543 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, then I set the date on my computer to year the 2124. Now the DRM is unlocked! You can't build a "time lock" with just encryption primitives. Even if you could build a time lock with just encryption primitives, we don't know when the copyright will expire until the original author has died, since copyright term is life + 70 years. Someone would have to run a server that specifically chooses to start serving the…

Not at all absurd. Maybe not through crypto but otherwise perfectly achievable. No reason to achieve this within a file. If you really want to, some fancy solution involving blockchains and smart contracts is probably possible but there is no need. Require by law all who desire copyright protection to register the work with a governmental agency and place a copy of the work in escrow at an archive as a condition. The…

Post by thomaslord » Mon, Jan 01, 2024, 2:29 AM UTC

sprocket35 wrote: post #71

saghm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, is that better? Leaving all the devices set to EOL and get bricked or whatever feels pretty wasteful.

The studios set the requirements. A certificate that never expires would never fly with their need to control DRM as tightly as possible. If Sony was still in the business, they would offer a certificate renewal for a small fee like the other manufacturers have done. The root problem is that Sony exited the market and left a lot of cinema owners out to dry with the looming cost of $50,000+ per auditorium for replacem…

Post by stevehawk » Mon, Jan 01, 2024, 2:52 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #54

542458 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 and 2 - this seems incompatible with how 90% of the population uses software, namely they set it and forget it. Having to manually approve and schedule every single update for everything a user touches would be a) a security nightmare, as most things would never get updated ever and b) a UX nightmare, with a million different things asking for updates. 3 - Maintaining a data path forward is tricky enough. Demanding…

It's all an incentive for "don't just churn software, plan well ahead". This also seems to be broadly incompatible with fixing certain security vulnerabilities - would everybody have to maintain TLS 1.1 or plaintext api endpoints for old clients? Or they would forced to produce an update that doesn't do anything other than e.g. upgrade the TLS version --- and has absolutely nothing else.

Post by csdvrx » Mon, Jan 01, 2024, 2:58 AM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #85

csdvrx wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you also think it's fine to shit in other people's wells or for companies to dump their toxic waste in the middle of other companies parking lots as long as you/they haven't signed a contract explicitly agreeing not to? You are using loaded words to 1) imply I would support some questionable actions where you assume intent and 2) refer to negative externalities, but I'll suppose you are not trolling interact in…

>but it's not my liability: you should secure your property, or said differently "your problems aren't my problem" But we're talking about you deliberately not securing or even actively reducing the security of your property in a manner that could reasonably be predicted to lead to harm to other's property, and that harm occuring, through no fault of the harmed party. You're not supposed to store loaded guns unsecure…

Post by stephenhandley » Mon, Jan 01, 2024, 4:27 AM UTC