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

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: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?

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?

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notices, etc, are simply hammers to beat down any opposition so the **AA members can keep reaping profits with their outdated business models.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.

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: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