Hey guys. First of all, I know that there are mplayer builds that "can" play Blu-Ray discs. However, a friend of mine was asking why there aren't any "commercial" paid players (e.g. PowerDVD, WinDVD, etc.).

Are they scared that the players will be hacked more easily than on Windows to get the AACS key? So they don't get the license for the key? (if so who gives the license). Or do they think no one will buy such a player?

Interesting question I thought, just didn't know the answer. Thanks guys.

DRM.

http://www.h-online.com/open/feature...RM-746607.html

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks man. Here's another one:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-tentacles.ars

In the above article, it says the following:
"There is no way around it; something similar to Microsoft's Protected Media scheme will be required of Mac OS X if Apple is a licensee to AACS. (The same would be true for Linux, except that AACS won't be licensed for Linux desktop use. There's no way to securely implement it since desktop Linux is an open environment, and AACS requires keeping secrets.)

Here's the basic rundown: AACS has "robustness rules" that include strict mandates for the path that video data takes through a software-based system, like a modern PC. These rules require that decrypted video "not be present on any User-Accessible Bus in analog or unencrypted, compressed form," because users could possibly record or redirect that content. Companies like Apple and Microsoft are additionally required to use "encryption, execution of a portion of the implementation in ring zero or supervisor mode (i.e., in kernel mode), and/or embodiment in a secure physical implementation," or any other method that can "effectively" keep encryption keys secret. Furthermore, they are required to use "techniques of obfuscation clearly designed to effectively disguise and hamper attempts to discover the approaches used" to secure the systems. Thus, video content must travel through the system encrypted and must only interact with authorized components over authorized pathways."

So on Linux, you can't "securely implement" something (obfuscated binary without published source code - that may or may not have encrypted elements)? Why is this? Sounds like a limitation. I understand that the "core" of Linux, almost by definition, has to be open source. But, why is this being said of just regular apps. Why can't someone choose to implement a not-open-source binary that has AACS keys embedded within them?