Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After DeCSS, DVD Jon Releases DeDRMS

Posted by timothy on from the one's-right-to-annoy dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Jon Lech Johansen, who reverse engineered FairPlay back in January, and wrote the decryption code that was later used by an anonymous developer to create the playfair utility, has released a similar utility: DeDRMS. It's only 230 lines. T-shirts anyone?"

6 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Ummm....wow by DJ-Dodger · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I didn't expect it to be written in C#. No wonder it's so short.

    1. Re:Ummm....wow by arcanumas · · Score: 0, Redundant
      NOBODY expects it to be written in C#!!

      As in: Nobody expects the holy inquisition ?

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  2. Nice achivement, and in python, but.. by Rtsbasic · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Wait for the lawyers to hear about this one, they're going to have a field day..
    Also, what sort of DRM does it remove? AAC? "Trusted Computing"?

  3. Here is a GOOD MIRROR!!!! by danielblair · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Here is a GOOD MIRROR OF THE CODE!!! USE IT! MIRROR IT! AND POST OTHER MIRRORS!!!!

    http://www.realcoders.org/dedrm/DeDRMS_cs.cs

    Have Fun Everyone, and remember, please mirror this mirror, and post your new mirrors!

    -Daniel Blair

    --
    -- Daniel R. Blair Senior Software Architect/Unix & FreeBSD Guru/DJ w: http://unixcoders.org t: @freebsd_hacker
  4. Here is a GOOD MIRROR!!!! by danielblair · · Score: 0, Redundant
    It's Slashdotted!!! Here is MY MIRROR!!! USE IT AND TRY AND MIRROR TO OTHER PLACES SO EVERYONE DOESN'T GO DOWN!!!

    http://www.realcoders.org/dedrm/DeDRMS_cs.cs

    -Daniel Blair

    --
    -- Daniel R. Blair Senior Software Architect/Unix & FreeBSD Guru/DJ w: http://unixcoders.org t: @freebsd_hacker
  5. Re:I'm obviously not understanding something here. by stienman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    'they' can't tell you what you can and can't do with their products after you purchase them.

    And I suspect what many people are missing is that 'they' can tell you what you are allowed to do with copies of their copyright works.

    'They' also claim that the only way they can offer these copies of these works for such a low price is by restricting users. You can't re-sell the copy, this is a license to use the copy for a single purpose for a single user, and when the user dies the license dies with them. When I say intended, I simply mean within the law - broadcasting a movie purchased for home use is illegal, for instance. Showing it to a group inside your home is fine. This is a different area of copyright law.

    However, and this is the sticking point - the gaping hole in the copyright law - many claim that they should be able to purchase the work and then use it for its intended purpose and follow all rights and rules pertaining to the license except the one telling them how they use it for its intended purpose. This is the vehicle they use to take the work and actually view/listen/read/etc

    So a blind person may employ a book reader (be it a person, computer, etc) to read a book, which is a copyrighted work. This is called fair use. Not fully applicable, though, as the book seller doesn't have a shrink wrap license when the item is sold.

    The DVD is a shade of gray away. Linux users wanted to be able to view their DVDs on Linux. They created software that allowed them to do so. As in the book example, there is no license applied when the DVD is opened or purchased. However, a cheap dvd player/tv combo is under $100. DVD makers can easily make the argument that basic DVD playing requies a minimum investement in hardware, and therefore there is no compelling need to enable Linux DVD playing, nor is there a need to permit this kind of fair use. If they want to watch DVDs, then they should have no reason to break the encryption - it's cheap to do so using completely legal methods.

    In this case, however, there's a license. The songs are cheap. But even more so than with DVDs, there is no 'cheap' solution allowing customers to listen to legally purchased iTunes tracks. They must have a computer compatable with the system, and if they want portable tunes they have to have an ipod. In this case all Aple could claim against this utility is that the minimum cost of listening to their product is $500, and that their license bind customers to this level of entry into the playing field.

    So what does 'fair use' mean? Does it mean that the customer has the power to use any means they choose to use the copyrighted work for its intended use, be it a computer, pen and paper decryption, loading it on another portable player, etc? Or does it mean that as long as the distributer of the copyright provides reasonable means to enjoy the work then the distributer can legitimately restrict users from using their work in a more flexible way? If so, what is reasonable? Can that be based on convenience, cost, accesability, etc? This is the area where all these 'de' programs are aiming. The more we get, the better defined this area will become - which is a good thing.

    -Adam