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

[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.

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?

[computational super]

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

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)"

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?

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

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: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.

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...

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: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.

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: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'.

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.

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.

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?