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.
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
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.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
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 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.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
...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.
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?
No, see, you're thinking about laws rationally. Stop it.
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
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
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.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
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;
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!