Slashdot Mirror
VideoLAN Announces libaacs
supersloshy writes "VideoLAN, makers of the well-known media player VLC, have just announced a new project called libaacs. The libaacs library's intention is to provide a free software library to implement the AACS specification, the copy-protection found on things such as Blu-ray discs. Note that this isn't meant to actually be a decoding library. It includes no AACS keys and is solely developed for research purposes."
3... 2... 1...
Sorry guys. I submitted this article before I realized this. libaacs has been around for a while and was a project started at Doom9. It was just adopted by VideoLAN. My bad!
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
"Note that this isn't meant to actually be a decoding library. It includes no AACS keys and is solely developed for research purposes."
Riiiiight
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Develop a free and open framework to get into various repositories and then just have a drop-in key for later.. ;)
I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded. From the summary: "It includes no AACS keys". From the article: "this project doesn't offer any key or certificate that could be used to decode encrypted copyrighted material." So without the player keys, it's not a complete circumvention device but instead an encryption research project, exempt under 17 USC 1201(g). And even if it did have keys, the interoperability exemption in 1201(f) combined with the fair use exemption that the Register of Copyrights recently enacted for three years might save it.
It includes no AACS keys and is solely developed for research purposes.
So was lysergic acid diethylamide. Looks like a win for us if things go according to history!
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Wanted to be first in alphabetical listings, eh?
To decode your own Bluray disks.
In the free world, anyway, even if not America.
While I appreciate Videolan's achievements, VLC's programmers should improve the interface in one key aspect that has boggled my mind for a while:
I would like to see video and audio controls on the active default interface. At the moment, if I am watching video and want to adjust contrast, saturation, brightness etc, I have to click an icon on the interface, then choose video controls which I first have to activate!
Too many steps for a simple thing in my opinion. With the present implementation, If one chooses video or audio controls, these controls should be found active because why did I choose them if I did not want to do anything with them in the first place? There is always room for improvement.
VideoLAN is in France.
For one thing, France has its own counterpart to the DMCA. For another, I am speculating on the right of United States residents, including the editors of Slashdot, to use VideoLAN products.
You seem to be under the impression that having the law on your side means that you won't be harassed by lawyers.
This is the sort of thing that EFF jumps all over.
I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded.
The cease-and-desist will claim some intellectual property violation
One does not violate "intellectual property". One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?
Rrrrriiiiiiiiiigggghhhhttt.
( voopah vooopah vooopah )
From the cited ruling which discusses application of the EU ban on circumventing DRM:
Which roughly translates to:
So libaacs is legally 100% safe so long as it stays in those boundaries. (That EU law is unjust and should be contested.)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
"legally play a Blueray" (same question for DVD)
What exactly does that mean?
A Blueray/DVD player that one may purchase at Best Buy also decrypts the disc. Is that circumvention also?
What exactly is the difference between a commercial player and an open source player (which also must decrypt the disc)?
The main difference that I see is that one is using the official specification, and one is using an unofficial specification.
But using an unofficial specification is not illegal.
Perhaps, If some are claiming that an open source player plays "BlueRay" or "DVD" discs, then that may be a Trademark violation, as it has not been certified.
Is that what you are implying? a Trademark violation?
It's weird how VLC plays every codec under the sun, but not SHN.
http://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/632
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
sonicwall classified videolan.org as a 'pay to surf site' and promptly blocked it...
I don't know about elsewhere, but they've been trying to pass copyright expansion legislation here in Canada for nearly a decade without any success.
Damn VLC, why you so good to me?
Traditionally that has also been the case for VLC which was based in France where software patents don't apply and decss appears semi legit. I don't think they have much to worry about (more than now) by inserting an AACS implementation. Where they might get some heat is if they shipped actual keys. Unlike decss where there is a class break, each Blu Ray disk has its own key. It's conceivable that could tip fair use into copyright infringement.
I expect sooner or later someone will produce an up to date list of keys that can be plugged in. Blu Ray's best defence against key discovery is BD+ but the platform seems strangely laid back about it. They have the potential if they so wished to ensure every batch of disks used a different BD+ scheme and different keys making it extremely difficult for Slysoft or anybody else to keep up with them all.
Bolded for emphasis. I put the French original into Google's translator and got
A very important difference. One says security and research are allowed regardless of whether it inconveniences the RIAA/MPAA, the other (I assume the real one) that these things can be done only for security and research and then only if the RIAA/MPAA don't suffer.
You seem to have forgotten about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the concept of a "circumvention device".
And you seem to have forgotten what was in tepples' comment while composing yours. Do "encryption research project, exempt under 17 USC 1201(g)" and "interoperability exemption in 1201(f)" sound like "hav[ing] forgotten about the DMCA"?
Since Sam Bulte's political career was destroyed due to her support for Bill C-60, only MPs in very safe ridings have been willing to take on the issue, and no government has risked letting a bill actually make its way to a vote.
The bills keep getting proposed to appease the Americans, but no government is going to have the balls to try to get them passed in the current minority climate.
How can this be a research project since AACS already exists for a couple of years? This is nothing new what I would expect for a research project.