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."

Comments

Cease and Desist in

[Shikaku]

3... 2... 1...

Re:Cease and Desist in

[Kjella]

If they had the power to take down BluRay decrypters, they'd be going after the commercial tools that actually work. This is roughly the umpteenth open source library announced and what they all have in common is that they don't work on any of the newer movies with MKBv11 or higher and/or anything more than the simplest forms of BD+ protection. It's unlikely open source will catch up until the MPAA gives up the DRM fight, you may not see it but there's still a constant war of updates to make the decrypters work on new discs.

One small error

[supersloshy]

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!

Sounds legit

[anarkhos]

"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

Without the keys, it's 1201(g)

[tepples]

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.

Re:Without the keys, it's 1201(g)

[CarpetShark]

I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded.

Fuck you, pipsqueak? ;)

Re:Without the keys, it's 1201(g)

[RulerOf]

The cease-and-desist will claim some intellectual property violation and it will be up to you to give in to the intimidation or resist by contacting your host to get your site back online.

Back when the first AACS decoder was released on Doom9, it was called BackupHDDVD and made use of a key obtained from PowerDVD (IIRC) for Windows.

The programmer, however, implemented AACS decryption by following the specification as posted directly on the AACS Licensing Authority's website.

Food for thought ;)

Awesome

[cosm]

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!

Re:Nice Name

[jdunn14]

Sadly they'd still be beaten by my local ambulance chaser who is in the phonebook as "A Accident Attorney"....

Which "intellectual property"?

[tepples]

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?

Re:Which "intellectual property"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> One does not violate "intellectual property" [gnu.org]. One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?

A very good question. Unfortunately, only a team of highly trained and well-paid lawyers would be qualified to determine the answer.

Did you know it's illegal in almost every state to "practice law" without a license? (source: http://www.dcba.org/brief/mayissue/2002/art40502.htm)

Re:Which "intellectual property"?

[PopeRatzo]

This is the sort of thing that EFF jumps all over.

And the EFF has some bad-ass lawyers. I know one EFF lawyer, who spoke to a local group here in Chicago back in the Spring, who's been offered jobs by two industry groups. I guess they figured they'd rather be paying him a salary than facing him in court. He was an interesting guy. He'd made some dough doing mergers or something before joining the EFF and didn't seem to be phased by the dangling carrot. He was also an extremely persuasive speaker. I could understand why someone like the RIAA wouldn't want to meet him in front of a judge.

Re:Which "intellectual property"?

[Fnkmaster]

You seem to have forgotten about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the concept of a "circumvention device". That was what they chased after everybody who distributed DeCSS for. Of course, it was totally futile then as it is now, but there is a legal stick to shake at people for this sort of thing, at least in the US.

Re:Which "intellectual property"?

[The Wild Norseman]

One does not violate "intellectual property" [gnu.org]. One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?

One migt think that pleasuring oneself to computer porn was a violation of intellectual property.

One does not pleasure oneself to "computer porn". One pleasures oneself to hot teens, sexy MILF's, or the serious freaky-deaky. Which of the three would apply?

Re:DADVSI

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

For another, I am speculating on the right of United States residents, including the editors of Slashdot, to use VideoLAN products.

Tangential riff: Anyone else notice CNN using videolan recently? It looked to me like they used it all the time for showing video of the oil spewing out of the well. They frequently had multiple videos running simultaneously, each in its own window and often there would be at least one 'dead' window with the trademark videolan traffic cone in it.

Translation of research exception in the law

[ciaran_o_riordan]

From the cited ruling which discusses application of the EU ban on circumventing DRM:

Ces dispositions ne s'appliquent pas aux actes qui ne portent pas préjudice aux titulaires de droits et qui sont réalisés à des fins de sécurité informatique ou à des fins de recherche scientifique en cryptographie

Which roughly translates to:

These provisions do not apply to acts which do not interfere with rights-holders or to acts carried out for computer security purposes or for scientific research or cryptographic purposes.

So libaacs is legally 100% safe so long as it stays in those boundaries. (That EU law is unjust and should be contested.)

Re:Translation of research exception in the law

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Small correction, the last part of the translation should be:

or for the purpose of scientific research in cryptography.

(I misread an "en" as an "et".)

"legally play a Bluray"

[GodWasAnAlien]

"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?

Re:"legally play a Bluray"

[TheGratefulNet]

no, you miss the point.

players are LICENSED. money.

freeware players skip this. that annoys those who, uhh, like money.

get it?

its JUST that simple.

(then again, you can't GET a license just by asking for it. you have to bend over and kiss corporate ass and promise never to allow users to do what they wish with the media they bought)

back in the early days of linux/dvd, authors DID try to buy 'proper' licenses. they were refused. at that point, we all turned 'rogue' in the industries' eyes.

well, so be it. don't want our 'player fees'? then you get NOTHING.

but we still will be able to play our media. you have done nothing but stopped revenue to your own self, you silly mpaa morons.

Re:It's perfectly legal

[Kjella]

Or Europe, after the EUCD. And it won't be most other places either, after ACTA. But over time you realize the law isn't a perfect democratic tool but often run by special interest groups, and how little the law means if sufficiently many disagree with it.

Re:They should improve the interface

[Anonymous Coward]

So why are you telling us instead of Videolan? Nobody here wants to hear this crap. Go tell someone who cares (Videolan).