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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

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?

[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?

[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?

[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".

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.

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.

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)"

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?

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?

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?

[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.

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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: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: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?!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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"

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: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: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"?

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. :)

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.

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

[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...

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.

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?

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

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'.

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.