Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Software 343

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

well.. (4, Funny)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189684)

1. Horse
2. Gate
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:well.. (2)

Grinin (1050028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190034)

wasn't it:

"Phase 1: Steal under-pants"
"Phase 3: Profit"

"But wait, whats phase 2?"

"Phase 1: Steal underpants"
"Phase 3: Profit!"

Re:well.. (1)

AoT (107216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190152)

You must be new here.

Re:well.. (0, Offtopic)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190208)

1. Steal underpants.
2. Sell underpants.
3. Profit.

why bother (4, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189692)

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.

Re:why bother (5, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189740)

Legality aside, they must know they will never eliminate this utility. DVD Decrypter is still easy enough to find.
It's a shame that they dropped the case against Decss [wikipedia.org] . Hopefully they won't this time and they'll lose fair and square.

Re:why bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189808)

Damn it [wikipedia.org] .

(Sorry, wasn't my fault. I blame the beer)

Re:why bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189824)


Here's an eMule link [ed2k] with source included. It's tiny.

Re:why bother (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190340)

And here's [ed2k] an emule link. Don't think they'll be taking down these copies any time soon.

So let me get this straight... (4, Funny)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189696)

They're firing back at the total and utter destruction of AACS by using... lawyers.

Yeah. That'll stop piracy.

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Funny)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189724)

Lacky: "Sir! Pirates in the nets, breakin' yur AACS!"
MPAA: "We must respond with out most powerful weapon: Ready the Lawyer Cannons."

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Funny)

The Real Toad King (981874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189838)

Lacky: "But sir! Wouldn't firing our lawyers out of cannons seriously injure them?"
MPAA: "I SAID READY THE LAWYER CANNONS GODDAMMIT!"

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190212)

Yet they do not know that the ninja has the pirate's back this time. How could they, since ninja don't exist.

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Funny)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190550)

Lacky: "But, I am le tired..." MPAA: "Well, take a nap and then FIRE ZE LAWYERS!"

Re:So let me get this straight... (2, Funny)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189982)

MPAA: "We must respond with out most powerful weapon: Ready the Lawyer Cannons."

Methinks ye meant canons as in:

(Eccl.) A law, or rule of doctrine or discipline, enacted by a council and confirmed by the pope or the sovereign; a decision, regulation, code, or constitution made by ecclesiastical authority.

Thou shalt not circumvent this sacred AACS, nor be curious about it, nor shall thee seek to understand the inners of its secret workings lest thee be driven to infernal damnation. It be the ruling of this inquisition on pain of death that thee recant all allegiance to curiosity.

So what? (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189698)

So the download servers move offshore, muslix et al move to other countries with looser copyright laws, and everything is hunkydory. Besides the inconvenience of moving away, why does this matter besides that it makes it a little illegal to download?

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

idonthack (883680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189776)

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?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189908)

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?

Technically, he wrote a program that enables one to violate the rights of content creators. If the program required one to license AACS legally, it would 1) do exactly the same thing, and 2) be legal.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

burnin1965 (535071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189980)

Technically, he wrote a program that enables one to violate the rights of content creators.

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

Re:So what? (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190222)

Of course it's wrong. It makes a total mockery of our legal system which is supposed to serve 'the people' after all. Perhaps people in the US stands for the same thing that is stands for in the 'People's Republic of China?'

Re:So what? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190418)

Perhaps people in the US stands for the same thing that is stands for in the 'People's Republic of China?'

No, because China seems to have no problem with people copying DVDs.

Re:So what? (1)

b96miata (620163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190544)

Holy shit someone on slashdot didn't mix up loose/lose for once!

Law (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189702)

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! ;-)

Re:Law (3, Informative)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189828)

I'm pretty sure muslix64 (or whatever his alias is) HAS remained anonymous. But they can file take-down notices against anyone hosting the thing.

Re:Law (2, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189840)


But they can file take-down notices against anyone hosting the thing.

They can file take-down notices against anyone in the US hosting the thing.

Re:Law (2, Insightful)

failure-man (870605) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190074)

Jurisdiction has never seemed to have much influence on where the take-down notices go . . . .
 
They can enforce take-down notices against anyone in the US. Fixed.

Re:Law (3, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189872)

Nah, he'll have some stupid line of code that identifies him. Or they'll reveal something that connects it to him.

By anonymous, I mean without connection or identity, not pretending to be someone else. They get subversives every time by their need to maintain their self identity in some form, be it though personal expression or some other random link that forensics easily trails back like a string right to the perps (which is what you are if you're doing anything creative these days with computers).

Re:Law (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189938)

Ah, I see what you mean. But if he's playing it smart, I think he can maintain anonymity even while giving written interviews and such. Correct use of encryption and anonymizing proxies goes a long way, unless maybe you're up against the NSA or something really hardcore.

You Misunderstand (2, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190080)

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.

Re:Law (3, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190436)

write it anonymously and just release it into the wild.

I absolutely agree that if our society had really degraded to the point that it was no longer safe to share information it would be possible for things like this to be posted with complete anonymity. If the world had truly become a horrible dystopian nightmare, that might even be absolutely necessary.

I like to think that we're not there yet, and that it's still safe for people to share what they know with full credit for the work they have done to obtain that knowledge. If the world has really progressed to the point where sharing simple knowledge is no longer safe, then we have a worse problem than simply being locked out of the content of some video disks.

Copyright? (2, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189710)

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.

Re:Copyright? (4, Informative)

idonthack (883680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189734)

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.

Re:Copyright? (4, Insightful)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189848)

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.

Re:Copyright? (1)

dr.badass (25287) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190058)

I signed nothing at the time of purchase promising to watch it only with players they approve of.

I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor. That doesn't mean you have a right to do it. I don't understand why so many people think that their rights are defined only by what they agree to on paper.

By all logic, they HAVE given me permission to decrypt it.

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. To simply watch the movie on a licensed device you don't need either. 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.

Re:Copyright? (3, Insightful)

AoT (107216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190198)

I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor.

Yeah, but if I buy a bottle of coke I don't see any reason I shouldn't piss in it.

And what's more, if you sell me a sheet of paper with a code on it and then get pissed when I break it, you're going to have to start prosecuting all us folks who do the crypto-quote in the newspapers. That's illegal, too.

Re:Copyright? (5, Funny)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190460)

No, see, you're thinking about laws rationally. Stop it.

Re:Copyright? (1)

Crunchie Frog (791929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190398)

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.

Reading some bytes from memory is not an illegal act. Maybe you should go read the Doom9 boards and see how this was all done rather than assuming some terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff was happening.

Re:Copyright? (4, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190182)

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.

Re:Copyright? caveat (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189886)

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

Re:Copyright? caveat (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190126)

in USA and applicable only to US residents
Slashdot is in the USA.

the other 5.7 billion people can enjoy their HD rips
Which country do you suggest that 0.3 billion offended people move to?

Moving? (0, Flamebait)

M0b1u5 (569472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190246)

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.

Re:Moving? (4, Funny)

twistedcubic (577194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190362)


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?

Re:Moving? (2, Interesting)

limecat4eva (1055464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190380)

"- Mostly WASP population"

Yeah, I hate diversity too! Seriously, how is that a selling point?

Re:Moving? (1)

miro f (944325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190410)

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.


you must really hate New Zealanders if you want to remove all these things from the country.

Re:Moving? (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190434)

- ... but probably getting a DMCA-lookalike law [parliament.nz] later this year unless a LOT of people protest loudly

Re:Moving? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18190514)

Good infrastructure? Their broadband options are worse than those in the US!

Re:Copyright? (2, Interesting)

xantho (14741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190124)

Sure it decrypts the content, but isn't it for the purpose of interoperability? We already know that an HD-DVD + Vista + Windows Media Player + LCD TV connected via DVI is a losing proposition, but decrypting the video first makes everything interoperable.

<5 minutes go by>

OK, I read this article [hellerehrman.com] which discusses the reverse engineering part of the DMCA, and it seems like it might not apply because the software does not otherwise check to make sure that the user is authorized to do the thing in the first place, i.e., the user could be trying to decrypt an already copied HD-DVD that has been burned onto an HD-DVDR (do those exist for us plebeians yet?).

According to a source in the article, the courts have been screwing up rulings by "improperly conflating infringement with circumvention", which is what a lot of people I know have been saying for quite a while. Just because some assholes will use it to pirate movies doesn't mean that a whole crapload of people who just want to watch HD-DVD movies from their computer to a nice HD TV won't see substantial benefit from using the software as well, and that should be upheld.

Imagine if the ruling came down that the internet allowed piracy and ought to be banned. That's obviously a bit of another can of worms, but the idea stands. Just because someone can use something to infringe doesn't mean that the thing out to be disposed of and its use prohibited, as there are reasonable uses for it too.

Re:Copyright? (2, Insightful)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190426)

>It's the fact that muslix64's program is capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission. That's a violation of the DMCA.

Are you sure? My car is capable of going 100 mph and my car isn't illegal.

Re:Copyright? (1, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190478)

That's because there isn't a law making it illegal. There is a law [cornell.edu] making circumvention software illegal. (17 USC 1201 (a)(2))

Re:Copyright? (2, Insightful)

UncleFluffy (164860) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190540)

It's the fact that muslix64's program is capable of decrypting a copyrighted work without permission.

So is this. [gnu.org] And this. [staples.com]

Of course it's illegal (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189716)

Why is there any doubt as to the legality of this? The wording of the DMCA makes it very clear that open programs doing this kind of thing are illegal.

Re:Of course it's illegal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189752)

Well, it's not illegal in Canada, for instance.

Re:Of course it's illegal (1)

Bad D.N.A. (753582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189788)

I really have no idea who muslix64 is but perhaps he/she are not in the US and could care less about the DMCA? The post did say "they" received the take down notice, not he/she.

Could **NOT** care less. (1)

M0b1u5 (569472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190266)

I remain boggled by the universal use of "could care less" by Americans when it means the exact opposite of what you intend. In NZ we make a bit more sense, by saying "I couldn't care less" - but we say it with a funny accent, to make you laugh.

Re:Of course it's illegal (2, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190358)

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).

Re:Of course it's illegal (3, Interesting)

muonman (162064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190422)

Perhaps because the wording of the First Amendment makes it very clear that the DMCA is illegal.

Of course, YMMV.

Isn't AACS encryption just AES? (4, Insightful)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189732)

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.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES? (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189806)

In fact, by the logic in the article, and implementation of any decryption system which does not involve a central copyright authority is a DMCA violation. Unless the program can extract keys from players automatically (which I don't believe it can) they don't have a leg to stand on and they're strongarming. If it can scan memory for things that look like keys automatically (so it becomes a "one stop shop" for copying) then things are hazier.

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES? (3, Funny)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190010)

Actually the DMCA reads like this:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

So there you have it. This is perfectly legal because AACS doesnt "effectively controls access."
------
Infact that whole part of the law contradicts itself, if you have a technological measure that bipasses DRM, wouldnt that DRM not effectively control access to the work?

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18190150)

Its almost as if the key controls the access and the software just uses the key to decrypt it!

Re:Isn't AACS encryption just AES? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18190404)

Or even all c compilers

How far will they go? (1)

Nexusofjoseph56 (1064790) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189762)

Is this all that they are going to do?
Reply back with lawyers to any application utilizing the work-around for AACS, or revoke the player keys as was threatened?

Personally, I think the former, as the latter will have inevitable consequences on sales.

Turtles all the way down (5, Interesting)

$uperjay (263648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189766)

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.

Re:Turtles all the way down (4, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189888)

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... ...in the hole at the bottom of the sea.

Re:Turtles all the way down (1)

SEMW (967629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190002)

...
that killed the butcher
that slew the ox,
that drank the water
that quenched the fire,
that burned the stick
that beat the dog,
that bit the cat
that ate the kid,
that my father bought for two zuzim
Chad gadya, chad gadya!

Ah, memories...

Re:Turtles all the way down (1)

FunkeyMonk (1034108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190348)

If you downloaded the software, you are in violation of the DMCA

Re:Turtles all the way down (1)

BentPenguin (252522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190522)

Your logic and $250k in legal fees will probably prevail.

Absolutely correct... (5, Insightful)

TomRC (231027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189778)

"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?

IANAL... (1)

SighKoPath (956085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189800)

but why not send off one of these? ahref=http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi? QuestionID=132rel=url2html-24118 [slashdot.org] http://www.chillin geffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132 >

What's the point? (1)

civics123 (808314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189812)

I really don't understand the RIAA's logic. Even if they do somehow succeed in preventing any sort of internet sharing of media, college students will just join together to form cd swapping groups and it will be just the same as it is now. Some colleges, such as mine, have slow internet outside of the intranet anyway, and so the way it works now is someone buys a cd, then rips it and puts it up for everyone to download. Speeds are fast locally so everyone gets the songs. There really is no way around this. Give up!

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189882)

*MPAA

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18190110)

I hope other people recognize what you have said. With a CD sharing group, the cost of CD quality copies of music and DVD quality copies of videos are easily acquired for prices that range from a few dollars to less than a dollar each.

Additionally, its not done for profit(no money to track), can't be detected in your ISP's log files, does not involve P2P or any other kind of service, and it falls way below the radar of law enforcement. In effect it is unstoppable. This is how we used to get 'illegal' copies of stuff before the P2P networks. Most people still use this method in one way or another. The *AA can't do anything about it because it would cost them too much money and violate too many personal rights to search everyone's house/cd case/car etc.

I believe that we should simply go back to this model as it would stop the rhetoric from the *AA about how their business is being hurt by illegal file sharing.

Well, either way I don't think it matters. Soon, there will be dark nets across the globe allowing people to share files with nobody able to track what was shared by whom. Tor is good, but there will be others too, better networks, if they don't already exist.

Re:What's the point? (1)

davecarlotub (835831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190144)

You are replying to the wrong story, the story you meant to reply to can be found here [slashdot.org] .
The MPAA and RIAA are two different beasts... Learn it, know it, live it.

Just? (2, Interesting)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189856)

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.

Publish the code PGP style (4, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189864)

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.

Re:Publish the code PGP style (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190262)

Not really. Books are digital, they're just not online or (generally) machine-readable. Each letter is discrete. There's no continuum, no letters that are about one-quarter A and three-quarters B.

Re:Publish the code PGP style (4, Funny)

Lifthrasir (646067) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190308)

You obviously haven't seen my handwriting . . .

Re:Publish the code PGP style (1)

recursiv (324497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190414)

So write it in cursive.

Bogus take-down request (4, Informative)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189876)

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.

Re:Bogus take-down request (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190230)

Well, I think it's just a screwup with regard to what the people on the business end of it are calling it, really. It can't be a 512 takedown notice, since the program is not infringing even though it pretty certainly is a circumvention device. But it can be a regular old cease and desist notice. The main difference is that for 512 takedown notices, ISPs do what they're told in order to protect themselves from being sued, in accordance with the law that protects them so long as they obey the notices. For C&Ds, the ISP isn't protected anyway, but will probably have an easier time of it if they do what they're told. I doubt the lawyers that sent it actually called it a takedown notice in the context of 512.

What the law says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18189890)

section 512 [cornell.edu] of the DMCA says the following about takedown notices:

(3) Elements of notification.

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
  • (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
  • (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
  • (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
  • (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
  • (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
  • (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Unless the MPAA is claiming copyright of BackupHDDVD itself, the takedown notice should not apply.

Perhaps I missed it, but the Anti-circumvention provisions that others are talking about apply to section 12 [cornell.edu] of the DMCA. I don't see anything regarding a takedown notice in section 12.

Just print out the studio's store's web pages (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190178)

Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed
"We claim that the software infringes our exclusive rights in all motion pictures sold as HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc videos in our studio's online store. A list of such motion pictures is attached as Exhibit A." Was that so hard?

Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA. (5, Informative)

liftphreaker (972707) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189930)

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.

Re:Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18190004)

I personally will never buy a HD or Blu-ray system. I don't even buy music or movies, period (and I don't pirate them either). Modern 'culture' isn't worth the time or money to do either.

Re:Vote with your wallet, bring down MPAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18190374)

Oh ... how am I gonna feed my Sony? I need HD. I'm just a poor starving hippie with nice HDTV. It's OK if I boost it right???

  Nearly 1/2 terrabyte now .....

Mirror, mirror, on the wall... (4, Funny)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18189948)

Who has proliferated, most of all?

What the law said does not matter to **AA (5, Insightful)

khchung (462899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190020)

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.

QTFairuse6 (4, Interesting)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190118)

If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than[sic] per the DMCA it needs a license to do that.

Quite some time ago, slashdot ran this article [slashdot.org] 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.

I should... (1)

TheUni (1007895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190172)

Create an encryption scheme where the key is "1". Then, if anyone circumvents it I can claim that 1 is my protected work that only I can use.

Re:I should... - the cartoon version (5, Funny)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190270)

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

MPAA just doesn't get it. (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190196)

"Doom9 forums has received its first official DMCA Takedown Notice."

Yo, MPAA, this is the 21st century. We now have torrents, anonymous blogging (for dissiminating raw code that can be compiled or pasting of encryption keys), open wireless connections (for endless reposting of your SuperTopSecret encryption keys wherever on the net), anonymous proxies (same purpose as previous)and P2P software for end-user to end-user dissimination of files. Not to mention that the rest of the world could care less about your messed up United States laws.

Your take down notice is just asking for the keys to go underground and being mass spread via above channels for the elite/martyrness of it all.

How is it unauthorised (4, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190224)

...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?

I can't unlock the door without the key! (5, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190244)

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.

Technically, it doesnt do anything until... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190350)

Technically, it doesnt do anything until... someone executes the program. Until then, its just a bunch of code that doesnt do a dam thing.

Why dont they go after the users of the program and prove that they are using it to break DMCA? They're the ones that execute the program, which puts it into action.

Why (1)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190402)

Why is it that this is illegal. Its about as illegal as me reading the source of a web page to learn HTML then writing my own page. Its just stupid. If they didn't want to let anyone do this then why release the god damn information publicly? They're just begging for it. Combine that with the fact that the odds of them getting rid of this app is about the same and DivX killing XviD, they're stuffed. Why not just give up like everyone says. Stupid MAFIAA. Lock em' in a big padded room with boxes of their products, so that they think their stuff is protected, and let them rot.

Thats ok (1)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190538)

Ive made backups of the software in question. Knowledge will not be supressed.

Misleading Post (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 7 years ago | (#18190564)

I can't find the takedown notice, but no where in the forums or anything i've been reading does it say that they are requiring the utility to be removed because it can possibly circumvent hd dvd encryption.

if anything, they're requiring the tool be removed because it is an implementation of the technology and its not licensed by AACS, which it clearly states is required on the third page of this document http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/specs091/AACS _Spec_Common_0.91.pdf [aacsla.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?