DVD Decrypter Author Served With Take-Down Order

the-dark-kangaroo writes "The DVD Decrypter author has announced that he has been served with an order to cease his development of DVD Decrypter. The developer has been forced to hand over all source code and the domain that he was using. It is thought that it could be Sony who have served this notice, as it is rumoured that he broke their new copyright protection within 72 hours of its release."

Comments

Not Surprised

[the_mad_poster]

from the hold-your-breath-if-you're-surprised dept.

If I held my breath every time I was surprised by the abusive use of the abusive DMCA, I'd.... oh wait, I'd be breathing perfectly normally because it doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.

Of course, many of the people responsible for the passage of the DMCA were re-elected, and few, if any, people raked Clinton over the coals for signing the damned thing. What amazes me most about all this is not that companies are using this +5 Tool of Corruption, but that nobody outside the technical circle seems to care.

So fuck 'em. I say let the little bastard consumers wallow in their own shit until they're paying $11 every single time they want to watch the newest shitty hollywood flick that they can no longer obtain through any means but 24-hour-per-use download.

Cracking this garbage isn't going to get rid of it, it's just going to get people dragged into court. If you want it gone, let them piss consumers off enough that there's a backlash and the distributors and producers have no choice but to strike a reasonable compromise between fair use and protection against theivery.

Re:Not Surprised

[Jane_Dozey]

Perhaps they should stop developing dvd decryption in the US. US law doesn't apply to other countries and they'll have a hard time stopping it.

Re:Not Surprised

[AviLazar]

While I agree that sueing the people who make the tool is wrong (who is suing smith and wessen for their making guns that are used to kill), we all know most of the people using programs like Decrypter are using them to make copies of movies they rent from their favorite dvd rental place (as my friend likes to call it PirateBuster).

So this is, in all honesty, not the real reason to be upset with the MPAA. They are just trying to protect their investments.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

All your DVD are...

oh wait, doesn't have quite the same ring to it. :P

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. This take-down was in the UK, under a DCMA-like UK law.

Re:Not Surprised

[dethlejd]

With the resounding success of the attempt to ban the exportation of encryption technology; why do the powers that be think that the banning of the importation of decryption will be any more successfull?

The beauty here is that there are more smart people like this feller outside, than there are smart people inside companies (like Sony, and others) that believe that they can hide bits that are destined to huge audiences.

I personally think that they are trying to drive the consumer back into the theater, where they can make fat cash off of stale popcorn and swimming pool sized soda sales.

Re:Not Surprised

[climbon321]

I would love to know how many hours were spent on Sony's end developing this new encryption that was broken in only 3 days.

I wouldn't be suprised if the cost to develop this new technology ends up costing more than it helps them in loss of profits.

Re:Not Surprised

[jfengel]

I say let the little bastard consumers wallow in their own shit until they're paying $11 every single time they want to watch the newest shitty hollywood flick that they can no longer obtain through any means but 24-hour-per-use download.

Actually, that's pretty much the way it is already. You pay $9, you get to watch it exactly once, when they feel like showing it to you. It's called "going to the movies".

For a long time it was the only way that movie studios made any money. If they think they can't make any money off selling DVDs, they'll go back to it.

Re:Not Surprised

[Captain Scurvy]

...it doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.

Except that DRM enforced by legislation is about as far from capitalist as you can get. Let us not make a habit of associating free market capitalism with pro-corporate authoritarianism, if that is indeed what you were doing. The two are polar opposites.

If you want it gone, let them piss consumers off enough that there's a backlash and the distributors and producers have no choice but to strike a reasonable compromise between fair use and protection against theivery.

I am positive that they won't actually push consumers that far. They always stop right before the breaking point, let people get used to it, and keep going. The problem is that they have been allowed to go too far already, and as people become accustomed to the rising temperatures, they are willing to stomach even hotter waters.

Re:Not Surprised

[RexRhino]

I suppose it would be way to much to expect people to RTFA before they post on Slashdot...

But if you had, you would have seen that the developer ISNT IN THE UNITED STATES!

In most countries, judges can give court orders for nearly anything. Anyone with enough lawyers can make you do anything they want, against your will, period... and if you don't have an army of lawyers to back you up, you are powerless to do anything about it.

Re:Not Surprised

[ifdef]

It's difficult to RTFA when it's slashdotted already.

Re:Not Surprised

[ptbarnett]

While I agree that sueing the people who make the tool is wrong (who is suing smith and wessen for their making guns that are used to kill),

Pardon me if I mis-interpreted, but it appears to me you are posing a rhetorical question to the effect of: if sueing the people making a tool is OK, who is sueing Smith & Wesson?

If so, this isn't a rhetorical question. The answer is: The US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, usually known as "HUD". At the time, S&W was owned by a British company, who thought it was a good idea to settle:

http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/gu nagree.html

The results were disastrous for S&W. The "agreement" required S&W to impose additional burdens above and beyond federal law on dealers. As a result, many dealers dropped S&W products altogether. The remaining dealers found themselves unable to sell an S&W product to anyone that was familiar with the HUD fiasco.

S&W was nearly bankrupted, even after massive layoffs. Tompkins LLC finally sold S&W for a small fraction of its value to an American company. They are turning a profit again, but only after the US Government has effectively repudiated the agreement.

Re:Not Surprised

[Ironsides]

I personally think that they are trying to drive the consumer back into the theater, where they can make fat cash off of stale popcorn and swimming pool sized soda sales.

The only people who make money off the concessions in theaters are the people who own the theatres. Seeing as how (in the US at least) movie studios are barred from owning movie theatres (old anti-trust case that goes back at least 50 years), the studios aren't making money off the concesions.

Nope. They just want full control of the disks and the playback, that's all.

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

"Except that DRM enforced by legislation is about as far from capitalist as you can get. Let us not make a habit of associating free market capitalism with pro-corporate authoritarianism, if that is indeed what you were doing. The two are polar opposites."

I'm curious: how exactly would you suggest, in a purely capitalist system, that the creator of a thing which can be copied (and thus re-sold without any money going to the creator) protect his product? Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?

Easy example: suppose the existence of a molecular replicator on a small level, i.e. a device capable of "reading" medicine and generating perfect (i.e. digitally perfect) duplicates of the original at a significantly reduced cost. Now, there is a disease (it doesn't matter of what type). A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently). However, the existence of the replicator means that anyone who obtains a microscopic sample can easily and cheaply replicate countless amounts. How is the developer to recoup his costs? He cannot sell the medicine for any more than it would cost to replicate it (assume that one person bought it at full price, but then sold a ton of it at cost).

Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD sale and rental revenues are the way the movie studios make the majority of their money now. They will NEVER go back to theatre only viewing.

Re:Not Surprised

[jarich]

we all know most of the people using programs like Decrypter are using them to make copies of movies they rent from their favorite dvd rental place (as my friend likes to call it PirateBuster).

I can't speak for most people, but I use it back up DVDs before my 6 year old or my 2 year get near them... I let them scratch up copies instead of originals.

Re:Not Surprised

[Sheepdot]

One needs to be careful defining capitalism with regard to the DMCA. The US has, at best, a mixed economy in which the government plays a huge role. What's funny is those that claim to hate socialism would call the US economic system "socialist", while those who hate capitalism would call the US economic system "capitalist". Ironically, the only difference between the two views is which side instigated the marriage first.

One definition of capitalism states:

capitalism, economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

The "government restriction", for many libertarians (often seen as the biggest promoters of true capitalism) at least, would include the argument that the government should not aid OR abet any enterprise, in addition to not restricting them.

The real issue comes down to why corporations feel that "trampling our rights" is okay. Well, you needn't look any further than the myraid of government licenses, regulations, and tax laws to see why businesses feel justified in harming the citizens that work for them. Our "us vs. them" mentality has only turned competing businesses to do the same back to us.

What we need to see is a seperation of corporation and state. We need to have a government that doesn't exist to promote any corporate policy just like our government doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) promote any religion. Unfortunately, there is a false belief that government intervention and regulations on businesses actually work for any real change in this direction to occur.

I had high hopes that our generation would be the one to establish the seperation of corporation and state, but I continually see this misconception of the US economic system as being "capitalist" as detrimental to any real progress. The US economy is FAR from capitalism, there is HEAVY government intervention and involvement.

About the libertarian comment: There is the start of a revolution in libertarian (note, small "L" to indicate philosophical as opposed to political party) thinking that copyright laws actually serve to "harm" rights of the individual. I belong to this group of thinking and if you're interested, I would encourage you to read up on it.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

What if we reworded it as such:

Except that theft protection enforced by legislation is about as far from capitalist as you can get. Let us not make a habit of associating free market capitalism with pro-corporate authoritarianism, if that is indeed what you were doing. The two are polar opposites.

Would you claim that capitalist means we should allow that anyone should be able to steal when they want, and it should be the businesses responsibility to make certain someone doesn't walk out of a building without paying for something.

The pure capitalist society would give the shop owner the right to shoot to kill shoplifters. After all, its not the gov'ts right to get involved between the transactions of others.

No, the gov't steps in and says shooting people is bad, regardless of the fact the people are scum of the earth that are getting offed. Their is *NEVER* a reason to steal from someone -- your kids starving doesn't mean that you have the right to deprive someone else of their property and it doesn't get any greyer because of your sorry circumstances. But the gov't steps in anyways and takes over the responsibility of making a law as opposed to letting two capitalists duke it out as the free market would have it.

This is not as polar opposite as you and the rest of the thieves and sympathizers would have it. It is a deviation from the pure form of the ideal, but as opposed to being a polar opposite, I'd say about 20 degrees off.

The same can be said with DRM. It isn't pure capitalism, but neither is having regulatory bodies or a public police force. Pure capitalism would ensure everyone took matters into their own hands to the best they could afford to. Other than the money factor, it is nothing but organized chaos.

I leave you with this last fact: You sir are a fucking idiot. Chew on this for a moment. You will see I am right.

Thank you.

Re:Not Surprised

[Ralph Yarro]

we all know most of the people using programs like Decrypter are using them to make copies of movies they rent from their favorite dvd rental place (as my friend likes to call it PirateBuster).

So this is, in all honesty, not the real reason to be upset with the MPAA. They are just trying to protect their investments.

Half true.

My experience is people think:

"Hey, DVD rental by post. Cool, it's cheap enough and about as quick as downloading the files anyway, and I can copy them before sending them back".

But there's no incentive to share any they do copy and besides, once they're on the rental service why bother copying the DVD? They can always borrow the same one again anyway, saves time and effort. So they've moved onto a pay for service and don't copy movies or if they do copy them don't share them.

It seems to me that it's in the interests of the MPAA to maintain that draw of "I can always copy them before sending them back" so that people move to pay for services.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

What amazes me most about all this is not that companies are using this +5 Tool of Corruption, but that nobody outside the technical circle seems to care.

Well, DUH--They don't KNOW about any of this stuff. I tried to explain to somebody about the DMCA and the broadcast flag and DDR and she had no clue. After I finished, she thought it was bullshit as many people would.

It's not that they don't care--it's that they've never even heard of it.

Re:Not Surprised

[pla]

we all know most of the people using programs like Decrypter are using them to make copies of movies they rent from their favorite dvd rental place

Do we?

Because... It doesn't actually work for that particular purpose, most of the time.


Personally, I use it to extract soundtracks from (for example) concert footage for listening in my car. For making something that passes as a backup of movies I actually own, I use DVD Shink.

Why?

Because almost all new releases on DVD use double-layer. Meaning that making an actual copy would currently cost you $10-$15 per disc just for the DL blank, more than you can outright buy a legal copy of most movies on sale.


Now, sure, HDDs have gotten rather cheap. But I suspect the number of people who would set up a cheap raid of SATA drives just to hold their pirated movie collection, at a cost only about 25% less than just buying the movies, falls quite a bit lower than those who would use such a program legitimately... Which I also consider a low number, quite likely.


So what do I think most people do with it?

I would say that yes, they rip movies they rent. But for the purpose of 1) Keeping it just a little longer than the rental period (perhaps keeping a constant rotation of 5-10 movies on their HDD), and 2) To remove the incredibly annoying pUOPs - Personally, it drives me to near rage when I put a movie into my player, and it tells me I can't skip right to the main menu. And yes, I will admit that more than once, I have taken such a movie (rented or not) immediately out of the drive and ripped it on a temporary basis for precisely this reason.


And, y'know, I seriously believe THAT bothers Hollywood far more than outright piracy. I see movie sales following the same path magazines took half a century ago - They only charge a cover price as a sort of token of interest (to keep people from taking home the whole print run to burn for heat through the winter). They actually make the vast majority of their money from the ads they run, not from the cover price (thus explaining how they don't hemorrhage money when they let you subscribe for over 90% off cover).

Re:Not Surprised

[Captain Scurvy]

I'm curious: how exactly would you suggest, in a purely capitalist system, that the creator of a thing which can be copied (and thus re-sold without any money going to the creator) protect his product? Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?

By "purely capitalist," I am assuming you mean "no state invervention in the market." In such a system, DRM backed by legislation would not be an issue, since there could be none. I would see two results from this scenario: the development of "perfect" DRM; or a change in the present business model.

You seem to be lumping DRM with copyright. DRM is an attempt to enforce copyright through technical means. Most forms of DRM presently achieve this at the expense of the end user's rights. This is why legislation made to enforce DRM is wrong.

In short, legislation to enforce copyright != legislation to enforce DRM.

Re:Not Surprised

[crabpeople]

People will innovate for a need and or to better mankind.

In your example, the companies labs and resources would be offered up free to anyone with apropriate backgrounds. They would then use the facilities to do research and release the end product into the public domain.

This would require repossing companies and getting something like a management AI to allocate time and shit. This plan would require no money and your food/resources would be allocated by super smart AI's.

The person would get satisfaction not from money or credits, but from noteriety and philanthropy (like bill gates).

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

"By "purely capitalist," I am assuming you mean "no state invervention in the market.""
Yes, I should have mentioned that. You're correct.

"In such a system, DRM backed by legislation would not be an issue, since there could be none. I would see two results from this scenario: the development of "perfect" DRM; or a change in the present business model."
per se, but rather an indirect criticism of outright dismissal of DRM. I believe DRM to be a flawed but properly-intended attempt to protect innovation. If you're rejecting DRM, which is a valid perspective to take, I was just asking what your ideal solution to the problem would be.

My feeling is this: in a purely capitalist state of that kind, it'd be impossible. That is why, much like a purely communist state, human nature precludes the long-term survival of a pure capitalist state. I define myself as a subclass of libertarian, an 'anarcho-capitalist'. The Wiki has a good article about it. My basic point though is that either complete intervention (communism) or the lack of any intervention (pure capitalism) inevitably result in the stifling of innovation (not to mention a variety of other flaws in either system). By simple logic, if either extreme leads to such an undesireable result, then the only possible solutions which may lead to a desireable result must lie somewhere in between the two extremes.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't feel bad of depriving disney, pixar and all of these guys of a couple dozen replacement DVDs @ 30$ each every year?

I mean, these corporate businessmen have families to feed too. Now you're depriving them of the continuous stream of money they've been having for buying multiple copies of the same thing all over again...

See it at the theather... (more than once?)
Buy it in VHS...
Buy it in DVD... (or rent numerous times?)
Buy it again in DVD (got scratched)...
Buy the soundtrack (of which you already had half the songs on other CDs)...
Buy it in a couple years of HD DVD - then again on Blue Ray after HD DVD went bankrupt!

It wouldn't be hard for them to have a trade up/replacement program for media, but that wouldn't rake in money.

I mean, once you paid to own a copy of the movie on VHS, why do you have to pay full price to get the very same movie - just in better video quality (on DVD)? Or full price for a replacement DVD?

Until that happens (never), we'll have to make use of our fair use rights to avoid buying the same thing several times, and they'll be fighting us having fair use rights (tools).

DMCA, DRM and all that crap is gonna get expensive for us if it's not avoided/bypassed.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

A free market system should only enforce one law when it comes to information: don't lie.

Don't lie about the benefits of your products.

Don't lie about what's in the food you sell.

Don't lie about what negative research has been found about the products you sell.

Don't lie about your name or reputation.

Don't pretend you wrote a song you didn't.

Don't use someone else's name or trademark to market your goods.

Basically, anything that ENHANCES the flow of information and lowers transaction costs is good. Everything else is bad. Trademarks are good. Copyrights are bad.

People like you seem to think "capitalism == get paid". That's not at all what capitalism is. To me capitalism is about the free market: sell what you like, keep whatever you make, don't complain if you make nothing, don't complain if your neighbor makes 10,000x as much as you.

You said it yourself, it costs nothing to produce copies. If it takes a huge amount of government intervention just to prop up your illusions, you are not in a free market.

To those people who "perfectly cure diseases" (been suckered by some big pharm company TV ads?), if you can't figure out how to profit from your invention, go do something else.

If you can't figure out how to make some money from a good song you wrote, please go do something else.

So basically it's not a "problem" and when government starts looking for problems to solve you know what you get: authoritarian systems. "Government IS the problem".

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

" People will innovate for a need and or to better mankind."

I don't want to misunderstand you: are you stating that in the absence of any monetary rewards (but NOT in the absence of monetary needs, i.e. money to acquire non-microscopic goods in my hypo such as a car or food) innovation wouldn't be stifled?

If that is your opinion, I have to respectfully disagree. Granted, if some replicator technology existed which eliminated ALL needs (i.e. it could so cheaply reproduce both micro- and macro-scopic products that no one suffered for poverty) then I believe it is possible that innovation would survive. The problem is that if person A needs macroscopic goods, but there are only replicators for microscopic goods, then A has zero incentive to invest his time/money in researching new microscopic products since those products will be unable to recoup him costs, much less provide the profits needed to purchase those macroscopic goods.

"In your example, the companies labs and resources would be offered up free to anyone with apropriate backgrounds. They would then use the facilities to do research and release the end product into the public domain."

Why would the companies do any of this? Your answer seems to be altruism (or, altenately, a self-satisfying desire to create without the need for external gratification), correct? My problem with such an answer is that it doesn't agree at all with history. There is no record of any civilization, ever, sustaining such motivations. As noted earlier in my post, I do not believe those motivations can exert the proper pressure against the society as a whole (as opposed to a handful of possible individuals) unless the technology for duplication applies to ALL goods.

Bringing it back to focus: right now, I can digitally copy most intellectual property, but I cannot copy any real-world property (ignore the overlap, e.g. books, for the moment). If there is no profit-incentive to produce that intellectual property, why would any person who still needed to pay for real-world goods enter the intellectual-property production market? Some, of course, will be so driven by the artistic/altruistic drive, but do you honestly believe that is even a significant minority, much less the majority of the population? Such a market crash hasn't occured yet, because it is too difficult for most users to actually obtain copies of most intellectual property (MPAA/RIAA concerns aside, most people in this country obtain their music, video and video games legally), but what happens which it is easy enough for your arthritic grandma with no eyeballs to do so? Why would most people - at such a point - spend his time doing the unexciting parts of intellectual property creation?

Wrapping up a long post: it seems to me that, in the absence of universal replicator technology, your theory relies on the presence of a large number of artists and altruists, correct? If so, does your experience with humanity seem to validate that theory? I'm asking you, personally, whether you think there are a sufficient number of altruists and artists in our species to fulfill the innovative needs of our world without economic (or possibly even social) compensation?

Re:Not Surprised

[xQx]

I like to think of it as me doing my part for the 3rd word countries in the world...

see, if I buy origionals I give $30 to a lawyer in the US... these guys can already feed themselves, they don't need another $30 from me as much as...

if I pirate the move I'm giving 3c to a princo factory worker in the 3rd world... 3c might not sound like much, but it's enough for them to feed themselves for the day.

And don't give me the 'think of the artists' crap, Tom Cruise is not likely to go broke anytime soon.

Re:Not Surprised

[Fareq]

I leave you with this last fact: You sir are a fucking idiot. Chew on this for a moment. You will see I am right.

Please forgive... can't resist...

"Luke, you are a fucking idiot. Search your feelings, you know it to be true."

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

I know I just posted a lengthy reply, but I missed this one comment and I simply must respond to it:
"The person would get satisfaction not from money or credits, but from noteriety and philanthropy (like bill gates)."

Bill Gates is able, as in "posseses the appropriate resources to" be so charitable because of his phenomenal wealth. How would he - a person who has sold only intellectual property - have ever acquired his wealth if there had always been a way to acquire perfect duplicates of his IP without any risk or difficulty?

Re:Not Surprised

[B'Trey]

Because almost all new releases on DVD use double-layer. Meaning that making an actual copy would currently cost you $10-$15 per disc just for the DL blank, more than you can outright buy a legal copy of most movies on sale.

No, it just means that you rip the DVD, split it into two pieces and burn it to two DVD+-Rs that cost you a tad over a buck apiece. So you have to store two DVDs and change the disk in the middle of the movie. Not that big a deal.

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

"To those people who "perfectly cure diseases" (been suckered by some big pharm company TV ads?), if you can't figure out how to profit from your invention, go do something else."

It is very common, in any debate, for a person to suggest that the other side should go "figure something out", as it were. In this case, you have stated that people who have already created an extreme innovation - the perfect cure of a horrible disease - should also go and innovate by figuring out a way to profit from that cure, even though they will receive precisely zero return for the reproduction, distribution and use of the product, correct?

What's your solution? What's your solution for that company to profit?

It's extremely easy to criticize, but very difficult to create. That doesn't mean for a second that you should be discouraged EVER from criticizing, but it does mean that a good critic is able to point in the right direction, at least, so that his criticisms amount to more than "fuck you, loser".

I'm not asking for a huge amount of government intervention, but contrariwise I'm not asking for zero intervention either. I just posted a few minutes ago a lengthy discussion of that (in this thread), so I wont repeat myself. Suffice to say this: neither 100% or 0% intervention by government in an economy involving our sort of technological progress is even theoretically capable of succeeding, short of the invention of a perfect and cheap (or rather, free) replication system that eliminates the concept of "limited supply". I do not, personally, have an ideal solution to how much government intervention is precisely required, but at the same time I don't go around saying that other people's theories are bunk without providing constructive criticism.

I was once in the Guggenheim (my spelling may be off, there...) and overheard a rather zealous instructor explaining to her teenage students that the artist (some painter with whom I wasn't familiar) had made 'this' mistake and 'that' mistake. These were art students (all were sketching, etc.), and this was a teacher of art. Yet she made no constructive comments: she didn't talk about how to make the peices better, or how the students should avoid those mistakes. She - who ironically should have been building these children up into something - was merely tearing down. I fear, my fellor /.'er, you are like this teacher. You are, in fact, correct to the extent that capitalism should be about truth in advertising and effect. You are, in fact, correct to the extent that if you cannot figure out how to profit in a market doing something, then free capitalism says you should stop doing that and do something else. You are wrong, however, in that you are not helping us figure out what is RIGHT. You are not suggesting how to avoid the pitfalls of the wrongs you identify (wrongs which, frankly, we are largely if not entirely already aware of). Your work here wasn't helpful. Please, be helpful. Spend some time and try and figure out solutions. If you come up with any, I'm sure I and many others would like to hear them.

Re:Not Surprised

[HiThere]

And they don't have any reason to be upset that I refuse to pay for anything they are in any way associated with, and to make snide comments about them and their supporters.

Personally, I don't think things like this hurt the MPAA/RIAA, which is why I don't consider people who make/use the cracking programs public heros. I would think more charitably about people who assassinated them. Do I seem extreme? These are people who have corrupted our government (even more than it already was). It is hard to think of something bad happening to them that I would not applaud, unless it adversely affected innocent bystanders. (Unfortunately, all too likely.)

And I have yet to hear any justification for their behavior that holds any water at all. They show neither signs of remorse, nor even any sign that they realize that they are enemies of humanity.

Calling them enemies of humanity requires a bit of justification, because they're up against some stiff competition, but basically:
1) they bribe (legally, usually) the legislators
2) they are endeavoring to steal the entire history of human culture, and seal it away under lock and key so that it will never again be retrievable by anyone without their permission.
3) when they lose interest in any particular piece of culture, they abandon it WITHOUT taking the necessary steps to allow others to preserve it. And it's all recorded on quickly degradeable media.
4) in addition, they are attempting to crowd out all content that they don't own, so that noone can even discover that it exists.

They haven't been totally successful, but these are what they are attempting, and for just attempting it I feel that they are deserving of death. These are crimes against the very essence of what it is to be human. How many folk songs do you know in a non-proprietary form/b? Generally they make some small change, which entitles them to claim the copyright on that form of the words. But they don't tell you which pieces they are claiming as proprietary, they claim the whole thing, and unless you can PROVE that the form you know is public domain, any court will presume that their copyright is valid.

Try to copyright a tune, just try, and you'll get some small flavor of what I mean. Every folk tune around has been copyrighted, and the copyright doesn't say what part is original, so courts will presume that the entire tune is copyright by the copyright holder, even though their original contribution may only be a change of three notes in the fourth measure. (This is second hand, but I believe it to be true. I know that Joan Baez & Vanguard copyrighted minor variations of a multitude of folk songs...and they don't tell you what they changed from the original.)

I wouldn't regard suing the people who made the tool as wrong if the entire system wasn't so unjust. As it is, I reguard everything the RIAA/MPAA member companies do as irredeemably wrong.

Re:Not Surprised

[mspohr]

One view of a "pure" capitalist system is where the state is controlled by business. In this system, businesses can do anything they want and the consumer's job is to work hard and pay whatever it costs.

This is close to the system we have now although fascist Italy in the last century was more "pure"... and the trains ran on time.

Re:Not Surprised

[jfengel]

I don't really expect them to go back to theater-only viewing. I just meant that back in the Good Old Days, that was how you got to watch movies. You get to watch movies on DVD because they think they can turn a profit on it.

If DVD copying software were ubiquitous and convenient (something sharing physical VHS tapes never was), that equation might not continue to hold.

Re:Not Surprised

[whoisshe]

we all know most of the people using programs like Decrypter are using them to make copies of movies they rent from their favorite dvd rental place

speak for yourself. i use it so i can watch dvd's on my linux box - without being forced to watch those goddamn fucking piece-of-shit advertisements, toothpick-in-the-eyes-Clockwork-Orange style, unable to skip or fast-forward through them.

if dvd makers treat me like a fucking lab rat, i reserve the right to hop the walls of the maze, if i can.

Re:Not Surprised

[Maestro4k]

we all know most of the people using programs like Decrypter are using them to make copies of movies they rent from their favorite dvd rental place (as my friend likes to call it PirateBuster). Speak for yourself. I use it to make copies of my purchased DVDs so they no longer have restricted user actions. That way I can pop it in, hit menu when it starts showing the FBI warning and not have to sit through the FBI warning, the Company's logos, the Dolby or THX logo or whatever else crap they think I should be forced to watch on a DVD I bought. I don't even rent DVDs myself, if I like it I'll buy it, but I'm not going to watch their shit before the movie, that wasn't part of the deal. So this is, in all honesty, not the real reason to be upset with the MPAA. They are just trying to protect their investments. And what about my fair use rights? Do they get trumped by a business protecting their investments? They're not losing any money on my usage of the program, so what's their problem?

The issue isn't the MPAA trying to protect their investiments, it's about the MPAA _controlling_ when/where/how and on what you can play movies you _BUY_ from them.

Re:Not Surprised

[spudgun]

US Laws are spreading, like Cancer.

Re:Not Surprised

[Hentai]

Smart business, then. Use laws to tank a company that's competing with local business, let local business purchase the company, then repeal the law.

Re:Not Surprised

[Leiterfluid]

Who's paying a buck a piece for DVD+Rs? I bought a 25-pack for 8 bucks at CompUSA last week?

Re:Not Surprised

[crabpeople]

well that was really long and i only ahve 10 minutes of work yet so ill just say two things.

"My problem with such an answer is that it doesn't agree at all with history"

I would hope so! then we will not fall into the familiar patterns of scarcity. In the world of the matter duplicator, there exsists no scarcity of resources. Just tell the machine to combine some of the earths crust into a sandwitch. The problem is people dont think ahead. If we let copyright get in the way of advancing the human civilization, when we do get matter replication it will only be used by the very rich (corporations) to further drive the outdated profit model.

"Some, of course, will be so driven by the artistic/altruistic drive, but do you honestly believe that is even a significant minority, much less the majority of the population?"

do you think the majority of the population would make good artists/writers/content producers? of course not. they'll just sit there, get bored, or they will get off their ass and do something benificial. either way is perfectly fine by me. I really dont care if some couch potato sits on his couch 24x7 in a world of limitless resources. let him consume till he explodes for all i care.

"Wrapping up a long post: it seems to me that, in the absence of universal replicator technology, your theory relies on the presence of a large number of artists and altruists, correct? If so, does your experience with humanity seem to validate that theory?"

yes. because there would be nothing left to work for except your own creative interests. All basic needs being taken care of, people would definately need to fill up the time. Does my experience with humanity validate that theory? also yes. Examples include StrongBad and The Open Source Movement.

People create things, not always for money, but alot of the time to fill a technological or creative gap that they see. This would also have the effect of making said content more beautiful as people would lovingly design each subroutene, each comic. I honestly think that some people are really doing what they love (kubrick would be a good example) and the money comes second.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

And I use it to convert tv shows that I own on dvd to small xvids for viewing on the road w/ my laptop.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, the world is this communist utopia where all your needs are provided for. We will all wear identical jumpsuits, use individualized mass transit , etc. People won't work for money because there will be no money. Everybody will be satisfied, despite the fact that some people gain notoriety, nobody will feel jealous of that noteriety, etc.

Then I think at age thirty-five you go to the machine that recycles you. This is after all bad Sci-Fi utopia society, right?

Re:Not Surprised

[Lord Kano]

Boy oh boy, where to start?

OK, how about here...

who is suing smith and wessen for their making guns that are used to kill

No one, they struck a deal with the Clinton Justice Department to prevent themselves from being sued. Also, can you name any machine guns produced by Smith & Wesson?

LK

Re:Not Surprised

[B'Trey]

Last time I bought, I paid $55 for a pack of 50. Guess they've come down since then.

Re:Not Surprised

[ummit]

Easy example: suppose the existence of a molecular replicator on a small level, i.e. a device capable of "reading" medicine and generating perfect duplicates...

Well, if you're going to erect analogical strawmen, how about this one? Suppose my business model is, "I smile at you nicely, and you give me $1." When I discover that I'm not making enough money using this model, I get Congress to pass a law requiring you to give me the dollar.

(In other words, I'm deeply suspicious of any newly proposed, authoritarian, antilibertarian rule that is supported with arguments of the form, "But without this law, how could the business that depends on it make moey?".)

Re:Not Surprised

[mikiN]

Different pricing. We don't live in the EuroDollar zone yet, so prices in different countries are different.
In many European countries, quality blank DVDs on a spindle are still well over a Euro (so a lot more than a buck) apiece.
Also, some countries' governments actually put a tax on blank CDs/DVDs to, well, discourage copying... (I don't believe their story about using the revenue to pay the movie/record business).

Re:Not Surprised

[CypherOz]

Perhaps they should stop developing dvd decryption in the US. US law doesn't apply to other countries and they'll have a hard time stopping it.

What about the effects of free trade agreements? These tend to make US law pervasive. An aussie guy was extradited to the US recently for piracy even tho he never previously set foot on US territory. From an Aussie perspective - it sux!

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

the US Government has effectively repudiated the agreement.

This is another way of saying that it's still a legal contract.

Re:Not Surprised

[Old Wolf]

2) To remove the incredibly annoying pUOPs - Personally, it drives me to near rage when I put a movie into my player, and it tells me I can't skip right to the main menu.

Huh? Doesn't it take longer to rip a DVD than it does to just wait for those things to finish?

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't give me the 'think of the artists' crap, Tom Cruise is not likely to go broke anytime soon.

Unless, of course, he sticks to $cientology...

Re:Not Surprised

[ozmanjusri]

Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?

Why do you think Fleming and Florey developed penicillin? For the money?

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the price didn't change, you just did your math wrong. A buck a piece. Not total, but split.

Re:Not Surprised

[arodland]

Another example: I find it convenient to watch movies or TV episodes on my Palm. In case you haven't been keeping up with modern technology, the device as a whole is considerably smaller than a DVD. But CSS is designed to keep me from watching DVDs without having the physical DVD in the player, whether or not I can get the whole movie onto my little SD card. Is it any surprise that I don't give a shit about CSS? DVD Decrypter is a simple, well-written app. But if you can't use it, I'd like to note that a script employing MPlayer (with libdvdcss) can do the same thing.

Re:Not Surprised

[Luthair]

Also known as protectionism rather than capitalism. Then again, thats not particularly new.

Re:Not Surprised

[arodland]

To amplify on one of the important points in the parent here: the government is not itself a producer of anything; therefore it cannot give a gift to one party without taking something away from someone else. That is to say, you cannot have government grants, subsidies, and tax breaks without government injustice, corruption, and unfair taxation.

Re:Not Surprised

[LetterJ]

Or you ditch all of the extra crap that isn't needed. No one in my household speaks French, Spanish or most other secondary audio, menus, director's commentary, etc. On an awful lot of DL discs, the movie itself is still under 5GB. If not, a 10%-15% compression is fine. If that's not OK, it's probably a movie you care enough about to buy a copy. I've got several movies where I've got the regular DVD and also bought the Superbit as well because I wanted the better copy.

And, if you're paying over a buck for DVD+-R's, you need to visit even a mainstream site like meritline.com where they're more like $0.25 or $0.40 and not a buck.

Re:Not Surprised

[SatanicPuppy]

The existence of such a replicator technology would have such far reaching implications that it might bankrupt the drug companies.

What would happen then? The smart people who make the drugs would do government subsidised work for universities and government health organizations, and the whole country could reap the rewards for practically nothing.

gosh, you're right, it sounds awful.

The research will get done, though maybe cures for major diseases might get a bit more priority than viagra, for example.

Re:Not Surprised

[bizitch]

no no no no .....

You use DVDShrink to get it from 8GB to 4GB!

It works fabulous!

Re:Not Surprised

[Itanshi]

gee, stomping on our rights? They have rights as well. Good ol Buddha, let's find a middle ground.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I seem extreme?

Not at all, only slightly misdirected. After all, the politicians can be bribed as much as they want, but who is responsible for voting them out of office when they perform contrary to public opinion? Yes, that's right, we're the real problem, the plebes who have forgotten how to stand up for ourselves and force the government to respect the wishes of the majority instead of the higher class majority. They really aren't any smarter or wiser or better fit to influence the country, but we seem to think that we have no part to play in politics and government planning. We need to tend more towards an "open source" politics where individuals work towards getting their own itch scratched while also working for the public good. Isn't that the basic definition of government? We've just let proprietary monopolies into politics which is bad. Two parties? Hello? Of course, those other countries with more parties are only faring slightly better, and probably only because they see what happens to Americans when they fall asleep at the wheel for eighty odd years.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years, and it is one of the most atrociously exploitive industries in the world. In the United States, the majority of new medications are purchased from universities.

We fund pharmaceutical development, academic research, and buy everything that we can. However, most people don't realize why.

We don't buy most of the research and fully developed medications to help those in need; we buy them so that we can have control. We withhold the cure, because there is so much more money to be made in relieving the symptoms.

A government that is not corrupted by lapdog politicians would allow its people to create an incentive to innovate (government funded R&D, instead of overly powerful private industry).

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Enter classical music.

You can copyright the performance, but not the piece.

Anyone who knows anything about the classics will tell you that the interpretation of the piece is what makes the piece unique. However, even though the interpretation might be copyrighted, there's nothing stopping someone from mimicking the interpretation. Because mimicry isn't perfect, the original performer of the interpretation cannot claim infringement.

Furthermore, most of the copyrights on the best recorded performances have already expired.

And by classical music, I mean any composition that uses classical instruments older than 1960.

As for folk songs, just change the words/notes around a little and it's yours too.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey idiot, when has a company ever "taken" money from you? The answer is never. You always *willfully* choose to buy or spend. Always. So, in order to get it through your intellectually handicapped brain, Ill restate by simply saying you have never had money "taken" from you by a corporation. If you cant comprehend a simple, basic concept like that, then there is absolutely no hope whatsoever for what remains of your obviously sad, pitiful life. Enjoy.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Diebold

Re:Not Surprised

[bill_kress]

>Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?

I find it interesting that you (and many other people) are more worried about fixing this problem with capitalism than fixing the problems of jobs being outsourced, removed by automation or just seriously underpaid when compared to the cost of living.

Those are huge problems. The problem of a major corporation's investors having to trade in their SUVs for BMWs doesn't bother me quite so much.

The actual people that do the work are rarely in the position to profit from IP rights, so the IP rights are pretty much useless. Strangely enough, your concept of the micro-replicator would put that ability back into the hands of the creative individuals.

This revolution just happened in software as computer hardware became commodity--everyone was able to create the software, and it thrived like nothing we have ever seen.

The creativity was there--people built software because they wanted to and it worked out really well, for a while.

Then investors came in, and companies got big and greedy. A few people got rich and a bunch of uninspired hacks joined the scene, and everything kinda ground to a halt.

The investors, the large corporations and the IP laws are the problem, not the solution.

Why did the open source community thrive while businesses were folding all around it? No investors, no profiteers, no uninspired hacks just in for a buck.

I'm sure your replicator would enable a similar effect with hardware, and in the end you would have a group of people creating fantastic drugs and giving away the design just to help people (and a bunch of sick bastards that create viruses for fun, but that's another story)

And just a question for you. If you created a drug that cured cancer and was nearly free to reproduce, you try to make every possible cent from it and deny it to some, or would you ask people to pay what they could, not charging anything if it could save the life of a child who couldn't afford it.

if you did denied the drug to anyone at all, wouldn't you expect to go straight to hell? WWJD? (Not that I'm Christian at all, but the question is very valid!)

For that matter, if you could spend $50 to save some kids life, would you have to think about it? Why is that different? Just because it involves a bunch of rich people in SUVs only making modest profit instead of fantastic profit and not you or me just being out a few bucks? Because they are rich they don't need to have a soul?

As far as copyrights go, if there was less money for the investors to skim off the top, it would be better for everyone involved (except, of course, the investors who would have to get a job and actually produce something instead of free-loading off those that do).

Re:Not Surprised

[Fallen_Knight]

like cancer? they are a cancer..

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading between the lines here, I suspect that he is being accused of breaking parts of the "Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003" http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm

It's pretty nasty to read, mainly because it is a cut-and-paste job on the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988".

Section 296 seems to say "publishing information intended to enable circumvention of a technical device designed to circumvent copy-protection is equivalent to copyright infringement" (my paraphrasing, IANAL, YMMV, yada yada).

However, there do seem to be enough loopholes elsewhere in it to drive a bus through, or at least keep the lawyers happy for months. Section 296ZB doesn't cover free (as in beer) software at all well, and "research into cryptography" is at least partially exempted, as is "private study of folksongs".

It really needs a proper legal test so that the courts can set a precedent over what some terms actually mean in thereal world and which sections take precedent over which others.

However, I can fully understand why one bloke at home might not want to be the one to have that day in court.

Re:Not Surprised

[Jucius Maximus]

" Who's paying a buck a piece for DVD+Rs? I bought a 25-pack for 8 bucks at CompUSA last week?"

That would be people who buy quality media. You can definitely get DVDR discs for less than 50c each, but the Princo or Infodisc-manufactured garbage will become unreadable relatively quickly.

Re:Not Surprised

[groman]

oh wait, I'd be breathing perfectly normally because it doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets. Well, the companies aren't to blame. It's the people who enable these companies to change the rules of the game. The only necessary legislation is strong antitrust, everything else can be thrown out.

Re:Not Surprised

[gearspring]

Protection is not needed for innovation. The incentive for the lone genius to spend his efforts inventing a great new thing from scratch may be diminished. But innovation works better when it is incremental. Evolution is smarter than the genius inventor. Recipes are like inventions, but they tend to be protected through trade secret and offered as a service. There is more variety and widespread examples of excellence in cooking than you would expect if your worries about the need for protection to foster innovation were true. There is definitely no shortage of cookbooks. There is no shortage of restaurants, grocery stores, and amateur cooks.

Cooking is not the only example. FOSS is another obvious example. Home decorating and home improvement seem to be flourishing without DRM. Of all things, legal contracts can be copied, but there is no shortage of lawyers you can pay a tidy sum to tailor a contract for your use. Science itself has developed quite well with a publish to get credit type of system.

I suggest that without DRM there is more innovation, more variety, more excellence, more follow on industries, and a larger economic pie to be shared by more people. All this, and there are still the rock star chefs, architects, lawyers, interior designers, and scientists.

Re:Not Surprised

[blackdragon7777]

I have never seen one of these unskippable ads that you speak of. I've seen some disney movies with ads but the tell you to press menu to skip which I rather quickly do.

The super parent is right in that the main use of that program is to rip dvds illegally. Just get a real dvd player and plug it up to your tv. It will look better, sound better (with a good sound setup), and you can use a couch.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Under current law the "matter duplicator" will be illegal to posses, unless you are a large corporation. This will be because the act of duplicating a piece of meat will belong to one company and the act of reproducing a machine will belong to another company. It will then be that these large companies will be capable of taking dirt from the earth and turning it into things (even food) that average people will have to pay for. That is exactly what is happening with the music industry now.

The alternative is that everyone can buy a "matter duplicator" for $79.95 and anything that can be duplicated will cease to have value. If you are invested in the wrong place (like the members of the RIAA) then you are soon going to be one of the average people again.

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

Compare: how many people were working towards penicillin, versus how many people working towards a cure for cancer? Alternately, compare: how many people were working together towards penicillin versus the people at ONE company to cure cancer?

The effect of altruism as a motivation doesn't scale linearly.

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

"And just a question for you. If you created a drug that cured cancer and was nearly free to reproduce, you try to make every possible cent from it and deny it to some, or would you ask people to pay what they could, not charging anything if it could save the life of a child who couldn't afford it."

A very interesting question. Personally, I cannot be sure what I'd do. It would depend largely on whether I developed the product alone, or whether it represented the combined work of many people. In a recent post, someone brought up the work involved in developing Penicillin: that involved a handful of people, compared to drugs developed today that involve thousands of man-hours provided by hundreds or thousands of people. Why do I bring them up? It's a question of who should be protected.

Supposing I, individually, develop a cure to cancer that employs research that is otherwise freely available, i.e. the only value-added is my work. If I decide to charge the highest price possible, the only R&D person I can claim to be protecting (or rather, the only person's effort I can claim to be protecting) is my own.

If a group of tens or hundreds or thousands does that work, however, a new issue emerges: don't I, having this cure in my hand and controlling its release, have an obligation to protect those people with whom I've worked towards the cure? Don't I have an obligation to reward them appropriately? I'm not suggesting its equal to the possible altruistic obligation I have towards the millions of people with cancer (or the countless ones who will have it in the future), but rather that it makes the question even more difficult.

What it comes down to is a core question of your ethics, i.e. are you a deontologist, a natural law theorist, etc. As such, it's hard to generalize about the moral issues here (as opposed to the easier socio-politico-economic issues discussed before this post).

Just for the purpose of edification: I think, personally, I'd do my best to find a way to profit fairly but also get it to everyone. The hardest part about it is that if you give it away to one person, how do you demand more money from another?

As I said, hard question, and a well aimed one.

Re:Not Surprised

[The Only Druid]

"I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years, and it is one of the most atrociously exploitive industries in the world. In the United States, the majority of new medications are purchased from universities.
We fund pharmaceutical development, academic research, and buy everything that we can. However, most people don't realize why.
We don't buy most of the research and fully developed medications to help those in need; we buy them so that we can have control. We withhold the cure, because there is so much more money to be made in relieving the symptoms.
A government that is not corrupted by lapdog politicians would allow its people to create an incentive to innovate (government funded R&D, instead of overly powerful private industry)."

(I copied the entire post, because it's an AC and thus below most readers' filters)

If that's true, it's interesting and quite a bit distressing. However, its unrelated to our discussion. We're not talking about the practical issues of existing pharma companies, but rather using pharma as a real-world example of the issues that come up when discussing digitial rights management.

Re:Not Surprised

[ozmanjusri]

compare: how many people were working together towards penicillin versus the people at ONE company to cure cancer?

Compare the results. Penicillin and its derivatives are cheap, effective and widely available.
Still no cure for cancer.

Re:Not Surprised

[mbourgon]

movie studios are barred from owning movie theatres

Okay, I'll bite. Who owns United Artist movie theaters, then?

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I re-read it, and you're right. I think people get railroaded, strong-armed, lied to, and conned into spending money, so that it is as if money has been taken from them. However technically, they exercise a free-will choice to part with their dollars. It's not the same as a mugger in the streets or someone putting a gun to them and telling them to empty their bank accounts or die.

Perhaps the whole problem is that people need to grow spines and make smarter decisions. Stop decrying their rotton fortunes and start taking responsibility for their own actions and think things through a little further. Buyer beware, research, research, and research some more before you spend. I really don't feel bad about the situation any more. Books and the web occupy my freetime now so I suppose my withdrawl also invalidates me from having a legitimate opinion on the situation since I'm not really a participant any more.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a couple of DVDs there that doesn't work. (Disney's Aladdin in Danish is one of them)
The worst of them have 5+ minutes of ads, I can fast forward but that's still annoying. The same DVD (X-Men 2) has a 30 sec. spoken FBI-warring, saying crap about I'm not allowed to make a copy of my DVD, and next, fast forward, menu, numbered keys and even pause doesn't work.

Re:Not Surprised

[Zemran]

You are partly right. I think that DVDs sound better on a real home theatre player but I do not know where you get DVDs that do not have stupid rubbish that you cannot skip past. I do see DVDeasy disks here in Thailand but they have a Thai sound track and are not set up the way I want. I really want a ripper that allows me to set up copies so that when I put the DVD in the player it just starts the movie with no FBI etc. warnings (that seem to think that I have not seen one before and that I actually care what they have to say), no adverts and no menu. I want a disk that just goes straight into 5.1 film or music vid without me having to touch anything.

When I can do this I will rip all my DVD collection without exception.

I would also like to be able to edit out parts of my music DVDs without having to change them to stereo. I cannot do this in 5.1. Then I can get rid of the stupid parts when a really good singer shows how dumb she really is by talking for 50% of the disk (see Christina Ag for example). Then I will set about doing a whole lot more ripping.

Re:Not Surprised

[RockClimbingFool]

Shrek 2. My copy of Shrek 2 has a 8 minute intro for Madagascar. It cannot be skipped.

Re:Not Surprised

[benw1979]

You can copy it without decrypting it. It should be bit-identical to the original, and play in any player.

Re:Not Surprised

[v1]

They don't benefit directly, but they most certainly benefit indirectly. The studios can charge the theatres more for the rental of the movie reels because the theatres are charging you and me $2.99 for a 3 cent bag of popcorn.

The standard reply to similar points is usually "well then bring your own, it's not like anyone's forcing you to buy their product", but oh ya, that's right, you're not allowed to bring in your own food and drink... Handy racket they have going there.

Re:Not Surprised

[jp10558]

Ummm, I don't know about you, but I can buy DVD-Rs for about $0.42 each and they last at least as long as any CD-R I've ever had. I have many that are fine after 2 years...

As to DVD+DL, I'm seeing them for about $3.50 online...

If you think those are crap for some reason, you can get DVD-R 4.7GB 1X-4X Silver Lacquer by Taiyo Yuden for $0.32 . . .

Re:Not Surprised

[aesiamun]

And aren't Player Theaters owned by Sony?

Re:Not Surprised

[matria]

No, not surprised at all. Sony has been a real bastard for a long time now.

Sony's Restaurant

Retropod

Now I finally know what case mod I'm going to do! I'm going to the flea market and finding an old Sony cabinet TV, a really old b/w model with the tiny screen, and making a desk/case mod out of it! Inspired by mindless corporate greed!

Re:Not Surprised

[siliconjunkie]

You can copy it without decrypting it. It should be bit-identical to the original, and play in any player.

A bit-for-bit identical copy of (most) DVDs will not fit on a consumer 4.5 GB DVD disc. Your choice is to either buy a $10 dual layer disc to enable the lossless copy or compress/re-author the disc to fit on the standard $.50 media, which of course, requires decryption (if it is indeed encrypted).

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no?

Re:Not Surprised

[Eivind]

In a world where any medicine can be cheaply copied, and there are no laws preventing that, the logical way to finance research is by introducing a bounty-system.

This give incentives not unlike those today. Today companies spend money doing research, clinical tests etc on the hope that they'll find something useful and get a reward. Today this reward is paid by giving the ma a time-limited monopoly on the invented drug (trough patents etc) and letting them sell it at what the market will bear for this time-period.

There's no reason why the reward *has* to be precisely this though. (I agree there should be some reward)

An alternative would be to place bounties on remedies for certain problems. Governments, health-insurance, individuals and anyone else that wants the problem to be solved could pledge freely selectable sums to the bounty. The bounty would be paid in full to the first person or organisation that develops a method for solving the problem that meets the stated criteria.

This way it's even less risk for the developers, they don't need to be afraid of their invention being "pirated", or that the market fails to materialise or anything like that. If they're first to solve the problem, they get the bounty, end of story.

Ofcourse the risk of not being first remains, but that's a risk that's also there today.

Also notice that this would bring an order of magnitude improvement in cost compared to today, because typical pharmaceuticals spend 4-10 times as much money doing non-research as they do on research. With this system there'd be no reason for them to do anything but research.

Re:Not Surprised

[Eivind]

I also don't think many people have large dvd-collections stored as 5-10GB ripped dual-layer films. But I question your calculations.

As you say, HDD space is ridicolously cheap. Raw disk-space is available as cheaply as around $0.50/GB. This means a 5-10GB movie will cost $2.50 - $5 to store. The typical bougth DVD-movie costs more than 25% over that. It's more like 4 times that cost.

Secondly, with movies stored on HDD, you can delete old ones that no longer interests you and reuse the place, giving further savings.

Third, this all only shows that presently it's marginally useful to store raw dvds on HDD. But HDD-prices keep falling like a rock. The storage that costs $0.50 today will cost *how* much in 2 years ? How about in 10 years ?

Then there's also the little fact that a 8GB raw DVD can generally be compressed to 1/4th - 1/8th of that by a good video-codec without losing very much quality. No it's not "perfect", but neither are 128kbps mp3s, and see how that's stopped people from accepting them.

Re:Not Surprised

[ady1]

if you statement is true then no one will need money anymore. you can replicate money or anything else (food?) you require. you are contradicting your own statement. COPYING BITS OR BYTES IS DIFFERENT

Re:Not Surprised

[cybpunks3]

=
Some, of course, will be so driven by the artistic/altruistic drive, but do you honestly believe that is even a significant minority, much less the majority of the population?
=

The world existed before copyrights. The world can survive without them.

Would it be a very different world? Sure. Entertainment would become much more amateur.

You wouldn't see any big budget Lord of the Rings epics. Everything would collapse down to the garage band / Blair Witch level.

But society wouldn't collapse.

Would I like to see this happen? No. I'd like to still see the big budget polished stuff. But it's not exactly a big deal to me unless I were working in showbiz.

Re:Not Surprised

[arkhan_jg]

They're becoming increasingly common. I don't buy many DVDs for that very reason, but Master and Commander, Finding Neverland, Vera Drake and Shrek 2 all have them.

They're damned annoying. It's not just the increasingly lengthy theft 'warning' but literally about 5 minutes of unskippable ads every time you play them.

Re:Not Surprised

[flubbergust]

And don't give me the 'think of the artists' crap, Tom Cruise is not likely to go broke anytime soon.
If we continue to think like this then the artists will be broke.

Re:Not Surprised

[fgl]

Why is that a problem? If we had molecular level replication technology, what would we need money for?

Re:Not Surprised

[Hast]

The "government restriction", for many libertarians (often seen as the biggest promoters of true capitalism) at least, would include the argument that the government should not aid OR abet any enterprise, in addition to not restricting them.

The real issue comes down to why corporations feel that "trampling our rights" is okay. Well, you needn't look any further than the myraid of government licenses, regulations, and tax laws to see why businesses feel justified in harming the citizens that work for them.
This is the kind of naive thinking which drives me away for libertarians.

There seems to be this prevalent "the free market" will solve anything. Seems like no-one knows their history enough that when "the free market" ruled during the beginning of the industrial era factory workers were more or less slaves (they got paid but no boarding) to the wims of the factory owners. Only after government restrictions and worker unions was a balance between the two met. (I guess there will never be complete balance, just less unfair in one way or the other.)

The reason companies do this is because they have exactly one reason to exist. To Make Money. There are no other objectives for a company. Furthermore if the company is on the stock exchange the board has a resposibility to their owners (stock holders) to Make More Money. If it were legal a corporate entity would have no qualms about killing off half of it's workers as well as consumers in the process, as long as they made more money that way.

It Is All About The Money.

Somehow libertarians seem to think that if we just "made it easier for companies" then everything would suddenly be nice and rose fields will spring everywhere the Free Market arrived. Not gonna happen! Look at the developing nations and specifically China to get a good look at how well companies treat their employees when there are no laws restricting them.

As long as they can get more workers they are happy to chew on them for a while and then spit them out when they are useless.

"Oh, but that can't happen here! We live in America!" Oh yeah? Did you happen to look at all the reports from sweat shops at EA games the last few months? Those were legal ways in order to abuse your employees to the point of where they were used up both at work and wrt their personal life.

I seem to have gotten off on a bit of a rant here. Sorry 'bout that, just something I had to get off my chest.

Re:Not Surprised

[doubledoh]

Yeah, like all the thousands of government subsidized programs that cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars every year that shower the "whole" country with boundless rewards for "practically nothing."

You want something done, you get government out of it completely, you don't ask for more government!

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you can hardly call Tom Cruise going broke a loss to society now can you?

Re:Not Surprised

[KnightTristan]

*cough* Lernout & Hauspie *cough*

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting one, indeed, and well aimed.

That said, if I seriously believed that any pharmaceutical company out there was sitting on a cure for cancer during the time in which a number of rather wonderful acquaintances of mine have died of cancer - if there was proof that those deaths were practically preventable - well, first I'd probably check out the law, but secondly I'd be tempted to start hunting the relevant executives of the companies in question, and not in order to buy them a beer either :(

It must take an interesting sort of callousness to hold out for added profit, when you hold the lives of thousands of cancer sufferers in your hands...

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists have always been broke.. but I wonder how Tom Cruise is connected to artists? He likes to hang out with them?

Re:Not Surprised

[Wolfhart]

Of course, there exists a third "secret" option. Which contains people who believe making money off of sickness, disease, poverty, violence, crime, etc is spiteful - regardless of whatever capitalist mantra you hold in your head due to your upbringing.
Can't make money without a patent? That should be the first, sole criterium to dismiss the idea in the first place. Or imagine us all sitting there, 10 years from now, chained with invisible links to the Television set, being fed hours and hours of commercial information, what to believe, what to think, how to vote.
Wait. This is already happening. It's called the U.S.

Re:Not Surprised

[mrscorpio]

This is the same reason I use it. I also use it to rip audio from concert DVD's so I can listen to it on my CD player. I hope that's fair use :D

Re:Not Surprised

[Harassed]

I think you've actually hit the nail on the head with this scenario. I know you are actually using it to contrast with the **AA/DRM issue but it is not the same thing. In the example you give about developing medicines to cure disease, the actual issue involved is that we've let it get to the stage where _private_ companies can effectively hold humanity hostage to the almighty dollar. The only feasible solution to this issue (and one that won't happen so long as the drug companies keep buying our politicians) is to bring the drug companies under the direct control of the government (and remember this is the "government of the people, for the people" not the corrupt fuckup we live with today) and allow our own tax moneys to pay for the R&D on the basis it benefits all therefore all should contribute and then allow any one with one of these molecular replicators to 'download' the formula _for free_.

While the above is, I believe, the only way to ensure that medicines are available to all who need them it is an entirely different matter to the duplication of "intellectual property" allegedly "owned" by the **AA or its members. We can happily live without the combined output of these organisations whereas the medical situation could literally be a case of life or death.

That's not to say I'm defending the **AA's of the world. What they have done to destroy popular culture through their combination of greed and neglect is criminal but I believe that the drug companies are millions of times worse. All you need to do is look at the patenting of parts of the human genome, the (lack of) availability of essential drugs in the developing world to treat infection and diseases such as HIV and malaria due to the artificially high costs imposed on those countries.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

He was previously married to one.

Re:Not Surprised

[Khazunga]

Easy example: suppose the existence of a molecular replicator on a small level, i.e. a device capable of "reading" medicine and generating perfect (i.e. digitally perfect) duplicates of the original at a significantly reduced cost. Now, there is a disease (it doesn't matter of what type). A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently). However, the existence of the replicator means that anyone who obtains a microscopic sample can easily and cheaply replicate countless amounts. How is the developer to recoup his costs? He cannot sell the medicine for any more than it would cost to replicate it (assume that one person bought it at full price, but then sold a ton of it at cost).

Easy one out. You are describing an environment where the only cost for innovation is brain power. Open Source Software clearly demonstrated that innovation where the only cost is brainpower does not require patent incentives. It's a bit hard to understand if you get stuck in the current business models, but it's perfectly obvious if you look around...

By the way, music is such a scenario. It is, much like books, a market where the real added value is in the editorial business: selectively picking the best authors from a myriad, so that the general public doesn't have to. However, big labels can't morph into something like Blue Note Records without significant slimming down.

Re:Not Surprised

[Khazunga]

My problem with such an answer is that it doesn't agree at all with history. There is no record of any civilization, ever, sustaining such motivations.

Go re-read your history books. Open up the chapter on the Renaissance, and focus clearly on the concept of patrons.

Re:Not Surprised

[Stone Pony]

"And what about my fair use rights? Do they get trumped by a business protecting their investments"

IANAL, and I'm not trying to be funny about this, but my understanding is that the answer to this is "yes".

Based entirely on my readings of Slashdot posts by people who appear to be sensible adults with a certain amount of factual knowledge about copyright law (able to recognise that there are several perfectly good reasons for IP law; don't pretend that 90% of p2p users are only d/l-ing non-copyright Latvian folk songs; can actually quote legal references: that sort of thing) my impression is that fair use describes what you are allowed to do without infringing on copyright. It doesn't mandate that the copyright holder makes it easy, or even possible, for you actually to do those things.

Like I say, IANAL and even if I was I wouldn't be an American one (although this specific case was in the UK, I assume that your more general point relates to the USA). I could easily be wrong about this, but I suspect that I'm not.

Re:Not Surprised

[deimtee]

Not being able to skip ads/disabling controls etc. has to be at least partly the DVD players fault. Has anybody looked at hacking the firmware so that discs can't over-ride the DVD player controls?

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

If we continue to think like this then the artists will be broke.

Most artists are already broke or make most of their money in a different line of work because of the way we think. And by we I mean morons like you who buy the bullshit that defending the wealth of a miniscule minority somehow magically supports the overwhelming majority. It's people like you, through your continued support of a perverse work ethic, that have created the Frankenstein monsters now destroying our rights for the sake of their dollars.

When a doctor is done setting your broken arm, you pay him for the work he has done. When a mechanic has fixed your car, you pay him for the work he has done. It's the same for 99.99999% of us. When we stop working, we stop making money. But when Tom Cruise stops working on whatever movie he's in next, he'll keep getting paid until he's dead or the movie goes out of print. Why should he? The people who operate the equipment that records the movie don't get paid like that. The people who edit the movie don't either. The people who make the actual DVDs don't either. A tiny few, whose actual work is a microscopic fraction of all the work that makes their scheme possible, benefit indefinitely for they once did. Why should they? Where's the benefit to society in work once, get paid forever? What is it, besides greedy and lazy?

Re:Not Surprised

[Stone Pony]

As straw men go, though, it does have the virtue that, in positing the existence of a technology which allows cheap, simple and exact replication of a product, it exactly describes the situation today as regards digital media. If all - or even some - Slashdot analogies were that sound, there'd be less scope for karma-whoring question avoidance like yours. Still, that's a price that I, for one, would be willing to pay.

Re:Not Surprised

[webview]

Seeing as how (in the US at least) movie studios are barred from owning movie theatres (old anti-trust case that goes back at least 50 years), the studios aren't making money off the concesions.

I have been to many Sony theaters and Sony itself has Sony Pictures. How does this fit in?

Re:Not Surprised

[deimtee]

He was talking about a world where technology has eliminated scarcity. I can see large groups of people combining to do things for free in such a world. There will still be people of all skill/creativity levels, including charismatic, visionary leaders who will be able to get a large following to help in the realization of their dreams. What will change is that people will work for someone who inspires them, rather than someone who pays them.
Will these people be a minority ? - Definitely, but they will be a large enough minority to still produce more and better art of all types than our society currently does.
I also wouldn't expect it to always be the same people, either. Some will get tired or distracted and will leave, others will get bored and begin helping.
In such a world, reputation will become the new social currency. 'I worked on Wilson's "Schoedinger's Cat"' will get people slapping you on the back and shouting you (free) beers.

Re:Not Surprised

[AviLazar]

Did S&W have to shut their doors down (as in give up their assests to the gov't? This was a rhetorical question using an example company. How many gun makers are still making guns for civilians? - a whole lot. Apparantly they still have open doors.

Re:Not Surprised

[AviLazar]

And you don't feel bad of depriving disney, pixar and all of these guys of a couple dozen replacement DVDs @ 30$ each every year?

With the exception of special packs, multi-disc movies ( and even then) what DVD's cost $30? I have never paid $30 for any single movie. Hell I paid $50 for the extended superman platinum set that had all the supermen movies - and that was the most expensive thing ever.

I do not feel bad of depriving the movie companies their due revenue for a movie even if it is $30....if I do not like their prices, I do not buy their product. Now if this was the second disc I had to buy because my dog ate the first one, I can understand the want to copy - but as I said, and you are ignoring my statement in your rant, most people rip and burn movies they rent, not movies they own for backup. Are there exceptions ---yes--- are they greater then those who are ripping just to get an almost free movie --- I want proof of that.

In response to your bullets
see it in theatre multiple times - your problem, why should the theatre give you an unlimited seat?

If you choose to buy it on VHS and DvD then that is your problem. Personally if I wanted a copy on VHS I would buy it on DvD and copy it to VHS (a legal act).

As for upgrading technologies - a company spends a lot of time and money in researching a better technology - why do they owe you a copy of the movie free because you bought a previous version?

Nope sorry, you have no case here. The only case possible is for backup purposes - and again, show me verifiable, reliable independent data showing most people rip and burn for backing up and not stealing.

Re:Not Surprised

[sepluv]

The difference is:

• Guns aren't really effective at doing anything other than killing (which is, usually, considered immoral)--I mean if you want to make holes in a inanimate object, you'd use a drill, because guns really aren't all that accurate.
• Whereas, DVD decryption software is necessary to *playback* DVDs--even where you have the permission of the copyright holder to play the movie *and* you have bought it from them, and playing movies you have bought rom the copyright holder is usually considered moral. (In fact, copying movies without the permission of the copyright holder usually is too; however, you don't need to decrypt the movie in order to copy it--just to play it back.)

Re:Not Surprised

[Deaths Hand]

I reckon it was under the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 See http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/8/13

Re:Not Surprised

[cdrudge]

Initially yes, but then you don't have to ever worry about it again. My kids have a Thomas the train video that has close to 10 minutes of crap at the begining you have to sit though before the menu even comes up. Being the avid fans they are, they tend to watch the video quite often. Ripping it meant that I don't have to wait around to hit play when the menu comes up after 6 different warning notices in 3 languages and countless previews.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

So how would things work if I could back up my kids "Plastic Scooter" I bought from Toys R Us. Would "insert company name" care ... am I making illegal copies?

If it were cheap, and practical to clone my kids toys then I'd do it as well. But I'm guessing there would be laws adapted to prevent me from doing that. Because, instead, I'm suppose to go buy a new "Plastic Scooter" for my child to replace it.

So why don't we just do the same with DVDs? If my DVD cracks, breaks, gets a big scratch on it, or the dog eats it ... then I buy a new one ... not pull out my backup copy?

Why do we all feel we have the right to duplicate something we purchased? Pretty soon this will all go away, digital media will be replaced with streamed content ... we won't have personal media anymore, instead we'll buy a DVD that uplinks to a service that streams the movie to you - on demand.

Re:Not Surprised

[egriebel]

Has anybody looked at hacking the firmware so that discs can't over-ride the DVD player controls?

Alex, can I have, "Ways to violate the DMCA" for 200 please?

Re:Not Surprised

[Nevyn]

I'm curious: how exactly would you suggest, in a purely capitalist system, that the creator of a thing which can be copied (and thus re-sold without any money going to the creator) protect his product?

I'm curious: how exactly would you suggest, in the world as of today, I do interstellar travel and live on another planet? You see I desperatly need to do this to make money, even though it's obvious to everyone else that it can't be done, much like your problem ... I promise to try very hard to solve your problem when you send me the answer to mine, thanks.

Re:Not Surprised

[Fulg]

Personally if I wanted a copy on VHS I would buy it on DvD and copy it to VHS (a legal act).

Actually this won't work because of the Macrovision protection on said DVD. The VHS copy will be unwatchable.

Therein lies the problem; the copy protection is preventing you from exercising your legal rights (backup copy for your own private use)...

Re:Not Surprised

[ivan256]

You know a place that has new releases for only $9? Where is it, and how many ads do you have to watch before the movie?

Re:Not Surprised

[AviLazar]

Take it from the perspective of the movie companies. They produce movies - and a lot of people out there are copying/downloading them for free. Imagine you worked long and hard on a product - and you are trying to maximize it. How would you feel if people were stealing your work? I am not talking about the legitimate people who back up (remember it only takes a few bad apples). What would you want done if someone is stripping away your chances of making money?

Re:Not Surprised

[coopex]

google for "united artists" holdings

Re:Not Surprised

[coopex]

The movie studios *were* barred from owning theaters due to the 50's Paramont case, but relaxed restrictions in the 80's have allowed them once more to tighten their grip. See here for more

Re:Not Surprised

[Sheepdot]

There seems to be this prevalent "the free market" will solve anything. Seems like no-one knows their history enough that when "the free market" ruled during the beginning of the industrial era factory workers were more or less slaves (they got paid but no boarding) to the wims of the factory owners.

Oh really? They couldn't work on the farm instead of on the assembly line? They were "born" into their job (like the former Soviet Union) with no chance to ever resign or quit?

Only after government restrictions and worker unions was a balance between the two met. (I guess there will never be complete balance, just less unfair in one way or the other.)

Please, by all means, give an example. It's hard to refute the issue when I've yet to see someone with a valid complaint about a specific instance (pay, working conditions, etc.) make the argument. Because, you know that I will be able to find an instance where the government intervened originally on behalf of the corporation to perpetuate the working conditions.

Assuming you're going to go the working conditions for the pay route: I would also have to argue, what is so different about working conditions then as opposed to now? For example, IBP in Iowa employs thousands of Mexicans (I don't even have to pretend they are legal immigrants, everyone knows they are not, and IBP and customs have a "working agreement") to work cutting gizzards and beaks out of chickens on a minute-by-minute basis. The work is sick and disgusting and, if you've ever been inside one of the plants, it's got the smell of something that is a cross between an "old folk's home" and a funeral home.

Arguably, these individuals are working in the worse conditions in the nation, and are only paid maybe 12 bucks an hour, and many of them struggle to maintain their sanity. But where are the unions stepping down to protect these Mexicans? They died out, because people were willing to work without unionizing, and many thought the company put forth a good faith effort to keep their work environment clean for them.

You see, what you perceive as unreasonable, is just something you don't want to do. There is someone who *does* want to do the job, and they'll most likely get compensated justly for it. Just as competition occurs in the market, so too does it occur in the workforce. Assuming no outside government influence or intervention, and you've got a reasonable system.

The reason companies do this is because they have exactly one reason to exist. To Make Money. There are no other objectives for a company. Furthermore if the company is on the stock exchange the board has a resposibility to their owners (stock holders) to Make More Money. If it were legal a corporate entity would have no qualms about killing off half of it's workers as well as consumers in the process, as long as they made more money that way.

I like this sophomoric argument. Why? Because it embodies the ultimate Green and socialist fear that corporations want to see their employees suffer. Yet these individuals, would like to see more taxes, more government spending, more government regulation over industries that eventually don't exist anymore, yet are still "regulated" by a hundred-thousand person branch of the government.

What example have I?

Let's try the auto industry for starters. Ford and GM are now "junk bond" status. In case you don't know what that means, it's essentially saying that their creditors own more of the company than even stock and bond holders. Unless they file for bankruptcy, they will be dissolved. What then, happens to the myriad of government jobs relying on regulations of the auto industry? Granted, we'll still have cars, but they'll be imported or Saturns (for lack of a better example).

The assumption by Greens, environmentalists, and socialists is that corporations and industries will always exist. They seem to ignore the fact that

Re:Not Surprised

[ChrisMaple]

Peterborough Community Theatre, Peterborough, New Hampshire, $7. No ads other than 2 trailers. One room, about 100 seats.

Re:Not Surprised

[Xesdeeni]

And you don't feel bad of depriving disney, pixar and all of these guys of a couple dozen replacement DVDs @ 30$ each every year?

Umm. Have you tried to purchase any replacement Disney movies lately? They aren't for sale! Disney pulls their movies after a year or so.

No, I don't feel bad for backing up my $30 DVDs before my 2 and 4-yr-olds get hold of them, when I can't get a replacement.

(Sure, I could get a used one, which may have withstood more abuse than mine already...but used sales don't benefit Disney anyway!)

Xesdeeni

Re:Not Surprised

[Xesdeeni]

Even if the DVD is a single layer, you can't make a bit-for-bit copy on a DVD*R. There is a special area on the pressed DVD containing the keys for decryption. That area isn't burnable on DVD*Rs. So while you can copy the bits from the pressed DVD, your DVD player won't be able to play them back without the keys.

Xesdeeni

Re:Not Surprised

[jfengel]

I live in Maryland; the going rate is around $9, with one or two ads before the previews. (I like previews, and one ad doesn't piss me off too terribly much, but two or more ticks me off and I complain.)

Re:Not Surprised

[ChrisMaple]

Services.

Re:Not Surprised

[ChrisMaple]

Failure to honor a rebate is a taking, and the practice is common.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't go for two hours without eating or drinking, then there's something wrong with you.
I go to the movies once or twice a year, on average.
The last time that I bought (or brought, in the case of a drive-in) any food at all was around 1975.

Re:Not Surprised

[bill_kress]

So the issue is that alone you would do the right thing, but in a group, you are involved with an excuse--that the rest of the group might not want it.

This is where I feel that corporations become evil. It is not any individual, it is the fact that when you get many individuals together you get the lowest common denominator when it comes to morals.

Everybody starts using this group as an excuse. It's okay if every individual profits from it, but there is no individual responsibility for having a soul.

This is the one case where a government should be strong--to ensure that these companies are giving back to the community, a community that supports them with educated workers, streets, protection, and customers.

Just because we have allowed companies to have "Rights", doesn't make it right.

The funny thing is, this has been known again and again throughout time. When things are going well, humans can't help but get greedy. We start to think that greed is great. We let government pass laws stomping on other people so a few can get richer. It's like we actually want people so rich that the only thing they can do with their money is buy laws or other people (acts that are by definition damaging to the general populace)

Last time it happened was in the 20's. By the 40's we had recaptured the government and started rebuilding from the wreck those laws had caused. Everyone understood how bad greed was at that point. The lesson lasted until the 80's, that's not too bad, but it seems like it must be time for another reminder.

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSI ON.htm

The way corporations abuse copyrights is just one example of the extremities of greed they will go to when left unchecked. It will get worse.

Re:Not Surprised

[RevWhite]

Duluth, MN - most theaters are $5 matinees or $7/7.50 (I forget exactly how much) for evening shows. Unfortunately they spread out the screenings by an extra 15 minutes for most shows so they can show their locally produced crappy ads for the dollar store that contain a very bitchy girl I went to high school with. I'm not bitter at all. . .

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you just download a random drug that claims to cure your disease and start replicating? Of course not, you would want SOME assurance that it actually was what it claimed to be, and would not do more harm then good. You would need some type of authority on drugs to tell you that. That is a service that you can charge for, and that is where this analogy comes close to that of the movie and music industry.
The only real services that (RI/MP)AA provide that could not be done just as well by millions of people worldwide is filter out the best (for what ever criteria they are filtering for) of their respective fields to produce the best possible media. This is a service people are willing to pay for, it has value. But this is not the service that they choose to sell. Instead they try to claim ownership of the music/movie itself and attempt to sell it like a commodity, which it is not, nor has it been in a REALLY long time.
Technology has changed the value of REPODUCEABLE commodity considerably. At first you had to directly pay a skilled artiest to create the artwork for as many times as you needed it, this made the product quite limited, and thus valuable. Then technology caught up to that and made mass replication possible, value plummeted. But these media replication facilities were very expensive and required trained technical people to operate. Replication companies were born. But then technology once again caught up and replication became trivial, so replication companies became distribution companies because the only real challenge was left was moving the product to the consumer. Now technology has once again trivialized that part of their business and instead of moving to the next stage, they have decided to backtrack and try to claim replication is the 'real' business that they are in. They argue that they have a right to make money off of the work of the artists, whether of not their input into the creation was of any value.
RIAA and MPAA need to move forward and change into a pure service industry, because THAT is where the technology is moving them and no matter how hard they rail against it, will not change the fact that the service that they want to charge for no longer holds much value.

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

.
Yeah; you white people are "circling the wagons" real tough! getting a bit nervous, eh? and well you should! jacking folks planetwi... hell, jacking the _planet_ for as long as you've been perverting history.

yeah, a cancer; red tide; canker sore; gangree ... all that! y'all are disgusting!

and you're gonna lose, eventually. true, you might get to the point of "defeating" all the non-white (and what few white folks have any sense) folks, but, as you are seeing; the planet will win in the end ... unless you actually break the planet! which, , you sick fucks will prolly do! biyatch!

Virulently Anti-white

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

"Virulently Anti-white"

Why don't you just be honest and write "Idiotic Racist"?

Color doesn't matter you moron.

Re:Not Surprised

[extropalopakettle]

Plus you can make the copy without the menu and the previews and all the other crap that you have to sit around pressing buttons to skip over (or just wait when it won't let you skip over). So my kids (or my parents - I do it for them too) can just pop the DVD in and the movie starts. That's the way it should be.

Re:Not Surprised

[HiThere]

Every single classical score I've seen (bar one that was printed before 1910) had a copyright on it. The original piece may be out of copyright, but how can you find what the original piece was? And how can you prove it?

For folk tunes, the same argument applies. It doesn't affect most people not because they aren't violating copyright law (as interpreted), but rather because they are "under the radar".

If you had solid proof of what the various folk traditions claimed, then, with enough money, time, effort, and exposure to danger, you could defend yourself. So they don't attack people with those characteristics. This means that the legal record just shows case after case where their copyrights have been upheld. (Admittedly, the cases are rather sparse. But they happen.)

Re:Not Surprised

[Cally]

A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently).

The difference is that pharmaceutical patents lapse after 7 years, which is why can now buy off-brand generic (say) Ibuprofen, Prozac, or (to mention something I picked up at the supermarket today) Ranitidine, aka Zantac. These drugs all made -billions- for the corps that developed them, and they're all off-patent and available for manufacture and sale by any pharmaceutical company with the skillz to build the molecules.

Re:Not Surprised

[CaseM]

So while you can copy the bits from the pressed DVD, your DVD player won't be able to play them back without the keys.

Sure you can. When you copy the movie, it gets decrypted and those extra bits are no longer required. Voila!

Re:Not Surprised

[Xesdeeni]

Umm...then that's not a bit-for-bit copy.

Xesdeeni

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, I'd like to do that with my car befere i go to work. Any one have Car decrypter or an iso of a Honda civic would do the same. ;)

Re:Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

medecine: humans need these to survive (longer)
artistic work: humans dont need these to survive

Re:Not Surprised

[iminplaya]

Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?

Simple...The same way we support everybody else. If this developer were to withhold his innovation for profit and let people die, then we'll just have to assume he did nothing and wait for another developer who wants to cure people. In a pure capitalist world where corporations don't have special protections and privileges, it wouldn't cost billions to develope the cure. Most of that money being spent now is pure featherbedding. Also the developer would be aware of this replicator and work his business accordingly. He will find upfront funding. I hope you're not advocating the prohibition of molecular replicators. But since capitalism needs scarcity and poverty and illness and war to function, prohibition is probably exactly what would happen. If everybody can make what they need for themselves what is going to fuel capitalism? If nobody is poor, who will do the work? If everybody is healthy, who's going to buy your treatments(because we know a cure is not profitable)? If we're at peace, who's going to buy your weapons?

Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?

"This" isn't the problem. Capitalism is.

Re:Not Surprised

[SilverspurG]

it doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets

Quit with the amateur wannabe jargon political posting. Face reality.

We, in the US, do not live in a capitalist system. A capitalist system with thousands and thousands of government rules and regulations is communism. To put it another way, if you could remove the government control and oversight from communism, you would have capitalism.

Quit blaming capitalism. Your brand of misinformation is going to result in an enormous amount of people running in the wrong direction and further making a mess of things.

The money launderer here is government. The people writing the rules, with the appropriate loopholes, allowing companies to stomp all over the rights of the people are the politicians. The people who are focusing on the letter of the law as opposed to the right or wrong of a given situation are the government appointed judges.

Get your facts straight.

Re:Not Surprised

[elmo13]

Use vlc. That can skip to any part of a DVD. It even has a fast open thing where it goes straight to the film. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Re:Not Surprised

[CaseM]

So you were being pedantic in your meaning of "bit-for-bit"...for what reason? I dunno. It's quite obvious that the person you responded to meant "the meaningful bits"...you know, those that contain the actual movie.

No one cares if you can't get the encrypted bits since the movie gets decrypted anyway during the process, but I guess some people love to take a statment out of context so that they can contravene it.

Re:Not Surprised

[I. M. Bur]

But what about my LOTR EE discs? Three parts, two discs each, that's six DL disks. Now you propose I have 12 of them? No way! I rather ripped them in lower quality and merged them together onto a one single-layer DVD, so that I have to switch the discs just twice, instead of eleven(!!!) times...

Re:Not Surprised

[Xesdeeni]

No, I'm not being pedantic. I think you lost the thread somehwhere:

The grandparent to my orignal response said:
"You can copy it without decrypting it. It should be bit-identical to the original, and play in any player." (emphasis mine)

The parent indicated that single-layer DVD*Rs wouldn't hold most movies due to size issues (which is true).

I was just pointing out that even if you could fit the data onto a DVD*R (single or dual layer), a bit-for-bit copy wouldn't play, due to the lack of encryption keys.

Xesdeeni

Re:Not Surprised

[OutOfContext]

Yep - I have $400 of flimsy kids' DVDs floating around my den and I have two choices, buy a new $20 disc every third time my 3 year old wants to watch Nemo, or copy the damned thing.

Since S*ny ditched the alledged cartridge design for DVD early on for "weight in shipping" issues, I can only assume that longevity is not a premium to them... oh, shock of shocks, from a company whose $18 CDs, supposed to drop in price over the first five years with "improved economy of scale" only dropped their shelf price last summer.

Am I the only one on the planet that remembers these things? Or the DAT copy flag that made me buy studio time on a $3000 machine to copy my own final project in music school?

I swear I feel like a Phone Sanitizer sometimes - esp when it comes to S*ny.

Why sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were Sony, I'd hire this guy.. not sue him.

*shrug* Silly rabbit

Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Figures it's Sony. They want you to watch Sony artists performing Sony songs on Sony computers using Sony displays controlled with Sony mice and Sony keyboards - if you're unfortunate enough to be encumbered with one of their "portable audio" players you'll be aware of their proprietary format, as mp3 isn't owned by Sony so they don't use it. They still pay the licence fee for their mp3 to atrac tool, though.

Sony have been pissing me off for a long time and I've been hitting them where it hurts. I don't buy Sony and I encourage you to do the same.

Re:Sony?

[NuShrike]

And their Sony only batteries that cost $50 each no matter if it's 1/2 the capacity of another $50 battery of theirs

Re:Sony?

[ettlz]

Amen to that. I too have seen the dark side of Sony music hardware; namely, the horror of SonicStage SimpleBurner. Why does that thing require Admin privileges to run? What does it write about my activities and where? Why does it not work with dual-boot configurations? What kind of way is that to run a piece of software for listening to and managing music? And why they hell are they worried about people swapping music with it when the thing only rips to ATRAC-3, which is a bloody awful codec anyway?!

Re:Sony?

[Aeros]

I used to always by Sony up until a year ago when I got the crappiest service through their "support service" and vowed never to by Sony again. People need to be able to make backups of their products if they need to. Its not our fault "some" people decide to abuse this. Bastards

Re:Sony?

[10101001 10101001]

So,

• Sony is evil -- no /.ers buy PS3

• MS is evil (a given) -- no /.ers buy XBox 360

So, surely this means that Nintendo is going to win out in the next console wars. Right? Right?
</overly-optimistic>

Re:Sony?

[Lord Kano]

Sony's greed is the number one reason why most of the world used VHS instead of Beta. JVC was smart about it and decided to share their technology and made a killing by increasing the market.

LK

Re:Sony?

[Aeros]

Dammit....I said earlier I wasnt going to buy Sony....but I really want a PS3. Not im really stuck.

Re:Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in; Nintendo's evil too.

Say no?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Why not just say no? you can't sue a guy for making a crowbar which broke into your house, so why sue a guy making a program which someone used to break (some may say unfair) DRM bullshit?

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just say no?

If you'd RTFA, he addressed why he's not just saying no...

Re:Say no?

[Kwirl]

The main reason for a lawsuit in a case like this is to attack the defendents perseverance. While the courts will ultimately uphold him in the long run, in the short term he has a lengthy and very expensive court battle in front of him. Even with recovery of costs at the end of a trial, it will severely damage his means in the short time. Unless he has a healthy savings account, the big guys are going to wear him down financially throughout the case, hoping he will give up or surrender without a fight.

I for one hope this guy gets some backing to put up a fight, and while we are at it, lets throw him some punitive damages from a corporation attempting to bully a guy using quasi-legal methodology.

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the person making the crowbar sold it as a "Home Break-in Stick", you might just be able to sue him after your home got broken into.

Re:Say no?

[AnonymousJackass]

I get your point, but there's a big difference between crowbars and dvd decrypter software. A crowbar has many perfectly innocent uses. How many innocent uses are there for decrypter software?

Re:Say no?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Making backups of your DVDs when you go on a road trip (kids can watch the movies rather than whine at you) so you can keep the originals safe at home so they won't get lost, damaged, stolen or scratched.

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides making backup copies of the DVD you bought, you mean?

Re:Say no?

[gcauthon]

Watching a dvd that you've purchased seems like a perfectly innocent use to me.

Re:Say no?

[ZorinLynx]

Copying a DVD to your laptop's hard drive so you can watch it on a flight and save battery life since your DVD-ROM drive won't be running, for one...

-Z

Re:Say no?

[computational super]

Well, then there's your solution. Just do what congress does and start calling DVD decryptors "Child Protecting, Terrorism Stopping Patriotism Programs".

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Decryption software is required everytime you acces a dvd. If there where no pieces of software that did this your dvd play would be nothing more then a motor that could spin shiny disk.

DRM is a useless banner designed to protect those in power and stomp on those who try to take thier power nothing more nothing less, mind you I am an artist.

Re:Say no?

[ottothecow]

Hey, mod him something else, thats not just funny, its a good idea.

Nobody is going to care about the backpage headline saying "DVD Decrypter author in legal fiasco" but they might see and wonder about the slightly larger print "PatriotDVD CE (capitalist edition)." They would tell all of their friends about how they read an article such and such a studio trying to infringe on their rights by killing the patriots.

Its far out there, but if you are looking for a name for a similar program, just give it a shot. And besides, isn't piracy legitimate in a completely free market? Everybody is doing whatever they can to get money, the programmers make pirate software to break the newest lock, the pirates pirate and the studios try to prevent it, just one big circle of pure-free-market goodness

Re:Say no?

[Fareq]

tut, tut...

That may be a non-infringing use, but, because of DMCA, it is not a legal use. And for protection the use must be a legal, non-infringing use.

You're going to have to get DMCA off the books before this is legal. It is perfectly ethical, but clearly illegal.

Re:Say no?

[Tyler Eaves]

But for that case, and for many of these, YOU DON'T NEED TO DECRYPT THE CSS. Just do a byte-for-byte copy using your ISO making software of choice, mount the image with daemon tools, and use your normal DVD software.

Re:Say no?

[eraserewind]

What if I have a digital door?

Re:Say no?

[flonker]

"ChildSafe DVD Backup Software"

I'd *love* to see "MPAA vs. ChildSafe LLC"

Re:Say no?

[Some_Llama]

Well I know PC DVD games made by Sony have a version of copy protection (Safe Disc) that searches for Daemon tools in memory when launching the game and if it finds it, it refuses to play the game....

Does anyone know if they do the same thing with their DVD movies?

Re:Say no?

[Snaller]

The main reason for a lawsuit in a case like this is to attack the defendents perseverance. While the courts will ultimately uphold him in the long run, in the short term he has a lengthy and very expensive court battle in front of him. Even with recovery of costs at the end of a trial, it will severely damage his means in the short time. Unless he has a healthy savings account, the big guys are going to wear him down financially throughout the case, hoping he will give up or surrender without a fight.

Yeah that's the way it works in the US, where each side pays their own - but in Europe (most places) the looser has to pay the costs - which prevents big companies from frivolous law suits. And since he calls himself LightningUK - doesn't he reside there?

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah that's the way it works in the US, where each side pays their own - but in Europe (most places) the looser has to pay the costs - which prevents big companies from frivolous law suits."

In the US you can also recover legal fees if you win, but how the threats generally work is in the fact that usually the big companies (a.k.a. litigious bastards) can better afford to have money tied up in legal fees until the case is resolved, while it is usually more of a burden on the person/smaller business that they are suing. He does appear to be from the UK as he refers to lawyers as soliciters and refers to British pounds when mentioning what little chance of winning he has with his funds. ("If 321 Studios can"t do it with millions, what chance do I have with £50?!")
Also to nitpick, the correct spelling is loser, not looser when used in the context you referred to.

Re:Say no?

[ahoehn]

Actually, if it can be proved that you knew that the crowbar you were selling would likely be used for robbery, than, yes, you could be sued, or at least criminally charged. It's the same sort of crazy shit that lets the government imprision people who sell advanced hydroponic systems often used to grow marajuana. Read about it in Reefer Madness. It's a great read by Eric Schlosser, the same gentelmen who wrote Fast Food Nation.

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would just be a waste of space. Real men perform the DVD -(xvid)-> AVI/OGM/MKV/etc. ritual and cram lots of movies onto their laptop harddrives :P

Also, using a laptop on a plane is an easy way to let theives around you know "hey, I've got a laptop and it's ripe for the stealing!" or "that guy's a nerd so he won't be able to run too fast to catch us once we steal his dumb-ass laptop!"

Just kidding.. :)

Re:Say no?

[NetNifty]

I'm fairly sure that won't work - well for one thing pressed DVDs are usually too big to fit on most DVD-Rs (ok you can get dual layer DVDs but they really aren't cost effective currently per gb) without using DVD-shrink or a similer program to shrink it down a bit.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but I think theres a CSS key which has to be placed on the backup DVD in a specific place for the DVD to be able to be decrypted - and most blank DVDs don't allow you to burn in this particular place. To back it up you really have to decrypt it (well I guess a software DVD player could be written which stores a DB of CSS keys for backup DVDs but I'm not aware of any at the moment).

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just say no? you can't sue a guy for making a crowbar which broke into your house

How can a inanimate object break into a house?

Re:Say no?

[Tyler Eaves]

Read much? The GP post was referring to "copying" a DVD to his *hard drive* for use on airplanes.

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

That could be called barratry, which should cause the barraster involved to be de-barred...

Mike

Re:Say no?

[Anonymous Coward]

looser? looser? like your bowels?

it's 'loser'. long 'o' sound but single 'o' when written.

lurn 2 spel gud.

It's still available...

[bc90021]

..to anyone whose country doesn't have DMCA laws. Check afterdawn.com, and do a search for it. They ask you where you live.

Re:It's still available...

[TelevisioSledgicus]

http://www.mrbass.org/dvdrip/

Re:It's still available...

[Vicsun]

development has ceased however - it will soon become obsolete and forgotten.

Re:It's still available...

[ydrol]

A bit more information

We'll have to wait to see who picks up that domain name. ( Looks /.ed as I type!)

Re:It's still available...

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought i'd see a restriction on importing software into the US.

Release on Freenet

[James_Duncan8181]

I will never understand why the authors of software like this that is almost guarenteed to attract legal threats do not initally release on Freenet. For those converned about the slow speed, I will point out that only the inital seeding needs to be done this way, and once the code is out on the net all is normal. But risking a few grand in legal fees for no reason? This is what Freenet is designed for.

Re:Release on Freenet

[mboverload]

Once something is on the internet it never leaves. The more you agitate the more deeply and known it goes.

Re:Release on Freenet

[nmb3000]

It's already all over the place. There's tons of copies on eDonkey 2k, Gnutella2, and FastTrack. You can also get it via a torrent released today.

This thing isn't going away just because the main website went down. Development has stopped, which is too bad, but it's still available. Who knows? Perhaps somebody can convince the author of the program to "accidently" release the source code into the GPL or something. If it did go open source then at least it might continue a little longer.

Re:Release on Freenet

[jd]

USENET is generally better for such stuff and has the advantage of a larger userbase, but regardless of what system you use, the result is the same, so your point is still 100% valid, just more generic. :)

Personally, I don't see how the complaints relate to the issue at all. There may be valid complaints, but these don't seem to be amongst them. I do think authors should avoid causing genuine distress, and I would never advocate anyone to distribute such content by any means, but even in my most generous of moods, I cannot find anything unreasonable about this decrypter.

I dunno about Japan, but UK law recognizes the notion of the "reasonable man", and common law does offer limited protections for anything that any "reasonable person" might do in a given situation. It's hard to say how a judge or a lawyer would interpret this, in any country, but I personally have a hard time considering it as anything other than reasonable to have the full use of a product you have purchased.

It would be like a car dealer selling you a car, but telling you that left-handed people are prohibited from using the stereo, or even being in the car if the stereo is in use. (Yeah, car analogies suck, but the point is that no reasonable person can be obligated by a wholly unreasonable demand, though it may not always be clear as to who/what is reasonable and who/what isn't, and even those paid to make such decisions frequently disagree.)

The whole thing about "burden of proof", "beyond reasonable doubt" and "spirit of the law" is supposed to keep all this in check, because of the standards these demand. You can't just crush someone you don't like, by using technicalities against them. Well, in theory. In practice, it happens all the time, and the world is a poorer place for it.

If frivolous lawsuits are a problem, then what does that make sociopathic ones?

Re:Release on Freenet

[VivianC]

Perhaps somebody can convince the author of the program to "accidently" release the source code into the GPL or something.

No real need to release the code under the GPL. Just release the code. Release the code to the public domain and let EVERYONE go nuts. There could be 500 new versions by the end of the week. Let the movie companies go after all of them.

Although that is probably covered in his legal settlement.

Re:Release on Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Although that is probably covered in his legal settlement.

Although, if there was some problem with his server's security configuration or his firewall, and someone was able to hack in and get the source, then.....

Re:Release on Freenet

[psychofox]

It is unfortunate it wasn't Open source in the first place - it will be gone forever now. Considering the author has been so constrained by whatever he has signed that he can't even name the plaintiff, how likely do you think that it is that his new contract doesn't state, for example:

You have broken the law, and if you do not do the following we will sue:

* Cease and desist everything
* Notify mirrors
* etc

If do the following at any point we will sue:

* Not protect the source from being released to the public
* Issue the source to the public
* Mention our name
* Release this agreement
* etc

Re:Release on Freenet

[rich_r]

"reasonable man"- Also known as the "man on the Clapham Omnibus", for you trivia fans!
Well, it tickled me as I was trawling through H&S literature...

Re:Release on Freenet

[OverlordQ]

SSK@nbPz1SyNQQ-XQQpwmoRUZRpCW1kPAgM,rgdYt0WqGns55N Ap8wDWdA/dvddecrypter-3.5.4.0//

ask and ye shall recieve

Re:Release on Freenet

[OverlordQ]

remove the space slashdot added

Re:Release on Freenet

[SeventyBang]

(always be strategic)

As has previously been mentioned, he can have his source. Should they nail him down faster than he can skip domains+countries:

"Well, you see, I did use a friend as an off-site backup system. Everyone makes backups."

A tech version of the tv|movie plot of "if anything happens to me, a copy will be sent to the authorities".

In these cases, however, it's quietly known as, "if anything happens to me, my friend will drop the source in a public, online resource and the genie will be out of the bottle."

p.s.

(I never said this)


;)

Re:Release on Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have open sourced the software! Then nobody could stop it, just like how Micro$oft can't stop everyone who uses Linux with all their money and lawsuits. Or for example how P2P software still runs strong even though Napster was shut down.

Shame to see this tool go

[Stop Error]

I hope someone out of the reach of the **AA's can continue the work on this project. It would be a shame to see such a useful tool die because is scares some suits.

From the author of DVD Decrypter

[nganju]

" Hello world,

I"ve got some good news and some bad news.Let's start with the good.... (tumble weed passes by)Ok, and now onto the badVD Decrypter 3.5.4.0 is the last version you"ll ever see.We hoped this day would never come, but it has, and I can promise you, nobody is more gutted about it than I am.

What started as a bit of fun, putting a GUI around some existing code, turned into something that I can only describe as 'part of me' - yes, I know that's sad ;-) As I"ve recently been made aware (by a letter, hand delivered to my door, last Tuesday), due to some law that was changed back in October 2003, circumventing copy protection isn"t allowed.

Ok so it has taken a while (almost 2 years), but eventually "a certain company" has decided they don"t like what I"m doing (circumventing their protection) and have come at me like a pack of wolves. I"ve no choice but to cease everything to do with DVD Decrypter.I realise this is going to be one of those "that sucks - fight them!" kinda things, but at the end of the day, it"s my life and I"m not about to throw it all away (before it has even really started) attempting to fight a battle I can"t possibly win.

If 321 Studios can"t do it with millions, what chance do I have with £50?! As I"m sure most of you have already noticed, the site has been down for a few days. That surprised me as much as the next person (slight breakdown in communication), or I would have issued this statement on it directly.

So anyway, from this point forward, I"m no longer permitted to provide any sort of assistance with anything that helps people infringe the rights of "a certain company".That means, no more emails, no more forum posts, no PM"s, no nothing! END OF STORY.The domain name will be transferred over to the company by the end of the week (9th June, according to the undertakings I have to sign) so don"t email it thinking "Oh, I"ll just ask LIGHTNING UK! for support on this". You"ll not be getting the intended recipient and could be landing yourself in sh1t!

With 3.5.4.0 being the last version, it makes sense for everyone to disable the "check for new versions" feature, as obviously there won"t be any. Of course what I really mean is that you should all stop using the program out of respect for the company's rights.

Anyone hosting DVD Decrypter is advised to cease doing so immediately. I"ve the feeling they won"t stop with just me. I"m having to contact anyone I know of that is (at the very least, the "mirror" sites), and tell them to stop. Copies of those emails must also be sent to the solicitors so they can check I"m doing everything I"m supposed to. If I don't, I die.

It is of course down to the owners of those sites to react how they want to. It"s not my job to force you to do anything you don"t want to, I"m just giving you some friendly advice. Maybe it"s just me, but I see this as a bit of an "end of an era". I realise there are other tools, but there"s no telling how much longer they"ll last, and not only that, mine was the oldest! I"ve met loads of great people over the years and I want to take this opportunity to wish them every success for the future - yes DDBT peeps, that includes you lot! : "(I hope you"ve all enjoyed my contribution to the DVD scene and maybe I"ll see ya around sometime.

LIGHTNING UK!
(Author of the once "Ultimate DVD Ripper", DVD Decrypter)"

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[payndz]

Wait a sec...

I thought that it took ten years for stupid ideas from the States to reach the UK. Not seven. (The DMCA being signed in 1998.)

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to go Heemeyer on these dipshits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[0111 1110]

Thank you so much for writing this wonderful software. Maybe after all of this passes and the big bad wolf is busy with other targets, you could give the source code to an anonymous friend who can release it on freenet or maybe just Emule. It would be a shame for such great software to just die out. Although we all know the latest release will still be available on mirror sites and/or through Emule etc.

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[HTH NE1]

I thought that it took ten years for stupid ideas from the States to reach the UK. Not seven.

Clearly the formation/joining in a European Union has made the process of the import of the United States' stupid-idea exports more efficient.

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[DiabloJunkey]

Speaking of "a certain company" I have not bought any of their products
since they pulled this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:S22MR1- 31:

Sony Floerndo owned 'Sony's Place' restaurant in NYC for 25 to 30
years. At least until she was attacked by the lawyers of
"a certain company" and forced to change her own restaurant's name.

DiabloJunky

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[Bob MacSlack]

Screw the "anonymous friend." Just stick it on an unpatched system on the net which will get hacked and the code stolen. Of course in his post I believe he says he had to turn over the code, meaning any copies he has are to be destroyed. In that case he'd get sued regardless of how it gets out.

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[Rob_Bryerton]

What a spineless pussy. I like the line about how others should now stop using the program out of respect for some companies rights. Again, what a *pussy*.

Fscking HYPOCRITE. TOOL.

Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your sarcasm meter - that reply is full of it.

Source Code? Make it universal

[Awperator]

Probably not going to happen, but I hope that somehow, the source code can be leaked out, and made open source. If so, it would be very hard for big companies to go after it and shut it down. DVD Decrypter does have it's uses. Backups. yes, I know that everyone and their mom uses this excuse to justify things that might potentially be used for piracy, but come on? Ever made a copy of a CD because you didnt want the original to get scratched in that dodgy car stereo system? Also, how else are you going to protect your LOTR Extended edition from the grubby hands of friends that want to borrow it?

Re:Source Code? Make it universal

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Freenet.

Re:Source Code? Make it universal

[JVert]

Judging by the sound of his final post he is a little too scared to try something like that. Whatever the letter said, looks like it scared him good. Maybe they etched it in his car or something. This is the one time i'd love to hop on paypal to donate to his cause but there is nothing to fight. He is folding and I can't blame him, I kinda always imagined he was preparing for this fight but maybe not. But it sounds like he is willing to give up his rights so easily maybe he could just pass on his knowlege to someone else who wants to take it to the streets.

Maybe someone just needs to make a cvs that works with freenet so a project can't really get shut down, might be a benefit enough for these loner coders to make thier source public. Before if they published it they would have the risk of getting shut down AND someone else stealing their work and making a slightly better interface for it. Need to establish a loose user based to keep the crap out. But seems like a much smarter idea then trying to use freenet for media type files.

Re:Source Code? Make it universal

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to decrypt the content to make a backup, just buy a DVD burner and do a bit for bit copy of the original disk.

.

.

.

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 22 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Re:Source Code? Make it universal

[moyix]

This gave me an odd thought--it might be interesting if, in civil cases, one could formally hand over liability to another consenting party. For example, the author of DVD Decrypter doesn't want to throw away his life fighting this thing, but there may well be someone in the UK who wants to take the time to make a stand, set up a legal defense fund, and fight them.

As a side note, we ought to know who to boycott pretty soon--once ownership of the domain name gets transferred, a simple whois should suffice.

Re:Source Code? Make it universal

[JVert]

I'm pretty convinced it was sony. Not that it means anything but i'd And I really feel like this is a breaking point for me. I want my damn movies. I'm tired of people getting up and switching DVD's, I refuse to pay for "technology" to manually flip disks in a 1950's jukebox when what I want is to just read that data once, store it, and put it back in its nice DVD sleeve.

I'm not going to be held back like this.

They thing this will push back the massess well frankly FUCK THAT. I was thinking of T-shirts that said "Save DVD-Decryptor" or something like that. But fuckit, its too late for protest this is motherfucken war! TOMOROW i'm printing a T-SHIRT thats says "ASK ME HOW TO COPY DVD'S I WILL SHOW YOU IF YOU PROMISE TO SHOW YOUR FRIENDS."
I thought it was funny with the whole "will program for food" sandwich sign in front of fry's but now I want to burn a stack of wallet CD's with the deceased decryptor on file with instructions on different front ends like media portal, stand in front of wall-mart and make a difference. If someone can please make a myth tv on knoppix that actually works without a config and will backup DVD's.

I'm not offering free tanks anymore. I'm enlisting for the army of freedom. I'm going to wal mart this month, i'm bringing a camera to show its not that hard to do so others can try if they are interested. I'm spending at an hour there handing out CD's.

Re:Source Code? Make it universal

[Stone Pony]

Something akin to this already exists in the UK. In the Neil Hamilton / Mohamed Al-Fayed libel case in 1999, Al-Fayed was able to claim his legal costs from the people who had funded Hamilton's defence. There's a brief reference to it here. This is only one small part of the BBC's archived coverage of one of those cases which you really wished that both sides could lose, but it includes the actual legal citations for anyone who wants to explore further.

in related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

a man was asked to had camera to security personel for taking photos where it was clearly posted he couldn't take them.

But, original the DVD fella, he'll be hero on Slashdot in the next few days. Go figure...

Re:in related news...

[jamsessionjay]

wtf? Your argument is just a straw man to take away from the real point here. The guy created software for the purpose of backing up dvd's, a perfectly legal thing to do.
And you compare this to possible security breaches from people who might be cassing a potential target? You come one step close to calling the man a terrorist because he wasn't doing exactly what was best for all the businesses out there.
Oh no! Sony (or who-ever) might lose money from people losing their original dvd's! GOD HELP US ALL!

Re:in related news...

[JVert]

...the sign was clearly posted in his backyard, the location where he took the aforementioned photos.

Of the billboard.

Because it was copyright.

1985.

Re:in related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy created software for the purpose of backing up dvd's, a perfectly legal thing to do.


Not in the US, if it means you have to break encryption to do so. It's the breaking and/or removal of encryption schemes that is illegal.

So no, he had no valid defense. However, this doesn't stop somebody else from making a similar/identical program and distributing it in a country where removing encryption isn't a crime.

Re:in related news...

[kraut]

Doesn't anyone RTFA? He's not in the U.S., he's in the U.K. K != S. £ != $

Of course, that just means he has fewer rights, since we don't have a proper bill of rights here (The Magna Carta, while impressive, is somewhat out of date), and the government is used to "opting out" of its own Human Right laws whenever it feels like.

If Only...

[Anonymous Coward]

He open sourced it, that would've never happened.

On the other hand he would've got into deeper trouble if he did.

I hope he thought

[m50d]

to distribute it somewhere safe before this happened. Preferrably on something like freenet where it's not very easy to stop it. Information wants to be free and all...

Re:I hope he thought

[Lehk228]

afterdawn has it, you can get it and post it onto freenet yourself if you run freenet.

Re:I hope he thought

[TheDawgLives]

I wonder if it would have been as easy to shut him down if he had open sourced his code instead of just making it freeware...
Someone in China could always continue development if he had access to the source.

Re:I hope he thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly or someone could write an entirely new thing. But China is not the place to do it - it is a totalitarian regime and a signatory to the World Trade Organisation, meaning it respects all international copyright laws excpet out there they proably send the army to break down your door and drag you in chains if you copy a DVD...
(even though there's lots of piracy beacuse its so big).

Ob. Simpsons...

[DarthVain]

Ha ha...

at sony, for spending untold on a new encryption scheme and having that guy render it useless in 72 house... oh boy.

Re:Ob. Simpsons...

[anonobomber]

Does anybody know what cd's carry this protection scheme that he supposedly cracked?

Re:Ob. Simpsons...

[KillShill]

the ones that say "SONY" on the disc.

Did Sony post the story?

[srs232]

One can wonder if Sony posted the story so all links to the page would get slashdotted.....

A stupid question

[GalfWender]

This is probably a very stupid question, but why can't the offending code which supposedly "broke their new copyright protection" just be removed?

Re:A stupid question

[A Commentor]

This is probably a very stupid question, but why can't the offending code which supposedly "broke their new copyright protection" just be removed?

Because breaking the 'old' copy protection is also violating the DMCA.

we should know company soon....

[gambit3]

.. on the letter the author posted, he states that the domain should be transferred to a "certain company" by June 9th... we'll see...

This sucks, btw..

Re:we should know company soon....

[the-dark-kangaroo]

Good old whois....

Re:we should know company soon....

[Anonymous Coward]

The domain has already transferred to a "holding company" in Hollywood. Probably some scum law firm.

What about the author's intellectual property?

[yeremein]

What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code? I can understand forcing him to take it offline--an unfortunate yet very real aspect of the DMCA's anti-free-speech provisions--but what right do they have to make him give it up? Might makes right, I guess.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[abulafia]

They don't have a claim to the code. They do, however, have the right to sue. That right can be leveraged to coerce the author into handing over rights to the code and signing all manner of "voluntary" agreements.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Dare nMc]

> What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code?

Same claim as msft has for the original Internet Explorer code...

Sounds like Sony (or whoever) made a agreement with the author to take over controll of the code, and the author agreed, sounds like they clearly have the legal right to do with it as they want.

now their choosen method of getting controll of that code was dubious, in my opinion, but their is no dount in my mind they have 100% rights to that code now.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[dougmc]

What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code?

None. Same goes for the domain in question.

But as you suggested, might makes right. Or, more accurately, money makes right.

I'd like to see the author fight it, but the risks for him are far greater than the possible benefits, so it make sense for him to simply give them what they want. Overall, the world will have lost, but he'll personally come out better for having just caved. It's not ideal, but it's the way things are. Fighting this would cost money.

The ACLU or EFF probably would like to help him, but they only have limited funds to work with as well, so they're going to pick their battles carefully and pick the fights that they have the best chances of winning and which will provide the most overall benefits to their causes.

Also note that the announcement said nothing of the DMCA -- he only mentioned a C&D (cease and desist) letter. The DMCA may be involved, but he hasn't mentioned it that I'm aware of. But judging from what he said, he's talked to them a lot more than just having read a C&D that they sent him.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code?
Terms of extortion. They don't have any rights, in fact, if you read the author's post he states that he's also got to contact anyone who was mirroring the site and ask them to stop, then turn over a copy of that request to Sony (or whomever).

This is what their lawyers came at him with if he wants the gun pointed somewhere besides his temple. I have no clue what license DVD Decrypter was under, but this is why the Free Software Foundation encourages authors who license code under the GPL to turn the copyright over to the Foundation. The FSF has more than $75 (approx conversion), to fight things like this.

If you're going to write cool stuff that might get a legal posse out to lynch you (legally), you should consider a strategy like the one the FSF offers to protect your personal assets. It is still possible to stick it to the man, but you better act smarter than the man.

IANAL, yet.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Experiment 626]

It would appear that the company more or less approached him and said. "We get to hijack your domain, steal all your source code, you stop all work on the project, tell your mirrors to do the same, and avoid referring to our company by name. You can either agree to this extortion, or fight it out in court where we have millions to pay a legal staff and you have jack." Okay, they probably spun it with language a bit more favorable to their firm, but that would be the gist of it.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[jimicus]

What claim does Sony (or whoever) have on the DVD Decrypter source code?

I don't see anything about a court order here. I suspect he received a Cease & Desist letter saying "hand everything over or we'll sic a 100-strong pack of lawyers on you, sue you for millions and get you in jail you lowdown little shitbag".

Most people will cave on the spot.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: "you give us copyright or we sue you". It's all legal (if not moral).

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[killproc]

"The FSF has more than $75 (approx conversion), to fight things like this"
I would think that it would take more than $75 to fight this in court...

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer to a C&D letter, given to the same legal peon who delivered it:

I will only talk to the boss of your organization. Face to face. Until then if any of you bozos so much as step into my property I'll break out the flamethrower.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[moonka]

Which is why you should turn it over to the FSF....and hence the grandparent's point.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Ann Elk]

Might makes right, I guess.

Or, to quote an apropos line from a page on Wiley's site for the book Brand Name Bullies:

...it may be entirely legal, but the distinction doesn't matter if you can't afford a lawyer.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Kid Zero]

Same claim as msft has for the original Internet Explorer code..

They bought it from UIUC, originally called "Mosaic". Sony (or whatever) simply bullied this guy.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Sony's idea is that the copyright be assigned over to them.

That way, if someone does get hold of the source and fork, they can claim copyright infringement.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[guildsolutions]

Obviously the author struck a deal with the bully company who is comming after them over this. The deal most likely said, you will render everything and anything that deals with your entire project to us, or we will sue your rear end off and keep you tied up in courts forever, bankrupt you and your entire family and then try to put you in jail.

What right do they have? It would depend on the law, for a specfic reason... But, most likely no rights other than bullying him into giving up the source code in exechange for... a slap on the wrist.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can either agree to this extortion, or fight it out in court where we have millions to pay a legal staff and you have jack."

The thing I've learned, from actually standing up to this kind of threat in the past, is that (1) it does not cost as much as you are being led to believe to defend yourself in court, especially not in a state that guarantees you a hearing. Texas guarantees a jury trial on any hearing, and the hearing is guaranteed on any legal issue at all. There are some costs involved, but nothing like people assume (it will not bankrupt you to stand up in court.)

(2) They may have a lot of money, but there's not always much to buy. They cannot outright bribe the judge. And it will not always go over very well with a jury, if they have an attorney on millions in retainer, and you are not so fortunate.

But if you cave in to the first request, you surrender your rights. It's certainly your right to do so, but I have never understood why anyone does this. You should at least have the first hearing. You should never take any action that you really don't want to take, until a *judge* orders you.

Of course this is all much easier to do if you aren't guilty of whatever you're being accused of doing.

Plenty of times, there's the whole "guilt" thing, and the problem is that people don't think some behavior should be illegal. So elect Congressmen who represent your interests. Those who oppose your interests apparently outnumber you several times over.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would think that it would take more than $75 to fight this in court..."

You could probably get to the first hearing, where a judge can order that the action items requested in the C&D letter are in fact valid.

Never, ever take any action that you do not want to take, if it's not so ordered by a judge. If some party, through an attorney or not, does anything further than asking you to take action, he's violated YOUR rights. Judges frown on this, because it usurps their authority.

If ordered to do something by a uniformed police officer, you should do it. If ordered to do something by a judge, you should do it. If you get a letter from an attorney that commands you to take action, you should read it, and then you should decide whether that action is something you would have done without the letter's insistence.

If it is not, you actually should let them sue you. And never waive your rights to one single part of the process. If you are entitled to a hearing, with a jury, then you should have one.
The fees are often not as bad as you are led to believe.

You should at least fight a few steps. If you cave in to the first C&D letter you get, that's a pretty low bar. I wonder what else you can be bullied into doing just because someone wrote you a mean letter?

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Reziac]

Now that you mention it, I wonder if this "forced to give up the source code" thing itself might be copyright infringement.

1) The author of source code by default has copyright on that source code, as a written work.

2) Copyright cannot be just "taken", it has to be legally reassigned. As far as I recollect, there is nothing in the copyright code that says "if you create a tool that is used for infringement, you must give all rights to that tool to any infringed party who demands it."**

3) Forcing someone to legally reassign their property is normally called "extortion".

So as this thread implies, it may well be that the best defense is a good offense -- ie. going after Sony in *criminal* court. Who knows, some hungry young prosecutor might make a name for himself.

** This is exactly equivalent to window manufacturers forcing Craftsman to stop making ballpeen hammers, and forcing Craftsman to hand over all their remaining inventory, solely because the most common use for ballpeen hammers is breaking and entering.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if your court appointed consul falls asleep during trial, and you get the death penalty, well, you're screwed...

Texas - only a 1/2 step more advanced than Afghanastan

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[StikyPad]

When a civil suit involves only a "propsensity of guilt," meaning more likely than not that the defendant is guilty, and when you know that you're in violation of a law, as the author does, then it doesn't make any sense to go to court where you will be found guilty and ordered to make reparations. The lawsuit would have to proceed to levels where the law would be overturned in order for the defendant to be aquitted, which is certainly more costly for the defendant than he can afford.

So basically his choices are:

a) Go to court with a high likelyhood of being found found guilty and being ordered to pay reparations (the case is pretty cut & dry; it's illegal to help or show others how to circumvent DRM)

b) Go to court and fight it to the highest levels in the hopes of getting the law overturned, which is far from guaranteed, paying fees/lawyer/etc. for the duration, with the very real possibility of losing

or

c) Just sign the "voluntary," agreements and avoid all that nasty and expensive trial stuff.

There's a saying in gambling, "Never bet what you can't afford to lose." If you can't afford to lose anything, don't play the game.

I completely disagree with the state of the system, as it's completely stacked against the little guy. If someone finds themselves at the receiving end of one of these lawsuits and wants to make the effort to bring it before a jury, go through appeals, etc. in hopes of getting the law overturned, more power to them, but I'm not going to fault anyone for not jumping right in and potentially placing themselves in debt for years and years.

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Alsee]

DMCA

He appears to be in the UK, so the relevant law would be the Brittish implementation of the EUCD.

-

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[MntlChaos]

Right. 75 dollars is the 50 pounds mentioned in TFA

Re:What about the author's intellectual property?

[Malc]

As somebody else pointed out: he appears to be in the UK. Do the ACLU and EFF fight battles outside the US?

Offshore website for hosting

[Ath]

How many people do you think would pay a subscription fee to an offshore site that hosted such utilities? The issue is one of reimbursement to the software authors (for those who want it).

There are plenty of countries that have no DMCA-type laws for such tools. If this were a just rule, the WTO would be suing the shit out of each media company that even put out region encoded DVDs, which clearly are intended as a restraint of free trade.

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[JVert]

Maybe if the offending code was hosted offshore and never imported. You send the data to a hosted provider where the data is modified in the country where the proccess is illegal. Then the *clean* data is shipped back. Might be functional for DVD backup because I assume most of the encryption is a fraction of the video size.

Last I reacall FBI has no problem raiding a country if they dont like the data stored on their servers. Which isn't all the FBI's fault, they would certanly have asked permission first. But maybe this is close enough to legal for the hosted country to say, "stay out".

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

FBI can't raid other countries. Our authorities invading a sovereign country would cause a war.

And after the public outcry, expense and casualties (over 1000 dead, many maimed and otherwise injured) of Iraq, I don't think we are going to go to war to defend movie studios.

I sure hope we aren't THAT far gone.

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[Overzeetop]

Well, big oil business funds the Republicans, why woulnd't a studio-funded Democratic administration stand up for the "rights" of _their_ constituents?

(I'm a democrat, but that doesn't necessarily mean I trust them much more than the republicans...they just have different bases for the same motivator - money)

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[JVert]

No no, we've done it before. We just obviously had permission. I forget what company and what country but their offices we raided and servers confiscated. It was on /. a few months ago.

Here it is, http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/07/204217.shtml? tid=153&tid=219

england. Well I guess you can't expect that to be the safe harbor. But your can't expect to operate a buisness that sells warez cracking bits to US consumers. But if they sell the already cracked bits?, that would be fun to see.

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[sheddd]

Host a mirror at Sealand!!

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[Anonymous Coward]

> FBI can't raid other countries.

They don't. They just give a friendly phone call to the local jackboots who are more than happy to kick a few doors in and set the truncheons a-swinging.

Re:Offshore website for hosting

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

US and Britain are extremely friendly with each other and even allow espionage of each other's citizens (which sidesteps laws against spying on one's own citizens).

Look up UKUSA and spying.

Also, Canada and the US share nuclear defense (NORAD).

So Canada and Britain can be considered special cases.

I don't think the FBI could go into Germany or France (ok that last one was a bad example) and not expect a fight.

And the moral of this story is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...don't try and be teh big 1337Z0r with 'look at me! I can hack your shit'.

Instead make your code Open Source; share it, publish it immediately, don't publish just working binaries in the US on an American host. If you are from the US get someone else to publish it anonymously in a different country. Share. Share. Share. Why do people keep making the same mistake over and over and over ?

Otherwise you are just trying to say I'm cool look what I can do. If you genuinely believe DRM is wrong then share your code and publishly anonymously.

regards

Re:And the moral of this story is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead make your code Open Source; share it, publish it immediately, don't publish just working binaries in the US on an American host. If you are from the US get someone else to publish it anonymously in a different country. Share. Share. Share. Why do people keep making the same mistake over and over and over ?


The author is from the UK, not the US. Unfortunately, there's a similar body of law to the DMCA, passed in 2003, that's making life difficult for him.

Re:And the moral of this story is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but posting AC is considered lame.

Re:And the moral of this story is...

[Ageless]

While I am sure the author of the software (which I use, and love) has his own reasons for not making open source, one thing to keep in mind is that if he had made it open source and therefore "unremoveable" he might be in worse trouble than he is now.

Right now the unnamed company is saying "Take it all down and we'll let you live." If they didn't have that option they might be saying "We're suing for damages and you are screwed."

Re:And the moral of this story is...

[kraut]

....RTFA. At least glance at it. He's not based in the US.

Apart from that you actually make some sense, but since you clearly didn't read the article, I have to put that down to blind luck ;)

Re:And the moral of this story is...

[Frodrick]

Right now the unnamed company is saying "Take it all down and we'll let you live." If they didn't have that option they might be saying "We're suing for damages and you are screwed."

They could have, but they wouldn't. The media production companies may be greedy - and amazingly short sighted at times - but they are not stupid (or at least most of their lawyers aren't).

They won't sue without some expectiation of tangible benefit. Without hope of stopping the program's development or distribution, there is little to be gained by suing - except to create a martyr that EVERYONE will attempt to emulate. Besides, most corporations are loathe to sue under controversial laws that have not been tested in court as there is always a chance that the judge will invalidate the law entirely. They would obviously prefer to threaten and bully everyone into doing their bidding without going to court.

So, aside from cutting down an exceptionally tall poppy from time to time as an example to others, the media companies will generally ignore the medium size poppies and hope that they just go away. And even that can backfire badly. The DVDJon Trial left them with egg ALL over their faces.

Besides, once the product has gone opensource one can claim that they are no longer in control of their creation. That really limits liability - and the fact that it wasn't illegal (in the UK) when it was created goes even further in that direction.

As for deciding to give in without a fight, however, I certainly can't fault DVDDecrypter's author for that - I probably would have done the same. But is still a shame that source remained closed, because now no one can carry on his work. This fight isn't about one man doing all the work while the rest of us cheer; it's about one man carrying the torch as far as he can and then passing it to others. Together we might cross a finish line that none of us can reach by ourselves.

Wow, what coincidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few days ago, I was trying to make a backup copy of "Before Sunset" (yes, bite me) and DVD Shrink would fail on me giving something like "Wrong access method for this track.". I knew it must be a new trick by the ***** at these studios. I was thinking of returning it, when I came across DVDDecryptor. I tried it and with only 3 read errors, I made a backup copy sucessfully.

I have now decided to not buy DVDs from these ***** studiosa anymore.

Re:Wow, what coincidence.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Before Sunset" R1 DVD is broken. It doesn't have special copy protection. It's just a bad mastering or pressing with errors in VTS_02_1.VOB. The error is during the featurette, about 1 min 20 sec where Ethan Hawke is discussing the idea of the sequel. Just use DVD Shrink and grab the movie or anything else you want. Blank or skip the featurette.

What good does this do?

[Locke2005]

The developer has been forced to hand over all source code

To which he replied simply, "I've posted it all to Usenet... you can get it off of there!" Seriously, cat's out of the bag, and even confiscating the developer's PC isn't going to make all those other copies go away.

Re:What good does this do?

[Gilgaron]

I would assume that they want his source code so they can defeat his program, not because it makes all the other copies disapppear. They don't have to disappear if they don't work anymore.

Re:What good does this do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paging Captian Obvious.
Paging Captian Obvious.
You've left your sense of humor at the check-in counter.

Re:What good does this do?

[ross.w]

They don't just want his source code, they want the rights to it as well. That way, if anyone else gets it and tries to use it to create "Son of DVD Decryptor" they'll be able to sue them SCO style simply for copyright infringement of the source code, without having to prove intent to pirate DVDs.

Google Cache

[Spad]

Thank You Google Cache

For now at least, that's the list of mirrors for the software - most still seem to be hosting it.

Re:Google Cache

[Halvy]

yea i just got a copy (of the program only, i didn't look for the code)

i just googled and on the first link AFTER the main sight by the auther(his is down obviously), i was able to download the exe.

when it (the screen) asked me if i live in a country that *allowys* it, i gave them an answer which equals *none-of-your-business* :)

Rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness we live in a country where criminals like this can be easily dealt with by men of that most esteemed profession: lawyers. Can you imagine a world where consumers could backup their IP products so as to prevent repurchasing them in case they were lost/damaged? Or a world where consumers can use IP products on non-sanctioned deviced? And just thinking about a world where consumers could share things without paying? Thankfully we've effectively silenced the abomination that is the "Public Domain" (as if consumers could ever create quality IP worth preserving). But I digress...

Hopefully this criminal will get what's coming to him: full forfeiture of all property and property owning rights, plus several years in an east Asian manufacturing compound for good measure.

Re:Rant

[jeffasselin]

Damn, where's the +1 sarcasm moderation when you need it.

OpenSource anybody?

[Anonymous Coward]

A great advancement would be if the guy GPLed his code and released it so it would piss whoever is sueing him off.

Re:OMG REMOTE ROOT HOLE IN FIRESUX (again)

[Anonymous Coward]

503 Server Not Available

it's /.'s servers....

How ironic...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sony is suing someone over making something that enables people to copy copyrighted materials.

Re:How ironic...

[timmy_otoole]

I think the word is hypocritical.

Arr

[Anonymous Coward]

Arr matey, one thing about bein' a pirate, folks don't take too kindly to your activities, shiver me timbers.

That's one reason we keep to sea, floating around in these ships, arr, it makes it harder to track us down.

Arr, one thing we don't do, is announce to the world our exact whereabouts so any landlubber can serve us with a cease-and-desist or a subpoena, ta say nothin o' a belly full of grapeshot.

Just a word of advice, matey. I'm not even going to go into the advantages of keeping detailed treasure maps, arr.

Might as well make ripping audio CDs illegal!!!

[DigiShaman]

Seriouslt, FUCK THEM!!! I was looking forward to getting one of those DVD players with a harddrive. I want to rip all my DVDs into DivX format so that I can just play them from the unit. For me, the application of ripping DVDs to another video format is the same as ripping audio to portable MP3 format.

Fuckers! I will rip all the god damn DVDs I want. I will crack the encryption and encode the files. Go for it, jail me! Next time I get a job, they will laugh off my jailtime because I broke the DMCA law.

Re:Might as well make ripping audio CDs illegal!!!

[zxnos]

i think you inadvertantly just made the best point against DRM. i currently have my entire music collection of 3 seperate devices: home computer, office computer and mp3 player.

i should be able to have my entire movie collection stored on a couple devices as well. that way if i have multiple tv's or residences i can watch a movie that i purchased, in different locations. my bedroom, tv room, beach house, etc. (not that i have a beach house, but someday...)

Re:Might as well make ripping audio CDs illegal!!!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

No they won't hire you, even if they are sympathetic or even otherwise supportive.

Look up "negligent hiring" and "awarded damages" on an Internet search, and see what huge sums courts have stolen from employers and given to others because the employers did not provide extra-judicial punishment (in the form of denied employment) to persons convicted of crimes.

The law requires employers to add on their own punishment to the official sentence (even after that has been served).

It even mandates current people to be fired. Look up "negligent retention".

Courts make their own law. If the gov't is going to demand someone convicted of crime "X" to be barred from job (or part of town or from the voting booth or any other right) "Y", WRITE IT INTO THE LAW MAKING "X" a crime that it can (or must) be part of the sentence and have the judge EXPLICITLY state it in the sentence.

But the rule of law is in sharp decline here.

Re:Might as well make ripping audio CDs illegal!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if it's as bad as you portray. Doing a search for the term you listed resulted in stories similar to the following:

'Courts have ruled that "an employer has a general duty to check criminal records for employees who will have interface with the public, or who could have a foreseeable opportunity to commit a violent crime against someone in the course of their employment."'

Meaning, you'd have to commit some kind of crime at work that was related to the crime you were previously convicted of, before the employer could be charged.

Re:Might as well make ripping audio CDs illegal!!!

[kraut]

No matter how much lobbying is done, it's hard to see how ripping a DVD can count as a "violent crime against someone".

The Rush is on

[Nom du Keyboard]

And the rush to the mirror sites is on.

I mean, it's got to be good, doesn't it, if a big corporation has gone to the trouble to take it down.

Maybe it could find a new home on Sourceforge -- if the code is available.

the-dark-kangaroo is Big Media's tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Submitter wrote:

it is rumoured that he broke their new copyright protection

No, it is rumored that he broke their copy protection. The only way he could have broke their copyright protection, is if he hired lobbyists, or bribed congresscritters to repeal copyright law, or bombed a federal courthouse.

It's "copy protection" not "copyright protection." Why are you helping them to frame the issue and taint the language?

Slashdot wrote:

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 14 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.

Ok, I'll wait until 12 minutes ago.

Re:the-dark-kangaroo is Big Media's tool

[Anonymous Coward]

> Slow Down Cowboy!
>

> ... 2 minutes....
>

> ... 14 minutes ....
>

No slash code isn't fucked up. Not at all.

BTW, if you want to post anonymous, get an account and click the 'Post Anonymously' checkbox. It is lame, but it does work (although, I'm sure it's several orders of magnitude less anonymous).

vote with wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the market for an HDTV. Now it won't be a Sony. I will not buy another Sony product of any kind. I can vote with my wallet.

Re:vote with wallet

[nuggetboy]

I'm in the market for an HDTV. Now it won't be a Sony. I will not buy another Sony product of any kind. I can vote with my wallet.

Eh, well, I'd disagree there. I like their TVs too much. I'd go ahead and buy the idiotbox, but refrain from purchasing (emphasis on purchasing) any DVDs or CDs to play in the obligatory DVD player. Just my $0.02.

Isn't this guy in the UK?

[TAZ6416]

what chance do I have with £50?

Assuming he's talking UK Pounds, we don't have the DMCA here, puzzled what happened here.

Jonathan

Re:Isn't this guy in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, we don't have the DMCA. we have the UK implementation of the EUCD - European Union Copyright Directive. Under it you can break any copy protection mechanism you like. what you can't do is tell / show anyone else how to do it.

Re:Isn't this guy in the UK?

[Sinus0idal]

I haven't looked, but where does the 'auto update' feature look for its updates? If it is checking back to his domain each time the app loads, and that domain is now being signed over to 'the company'... this could land lots of people in shit if they used this to its advantage. They could quickly get a list of 'users'.

Re:Isn't this guy in the UK?

[TAZ6416]

SO, he would have got away with it if it wasn't for those meddling EU-crats ;)

Jonathan

Re:Isn't this guy in the UK?

[boldra]

Well how about someone posts the url of the check for updates here on slashdot. Then we'll be able to give "the company" enough false leads to keep them busy.

Hypocritical.

[Anonymous Coward]

But just recently at E3, Sony was talking about the Playstation 3 being able to rip DVDs to the harddrive to improve the quality.

(If anyone can find a better link or direct quote to what the Sony drone actually said, please post).

As a result of their heavy-handed actions against DVDDecrypter (which I had no desire to obtain until I read this article and I now have copies of from two different sources), Sony should expect to be sued into oblivion if they have ANY sort of ripping ability in the Playstation 3. Hell, it makes ME want to sue them.

Re:Hypocritical.

[Ant2]

Aha! So THAT'S what they're going to do with his source code...

1) Hire lawyers
2) Use DCMA to acquire source code for new PS3 feature
2) Profit!!!

Re:Hypocritical.

[merdaccia]

I'm curious what they said, but that can't be right. When you rip a DVD you're just transferring, and often decrypting, its contents to a different medium. The quality stays the same.

Re:Hypocritical.

[KillShill]

obviously , the way they use the word ripping has no resemblance to the way we use it.

they mean they will extract the contents of the dvd into their own super duper DRM-encumbered useless format.

and "to improve the quality"

i'm not sure how you mean that but it is so totally stupid i ... will take the time to explain it.

quality can never be improved after the fact, in the way the most people think when they say that.
the quality can only decrease if they process it.

Re:Hypocritical.

[EvilJoker]

Quality can be improved. Through A/V filters, or HD upconversion.

Re:Hypocritical.

[KillShill]

stretching the video doesn't improve quality.

Re:Hypocritical.

[EvilJoker]

A simple stretch wouldn't. However, there are many programs that will smooth the edges, and thus improve quality.

Refresher course in cryto theory

[foo23]

Yes, I made nearly the same post before, but it remains true:

Cory Doctorow explained it very nicely (in his talk to the Microsoft Research group to be found here):

Cryptography - secret writing - is the practice of keeping secrets. It involves three parties: a sender, a receiver and an attacker [...]. We usually call these people Alice, Bob and Carol. [A few explanations of cipher, ciphertext and key] In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*. It's not Alice and Bob and Carol, it's just Alice and Bob. So Alice has to provide Bob - the attacker - with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext. Hilarity ensues.

DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key. At this point, the secret isn't a secret anymore.

When will they ever understand?

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[ssj_195]

When will they ever understand?

They understand perfectly. They also understand that, thanks to bullshit laws like the DMCA, they can threaten to sue the (usually penniless) authors of the "cracks" and they will instantly cave, as has happened here. If, for whatever bizarre reason, the "offender" did not cave, they understand that they could financially drag the guy over the coals and ruin his life, making an effective example for anyone else who has any bright ideas about breaking their DRM schemes.

They understand perfectly that technical solutions on their own aren't always tenable; they also understand that technical solution + threat of lawsuit == "teh win".

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[Anonymous Coward]

True dat, when will they give up? Fuck it, if the movie or song can play on your TV or stereo, it is copyable. I'll rent the damn thing from Blockbuster, pop it in my player, and then use my camcorder to record it off of my TV screen. Then they will ban camcorders. After that, I'll plug my 'sound out' wire into my 'line in' jack on the sound card to steal the newest Britney Song, and they'll ban sound cards too. And wires.

How long until they are putting the brains of pirates in jars? **AA companies could care less if they ruin your whole life for a minor crime. I swear, if I had mafia connections, a lot of people would be dead. Spammers, **AA, lawyers who work for them, corporations that rape their customers, and the politicians who pass these fubar laws. ALL DEAD.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[uberdave]

Don't you think they know this already? The various media concerns are trying to get the TV/DVD player/whatever to be Bob, while casting the consumer in the role of Carol. That's what all the fuss is about.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[Jeff DeMaagd]

DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months.

Didn't it take years to break the DVD encryption? And that it was a laughable encryption standard that a decent computer at the time could brute force crack it minutes? By Doctorow's standard it should have been broken three years earlier.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[an7ron]

isn't dvd decryption a brute force attack on the algorithm?

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[GigsVT]

The various media concerns are trying to get the TV/DVD player/whatever to be Bob, while casting the consumer in the role of Carol. That's what all the fuss is about.

Yep, but no cryptographic system has been created that can stand up to Carol attacking Bob with a soldering iron and screwdrivers.

Doesn't matter if Bob is human or machine either. :)

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[Karma Farmer]

Well, Carol is going to be very upset if she doesn't get to view the DVD, because its contents (the movie) are kept secret from her.

And, Alice is going to be very upset to discover that Bob is a DVD player, and really doesn't have any money of its own to buy copies of movies.

No, ultimately if you're going to have to let the person who paid for the movie watch it. Until you force the viewer to include her eyeballs in the same chunk of epoxy they're so deftly putting the decryption codes in, there will be an unencrypted version of the movie floating between the screen and the eyeball.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[dillon_rinker]

For the same reasons, the world hasn't broken the secret code I've had since I was a kid (going on 25 years ago, now.) There's got to be motivation to break the encryption. You need a DVD that is broken in some way, and you need something to copy the DVD to. There may be other motivating factors.

If the studios used DRM that didn't work against consumers, no one would be likely to break it.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[buttahead]

btw... carol... whoa. hot legs! just like the irons.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[The Wicked Priest]

They understand, which is why they're trying to get DRM into your motherboard, so you won't have access to the key.

Re:Refresher course in cryto theory

[KillShill]

they also understand that offtopic posts like the one i'm making, telling the people of the world who type words like "teh" need to be flogged like they commited a misdemeanor in singapore.

Say no, goto jail

[nurb432]

Its pretty simple. Its illegal to create ( and distribute ) code that can be used to break DRM. However, its not illegal to build a crowbar.

Is this morally right? No, of course not. But its how the laws that the media bought are written.

Sometimes its easier to comply then go to jail or be sued into oblivion. You may be against it morally, but you still have a family to feed and have to cave in to 'the man'.

Re:Say no, goto jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Its illegal to create ( and distribute ) code that can be used to break DRM

Except it isn't. Code that can be used to break DRM is created and distributed by DVD manufacturers every day of the year, quite legally. And there is no concept in law of some people being "licensed" to make code to play DVDs and some people being "unlicensed", especially not to any private organization. The law is by no means clear-cut on the issue of whether or not code to access DRM-infested material is illegal and to the best of my knowledge the DMCA has never been tested in this respect. No one has ever gone to jail for making code that breaks DRM (or, more accurately, no one has ever remained in jail).

Re:Say no, goto jail

[__int64]

This is corporate racketering!
Their fundimental actions are no different than those of an organized crime syndicate, buying off political figure-heads, favors and such.

And nobody in the mainstream populus cares - because they've already bought (are) the media, how convenient.

The internet's our last viable option for the dissemination of truth and anti groupthink - until they shut it down, so get ready!

Re:Release on Freenet - not the same

[Nom du Keyboard]

will never understand why the authors of software ... do not initally release on Freenet.

Because just providing the software to the world is not their only -- or maybe even primary -- intent. Freenet denys a lot of the ego satisfaction you otherwise get from being recognized on your own web-site with your own page counters.

And besides, they'd have to actually write help files since there wouldn't be a website and e-mail link for questions, problems, and enhancement requests.

Now is the time for someone to put it on Freenet -- or Usenet.

Re:Good summary.

[Irish_Samurai]

Your not going to mod the content of his post based on his sig?

No one cares if you're offended. Come back to the real world, idiot.

way to go Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

now instead of renting movies, and copying them for later PERSONAL use. You are going to force people to just download the movie and cut out the middle men. Since most net based rental companies pay a portion of their income to the movie studios guess who will be hit...

Software developers should relocate to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Over there, the Russian government actually believe that software developers, hackers, et al are just harmless folks who wouldn't hurt a fly.

"DMCA" is a dirty word in the Kremlin.

Re:Software developers should relocate to Russia

[DuBois]

In Soviet Russia, the DVD copy YOU! (hmmm... but maybe Soviet Russia already gone by time DVD invented...:-)

Off-topic, sig

[RM6f9]

I love it!

TORRENT PLZ

[vivin]

hey anybady got teh torrent for this plz i relly need it thx!11! *ducks ;)

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry - I don't understand what you are asking.

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[Nogami_Saeko]

Well, it's kind of funny - I mean sure, they take his site down and all, and there won't be any new versions.

The obvious issues:

The software is already out there, and will ALWAYS be available to anyone with P2P software or via websites in countries that just could care less about North American law.

So new versions won't be released... DVD decryption software is already VERY advanced. Sure, media companies could always try some sneaky new way of protecting their DVDs, but a hacker of some sort will always whip-together some tool and release it faster than they can respond.

So... In the longrun... Shrug.

So they killed-off some guy's pet project. It won't influence the end result of people copying DVDs one bit...

N.

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[Lord Apathy]

That maybe true but how long will it say advanced? They got the source code too. All they have to do is examine it and they can find out a way to put in some copy protection that current versions can't handle.

Well they have taken down the top dvd decryption software. I'm happy for them. All they have done is cleared the space for some one else to take it's place.

The King is Dead, Long Live the King!

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[Anonymous Coward]

http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3340930 :D

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[calculadoru]

Try this:
http://www.afterdawn.com/software/dawnload.cfm?mir ror=0&software_id=298
Worked fine for me.

*shrugs/

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[masdog]

So they got the source code...but they can't take the knowledge out of his head. The same author can easily put that knowledge to work and develop a new program that can defeat the new protection.

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[Lord Apathy]

The website is telling me to goto hell right now so I can't read the article. Slashdot effect at work I guess. I seem to recall that part of the deal was he can't develop any more dvd decoding software or contribute to any.

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[v1]

That link says something about missing a refer tag and requests login. Changing mirror from 0 to 1 sends you here:

http://www.logipole.com/download/konvertore.zip

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[calculadoru]

it does??? weird. try this then:
http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/d vd_rippers/dvd_decrypter.cfm

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[Nogami_Saeko]

Well, he wouldn't be able to put his name on it. There's nothing that would stop him contributing anonymously to an open-source project.

If the industry thinks they can bottle people in with threats of lawsuits, they're even more deluded than we had previously thought.

N.

Re:TORRENT PLZ

[khrtt]

The first time I had a need to copy a DVD, it took me all of 3 minutes to get the software off the internet. The copy I made was for legal purposes, and I'm only now starting to get pissed as I'm coming to realization that the software I used was probably illegal, or at least questionable.

I recently went to the RIAA site, and checked the bands that I listen to, and (surprise) asit turns out, I don't listen to RIAA music. I don't watch Hollywood movies either. Not because of any political reasons, but because their content is just so crappy. In other words, I don't have anything to do with any stupid media corporations. I don't use their product, I don't purchase their product, I don't work for them, and I don't own their stock.

Yet, the damn f#$%ers just can't leave this alone. I'm so pissed.

I think code should be protected like free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not RFA since the site is Slashdotted right now. However, I think there is legal precedent for code being a protected form of free speech. See DJB's page on the subject where he was able to, to some extent, override the ITAR export regulation arguing that code is speech.

I am opposed to people pirating media and making it available on the internet. However, I am more opposed to court decisions allowing people to make fair use of their copyrighted material. The software industry has survived piracy for decades; the media industry will survive also as long as people realize that pirating music and movies is wrong (which is why I flame idiots on Slashdot who think they have a God-given right to free movies and music).

Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify Users?

[Evil W1zard]

I am guessing that the Auto Check for New Updates feature is done via an HTTP Get from the home user's box so my question is that since the site is going to be under control of company X now can and will they use that feature to identify home users? Also a possibility is putting a bogus update on the web site so home users download a broken "new" version that won't work anymore... Not to be all conspiracy theory, but I think those situations are plausible. I for one will be turning off that check for updates feature promptly just in case...

So what does this mean for other such tools?

[rindeee]

Personally, I use HandBrake (the best ripper/transcoder in my opinion -- works on OS X and *nix, can rip high-def, transcodes to H.264 among others, Open Source). Why did they target just this one utility? It seems that they do this every so often; take out a single app among dozens. Thoughts?

Re:So what does this mean for other such tools?

[ne0n]

handbrake is slow, and doesn't encode with the quality I expect from an all-in-one ripping/encoding utility. Try AutoGK (Windows-only, sorry) instead (if you have a Windows as well). It's heads+shoulders better than handbrake, though 'brake was great for a while.

Re:So what does this mean for other such tools?

[rindeee]

Odd as it is, I am ripping/transcoding Spy Kids on my Windows machine at this very moment using AutoGK. The output is not as good as what I can get with H.264 on HandBrake, but alas I am ripping another movie on my G5. ;)

Re:So what does this mean for other such tools?

[entrigant]

Perhaps because it is called DVD Decrypter? If you type dvd decrypter into google.. looking for programs that decrypt dvds... well you see where this is going.

Re:So what does this mean for other such tools?

[KillShill]

it also doesn't take 10 times longer to encode in mpeg4.

h264 can be encoded in windows, if you didn't already know.

but that compression format is one helluva mother to decode.

even wmv HD (using their equivalent of a h264 codec) videos at full resolution 1080i can be decoded at just under 90% cpu... the same video with h264 video can be decoded at 12-15fps or less on the same cpu (using quicktime 7 preview and the HD trailers on their site). a64 3200 1meg cache btw.

maybe once those bastards at ati/nvidia get off their asses, they can "turn" on their hw decoding features.

Re:So what does this mean for other such tools?

[basshedz2]

AutoGK relies on DVD decrypter to get the .VOBs before it can do the encoding. Lenn0x (the author of AutoGK) will not include a ripper in AutoGK because of this legal threat. I will be interested to see where autoGK goes from here - currently it only supports DVDs decrypted with DVD Decrypter. While autoGK is a fantastic tool that automates the encoding process, it is not a all-in-one ripping/encoding utility. b

Re:So what does this mean for other such tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that they do this every so often; take out a single app among dozens. Thoughts?

They figured they'd

1. take out one
2. submit it to slashdot
3. wait for the "I use HandBrake instead" comments to roll in
4. take out all the utils mentioned

After all, why bother trawling google for targets when they can get human filtered results from slashdot?

Sounds fishy - what exactly has happened here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the summary and TFA are quite mysterious about exactly what is going on. Was he served with a cease and desist letter? Or a DMCA takedown order? Or a court order of some kind? Or something else? Those are basic, very important questions, and they're completely unanswered. He only says that he was attacked as if by a pack of wolves.

If it was a cease-and-desist: then it has no actual legal force (it's an unsupported demand from the writer, and the only immediate consequence of telling them to screw themselves is that they may then attempt to do something real instead), and if he didn't consult a lawyer before complying, I have no sympathy. And if he did consult a lawyer, I'd still like to know a lot more about what threat they made that made compliance appear advisable.

If it was a DMCA takedown notice: that makes no sense because such a notice would only require him to take down his site - not "hand over" the domain registration or source code. I'm not sure what "handing over" the source code is even supposed to mean; did they demand a copy of it? Or that he stop distributing it? Or what?

If it was a court order: then it is or ought to be in the public record. I want a case number, and the name of the court and the judge that issued the order.

If it was something else: WHAT?

Re:Sounds fishy - what exactly has happened here?

[gvc]

Seems pretty transparent to me. Sony threatened him. After seeking legal advice, he settled with Sony. The terms of the settlement included turning over the domain and a covenant not to communicate copy-protection-evasion methods to anyone.

Re:Sounds fishy - what exactly has happened here?

[sepluv]

If he really sought legal advice, his lawyer was incompetent.

I think the problem was he rolled right over to any request by the (I assume, competing) company when they threatened him with the power of their criminal anti-trust protection racket. He should have, instead, researched the law, got legal advice, found a pro bono lawyer or contacted the EFF, FFII, & al for legal advice.

Re:Sounds fishy - what exactly has happened here?

[gvc]

IANAL, and neither are you. Why do you say his lawyer was incompetent? Perhaps the lawyer said something like, "If you are prepared to invest 1,000 hours of your time and 1,000 hours of a lawyer's time (pro bono or otherwise) you have an 80% chance of not owing your next 20 years' income to Sony."

Tell you what - why don't you offer to indemnify him and take over the software and his case?

Re:Sounds fishy - what exactly has happened here?

[sepluv]

My comment was hypothetical anyway as I and others got the impression from what he said that he had not consulted a lawyer.

I adimt I was OTT and blunt in making my point. However, the point I was trying to make was that, as a UK citizen who is familiar with UK copyright law (and case law), I think he had a watertight defence against any action for producing software that circumvents a technogical measure in the DVD encoding--as our DMCA-style legislation (SI 2498 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) is much weaker and wouldn't cover this.

The real point is that this is the kind of case he could have got done pro bono or got a charity to fund his legal fees.

It's just the law of the land, that's all.

[missing000]

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Re:It's just the law of the land, that's all.

[bugnuts]

This is only tangental to Fair Use.

It has to do with an enabling tool, to allow others to exercise legal Fair Use.

The corporations cannot easily attack Fair Use -- that was established long ago, and is reasonably straightforward in law.

They are instead, attacking the tool that enables Fair Use, using new laws to make it easy. Just like the days of old when the VCR "time-shifting" was attacked, and probably by exactly the same folks. This tool would prevail in a hearing in the USA, from the old judgement of the Supremes, which allows recording tools that have "significant non-infringing uses." Building a personal movie library is non-infringing. But getting a case to be heard by a high court is not trivial, both in effort and expense.

The only defense is to attack their enabling tool: the DMCA (or whatever copycat puppet law the UK implemented). And it'll take more than 50 sterling to do that.

Re:It's just the law of the land, that's all.

[Roskolnikov]

The trick to all of this isn't fair use, you have that, its breaking DRM that these media idiots are using as a vehicle to their means. what would make this interesting would be a copy program that doesn't simply extract but one that *keeps* the DRM intact; take the teeth away from the maggots. Some would consider this still a violation but that comes down to method; hand the copy to them and ask for a copy...... only real problem might be where the key is written.

That would require a player that would read a key from a non-standard location, making the player would be a violation as well but much harder to explain in court, shouldn't be that hard to hack a legitimate player to read the keys from elsewhere.

Re:It's just the law of the land, that's all.

[wmelnick]

Fair use is dead. It died with the DMCA on any digital medium. You can still make a cassette tape of your record album and that falls under Fair Use. Once digital recoding zteps in you lose all of your Fair Use rights. Mny are trying to change that, including me. If you don't like it, do something about it. Calling your local legislator(s) might be a good place to start.

Re:It's just the law of the land, that's all.

[Kjella]

Note which provisions it exempts from. It is not the DRM protection paragraphs.

Breaking a DRM protection and making an illegal copy would violate:
a) DRM protection paragraph
b) Traditional copyright

Breaking a DRM protection and making fair use would not violate traditional copyright, since it is exempted, but it would violate:
a) DRM protection paragraph

That is the law as it stands. Note the brilliant formulation of 1201 c): "Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." which is essentially what I just said. That protects you against copyright infringement, but not section 1201 itself. It is almost as good doublespeak as the DMCA takedown. It English it says "I believe person A has distributed B, which I believe to be C, and I state 'under penalty of perjury' that I own the copyright to C." There's no penalty for mistaking B for C. Hence, they can mass produce takedowns with impunity.

Kjella

Oh well...

[ChrisF79]

For every one of these programs that gets shut down, 100 more are in the works for every OS out there. Good luck, feds.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh That DVD Decrypter author got served!

Just release the source in a non-DMCA country?

[Jugalator]

Why not just do that? :-/

Linux impact

[edfardos]

DVD Decrypter is the only backup solution for Linux (runs under Wine quite nicely w/ ide-scsi support) for Sony DVD's.

Sony writes bad sectors and addresses sectors beyond the edge of the media in their form of "ARCCOS" copy protection. DVD Decrypter simply inserts dummy sectors when appropriate.

libdvdread cannot backup these discs, I've been in contact w/ the authors, but there is still no solution.

I'm done giving Sony money until I can backup the media I own.

Re:Linux impact

[cbr2702]

Can they be played under Linux? If they can be played then they can be ripped. If they cannot be played, then Sony is missing a market segment.

my responsabillity as a consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

im just so sick of these greedy and already way too powerful corporations always get their way over the consumer.. im SO sick of it I will from now on see it as my responsabillity to pirate as much damned music and video as I can and help others do the same in order to try and level the playingfield a bit.

I get that people want to protect their property, I have no problem with that.. its the way its being done that I have a problem with. I will no longer accept being forced to allow them to openly commit fraud against me and having to support them doing it as well unless I want to be labelled as a criminal!

Re:Good summary.

[AstroDrabb]

I'd mod you +5 insightful right up until I hit your sig.

I didn't' even notice his .sig until you pointed it out. With or without his .sig, I would never have modded this +5 insightful. Why?

You already pointed it out for the most part. The GP is an idiot who is probably not married and has no family to support. Look at his blanket statement about "corporations".

It doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.

This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world yet and raise a family. All corporations are not bad. In fact, most corps in the USA have nothing to do with the DMCA. I work for a fortune 500. The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with our line of business. However, idiots like the GP, just throw out their blanket statements and assume that all corps are like MS, RIAA or MPAA.

It doesn't take much to start a corporation. You just need to pay a small fee and you can have your own corp. Some of my fellow programmers work as independent contractors under their own corporation. I guess they are just as evil? The best thing you can do is just add idiots like the GP to your Foe list and mark them down -6 or something. Being a corporation is not bad. Many/most small businesses get a corporate license to protect their own personal finances from sue happy freaks. Being a corp is not bad, it is only _some_ of the big corps that are abusing Capitalism and the corporate title.

Takedown insurance?

[Phantasmo]

Too bad the source isn't available - we could have continued development!
What we need is a web server running as a Tor hidden service that allows hackers to submit the source code of controversial proprietary software. Then if the project is taken down, the server immediately starts offering up the source.

Re:Takedown insurance?

[ross.w]

Wouldn't work unless it was originally appropriately licenced. Now that Sony(assumed to be them) have the rights to the source code, they can sue anyone using it in another program for copyright infringement in just about any country, without having to rely on DMCA-alike laws.

Had it been GPLed, the author would have been uable to assign exclusive rights to them, because others would have already had GPL licenced copies.

Had it even been BSD licenced I think Sony would have been unable to gain exclusive rights to it.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Zed2K]

Except that it is not illegal to have this software installed. Even if the author is forced to remove the software it is still innocent until proven guilty. They can't force people to uninstall software from their own computers.

Last Pocket of Resistance

[Doc Ruby]

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security office of Cybersecurity is busily taking down all the actual attackers who also figure out how to crack the scheme in 72 hours, right? Once DVD Decrypter is taken care of, we'll finally be free of the scourge of owners accessing their own DVD data.

Re:Last Pocket of Resistance

[Anonymous Coward]

wooops wrong country it was in the UK...

Re:Last Pocket of Resistance

[Doc Ruby]

Wherever the DVD Decrypter is being taken down, that doesn't really stop the rest of the crackers, who pose an actual, anonymous threat, from threatening the US business protected by that DRM. Which is what we're spending billions every year to protect. But which you can bet isn't getting the slightest attention from the protectors. While this worthless takedown is generating PR about "fighting the hackers".

thanks . . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the work and effort you put into something that everyone could benefit from. You have done a great thing here. Hopefully a companies will pull their heads up outta their asses and see that you are an asset, not a liability.
Good luck.

Hypocracy

[SnowCrashed]

Is it just me, or are all of these media giants such as Sony hypocritical assholes? If you don't want people to copy your movies (for legal or illegal purposes), don't sell DVD burners you fucking morons! Companies like this want to rape the consumer from both ends, selling the devices that makes copies, yet suing people for putting them to use. It's time for companies to take responsibility for their own creations. Yes, the author of DVD-Decrypter made a product that breaks their protections, and that is bad. But if they didn't make devices that could copy DVDs then there would be no practical use for it.

Re:Hypocracy

[sagenumen]

Now that you mention it, we should just get rid of computers altogether. I mean, if it wasn't for computers, we wouldn't be worrying about all this copyright infringement in the first place. While we're at it, let's get rid of Sharpie Markers since they can be used to break the protection on some disks.

There are LEGAL uses for DVD burners. I use mine for legal purposes all the time. It is for THESE uses that Sony, et. al. market their burners.

Re:Hypocracy

[SnowCrashed]

Yes, but you see, there are also Legal uses for DVD-Decrypter. People can abuse anything, I just think that the companies are trying to have it both ways, selling devices that make copies, yet complaining about copying software.

Fair Use Killer

[Kaorimoch]

This just goes to show how much power the DMCA gives work holders to kill off fair use. You can't have fair use rights if the mere addition of a copy protection device stops you from making backups. Well, *ahem*, it doesn't actually stop you but it is illegal to break that copy protection even in the pursuit of employing what you perceive as fair use rights with your *ahem* their property. Music, movies, TV and computer programs are all able to be copy protected. All big business needs to do is copy protect all of these media and fair use rights will be a memory, a piece of legislation killed off for everyone. In Australia, we are considering putting fair use rights in our copyright legislation, but the US forced DMCA provisions into our Free Trade Agreement and we are stuck with trying to find a way to employ fair use provisions with these severe restrictions on what we are allowed to do.

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

For a job very well done. Very sad to here this bad news.

THE SOURCE

[Anonymous Coward]

A blue permanent marker.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not probable they'll come after the end-users, but it's still possible. I know the first thing I'm doing when I get home is unchecking that box. Well, after I check my mailbox for new Netflix DVDs ;)

Mirror it

[DrugCheese]

I'll mirror it on my own server at my house. What would they do if 10,000 people mirrored his source?

Re:Mirror it

[InsideTheAsylum]

Use the DMCA to send C&D letters? Huh, I dunno.

Re:Mirror it

[wbren]

They would send 10,000 C&D letters to the people who posted the mirrors; 10,000 C&D letters to their ISPs; and 10,000 C&D letters to the web hosts. Of those 30,000 letters, over 29,990 letters would be effective at getting the mirrors removed. The remaining 10 people/ISPs/hosts will be sent letters explaining the massive cost of taking on a company as big as X (Sony). Or maybe the DMCA will just be ruled unconstitutional...at which point hell will freeze over. Money crushes all. The DMCA crushes all.

FairPlay?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't think this is the same guy, but i think the best name amongst DRM hacks (beating DVD decrypter) - is for the script that removes the protection from Apple's audio format. The protection is called FairPlay. The crack is called PlayFair.

P2P distribution and mirrors of code needed

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to get the code out on the various P2P systems and perhaps set up a mirror. Your help is appreciated. Thank you!

fascist capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just one more example among many of Fascist Pig Corporations, backed by American fascist laws, corrupt American politicians, and the indifference of the Wimps otherwise known as American citizens imposing their excremental principles upon the rest of the world.

The company involved in the source code rip-off so that they could counter-code their future DVDs against this application and others like it, couldn't have done it without the cesspool known as American law.

"Possession of Housebreaking Tools"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just say no? you can't sue a guy for making a crowbar which broke into your house, so why sue a guy making a program which someone used to break (some may say unfair) DRM bullshit?

You can't apply such sweeping general principles to the law like that. You'll ignore a lot of important, fine distinctions that way.

For example, "Metalworking" is usually legal. "Making lockpicks" is illegal in many places, even though it's clearly just "metalworking".

As for owning and/or manufacturing a crowbar, "possession of housebreaking tools" is a crime in a lot of places, including the country where I live. Owning a crowbar is 100% legal; but sneaking around in a residential area late at night wearing a nylon stocking over your head and carrying a sack and a crowbar may well get you arrested. Same crowbar; different legal result, depending on context.

Manufacturing keys is, in general, legal; manufacturing keys to break into your neighbour's house is usually not. Owning a set of lockpicks may or may not be legal, depending on whether or not you're a registered locksmith.

Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly), the DCMA forbids making software tools for "breaking into" encrypted works. This is consistant with the widely popular laws that prohibit much the manufacture of keys to break into other people's houses, or otherwise facilitate breaking into their property. These is the metaphor that the DCMA is founded upon, and it's very consistant with existing law.

I feel there the DMCA is deeply, fundamentally flawed (it's too sweeping, it prevents fair use, there's no clear demarcation between unpublished technical specifications, and "encryption techniques", and so on), but the analogy you present just isn't a very sound legal argument against it. We need to argue carefully and cogently against this law, if we're to get judges and lawmakers to see our side.
--
AC

Re:I think code should be protected like free spee

[Overzeetop]

You're missing the point. He's made the mistake of pissing off someone with a lot more money than he has. In modern society, that means he can (1) cave or (2) he can watch his life savings and any chance of making a living go down the tubes.

Its just like 1000 years ago, except the alternative was getting run-through.

Or back in highschool, when the senior bully decided to give you the option of your lunch money or a thorogh pounding. Except in this case, the Principal, teachers and, in fact, the entire schoolboard, are convinced that the bully is well within his rights to do so.

Great

[bogie]

That's just fantastic. If it was indeed the fault of one company what right do they have to all of his code and domain? I mean WTF? Since when is scumbag company X able to demand property from people without a judgement from a judge?

Welcome to the new world of IP, no need for trial, hand over everything you own and pay your fine or we'll ground you into dust with our crooked lawyers and politicians.

10 years from now we will be looking back at the 90's to 00's as the "Glory Days" when you could actually backup and control your software and hardware.

I know its sounds totally cliche but when you find out whoever did this make sure and A) let them know you won't be buying from them again and way and also B) make purchases and them email them explaining exactly what you bought and how much they should have made from you.

Re:Great

[nacturation]

If it was indeed the fault of one company what right do they have to all of his code and domain? I mean WTF? Since when is scumbag company X able to demand property from people without a judgement from a judge?

Easy, it goes like this:

"Dear Filthy Pirate,

You created an illegal program, according to the DMCA. We know you're wrong. You know you're wrong. We have a near-infinite supply of money and lawyers to demonstrate that you're wrong. But rather than go to court and cost you untold tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees which you can't recover even in the remote chance that you're able to successfully defend yourself, we'd like to propose a settlement. Hand over everything... the program, the domain, the source code, a list of your friends and their email addresses and phone numbers, publish a public apology, and send us three bottles of the best 20 year old scotch... and we'll agree not to take this to court.

Sincerely,

Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe
Attorneys at Law"

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

All your code are belong to us.

Re:Good summary.

[ShieldW0lf]

It doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.

This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world yet and raise a family. All corporations are not bad. In fact, most corps in the USA have nothing to do with the DMCA. I work for a fortune 500. The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with our line of business. However, idiots like the GP, just throw out their blanket statements and assume that all corps are like MS, RIAA or MPAA.

It doesn't take much to start a corporation. You just need to pay a small fee and you can have your own corp. Some of my fellow programmers work as independent contractors under their own corporation. I guess they are just as evil? The best thing you can do is just add idiots like the GP to your Foe list and mark them down -6 or something. Being a corporation is not bad. Many/most small businesses get a corporate license to protect their own personal finances from sue happy freaks. Being a corp is not bad, it is only _some_ of the big corps that are abusing Capitalism and the corporate title.

You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others.

If you're a privatly held corporation, you don't have to pursue profit to the exclusion of all other motivations. Of course, you're still shielded from any personal liability should you choose to do so.

I do work for a big corporation and support my kid with the money I earn in doing so as well. Made my compromises just like you. But I can still recognize the effects of my decisions and the realities of our system, and understand that the GP is RIGHT in this regard. If you feel the need to pretend that you have no feet of clay and deny the existance of your compromises so you can live with your decisions, that's up to you, but making disparaging remarks about the GP like you've done only makes YOU look like an idiot.

Better stick me on your foe list quick there... wouldn't want to risk your precious illusions.

Asshole

message to author dvd shrink

[ghee22]

please open source ur code before it's too late... as you see your product's future is not only in your hands, but the hands of corporations. ps: I prefer GPL

What about creating an encryptor

[dmeranda]

The DMCA does not (yet) prohibit reverse engineering, nor does it prohibit you from decrypting anything. It only disallows the "trafficking" of the decryption tools that may be used to bypass copy control mechanisms on somebody else's content (without substantial other uses).

But what if...
1. I reverse engineer Company S's encoding method -- legal.
2. I create an encryptor, which can be used to encode a disc using that same technique, and open encryptor code to public (as long as it can't directly decrypt) -- legal, with patent caveat.
3. I create and publish my OWN content encoded using that method (to which I own the copyright) -- legal.
4. I then create a decyptor program which will decrypt MY content, which has a built in simple password "copy control" mechanism (but since I'm lazy it's pretty trivial) -- legal.
5. I open up my decryptor program with source for all people who download my content and pay me $1 for the "password key" -- legal?

Now, by "conincidence", the password key which protects MY work for which you purchased a license, also just happens to decode all Company S's content too, since it uses the same legally reverse-engineered algorithms. But since that code was legally developed, and is used to protect MY OWN content, then can't I release it?

Isn't the key to avoiding DMCA nonsense to create your own content...then don't you have the same right to protect and decrypt your own content as Company S does? Who says only S**y is allowed to create discs with intentionally corrupt sectors; and therefore only S**y can say who can write programs that ignore such sectors?

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[harl]

If your tool is used to bypass copy protection then it is illegal according to the DMCA.

Plus I would bet 2-1 that their encryption scheme is patented. That means your also getting hit with 3x damages.

The only hope is for independent developers to create submarine patents and hit a few of the big guys with them.

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[tpconcannon]

Fatal error in your logic.

In order for your decrypter to work, you would have to use Company S' PROPRIETARY encryption code in the first place to code your files. They won't let you have that code. Period.

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[dmeranda]

If your tool is used to bypass copy protection then it is illegal according to the DMCA.

There is a necessary qualification though, circumvention is only illegal if the copy protection actually protects a copyrighted work to which I have no copyright permission otherwise.

If I produce my own works, then I own the copyright and I'm exempt from circumventing my own protection. I could also release my works to the Public Domain, and therefore anybody could legally circumvent any copy protection that may happen to be on that work since it doesn't qualify for DMCA protection. Now just because the same code can both decrypt MY works as well as somebody else's doesn't give users the right to decrypt those other works; just mine. But, as the writer of software, that's not my problem. I should be able to traffic in such programs if I own the copyright to the works it protects...it exempts me from the DMCA "trafficking" sections. I'm not solving the "can't copy" problem; but I'm trying to solve the "can't write software" problem.

Furthermore, the DMCA provides explicit exemptions for reverse engineering.

Plus I would bet 2-1 that their encryption scheme is patented.

True, this would legally prevent me from reproducing the same "invention". But that would also mean that the copy protection technique itself is publically disclosed, something that would be welcome amyway. It also doesn't necessarily mean I can't create an equivalent protection mechanism. The encrypted content itself (the data on the disc) is not patentable.

The only hope is for independent developers to create submarine patents and hit a few of the big guys with them.

Yes, I do belive this is a potentially powerful technique to use to disarm the DMCA (and similar shameful laws). But it's hard to cover all bases, and is expensive. However I think just like the GPL cleverly uses copyright law against the hoarding of knowledge, that Patent law ought to be able to be used in such a backwards scheme too, an antipatent.

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[heritage727]

Isn't the key to avoiding DMCA nonsense to create your own content...then don't you have the same right to protect and decrypt your own content as Company S does? Who says only S**y is allowed to create discs with intentionally corrupt sectors; and therefore only S**y can say who can write programs that ignore such sectors?

Sony's lawyers and Sony's money and Sony's congressmen, that's who. If you don't have at least the first two of those, it doesn't matter how right you are.

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[pegr]

Ah, but to do what you have suggested means that you are entitled the patents to use the DVD encryption/decryption method patented by the DVD Consortium. Nice try, but they thought of that already...

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[KillShill]

no, the DMCA only prohibits normal human behavior, the likes which have spanned time immemorial.

clearly, it is a most reasonable, honorable and JUST law. and we should obey it without fail, for our own safety.

Re:What about creating an encryptor

[Alsee]

The DMCA does not (yet) prohibit reverse engineering, nor does it prohibit you from decrypting anything.

Yes, DMCA 1201 (a)(2) makes trafficing illegal.
However I am puzzeled why so many people now suggest that the act of decryption itself is not illegal under the DMCA? It seemed that when the DMCA first came out everyone (or at least everyone disussing it) was aware that the DMCA criminalized both 'trafficing' in 'tools', and the act of circumventing itself.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > Section 1201
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.--
(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The penalty for the act of decrypting 'in any way other than the way they would like you to do so' is up to a quarter million dollar fine and up to 5 years in prison. And yes, the concept of 'in any way other than the way they would like you to do so' is insanely illdefined. It pretty much amounts to the copyright holder saying 'I don't like that' and the judge saying 'ok'.

Now as for your example of publishing your own content and your own decryptor:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Good luck not getting pinned with (A), (B) *AND* (C). Obviously you should be able to do what you suggest, but the DMCA does not work if they allow it. (A), (B) and (C) are all pretty vague, particularly in their definition of the 'purpose' of your product, and can be pinned to almost anything they choose to pin it on. So really the definition of what is illegal is "anything that would cause the DMCA to fail to work" which is the same as "anything that would cause DRM to fail to work".

The DMCA is rotten law, it is vague, illdefined, the logic is circular, it is filled with worthless or deceptive exemptions that supposedly protect the public interest, it has loopholes and gotchyas that all benefit copyright holders, it is horribly unbalanced, and on and on and on. It was literally written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. I particularly love the DMCA takedown proceedures where the copyright holder apparantly have to make the infringment charge "under penatly of purjury", where in fact the penalty of perjury only applies to the claim of being *a* copyright holder *on something*, and not to the claim of infringment or to the claim that the target of the take down notice is even the same thing the copyright holder is (under penaty of purjury) stating he has a copyright on.

Well, that's why we get when congress literally lets industry lawyers write the law that they then vote through.

-

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Evil W1zard]

Actually under DMCA it is illegal to distribute or USE tools that circumvent copy protection technologies... The DMCA is just a pain in the ass. It doesn't make it illegal to copy your DVDs but it makes it illegal to use a mechanism to break the encryption so you can copy your DVDs (which in essence makes it illegal to copy your DVDs). Unless they change the DMCA so that it works better with the Fair Use stipulations under Copyright Law (which isn't gonna happen anytime soon) they need to come up with a way for owners to make back-ups of their media. To me the only way would be to have a Neutral party have software that can be used to make copies of the DVDs and to stop ppl from illegally copying movies each DVD has a unique ID assigned to it that people enter to allow the copying. Something along those lines would work for both ends and slow down the ppl who want to say copy Netflix DVDs. (And yes I realize that 2 days after that software is developed they will have key generators out there and blah blah blah...)

Torrent Link: Well seeded torrents are fast.

[guidryp]

This was so fast I didn't even see it come down.

http://www.torrentspy.com/directory.asp?mode=torre ntdetails&id=323316

Re:Torrent Link: Well seeded torrents are fast.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice one guidryp! I'm seeding these too.

Also available from: http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3340930

I expect piratebay is probably unlikely to go down :)

mb

Re:Torrent Link: Well seeded torrents are fast.

[aminorex]

...Whilte Nietzsche's ideas gave us the wonders of Nazism...

Re:Release on Freenet - not the same

[Sinus0idal]

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:BDEMdBwaoucJ: www.dvddecrypter.com/index.php%3Fact%3Ddownload+&h l=en/ At least at present, the mirror links present on googles cache of the download page are still live...

No political movement no change in laws

[joneshenry]

The environmental movement is a real political movement and actually has politicians pay attention to it from time to time because it can find people who are willing to take on the corporations in a courtroom.

A prime example is the case of the McDonalds libel trial which turned into a major public relations disaster for McDonalds and for the government and which has some aspects still dragging on.

Note that due to the nature of England's libel laws even the pair involved in the litigation knew they had no chance of prevailing at trial; but they chose to sacrifice a huge chunk of their life because the damage done to them is far exceeded by the damage the movement could inflict on McDonalds.

The difference then boils down to this--some people view causes such as the environment as being important enough to sacrifice their lives for. These people and their movement get results. Far fewer seem to feel that the concept of digital rights is important enough to sacrifice one's livelihood. I view the political system we have today is an arena of Darwinism for ideologies--survival of the fittest, the ones that can inspire people to make actual sacrifices.

Re:No political movement no change in laws

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can I expect to see you host a copy of DVD Decryptor, and of course, fight the inevitable legal battle? :)

Re:No political movement no change in laws

[The Wicked Priest]

Of course, the problem with "survival of the fittest" is that it's a tautology: that which survives, survives. It says nothing about the quality of the ideas. People are also willing to die for complete bunk, like Christianity.

Enivronmentalism is compelling enough to devote one's life to it because, in principle, a poisoned environment could kill you. The same sort of thing can't really be said about DRM. But I do believe that the underlying issues are a lot more serious than most people realize, and I think we should be pressing the most extreme case we can make -- because the IP-mongers will certainly be (and have been) doing it from their side.

Here's the most extreme case I can make: The fight over "intellectual property" is nothing less than a war for the future of humanity. We are coming into an era where physical scarcity will effectively end. The only kind of trade left will be the trade in ideas -- this is what's meant by the "information economy". Only, there's a fundamental problem there: intellectual scarcity doesn't even exist, naturally. It can only be created through intellectual property law, restricting the legal right to copy information and ideas. And the laws work poorly, necessitating an ever-stricter regime of punishment and control if they're to be even partially effective. We've seen this already.

In the end, these will be our choices: Artificial scarcity, with a fascist state upholding elite privileges. Or... we let the old scarcity-based economy collapse, bid it good riddance, and welcome the new gift-based economy, where everyone is essentially rich, as well as free.

Of course, some reading this will think me mad. To explain why it's not madness would take a lot more paragraphs, so I'll save that for another time.

Re:No political movement no change in laws

[kindbud]

Unfortunately, the ideologies that come out on top are the ones that get the opponents to make all the sacrifices, rather than the supporters.

Re:No political movement no change in laws

[evilviper]

Far fewer seem to feel that the concept of digital rights is important enough to sacrifice one's livelihood. I view the political system we have today is an arena of Darwinism for ideologies--survival of the fittest, the ones that can inspire people to make actual sacrifices.

The analogy is a poor one. With something like environmentalism, the actions of one person can directly accomplish something. With digital rights, it's a case of one less drop of water in the ocean.

You must chose your battles. Those that chose to waste their lives fighting tooth and nail for something that makes absolutely no difference to the world, would be completely stupid.

Fire up yer P2P servents, everybody!

[mmell]

Let's see 'em kill it there. Y'know, the DeCSS code is still 1) widely available and 2) not too hard to understand (if you know any C). May I suggest politely that somebody else "step up to the plate" as it were and build an even better mousetrap? I rather think I will. BRB, somebody's knocking on my door . . . Hey, what're you doing with my computer? HEY, GET YOUR HANjapfo0[349q[g e.///.....

Connection closed by remote host

Imagine Sony having a bad day:

[e9th]

"Alright. We give you all this great stuff and you go and take advantage of us. Be that way.

"From now on, all our music will be available only on vinyl LPs, and our movies on BetaMax. So there."

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Overzeetop]

Tell you what, if anyone at this "particular" company would like my personal information for the purpose of contacting me and inspecting the TB of ripped DVDs I have on my FW tower at my house, they need simply reply below.

Of course, they will be quite disappointed to find that the space is filled with a subset of the material currently residing in my 400 disc Jukebox (I'm not done ripping, yet).

copy protection is a euphemism - try copy crippled

[Brian Ristuccia]

It's "copy protection" not "copyright protection." Why are you helping them to frame the issue and taint the language?

It's amazing how the the copyright cartel has co-opted a term like "copy protection." It sounds like a technology which helps protect copies from becoming lost or damaged, or protects your ability to make a new copy, but in reality it does nearly the opposite.

The term "copy protection" more accurately refers to the money paid to the music mafia when you buy recordable audio media (ie, the DAT tax). Use terms like "copy resistant" or "copy crippled" when referring to systems which incorporate technology intended to make copying difficult.

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

> This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world

Naw, just look at his sig. It's an old-fashioned troll.

Do DMCA work as an academic paper

[davidwr]

Any time you are dealing with creating "copyright burglar's tools" and the like, you are on much safer legal ground if you write a book or paper on the topic rather than create a usable tool.

When you a book or article, and you can claim that your own research was academic in nature and that since you didn't publish any computer software, you are not violating the law.

Publish it online under the Creative Commons license, and leave it up to others to take your book's algorthims and turn them into something useful. Let the industry have fun with that wack-a-mole, with hundreds or thousands of "independent" implimentations of the algorithm you describe in your book.

The industry still has one trump card: Patents. While they can't come after you for describing a patented process in book form, they can come down hard on anyone who impliments such a process in code. But only for a couple of decades from the date of the patent, and most DVD-formats were invented in the '90s.

Re:Hey dudeeo

[MattBurke]

1. Developing isn't an option for him - most likely his internet connection is being sniffed. Getting caught developing it will probably land him in prison.

2. You can't fight back without money for a solicitor.

3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.

You think the guy deciding not to throw his life away is "lamo"?

I will damned well back up my own CDs and DVDs!

[TiddlyPom]

...I have paid good money for them!

The really stupid thing is that companies like Sony are really annoying the people they can't afford to annoy - i.e. their consumers. I buy DVDs and CDs legally and have two children who are good at wrecking digital media - so I keep the originals as masters and back them up - using the backups on a day-to-day basis. There is no way that I will buy or use any product containing DRM unless I can't help it.

Based on this I will not buy a Sony DVD or CD again (and I have done in the past). If more people vote with their feet then hopefully (eventually) they might take note. I was going to buy a PS/3 at some point but now it will have to be an X-Box (what a choice - M$ or Sony...! - perhaps I won't after all!)

This is why open source software is *so* important and applications like MythTV are infinitely preferable to M$ Media Center. I do support and fund production of quality films but abhor the cartel (and it *is* a cartel) that controls all of this. As others have said here - what we need is not only to publish the dource code of DVD Decrypter but also full details of how the copy protection works to as many web servers as possible. This really is very scary and big-brother-ish...

Re:I will damned well back up my own CDs and DVDs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely.

I was going to get a PS3, but now I'm seriously having second thoughts about it.

At least with the Xbox360 you get a cool interactive music visualiser (http://www.llamasoft.co.uk/neon-screenshots.php) built in and the controller doesn't look like a bizarre sex toy...

Re:I will damned well back up my own CDs and DVDs!

[EvilJoker]

Your money is a drop in the bucket. The unwashed masses will complain about shit like this in the same breath as they talk about buying more CDs. People have short attention spans, try what I do- don't refer to it as buying a CD or DVD. Give it a better term, such as mine: Funding more lawsuits. Kinda keeps things in front of them.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[0111 1110]

Luckily that check box seems to be unchecked by default.

Bad analogy....

[sponga]

Hmm maybe you should open your eyes a little and put it like this... "you can't sue a guy for making a key which opened into your house," Do you have the right to enter that house though, even though you got past those silly pointless locks that are there for no reason?

Re:Bad analogy....

[Overzeetop]

Well, assuming you paid for the house, um, yes.

Unfortunately, the physical property logic can only go so far.

There are two uses for DVDdecrypter:
1) You own the disc and want to space/time/media/region shift it.
2) You don't own the disc and want to make an infringing copy of the work therein.

Sony (or whomever) doesn't give a rat's ass about the first. They've already got the cash in hand from the sale, and they know that a backup copy is really just an excuse not to buy a replacement disc at some point in the future.

What they really don't want is you making a copy and then getting rid of the disc. They're not going after Netflix or Walmart because they have deep pockets, and they do buy discs. Lightning_UK just made the process of copying too damned simple. And he is an easy target. *Blam* One more head to place on a stake in front of the castle.

Hand Over the Source Code?!!

[segedunum]

People in the computing world make little things called copies you fucking wankers!

Re:Hand Over the Source Code?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the computing world make little things called copies

Yes, that's the part that has them so ticked off, don't you think?

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Look at his blanket statement about "corporations".

>> It doesn't surprise me in the least that companies

Ah, good. Put corporations in quotes since it isn't even what was said. That way you can jump up on your soapbox. Was some of what was wrote an over generalization? You bet you ass. Does it apply to the orginization you listed? You think about it.

Congratulations, you end up not only looking like more of a fucktard (yes, it's an old one, it still applies) than the original guy, but prove you have anxieties about your manhood.

A subtle hint.

[Kili]

Mr. Peabody H-E-L-P!!!

If you don't get the refernece you aren't smart enough to get the software. ;-)

An remember, the entire internet is not hosted in the US. :-)

Well, I'm off to break something...
Kili

Re:A subtle hint.

[Kili]

Following someones advice I RTFA.

The entire internet isn't hosted in the UK either. ;-)

Well, I'm off to break something...
Kili

Re:A subtle hint.

[AussieVamp2]

I reckon Underdog could thrown in a few boards and lawyers with Simon Bar Sinister? :)

Just write a virus that checks for a new version

[Anonymous Coward]

Just write a virus that checks for a new version of DVDdecryptor and let the hillarity begin..

Download mirror link

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't want to search through Google Cache, here's a direct download link:

http://www.qcs-rf.com/uploads/SetupDVDDecrypter_3. 5.4.0.exe

Enjoy!

Re:Download mirror link

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the source code available anywhere??? I hate to see great software die.

-AC

Re:I think code should be protected like free spee

[Anonymous Coward]

Overzeetop wrote:

Its just like 1000 years ago, except the alternative was getting run-through. Or back in highschool, when the senior bully decided to give you the option of your lunch money or a thorogh pounding.

Fortunately, such physically violent means of intimidation and assault aren't legal any more. Unfortunately, economicly and legalisticly violent means of intimidation and assault are all too legal. That's totally messed up. If they had sent a pair of musclebound hulks to the guy's door, threatening to break his kneecaps, there would be a huge outcry! But send a soliciter with a similar economic threat, and far too many people don't see a problem at all.
Either way, it's still a threat, and it's still violence.

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there is no legal obligation for a publicly traced corp. to make money for shareholders; if a company decides in public (with the owners == shareholders agreeing of course) to for example not sue for 'moral' or 'company philosophy' reasons even though sueing would be the way to go to maximise profits, this is perfectly legal.
Of course in capitalism the primary objective for any company is to make money. (I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just believe this is one of the pillars of what is capitalist economy). If you distinct between ('good') private companies and ('evilbad') global corporations, i believe you haven't quite understood capitalism.

Easy answer

[Raul654]

"Why not just say no?"

Becase even if he's right, it'll *easily* cost him a million dollars to prove it. How much justice can he afford?

Magnet URI

[Poromenos1]

In case those mirrors go down... magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:JTLBPWF5VWNSC5NRZ5UIPAEUL3 C7EM25.II3DCH2JQZXBMKBNOJUP55ZAQHUF3Q3THD5XGBA&dn= SetupDVDDecrypter_3.5.4.0.exe

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[mengel]

Okay, let's get this straight, once and for all.

• you do not need to break encryption to copy a DVD. You can copy the encrypted bits all you want.
• you doneed to decrypt to play the DVD.

So all of the claimed DMCA violations are complete bull, as the encryption is not actually a copy protection mechanism -- it is a play-prevention mechanism.

Any exact copy of a DVD will play in all the same DVD players that the original played in.

Re:Good summary.

[The Only Druid]

"You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others."

Except you're wrong. Corporations are required to maximize shareholder profit within reasonable parameters. It is entirely up to the corporation to refuse to act in a certain manner so as to reflect the ethos of its managers so long as that ethos is clear and not part of a deception of the shareholders.

You just sound like someone who isn't happy with how much money he makes, how much he spends on other products, etc. It happens. You just need to realize that what you think is "evil" is apparently the nature of the capitalist system. Maybe you ought to have the courage of your convictions: leave our system, and join a country like China.

It was Sony

[ewerx604]

And just for that, I won't be buying a PS3. Take that, Sony!

If he's in britian...

[Landak]

We have a little thing called "Legal Aid". It actually works. If you're being sued, and you can't afford a barrister or solicitor, you go to a Citizens' Advice Bureau, and sign up for legal aid. Also, in this country, looser pays costs. If he looses, the tax payer pays the other person's costs. Now then, below is an exert from the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations Act, 2003.....

296ZE Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts (1) In this section - "permitted act" means an act which may be done in relation to copyright works, notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright, by virtue of a provision of this Act listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5A; "voluntary measure or agreement" means - (a) any measure taken voluntarily by a copyright owner, his exclusive licensee or a person issuing copies of, or communicating to the public, a work other than a computer program, or (b) any agreement between a copyright owner, his exclusive licensee or a person issuing copies of, or communicating to the public, a work other than a computer program and another party, the effect of which is to enable a person to carry out a permitted act. (2) Where the application of any effective technological measure to a copyright work other than a computer program prevents a person from carrying out a permitted act in relation to that work then that person or a person being a representative of a class of persons prevented from carrying out a permitted act may issue a notice of complaint to the Secretary of State.

[It then gets very long winded about how the Secretary of State can obligate the copyright holder to comply.]


Also, one other nice snippet from the same act:

" 50BA Observing, studying and testing of computer programs (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do. (2) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).".

He should win. Although....

Just Downloaded it Now

[segedunum]

I've been using an older version for quite a while and wanted to see what was in the new one. Thanks!

Re:Just Downloaded it Now

[Overzeetop]

Me too. I've been putting off upgrading because I haven't ahd any issues (yet). My 2 year old can scratch a disc up in 8 to 10 viewings (and those of you with little kids know haw short that can be in calendar time!)

Oddly enough, I also use DVDshrink quite a bit. I've found that my daughter tends to scratch/smudge only the outer 1/2"-3/4" or so of the disc. Now I take her movies, rip them, then use the manual "shrink" option to reduce the content down to about 2.5GB. That leaves the outer section (where her fingers usually dwell) blank. No more stopping/skipping with 20 minutes to go in the film.

I know full well what these programs _can_ be used for. Nonetheless it pisses me off that a corporation has decided to play bully in order to prevent their continued progress/support. Fucking Bastards. Hrumph.

Re:This is windows only !!!

[imthesponge]

Yes, that's why he started charging for its use and embedded paid ads in it.

Time for guerilla development

[suitepotato]

Encrypted anonymous remailers, Usenet, PGP, and work at a distance in cells. Publish the source and let people download and compile it themselves. No web site to take down, no domain to seize.

DRM must continue to be fought. Given the continuing march of government in lockstep with business with apparently not the slightest nod toward fair use, traditional goals of IP protection as opposed to venal abuse, guerilla tactics can and should be used to fight it. Non-violent non-co-operation has to be the rule of the day here.

PSP?

[Anonymous Coward]

A PSP is a good use that only works if you use decrypter software.

Re:This is windows only !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

writing GPL software doesn't put food on the table for your wife and kids.

sorry, some of us have to write propietary code for a living.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont' give a flying fuck if they do check my IP address.

I use DVDDecrypter to convert DVDs I've bought to convert onto my PSP, which I bought and if Sony don't like it, they can fuck off.

In sweden, but different, but related, sort of!

[Tagren]

Hello!

In the same spirit, in sweden our justice minister Thomas Bodström said that they wont allow the music companys to have DRM on cd's.

If the music companys dont follow them, they will considering adding laws to allow people to make copies.

If you can read Swedish, here is an article about it: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,647278,00.html

Here is my translation of it, beware of errors!

[Translation]
Justice minister Thomas Bodström demands that record company's stop locking down cd's against pirate-copying.

If the pirate protection is not removed, it will be laws, he threatens.

Copy protected cd's, is a one way for the record company's to stop the spreading of music over the Internet.

But according to Bodström it is unreasonably that the record buyers are unable to make a copy for their own use, or move over music to their mp3-players.
- Obviously should it be possible to make a copy of your new bought cd to a mp3 player or make a extra copy of the cd to have in the car. The business must see to it that the possibility to copy for own use is not hindered by technical measures, he writes together with some politicians: Hillevi Larsson(s) and Tasso Stafilidis (v) in a debate article on SVT's homepage

If the record company's don't remove the copy-protection, the government will step in.

- We wont hesitate to return with new laws should the possibility to make copy's for own use be hindered.

By Hanna Blanksvärd, date: 2005/May/19, Aftonbladet.se
[End translation]

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the old "you're just jealous" comeback.

That should be right up there with Godwin's rule. Mention it and your post loses all credibility.

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's either capitalism or move to totalitarian China is it? Thankyou fuckhead, for all those options.

This is unfortunate

[Hamfist]

I use DVD Decrypter all the time to make backups. I have a 3 year old daughter and she turns DVDs to mincemeat fairly quickly. I have a real need for backup software. I buy a lot of DVDs, but I'm just not interested in buying 10 copies of Shrek in the next 5 years.

Can anyone recommend a quality replacement? DVD Decrypter was really very easy to use.

Re:This is unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

how exactly will they be removing the installed software from your computer? what about the mirrors that are out there (ie- doom9.org)?

get real. so the dude is getting sued - the software will keep on working.

as a matter of fact, i'm using dvd decrypter RIGHT NOW.

Darwinism

[Anonymous Coward]

The best explanation I've ever heard goes along the lines of:

"You didn't come from the giant hairy guy out getting stomped on by wooly mamoths. You came from the quick little fucker who ran back to the cave."

Might want to really think about that in context of your post.

Worth considering

[Nik13]

That was my first thoughts on this too. Either offshoring it, or making it open source - or perhaps both...

Offshoring it may not be enough. I've seen countless "offshored" forums "go down" like that because the admins weren't offshore as well.

I can't see him move to a non-DMCA subjected part of the world just so he can publish some app either.

So with offshoring, the best way I can imagine to make himself safe from law, is by somehow "anonymizing" it. Open source it so no single programmer can be said responsible for "offending" parts of the code. Perhaps if it can somehow hide the country of origin of contributors...

Sure, it wouldn't be just his own app anymore, but between that and letting it die because of the greed of media conglomerates taking a little more of our fait use rights away everyday...

I doubt any of this will happen (offshored and/or open sourced) unfortunately. It's sad to see another great app like that disappear under those kind of circumstances.

Thanks again Lightning UK! for all the hard work and dedication (and the late nite IRC chats/forum discussions).

Ask a stupid question...

[fbartho]

Get a stupid answer:

I don't know, hire more lawyers?

Uh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to explain why hosting offshore would cost more than not-so-distant hosting?

As long as you pick hosting in the proper country... It won't really change hosting prices. It wouldn't change much to his usual hosting bill really.
(not sure if he managed to get enough donations to cover it before)

The only real difference in the scenario is the IP address of the server and it's physical location. If anything, these countries tend to charge cheaper for bandwidth...

Work around it

[iamghetto]

What about releasing a GUI version of DVD Decrypter that lacks the ability to crack CSS encryption? It could talk to the DeCSS command line tool that you may or may not have on your computer. That way, couldn't everyone keep the DVD Decrypter they know and love and it'd be up to the person whether or not to break the law with DeCSS? :)

Re:Work around it

[Medevo]

The problem is that this guy actually hasn't been convicted of any crime, Sony simply said

"Stop now, give us all your info, the website, and anything else related or else we will sue you and every living relative"

While, technically according to British law, he likely broke the law on paper, it's really more of a side matter then anything. Sony has decided that he is on their shitlist, and that's a bad thing for "The Little Guy" (tm).

If I put up a massive sign on my house that said "I LOVE HD-DVD", Sony could (but likely wont) do the same thing and threaten to bury me, despite the fact that its 100% legal for me to do this. Sony figures that the worst case of the threat is that they get a few posts on Slashdot and have to keep paying their legal staff+costs. For Sony and similar companies, this is a just another quasi-legal tactic to use that generally works reasonably well.

I will agree that the laws need to be adjusted to allow for more Fair Use in the USA and Britain (my country currently is currently drafting up similar legislation as the courts are upholding the Fair Use statues in law, and making many up loaders and programmers immune [and specifically untraceable] to the media giants). What really needs to happen is that somebody writes a program that finds all the information required to carry out functions like DeCSS from a file, and set up the program specifically to allow DeCSS functions from a file like explorer.exe or winhelp.exe. I would love to see the hand delivery of the C&D to Microsoft Headquarters.

Medevo

Solution: Partitioned Decrypter

[mspring]

Partition the decrypter into two "harmless" modules, host them on separate servers. Only when put together, the functionality is available...

Re:Solution: Partitioned Decrypter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

Sad day...

[peter1]

It is truly a sad day when with a lawsuit we can stop people from using their brains, talents and natural curiosity. Next up the Thought Police!

"Who is it?" "Goons." "Who?" "Hired goons."

[HTH NE1]

Judging by the sound of his final post he is a little too scared to try something like that. Whatever the letter said, looks like it scared him good. Maybe they etched it in his car or something.

It's the being served with the order hand-delivered that does that. It's that hands-on touch you only get with hired goons.

Re:Hey dudeeo

[Anonymous Coward]

My but we are paranoid with that first statement aren't we? Anyways, I don't see why people who are developing these sorts of programs don't spend the money to have a lawyer/solicitor (solicitor has a different meaning than legal aide in the US FYI) on retainer. It's fairly inevitable the big companies will come barking like dogs expecting the developer to cower down. Might as well have the legal defense lined up already in case the companies start feeling secure enough in their DMCA laws to start taking everyone to court.

DRM Flawed

[iamghetto]

How are they going to create better copyright protection if its illegal to break it? Don't you generally make somethings security better by cracking it, then fixing what you just cracked?

Perhaps not realistically, but at least theoretically, doesn't the DMCA encourage lazy/passive copyright protection schemes that as time passes will become increasingly easy to hack? Doesn't it give companies a false sense of security what it comes to protecting their valuable copyrighted material?

You're not going to stop people decrypting dvd's by making it illegal, you're going to stop it by making the encryption better... in theory anyways. :)

Re:DRM Flawed

[dreadknought]

Perhaps not realistically, but at least theoretically, doesn't the DMCA encourage lazy/passive copyright protection schemes that as time passes will become increasingly easy to hack? Doesn't it give companies a false sense of security what it comes to protecting their valuable copyrighted material?

Perhaps not realistically, but at least theoretically, doesn't the PATRIOT Act encourge lazy/passive security protection schemes that as time passes will become increasingly easy to circumvent? Doesn't it give the general public a false sense of security when it comes to protecting their valuable lives and liberties?

A few years ago (2002), my family and I flew across country to North Carolina. Now understand that my dad was a police officer for 25 years, and had the officer's star badge in his wallet. When his wallet passed through the x-ray machine, the "security" screener (I use the term loosely) called out "Where's the cop? Where's the cop?" My dad steps forward and identifies himself quietly, and the screener proceeds to give him the full screening treatment. You know, pat down, wand waving, remove your shoes, etc. All this just because of the bad image these screeners have (and for good reason). Now, if there really was a terrorist in the near vicinity, don't you think it was a major breach of security to identify the cop in the crowd, someone who is well trained and capable of thwarting a terrorist attack?

Afterwards, we were sitting in the terminal, and my dad and I thought up a few dozen different ways to breach the supposed security of this screening station i.e. a knife made of obsidian could be far sharper than any metal knife could be, and undetectable to metal detectors and x-ray machines. Airport security, what a crock!

Re:DRM Flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

This was never about making the perfect copyright protection mechanism. It was about showing due diligence when they take you to court for violating the DMCA.

The DMCA was meant as a companion to copyright protection schemes - One being useless without the other.

Author's text:

[Anonymous Coward]

From a famous BT site: No, this is NOT infected with Trojans, viruses och malware. Hang on to this EXE-file as this is the last version of DVDDecrypter. Ever! Hello world, I've got some good news and some bad news. Let's start with the good.... (tumble weed passes by)Ok, and now onto the bad: DVD Decrypter 3.5.4.0 is the last version you'll ever see.We hoped this day would never come, but it has, and I can promise you, nobody is more gutted about it than I am. What started as a bit of fun, putting a GUI around some existing code, turned into something that I can only describe as "part of me" - yes, I know that's sad ;-) As I've recently been made aware (by a letter, hand delivered to my door, last Tuesday), due to some law that was changed back in October 2003, circumventing copy protection isn't allowed. Ok so it has taken a while (almost 2 years), but eventually "a certain company" has decided they don't like what I'm doing (circumventing their protection) and have come at me like a pack of wolves. I've no choice but to cease everything to do with DVD Decrypter. I realise this is going to be one of those "that sucks - fight them!" kinda things, but at the end of the day, it's my life and I'm not about to throw it all away (before it has even really started) attempting to fight a battle I can't possibly win. If 321 Studios can't do it with millions, what chance do I have with £50?! As I'm sure most of you have already noticed, the site has been down for a few days. That surprised me as much as the next person (slight breakdown in communication), or I would have issued this statement on it directly. So anyway, from this point forward, I'm no longer permitted to provide any sort of assistance with anything that helps people infringe the rights of "a certain company". That means, no more emails, no more forum posts, no PMs, no nothing! END OF STORY. The domain name will be transferred over to the company by the end of the week (9th June, according to the undertakings I have to sign) so don't email it thinking "Oh, I'll just ask LIGHTNING UK! for support on this". You'll not be getting the intended recipient and could be landing yourself in sh1t! With 3.5.4.0 being the last version, it makes sense for everyone to disable the "check for new versions" feature, as obviously there won't be any. Of course what I really mean is that you should all stop using the program out of respect for the company's rights. Anyone hosting DVD Decrypter is advised to cease doing so immediately. I've the feeling they won't stop with just me. I'm having to contact anyone I know of that is (at the very least, the "mirror" sites), and tell them to stop. Copies of those emails must also be sent to the solicitors so they can check I'm doing everything I'm supposed to. If I don't, I die. It is of course down to the owners of those sites to react how they want to. It's not my job to force you to do anything you don't want to, I'm just giving you some friendly advice. Maybe it's just me, but I see this as a bit of an "end of an era". I realise there are other tools, but there's no telling how much longer they'll last, and not only that, mine was the oldest! I've met loads of great people over the years and I want to take this opportunity to wish them every success for the future - yes DDBT peeps, that includes you lot! I hope you've all enjoyed my contribution to the DVD scene and maybe I'll see ya around sometime. LIGHTNING UK! (Author of the once "Ultimate DVD Ripper", DVD Decrypter)

posted anonymously for your protection

Re:Good summary.

[eyeb1]

and you are a 40-something corporate wage slave .. who knows the harsh realities of the rEAL wORLD .. right?

wrong ..

it is all corporations that are fundamentally evil ..

100-150 years ago the corporations had virtually no power to speak of .. through steady political influence and legal influence .. they have achieve an insurmountable advantage over the individuals of the world ..

they almost lost in the late sixties early seventies .. but they have made a calculated and spectacular comeback ..

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID =21

and so we will all one day work for The Corp .. like it or not .. or be killed .. mark of the beast and all ..

The Corp and it owners has achieved a Win Win position ..

the power and advantage of the group .. as well as limited social and legal liability ..

Were as the individual has been given a Lose Lose situation ..

the disadvantage of having to do everything for themselves .. why do you think animals become social int the first place .. as well as full social and legal liability .. and in the course of time .. a no win situation ..

an all but inevitable fate .. people that will accept this reality .. are asking for .. and some would say even deserve their fate .. to live their life in service to The Corp and it's owners ..

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/silentweaponsquietw arsmay79.shtml

total slavery .. as long as it's not called slavery and it does not look like slavery .. as long as there is no discrimination .. almost everyone is included .. except for the oWNERS (rulers) .. as long as i get a wage to pay for my keep .. i can believe .. can call my self free ..

after all .. deep down we all know how much it would really cost us .. to be a true individuals .. the corporate ace in the hole .. it's much easier to submit ..

a bRAVE nEW wORLD ..

please please....

[KillShill]

go out and buy a SONY PS3/2/1.

they need your support in order to implement new DRM technologies and pay for expensive lawyers to C&D not-for-profit software authors.

and not to forget those 2 other ****suckers. NINTENDO and MICROSOFT.

keep up the battle. maybe one day in the distant future, they will let you BUY products from them, instead of renting. and maybe they'll even let you own your own compiler and gasp!, let you write your own unauthorized software.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

keep laughing at him you goddamn shills, then you can present your ID cards for every single thing you do in the future. it all starts here.

there is NO good DRM.

where do YOU want to go today?

Sharing the source code.

[Rolman]

Just look at Jon Johansen's story, it would've been a completely different thing if he didn't share the source code of DeCSS. Whether he's just a frontman for a group or not, he was willing to go all the way to defend his rights and has since become even more powerful. Shame on this LIGHTNING UK! idiot for not giving true meaning to his application and using it only as an ego-boost, I just hope he had fun while it lasted.

Without Jon releasing the source code, there would be no T-shirts and haikus to show how stupid and simple it really was to crack the useless DVD protection. I'm pretty sure this new scheme is just as useless if it was cracked within 72 hours, but this very important message may now be lost forever.

When will corporations learn? Only when us consumers show them the way. I'm all for copyright and IP protection (I come from a family of artists), I'm all against piracy and fully understand its terrible consequences (I live in one of the top 3 pirate countries in the world), I'm a loyal consumer and don't own anything counterfeit or pirated but I'm pissed that people like me are starting to get crippled and outdated versions of everything, including our rights.

Last august I attended a presentation in Los Angeles of the new anti-ripping scheme Sony was developing for DVDs (don't know if it's the same but they DID mention DVD Decrypter). I was thinking "do these people really believe it will work?". I mean, the game consoles are meant to be closed standards and they still get cracked open in a matter of months, sometimes even days. How can they expect a protection scheme like that to work on an open standard like DVD? I wanted to scream "IT'S THE BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID!" during the presentation but I'm pretty sure I would've been kicked outside of the hall if I did.

That didn't stop me, though. During the Q&A session I told them it just takes ONE clever person to rip the DVD and get it through the illegal distribution channels, they simply responded the scheme was aimed at the casual ripper. Some people (especially the ones from Disney) listened to my concerns and seemed to be more receptive, since they had a wonderful presentation that day, showing a deep and surprisingly honest study on the issue of copyright infringement and its distribution mechanisms, kudos to them.

I'd say the moral of the story is to not keep your opinion to yourself, and that includes your code as a form of speech.

Re:Sharing the source code.

[ydrol]

Shame on this LIGHTNING UK! idiot for not giving true meaning to his application and using it only as an ego-boost, I just hope he had fun while it lasted.

I wouldn't go as far as calling him an idiot. His personal situation, and what he values as important may be different to others. Fighting "evil mega-corp" could be low on his "to-do" list at this time in his life. However I do think his farewell posting was a missed oppertunity to have a clearly worded and concise dig at the expanding scope of DMCA vs fair use etc.

Hopefully he'll sit down and pen something suitably edifying to replace "no-comment" in the near future :)

Re:Sharing the source code.

[Rolman]

Sorry, maybe I was angry and called him names, you're right, I take that back and apologize if I sounded too harsh. It's just that he missed a big opportunity to help the whole situation.

We are not sure if it was Sony who sent him the letter, but it certainly is not the first time they try to leverage their 800lb gorilla status to cripple an open standard. Case in point? Their Compact Disc protection. Did it work? NO! Have they discontinued every version of that crappy technology so far? YES!

We need to make that a strong point: CRIPPLED STANDARDS WON'T WORK!

If he didn't want to fight because of his values, that's ok, but sharing the source would allow other people to fight for the same or other similar principles. Keeping your mouth shut just because someone bigger told you to do so may sound like the smart thing if you don't want to get hurt, but that doesn't make the big guy right.

Re:Sharing the source code.

[Anonymous Coward]

How easy to criticize and suggest he risk his life, when YOU have nothing at stake.

Re:Sharing the source code.

[pjrc]

Just look at Jon Johansen's story, it would've been a completely different thing if he didn't share the source code of DeCSS

If you look back at the history of DeCSS, I believe you'll find that he did NOT actually share his source code. He refused to let anyone see it. But it leaked out due to an error on his part... don't recall if he was hacked or it was just unintentionally available by ftp on his site for a while.

But nonetheless, he never intended it to be shared at all, much less open source. But once the genie was out the bottle, there was little he could do.

Re:Sharing the source code.

[EvilJoker]

You're missing something very important:
DVD Jon is from Norway. Norway has a *VERY* different legal system than the US and the UK. He also claims to have not written the offending code, and been law-abiding. And he was taken to court. Twice.

AFAIK, DVD Decrypter is illegal under UK Law, and Lightning UK wrote it all himself.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody should write a little curl command line that sends the exact same query, then we all flood 'em with bogus queries.

Then when the police break down your door looking for your Windows PC with DVD Decrypter, hilarity will ensue.

Auric Goldfinger

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I don't think I've ever used DVD Decrypter. But I sure as hell know what to be looking for, now.

What the hell is it in the UK? British Phonographic Industry? British Screen Advisory Council? They're both awesome. Awesome like Auric Goldfinger.

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you +5 insightful right up until I hit your sig.

This is why I hide people sigs, and never look at them. I'd rather not confuse whatever issue is at hand with some stupid pithy saying that may or may not contradict or support what I just read.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Anonymous Coward]

NO it is NOT.

Solution To Consumerism

[Shihar]

Why in the hell do you people watch this shit if you are so offended by the manner in which they practice their business? I just personally don't get it. I AM offended by the MPAA and the RIAA. What have I done? I have not bought (or pirated) a DvD or a song years. The last thing I bought was on E-music back when they had a flat rate no DRM mp3 service. The second they changed their service I stopped paying.

People spend so much time complaining, but very little time backing up their complaints with actions. Apparently, bitching about consumerism is about as far as people are willing to go. It personally drives me nuts, because consumer is so simple to battle. You can live a consumer free life, even in American, with a minimal amount of effort. In fact, I would say that it is EASIER to live a consumer free life then it is to be a consumer. It is real simple. Ready?

Don't buy stuff.

You would be amazed at how much happiness you can squeeze out of life when you decide not to give a shit about that latest Hollywood crapfest, or, in the very least, stick to Netflixs to see it. Clothing is cheap and plentiful when you are not obsessed over the label. Hell, even a car is a simple matter when the only thing you are looking for is an AC/heat (if you live in a climate that needs it) and reliability. $5,000 is more then enough to get a used car that runs. No, you will not look cool with your 1990 Honda Accord, but who the hell cares?

I personally love capitalism and consumer culture and hope we never get rid of it. Why? Because it is voluntary and easily avoided. I don't eat at McDonalds, I don't buy DvDs, I don't buy music, I don't watch MTV, and most of my furniture is so cheap it borders on free (and some of it was). To the companies that have a business model that I approve of like Netflixs, Trader Joes (extremely cheap supermarket), and my local coffee shop, I give money. To the companies/groups that I disagree with, like the MPAA, RIAA, and McDonalds, I give nothing to.

If consumer culture is bothering you, grow a spine and stop giving them money. If consumer culture still bothers you even after you have stopped giving them money, trying not giving a shit about the dumb masses and find some like minded friends.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[ICA]

Badly paraphrased..."Local man continuously tells people he does not own a television"

Enough said.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[demo9orgon]

There is a shade of consumerism which should serve as a compromise to the hard-line "just don't buy anything" vibe.

I buy my entertainment "used" whenever possible.

The MPAA doesn't see any additional licensing fees from me.
The RIAA doesn't count me, and I pay considerably less by being patient.
This works really well for video games and computer hardware too. I don't need to show anyone how cool I am by having the latest and the greatest because I'm patient.
The entertainment industry is all about shiny things and intensity, and immediacy. They market shiny things to people who crave them.
I don't crave any "manufactured" entertainment so much that I can't wait...but then I don't feel the need to buy an H2/H3 to prove my penis is large either. :-)

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Coward Anonymous]

Wait until you get married...

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not a moral giant, just cheap.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

After watching Deadwood, i'm starting to think that given enough time, the general masses will gladly hand over their prospects for creature comforts, no matter which unscrupulous fellow owns the saloon.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Fat Cow]

Some of the money you give to netflix goes to the movie companies and then to the MPAA.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

Tagged as funny, but so frickin true.

I couldn't give a shit about most consumer stuff, but not so the wife...

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[inode_buddha]

Actually, I buy tickets to my local philharmonic. I get to meet the artists, etc. The few movies and CD's that I own were bought and paid for years ago. That was my solution to the issue.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular culture, with its 2-hour attention span, gets bored easily. And being naturally lazy, people will take to mindless pursuits such as watching and listening to junk.

Only when people begin to realize they can't be intellectually lazy and not be subject to commercialism will these entertainment industries disappear. I suggest taking up intellectual and skilled pursuits in fits of boredom. I don't necessarily advocate reading about the lastest advances in cryptography for R&R (not that I'm against it either--whatever floats your boat), but things like carpentry, dancing, singing, sports, and even reading would require a little more work from upstairs, but would provide far more satisfaction intellectually and personally than current forms of entertainment. Even the section of the population collectively termed "rednecks" have their own intellectual pursuits, and perhaps ironically, they are far superior to the television addicts that populate the rest of the country in this respect.

As for immediately replacing and supplanting the MPAA and RIAA, that is possible too. Music does not have to be played from a recorded medium, and even if people don't carry a pianist with them wherever they go, one can hum, sing, or whistle--or like the great composers, hear the music in their heads.

Instead of watching television and movies, read the stories. Or write new ones. Before television, there were books. For the illiterate, whom comprised the majority of the population, there were tales, stories, all of which were, in addition to being entertaining, meaningful.

People did have lives and did have forms of entertainment before these industries appeared. Even the poorest, who could not afford these more luxurious pursuits, had their ways of making their lives enjoyable. Now is as good a time as any to rediscover these forms of entertainment.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Robotech_Master]

Unfortunately, unless everybody boycotts, the only effect such a boycott will have is to make the boycotters feel smugly morally superior.

Of course, if that's your goal, then hey, congratulations, you're doing a fine job!

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Ty]

Trader Joe's, who can't sell you a fucking head of lettuce without sealing it in shrink-wrap? I was going to call you a dirty hippie, but I've only seen latte-sucking yuppies too busy blabbering on their cell-phones to even utter a hello to the cashier.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't. I do, however, have two Macs and a Windows machine and network cable strung all over the house.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

"To the companies that have a business model that I approve of like...Trader Joes (extremely cheap supermarket),"

umm, wtf?

You must have a different trader joes from the one i have. Mine is overpriced yuppie food.

Cheap is the *Food4Less*. The one full of large families of screaming kids...because its cheap. Safeway and Kroger are both too expensive...Trader Joes is ridiculous.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[plaxion]

The only way a boycott can work is if virtually _EVERYONE_ boycotts, but the average Joe doesn't know or could care less about issues of fair use, etc, so you'll never get enough of a consensus together to do anything more than cause a slight slump in their sales.

Unfortunately, the MPAA and RIAA will use any perceived drop in sales as an excuse to convince congress to give them even more favourable legistlation (if that's possible) because "people must be stealing the content since they're not buying it as much any more". Then they'll then wave those same statistics around like a huge banner in front of the judiciary as proof that little Timmy's download of that Metallica song just cost them billions.

Timmy will go to jail, his parents will have to enslave themselves for the rest of their lives to pay the fine and the MPAA and RIAA will hike their 24hr view/listen pricing to $19.99 to cover their fudged^H^H^H^H^H^Halleged 'losses'... in short, everyone loses except them.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[arkhan_jg]

I buy my entertainment "used" whenever possible.

Which is precisely why media companies are starting trying to shut down the second-hand market.

One of the 'side effects' of DRM with registration is that it removes the right of resale.

Good example in the games world are Valve games using steam, like counter-strike and half-life 2, which force you to register your serial number permanently with an online account. Once that's done, you can't resell it. Windows, with it's number stuck to the side of the case and online activation make it impossible to resell just the software.

iTunes music store too; good luck trying to find someone able to resell a track from them, by making apple change the 'ownership' tag on the music.

In 20 years time, there won't be much of a second hand market left.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

A tad offtopic but...

$5000 seems alot for a 'cheap' used car. My friend brought a car for £25 only needed a headlight it had done hardly any miles, a great car and I believe Tax Exempt. And another for £85 T&T. But maybe car prices are diffent in America.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Shihar]

You completely missed my point. Yes, if everyone does this consumerism will be dead tomorrow. Shitty companies in capitalism are beast that feed off your money, and the second everyone stops feeding the beast, it dies. My goal isn't to kill these companies. My goal is to not give a shit.

You see, the component you are perhaps missing is that you need to GIVE your money to a shitty company in order for it to get it. YOU can avoid consumerism easily. Don't buy shit. It really is that easy. You are not talking about avoiding consumerism, you are talking about trying to kill it, which is entirely missing the point.

Stop worrying about trying to save the masses through legislation to some how 'fix' society. Fuck society. If everyone else wants to line up to get into their Virgin Megastore, let the dumb mother fuckers get themselves off.

To me, it is win win for everyone. The dumb masses get the stupid shit that makes them happy. The corporations get their money for providing that happiness. I go read a book not giving a shit that the dumb masses are throwing their money at corporations. If there is any dumb sucker in the entire mess, it is the fool that bitches endlessly about how evil the corporations are, and then goes ahead consumes their products with enthusiasm and glee.

In fact, if there is anyone in this mess that sounds like a real asshole, it is the guy who consumes all he can, all the while bitching that it should be free. For fucks sake, JUST STOP CONSUMING.

Actually, I don't care. I don't care if they sit there, consuming to their hearts content, all the while bitching that the entity feeding them their precious things (regardless if it is music, clothing, or software) is putting rules on their consumption that they don't like. Do you know why I don't care? Because I am at home, drinking a cheap beer, reading a book.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Shihar]

That should read, "Local man tell people that if they don't like TV, they should stop watching it."

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[mkettler]

Erm, dude.. this is slashdot.

Don't hold your breath waiting on anyone here to get married :)

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[orionware]

Food4Less DOES Rock. And it's actually owned by Kroger, so go figure.

Trader Joes is a yuppie place trying to sell itself as a hippie place. Some things are expensive, the two buck chuck however is not. And it's gooood.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[guacamolefoo]

"Don't buy stuff."

One of the problems people run into is that buying stuff makes them feel better. I'm way past that. I buy things that I need, and I constantly try to evaluate the things I already have to see if I can make better use of them to fulfill a perceived need I may think I have.

When buying stuff, I also wait. To wit: I recently wanted to get a new mountain bike. I waited for a local police department's auction of bikes that were lost/confiscated over the course of the last year. I got a nearly mint (needed a rear tire tube) Trek bike for $30.00. I felt like a thief carting it out of the auction.

I recently needed a monitor for a used xServer I got from a surplus place for my office. I asked around, and I found a friend who was getting rid of monitors because he "needed" a flat panel monitor. I got it for the price of hauling instead of paying $80.00 for a new one.

I recently was driving down the street to the grocery store on trash day, and I saw a fisher-price parking garage toy like I had in the 70's. It worked great when I stopped to examine it. A little cleaning, and BINGO, a toy for my 3.5 year old was had for nothing. He loves it, BTW.

I have oodles of used baby stuff for my 7 mo. old. She's a girl, but she wears girl/boy stuff from friends, because at 7 mo. old, I don't think she really cares, as long as she's warm/clean. It was had for nothing, unlike other folks I know who must get everything new and unblemished at Gap for kids. She's just going to spit up on the stuff anyway.

I refuse to waste my money on new and shiny. I don't need it.

GF.

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[GroovBird]

I would agree with what you're saying but you're wrong when it comes to the Windows part.

The license that's included with your PC is cheaper than a regular license because it's attached to your PC and they cannot be separated.

You can bitch about the fact that you cannot buy a decent PC without an OS and put an OS onto it that you can resell later, fact of the matter is that you CHOSE to buy such a PC with the OS preinstalled and which you cannot legally remove.

I agree about the Valve thing though.

Dave

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Cally]

If consumer culture still bothers you even after you have stopped giving them money, trying not giving a shit about the dumb masses and find some like minded friends.

Perhaps you were lucky enough to have studied the Donne text from which the following was extracted at school. If not, I'm sure it's on Gutenberg:

No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Re:Solution To Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree in your main point, namly that one should THINK BEFORE BUYING anything. Whenever I mention to people that I e.g. don't buy Coca Cola, McDonald food, Disney products, or Shell petrol for political reasons, they don't see how that can change anything. But the truth is of course that it directly affects the bottom line of those companies. Also people don't seem to understand that advertising and brand building costs a fortune. If you buy brand wares, you are paying for the commercials. Very simple. I rarely buy brand names myself, so effectively the brand-concious among us are subsidizing me indirectly through their sponsorship of tv channels, newspapers, shops, buses and plenty of other things I use.

Re:Good summary.

[AstroDrabb]

You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others.

OK, shithead, please show me _one_ USA law that says a corporation _must_ "take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit". You are talking out of your @ss. There are _no_ laws that force a publicly traded corp to do what you suggest. So get off your fairy-tale horse and stop beeing an @ss-hole.

Made my compromises just like you

Maybe you sold your self to some sh!tty corp, but I certainlly didn't, I didn't have to make _any_ compromises to work for the fortune 500 I work for. The company I work for is actually the most human focused company I have ever known. I have worked for 3 fortune 500's, and this one is the real deal. I live and work in central Florida. Last summer after we were hit _very_ hard by all the hurricanes, the company I worked for gave the most money of any private company to the victims, we are talking multi-millions. Actually, the company I work for gave more to victims than the government gave.

You are not only an @ss-hole, you are a dumb @ss-hole! Pretty sad IMO. Please show me the USA law(s) that say a publicly traded company _must_ "take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others".
There are NO SUCH LAWS you idiot. Go hug a tree and get an education!

If it was Sony

[LordSnooty]

Just this very week they been advertising one of their products quite heavily on UK TV... the Sony DVD Handycam. I can't think of a better example where the man on the Clapham omnibus would reasonably expect to be allowed to use software to get at footage that he's shot, on (finalised) discs that he's bought, as he wants to.

Re:Hey dudeeo

[Spy der Mann]

This is what happens when you write controversial software without RELEASING THE FRIGGING SOURCE CODE first.

Imagine what would have happened if Bram Cohen lived in the US and hadn't released the code for bittorrent.

Poof.

Bootleg Software

[kyoko21]

Welcome to the days of bootlegged free software. It was only just a matter of time.

Problem?

[Chris Burke]

Easy example: suppose the existence of a molecular replicator on a small level, i.e. a device capable of "reading" medicine and generating perfect (i.e. digitally perfect) duplicates of the original at a significantly reduced cost.

You're talking about an end of (or drastic reduction in) physical scarcity, much like how there is very little scarcity in the electronic realm. Just like copying a bit is nearly free, copying a physical molecule would be nearly free.

A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently).

Do they not have replicators? Just like pressing CDs, we can assume the procedure for making the drug is "take existing sample of drug and place in replicator; push go".

Given a replicator, I would be amazed to find a drug that cost billions to develop. You would never need to run a reaction larger than what fits in a lab, and you would never need to worry about running out of rare materials or difficult to produce intermediate steps -- just replicate everything you need. If we assume that the replicator can make small changes to copied molecules, then there is no need to run any reactions at all. Just fabricate the molecule you need.

Okay, there are still costs involved in researching the drug. How does the developer recoup these costs? By selling the drug at a reasonable price. Take, for example, music: most people do want to reward the creator. Even with a price disparity of $0 vs $15, most people choose to pay $15. Yet today, in a replicator-less world, pharmaceuticals still charge so much that they not only recoup their development costs, they also recoup their 2-4x larger marketing costs, and then still post profits that are the envy of every other industry.

So how would a pharmaceutical survive in a world with replicators? Well, if they are as greedy as existing corps, they wouldn't. Good fucking riddance. If instead they wanted to charge a fair price, they would survive.

Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?

I do not consider the end of scaricity to be a problem. There are, of course, those whose power is based on scarcity and thus do see it as a problem. If the replicator is ever invented and runs as cheaply as we assume here (unlikely to put it mildly), then there will certainly be huge and horrible wars fought over the right to use the device. I tell you this right now: I will be fighting on the side that wishes to end physical scarcity and grant everyone access to replicators. Anyone who wishes to tell me I don't have the right to do this I will consider a mortal enemy.

Re:Problem?

[InsaneGeek]

Do you really think the cost of raw materials are what makes them *so* expensive??? The raw materials cost is miniscule, so much it's probably thought of as an oversight. Mainly costs are 2 things:

1) Paying a bunch of private-sector PHD guys (i.e. expensive salary) to spend years and years on an item that most likely won't pan out

2) We've gotten the easy drugs out of the way, to do the stuff on the next level we are skirting the safety line and testing for a decade along with legal ramifications.

For an example look at drug Tysabri 2 months ago, Biogen lost half of it's value (and it's a multi-*billion* dollar company) because one of the secondary drugs from another company that it combines with theirs to fight the affects of MS possibly caused a death after the decades of testing. They had a market cap of $22 billion, after that they had a market cap of $12 billion.

I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost.

Re:Problem?

[BillX]

Given a replicator, I would be amazed to find a drug that cost billions to develop. You would never need to run a reaction larger than what fits in a lab, and you would never need to worry about running out of rare materials or difficult to produce intermediate steps -- just replicate everything you need.

Forget that, just find 2 people who don't have the disease, and replicate them.

Re:Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost.

I'm going to wave my hand and ask why does the research still cost so much? If Joe-the-researcher can suddenly get a new Ferrari for pennies (he replicates it, and the fuel), he doesn't need a huge salary to live like a king anymore. Fundamentals of economics and society would have to crumble. If your premise is that physical goods are suddenly replicatable, that means physical goods aren't scarce, and therefore anyone can have any good for negligible money. You can't assume ANYTHING costs what it costs now, because the drivers of economics on all scales have completely changed. If I could have EVERYTHING I have now, obtained via replication for pennies a year, what good would money be? My expectations of salary would completely change, as they would for every other human on the planet -- including the teenager at the counter at McDonalds, and the stock girl at Walmart. So maybe this analogy is a bad one...

Re:Problem?

[Rich0]

Given a replicator, I would be amazed to find a drug that cost billions to develop.

Actually, most of the cost of drug development goes into clinical trials. In order to test a drug, you need 10,000 volunteers. They are not paid. However, their doctors are paid - handsomely. You see, for every company trying to recruit patients, there are three other companies also trying to recruit patients. Doctors sign patients up for the highest bidder (which is to say - the company paying them the most - not the one offering the largest benefit to their patients).

Unless you start replicating the sick people, you won't save much money here. This is one of the biggest problems in the drug industry - the trials are very expensive, and now we're talking about making them bigger to prevent the next Vioxx disaster. The cost of trials really isn't even within the control of pharmaceutical companies - it is up to doctors, who serve as gateways to sick people, who are the only people who can participate in most of these trials.

Re:Problem?

[Necromancyr]

Hahahaha...oh...god...that's funny. No, seriously...you REALLY think it's the PhD's that are making the money?

You are aware that the majority of PhD's don't get there first job until the age of 37, right? And that until then they are being paid (on average) $40,000 a year or less?

Let me break it down for you, with bachelor's and getting a PhD you make approximately 20-25k a year. With a PhD doing a postdoc so someone will hire you in a research lab or so a company will hire you to actually RUN a lab (and then make the big bucks) your making on average $40k, $60k in the high end.

Yup, that's ULTRA mega big bucks for 4 years of college, then 5-7 years to get the PhD/masters. The REAL cost is the marketing and the fact that tons of crap doesn't pan out. Those are the facts.

Sorry, I'm not meaning to snip at you, as the rest of your post is good, but I really get annoyed when these kinds of falsehoods come up again and again even though the majority of scientists who are trying to help people and not just themselves are getting bent over and reamed constantly.

Re:Problem?

[Grym]

I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost. [emphasis mine]

99.9%? Bullshit. Show me your source for that figure, or did you just make it up off the top of your head like the rest of your sweeping statements?

Modern pharmaceutical companies spend more in advertising than they do on research and development. For most companies their advertising costs are at least twice their research and development costs; for some, it's nearly quadruple.

Don't believe it? Open your eyes. Turn on your television. Open a magazine. Or better yet, read the actual figures. We're in the middle of a non-stop advertising blitz. And that's just for the public! Pharmaceutical reps spend ridiculous amounts on comping doctors and hospitals in order to ensure sales--do you really think you can just wave your hand and make those very significant costs go away?

-Grym

Re:Problem?

[shutdown -p now]

This war has already started. Things like DMCA are all about it. I can see how, when such a replicator will be constructed, some DMCA-like law will ban it as a "circumvention device".

Re:Problem?

[KillShill]

oh they certainly would exist.

they would hunt down the people who invented the replicator and assassinate them. of course, before they released/announced it to the public.

much like debeers and their assassin squads hunting the evil evil people who manufacture "fake" diamonds.

now when i think about it.. it doesn't seem far fetched in the least that a carbureator that could get 1000 miles to the gallon could have existed.

remember, those in power protect the status quo... if they didn't, the free market wouldn't provide them a new rolls royce every week and provide get out of jail cards when they decide to rape your neighbor(hood).

evil is as evil does.

Re:Problem?

[jp10558]

Personally, I don't think I care if a drug company can't afford to advertise. Actually I think it would be better that way.

Let the experts - doctors - research drugs that come out from various companies. Then let them prescribe them if they actually think they'll help.

Here's a hint. I can't imagine ever going to a doctor to ask about if some medicine I saw on tv was "right for me". I'd expect the doctor to tell me if I need some medication.

Re:Problem?

[B2382F29]

do you really think you can just wave your hand and make those very significant costs go away?

These are not the costs you are looking for...

Re:Problem?

[magefile]

You are quite obviously not familiar with pharmaceuticals development. Disregarding the cost of producing drugs, research and certification can be incredibly expensive - especially if you're talking about a rare disorder. Recently, a drug for a disorder called MPS VI was approved. MPS VI is a horrible disease, and developing a drug was very difficult, in part because there are (at most) 1500 people in the world with the disorder. That's not diagnosed patients, either - that's an estimate of the *total* number of people with the disease.

Re:Problem?

[Humafari]

Man oh man... you can tell you never worked in the drugs business...

I worked in IT for the large UK based pharm company and the last thing that they worried about was production cost. Yes it was a factor but so small in comparison to the rest, Why do you think Generic drugs are so widely available?

Comparing the music industry to the drugs game is silly. The shear volume of compounds that were collected, stored, screaned, tested, packaged and trialed just to find that one active element was huge. The legeslation that all this was conducted in was complex and extensive. It inherently costs money.

Slightly off topic but the most telling stroy I ever heard in the drugs game concerned a product we had. It was the best performing drug on the market in the US for the use it had. Despite this sales were slow. They hired a team of consutlatnts to see why it was not selling...

The answer they came up with was to DOUBLE the price. Thats right put the price up. They did this and within 12 months were the market leader. It seems people still associate premium with quality.

Now if you will excuse me I'm just off to replicate some more Prozac...

Re:Problem?

[Khazunga]

1) Paying a bunch of private-sector PHD guys (i.e. expensive salary) to spend years and years on an item that most likely won't pan out

How would you value the work put out in the most successfull OSS projects? Aren't we talking the same dimension? Last time I checked, OSS proved a viable business model.

2) We've gotten the easy drugs out of the way, to do the stuff on the next level we are skirting the safety line and testing for a decade along with legal ramifications.

This is an artificial barrier to entry, erected by the industry itself.

Re:Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you research. The drug that caused one of the instances of death or severe side effects was Avonex. Avonex is also made by Biogen. They were trying to mix the two drugs to save their investment on Avonex.

Re:Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy...

Replicate the person who created the replicator.

Then... just to piss off DeBeers, replicate some "real" diamonds and flood the market.

Re:Problem?

[nanoakron]

Market cap of 22 billion fell to 12 billion? Oh boo-fucking-hoo. A multimillion dollar company saw its value halve to make it - shock, horror - a multibillion dollar company.

It's the story of the generous billionaire. If a billionaire gives away half his value, he's still ridiculously rich beyond most people's dreams. He doesn't become poor.

If a poor man gives away half his value, he becomes even poorer.

Get a sense of value and proportionality before you go crying about the losses of ultra-rich corporations.

-Nano.

Re:Problem?

[ChrisMaple]

now when i think about it.. it doesn't seem far fetched in the least that a carbureator that could get 1000 miles to the gallon could have existed.

Please spend some time to learn the physics and mechanics and chemistry of automobiles. Present fuel injection systems are within 20% of perfection under almost all conditions and much better than that most of the time. Major inefficiencies are air drag, tire drag, transmission losses, Carnot cycle losses, engine pumping losses, and extra losses caused by stop-and-go traffic. Perfecting all the above are still not going to give you anywhere near 1000 mpg for any generally practical car running on a chemical-air fuel system. (A lightly used solar hybrid system might work.)

Re:Problem?

[Chris Burke]

Do you really think the cost of raw materials are what makes them *so* expensive??? The raw materials cost is miniscule, so much it's probably thought of as an oversight. Mainly costs are 2 things:

Having a father working in development of drugs, I'd say yes. The main material cost is not the starting materials, but in all the intermediate reactions that the starting materials have to go through. Some of these intermediate chemicals are extremely expensive to produce. Some chemicals can go through as many as twenty different stages, each a separate chemical requiring its own production methodology. Sometimes it takes a year of research just to figure out how to go from step 12 to step 13 in a reliable fashion. Getting small samples of an ingrediant for step 14 may cost millions and only produce enough for two or three test reactions which may fail.

So yes, being able to replicate these expensive and challenginge intermediate results, or being able to bypass their production entirely and alter molecules directly, would greatly reduce development costs of drugs.

I don't think you're fully comprehending what a replicator would do. Yes, it costs a lot to pay all these PhDs. You wouldn't have to pay them as much since the research wouldn't take as long. No waiting three years from conception to getting a small sample of the drug so that you can start trials.

In a lot of ways, a replicator would do for chemical development what a compiler does for software development, versus manually writting out the binary code. Yes, I do believe that this would drastically reduce the R&D cost of drug companies.

Which is only part of my main point, which was that a pharmaceutical should learn how to be profitable in a world in which cheap matter replication exists rather than force scarcity to remain.

Re:Problem?

[Chris Burke]

I worked in IT for the large UK based pharm company and the last thing that they worried about was production cost. Yes it was a factor but so small in comparison to the rest, Why do you think Generic drugs are so widely available?

Well, my father works in a research lab and pilot plant, which gives me zero cred but from my end looks like a better source of information. The actual production is not an issue, because by the time they start full production runs they have repeatedly tested the procedure in pilot plants and ironed out all the details. That's the whole point of what the chemical engineers do -- find a way to produce the chemical in bulk as cheaply as possible. It is the development of that full-scale production procedure that is expensive, and which would be obviated by replicators.

Re:Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead on.

As my mother (a pharmacist) says, "Once you start telling your doctor what to prescribe, he's ceased being your doctor, and become your dealer."

I should mention that this was supposed to be humo

[fbartho]

I should mention that this was supposed to be humor... hehe, sorry about the lack of smiley...

Hashed out thoughts on this...

[ajservo]

I figured out a few things.

They redo a new copy scheme every few months to try and further deter backups of movies. The R2 version of Closer has a really difficult to crack copy protection on it for example.

When they do that, I see a necessary trend for studios to "double dip" on DVD releases. They delist the original relase from retail, and pimp out a new version months or years later with 2-3 extras, or doubled with the films inevitable Direct to Video sequel as a two pack.

I think this explains the trend better from a business perspective than it does for a "frustrated" consumer "forced" to rebuy movies for newer features. Take for example, XXX. When the released this movie as a "directors cut" back in April, I could have cared less about the extras. All it was, was a newly shot scene added in to explain Vin Diesel's death for the setup of the sequel. If you never cared for the sequel, what was the benefit at all of buying this?

The other point is that I see the need, for us at least, to start purchasing more USED DVD's from local shops that sell this. Blockbuster's gotten into this trend, so it might be worth it. This would stem out of wanting to get a movie with no protection on the disc.

Re:Good summary.

[steptoe6125]

You're so angry that I have to reply. First of all you can be legally obligated to perform in a certain way without a "USA law" saying so. For example, contracts create legal obligations without being recorded in any state or federal laws. That being said, I imagine that most corporate charters require that the executives act in a manner that will create profit. If the charter says that, then the executives are legally obligated to "act in a manner that will create profit." Also, I'm glad that you enjoy working for your company. It does sound like you are having a wonderful experience!!

Bob + Carol 4 eva

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't you think they know this already? The various media concerns are trying to get the TV/DVD player/whatever to be Bob, while casting the consumer in the role of Carol. That's what all the fuss is about."

Except Bob really should be wearing condoms while interfacing with Carol. Just common sense.

Guide to write "barely-legal" DVD software ;-)

[Spy der Mann]

Probably not going to happen, but I hope that somehow, the source code can be leaked out, and made open source.

It can't be done, but someone can:

a) Dupe the interface using wxWidgets (a.k.a. "cloning", interface "reverse engineering")
b) Do all the i/o stuff without decrypting
c) Add support for plugins that WILL do the decrypting or even ENCRYPTING i.e. for privacy purposes. Make it so they can be interfaced EASILY.
d) Release the code for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES as in "preparing for when decrypting becomes legal"
e) Wait for some hax0r to write a plugin and spread it via shareaza. Ta-da :)

Steps a) to d) are legal. Step e) is perfectly legal since you're just waiting for something to happen.

Then, why don't you...

[Anonymous Coward]

vote for anything else? Oh, yes, it's because your "big democracy" thinks voting something else is wasting your vote, isn't it?

tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[cheesedog]

You are supposed to buy a new copy of the DVD every couple of weeks. That's really the only moral thing to do. Making your own copies because the original might get scratched is no better than using BitTorrent to download last week's episode of your favorite show because you forgot to Tivo/Tape it -- THAT'S STEALING!

What will you do when you 2yr old turns into a 12yr old who robs little old ladies at gunpoint for heroine money, all because they saw Daddy do it to the movie studies when they were little? hmm?

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Soporific]

Err what? So making backups is stealing but Tivo-ing the episodes are okay? I don't understand what the difference is...

~S

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

^
|
|
Joke

Your head
|
|
V
??? :O

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Josuah]

I know it's a joke, but the analogy to downloading a missed TV show is flawed. Distribution rights of copyrighted material is something that belongs to the copyright holder. That's where the law is being broken.

And why do you need something like this to make a copy of a DVD?

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[atsabig10fo]

how can bittorrent downloading tv eps be illegal when they're broadcast over the air in HDTV???

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Luthair]

It might be legally wrong but morally...

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

He's buying heroines? Like Lara Croft? How much is she going for nowadays?

Now where did I put that login for the Paypal account? Hmmmm....

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[0111 1110]

And why do you need something like this to make a copy of a DVD?

Maybe because not all of us have the skill and time to write the app ourselves. So what's your favorite DVD backup application? DVDFab maybe? If so, that's a good choice since it can back up dual layer discs nicely.

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea dude! How can downloading and spreading music be illegal when they already broadcast them on the air in radio!

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Soporific]

^
|
|
Funny

Your joke
|
|
V

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

You suck man! Clearly you are a Zombie on the side of the RIAA/MPAA parasites! My job is to clean the society of tapworms like you that are destroying our institution and violating our constitution in the name of Money! The time is near when people like me will be hunting people like you! If I was you I will start running NOW!

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my 12yr old will rob little old ladies at gunpoint for heroine money because that's what he sees in the movies that I copy, not because he sees me copy them. He may be a mindless adolescent, but even he's smart enough to see the difference between copying a DVD and armed robbery.

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Josuah]

I use hdiutil. Comes with Mac OS X.

Re:tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

you have got to be kidding. how can you compare heroine to burning a dvd? who are you to judge what's morally right? this same arguement came from the movie industry when the vcr was released, and years later they're still making billions. They just want to shake every last dollar from you, they love people like you who just bend over and take it.

anyways, big companies get big by screwing people over. the richest man in the world, bill gates got there the same way, he 'stole' windows from another company and he bought the rights to dos. Yet he would gleefully take you to court if you 'stole' from him. The companies don't care about morals they only car about money.

you must lead a sheltered life, now stop posting high and all mighty posts and just go back to Stepford.

Getting source code...

[DiscoSnorlax]

You might not be able to get the /original/ source code, and depending what language it's written in you may be stuck with ASM source code, but there are ways I'm sure... Such as this, for example... Not that I have the skill for such a thing, just offering upn an idea.

MPAA & RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all ban together and take down these bastards and set up a system of our own design!

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on your installation options. You either set it to check or not.

DMCA

[Wanderer1]

If you can't beat them, then use TOR. http://tor.eff.net/

The anonymizing network which allows for pretty strong anonimity and the hosting of "hidden" websites within the TOR net. Put up a mirror site there and stick items such as this on a TOR-only website.

Until someone comes along that has the power to challenge the legitimacy of these statues in the various lands that we live in, your only option is to do the work in countries that are not wrecked.

W

Re:Good summary.

[AstroDrabb]

You're so angry that I have to reply

Angry? No. Just incredulous over such stupidity.

First of all you can be legally obligated to perform in a certain way without a "USA law" saying so. For example, contracts create legal obligations without being recorded in any state or federal laws

So are you suggesting that _all_ USA corps have _all_ signed the _same_ contract requiring them to be "evil"? Strange, the programming consultant friends of mine that started their own corps have never had to sign such a contract.

That being said, I imagine that most corporate charters require that the executives act in a manner that will create profit.

Ah, yes. Because the NYSE operates by your "imagination". Every traded company on the NYSE doesn't take any action until they check with your "imagination" of what a corporation should do.

Umm, even if a company should act in a way to create profit; it doesn't give that company any rights to break laws. Get real, you sound like your are grasping for straws.

If you have any question of how a publicly traded corporation is supposed to act, just check out the NYSE.

Sony...

[AtlanticGiraffe]

"It is thought that it could be Sony who have served this notice, as it is rumoured that he broke their new copyright protection within 72 hours of its release."

When you've been truly owned like that, you're just gonna have to shut up and take it. No matter how much you nag the authorities and publish carefully crafted press releases, you've still been owned.

He should be releasing the source code.

[xquark]

There are no two ways about it, he should pull-a-netscape release the
code and then let the community take care of the rest.

Thats what any good netizen would do, wouldn't they? ;)

Arash Partow

Re:He should be releasing the source code.

[The Wicked Priest]

Yeah, but Sony would probably regard that as grounds to quash the deal (if there is one? can't refer to the article anymore) and let the lawsuit proceed.

What he should've done was open-sourced it back at the beginning, so we wouldn't be facing a crisis now. It's not like he was trying to sell the damn thing, so what did he have to lose? Oh well.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[cpt kangarooski]

You are correct that there is a difference between the access-control and copyright-protection-control.

But it doesn't matter all that much. The DMCA deals with both, in turn, at 17 USC 1201(a) and (b).

Yet Another Torrent

[MooseGuy529]

here

If it goes offline (I'm probably taking it down later) someone else please put it up ;-) they can't kill us all...

Re:Good summary.

[steptoe6125]

My post had nothing to with corporations being evil or breaking the law. Only that corporations may be legally obligated to behave in a particular way.

ps. Are you sure that your friends didn't create an LLC (Limited Liability Company). In that case there is no need for articles of incorporation.

screw the us gov

[albundyhere]

Dude, just obtain an overseas host. Screw da Gov. Why do you think rich americans dont keep their money in the US? Only a poor fool would do that.

Re:screw the us gov

[Legion303]

Ahh, how I wish I could blatantly ignore the articles again just like most Slashdot posters these days.

company is a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for replying anonymously but I definitely do need to remain anonymous right now. I'm shocked at who the company actually is. Not at all who I thought. Well ok maybe it would've been my 4th or 5th guess but still. There have been other decrypting programs that have removed this 'removal feature' if you will, only to reinstate it at a later point.

Not sure what's going to happen but I hope to stand strong and not let this deter others from exercising their backup rights.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it you think of this as a problem?

I think cheap/free medicines, consumer products, etc. would be a great boon to society.

Why do you think people who design consumer products are entitled to reap vast monetary rewards from their inventions?

Wouldn't the world be better if we could all live self-sustainably without needing to work 40, or even 5, hours a week at some soul-destroying paper-pushing desk job? What if everyone's basic needs (water, electricity, food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and material toys) could be met with essentially no cost? What use would we even have for the present economic system?

However, in the meantime, it still costs us money to produce and consume things. The people who want to make money should sell something consumers can't get for free. Consumers can get copies of DVD media and copies of mainstream music (mp3) for free. Therefore, a business model that depends on gouging those consumers for those things, is doomed to failure. Attempts to extend "property" values to things that are NOT property (whether it be speech, bits, or chromosomes) will either result in a seriously UN-free society, or will just be dismal failures.

DRM and monopolies

[sowth]

Not exactly correct.

If you look at the media cartel's (and Microsoft's) behaviour patterns, they want small time/independent movie makers/musicians/programmers/etc -- just about everyone -- to be the "attacker" (whom they will be able to sue into oblivion), and your computer to be the "recipient" who keeps all the secrets and doesn't allow "unauthorized pirates" (including people who made their own original works) to distribute anything. This way they won't have any competition on any fronts.

MS is the one playing it smart, they can implement it and say "but the media companies forced us to do this" all the while setting themselves up to destroy all competition--not only in the software market, but in media too...

I haven't kept up with recent events, but bone of the antitrust cases I've seen have even tried to address this, yet it will be their worst violation.

capitalism, yeah, really nice (sarcasm)

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, boy, capitalism is great, isn't it??? freaking ridiculous.

i'll tell you what should be outlawed. the stupid notion of so-called "intellectual property" should be outlawed.

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[ydrol]

I agree with you except the last bit, IMO, needs clarification

Any exact copy of a DVD will play in all the same DVD players that the original played in.

You cant easily make an "exact" copy of a CSS-encrpyted DVD on DVD+/-R because the CSS Sectors on the pressed DVD cannot be copied onto the DVD+/-R

Specific code versus knowledge.

[rice_burners_suck]

This is unacceptable. But then, of course, somebody else will figure out how to crack this stuff.

In my opinion, what really needs to be done is this: Someone will design a newsletter of sorts. Call it the Cryptography Journal of Cryptography. (That title is actually an encoded message I designed last year. See if you can figure it out!) This would be an electronic newsletter. Each time something is cracked, the person writes a short "educational" article, sends it to a special site, and from there it will go to everybody else. With complete information on how to do it, even if some specific code is banned, the information will survive. Because they cannot necessarily ban the knowledge, only specific code that uses it.

So, hand over the code!

[jridley]

Post it on sourceforge and send them a pointer to the site.

Re:So, hand over the code!

[coolsva]

If you read the discussions on cdfreaks, digital-digest and doom9, you will understand that even releasing the code to open is a violation of whatever agreement the guy has reached with SOmecompaNY. One more reason why such projects need to be open source

Re:So, hand over the code!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but what if his "server" were "comprimised" by a "hacker" (nevermind he had his passwords written on a piece of paper next to his computer) and then the source were distributed through several other locations simultaneously? Just a thought...

link had two popups. Was this really necessary?

[crovira]

I really hate it when this happens.

What's gonna be next? Viri in the article? Spam? Adware?

Check the links out before posting 'em.

Re:link had two popups. Was this really necessary?

[Fritzed]

Only if you're still foolish enough to be using Internet Explorer.
"Firefox prevented this site from opening a popup window. Click here for options..."

-> Fritz

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[pseudochaotic]

So what he should do, is add an automatic update that disables automatic updating, thus protecting the users from this sort of thing.

Crowbars..

[StikyPad]

It's legal, but it ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, whip out a crowbar, and start swingin' away. I mean, they want you to crowbar stuff in your home or certain designated places.

And those are crow bars?

Yeah, it breaks down like this: okay, it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hardware store, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, but, but - but that doesn't matter 'cause -- get a load of this, allright -- if you get stopped by a cop in Amsterdam, it's illegal for them to search you. I mean that's a right the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

Oh, man, I'm goin', that's all there is to it -- I'm fuckin' goin'.

I hate the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

L_i = L_i-17 xor L_i-3
M_i = M_i-25 xor M_i-22 xor M_i-21 xor M_i-13
X_i = (~L_i) xor M_i xor Y_i
Y_i = ((~L_i-1) + M_i-1 + Y_i-1 - X_i-1) / 2
Z_i = K_i xor S_672+i
L_{-17...-1} = Z_{15...8}, 1, Z_{7...0}
M_{-25...-1} = Z_{39...32}, Z_{31...24}, Z_{23...19}, 1, Z_{18...16}
Y_0 = 0
SS_{0...1024} = S_{0...1024}
H_k = S_1024+8k
G_k = S_1025+8k
F_k = S_1026+8k
E_k = S_1027+8k
D_k = S_1028+8k
C_k = S_1029+8k
B_k = S_1030+8k
A_k = S_1031+8k
AA_k = ~((A_k * B_k) xor D_k)
BB_k = ~((E_k * F_k) xor G_k)
CC_k = ~((AA_k * BB_k) xor F_k)
DD_k = ~((AA_k * BB_k) xor B_k)
EE_k = ~((A_k * B_k) xor C_k)
FF_k = ~((E_k | F_k) xor H_k)
GG_k = ~((EE_k * FF_k) xor A_k)
HH_k = ~((EE_k | FF_k) xor E_k)
SS_1024+8k = HH_k xor X_8k+7
SS_1025+8k = GG_k xor X_8k+6
SS_1026+8k = FF_k xor X_8k+5
SS_1027+8k = EE_k xor X_8k+4
SS_1028+8k = DD_k xor X_8k+3
SS_1029+8k = CC_k xor X_8k+2
SS_1030+8k = BB_k xor X_8k+1
SS_1031+8k = AA_k xor X_8k

Amen brother!

[crovira]

I dropped out of the 'BUY NOW!!" rat race years ago and I am not suffering for it. (I'm even prospering a bit. Go figure?)

Going out on a limb here...

[Cybercifrado]

You know, I'm actually quite surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet; but given the players and recent ly released hardware -- this actually comes as no big surprise. In fact, this action looks as if it were specifically designed to cause consumers to REPURCHASE media rather than allow us our free use rights. My angle? The Sony PSP. Who brought him down? Sony. Who had the "new unhackable geek-proof DVD format"? Sony. Who stands to make money by selling UMD copies of their movies to PSP consumers? Sony. Until I saw this, my take on the PSP was something like, "Cool, I'll just take the DVDs I have and convert them to MPEG-4 to watch on the go." But now, I'm not so sure I want to own a PSP or PS2 or PS3 anymore...

I understand, but...

[dexter riley]

...where does Ted fit in?

watch the updating...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering why only yesterday 3.5.4 tried to contact www.microsoft.com (no kidding!) for an update - firewall allowed me to block it but I thought it damn strange and was on the lookout for something weird. You Have Been Warned - turn off auto updating.

Re:Read More Books

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto what you said. It was a nice program, I liked using it. But I don't really care because the masses don't seem to care. I'm not going to waste my energy crusading an impossible war. I've turned off the television completely. I'm having a much better time reading books. Fiction / Non-fiction, Psuedo-Science / Science... I don't think it matters, read more, learn to play chess, do crossword puzzles... Fuck hollywood, fuck the television... and if I get really bored I think I could pick up a math book and start working equations again.

But under no circumstances will I be paying big bucks for that crap they call entertainment. IIRC some schools are putting up coursework for free on the web. This lock down could be a good thing.

Re:Good summary.

[AstroDrabb]

ps. Are you sure that your friends didn't create an LLC (Limited Liability Company). In that case there is no need for articles of incorporation.

My brother-in-law recently create an LLC with his friend when they started their own ice cream shop. However, all of my programming friends that I were referring to did create a corporation.

OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another problem with closed source, if this was release with source and an OSS license it could never be shut down completly. Maybe it would be hard to find but it would still be out there somewhere.

Kevlar

[Archades]

is it infringing on Intellectual Property if say u make a bullet that can penetrate armour, thus negating the use of said armour much like making a program which can penetrate the protection AP Rounds must be illegal due to them being able to go through Kevlar(tm) right?

Thanks for the info ...

[bizitch]

I never heard of this application - but as soon as I heard it was banned, I had to go and download it from a mirror that wasn't down yet - Thanks!

Re:Uncrackable Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months.

I think I know a counter example. Steinberg released Cubase SX v3.0 in December of 2004 IIRC. AFAIK, to date, approximately 7 months later, there is still no working crack released for the Syncrosoft USB dongle copy protection.

So correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems that we are at the stage now, where strong protection is possible, and it may be until Cubase v4 comes out, that there will be a working crack for Cubase v3, if it surfaces ever.

To me this suggests, that all the theories about piracy can really be put to the test. If people can't get access to the software and play with it, without purchasing a legitimate copy. In theory this should reduce the real userbase and questionably impact negatively the market share of Steinberg. They would maintain their current cash-paying professional user base, but others who are locked out and interested in learning, will have to use an old version, and being out of date, I would think would switch to an alternative. Ultimately reducing the market base of people interested in Steinberg products as knowledge and interest is dedicated towards alternatives.

What we need is a "sourceforge" for this stuff

[jonwil]

Basicly, it would be a site hosted in a country with no DMCA laws.
All sorts of "quasi-legal" stuff could be hosted there like:
BnetD
DVD programs (DeCSS etc)
etc

People posting their code there could do so and (unless they include any identifying information with the program) it would be difficult for the media corps to actually track them down and get them into a court.

Especially if (as would be assumed) the site itself is in a country where the media corps cant force them to hand over the logs and info (and more so, the site shouldnt have any imformation on the physical location of the authors in the first place)

Re:What we need is a "sourceforge" for this stuff

[LilBlackDemon]

I believe the site CoreCodec (http://www.corecodec.org/) specializes as an A/V-specific SourceForge.

NOTE: SourceForge is owned by the same parent company as Slashdot, OSDN.

Re:What we need is a "sourceforge" for this stuff

[jonwil]

I am specifically refering to a site that could host stuff that could be seen to violate the DMCA/EUCD/etc.
Such things as DVD decryptors, DeCSS, DVD libs for linux, BNetD, fairplay removers for iTunes DRM, e-book decoders, decoders for digital camera raw image files and anything else (not necessarily audio or video related) that could be seen to violate the DMCA or similar laws.

It would be hosted in a country without such laws so the MPAA/RIAA (or as they say in School of Rock, The Man) cant get at it or supoena the logs to find who wrote what code. It would have the same rules for Open Source-ness as sites like SourceForge (which would ensure that anyone can download the code, change it and distribute it)

I'll miss the other features

[MadChicken]

DVD Decrypter was loaded with cool features, and I think I only used the decrypting *once*. I love erasing DVD-RWs with it, it does a really good job... I could never actually use them more than once using any other tool.

I love the right-click context menu it adds to .isos too.

I'm sure there are dozens of other features that I haven't even noticed yet. But, it's gone now... hope it supported DL and at least one of the new HD formats...

Re:I'll miss the other features

[logikkigol]

i like the context menu too.

Azureus DHT magnet link.

[kyhwana]

dht://A76A9B7019A6B7475FE8C173186B40BD305F78D7.dht /announce
(Copy and paste into azureus, remove the space after the .dht)

Requires azureus 2.3.x at least and that you be "connected" to the DHT. Sadly I don't think it'll work with the official "decentralised" bittorrent client, as the protocols are different.
Someone should really fix that.

DVD Decrypter caused a DVD sale, in my case...

[D'Arque Bishop]

Heh, in my particular case, I actually bought a DVD BECAUSE of DVD Decrypter...

I happen to be a big Doctor Who fan. A relative from Great Britain was coming to visit a few weeks ago, so I asked her if she could bring me the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie on DVD. When she brought it, I immediately used DVD Decrypter to make a region-free DVD-R copy. I now keep it in the same DVD case as the original, and use that whenever I want to watch it. The movie's not available in the States, so without DVD Decrypter I probably would not have bought the Doctor Who DVD.

On a related note, I also used DVD Decrypter to rip the first CD of my original Battlestar Galactica DVD box set; not because I wanted to distribute copies, but to see if it could work around a flaw in the disc that crashed every player I put it in at one specific point. It took numerous tries to read that one sector, but it finally did. I ended up with a DVD-R copy that actually could play in my DVD player. It now sits in the BSG box with the original flawed disc.

I wonder how many other people out there are in the same boat I am: not using DVD Decrypter so much to pirate or make copies to distribute, but to watch discs they would never have been able to otherwise....

Just my $.02...

(And yes, there probably is a way to make my DVD player region-free. It was just easier to make a disc that was region-free so I could take it whereever I go.)

Re:This is windows only !!!

[edfardos]

It runs under Wine on Linux - in fact, it's the only program that will backup new Sony disks on Linux. Sony has you beat if you use libdvdread or related toolchains.

There are other ways to fight

[Solandri]

3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.

If he'd set up a one-man limited liability corporation and released DVD Decrypter via the LLC, then the worst that could happen would've been that his LLC went bankrupt. But most of you seem to think corporations are evil, so instead you put your personal lives at stake should an Evil Corporation® ever set its sights on you.

I believe the adage that applies here is: Fight fire with fire. The fight against corporate corruption doesn't have to reside solely in the political domain. It can be done in the market domain as well. Sean Fanning did it that way. He lost, but he now has millions he can apply to any future battles.

Re:There are other ways to fight

[dballanc]

That's not entirely true. One person as a corporation or LLC provides absolutely no protection legally. YOU can be sued directly, for actions YOU have done regardless of company status. Limited liability really only comes into play when there is more than one person at a company.

For example an owner, with one employee as an s-corp. Say the employee screws up bigtime. the employee can be sued personally. The s-corp can be sued, and potentially bankrupt - but the owners's personal assets are untouchable. On the other hand if the OWNER screws up and gets sued he risks his personal AND business assets.

How about a class action suit against sony?

[bloodstar]

I know it sounds odd, but what would be the odds that anyone who has ever had a scratched Sony DVD could sue Sony for violation of their 'fair use' and preventing their copying of the now useless DVD. I mean, at this point, why not fight fire with fire?

Could it be worth a shot? Hit their bottom line with something that would make em sit up and take notice. With any DVDs that are now out of print, I can see some sort of viable monatary damage (above and beyond a simple coupon towards the purchase of a 'new sony DVD that's just as broken as the old')

And if they don't change their ways... keep hammering them with law suits every year...
-Mark

Re:Release on Freenet - not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

It's because of personal greed. Face it, everyone who has ever been born and will be born, even those who are considered not "evil" by society, have their own personal self-interests in mind. There is only one person in all the legends of all the world who is the exception to this rule.

I will not go further into it. It is a story about a hawk and a pigeon. Search the string "hawk pigeon flesh" in google for more information.

Anyhow, the purpose of these programs are to make money, of course. Duh. Whether the money is used to feed hungry children or to get drunk is a separate issue.

That is why these projects are not open-sourced.

One can take credit for a program even after it has been released on freenet, without releasing the source. It is a matter of releasing the program to the WWW first. There is nothing that says everything in freenet must be anonymous or liability-free, only that it is possible to create and distribute such content through freenet. For example, DeCSS has a base in freenet, but before that, it was out in the WWW.

While I do sympathize with the victim of this atrocity (the real victim, and we all know who that is, not the "victim"), the reality is that the program wasn't even open-sourced. I've nothing against the author, but free as in speech is one level higher than free as in beer on the scale of things not evil. Putting the source on freenet first is several levels higher than that. And unless someone programs for an ideal greater and perhaps more urgent than survival, no one in their right mind would do that (no pun intended).

Now, all isn't lost. Just accidentally lower the security on the computer containing the source just enough for someone to grab it, and it will have a chance to be reborn on freenet.

What judge signed the order?

[fishbowl]

What judge signed this "takedown order?"
If not a judge, then what authority did the person making the order have against the author?

It's important, because without authority, there was no "force"; government has a monopoly on the use of force.

I feel sorry for the author, not because he's being repressed by an unnamed party, but because he doesn't think it's important to stand up, even to a single test, for his rights.

He is in a hell of a good position, having NO MONEY TO LOSE, to simply stand up for his rights. Or even, ignore the orders until they arrive with a judge's signature. Which would not happen without some kind of hearing, in the US. Maybe the UK is a more barbaric place, where things like the rule of law and equal protection aren't considered, I don't know.

I just really don't understand how some random person gets this kind of authority against some other individual, unless the individual chooses to surrender that authority.

It does not appear that anyone was "forced" to do anything at all. On the contrary, it appears that the author *chose* to waive any rights he may have had. His choice. He won't even name the compnay? I *know* the company doesn't get *that* privilege without a court order.

It looks to me like the guy may have gotten tired of dealing with this product, and here's a good exit strategy to save some face. Abandon the project and look like a victim in the process.

Never, ever, ever, ever, sign anything that you would not choose to sign, without being ordered to do so by a judge.
Copyright law may be strong these days, but not strong enough to give individuals even greater power than governments (we're expected to believe there was a summary judgement, and property coercively seized, without any due process of law.)

I just have to believe there's a lot more to the story than has been shared with us.

Because it's either that, or there's someone that would do whatever some particular lawyer told him to do (where do you draw the line? Torture puppies?)

I hope it's the former, because I can deal with there being more information than I have, but I *can't* deal with someone simply waiving all his rights on the assumption that lawyers can do bad things to him. Once you stand your ground and insist on *process*, the lawyers can do *nothing*, until a *judge* orders it.

Re:Hey dudeeo

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Bram Cohen live in the US and has the entire time? Yes, he did make the source code available so others could enhance the functionality of a program implementing the protocol. That second part is also largely true of DVD decrypting programs. The author of DVD Decrypter explained that he is not the author of the code that does the actual decrypting; he just wrote a UI around the code to make it easier to use. The relevant source has been and is available to anyone with an internet account.

Although I agree that the situation sucks, I think people are being at least slightly alarmnist. CSS for DVD's is dead, D-E-A-D, stick a fork in it. That battle is over and done with. Even in court (in Norway) the dark forces were utterly routed when they attempted to bring charges against DVD Jon (Johansen).

I have sympathy for the author who has so pointlessly been subjected to this heavy handed coersion (a great big F*ck you to the suits at Sony) but I can't imagine it is more than a diversion. The next real contest is the DRM that is implemented in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. My intuition is that both will be as popular with consumers as the DRM encrusted DVD-Audio and SACD standards have been. At the end of the day both CD-audio and DVD-Video being de facto standards that are commercially successful because they escaped the poisonous attention of the clueless executives.

Re:Release on Freenet - not the same

[buttahead]

no, that's not a troll... he was foolish. he wasn't selling the thing. making a source dist wouldn't have been difficult. he chose to help the source, even though he allowed mirrors. mirrors are no more difficult than releaseing the source.

The ego comment might have been overboard. maybe the guy was just too lazy? or planning to make a buck at some point in the future?

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe you ought to have the courage of your convictions: leave our system, and join a country like China."

Very typical. Another idiot.

Interesting how you close your eyes to an honest critique of "your" system.

Like you had any part in designing whatever good there is to it.

Or like you are actually more entitled to anything so-called "American", like you didn't immigrate here like every other non-native "American".

So quick to uphold the virtues of thse American constitution and it's proclamation of human dignity and freedom, that is, until it bites you in the butt and your ignorance is exposed in critique. Then it's to hell with anyone that doesn't agree with us.

Typical fascist.

Why don't *you* go back to where *you* came from, little prick.

ill host. just google it.

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmmmmmk

Re:Good summary.

[tomhudson]

First of all you can be legally obligated to perform in a certain way without a "USA law" saying so

What bullshit. Until someone drags you into court and gets a judgment, you are not legally obligated. Morally obligated, yes. Legally obligated, no.

For example, contracts create legal obligations without being recorded in any state or federal laws

Your example of contracts is way off-base, as contract law IS regulated.

There is no law obliging companies to "maximize shareholder value". Even if they put it in their company charter that they declare that as their "mission", it is not legally binding.

Additionally, there are MANY corporations that are not allowed to operate at a profit (non-profits and philanthropics, for example).

You've been reading too much "Enron justification".

On his own petard

[Anonymous Coward]

If the program was open source, it could still be developed. Sadly, the author wanted to live by the "IP" sword, and now he's died from it. Why mourn for him? Take this as a good sign that we are getting closer to the complete breakdown of the "IP" system - the powers-that-be won't phase out these anachronistic laws while they can still bleed more money from it, so I think we need to accept that things have to get a whole lot worse before they'll accept the failure of the "IP" concept and chuck it out wholesale.

Re:Good summary.

[ShieldW0lf]

OK, shithead, please show me _one_ USA law that says a corporation _must_ "take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit". You are talking out of your @ss. There are _no_ laws that force a publicly traded corp to do what you suggest. So get off your fairy-tale horse and stop beeing an @ss-hole.

Here you go

Don't mind the hippy sounding url, the article was first published in the January/February 2002 issue of Business Ethics and written by a corporate securities lawyer with 23 years experience.

The relevant passage would be

In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

You can also find some more general background on the subject here. Harverd Business School reputable enough for you?

Oh, and what you were referring to, the giving of money for hurricane relief, is called instrumental corporate social responsibility. It is permitted if the CEO is able to demonstrate that the philanthropy generates increased shareholder value, generally through there being more value generated by the resulting public goodwill than was lost by the expenditure.

Wow, don't you look stupid now. Who was the dumb asshole again?

Do corparations make the law?

[jonfr]

Its pretty simple. Its illegal to create ( and distribute ) code that can be used to break DRM. However, its not illegal to build a crowbar.

You are wrong, it is for instance not illegal to breakup this DRM crap up in Iceland, or other Skandivaian Country. But that is worth noticeing that the big companyes have been lobbing the law maker in order to change the law in order to make that illegal.

They where able to change the law in Sweden in such order that it is illegal to copy the continet on a cdrom to a mp3 player. Something simular is in the makeing in Norway and Iceland. This change is comes from the E.U, that is being lobbied by the big companyes. But in the end, the companyes will lose, and lose big. Why, becose they can't control the pepole. Even if they try to do so.

Re:Do corparations make the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

They where able to change the law in Sweden in such order that it is illegal to copy the continet on a cdrom to a mp3 player. Something simular is in the makeing in Norway and Iceland. This change is comes from the E.U, that is being lobbied by the big companyes. But in the end, the companyes will lose, and lose big. Why, becose they can't control the pepole. Even if they try to do so.

That's the straw argument. The REAL law is like a mild version of DMCA, ie. you're not allowed to copy content from one media to another media which is not considered a proper player for that format.

Coincidentally it can be read like the CD-format is not appropriate in MP3, thus making it illegal. However, this law is FAR, FAR broader and concerns all technology in the future.

Why do people stick with the "MP3" argument? Because this is too abstract for most people, or they're just ignorant about the real law.

So Norway and Scandinavia is screwed too, just like the USA.. Soon it will be illegal to copy DRMed content, since that is not "appropriate" in MP3 format, or any free format.

I just cannot believe the politicians and people of Norway to be so fucking ignorant!

Re:Do corparations make the law?

[nurb432]

Ever hear of the WTO?

That makes 'rules' transcend borders and nullify a countries laws.

'one world order', the UN's ultimate goal.

copyright protection

[Dwonis]

Sigh.

"Copyright protection" is something that the *law* does. "Copy protection" (or perhaps more accurately, "copy prevention") is something that technology does.

It does no good to use these terms interchangeably.

Get the Last Version Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the link to the latest/last version: http://dl.betanews.com/SetupDVDDecrypter_3.5.4.0.e xe

So, on June 9th...

[X86Daddy]

We should see who obtains the domain for DVDDecrypter.com, right? Perfect time for a Slashdot "dupe" (update really) to actually provide a target for the wrath of the people. Boycotts, informative letters, news articles if any mainstream press are sympathetic... Although the perpetrators of this extortion should really be introduced to the guillotine, whatever can be thrown at them would be nice.

Source Code

[synapsefyre]

Does anyone have the source for DVD Decrypter? I have the app but would like the source to post on my website for others to download. I am not afraid of the RIAA or the MPAA and if anyone wanted to continue development secretly than that is fine. Of course I know that reps and lawyers from them are reading this, but I dont care. Anyone interested please let me know at synapsefyre@cox.net or IM on Yahoo me at synapsefyre.

THE CHOCOLATE RATION HAS BEEN INCREASED!

[Hellburner]

That is one of the finest damn posts I have read.

I look forward to breaking you out of one of the re-education camps.

Different law, so not analogous

[unassimilatible]

Pardon me if I mis-interpreted, but it appears to me you are posing a rhetorical question to the effect of: if sueing the people making a tool is OK, who is sueing Smith & Wesson?

IP law and negligence have different rules, so you can't really compare the two.

WRT S&W, you had liberal judges not following product liability law. They should have tossed these suits at the earliest level, since guns do not have latent defects that are unreasonably dangerous. These suits were end-arounds of the legislative process. Basically, the anti-gun groups couldn't win at the ballot box, so they tried to bankrupt gun companies with these frivolous lawsuits. Thank God Congress spelled out for these rogue judges what product liability means, and gave the gun manufacturers immunity.

Re:Different law, so not analogous

[h4x0r-3l337]

While the particular lawsuit against S&W used the negligence-approach, this really has got nothing to do with negligence. This guy is being sued because his app is used for piracy, which is illegal. In fact, they made a law so that developing tools for piracy is illegal.
Now, guns are used to murder people every day. Murdering people is illegal. Why are gun manufactures not being sued for manufacturing tools that are used to do these illegal things? Why is there no law against the manufacture of guns?
(answer, because Hollywood and gun manufacturers both have a powerful lobbying presence)

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[pjrc]

I for one will be turning off that check for updates feature promptly just in case...

It might already be too late.

They obtained control over the website. It's been down for a few days, possibly under their control.

But even if it weren't, most likely there are months of server log files sitting on a disk, which is almost certainly in their hands now, or will be.

The real question..

[Steeltoe]

What you should be asking yourself is why do you want "manufactured" entertainment at all. There can be much more fun in doing things in groups, singing, music, dancing, to LIVE and REAL music with SOUL.

Music and "entertainment" was originally from the heart. Let's go down to the heart again, because that's what makes us REALLY happy!

Why follow a soulless culture? Just because you've been brought up with it, doesn't mean you have to stay with it.

Re:The real question..

[demo9orgon]

I think there are artists who have great merit and commercial success.

I am not a social person. I'll never plug-in to the local indie music/film/media artists. Ever. I'm this way because I don't like having to deal with stupid people. It's a luxury, I know, and one I'm willing to pay at least a second-hand media-market price to enjoy.

Soulless culture doesn't exist. The people who support an artist transcend the medium and provide a their rather innocuous spin to anything; fanfiction, art, music, and get-togethers all exist without commercial support.

Nobody can point at some guy with a digital camera and say, "That man has a vision and he's going to spend 350 million dollars and 10 man-years of effort to see it come to fruition in a way which will fill your socks with man-jam! Oh yeah! Because he's got HEART! He's a REAL, LIVE, dancing, singing, sack of monkey meat and he represents all that's real, dig?!". Well, they could but they'd be full of crap.

The entertainment industry evolved in step with technology. It's not something that just pushed it's way to the surface and was held to the bosom where it could whisper to the soul of humanity itself. The commercial entertainment industry is as apple-pie as War. They support each other. It's the most polished and most highly exported product the United States has.

Re:The real question..

[Steeltoe]

Ok, if you enjoy it, enjoy.

Nice point.. :-)

RE:

[evil_marty]

"we must grant emergency powers (DRM, patents, etc) to the supreme chancellor (corporations) to deal with the separatists (users)"

this sounds all too familiar to me?

I'd just as soon steal a copy from BestBuy...

[markass530]

But my chances of getting caught are a lot higher. Yes I know I'm stealing, I have no moral qualms with doing so. I try to steal as much, and as often as I can, as long as it's from a company and not some poor schmuck, and I goto sleep happy every night. Happy watching the latest dvd that I just decrypted, and burned. Go ahead and try to make a comercial convincing me I'm a bad person, or supporting terrorism RIAA/MPAA.

Terror

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I use HandBrake (the best ripper/transcoder in my opinion -- works on OS X and *nix, can rip high-def, transcodes to H.264 among others, Open Source). Why did they target just this one utility? It seems that they do this every so often; take out a single app among dozens. Thoughts?

It's terror. They can't take down every single site/app, but by picking on the smallest fish first they set a court presedence and spread terror around the world. So the next person who'll want to work on DVD technology outside the cartel will think twice. Terror and stifling innovation, pure and simple.

Re:Good summary.

[hairyfeet]

The nature of a "true" capitalist system is that prices go down as manufacturing increases.The original record cylinders went for $4.As the manufacturing got better the price went down to 35 cents.What we have here is an international price fixing scheme payed for by the **aa's to ensure that they can charge whatever they want. Look at the profit margins,They are making insane money and are so GREEDY that it isn't enough for them.Look at the computer You're using.As the factories got bigger the quality and speed went up,Price went down.They can crank out those plastic discs in numbers not to be believed,But if anything they are staying level or going UP. Hello- price fixing.At least when someone like the mob tries this bs they don't hide behind lawyers.

Why put up with it?

[Blue_Wombat]

My money is on Sony.

This is entirely consistent with their robust stand on DRM - minidisc, magicgate, the fact that only Sony players in this country seem to support regional encoding etc

For some time I have regarded Sony as the vermin of the computer electronics industry. I presume that many of the people are, like me, thought of as "the techie guy" by friends and workmates. Don't stand for it - refuse to buy Sony. If advising people what to buy, explain at great length why they should avoid Sony. If you purchase for work, mark tenders that specify Sony equipment down, and explain to the vendor why you are doing it (I recently did this). If you are discussing things on line, explain why Sony are unethical scum peddling inferior products. Tell people how to modchip PS2s. Waste the time of Sony dealers speccing very high priced home entertainment setups, then when you are right at the point of confirming the large order, phone in and pull out at the last minute - and explain why you are giving your money to someone else.

If enough of us do it we will hit the bastards in the only place they will notice - the wallet. If only a few of us do it, at least we will have the satisfaction of not supporting Sony and hurting them even if only in a small way.

dvdshrink

[RMH101]

will do all you ask, bar the music stuff: and if you're listening to CA, then i think you have bigger problems than mixing from 5.1 to stereo.
dvdshrink will let you set default audio, strip out excess language stuff and rip just the main film out of a movie. it also takes out restriction on fast forwarding and makes it region-free to boot, all with about 3 mouse clicks.

Check for new versions

[redeye69]

"With 3.5.4.0 being the last version, it makes sense for everyone to disable the "check for new versions" feature, as obviously there won"t be any." I wonder if the new owners of the domain & software will provide an "update" which stops the software from working...

Here is a question....

[lucason]

Why doesn't the guy move the project to Denmark or somewhere they don't have that damn DMCA.

Re:Here is a question....

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be "outside the US of A" wouldn't it?

Ironic turn of events

[BobSutan]

While this is not 100% proving that it had the new protections on it, I tried to rip "Are we there yet?" just this evening, but it failed at 25%. I then gave up and proceeded to surf the web before going to bed. Wouldn't you know it I found out about this story and went and downloaded the latest version immediately. Guess what? It ripped the movie just fine.

How's that for irony? If they hadn't shut them down and made a fuss I wouldn't have been able to rip the damn movie! Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot you mystery media conglomerate.

Needed - an Open Source Escrow

[Frodrick]

It may be too late for Lightning UK, but we need to develop strategies that will prevent the sourcecode of other great - but controversial - pieces of software from disappearing.

The issue is control. How can an author maintain control over their program if they release the sourcecode? On the other hand, how can they get the sourcecode out after they receive a C&D Nastygram?

What I propose is this: We all know that software can be released under multiple licenses (eg Proprietary and OpenSource) simultaneously. Suppose an Author releases his program under both licenses simultaneously - but only gives the opensource version to 2 or 3 trusted individuals (Who have agreed NOT to further distribute the program until the Author ceases development)?

In this way, the Author would retain his control, but when he quits developing the program for any reason, it would be free for others to develop.

This is somewhat akin to what the American press is fond of calling the "Nuclear Option", because forcing a developer to give up his program would become the very worst thing a media company could possibly do. In fact, I suspect that the simple announcement that a project is released under simultaneous Proprietary and Open Source (escrow) licenses would be enough to stop a media company dead in its tracks.

Even the dumbest hunting dog won't attack a skunk twice.

Re:Needed - an Open Source Escrow

[Anonymous Coward]

Source code escrow has been around since mainframe days for proprietary code in the business marketplace. On most of our outside projects, we require it in the RFP.

Why you MUST copy DVDs - but not be a pirate

[cheros]

I find the assumption that the act of copying a DVD is automatically a deed of piracy a little bit far fetched, however much it's implied in press statements.

There's more to making a backup of your favourite movie (I'm assuming it's yours here) - it's also taking care of the classic high speed technology evolution.

Think about the first CDROM drives, they were single speed. Then double, quad and higher speeds came out, I think at present 52x appears to be the most common. DVD drives are already following that same ramp up.

Now picture what is happening to your CD collection - old games you bought in the 2x..4x speed era will be spun round at speeds well in excess of what the disk was rated at. Result: the CD will shatter through centrifugal forces (it happened to me - how d'you think I found out ? ;-).

There is no reason to suspect that DVD drives won't go the same route, especially since they are also used as a data medium, so you will need to copy them to preserve your existing investment.

Now tell me what is illegal about that.

= Ch =

Money is not the only incentive for innovation

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

Take a look at open source. The entire innovative Linux/BSD ecology exists in spite of the code being free for anyone to download. There are localized profit centers within that ecology, where for instance companies pay to develop enhancements to free software. But consider also incentives like ego. A lot of programmers (and artists) find more reward in the recognition the work creates.

source code copyright

[amoeba47]

I wonder if when the company gets hold of the source code, they will copyright/patent it as their own product and sue people who use the same methods for infringement, thereby hampering efforts to develop similar software.

Wayback machine

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

Another way to see the past:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http%3A//www.dvddecry pter.com/index.php%3Fact%3Ddownload

Re:Just write a virus that checks for a new versio

[Anonymous Coward]

That's inspired. If not for the collateral damage to the infected,....

If someone can just post the sequence used, we can all incorporate it into our own version checks for other software.

Re:Hey dudeeo

[sepluv]

2. You can't fight back without money for a solicitor.

3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.

This is what the EFF, FFII, et al are for.

And I am sure there are loads of independent UK lawyers who would gladly take his case pro bono. However, it appears that he chose to roll over to their totally unreasonable conditions at the first hurdle.

Version check technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

For those wanting to write a fake check, here's the exchange with www.btinternet.com (IP 194.73.73.113) captured with Ethereal:

GET /~lightning_uk/_version.txt HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Microsoft Internet Explorer
Host: www.btinternet.com
Cache-Control: no-cache

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:30:58 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.20 OpenSSL/0.9.7d mod_fastcgi/2.4.2
Last-Modified: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:05:12 GMT
ETag: "b4df0a-10-42939708"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 16
Content-Type: text/plain

3.5.4.0
3.5.4.2

Or for simplicity, check this URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~lightning_uk/_version.t xt

Re:Version check technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, so adding that URL to an image tag on popular forums and blogs would get it referenced by anyone who visits. If only SlashDot had image tags....

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I didn't think you'd have anything else to say, you stupid piece of shit. How's that crow taste, you like it? Eat up!

Reward the good companies

[SeanDuggan]

I buy my entertainment "used" whenever possible.

The MPAA doesn't see any additional licensing fees from me.
The RIAA doesn't count me, and I pay considerably less by being patient.
This works really well for video games and computer hardware too. I don't need to show anyone how cool I am by having the latest and the greatest because I'm patient.

I do much the same, although my motivation started more out of lack of money and hardware obsolete enough that I couldn't run the latest games. The only thing I'd add to that is that if you find a band or company that produces something you like, please find some way to support them. For instance, I really like Bethesda's software. I enjoyed Daggerfall. I'm still enjoying Morrowind years after its release (you've got to love open-ended worlds and the ability to change just about anything with their editor). I felt mighty proud when I bought copies of that software, figuring I was supporting them. Then, it hit me that I'd bought it used. Bethesda never saw a cent of my money unless you include what they got from the original owner. *shrug* So when I decided I had to have the next Freedom Force game, I bought directly from their website. As a pre-order, I waited an extra day and paid more than people who went to Best Buy (which, incidentally, is more than a tad messed-up, but apparently such was not their intent; there was a confusion with the shipping company), but I'm fairly sure my money is going directly to them. When Bethesda comes out with TES4:Oblivion, I will buy it off of their website and similarly, I'll hope that they get what's coming to them. *shrug* The only other thing I can think of to do to support them would be to buy the used copy and then send the difference as a donation (which might reduce the number of middlemen getting money, although I suspect the legal costs of accounting for donations might eat that up), but that seems kind of silly.

And in terms of music, support your local bands. If you hear some great music at the coffeehouse and the band has CDs for sale, go ahead and buy them. Yes, they tend to be fairly expensive, but with the small print run, the costs are a bit higher. And at least there, you can be pretty sure the band's getting the money, not some nebulous publisher.

Car Prices

[SeanDuggan]

*shrug* Some of it depends on how good you are at car shopping. Then, there's the matter of durability. I can get a POS car for about $500 locally. It will even run fine for a while after a few minor repairs. Unfortunately, after a year or two, the car's age will start showing and I'll be left with the choice of either doing costly repairs on it, or junking it and getting another car. I suspect that over the course of several years, the junk-and-buy-a-new-one might actually save me money. It would, however, add to the general waste in the environment and it would mean the additional hassle of switching cars every few years and quite possibly some sub-standard performance. While cost does not guarentee quality, you generally cannot get quality without some cost.

Set up mirrors for DVD Decrypter

[DLX]

Set up downlaod mirrors for DVD Decrypter - as much as you can, especially in the countries where it is legal to use it. http://www.hot.ee/dvddecrypter/

Bring it on!

[halr9000]

Anyone who wishes to tell me I don't have the right to do this I will consider a mortal enemy.

I pick Raiden.

Funny that it was Sony...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the main reason I use Decrypter is for my PSP. Stick the DVD in, decrypt it, and encode to the PSP with FREE SOFTWARE. Unless Sony is trying to get people to buy those crappy UMD movies when you can upload any content you like, I thought that was one of the major selling points.

Who will step up to lead us in a battle?

[Stiranthony]

I personally feel that the time has come for us citizens to band together - but the trouble is - no one will provide the capital to successfully reach the people - so the people can reach the corporations. What we need is for someone to start a website to vote on such matters. Power to the people. If this website could be given media attention on national networks (just like those that advertised for the movie/music industries) then surely it would get some attention and gain some power. Why not vote to boycott theatres. Boycott music - hell - they wouldn't be long changing prices to better reflect value then!

Who will step up to the plate and help us?

Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User

[EvilJoker]

Either you have never tried to copy an encrypted DVD, or you have never used a consumer model. Only DVD-R for Authoring has any support for CSS key (and that seems poor).

You also do need to decrypt the data to play it- hell, old DVD ripping techniques involved using PowerDVD/WinDVD to get the decryption key off the disc!

Re:copy protection is a euphemism - try copy cripp

[FirstTimeCaller]

Use terms like "copy resistant" or "copy crippled" when referring to systems which incorporate technology intended to make copying difficult.

Excellent suggestion. So, in that vein, "he was accused of breaking their copy restrictions" would be more appropriate.

So what's next ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are company "X" going to start suing people who trade-in their DVDs 2nd hand or sell them through a private ad because they're not getting a royalty from the sale?

If he lives in the Uk

[zx128k]

The is what I found on the UK groverment website: For copyright material issued to the public in an electronic form, a copyright owner may decide to use technical measures so that it is not possible to make a copy of the material, that is, it is copy-protected. It is also possible for copyright owners to use other technological measures to prevent other types of illegal uses of copyright material. Where a copyright owner has sold copies that are protected by technical measures, the copyright owner may have the right to take action against a person who circumvents or who makes, sells or otherwise deals in devices or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent, the technical measures. The right to take action is equivalent to the rights a copyright owner has when suing for infringement of his or her copyright in the civil courts. Criminal offences may also apply to those who deal in the means to circumvent technical measures. It is also possible for copyright owners to use other technological measures to prevent other types of illegal uses of copyright material. Can be found here: - http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resour ces/other_ip_rights/copy_protect.htm

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

So "With a view to the interests" equates with must maximize profits? It has nothing to do with them taking steps to maximize their profits at the expense of the shareholders, as say, Ken Lay of Enron did?

Who was the dumb asshole again?

That would be you, hippie.

Crappy Discs Deserve To Be Ripped

[Anonymous Coward]

I rip DVDs to get rid of prohibited operations like not being able to stop, Rewind, FF, pause, slow mo, or skip content. My Daewoo can jump to the movie if you enable Auto Play. It finds the longest PGC and plays it. But most players lack this feature, due to DMCA. I use DVD Shrink to Re-Author with the main movie and perhaps some extras... The movie starts immediately with chosen audio and subtitles. I also use VobBlanker to eliminate shitty stuff that users are forced to see. I don't care about stupid menus and extras. If the movie fits DVD-5, that's fine.

Re:Good summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't understand and doesn't want to. You're pathetic, and people like you are the reason your country is going to shit.

DVD Decrypter is back!

[LIGHTNING UK!]

http://www.dvddecrypter.r8.org/ I just would like to spread the word and let everyone know, you can now find DVD Decrypter at: http://www.dvddecrypter.r8.org/ It took a lot of time to get this site back up, and it would be nice if someone could help me find a new development team and more places to host DVD Decrypter for download!

Re:DVD Decrypter is back!

[aaaurgh]

Hot damn, get that Donate Now button working!

DVD Decrypter LIVES!!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.dvddecrypter.r8.org/

"I just would like to spread the word and let everyone know, you can now find DVD Decrypter at: http://www.dvddecrypter.r8.org/ After a lot of hard work, I've brought the website back! The bad news is I lost all my programers which means unitl I find a new team I will only provide version 3.5.4.0 for download. If you have programming skills please e-mail me AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!! I'm looking for a wide range of people including reverse engineer, C++, C+ or anyone who knows how to update and maintain software programs!! If you have these skills, Please contact me immediately at: lightninguk.dvddecrypter@gmail.com and please know you will work out of the kindness of your heart as I can not pay you unless someone wants me to add a "Donate NOW" link to the web page! As you also know, I have lost rights to the domain name of: www.dvddecrypter.com I hope to set up a "Donate Now" link to get donations for a new domain or new host, what ever I can afford! I also had to redo the logo in the top left corner. I even lost the forum as well so it will be a while for me to redo the new one and you will have to reregister. It took a lot of time to get this site back up, and it would be nice if someone could help me find a new development team and more places to host DVD Decrypter for download!"