MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility

RulerOf writes "The AACS Decryption utility released this past December known as BackupHDDVD originally authored by Muslix64 of the Doom9 forums has received its first official DMCA Takedown Notice. It has been widely speculated that the utility itself was not an infringing piece of software due to the fact that it is merely "a textbook implementation of AACS," written with the help of documents publicly available at the AACS LA's website, and that the AACS Volume Unique Keys that the end user isn't supposed to have access to are in fact the infringing content, but it appears that such is not the case." From the thread "...you must input keys and then it will decrypt the encrypted content. If this is the case, than according to the language of the DMCA it does sound like it is infringing. Section 1201(a) says that it is an infringement to "circumvent a technological measure." The phrase, "circumvent a technological measure" is defined as "descramb(ling) a scrambled work or decrypt(ing) an encrypted work, ... without the authority of the copyright owner." If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that."

Comments

well..

[pair-a-noyd]

1. Horse
2. Gate
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:well..

[Grinin]

wasn't it:

"Phase 1: Steal under-pants"
"Phase 3: Profit"

"But wait, whats phase 2?"

"Phase 1: Steal underpants"
"Phase 3: Profit!"

Re:well..

[AoT]

You must be new here.

Re:well..

[Anomolous Cowturd]

1. Steal underpants.
2. Sell underpants.
3. Profit.

Re:well..

[dgatwood]

Selling underpants usually won't make much money (celebrities' underpants notwithstanding). Instead, you'd probably have to make that:

Step 2: Sell famous actresses' underpants on eBay. Extort money from everyone else to keep their underwear off eBay.

Re:well..

[uberchicken]

You need a project.

Re:well..

[Grinin]

OK. No one got my South Park reference. I apologize. I would remove the comment if I could :(

Re:well..

[shark72]

"OK. No one got my South Park reference. I apologize. I would remove the comment if I could :("

That whooshing sound is making it hard to concentrate. Welcome to Slashdot; to catch up with the rest of us, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes#The _gnomes. HTH.

Re:well..

[elrous0]

Damn, you ARE a newbie.

-Eric

Re:well..

[nacturation]

OK. No one got my South Park reference. I apologize. I would remove the comment if I could :( Just as a suggestion, perhaps next time you could try making it funny? I think almost everyone understood the horse/gate reference to be a twist on South Park. And while I'm at it:

If this is the case, than according...
If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA... Okay, call me a grammar nazi but what kind of self-respecting nerd writes if/than statements?

Re:well..

[epp_b]

OK. No one got my South Park reference. I apologize. I would remove the comment if I could :(

What? Oh, I thought it was the obligatory Doctorow reference ;)

why bother

[mastershake_phd]

Legality aside, they must know they will never eliminate this utility. DVD Decrypter is still easy enough to find. And that is something a lot of people might be interested in compared to the number of people who actually own a HD Disc.

Re:why bother

[Curtman]

Legality aside, they must know they will never eliminate this utility. DVD Decrypter is still easy enough to find.

It's a shame that they dropped the case against Decss. Hopefully they won't this time and they'll lose fair and square.

Re:why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it.

(Sorry, wasn't my fault. I blame the beer)

Re:why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an eMule link with source included. It's tiny.

Re:why bother

[0111 1110]

And here's an emule link. Don't think they'll be taking down these copies any time soon.

Re:why bother

[adamchou]

I don't see how Doom9 can win when on the third page of AACS Specifications http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS _Spec_Common_0.91.pdf, it says: Intellectual Property Implementation of this specification requires a license from AACS LLC

Re:why bother

[melikamp]

Implementation of this specification requires a license from AACS LA LLC.

IANAL, but what the hell does that mean? There are only two relevant "IP" laws: copyright and patent. Since the code is original, copyright does not apply. Is AACS patented then? Again, I have no idea what exactly the legislation is, but I would assume that in most jurisdictions the law does not apply to PCs. I am under an impression that there might be a patent on a device with the said software, but that would probably not apply to a general-purpose device which can run any software.

Re:why bother

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Seeing as how "Intellectual Property" isn't a legal term, it has about that the same about of meaning...

Re:why bother

[digitalunity]

Close. The misnomer "Intellectual Property" is typically a trifecta - Copyright, Patent and Trademarks. It would be difficult to bring a trademark suit into this matter since the author of this tool is not misrepresenting their tool under the auspices of a tool trademarked by another company.

Patents are an easy one. If the AACS encryption is covered by patents(which it probably is) there's a good case for patent infringement. I won't go this particular here. As far as I am concerned, if the encryption can be broken by information release by the patent holder outside of the realm of a patent application, it's fair game.

Copyrights are a tough nut to crack. Without the DMCA, the tool would probably fall under fair use. With DMCA provisions, it would most likely qualify as an 'circumvention' device. Very sad, but under existing law, it's unavoidable.

Solution?
1) Ignore the laws. Release the software from an unfriendly neighbor country.
2) Lobby.
3) Lawyer up.
4) Start shooting lawmakers.

Re:why bother

[1u3hr]

don't see how Doom9 can win when on the third page of AACS Specifications http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS _Spec_Common_0.91.pdf, it says: Intellectual Property Implementation of this specification requires a license from AACS LLC

That's interesting, but does the AAAC have the ability to publish and enforce laws? Is this a contract that the autjopr of the software in question has signed?

If you believe that, by reading this you have agreed to hand over all your money... etc ad absurdum.

Re:why bother

[adamchou]

umm... you don't need a signature to agree to any kind of contract. do you think any of the oss libraries require the user to sign something? of course not. simply using it means they agree to the terms of the license. of course, i would imagine that they would need a patent or something to really enforce this in the court of law..

Re:why bother

[1u3hr]

do you think any of the oss libraries require the user to sign something? of course not.

Probably, but not very relevant. OSS is already protected by copyright, the licence terms are actually extending more rights than the law requires, not trying to take them away.

But in general, just saying the reader has to do something is not a contract.

Re:why bother

[Hal_Porter]

I guess there's a patent on some part of the algorithm which is what the licensing authority licenses. So if you don't have a license, you're in breach of that patent. Whereas if you sign up for a license, you have to agree to great lengths that your implementation won't allow people to get access to the decrypted digital video, like his does. Also, he's in violation of the DMCA provision on not providing tools to "circumvent a technological measure", which is the basis of the takedown notice.

You may not like the way the law is, but that doesn't change the fact that he's on the wrong side of it.

Re:why bother

[eMbry00s]

The DMCA made it illegal to bypass any kind of content scrambling without explicit authorization from whoever scrambled the content.

Re:why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

It's copyright -- the C in DMCA. And it's referring to copyright on movies protected by AACS, not the copyright on any specification and/or source code.

Re:why bother

[EsbenMoseHansen]

umm... you don't need a signature to agree to any kind of contract. do you think any of the oss libraries require the user to sign something? of course not. simply using it means they agree to the terms of the license. of course, i would imagine that they would need a patent or something to really enforce this in the court of law.. This is wrong. You are not bound to accept the GPL in any country I know of; if you do not accept the GPL, normal copyright applies. Which, in practical terms, means that you cannot redistribute the application.

Re:why bother

[WNight]

Actually, the argument is just as good that the morality and how realistic a law is are exactly what should determine if you break it.

You may not want to let a police officer watch you, but society doesn't gain, overall, if people follow laws they believe to be unjust. I feel the DMCA is a trainwreck and I'd refuse to follow it. I'm Canadian so this one doesn't apply yet, but when it does, I'm still going to keep watching DVDs where I want to.

I don't know why US citizens admit to doing this stuff though, or anyone going through the USA. (Skylarov. And that's why Alan Cox is staying out.) Find a Canadian, New Zealander, etc to host it.

Re:why bother

[Sobrique]

Just as well the UK doesn't support software patents then, isn't it?

Re:why bother

[andy_t_roo]

It doesn't circumvent any copy protection - it just allows holders of the keys to decrypt theit encrypted content - this program assumes that the "explicit authorization" presented is in the holding of the key.

Re:why bother

[eMbry00s]

I guess their assumption is not shared by MPAA's lawyers, then. I fully agree with their assumptions, but can't say I'm very hopeful of them ever being appreciated by media companies at large.

Re:why bother

[mpe]

Since the code is original, copyright does not apply.

Actually copyright most certainly does apply. It's more the case that the copyright holder has given permission for their code to be published in this way (or even done so themselves).

Re:why bother

[mpe]

umm... you don't need a signature to agree to any kind of contract. do you think any of the oss libraries require the user to sign something? of course not. simply using it means they agree to the terms of the license.

You need permission from the copyright holder to distribute copyrighted works to other parties. The likes of the GPL and LGPL are conditional permission statments. They are not "contracts" in any normal sense of the term and are subject to different laws.

Re:why bother

[msobkow]

That is a very good point. If there is no patent on the algorithm itself, then creating an implementation of the algorithm is perfectly legal and the only item that should be restricted by the DMCA are the keys used for decryption. Otherwise the DMCA has a much broader effect than originally intended, and makes it illegal for any form of encryption or decryption to be used other than that provided by a vendor.

In the current takedown scenario, it would be illegal to use a non-Sony decryptor for music encoded using ATRAC and Sony's software. It wouldn't just be illegal to crack any DRM, but illegal to use a non-endorsed player, and that flies in the face of so much precedence it's not even funny.

Mind you, I'd bet that some of the auto manufacturers tried the same thing with "jobber" parts at one point.

Re:why bother

[Hal_Porter]

Actually, that's a good point. If you're outside the US, the legal machinery to stop you cracking AACS probably isn't in place.

Mind you, it's changing there's an EUCD which

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directiv e#Technological_measures

Article 6 of the Directive provides protection for "technological measures", any technology device or component which is designed to restrict or prevent certain acts which are not authorised by the rightholder.

Re:why bother

[maxwell demon]

Hmmm ... if I "scramble" a text by putting it into MS Word format, and don't give anyone authorization to descramble it, and then "notice" that MS Word actually is able to descramble that text, can I then use a DMCA takedown notice against MS Word? :-)

Re:why bother

[just_another_sean]

Solution?
1) Ignore the laws. Release the software from an unfriendly neighbor country.
2) Lobby.
3) Lawyer up.
4) Start shooting lawmakers.


Ooh... A new /. poll. I choose, um, 4!

Re:why bother

[aminorex]

> As far as I am concerned, if the encryption can be broken by information
> release by the patent holder outside of the realm of a patent application,
> it's fair game.

However, you are clearly not a lawyer. Such advice from a lawyer would be legal malpractice.

I do not think, however, that any AACS decoder program is a circumvention device. It's merely a device.
A device for extracting keys, on the other hand, would be a circumvention device. Once you have keys,
prima facie, you have a license, and any decoder program which is only useful when you have keys
is not a circumvention device. If it worked without keys, then it would be a circumvention device.
Otherwise, it's like claiming that lock-pick laws apply to door locks. Door locks provide access to the
key holder. That does not make them circumvention devices.

The MPAA is going to lose this one, and regret it, if anyone fights it.

Re:why bother

[eMbry00s]

Unless you created, and own, the software that does the scrambling I'd say no :(

Re:why bother

[digitalunity]

That's why I prefaced my assertion with "As far as I am concerned". I am neither a lawmaker nor a lawyer and anybody who consults slashdot or any other internet forum composed of geeks for legal advice is most assuredly insane.

I am however a sentient being and have an internal sense of fairness. For the same reason we let jurors decide the guilt and fate of criminal defendants, I am equally qualified to hold an opinion on this matter.

By the way, your door-lock analogy faulty. In many states, merely possessing tools to pick a lock without a license is illegal. This is despite the fact that lock picking tools provide the same function as an original key; both are equally capable of opening the lock. My understanding of the AACS decryption utility lead me to believe that it extracts the encrypted data without any keys at all. That still doesn't mean the device doesn't duplicate a patented action. Is this correct?

This is yet another reason why software shouldn't qualify as a patentable device.

Re:why bother

[maxwell demon]

If I write some software which puts texts in Word format (it doesn't need to support any advanced features, not even formatting, so it shouldn't be too hard to do), then I own that software (because I've written it). This makes Word a circumvention device (the fact that MS has written it independently shouldn't matter; the AACS decryption utility was written independently as well), and therefore I can send the DMCA takedown notice.

Re:why bother

[eMbry00s]

Godspeed.

Re:why bother

[Archiviste]

Solution?
1) Ignore the laws. Release the software from an unfriendly neighbor country.

You mean, like Canada, eh ?

Re:why bother

[Workaphobia]

> "If there is no patent on the algorithm itself, then creating an implementation of the algorithm is perfectly legal and the only item that should be restricted by the DMCA are the keys used for decryption."

I don't believe that's the case. The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological measures (or is it the distribution of the means to do so?). This includes the unauthorized program that implements the decryption algorithm, because of its purpose and functionality. The fact that the implementation is not illegal under patent law doesn't prevent it from being illegal under the DMCA.

> "Otherwise the DMCA has a much broader effect than originally intended, and makes it illegal for any form of encryption or decryption to be used other than that provided by a vendor.

Well, that is sort of the situation we have now, and the intended purpose of the DMCA. No decryption of a CSS or AACS encrypted disc is allowed except by implementations that conform to the standards, license appropriate keys, etc. However, control over CSS/AACS is not in the hands of any single vendor, so licensing is relatively non-discriminatory.

> "It wouldn't just be illegal to crack any DRM, but illegal to use a non-endorsed player, and that flies in the face of so much precedence it's not even funny."

When Real bypassed Apple's DRM, wasn't that of questionable legality under the DMCA? I was under the impression that the DMCA blocked out rival companies and not just consumers.

Perhaps I need to find the text in question: bypassing technology is not allowed when it's for what purpose? Unrestricted access? Unintended access?

Re:why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

His analogy held that the door handle was the decryption. You can't blame the door handle if someone uses a lockpick on it just because the lockpick is illegal.

So let me get this straight...

[physicsnick]

They're firing back at the total and utter destruction of AACS by using... lawyers.

Yeah. That'll stop piracy.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Dr. Eggman]

Lacky: "Sir! Pirates in the nets, breakin' yur AACS!"
MPAA: "We must respond with out most powerful weapon: Ready the Lawyer Cannons."

Re:So let me get this straight...

[The Real Toad King]

Lacky: "But sir! Wouldn't firing our lawyers out of cannons seriously injure them?"
MPAA: "I SAID READY THE LAWYER CANNONS GODDAMMIT!"

Re:So let me get this straight...

[troll -1]

MPAA: "We must respond with out most powerful weapon: Ready the Lawyer Cannons."

Methinks ye meant canons as in:

(Eccl.) A law, or rule of doctrine or discipline, enacted by a council and confirmed by the pope or the sovereign; a decision, regulation, code, or constitution made by ecclesiastical authority.

Thou shalt not circumvent this sacred AACS, nor be curious about it, nor shall thee seek to understand the inners of its secret workings lest thee be driven to infernal damnation. It be the ruling of this inquisition on pain of death that thee recant all allegiance to curiosity.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Yet they do not know that the ninja has the pirate's back this time. How could they, since ninja don't exist.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[denmarkw00t]

Lacky: "But, I am le tired..." MPAA: "Well, take a nap and then FIRE ZE LAWYERS!"

Re:So let me get this straight...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Fire the Lawyer Cannons!"

"But sir, what they are doing isn't illegal under our current system of law!"

"In that case, fire the Lawyer's canons!"

Re:So let me get this straight...

[OldManAndTheC]

On second thought, firing lawyers out of cannons would injure them, and it would be a terrible thing to injure cannons...

Re:So let me get this straight...

[ady1]

Who is them? lawyers or cannons?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Goaway]

AACS is far from "utterly destroyed". It's well equipped to deal with breaks like the ones published so far. They'll be using the technological measures too, soon enough, in addition to the legal ones. This is all going according to plan so far.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[elrous0]

Zeek: "Well, the barn has burned and all the animals are dead. What should we do now?"

Tex: "Let's try to get the horses out of the barn."

-Eric

So what?

[solafide]

So the download servers move offshore, muslix et al move to other countries with looser copyright laws, and everything is hunkydory. Besides the inconvenience of moving away, why does this matter besides that it makes it a little illegal to download?

Re:So what?

[idonthack]

A man has to run from the law because he wrote a program that lets people watch videos, and you can't find anything wrong with that?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

A man has to run from the law because he wrote a program that lets people watch videos, and you can't find anything wrong with that?

Technically, he wrote a program that enables one to violate the rights of content creators. If the program required one to license AACS legally, it would 1) do exactly the same thing, and 2) be legal.

Re:So what?

[burnin1965]

Technically, he wrote a program that enables one to violate the rights of content creators.

Technically Toshiba has created a device which makes it possible for someone to violate the rights of content creators by playing an HD DVD movie in front of an audience using a Toshiba HD DVD player and a big screen HD TV.

And technically speaking just because a law is passed by the Congress doesn't mean it is constituionally legal.

burnin

Re:So what?

[Yartrebo]

Of course it's wrong. It makes a total mockery of our legal system which is supposed to serve 'the people' after all. Perhaps people in the US stands for the same thing that is stands for in the 'People's Republic of China?'

Re:So what?

[SeaFox]

Perhaps people in the US stands for the same thing that is stands for in the 'People's Republic of China?'

No, because China seems to have no problem with people copying DVDs.

Re:So what?

[b96miata]

Holy shit someone on slashdot didn't mix up loose/lose for once!

Re:So what?

[JaWiB]

Umm, but isn't Toshiba one of the copyright holders?

Re:So what?

[jamar0303]

Exactly- why buy the real thing for $20 when you can get the same for $1? (well, it will be hard getting it all through customs)

Re:So what?

[adolf]

Umm. Er. But.

Toshiba doesn't make content aka movies. It is content owners who need to give permission for their copyrighted, AACS-encumbered content to be decoded.

Toshiba already has such permission.

Re:So what?

[Yartrebo]

Communist theory forbids IP as it is private property of a most despicable sort, but last I checked China has copyright, patent, and trademark laws (even if not enforced too much), making them hypocrites, just like they are in saying that they represent the people.

Of course, the US is far worse in this regard, but then again they don't claim to be communist.

Re:So what?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well then what about the Visual Studio team? Visual Studio is pretty damn useful, it would enable people to violate the rights of content creators. On a serious note, for the "program to require a license", there would need to be copyright infringement (which there isn't if it is a clean reimplementation based on published spec.s), or a patent involved.

Re:So what?

[bane2571]

Don't worry, in my mind I still read loser instead of looser and I died a little inside whne I realised what I had done.

Re:So what?

[loid_void]

To live outside the law, a man has to be honest. (Bob Dylan)

Re:So what?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

His point was that if you take that player outside and have a block party, you've just used said device to violate copyright. Can't even have a movie day at the Library with materials in the library (although you can still read to children there...)

Re:So what?

[BronsCon]

Technically, he wrote a program that enables one to violate the rights of content creators.

Technically, it needs the keys in order to decrypt the media. The supposed illegality of this is speculative, at best as it circumvents nothing.

If the program decrypted the content without input from the user, in the form of keys, it certainly would enable one to violate the rights of copyright holders.

Of course, you can probably google for the keys needede to decrypt at least a few discs (I really don't care, since I don't have the proper discs or drive, anyway), but, if you're going to do that, you may as well just grab the .torrent while you're at it.

I guess, next, they'll go after Plasmon, MTS, Mitsubishi and others for making HD-DVD glass-master and pressing equipment, which can be used to make illegal copies as well? And many an AC on /. will support them for it, regardless of the fact that this is the same equipment used to make the original; without it, there would be nothing to copy.

Re:So what?

[Tweekster]

Sadly. content providers think they have the right to say who has the privledge of providng the mere access to their content.

they seem to have that crazy notion, they are being proven wrong, day in and day out,
and that will continue without possibility of them ever winning in any way, shape or form.

they can think they have the right, they can bribe the laws to act like they do, but in this reality they do not and widely available tools like this prove it.

to hell with content providers that think they get to dictate the terms of my viewing. personally i wont support them at all, and i also hope they go broke and have to go back to stocking shelves. let the real creators continue, they are not so concerned about 10 people all watching a movie, they are interested in creating and making a living doing so, not being greedy little bitches.

Re:So what?

[Hal_Porter]

Can't even have a movie day at the Library with materials in the library (although you can still read to children there...)

Technically, under the DMCA, you have to brainwipe the children afterwards.

Re:So what?

[Hal_Porter]

Well his code also lets people extract the movie as an avi file and upload it to a torrent site. Which the people that own the rights to movies are not keen on.

If he was making HDDVD players which just allowed people to watch them, he wouldn't be on the run.

Re:So what?

[Library Spoff]

probably off topic but....

We used to be able to purchase DVD`s from any store and rent them out in the library i work in - much in the same way we do with cd`s. It was costing us roughly £12 per dvd. But because the movie industry is losing SO much cash hand over foot we now have to purchase the special rental copies from suppliers at roughly £40 a copy. We can`t afford to buy as many dvd` - so they lose more money. Go figure...

Re:So what?

[spagetti_code]

Even more pertinant - in my country (NZ) and probably
most others outside the US,
all dvd players sold are region free (i.e. they play
DVDs from any region). All manufacturers do it.

Wonder what sort of conversations they have with
the MPAA over that one?

Re:So what?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes. So morally he did a right thing, and legally he did a wrong thing. If a law makes it possible, it is usually a bad law.

Re:So what?

[SkyDude]

But because the movie industry is losing SO much cash hand over foot we now have to purchase the special rental copies from suppliers at roughly £40 a copy. We can`t afford to buy as many dvd` - so they lose more money. Go figure...

Well, in this case, you should be blaming the Screen Actors Guild or whatever unions control talent. The rental versions cost more because a big chunk of the additional money goes to the actor's unions (SAG, etc). This was negotiated years ago when the unions realized what a cash cow videotape movies for home use was. The studios have to honor the contract to keep from getting sued.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a drama queen. No-one is running from the law. Muslix has received a take-down notice.

Re:So what?

[jvkjvk]

I guess, next, they'll go after Plasmon, MTS, Mitsubishi and others for making HD-DVD glass-master and pressing equipment, which can be used to make illegal copies as well? And many an AC on /. will support them for it, regardless of the fact that this is the same equipment used to make the original; without it, there would be nothing to copy. I believe that you have quite hit the nail on the head. Eventually this sort of fear and greed driven mentality turns on itself, even if through proxy such as in this example. It then begins to dismantle the very support structure it depends on to survive.

Eventually, it must either cease and desist these activities (that is, change) or vanish in a flash of human repudiation.

Re:So what?

[Damastus the WizLiz]

Damn that Film Actors Guild. The FAG's demands make it so hard for people these days. What?....Screen Actors you say....oops *mumbles about Stone and Parker*

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it'd still be legal to show them a Teletubbies film then?

Re:So what?

[neomunk]

I was thinking about that myself recently, what 'people' means to the U.S. as a concept, specifically in the frame of 'government of the people, by the people and for the people'.

I think 'people' == 'corporations'.

Strange... Not quite the same as 'people' in PRC, but not too damn far from it either, from a hierarchal point of view.

Law

[mfh]

There are laws, legal interpretations and then there is reality; the courts will connect this program to its most wide use, not its intended use.

Why do we keep using the same methods of our oppressors against ourselves? For CREDIT??? For PERSONAL GAIN???

A note to any future coders of freedom; write it anonymously and just release it into the wild. Do not claim the rights over it for your benefit because that is exactly how they keep shutting you down. They can't fight a ghost! ;-)

Re:Law

[Skreems]

I'm pretty sure muslix64 (or whatever his alias is) HAS remained anonymous. But they can file take-down notices against anyone hosting the thing.

Re:Law

[grub]

But they can file take-down notices against anyone hosting the thing.

They can file take-down notices against anyone in the US hosting the thing.

Re:Law

[mfh]

Nah, he'll have some stupid line of code that identifies him. Or they'll reveal something that connects it to him.

By anonymous, I mean without connection or identity, not pretending to be someone else. They get subversives every time by their need to maintain their self identity in some form, be it though personal expression or some other random link that forensics easily trails back like a string right to the perps (which is what you are if you're doing anything creative these days with computers).

Re:Law

[Skreems]

Ah, I see what you mean. But if he's playing it smart, I think he can maintain anonymity even while giving written interviews and such. Correct use of encryption and anonymizing proxies goes a long way, unless maybe you're up against the NSA or something really hardcore.

Re:Law

[failure-man]

Jurisdiction has never seemed to have much influence on where the take-down notices go . . . .
 
They can enforce take-down notices against anyone in the US. Fixed.

Re:Law

[Chandon Seldon]

write it anonymously and just release it into the wild.

I absolutely agree that if our society had really degraded to the point that it was no longer safe to share information it would be possible for things like this to be posted with complete anonymity. If the world had truly become a horrible dystopian nightmare, that might even be absolutely necessary.

I like to think that we're not there yet, and that it's still safe for people to share what they know with full credit for the work they have done to obtain that knowledge. If the world has really progressed to the point where sharing simple knowledge is no longer safe, then we have a worse problem than simply being locked out of the content of some video disks.

Re:Law

[Speed Pour]

They can file take-down notices against anyone in the US hosting the thing. Certainly true, and they also tried when DeCss turned up several years back. If I remember, the original hosting site was shut down briefly...and then a bill magically turned up that suggested any website linking to a website that hosts something "illegal" can also be taken down.

Of course, it was only a few months later when several thousand t-shirts baring the decss code went out to anybody with a credit card and a sense of irony

Re:Law

[amRadioHed]

If the world has really progressed to the point where sharing simple knowledge is no longer safe, then we have a worse problem than simply being locked out of the content of some video disks. You must be new here. Welcome to out planet.

Yeah, sadly we do have many much worse problems than being locked out of the content of some video disks. That's just another small symptom of how truly far we've come from the enlightened government our founders intended for us to have.

Re:Law

[Anonymous Coward]

And should he ever be close to being discovered, everyone should just claim to be him as well.

"Yes, I'm Brian too, and so's my wife".

Re:Law

[blind biker]

This is as good a time as any, to ask the question: if I, liging in Finland, host this (or other such "offending") code on my server, and in my country the DMCA doesn't appy, can the MPAA send me take down notices?

I guess they could, but probably wouldn't go to the trouble of doing so, as the best they can hope is to receive a "Well, just suck it up!" from me. Now that I think of it, I kinda wish they sent me such a notice :o)

Re:Law

[Delkster]

Nah, they wouldn't do it directly. It'd just be the local copyright holders' associations instead of the *AA and the local copyright law instead of the DMCA. It's possible that the software in question also counts as a circumvention device in the Finnish legislation (although the law itself isn't specific on what counts and what doesn't).

Re:Law

[neomunk]

Mod parent informative, please.

This is something people should really understand.

Copyright?

[wiredlogic]

You can't copyright a telephone number. I don't see why an encryption key should be any different. It doesn't represent a creative work and should not be subject to copyright protections. At best an encrytion key would be considered a trade secret. Of course a "secret" that is readable to anyone with a debugger isn't much of a secret.

Re:Copyright?

[idonthack]

It's not the fact that the decryption key is known and distributed. It's the fact that muslix64's program is capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission. That's a violation of the DMCA.

Re:Copyright?

[Skreems]

I see what they're trying to do, but I don't understand how that should be legal. If I buy a HD-DVD, they're giving me permission to watch it. To do so, I have to decode it. I signed nothing at the time of purchase promising to watch it only with players they approve of. By all logic, they HAVE given me permission to decrypt it.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

I signed nothing at the time of purchase promising to watch it only with players they approve of.

I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor. That doesn't mean you have a right to do it. I don't understand why so many people think that their rights are defined only by what they agree to on paper.

By all logic, they HAVE given me permission to decrypt it.

To do so you have to be privy to secret information (i.e. keys). To obtain these you must be an AACS LA licensee, or obtain them illicitly. To simply watch the movie on a licensed device you don't need either. While you could contort this into meaning they've given you permission to decrypt it, they've not given you the right to obtain the keys you would need to do so.

Re:Copyright?

[xantho]

Sure it decrypts the content, but isn't it for the purpose of interoperability? We already know that an HD-DVD + Vista + Windows Media Player + LCD TV connected via DVI is a losing proposition, but decrypting the video first makes everything interoperable.

<5 minutes go by>

OK, I read this article which discusses the reverse engineering part of the DMCA, and it seems like it might not apply because the software does not otherwise check to make sure that the user is authorized to do the thing in the first place, i.e., the user could be trying to decrypt an already copied HD-DVD that has been burned onto an HD-DVDR (do those exist for us plebeians yet?).

According to a source in the article, the courts have been screwing up rulings by "improperly conflating infringement with circumvention", which is what a lot of people I know have been saying for quite a while. Just because some assholes will use it to pirate movies doesn't mean that a whole crapload of people who just want to watch HD-DVD movies from their computer to a nice HD TV won't see substantial benefit from using the software as well, and that should be upheld.

Imagine if the ruling came down that the internet allowed piracy and ought to be banned. That's obviously a bit of another can of worms, but the idea stands. Just because someone can use something to infringe doesn't mean that the thing out to be disposed of and its use prohibited, as there are reasonable uses for it too.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

If I buy a HD-DVD, they're giving me permission to watch it. To do so, I have to decode it. I signed nothing at the time of purchase promising to watch it only with players they approve of. By all logic, they HAVE given me permission to decrypt it.

Not quite.

It's a bit easier to use DVDs as an example for this, rather than Bluray or HDDVD, since they're not as well documented.

The movie studios encrypted discs with CSS. They then gave the DVDCCA the power to grant authorizations to decrypt and access those movies. The DVDCCA in turn authorized the player manufacturers to build players that could handle that decryption, provided that they conformed to certain requirements (e.g. respect region codes, add macrovison to the outputs). The permission is granted, therefore, to the disc-playing machine, not the owner or user of the machine, nor the owner or user of the disc itself.

This is why, when you watch a DVD on an approved player, it is lawful with regards to access-controls, regardless of whether the DVD is lawfully made and possessed, lawfully made but stolen, or unlawfully made (and yet still encrypted for some reason). But it is unlawful to watch a DVD on an unapproved player, regardless of the provenance of the DVD.

So no, when you bought the DVD, you did not get permission to decrypt it. But so long as your player is approved, then it isn't unlawful for you to use it -- or for anyone to use it -- without having to be given permission themselves.

I'm pretty confident that the newer generation formats work in substantially the same way.

Re:Copyright?

[AoT]

I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor.

Yeah, but if I buy a bottle of coke I don't see any reason I shouldn't piss in it.

And what's more, if you sell me a sheet of paper with a code on it and then get pissed when I break it, you're going to have to start prosecuting all us folks who do the crypto-quote in the newspapers. That's illegal, too.

Re:Copyright?

[Crunchie Frog]

To do so you have to be privy to secret information (i.e. keys). To obtain these you must be an AACS LA licensee, or obtain them illicitly.
Reading some bytes from memory is not an illegal act. Maybe you should go read the Doom9 boards and see how this was all done rather than assuming some terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff was happening.

Re:Copyright?

[AlHunt]

>It's the fact that muslix64's program is capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission. That's a violation of the DMCA.

Are you sure? My car is capable of going 100 mph and my car isn't illegal.

Re:Copyright?

[EvanED]

No, see, you're thinking about laws rationally. Stop it.

Re:Copyright?

[EvanED]

That's because there isn't a law making it illegal. There is a law making circumvention software illegal. (17 USC 1201 (a)(2))

Re:Copyright?

[UncleFluffy]

It's the fact that muslix64's program is capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission.

So is this. And this.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if some content were encrypted with a simple AES block cipher. Would writing a program that could decrypt a series of AES blocks given a secret key not be the same thing? This program would be capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission.

I don't see the difference using your reasoning unless you care to enlighten the rest of us?

Re:Copyright?

[hevenor]

therefore downloading and burning DVD's is fine so long as we play them on official players that are allowed to decrypt such disks. Check :)

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, so long as you are only wondering if you would be circumvention an access control measure (you would not be), and don't care about whether you would be infringing on a copyright (you would be).

Re:Copyright?

[ewhac]

What utter sophistry. If this is the true state of intellectual "property" law in this country, I suggest you change specializations before your soul starts dissolving away.

Playing a movie DVD constitutes a performance of a copyrighted work. A license to perform the work in a private residence is concomitant with the purchase of a copy. There is nothing anywhere that says how you must perform the work. The license is relevant only to the performance, not the performer. You may perform the work either in a super-uber high-end jewel-encrusted DVD player, or in a crufty piece of junk you bought second-hand at Salvation Army.

...Or, in a DVD player program you wrote yourself.

I don't need "permission" to write a program, I don't need "permission" to run a program, and I don't need "permission" to have that program crunch on data in my lawful posession. The End. There is nothing inherent in the statutes or the Uniform Commercial Code that grants copyright holders the right to constrain the method of performance, nor can it be reasonably argued that they should enjoy such a right.

As for the DMCA, well, that needs to be repealed yesterday.

Schwab

Re:Copyright?

[Skreems]

That's all well and good, but it seems borderline illegal for them to give me something and then require that it only be used with other products they approve of. It's like car manufacturers putting special-shaped gas nozzles on, saying you can only fill up at licensed gas stations, and then suing you if you modify the nozzle to work with other stations.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

Reading some bytes from memory is not an illegal act.

That's also not how most people obtain their keys. It also has little to do with this story or the post I was replying to.

Maybe you should go read the Doom9 boards and see how this was all done [..]

How what was all done? A few people actually do the work and then everyone else just looks up the keys ( Post HD DVD Volume Unique Keys here) for "backup purposes". And that was the old way. More recent versions automatically download the keys from the web. (For what it's worth, this functionality is probably what triggered the DMCA notice.)

[..] rather than assuming some terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff was happening.

Did I say "terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff"? No. My point is that it's a DMCA violation, and hence, illicit. Like it or not, that's why the DMCA exists.

Re:Copyright?

[darkonc]

The movie studios encrypted discs with CSS. They then gave the DVDCCA the power to grant authorizations to decrypt and access those movies. The DVDCCA in turn authorized the player manufacturers to build players that could handle that decryption, provided that they conformed to certain requirements (e.g. respect region codes, add macrovison to the outputs). The permission is granted, therefore, to the disc-playing machine, not the owner or user of the machine, nor the owner or user of the disc itself.
My understanding is that the DVDCCA licenses to the studios the technology to encrypt their movies with CSS, and it licenses the DVD players the technology to decrypt the same.

I would say (and IANAL) that when a customer buys a DVD (s)he also obtains the implicit right to view it. It's not the consumer's issue how that technology is licensed.

From the programmers' point of view, as long as the code that they write isn't taken from a licensed user of the software, they're not violating copyright -- and as long as the primary purpose of the code is simply to view the DVD, then I think that that (at least arguably) keeps them on the good side of the DMCA.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

Yeah, but if I buy a bottle of coke I don't see any reason I shouldn't piss in it.

Uh...ok. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying, but it looks like a flawed analogy about something else entirely. In the case of a bottle of Coke, that's your property. In the case of encrypted content on a HD-DVD disc, it is not. You own the disc, not the content.

And what's more, if you sell me a sheet of paper with a code on it and then get pissed when I break it...

This has nothing to do with breaking a cipher. AES is not broken.

you're going to have to start prosecuting all us folks who do the crypto-quote in the newspapers. That's illegal, too.

Asinine.

Re:Copyright?

[AoT]

Uh...ok. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying

You're the one who was talking about shitting in someones house.

This has nothing to do with breaking a cipher. AES is not broken.

Do you even know what the DMCA is? Have you read it?

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

A license to perform the work in a private residence is concomitant with the purchase of a copy.

Utterly and hilariously wrong.

No such license ever, ever, ever exists. The reason being that it is impossible to license something that you haven't got to begin with. Copyright is a limited collection of rights; it does not apply to every single thing in connection with a work. In particular, the right of performance is a part of copyright. But only of public performance. Copyright holders have no right whatsoever to control private performance. Not having that right, they cannot license others.

Everyone has the right to privately perform any damn thing that they like. It's a part of free speech, and is not limited by copyright. Public performances are what's limited by copyright. Public performances are the performances that can be licensed.

If you're going to complain about my knowledge of the law, it would help if you knew something about it first.

In any event, we're not talking about copyright law, per se. We're talking about circumvention law, which for all anyone knows isn't even pursuant to the copyright power. It is its own beast, and in the case of DVDs at least, it operates as I have described it. The UCC is irrelevant to this discussion, as is anything other than 17 USC 1201 et seq.

I agree that much of the DMCA is very bad, but I think that it's vital that people understand just how bad, without suffering from any misconceptions, such as yours, in order to get support for copyright laws that we can actually be happy with, if not proud of.

Re:Copyright?

[tonsofpcs]

So if I steal a DVD and own a DVD player, I have a license to decrypt the content on the DVD to watch it? That's even more asinine.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So no, when you bought the DVD, you did not get permission to decrypt it. But so long as your player is approved, then it isn't unlawful for you to use it -- or for anyone to use it -- without having to be given permission themselves."

Nonsense. If you reverse-engineer the principle necessary to decrypt it, it doesn't matter that to get the *official* mechanism for decoding it, you have to agree to the license terms.

I bought it, I can decode it any way I like, including into gibberish, or into a recognizable image. You can't slap an agreement onto a printed book saying, "Reader is authorized to decode the letters and words on these pages only with SupraVision (TM) goggles and an Oxford English Dictionary purchased from an authorized dealer", especially if the purchaser did not have to sign a contract to make the purchase. Sheesh, there isn't even a (probably unenforceable) shrinkwrap EULA in DVDs. The terms you describe apply to the manufacturers of DVD players wishing to display the "DVD" trademark symbol and claiming that their product conforms with the standard.

Re:Copyright?

[beyondkaoru]

it is the unfortunate situation that we do need "permission" to write a program. in order to conform to the law, we can not have fully functional turing machines for home computers. i do not think this is a good thing. i like my turing machine very much, and i do not want them to take it away, whether that's in terms of legality (the current situation) or in terms of literally having a device that is not a turing machine in some way (trusted computing could do this).

law does not seem to respect math -- they will need to control the NAND gate, really.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is unlawful to watch a DVD on an unapproved player

That doesn't follow from what you said. Just because a bunch of companies created an authorization circus among themselves doesn't mean you're affected by it. Corporations don't create new laws (yet).

Re:Copyright?

[ewhac]

Copyright is a limited collection of rights; it does not apply to every single thing in connection with a work.

You wouldn't think so, given the massive power-grab going on.

In particular, the right of performance is a part of copyright. But only of public performance. Copyright holders have no right whatsoever to control private performance. Not having that right, they cannot license others.

So there's no compulsory or mechanical license involved? Interesting. That suggests that the blurb appearing at the front of every movie ("This motion picture is licensed for private exhibition only, blablabla...") is misleading, since you say no actual license is involved.

I agree that much of the DMCA is very bad, but I think that it's vital that people understand just how bad, without suffering from any misconceptions, such as yours, in order to get support for copyright laws that we can actually be happy with, if not proud of.

It seems we are in rather closer agreement than was initially apparent. I extend my apologies.

Schwab

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

You wouldn't think so, given the massive power-grab going on.

Meh. There's not that much expansion in this aspect of copyright, though we had a bit recently. Scaling back the derivative right (which is over a century old) is probably the best reform as far as the rights bundle goes. Yet sadly, most people who support reform have looked to term length and virtually nothing else. The length of copyright is key, but so is the scope. We need to reform both. Just one or the other won't be enough.

So there's no compulsory or mechanical license involved? Interesting. That suggests that the blurb appearing at the front of every movie ("This motion picture is licensed for private exhibition only, blablabla...") is misleading, since you say no actual license is involved.

They're under no obligation to be truthful, and in any event that blurb is just meant to restate the law in a manner highly favorable to them; no one would ever reasonably perceive it as a license. Take a look at 17 USC 106; it contains the major rights that comprise copyright. Private performance is not among them, nor does it crop up elsewhere.

It seems we are in rather closer agreement than was initially apparent. I extend my apologies.

De nada.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

I would say (and IANAL) that when a customer buys a DVD (s)he also obtains the implicit right to view it. It's not the consumer's issue how that technology is licensed.

It is illegal for the consumer to access the work, if there is an access control, if the consumer lacks authorization. The studios never give consumers authorization (and the implied authorization argument has, so far, fallen flat). Rather, they authorize devices, which can be used by people who themselves lack authorization. That is, the authorization is an attribute which flows through the player, rather than the disk. (Though it's still attached to the player -- the owner doesn't have authorization, save for with regard to that player; a possessor of the player has authorization with regard to that player, even if he isn't the owner, etc.)

From the programmers' point of view, as long as the code that they write isn't taken from a licensed user of the software, they're not violating copyright -

This conversation is about access and circumvention. We are not talking about copyright, which is a different, though related subject.

and as long as the primary purpose of the code is simply to view the DVD, then I think that that (at least arguably) keeps them on the good side of the DMCA.

That argument has been tried, and it has failed. Feel free to keep trying a loser argument, but don't be surprised when it keeps on being a loser. I'm not suggesting how I want things to be, I'm describing how things are. You'll have better luck coping with this, and in changing things for the better, if you deal with reality, rather than pretend that things presently are how you wish they would be.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

Read this. Law and math behave in very different ways, and I've found that this is a great essay for helping to bridge the gap.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor.
Nope, didn't have to. Those houses aren't mine. This disk is.
Last I checked, watching the movie on a disk you own was considered fair use.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

It is illegal for you to watch the DVD without authorization. They will not give you, personally, authorization. They will not give you, as the owner of the disc, or as the possessor of the disc, authorization.

So the only way to watch the DVD legally, is to get authorization by virtue of using an authorized player.

So yes, you are very much affected by what the companies do amongst themselves. And they didn't need to create any laws beyond 17 USC 1201 et seq.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

If you reverse-engineer the principle necessary to decrypt it, it doesn't matter that to get the *official* mechanism for decoding it, you have to agree to the license terms.

That is true, so long as by "it doesn't matter" you also think it doesn't matter that you'd be breaking the law. Many people would disagree with you, though.

I bought it, I can decode it any way I like, including into gibberish, or into a recognizable image.

And yet, the law disagrees with you.

You can't slap an agreement onto a printed book saying, "Reader is authorized to decode the letters and words on these pages only with SupraVision (TM) goggles and an Oxford English Dictionary purchased from an authorized dealer", especially if the purchaser did not have to sign a contract to make the purchase. Sheesh, there isn't even a (probably unenforceable) shrinkwrap EULA in DVDs.

Actually, you probably could do that, in the present legal environment. But in any event, I am not talking about EULAs or terms of sale, and so you are making a big mistake even bringing it up and confusing the issue.

I am saying that if a copyrighted work has had an access control measure applied to it, then the copyright holder can grant or withhold authorization to access that work as he wishes. He does not have to grant it to people who lawfully own a copy of the work! He can grant it to people with a middle initial that is a vowel. The law backs him up on this. It is not a matter of contract or sales law.

The terms you describe apply to the manufacturers of DVD players wishing to display the "DVD" trademark symbol and claiming that their product conforms with the standard.

That also comes with obeying the rules set forth by the DVDCCA, I'm sure. However, you would be a fool to ignore what I wrote or to assume that I was talking only about trademark issues.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

This idea worries me:

The permission is granted, therefore, to the disc-playing machine, not the owner or user of the machine, nor the owner or user of the disc itself.

So, with enough money and enough (brought) representatives, can I give rights to a gun to shoot people, but not the person that wields it? That is inane.

I have rights to do with something I bought regardless of the wishes of the 'content' creator. I can buy a Picasso and use it for toilet paper if I want. I can buy DVDs and use them as coasters. Just because some executive at some studio has a piece of paper giving him a controlling interest in some artists soul does not mean he has the right to stick his hand in my pants.

We reserved copyright to try encourage artists to produce new works by taking them out of the creative commons and rewarding them financially for returning them to the culture that spawned them. Beyond canceling Firefly and promoting reality television, the MIPIAA mafia are nothing but hollow middle men struggling to take their cut in this process.

The first 100 years the Constitution granted rights to people. The second Century it was 're-interpreted' to give rights to non-persons (companies.) In the third Century we give rights to non-sentient machines. What is next in the country ruled by money and lawyers?

Re:Copyright?

[someone1234]

Hmm, he must build in a few protections then to avoid unauthorised decryption. Like a yes/no dialogue window with the text: do you have permission to decrypt this file? And a warning that unauthorised decryption of files is illegal and punishable...(etc etc)

Re:Copyright?

[Hal_Porter]

I think they used existing patent law, a lobbied for changes to copyright law in the DMCA. Those two things together, together with the contracts that HDDVD player manufacturers sign with the AACS LA are the legal basis for it.

In a sense, they did what Stallman did in taking existing IP law, in his case copyright, and using it to provide legal backing for something, in his case the GPL, to create an enviroment where their business model was legally protected.

In the case of the unapproved DVD player it's illegal because it uses a patented algorithm without licensing the patents from the AACS LA. In the case of this tool it's illegal to distribute it under the DMCA. It's also probably violating the patents, but patent law is useless against individuals, which is why the MPAA needed the DMCA provision.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight.

So, if you password protect a pdf, and I use Adobe Acrobat to brute-force or guess the key and decrypt the pdf... Adobe is violating the DMCA?

Re:Copyright?

[KDR_11k]

Yes but the DMCA supercedes Fair Use.

Re:Copyright?

[KDR_11k]

If this is the true state of intellectual "property" law in this country, I suggest you change specializations before your soul starts dissolving away.

If ignorance were strength that might be appropriate but in the real world you should know your enemy.

Re:Copyright?

[KDR_11k]

In math, the rational is a subset of the real. In law, both sets are disjoint.

Re:Copyright?

[KDR_11k]

Why? The DMCA doesn't cover nor needs to cover theft.

Re:Copyright?

[KDR_11k]

So, with enough money and enough (brought) representatives, can I give rights to a gun to shoot people, but not the person that wields it? That is inane.

In a sufficiently corrupt government enough money can buy you ANY law, no matter how insane. It's called corruption for a reason.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. If you have a decryption key, you also have permission..?

However, I can't imagine the people making this thing bought the specs on this format/algorithm. Perhaps the DMCA contains some sort of reverse-engineering clause? IIRC our DMCA derivative does..

Re:Copyright?

[tricorn]

Perhaps a better interpretation might be that the distributor has been licensed to reproduce it only for "private home use" or whatever (which means they can distribute it without the recipient needing to sub-license it, since as you note no license is needed by the end user for non-public "performances" of the work.

What I don't understand is why, if I've encoded something using AACS, that I own the copyright to, why I'm not entitled to give permission to any and all to use an AACS decryption program to decrypt my copyrighted work. Wouldn't that basically make possession and distribution of such a decryption program be unaffected by the provisions of the DMCA (since it would be "with the authorization of the copyright owner")? From the other direction, what if I distribute a copyrighted work (of my own), encrypted with, say, 3DES or simply AES? Doing so doesn't automatically make any 3DES or AES decryption program a DMCA violation, that would be silly!

Now, if AACS is patented, then they do indeed have a way of preventing such distribution and use. However, I don't see that a simple decryption program, without any key-breaking included, is controlled by the DMCA.

Re:Copyright?

[tricorn]

Actually, I own the disc, AND I own a copy of the contents, which I can use in any way not restricted by copyright. I don't own the copyright on the contents, but it is certainly an "authorized copy", and I've purchased it, I own it, and I have rights to use it in certain ways. When copyright law talks about "owner of an authorized copy", it isn't talking about the copyright owner, it's talking about ME.

Re:Copyright?

[WNight]

You do own the content. You merely lack the copying rights to make a duplicate of it legitimately. Seriously, space/media-shifting and backup allowances clearly show that you own the content, not just the plastic disc or paper book.

Doesn't really matter though, you can't sell someone something without implicitly giving them permission to use the thing.

If that means they need to decrypt it to view it, and you knew that, that must mean that you intend to let them use the product, or it wouldn't be a sale. (And the courts have ruled solid that, if it looks like a duck, it is. If you think you bought something, you did.) If you've given people the rights to decrypt it, that means it's not a DMCA violation (" ... without permission"), and thus legal.

Further, as the MPAA would *have* to know this. Contract/Sale law is pretty well understood here. So for them to send a DMCA takedown they *must* be lying.

Clearly, the law intends to stop unintended decryption - trying to put the files on P2P. Sure. But it's insanity to just assume that this applies to legitimate use of media you purchased legally.

The MPAA have no leg to stand on, but they aren't above cold-blooded and calculated direct misstatements of fact, lies, of outright fraud as an reading of Hollywood history will show. What's a little intentional perjury? So like the RIAA they continue to send takedown notices against legit files, having sworn to be the rights-holder, etc, and continue to do so merely because nobody has enough money to punish them in court. Thieves.

Re:Copyright?

[alphamugwump]

A generic AES program would not have infringement as it's "primary purpose". Yes, I know that that's fucked up.

Re:Copyright?

[Sobrique]

So, with enough money and enough (brought) representatives, can I give rights to a gun to shoot people, but not the person that wields it? That is inane.

As seems to be repeatedly being demonstrated, with enough money and enough bought representatives, you can do pretty damn near anything. There's a huge number of absolutely disgusting laws being churned out from various sources, because the Golden Rule works so very well at the moment (Golden Rule = Whoever's got the Gold, makes the rules)

But hey, that's democracy at work. Isn't it?

Re:Copyright?

[Sobrique]

Pretty much, yes.

No one ever said the law had to make sense.

Re:Copyright?

[Mattsson]

While you could contort this into meaning they've given you permission to decrypt it, they've not given you the right to obtain the keys you would need to do so.

By selling me a HD-DVD/Bluray-disc, they give me permission to decrypt said content, but they do not give me the tools or keys to do so.
When, for instance, Toshiba sell me an HD-DVD player, they sell me a tool to do the decryption with and a key, although a bit hidden.

I now own an encrypted media-file and a key to decrypt it.
What tool I use to decrypt this legally acquired file with my legally acquired key with should be no ones business but my own.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

I'd be surprised if, in most cases, the DVD made for retail differed at all from the DVDs made for rental. In fact, they even tend to hit shelves at the same time. And in any event, it's also legal to rent any lawfully made copy of a DVD without special permission, so it would only matter for the big chains that could negotiate early access anyway. Also, the warning wouldn't need to be there for the distributor -- they would have a contract that would lay out all the terms.

No, it's there to be read by end users, who will hopefully not question the strong wording.

What I don't understand is why, if I've encoded something using AACS, that I own the copyright to, why I'm not entitled to give permission to any and all to use an AACS decryption program to decrypt my copyrighted work. Wouldn't that basically make possession and distribution of such a decryption program be unaffected by the provisions of the DMCA (since it would be "with the authorization of the copyright owner")?

Or, in the world of regular DVDs, if you made CSS-encoded DVDs, couldn't you authorize people to use DeCSS, which would legitimize it? Feel free to give it a shot, but I doubt a court will go for it in the real world.

Doing so doesn't automatically make any 3DES or AES decryption program a DMCA violation, that would be silly!

A lot depends on the reasons for which someone distributes a copy. If RSA distributes a general-purpose decryption program using 3DES, then they'll be fine, even though it could be used against 3DES encrypted movies. If Doom9 does it, then they're not going to be fine, since they really only ever distribute anything for it to be used in conjunction with movies. That they might even be identical programs isn't relevant. Intent isn't something that is found in the bits of the program, but the law can still recognize and infer from the circumstances.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

It's also probably violating the patents, but patent law is useless against individuals, which is why the MPAA needed the DMCA provision.

There is no exception for individuals under patent law, actually. But patents require disclosure, and on the whole, they'd prefer to maintain some obscurity, so they don't use patents quite so much in the encryption and decryption stages. Also, patents expire more quickly than copyrights.

Re:Copyright?

[itlurksbeneath]

Well.. (playing the devil's advocate here for a minute).. If you decrypt the content and throw it on your MythTV box in your house, or store it on your computer to watch later, nobody gives a damn. Technically, that's still illegal, but could probably argued under fair use since it never left your house. It's when somebody decrypts the content and sends a copy to 400,000 of their closest friends that lawyer's ears start to perk up.

Re:Copyright?

[Hal_Porter]

There is no exception for individuals under patent law, actually.

No, but as the only patent suits I've read about is one big company against another. I think it's because it's a waste of money starting a load of lawsuits against individuals. Especially if they are anonymous like Muslix64. Or maybe you only sue people if you know they have the assets to make it worthwhile.

But patents require disclosure, and on the whole, they'd prefer to maintain some obscurity, so they don't use patents quite so much in the encryption and decryption stages. Also, patents expire more quickly than copyrights.

If you read the Doom 9 thread, there's a AACS spec which is complete enough for Muslix64 to write a decoder, so AACS doesn't seem to rely on obscurity. That doesn't preven the AACS LA from getting a patent first, before the spec was published. Most of the specs I've read recently have a disclaimer at the start about how reading the spec doesn't give you rights to any patents the people that own the technology have, you need a license for that.

Re:Copyright?

[MobyDisk]

So if renamed the app to AACS_demo02 and distribute it along with my thesis paper on encryption, it's legit? Great!

Re:Copyright?

[harryk]

Thats an incredibly insightful post, and very relevant. I'm sure this will get modded redundant if at all, but I wanted to let you know that this is one of the best examples I've seen yet for portraying the conversation.

harryk

Re:Copyright?

[DarkJC]

Then they should be suing the person who makes 400,000 copies of the content for copyright infringement. They shouldn't be suing the creator of the tool used, nor should the tool be taken down. It can be used legally to watch content I've legally bought.

Re:Copyright?

[sam0737]

IANAL, but that's not quite the case. Even for a simple exe, it needs to be copied to the RAM before execution, yeah yeah, but no one has any problem with this kind of copying, why? Because it's explicitly allowed by the law.

I can't recall exactly, it says something like "If it's by technical definition that it has to make copied in order to make it useful, you are explicitly allowed to do that". I think that's similar with the HD DVD case, the buffering, decrypting are explicited allowed during playback, but not otherwise....

Re:Copyright?

[tricorn]

I didn't mean that there were separate versions, but that the "license" referred to in the standard blurbage is referring to how it was licensed to the distributor. Sure, it's meant to be read by the end user, but there IS an actual license. Read it as "we've only been licensed to distribute this DVD to people who are going to use it for purposes that don't require a sub-license, which we can't and won't give you". Of course, their way sounds scarier.

Re:Copyright?

[melikamp]

If RSA distributes a general-purpose decryption program using 3DES, then they'll be fine, even though it could be used against 3DES encrypted movies. If Doom9 does it, then they're not going to be fine, since they really only ever distribute anything for it to be used in conjunction with movies. That they might even be identical programs isn't relevant.

IIRC, you are a lawyer, so you are probably right in your assessment. And, I must confess, it simply blows my mind. In the words of Bart Simpson, "Who designed this house!?" If I understand it right, people can or cannot distribute code based on the intent of the distribution alone? Wow. Just wow.

Re:Copyright?

[LarsG]

It is illegal for the consumer to access the work, if there is an access control, if the consumer lacks authorization. The studios never give consumers authorization (and the implied authorization argument has, so far, fallen flat). Rather, they authorize devices, which can be used by people who themselves lack authorization. That is, the authorization is an attribute which flows through the player, rather than the disk. (Though it's still attached to the player -- the owner doesn't have authorization, save for with regard to that player; a possessor of the player has authorization with regard to that player, even if he isn't the owner, etc.)

That's at least the tortured reasoning created by the DMCA and held by the **AAs.

However, I don't believe that any court has taken a sufficiently deep look at this issue. That is, who holds the right to authorize access? The copyright holder? If so, how does that authorization flow from the copyright holder to the device? To take DVD as an example - it is probably safe to assume that the license that device manufacturers get from DVDCCA contains this, but what about the link from the thousands of copyright holders to DVDCCA? And what about all the non-major label music sold through iTMS? Have all the artists licensed the right to authorize access to Apple?

Re:Copyright?

[umghhh]

It makes no difference to me as I do not buy no shit from the shitheads. OC if such boycott is execercised by many they will delegalize it or prove that by act of boycott you violate their copyrights anyway.
Come to think of it then Marx was right - the law is the law of ruling classes. That is funny that it takes ultra captialists to pervert the law to such extent so as to prove it.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good, but it seems borderline illegal for them to give me something and then require that it only be used with other products they approve of. It's like car manufacturers putting special-shaped gas nozzles on, saying you can only fill up at licensed gas stations, and then suing you if you modify the nozzle to work with other stations.

Warranty law makes this scenario explicitly illegal, but only if the car manufacturer also owned the gas stations. In the case of DVDs, I think the law would only be applicable if the MPAA was the sole maker of DVD players. It might even have to be as specific as Sony only releaseing Sony films on proprietary Sony discs that only Sony players could play.

Re:Copyright?

[AK Marc]

Utterly and hilariously wrong.

It is consistent with the FBI warning wording at the begining of such media.

No such license ever, ever, ever exists.

Well, then you are claiming that I am buying something I have absolutely no right to use. It would seem to me that it would be impossible to sell such items. A sale is considered a type of contract. Contracts must have consideration. If I'm paying for something that isn't mine and I have no right to ever use, I'm giving up money and receive nothing. That should get Best Buy fined billions under the laws created agains con artists.

This goes to another point in which digital media is multiple things at the same time, all of them the version that screws the consumer most.

Re:Copyright?

[SEAL]

When you're talking about releasing source that may violate the DMCA, I'd argue that intent is slightly different from what the law describes as primary design. A judge is going to look at how that code is likely to be used. You can intend all you want for the code to be used for research but if it is easy for pirates to use, you're in trouble, because a judge will see that as its primary purpose. In several places in the DMCA you'll see the phrase:

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection

So the comment about RSA could be correct, for example, if they were releasing a general-purpose demonstration of a weakness in AES to security researchers. Their primary purpose would be protecting people from a vulnerability, esp since AES is a U.S. government-approved standard. Maybe the tool could be used to decrypt an HD-DVD with some modification and technical knowledge.

If I release a tool that handles AES in such a way that I can decrypt HD-DVDs in a drag & drop fashion, well, that's primarily designed to circumvent protection.

IANAL but 17 U.S.C. 1201 is fairly clear on this.

Re:Copyright?

[fwr]

Can someone explain to me how a legal entity, such as a corporation holding certain copyrights, can extend that right to a non-legal entity such as a piece of DVD hardware? I can understand them extending a right to a company that makes DVD hardware, but to say that the DVD player itself has a legal right to decrypt the copyrighted work, but the owner of the copy of the work does not, just boggles the mind. How can a piece of hardware retain a right? Doesn't that right transfer to the owner of the DVD player upon purchase, if such a transfer mechanism were even legal in and of itself? If a physical piece of hardware can retain a legal right, then what about it's other inalienable rights?

Re:Copyright?

[hackstraw]

What tool I use to decrypt this legally acquired file with my legally acquired key with should be no ones business but my own.

Correct, with the exception that the distribution of said content goes back to copyright law, which is pretty clear, which makes laws like the DMCA redundant and unnecessary.

All of these extra laws and paranoia on the content holder's part are a big loss for everybody and a no win for anybody. SCMS basically killed the DAT platform. I've had to "illegally" get around Macrovision so that I could view my DVD player that I bought on my TV that I bought with the DVDs that I bought. I'm running into HDCP issues today to use over $50,000 worth of AV equipment that my work bought.

Its nonsense. And I'm sick of having to deal with it.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like thought crimes to me...

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't think so. For example, a radio station needs a license to perform music on the air, but they can buy ordinary retail CDs from a record store if they want to. The blurb is really just there to intimidate people; it doesn't have to be there and it doesn't really refer to anything special. I don't know why you keep stretching, looking for some other justification for it.

Now it is true that there was a license to the manufacturer who made the DVDs. But that's just a contract; it wouldn't involve anything special included on the disc. And at that point, the DVDs are probably sold to a wholesale distributor that then sells them to retail outlets, so first sale would govern that, and no license is needed there either.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

It is consistent with the FBI warning wording at the begining of such media.

Which isn't actually the law, and is practically designed to intimidate and confuse people, not to accurately tell people what they can and cannot lawfully do. Ignore it. Don't ignore the law, but ignore the idiotic propaganda warnings.

Well, then you are claiming that I am buying something I have absolutely no right to use.

No I'm not. First, because you have many rights as to the DVD that have nothing to do with accessing the content within, e.g. hanging it from your rear view mirror. Second, it's not that you have a right to access the content based on your ownership of the copy, it's that you can only lawfully access the content if you use authorized means to do so. So while it might involve an extra step, you can still lawfully access the content; it's not as though you can never watch the movie on the disc.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

It would be more accurate to say that the copyright holder grants authorization to anyone to access the work on the DVD provided that that access is carried out only through the use of approved equipment. In effect, it is as if the right is given to the player, since it certainly isn't given to a person who owns or possesses the disc (since mere ownership or possession is not sufficient to get access, and it doesn't even matter if the disc is lawfully made or not).

It's a bit like a bearer bond or an endorsed check; no specific person has a right to them, rather, the right follows the instrument, wherever it goes. The analogy breaks down in that in the case of DVDs, if the right was attached to the disc, the player wouldn't matter, but you can see how a right can be passed through a token, rather than to parties in a more direct fashion.

Re:Copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

However, I don't believe that any court has taken a sufficiently deep look at this issue. That is, who holds the right to authorize access? The copyright holder?

Yes, that is what the statute says.

what about the link from the thousands of copyright holders to DVDCCA?

If they're using CSS in the first place, it's a good bet that part of their agreement -- possibly with the replicator factories as a go-between -- involves giving DVDCCA the power to sub-authorize player manufacturers.

(If you really want a chain of complicated and secretive contracts, look at the credit card industry)

And what about all the non-major label music sold through iTMS? Have all the artists licensed the right to authorize access to Apple?

Well, all the copyright holders, anyway. Why do you think that only certain music is on iTMS, but not other music? Because they can only get rights to so many things.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't be suing the creator of the tool used, nor should the tool be taken down.

They're doing so because under the DMCA, circumvention tools are illegal.

It can be used legally to watch content I've legally bought.

So can licensed software. You don't need to remove the decryption to watch the movie.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

You're the one who was talking about shitting in someones house.

I was responding to the poster's idea that because he didn't sign an agreement saying he wouldn't, that meant he could. You were making a completely different analogy, which happened to be wrong as well.

Do you even know what the DMCA is? Have you read it?

Yes, and yes. Why, were you trying to say something about the DMCA? It sure didn't sound like it. Oh, and by the way, AES is not broken.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

Actually, I own the disc, AND I own a copy of the contents, which I can use in any way not restricted by copyright. [and several restatements of the same]

The contents of the disc are a bunch of encrypted bits. Yes, you can do whatever you want with those encrypted bits, a point that I try to make as often as possible. Also, I've never heard of the MPAA going after anyone for making a copy of those bits. For instance, you don't need to decrypt them in order to make a "backup for archival purposes", which is permitted under the law.

I'll say that again, because nobody ever seems to read it: You do not need to decrypt the contents to make a legal archival copy.

Re:Copyright?

[Eccles]

Well.. (playing the devil's advocate here for a minute).. If you decrypt the content and throw it on your MythTV box in your house, or store it on your computer to watch later, nobody gives a damn.

Perhaps, but if you tried to sell a MythTV box that did that, the MPAA lawyers would be all over you like a sleazy date. The hardware for such a device with enough capacity to store 100 DVDs would probably cost < $400. Can you buy one?

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

...my DVD player that I bought...my TV that I bought...the DVDs that I bought...that my work bought.

Its nonsense. And I'm sick of having to deal with it.

You could stop buying it.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

You do own the content. You merely lack the copying rights to make a duplicate of it legitimately. Seriously, space/media-shifting and backup allowances clearly show that you own the content, not just the plastic disc or paper book.

Let's clarify the term content here. You're talking about the encrypted bits on the disc. I'm talking about the movie that is encrypted. To simply make a backup, you don't need a decryption tool at all.

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

Toshiba sell me an HD-DVD player, they sell me a tool to do the decryption with and a key, although a bit hidden.

If you've gotten keys out of a hardware player, you'd be one up on the folks over at Doom9. Maybe I'm not up to date, but I'm pretty sure nobody's managed to do so. (If anybody's got a link that says otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.) The volume keys retrieved to date (almost) all come from memory dumps of InterVideo WinDVD.

Re:Copyright?

[WNight]

Sure, I own the encrypted data on the disc. But that's just a mechanical translation of the movie, and the same copyright covers both. Thus, if I own one, I own the other.

Even if you don't like the word "own", the same thing applies with "have perpetual usage and resale rights".

Re:Copyright?

[dr.badass]

Sure, I own the encrypted data on the disc. But that's just a mechanical translation of the movie, and the same copyright covers both. Thus, if I own one, I own the other.

If you're claiming to hold the copyright on a movie just because you bought a copy of it on HD-DVD, you're out of your gourd. And it sure sounds like you're saying that.

Re:Copyright?

[WNight]

Nope. To the claim. Can't speak to the rest, but the voices *say* I'm fine.

I'm saying that copyright is all you don't have, but it's not part of ownership as the common person sees it.

If your name is McDonald, you probably feel you own your name (and you do) even if you don't own the exclusive rights to it, or even if someone else's exclusive rights mean you can't exercise yours in certain ways, like fast-food restaurants.

So, you own the hypothetical CD. In the sense that a sale always results in a contractually unencumbered product (if you buy it, no extra contracts apply and no post-sale restrictions are valid), you can also be said to own perpetual usage rights. Anything else wouldn't be a sale, and it is a sale.

There's no reason to think of your copy as limited. If you aren't the type to photocopy books, there's pretty much no way that you don't enjoy total usage of it, including marking it up, outright re-editing, and resale.

People often argue that the prevention of derivative works prevents edited copies, but it's trivial to see how edited copies are legal. If I buy a book and cross out the naughty words, it's still legal and I can give it to someone else that way. I can rip out pages, etc. Editing and destroying are hard to distinguish.

You can't take your book and legally bludgeon someone to death with it, but we don't say that this lack of bludgeon-rights means we don't own the book.

Re:Copyright?

[hackstraw]

You could stop buying it.

Good advice. Its the same I tell to people that complain about Windows or other Microsoft products.

Of course it's illegal

[idonthack]

Why is there any doubt as to the legality of this? The wording of the DMCA makes it very clear that open programs doing this kind of thing are illegal.

Re:Of course it's illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's not illegal in Canada, for instance.

Re:Of course it's illegal

[Bad D.N.A.]

I really have no idea who muslix64 is but perhaps he/she are not in the US and could care less about the DMCA? The post did say "they" received the take down notice, not he/she.

Re:Of course it's illegal

[Sancho]

I don't think they can have it both ways. If distributing the program is illegal, then distributing the keys must not be (after all, the key is not a program which can decrypt the copyrighted video). This should actually make things easier, since the keys are the hard part to find (any idiot can implement an algorithm that's an open specification).

Re:Of course it's illegal

[muonman]

Perhaps because the wording of the First Amendment makes it very clear that the DMCA is illegal.

Of course, YMMV.

Re:Of course it's illegal

[Kjella]

That reminds me of the old "if we create two files which XOR'd together becomes an application, each part is just random garble and not covered by copyright". Sounds good but the courts aren't buying it, sorry.

Re:Of course it's illegal

[Sancho]

Maybe. What exactly protects the key? Certainly not copyright or trademark. Trade secret? Those are fair game for reverse engineering.

A competent judge who was made to understand the difference between a decryption program, a key, and a decryption program with the key would have to rule that spreading the key itself does not violate the DMCA, or that the decryption program is just an implementation of an algorithm, and not an circumvention tool unless combined with the key.

Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[RalphBNumbers]

Going by the 'logic' in the article, *all* AES implementations (i.e. software included on most of the world's computers) are forbidden by the DMCA.
After all, someone somewhere might use any of them, along with a key acquired separately, to decrypt some media for which they don't own the copyright.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[arkanes]

In fact, by the logic in the article, and implementation of any decryption system which does not involve a central copyright authority is a DMCA violation. Unless the program can extract keys from players automatically (which I don't believe it can) they don't have a leg to stand on and they're strongarming. If it can scan memory for things that look like keys automatically (so it becomes a "one stop shop" for copying) then things are hazier.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[hcmtnbiker]

Actually the DMCA reads like this:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
So there you have it. This is perfectly legal because AACS doesnt "effectively controls access."
------
Infact that whole part of the law contradicts itself, if you have a technological measure that bipasses DRM, wouldnt that DRM not effectively control access to the work?

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its almost as if the key controls the access and the software just uses the key to decrypt it!

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even all c compilers

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[subreality]

AES is just encryption. AACS also specifies a lot of key handling procedure.

So no, it's not just AES, but IMO that doesn't make their claim much more credible.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[tricorn]

The phrase "effectively controls access" does NOT mean it necessarily does a good job. Read it as "has the effect of controlling access". Makes me wonder if I published a book with colored dots all over the pages, that required that you use a red filter to read it, if that would make owning red filter gel illegal.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

Basically yes. The first version of the decryptor at least (I haven't checked recently) was just a relatively short/simple reference AES decryptor in Java, with some block handling stuff to account for the way AACS structures things. There's nothing special needed, the magic is all in the decryption keys.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Going by the 'logic' in the article, *all* AES implementations (i.e. software included on most of the world's computers) are forbidden by the DMCA.
After all, someone somewhere might use any of them, along with a key acquired separately, to decrypt some media for which they don't own the copyright.

According to the DMCA, the prohibition only applies to that which is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure..."; this probably includes AACS, but not even MPAA would try to pretend that it includes generic AES implementations.

Single Page Thread

[TubeSteak]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=122770&pp= 40
Coral Link

&pp=40 works on most (all?) vBulletin boards.
(The default is 20 posts per page)

How far will they go?

[Nexusofjoseph56]

Is this all that they are going to do? Reply back with lawyers to any application utilizing the work-around for AACS, or revoke the player keys as was threatened?

Personally, I think the former, as the latter will have inevitable consequences on sales.

Turtles all the way down

[$uperjay]

My web browser allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

My operating system allowed me to operate this web browser which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

My computer allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

My university's computer store sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

My government runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

My fellow citizens elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?

Some MPAA members are citizens who elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?

Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?

etc., etc.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[StikyPad]

Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption... ...in the hole at the bottom of the sea.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[SEMW]

...
that killed the butcher
that slew the ox,
that drank the water
that quenched the fire,
that burned the stick
that beat the dog,
that bit the cat
that ate the kid,
that my father bought for two zuzim
Chad gadya, chad gadya!

Ah, memories...

Re:Turtles all the way down

[FunkeyMonk]

If you downloaded the software, you are in violation of the DMCA

Re:Turtles all the way down

[BentPenguin]

Your logic and $250k in legal fees will probably prevail.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[ProfessionalCookie]

Yes^8

...ok just kidding.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[ettlz]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Re:Turtles all the way down

[jimicus]

My computer allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption.

Not to worry. With the advent of Trusted Computing, your next computer won't.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[Hackeron]

Whoever will settle the highest settlement without going to court is the one at fault - seriously though, I know at least 1 university that takes blame for student bittorrent use but then issues a strict warning to the student responsible, I guess in this case it is them that violated the DMCA.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[mgiuca]

Could God could create a DRM so secure even he himself couldn't crack it?

Re:Turtles all the way down

[LarsG]

Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?

I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.

Re:Turtles all the way down

[Trailer Trash]

Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?

The only diety worshiped at the MPAA is "money".

Absolutely correct...

[TomRC]

"If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that."

Yep - and the users who are entering keys for encrypted content should do exactly that. The software is no more a violation of DMCA than is the PC it runs on. Oh wait - I guess that's where we're headed, isn't it?

Re:Absolutely correct...

[CKW]

"If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that."

This is the most retarded part of everything. If they had decided to use winzip with a password instead of inventing a new complicated system, would the distribution of winzip suddenly become illegal? Of course not, it's somebody else's software. But exactly how would a court rule on that?

Under exactly what legal rules would a court be able to say that "no you can't file a DMCA tool takedown/lawsuit against winzip corporation"?

Whatever protects winzip should protect us. Or does it all come down to "intent" again. Winzip wasn't built with the "intention" of circumventing protection while this other thing was?

IANAL...

[SighKoPath]

but why not send off one of these? ahref=http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi? QuestionID=132rel=url2html-24118http://www.chillin geffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132 >

What's the point?

[civics123]

I really don't understand the RIAA's logic. Even if they do somehow succeed in preventing any sort of internet sharing of media, college students will just join together to form cd swapping groups and it will be just the same as it is now. Some colleges, such as mine, have slow internet outside of the intranet anyway, and so the way it works now is someone buys a cd, then rips it and puts it up for everyone to download. Speeds are fast locally so everyone gets the songs. There really is no way around this. Give up!

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

*MPAA

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope other people recognize what you have said. With a CD sharing group, the cost of CD quality copies of music and DVD quality copies of videos are easily acquired for prices that range from a few dollars to less than a dollar each.

Additionally, its not done for profit(no money to track), can't be detected in your ISP's log files, does not involve P2P or any other kind of service, and it falls way below the radar of law enforcement. In effect it is unstoppable. This is how we used to get 'illegal' copies of stuff before the P2P networks. Most people still use this method in one way or another. The *AA can't do anything about it because it would cost them too much money and violate too many personal rights to search everyone's house/cd case/car etc.

I believe that we should simply go back to this model as it would stop the rhetoric from the *AA about how their business is being hurt by illegal file sharing.

Well, either way I don't think it matters. Soon, there will be dark nets across the globe allowing people to share files with nobody able to track what was shared by whom. Tor is good, but there will be others too, better networks, if they don't already exist.

Re:What's the point?

[davecarlotub]

You are replying to the wrong story, the story you meant to reply to can be found here.
The MPAA and RIAA are two different beasts... Learn it, know it, live it.

Re:What's the point?

[shark72]

"I really don't understand the RIAA's logic. Even if they do somehow succeed in preventing any sort of internet sharing of media, college students will just join together to form cd swapping groups and it will be just the same as it is now. Some colleges, such as mine, have slow internet outside of the intranet anyway, and so the way it works now is someone buys a cd, then rips it and puts it up for everyone to download. Speeds are fast locally so everyone gets the songs. There really is no way around this. Give up!"

The key here is the difference between "deter" and "prevent."

Retail stores can't prevent 100% of shoplifting; but they're not going to "give up." They will continue to take steps to deter it.

Auto manufacturers can't prevent 100% of auto theft, but they're not going to give up. They will continue to build theft deterrent mechanisms into their products.

I hope this helps you understand the logic a little better.

At any rate, if circumstance has driven you to copying your music for a small group of friends, vs. putting it in your share directory for your gazillion closest friends, it sounds like a win-win for both you and the RIAA.

Oops...

[SighKoPath]

Not sure how that link got messed up. Here's a proper one: http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?Questi onID=132 (DMCA Counter-notice)

Just?

[dosius]

I believe a law written to keep people from doing what they want with what they set out money for is unjust, and my belief is that unjust law should be "flagrantly ignored". DMCA or no DMCA, this program should be ensured its place on the Internet. Not because it's a piracy tool, but because it's a tool promoting fair use - something the MAFIAA seems to have forgotten the existence of.

-uso.

Re:Just?

[Paradigm_Complex]

They haven't forgotten about fair use at all. They just plain don't like it.

Re:Just?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I believe a law written to keep people from doing what they want with what they set out money for is unjust

And I say that if you plan to spend money on something to use in a way that's against the law, you probably should probably not go through with it.

Publish the code PGP style

[wiredlogic]

One easy runaround is to publish the code as a printed book like Zimmermann did for PGP. This takes away any "digital"-ness and reverts to normal, proper copyright law.

Re:Publish the code PGP style

[cpt kangarooski]

Not really. Books are digital, they're just not online or (generally) machine-readable. Each letter is discrete. There's no continuum, no letters that are about one-quarter A and three-quarters B.

Re:Publish the code PGP style

[Lifthrasir]

You obviously haven't seen my handwriting . . .

Re:Publish the code PGP style

[recursiv]

So write it in cursive.

Re:Publish the code PGP style

[chefmonkey]

That's a pretty good idea. The source code it self is ludicrously short (about 9 printed pages), so it would amount to something more like a pamphlet than a book -- but it proves the point nicely.

I wonder whether it could be reduced even further in size through a concerted effort like the Export-a-crypto perl script that ended up printed on t-shirts. It would be sweet if we could get Cafe Press a DMCA takedown notice on crypto grounds...

Re:Publish the code PGP style

[bakes]

By the same logic, could you not publish the source code for download on a website? Source code doesn't actually do anything until you compile it...

It's still a 'technological measure' though, so I don't know that printing in a book would help.

Bogus take-down request

[cfulmer]

Under section 1201(b) of the DMCA, offering to the public a "technology . . . that (A) is primarily designed . . . for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Section 512(c) is the part that specifies the notice-and-takedown provisions, but it appears to me that it only refers to infringing material.

Note the difference: a circumvention device is not infringing material; it can be used to infringe, but unless it contains copyrighted code, it does not infringe by itself.

Now, naming something 'BackupHDDVD' is probably enough to show its primary design. So, just like DeCSS, it's a circumvention measure. A takedown notice is just the wrong method to bring it down.

Re:Bogus take-down request

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I think it's just a screwup with regard to what the people on the business end of it are calling it, really. It can't be a 512 takedown notice, since the program is not infringing even though it pretty certainly is a circumvention device. But it can be a regular old cease and desist notice. The main difference is that for 512 takedown notices, ISPs do what they're told in order to protect themselves from being sued, in accordance with the law that protects them so long as they obey the notices. For C&Ds, the ISP isn't protected anyway, but will probably have an easier time of it if they do what they're told. I doubt the lawyers that sent it actually called it a takedown notice in the context of 512.

Re:Bogus take-down request

[melikamp]

I thought that the program itself is just a generic implementation of AACS decryption. It is no more of a circumvention device than gzip.

Re:Bogus take-down request

[wile_e_wonka]

I just wanted to make a note here on the wording of the DMCA:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Is a "technological measure" effective under the statute if it was cracked this quickly? I am wondering what exactly is the meaning behind the word "effective" in that sentence. If it to have a meaning at all (and every word in a statute is assumed to not be superfluous, if possible), then it seems that it would mean the "technological measures" would have to do their job.

On the other hand--the "technological measure" that was used would be effective against an attempted crack by most people. Perhaps that is sufficient to make a measure "effective."

Re:Bogus take-down request

[cfulmer]

The Home Recording Rights Coalition has a blurb on it at http://www.hrrc.org/index.php?id=133&subid=2. The language comes from the WIPO treaty that the DMCA implemented.

In any case, the DMCA itself says what it means:

a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Re:Copyright? caveat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a violation of the DMCA

in USA and applicable only to US residents

the other 5.7 billion people can enjoy their HD rips

What the law says

[Anonymous Coward]

section 512 of the DMCA says the following about takedown notices:

(3) Elements of notification.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

• (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
• (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
• (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
• (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
• (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
• (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Unless the MPAA is claiming copyright of BackupHDDVD itself, the takedown notice should not apply.

Perhaps I missed it, but the Anti-circumvention provisions that others are talking about apply to section 12 of the DMCA. I don't see anything regarding a takedown notice in section 12.

Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA.

[liftphreaker]

Yeah I know we're drooling over the resolution and quality of HD, but as a matter of principle, why note vote with your wallet and don't buy a single HD/BR movie? Or is it OK for us to be treated like criminals, in the hope that we accept such treatment?

I know for sure that I won't be buying any HD/BR media, ever, till this DRM mess is sorted out.

Re:Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA.

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally will never buy a HD or Blu-ray system. I don't even buy music or movies, period (and I don't pirate them either). Modern 'culture' isn't worth the time or money to do either.

Re:Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ... how am I gonna feed my Sony? I need HD. I'm just a poor starving hippie with nice HDTV. It's OK if I boost it right???

  Nearly 1/2 terrabyte now .....

Re:Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA.

[Mr. McGibby]

Yeah. That'll work.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

[Lethyos]

Who has proliferated, most of all?

What the law said does not matter to **AA

[khchung]

I have to wonder why so many post here still talks about how the DMCA do not apply, how the utility is legal, etc.

Isn't it obvious by now that what DMCA and other laws really said never mattered to **AA? Lawsuits, DMCA notices, etc, are simply hammers to beat down any opposition so the **AA members can keep reaping profits with their outdated business models.

As long as the hammers are useful, it will be used. Saying that the hammer is not made to hit people is not going to help. As long as DMCA notices can take down stuff they do not like, it will be used and abused. Saying that DMCA is not applicable here is not going to help.

I don't know what should be done about these **AA tactics. However, I do know that telling a street thug that punching below the belt is unethical will be futile.

You Misunderstand

[mfh]

There is absolutely no need for anyone like this to do interviews unless they have some sort of self-congratulatory outlook on greyhat coding. Any number of onlookers, including slashdotters could tell exactly what was meant by certain actions or features in any project. The only people doing interviews are looking for attention and that's not the point, IMHO.

QTFairuse6

[AusIV]

If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than[sic] per the DMCA it needs a license to do that.

Quite some time ago, slashdot ran this article about a program called QTFairuse6, which uses iTunes to decrypt Fairplay music. If that argument against BackupHDDVD is valid, QTFairuse6 should be fine because iTunes is doing the decryption, and iTunes is allowed to do that. I'm sure the RIAA would disagree, and I know inconsistent arguments work better in law than my line of work (CS), but that was my immediate reaction when I read the summary.

Re:QTFairuse6

[LordVader717]

Well technically, the wording of the DMCA makes even that illegal. QTFair can be used to let iTunes decrypt a song, and reord the decrypted stream. Fairplay is a system to protect content. So anything that can be used to open it is technically illegal.

But I guess in the same way, Quiktime is illegal, because it cab be used to help circumvent the protection scheme.

I know, it's a crappy law.

Re:QTFairuse6

[Anonymous Coward]

Well technically, the wording of the DMCA makes even that illegal. QTFair can be used to let iTunes decrypt a song, and reord the decrypted stream. Fairplay is a system to protect content. So anything that can be used to open it is technically illegal.

Wrong. RTFDCMA.

That something merely can be used for circumvention is not enough to make it illegal. It must either be designed or produced primarily for that purpose, or marketed specifically for that purpose.

Re:Copyright? caveat

[tepples]

in USA and applicable only to US residents Slashdot is in the USA.

the other 5.7 billion people can enjoy their HD rips Which country do you suggest that 0.3 billion offended people move to?

I should...

[TheUni]

Create an encryption scheme where the key is "1". Then, if anyone circumvents it I can claim that 1 is my protected work that only I can use.

Just print out the studio's store's web pages

[tepples]

Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed "We claim that the software infringes our exclusive rights in all motion pictures sold as HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc videos in our studio's online store. A list of such motion pictures is attached as Exhibit A." Was that so hard?

Re:Just print out the studio's store's web pages

[Skippy_kangaroo]

"We claim that the software infringes our exclusive rights in all motion pictures sold as HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc videos in our studio's online store. A list of such motion pictures is attached as Exhibit A." "We have examined the software you identified and have found that it is not, in fact, a motion picture. As such, it is not in violation of the copyright you hold in such motion pictures."

(It may infringe other aspects of the law, but it in no way resembles a motion picture so can hardly violate copyright.)

MPAA just doesn't get it.

[Adeptus_Luminati]

"Doom9 forums has received its first official DMCA Takedown Notice."

Yo, MPAA, this is the 21st century. We now have torrents, anonymous blogging (for dissiminating raw code that can be compiled or pasting of encryption keys), open wireless connections (for endless reposting of your SuperTopSecret encryption keys wherever on the net), anonymous proxies (same purpose as previous)and P2P software for end-user to end-user dissimination of files. Not to mention that the rest of the world could care less about your messed up United States laws.

Your take down notice is just asking for the keys to go underground and being mass spread via above channels for the elite/martyrness of it all.

How is it unauthorised

[Ant P.]

...When the copyright owner has given the user both the encrypted data and the key to decrypt it with? Surely if they don't want people decrypting their secret content they wouldn't do something as stupid as that, would they?

I can't unlock the door without the key!

[Dachannien]

Okay, so this software requires a decryption key in order to work. By default, it doesn't include a key, and you have to enter it yourself. So, as shipped, it does not circumvent an encryption system, because it can't decrypt a ham sandwich if it doesn't have the key. Now, if you are licensed to use the decryption, then you will have a key that you can type in, and then this software will work. If you have a key that you're not licensed to use, then that's on you, not the author of the software.

What this means is that the content cabal is asserting that they are the only ones with the right to encrypt using AACS by virtue of the fact that they are the only ones who can license others to decrypt using AACS. If I decide I want to encrypt something with AACS, I'm going to need a player that decrypts it. I don't need the content cabal's sacred keys - I just need the keys that I generate to decrypt my own work. This software provides the mechanism for applying my keys to my content.

In other words, if there's an "intellectual property" issue here, it's not copyright, and therefore, not DMCA-related. There may be applicable patents being violated here, though, which is how the content cabal keeps a strangehold on implementations of AACS (and CSS) to ensure that they fulfill their draconian content control functions like region codes and UOP.

Re:I can't unlock the door without the key!

[mibus]

What this means is that the content cabal is asserting that they are the only ones with the right to encrypt using AACS by virtue of the fact that they are the only ones who can license others to decrypt using AACS. If I decide I want to encrypt something with AACS, I'm going to need a player that decrypts it. I don't need the content cabal's sacred keys - I just need the keys that I generate to decrypt my own work. This software provides the mechanism for applying my keys to my content.

So what we need is somebody to encrypt a bunch of work using AACS, and start issuing DMCA notices to HD-DVD / Blu-ray manufacturers...

Re:I can't unlock the door without the key!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how AACS would be viewed by an anti-trust kind of president like say Teddy Roosevelt? I don't think HD-DVD or Bluray players can play anything that doesn't have AACS protection. One can argue that AACS is used to create an artificial scarcity by shutting out competition.
In other words, if I lose the keys to my car, do I lose the ownership of that car? Silly example but it does illustrate that ownership is something besides being able to "unlock" something. It's a contract between people that says for this money I want to be able to view this and it doesn't matter how.
Also if something like this would get to the Supreme Court, there would inevitably be the discussion of what EXACTLY you are being sold(like right now in ATT vs MS). Electrons maybe? Electromagnetic modulation? In that case just viewing something would be a violation!! Of course it's much easier to scare people with lawyer thugs than to fight them fairly. But like I said, it will inevitably end up in front of people that have some common sense.

Re:I can't unlock the door without the key!

[andy_t_roo]

how hard (and expensive) would it be to sue a hardware manufacturer over this and lose, to set a precedent? Andrew (in Australia, not a Lawyer)

Moving?

[M0b1u5]

Try New Zealand:

- Relatively low murder rate
- Democracy in more than name only
- Mostly WASP population
- English Speaking
- Technologically forward looking
- Good infrastructure
- No thought police, DMCA or Dumbya.

Re:Moving?

[twistedcubic]

Try New Zealand:

- Relatively low murder rate
- Democracy in more than name only
- Mostly WASP population
- English Speaking - Technologically forward looking
- Good infrastructure
- No thought police, DMCA or Dumbya.


Is this one of those puzzles where you try to figure out the item in the list which doesn't belong?

Re:Moving?

[limecat4eva]

"- Mostly WASP population"

Yeah, I hate diversity too! Seriously, how is that a selling point?

Re:Moving?

[miro f]

Try New Zealand:

- Relatively low murder rate
- Democracy in more than name only
- Mostly WASP population
- English Speaking
- Technologically forward looking
- Good infrastructure
- No thought police, DMCA or Dumbya.

you must really hate New Zealanders if you want to remove all these things from the country.

Re:Moving?

[Petrushka]

- ... but probably getting a DMCA-lookalike law later this year unless a LOT of people protest loudly

Re:Moving?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good infrastructure? Their broadband options are worse than those in the US!

Re:Moving?

[Chandon Seldon]

What? So you can join http://adultsheepfinder.com/?

Re:Moving?

[McFadden]

"- Mostly WASP population"

Yeah, I hate diversity too! Seriously, how is that a selling point?

You're making the mistake of assuming everyone is as unprejudiced as your good self. There are plenty of people out there who would consider it a big plus. If anything, in recent times I'd say that number could even be growing.

Re:Moving?

[EvilIdler]

Doesn't New Zealand also have some unusually strict laws against certain types of horror movies?

Re:Moving?

[veganboyjosh]

by EvilIdler (21087) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 28, @09:30PM (#18190720) (http://purehatred.org/) Doesn't New Zealand also have some unusually strict laws against certain types of horror movies?

there's a joke in here somewhere.

Re:Moving?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can New Zealand defend itself though?

I ask this in all seriousness. Has anyone invaded New Zealand before? What if someone decided they wanted NZ (eg. China)? I would hate to be there when they are occupied. They are a small island fairly far away from any other land mass; prime invasion turf if you ask me.

Do they have modern military hardware? There are four F-22 Raptors flying over my house as I type this.

Re:Moving?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be even more afraid of the US as a non-resident.

Seriously think about it. If you did something that pissed off enough powerful people in the US you would still face the same end no matter where you are (*).

(*) Except maybe some of the large unfriendlys like Russia or China but you would be giving up a lot to live there.

Re:Moving?

[jonwil]

Don't forget how the New Zealand government listened to the US government and shut down that guy who was making the D.I.Y. Unmanned Air Vehicle (which, IIRC, was not violating any NZ law).

Could **NOT** care less.

[M0b1u5]

I remain boggled by the universal use of "could care less" by Americans when it means the exact opposite of what you intend. In NZ we make a bit more sense, by saying "I couldn't care less" - but we say it with a funny accent, to make you laugh.

Re:Could **NOT** care less.

[Bad D.N.A.]

Your of course correct. It's just sloppy-common-talk. It's taken me 6 years to remove the "word" irregardless from my vocabulary. I still hear it nearly every day (in one setting or another).

Re:Could **NOT** care less.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an American just as boggled as you

Re:Could **NOT** care less.

[FriendOfBagu]

I remain boggled by the universal use of "could care less" by Americans when it means the exact opposite of what you intend.

Tell me about it!

Re:Could **NOT** care less.

[Legion303]

We Americans who know the language say "couldn't care less" as well.

Re:I should... - the cartoon version

[Adeptus_Luminati]

I have a fox-trot cartoon clip in my cubicle

In it, the kid is sitting at his computer rubbing his hands and licking his lips. His mother asks him what he is is doing...

Mother: What are you doing?
Kid: I'm creating digital music. The first song I'll call "0" and the second I'll call "1".
Kid: Anybody who then publishes CDs with replicas of my content will be sued for Trillions of dollars due to Billions of instances of copyright infringements! MPAA & RIAA will be my first victims.
Mother: Remind me not to allow you to go to law school.
Kid: Ahhhh! To live in America! (dollar signs in his eyes).

Adeptus

Technically, it doesnt do anything until...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Technically, it doesnt do anything until... someone executes the program. Until then, its just a bunch of code that doesnt do a dam thing.

Why dont they go after the users of the program and prove that they are using it to break DMCA? They're the ones that execute the program, which puts it into action.

Re:Technically, it doesnt do anything until...

[Lithdren]

Thats kinda like saying its not illegal to own a WMD untill after you've used it.

While I dont like the DMCA, this argument is rather weak.

Why

[toejam316]

Why is it that this is illegal. Its about as illegal as me reading the source of a web page to learn HTML then writing my own page. Its just stupid. If they didn't want to let anyone do this then why release the god damn information publicly? They're just begging for it. Combine that with the fact that the odds of them getting rid of this app is about the same and DivX killing XviD, they're stuffed. Why not just give up like everyone says. Stupid MAFIAA. Lock em' in a big padded room with boxes of their products, so that they think their stuff is protected, and let them rot.

Thats ok

[Quzak]

Ive made backups of the software in question. Knowledge will not be supressed.

Re:Thats ok

[mr_matticus]

I keep seeing this "knowledge will not be surpressed" theme, and I can't help but laugh at how arbitrary it is. What if it were your financial records being backed up by someone?

I'm not saying what the MPAA is doing is right, but if information wants to be free, then privacy wants to be zero. But I'd wager that most of the "free information" people will complain about the lamentable lack of privacy tomorrow afternoon.

Re:Thats ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the people free information; take away the government's and the corporate machine's information.

Re:Thats ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm neither the government nor a corporation. I found your credit card number. May I use it? Information is free. There is nothing more to privacy than the PROTECTION of information. You can't have privacy and totally free information at the same time.

Misleading Post

[adamchou]

I can't find the takedown notice, but no where in the forums or anything i've been reading does it say that they are requiring the utility to be removed because it can possibly circumvent hd dvd encryption.

if anything, they're requiring the tool be removed because it is an implementation of the technology and its not licensed by AACS, which it clearly states is required on the third page of this document http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS _Spec_Common_0.91.pdf

Re:Misleading Post

[grimJester]

That clause is probably invalid in most of the world. Making software or hardware compatible with something else is perfectly legal unless the idea is covered by a patent. You can't demand that someone pay for a license to implement a standard, regardless of whether it's openly documented or you have to reverse engineer it. Compare, for example, to OpenOffice's support for Word docs.

Not the cannons!

[ProfessionalCookie]

Lacky "But sir, I've we haven't upgrade the cannons to be lawyer proof- I've only just got her up and running this week. Surely my beautiful cannon will be injured!"

MPAA *Singlehandedly throws Lacky overboard*

Re:Not the cannons!

[Anonymous Coward]

lame dude. seriously lame.

Re:Not the cannons!

[ProfessionalCookie]

You're new here aren't you.

Hmm....

[aztec rain god]

I smell a new slashdot poll: Who wins in the end: 1)Ninjas 2)Pirates 3)Robots 4)Monkeys 5)Lawyers

Re:Hmm....

[zcat_NZ]

1)Ninjas
2)Pirates
3)Robots
4)Monkeys
5)Lawyers

6) CowboyNeal

Re:Hmm....

[KDR_11k]

6) Chuck Norris

Re:Hmm....

[Stormwatch]

Jack Bauer.

Re:Hmm....

[Abreu]

(7) Mary Sue

Stupid rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or when they say "...without the authority of the copyright owner..."

or does that sound like you even need authorisation to even watch a DVD now?

Obvious answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

CowboyNeal!

Technically it IS illegal.

[Jartan]

The problem is they are correct that this IS illegal. The DMCA is a law and it prohibits this activity. Now of course the DMCA itself is illegal as well which means they'll just use it as a club against someone but drop the case before it can be proved unconstitutional.

Re:Technically it IS illegal.

[dank zappingly]

I know that the attitude on slashdot is that this is clearly unconstitutional, but it's not that simple. The constitution was written a long time ago before the invention of the internet and the HD-DVD. In other words, although the framers of the constitution were very smart people, they did not foresee this type of thing. It has to be "read into" the constitution. Many judges won't do that. They will think that such a law should be made by our elected representatives, which it was. Sure, they're all crooked, but we did elect them. It is going to be a very hard argument to make that somewhere in the constitution it says we have a constitutional right to have a computer program to break down copy protection. Sure, some people will use this thing to play HD-DVD's on their linux-based computer systems, but the vast majority of it will use it to infringe on copyrights. There are a ton of arguments on this site saying things saying that the program itself can't do anything illegal, or it can't do anthing without the codes. It's all seems great until you stand back and compare the amount of people who want to run HD Discs on their linux system to the amount of people who just want to download free videos. The law is not just theoretical, you have look at things practically. Is the MPAA a bunch of scumbags? Sure, but what about the people who think that they have a right to enjoy something that someone risked millions of dollars to make for free? I would never steal from a CD store, but I think nothing of downloading an album off the internet before it even comes out. When I watch MTV, or see which bands are selling tons of records, it seems to me that the only bands left are those whose fans aren't smart enough to download music off the internet. Hollywood is dumb enough as it is. We need to find a compromise.

Re:Technically it IS illegal.

[The Master Control P]

Sure, some people will use this thing to play HD-DVD's on their linux-based computer systems, but the vast majority of it will use it to infringe on copyrights.

Sure, some people will use freedom of speech to speak out against injustices, but the vast majority (like NAMBLA, the KKK, and Fred Phelps) will use it to spread their sick ideas.
Sure, some people's uses of their firearms will be to defend themselves against attack, but the vast majority of uses will be shootings and drivebys in poor neighborhoods.
Sure, some people will take the 5th to avoid hurting those they love, but the vast majority who refuse to testify are corrupt corporate pigs who will use it to try and avoid paying for their crimes.

My point is, the ability to decrypt information is a tool. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to not testify... these are all tools, and they can't be banned because people abuse them. They can't be banned even if most uses of them are wrong or offensive, because tools aren't good or bad, they're just tools.

[Obligatory FUCK THE MAFIAA and link to everyone's favorite Fuck the MPAA song]

Re:Technically it IS illegal.

[WNight]

You're right that a compromise is needed, but that doesn't imply that the DMCA and DRM are in any way needed.

How about we see what percentage of our economy is media based, tax everyone that much and give the money to copyright holders based on how many people have their works? Then just public-domain everything.

Or, how about regular copyright lasts for 20 years, then goes to mandatory licensing at 100-x% of past revenues. x% then increases with time until the work is fully free at 40 years.

Or, how about regular copyright, as written now, and government prosecution of serious pirating (rings in Asia, etc) *or* DRM, but not both?

Or, we could have 5-year copyrights and the government would strictly enforce no-pirating laws (shutting down, if not charging everyone).

Or, we could let the industry die and be replaced by one with a viable economic model. (Unreasonable? No, the industries tied to holding content would die - the creators however do produce a product which is in-demand. We'd likely jump to a product-placement model, and who knows where from there.)

Personally, if something requires constitution-violation laws or enforcement, it's not something we want at *any* cost.

WW2 was fought for liberty, not a Britney Spears album.

Monopoly

[fathed]

You know what it's called when a single organization controls something? Monopoly!!!!

Re:Monopoly

[/dev/trash]

Show me where there is one Movie studio or One record company.

Ignore the law all you want

[idonthack]

But the police won't.

Re:Ignore the law all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the law, but are you able to defend it? Obviously you are not from around here.

MPAA response

[Ken_g6]

My web browser allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

Absolutely! You must use Internet Explorer 7.

My operating system allowed me to operate this web browser which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

Of course! You must install Windows Vista.

My computer allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

Definitely! You must buy a computer with a Trusted Computing module.

My university's computer store sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

Certainly! The store must sell only computers with a Trusted Computing module, running Windows Vista.

My government runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is it in violation of the DMCA?

Probably. The government must only use computers with a Trusted Computing module, running Windows Vista.

My fellow citizens elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?

Some of them are. They've been sued, haven't they?

Some MPAA members are citizens who elected the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Are they in violation of the DMCA?

There may be a few, but they're being rooted out as we speak.

Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?

Without question! In His omniscience, He "imports...any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;".

Next, on Slashdot, the MPAA sues God for decrypting all their copyrighted works! ...or is that Boston Legal?

Picked a bad example

[wmansir]

DVD Decrypter is easy to find, but Lightning UK was forced to stop development and take down the original site because of legal threats. Fortunately he continued to develop the excellent burning portion of the program with ImgBurn. As a result of the legal threats DVD Decrypter itself is now outdated as it cannot handle the some of the latest copy protections without assistance. RipIt4Me is a much better option for the latest DVD releases.

Ensuring its place

[epee1221]

How much of the program can I host without being in violation of anything?

Re:Ensuring its place

[Sobrique]

Well, given that the entirety of the program code is made up of bytes, and these are commonly used all over the place, then it's pretty hard to stop you.

However, in a general sense, from what we've seen so far, if the associated thugs 'think you are' then that's probably enough for them to come and stamp on your choc-ice.

So far, I think I've seen several sources for DeCSS code, from a prime number that happens to unpack in gzip, to a sequence of hexidecimal DNS records.

This is fundamentally why the 'DMCA' style laws are asnine and futile - you're being sold a box. And the key to the box. And then told that you're not allowed to open the box, that you bought, except how and when the person who sold it to you says.

I have no problems with copyright law, but trying to treat digital media as physical items is just doomed to failure.

really there are 4 .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Trade secret law - and really what's going on here is that the MPAA (or whoever - probably some front group) will only license you their secrets if you promise to use them a particular way and not release them - it's a great idea, you even potentially have someone to sue if the secret gets out .... what you don't have is a comeback if someone invents the same thing or figures out how it works on their own .... which is what's going on here

Re:really there are 4 .....

[KDR_11k]

Trade secrets don't apply since the document describing AACS is released to the public. Hard to claim something as secret if you've told everyone about it already.

Re:really there are 4 .....

[BobPaul]

The only thing you get from the MPAA if you pay is access to the keys. Anyone can implement the decryption algorithm based on info from the AACS website. The KEYS are the trade secrets, and those aren't provided. Holes in PowerDVD and WinDVD provide those ;)

Re:really there are 4 .....

[beckerist]

Exactly. There was no information stolen to produce the software. Alternatively, there was never an NDA signed between the software creator and those who license AACS. Trade Secret Laws do not apply.
A metaphor for this would be if someone created software that converted DRM-laden WMA's to DRM-free MP3's. This is certainly possible [to write software with this functionality] WITHOUT needing to license the specifications from Microsoft. Whether it was part of the agreement while downloading the WMA's is irrelevant. The simple fact you have the software does not mean you have used it (according to the law), let alone used it for "illegal purposes" (whatever they may be.)

I have a question though, to anyone willing to answer it. By purchasing, say, a Blu-ray disk of your favorite movie, does that NOT entitle you to do "whatever you want" to the disk? I understand copyright law, and I know there are definitely limitations to distribution, but what if everything I do is within the confines of my own PC or multimedia center? I never signed a contract to buy the object, I'm only (by law) under the obligation not to SHARE the media (without a proper license to do so). Who cares if I use a third party application to decrypt it? I never told anyone else I wouldn't, and no one can possibly prevent me from doing so!

To bad

[kahrytan]

  Too Little Too late, MPAA. You can't kill software that is already in the wild. And I don't understand why the MPAA or RIAA bother with DRM Encryption technology. It doesn't stop people from breaking it. It only serves to frustrate and alienate honest people.

mod parent up

[Xiph]

mod parent up

wha wha what?

[DragonTHC]

the software is nothing more than the grease between a key and its tumblers.

the DMCA takedown notice doesn't apply.

it won't hold up in court.

Open source isnt enough to fight this

[Anonymous Coward]

We need an Anonymous Source model :)

Too many ego heads in Open Source who want their name in neon lights, fine let them also be a target of lawsuits then :)

Not illegal

[ajs318]

The important phrase is "without the authority of the copyright holder". If you own the disc, you are entitled by sole virtue of ownership to use it for its rightful purpose -- which (assuming it is just an ordinary, home-viewing sell-through disc) is to watch the movie stored on it, in private. The copyright holder cannot prevent you from doing that, without rendering the disc unfit for its rightful purpose (and therefore owing you a refund of the purchase price you paid).

Go ahead and decrypt. Either you do have the authority of the copyright holder, or the disc is unfit for purpose and you are owed a full refund. In either case, you will find your purchase receipt very helpful.

Re:Not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on, kid. Try and put yourself against the entertainment majors. You will LOSE, big time.

Your childish fantasies are one thing, the harsh reality is another.

Re:Not illegal

[mrcubehead]

But notwithstanding that it's not illegal for the content owner to decrypt the content, Muslix64's decryption program seems likely to be used primarily to circumvent copy protection, which under the DMCA is illegal, right? Not that I don't think the DMCA is evil, but why does everyone play word games and simply ignore the intention of software or individuals?

Re:Not illegal

[ajs318]

It depends on your intention. As long as the copy you were going to make is strictly in accordance with your Statutory Right of Fair Dealing / Fair Use (which may vary between jurisdictions; check applicable local statutes and relevant case law), then you have the right to do so because you own the disc.

Re:Not illegal

[Kjella]

So is it unfit for purpose if I try to run it on my 286? In my CD drive? That it doesn't play out of the box on your OS of choice? (Note that includes Windows) Is every Xbox360 and Wii game unfit for purpose because they don't function on my PC, which also has a DVD drive, or for that matter a DVD player? I don't think so. I don't think it'll make any difference whether it's a technical or legal issue blocking your use, from a legal perspective. It is fit for use together with a compatible (read: CSS-licensed) playback device. Any other ruling would surprise me immensly.

Re:Not illegal

[Tweekster]

So since there is DRM that means I cant copy the disc, therefore the store cant claim that I did if i want to return it...

That should be a law, if you use DRM you must accept returns.

Hopefully this will hit the mainstream news...

[trawg]

... and everyone else in the world who doesn't read the Internet will know that there's now a way to back up their HD/BluRay discs.

MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility - Spec

[dbcom]

Anyone notice that the 2 of the spec files at the AACS site are unavailable?

Come on MPAA...

[RPDP]

Come on MPAA, you can develop a much more stronger content protection system. Spend more and charge the valuable customers for that... Still if people crack each of your efforts, there is one last way, that even the best programmer/cracker cant crack it - Give only empty DVDs/HDDVDs with colorful stickering on top of it - definitely no one can crack that. You can live the rest of your life happily with a copy protection system which no one can hack. Takedown notices reflect their incompetency/inefficiency... Poor MPAA.

Re:Come on MPAA...

[Sobrique]

It's simpler than that. As long as this content is intended to be readable, it will be read.

As long as I can point a camera at my TV, or a microphone next to my speakers, copy protection is just not going to work.

OK, so you have to play around a bit to get a high quality copy, (like syncing with the TV refresh, or making sure that 'noise' is minimised) but fundamentally, you're reproducing what the eye and ear are doing - picking up the 'transmission' from your TV or speakers, but storing it electronically rather than biologically.

This is why DRM, DMCA etc. cannot succeed. The media companies are already obselete, they just don't know it yet. You cannot treat 'information' that can be trivially replicated as a physical object, and expect that to work.

Sadly though, they are.

Re:Come on MPAA...

[Jon Luckey]

As long as I can point a camera at my TV, or a microphone next to my speakers, copy protection is just not going to work

Don't think they're not working on that too.

Basically they want to have your cameras and microphones detect when they are sensing restricted content, then shut themselves off.

So when you are trying to record baby's first steps, and the camera shuts down because Starwars is playing on the living room TV, oh well, too bad.

So what did I buy?

[Anonymous Coward]

And can I tell them that cash is only licensed and not bought with their product?

DMCA all the way

[remmelt]

The real question is: can they take away the right you have to do with your property what you want? You buy a BR (or DVD, for that matter). You want to watch it on Linux. What now? Can they say: you cannot do that? Your analogy with breaking in is a straw man. You have been given the right to watch the movie on your equipment. It doesn't specify what equipment anywhere on the disk, the receipt or in the store. Copyright laws say that I cannot distribute the content without permission. I'm not doing that. I can't display it publicly, not doing that either. Can't make illegal copies, not trying to do that. I just want to watch the movie.

Saying that I can only peruse the film on a "licensed device" is racketeering (I'm looking at you, iTunes!)

The only protection they have is their flimsy "encryption". Flimsy because it gets broken by a couple of guys in a couple of weeks (thanks doom9 people!) Because the RIAA/MPAA/etc aren't THAT stupid, they pushed for the DMCA with its non-circumventing rule. You cannot legally break encryption, even if you are not breaking the copyright it protects. Let me say that one more time. You can't break the encryption on your legally bought disks, even when you just want to watch the movie. Said in yet another way: every person in the USA watching a DVD on their Linux system is a criminal under the DMCA.

> To do so you have to be privy to secret information (i.e. keys). To obtain these you must be an AACS LA licensee, or obtain them illicitly.
It's only illicit because of the DMCA. There is nothing wrong with me opening the hood of my car, replacing a couple of parts and driving off if that suits my fancy. The car is mine, the manufacturer has nothing to say about it any more (bad car analogy: cars aren't usually copyrighted. But you get my point)

> While you could contort this into meaning they've given you permission to decrypt it, they've not given you the right to obtain the keys you would need to do so.
I don't understand how you can say that. They have obviously given me explicit permission to watch the damn movie. The movie is encrypted. Do I need to spell it out? How does it NOT follow that I can decrypt the movie? It's so obvious that it's painful. Again, the only protection they have from me doing what I'm supposed to do with the movie is the DMCA.

What the **AA successfully does is turn the copyright system into a "we can say what you can do with our stuff because of copyright". Copyright law was never intended that way. Copyright gives the holder a government granted, limited monopoly on distribution. The starting point is that we can do with our stuff what we want. Anything. Copyright was invented to give artists incentive to make more of their art by giving them a short monopoly over the distribution, making them the only selling point of the art, so they can make money. It's like the difference between opt-in and opt-out. It used to be that we could do anything, except for a few things (ie distributing content), for a short time (some years), because of the copyright. The **AA makes it sound like we can do nothing because the content is theirs, except for the few things they allow. This is wrong because it goes against the grain of the law.

Publish the source code in hardcopy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

using an OCR font. Let the *AA take on Constitutional issues.

anydvd product?

[TheGratefulNet]

anyone have any comments about the 'west indies' company 'slysoft' that makes a tool called anyDVD?

they recently created a HD backup version, supposedly NOT based on this exploit.

I guess the laws in their country let them get away with freedoms the west can only dream on?

Re:anydvd product?

[Cederic]

with freedoms the west can only dream on

Antigua is 'west'. Plus they have a presence in the EU, so hardly third-world..

(although no, not sure why they're not bothered by DMCA, etc)

What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between a legal DVD player and an illegal DVD player?

The legal one has been blessed by the MPAA.

That's the reality under the DMCA.

More accurately: he shared

[Overzeetop]

He has to run from the law becuase he shared his work. It is perfectly legal to create a decryption system to decrypt discs you own. You just can't share it with anybody. That's the catch-22 in the fair use provisions of the DMCA - you're allowed to excecise your fair use rights and decrypt works you own (i.e. have a non-exclusive licence to), but the law forbids anyone from distributing such tools, meaning you have to develop it yourself.

1201(a)(2) as well as contributory infringement

[tepples]

It may infringe other aspects of the law, but it in no way resembles a motion picture so can hardly violate copyright.

As I read 17 USC 512(3)(A)(i), notice and takedown provisions that refer to "an exclusive right" do not refer solely to exclusive rights defined by section 106 but to any exclusive right in a copyrighted work. Furthermore, 512(3)(A)(i) mentions "[i]dentification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity" (my emphasis), which appears to cover contributory or vicarious infringement allegations.

So the movie studio's response would look like this: "We are aware that the infringing work itself is not a copy of our motion pictures. However, the infringing work is the blueprint for a circumvention device, which directly infringes our exclusive right to control access to our works subject to 17 USC 1201(a)(2) and contributorily infringes our exclusive right to reproduce and distribute our works subject to 17 USC 106."

Re:1201(a)(2) as well as contributory infringement

[Skippy_kangaroo]

To which the response might be:

"Please provide evidence of infringing activity involving this software for which your copyrighted works are the subject."

Just because the software could do something doesn't mean that it has been so used. Your logic would equally apply to VCRs, tape recorders and, indeed, pretty much all computers. They would still have to demonstrate actual infringing activity - hypotheticals don't cut it.

Do Something About it: Pass the FAIR Use Act

[rzanerutledge]

While we're all spending time here grumbling about it, how about spending 2 minutes contacting your representative -- Support Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's FAIR Use Act, which is a good first step at removing some of the entertainment industry's most draconian anti-innovation weapons and chipping away at the DMCA's broad restrictions on fair use. Take action now and tell your representative to help restore balance in copyright now: http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=271

Re:Do Something About it: Pass the FAIR Use Act

[KudyardRipling]

Until this is patched by Congress (groan), perhaps, among other things to hack, it may be of use to apply our skills to the courtroom. Voir dire is the process by which jurors are screened and empaneled for trial. I would structure the questions (for the defense counsel) along these lines: Do you have (especially retirement) investments? Do you realize that a significant part of your investments may lie in the sector of the economy that creates intellectual property? Empaneling these people would create a cloud of 'conflict of interests.' This is going to mean that the usual crowd that is empaneled (middle-aged college-educated white males) can't serve or the verdict will be overturned on appeal. A person's stand on issues is controlled by his/her portfolio. James Madison (of USA Constitutional fame) called this political reality and everyone smiles. Karl Marx says pretty much the same thing and these same people are compelled (if not by their wallets then by the Black Crown Victorias) to discredit the same.

Why your PC is illegal

[J.R. Random]

It's not the fact that the decryption key is known and distributed. It's the fact that muslix64's program is capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission. That's a violation of the DMCA.

In that case, any general purpose PC is in violation of the DMCA. muslix64's program can't decrypt a copyrighted work unless a player (or title) key is provided. So apparently you are saying it's a violation of the DMCA to have a device that could do the decryption provided that the right key is provided. In that case let device = "general purpose PC", and let key = "player key + HDDVDBackup code". Thus a PC is a device that could do the decryption with the right key, so it illegal by your reasoning.

Funny

[G00F]

My first instint after reading /. summary was to go download it.
My 2nd was to make sure others can get it from me via gnutella's network.
And my 3rd will be to see how it works.

What we need...

[FunkyELF]

What we need now is an implementation that works on Linux.
Who cares if you need to run the Windows Software DVD player to get the keys.
We need it to run on Linux as an excuse for the software.

Wasn't that the case for DeCSS? Because someone wanted to watch a DVD in Linux?

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use Backup HDDVD (which is in Java) along with this key: 0xAA856A1BA814AB99FFDEBA6AEFBE1C04

Still need to buy a player to use it

[heroine]

Since you still need to buy a player to read the keys, it's hardly circumventing anything.

Re:Copyright? caveat

[jZnat]

Actually, it's closer to 6.3 billion people nowadays. The world's population is approaching 6.6 billion people.

assfucking

[Anonymous Coward]

its not really legal to assfuck customers on a daily basis either.. but the MPAA and RIAA does it all the time.. so when I as a consumer get to.. assfuck back a bit.. I do it wholeheartedly and those who disagree can just bugger off..

Got it

[nyghtraven]

I havent really taken advantage of it since HD discs use so much drive space right now, but I just downloaded the utility so if the MPAA take get them to take the utility down someone let me know and I will post it on my own site for all to love. The MPAA and RIAA dont scare me and never will.