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."
1. Horse
2. Gate
3. ???
4. Profit!
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.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
They're firing back at the total and utter destruction of AACS by using... lawyers.
Yeah. That'll stop piracy.
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.
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.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
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)
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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?
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
"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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Who has proliferated, most of all?
Why bother.
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
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.
Oliver.
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
...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?
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 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
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
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).
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?
"- 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...
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.
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...)
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.
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.
But the police won't.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Next, on Slashdot, the MPAA sues God for decrypting all their copyrighted works!
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
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.
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.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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?
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.
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.
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.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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
Just use Backup HDDVD (which is in Java) along with this key: 0xAA856A1BA814AB99FFDEBA6AEFBE1C04