Talk:BD+

message: One thing that isn't very clear from the article is why the BD+ code has to be run.
Does the BD+ code output the key needed to decrypt the movie data? Does the BD+ code actually perform the decryption of the movie?
62.244.190.66 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Parts of the actual content (encrypted with the aacs) have been corrupted during the mastering process. The BD+ code will return the actual content for those parts if it thinks the player is legit. --91.47.124.134 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Output of the BD+ code

message: I'd like to remove the following paragraph from the article:
BD+ has proven effective at re-establishing security for new titles, and forcing adversaries to reinvest resources to break each new version of security code.[8] On 1 December 2008 Slysoft announced it would for the first time begin charging its new customers for updates to AnyDVD HD.[9]
There are three things I don't like about it:
1. I'd say that BD+ has NOT proven effective, since every new version has been cracked within a few days.
2. Whether Slysoft announced how it is charging new customers is completely irrelevant to the topic.
3. The whole paragraph sounds biased and like an ad for BD+
Any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.144.48 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I've removed it. --91.115.18.228 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I restored this paragraph. BD+ clearly is effective at re-establishing security. Twice now there have been periods measured in months during which nobody, not even SlySoft, has been able to break the discs. This contradicts your point (1) above. Check the timelines. As to point (2), it is relevant - if Slysoft didn't have to keep rebreaking BD+ they'd have no reason to move to a subscription model. As to point (3) that is your opinion. To me it reads like two verifiable facts. 77.56.180.32 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I also removed the paragraph about DumpHD. It was misleading, suggesting that it could break BD+. At one time it could however this has not been true for many months. Currently only SlySoft know how to do that, and as of June 09 even they cannot handle the latest generation of BD+ programs.  -- 77.56.180.32 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that it has been "proven effective" is biased and misleading. Where have the creators of BD+/Blu Ray stated that their goal is to "force adversaries to reinvest resources" at cracking BD+? In fact, their stated goal is to secure their copyright, and the DMCA makes it illegal to try and break these kinds of measures. Therefore, what BD+ has "proven effective" at is making people do an illegal activity. My point is that it does not matter how many months it takes to crack each iteration - once it is cracked, every disc up to that point is compromised, and the "adversaries" win. BD+ has been totally ineffective at stopping piracy; it has, in fact, made piracy very profitable as SlySoft can now charge for their software. The statement is totally POV and bogus, I'm rewording it.--DreamsReign (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness

message: Is it true that a BD player can intentionally brick itself if it thinks a disc is a pirate copy? Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricking

message: The article references a forum... any other sources of the verification that BD+ decryption from slysoft actually works?  I have heard from several sources that it doesn't actually decrypt BD+ sucessfully.  Anybody can verify?  152.133.6.197 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification

message: Surely AnyDVD HD 6.4.0.0 cannot decrypt all BluRay discs. The film publishers are constantly updating their protection, så AnyDVD HD has to be updated too. I think the article is a bit misleading about this. For example Slysoft has recently released AnyDVD HD 6.4.7.9. This release adds support for a "new version of the BD+ copy protection". Surely AnyDVD HD cannot decrypt this new version of protection before AnyDVD HD is updated, or? --80.63.213.182 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decryption of BD+ discs 

message: The media files (*.m2ts) have been partly overwritten with random data (5 byte long blocks). It's generally not possible to restore the original state of the media files without the conversion table because these files don't contain enough redundancy. You have to execution the content code and pass all/most of it's tests successfully. There is no way around that (circumvention). Both SlySoft and the Doom9 researchers are emulating licensed players and thereby trick the content code into "thinking" it runs in a safe environment.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.151.22 (talk • contribs) 
:What do you think "circumvented" means? 69.115.150.3 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is hilarious I just have to say it. The first poster described perfectly how the circumvention works but labelled the post "BD+ cannot be circumvented". Just have to laugh. --119.225.64.161 (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the right word would be "emulated" or "tricked". If you write that BD+ can be "circumvented" people may think that SlySoft or Doom9 devs just bypass the BD+ code at all and access directly to the stream, you know that will not work because you need BD+ to repair the movie. It makes sense to me. pascalbrax 84.55.203.252 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point here.  If these products are used to make a copy of a BD+ protected Blu-ray disc, then the resultant disc will not have the BD+ code on it, yet it plays flawlessly.  Thus the BD+ protection has been circumvented. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BD+ cannot be circumvented 

message: "Reverse engineering and emulation of BD+ implementations" basically reads like this:
-[date] BD+ broken
-[date] BD+ updated
-[date] BD+ broken
-[date] BD+ updated
-[date] BD+ broken
and recent broken/updated cycles are not even covered (http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=29820). --78.49.110.163 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So every cycle is not covered.  Your point? 86.182.66.217 (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say we "need" to, and indeed the section should be trimmed of repetitive info. However, I think most readers will find it fascinating to see the cat and mouse game that has been, and continues to be, played out. They should make a movie about it, and then release it on Blu Ray!--119.225.64.161 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to cover every cycle of the cat and mouse game? 

message: The article claims that BD+ can be used to:
 "limit playback of a Blu-Ray disc to the first device in which the disc is played"
So how can that work then?  It would require the player to be able to write to the Blu-ray disk the identity of the machine on which it is being played.  Or it would require the player to somehow communicate with every other player on the planet.  The former is not possible as players do not contain the abililty to write to BD discs and besides, pre-mastered discs are not writeable anyway.  The latter would require Blu-ray players to be universally networked - something which they are not.  86.178.11.185 (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also require each disc to be uniquely identifiable (and therefore not mass-produced). I don't think the claim makes sense. --Mpj (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It would require, like Mpj said, each disc to have an ID. Then, the player would, if possible, connect to the internet and update a database of ID'd discs. I dont think they actually do it. 70.113.223.43 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Play back on first player only 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on BD+. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121142524/http://www.macrovision.com:80/company/newscenter/pressreleases/1434_7711.htm to http://www.macrovision.com/company/newscenter/pressreleases/1434_7711.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025102555/http://www.onscreenasia.com/article-8677-irdetofightspiracywithbdtechnology-onscreenasia.html to http://www.onscreenasia.com/article-8677-irdetofightspiracywithbdtechnology-onscreenasia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BD+. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macrovision.com/company/newscenter/pressreleases/1434_7711.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106054231/http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers to http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified