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.
Lacky: "Sir! Pirates in the nets, breakin' yur AACS!"
MPAA: "We must respond with out most powerful weapon: Ready the Lawyer Cannons."
Demented But Determined.
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?
Lacky: "But sir! Wouldn't firing our lawyers out of cannons seriously injure them?"
MPAA: "I SAID READY THE LAWYER CANNONS GODDAMMIT!"
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.
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.
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.
No, see, you're thinking about laws rationally. Stop it.
Lacky: "But, I am le tired..." MPAA: "Well, take a nap and then FIRE ZE LAWYERS!"
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.
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
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.
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.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
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.