Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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.
This is probably a very stupid question, but why can't the offending code which supposedly "broke their new copyright protection" just be removed?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
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.
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'.
"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.
"Stumble before you crawl"
" 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?
"Stumble before you crawl"
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.
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.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento