Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
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.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
<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.
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.
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).
"- Mostly WASP population"
Yeah, I hate diversity too! Seriously, how is that a selling point?
comma
Perhaps because the wording of the First Amendment makes it very clear that the DMCA is illegal.
Of course, YMMV.
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
That's because there isn't a law making it illegal. There is a law making circumvention software illegal. (17 USC 1201 (a)(2))
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...)
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
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
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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...
Acid House saves Souls
Anyone notice that the 2 of the spec files at the AACS site are unavailable?
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.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)