Interesting Story about DVD X Copy and 321 Studios...

[tjtoed]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=2&u=/ap/20030516/ap_on_bi_ge/dvd_suit

For your reading pleasure...

I guess they are targeting this software because it cracks CSS too? If so, then IC and DVD2One and others that require a ripper first, should not be on their list...

[arcorob]

You know...the only way that the Movie companies could make a real go of this would be to drop this bomb

Make it a practice that any media you PURCHASE has a lifetime warranty. That is, if it ever becomes unplayable, you can ship it and get a replacement for free. THEY WILL NEVER DO that as the cost would be prohibative, thus the arguement for protecting ones investment becomes stronger.

But why a backup of a product ? How many products do you do that with ? Well, products that would be prone to breakage or corruption however, other than paper or software, name one ?

Any product you have redundancy for, you pay for. Light bulbs, spare fuses, etc.

Just musing.......

[AND1]

dvd2one will never be targeted by mpaa or riaa becuase it does not decrpyt CSS so therefore it is 100% legal that's why it will get better and better. People who bought from 321 will be dissapointed when they will be forced to shut down. DVDXcopy is a waste of money.

[Greg12]

well if u already have the product, dont' see how this affects u


The MPAA couldn't go and arrest everyone who bought it


If they did, next thing u know Gates will arrest everyone who buys Linux

[malducci]

That's strange...

I remember reading an artical about how the CSS decryption key or info is kept in a track on DVD-rom media and that all DVD recordable media have something else in this track. In other words, CSS decryption information can not be copied to the track it supposed to be in - thus all DVD coping software decrypts the video and writes it to a blank DVD media as un-incrypted(SP?) video. So I would guess that DVD2one and the rest are based on this as well.

I'm not well versed in the Digital Information Act of 200x, but I remember reading a part that describes any device or software that defeats a copy protection system is considered illegal. Doom9's site had an artical 3 or 4 months ago on it.

[tjtoed]

That's strange...

I remember reading an artical about how the CSS decryption key or info is kept in a track on DVD-rom media and that all DVD recordable media have something else in this track. In other words, CSS decryption information can not be copied to the track it supposed to be in - thus all DVD coping software decrypts the video and writes it to a blank DVD media as un-incrypted(SP?) video. So I would guess that DVD2one and the rest are based on this as well.

Actually, DVD2One and IC do not crack CSS. You must first run them through a ripper...

[malducci]

Oh... So dvd2one and IC need dvdecrpyter or such program before you can copy (or modify ) the original to a blank DVD media. I have DVDxcopy and have not tried the others, but thought they functioned the same

[AND1]

So I would guess that DVD2one and the rest are based on this as well.

Do you read anything? I just told you DVD2one does not decrpyt CSS therefore it's not violating any laws.

well if u already have the product, dont' see how this affects u.
The MPAA couldn't go and arrest everyone who bought it

On the other even if you still bought it you are still screwed in the way that if 321 studio is forced to shut down you will not recieve any support or upgrades/updates. Therefore it will die out and you'll be left with a $100 worthless program. But DVD2One can still be enhanced and updated and be perfectly legal and become much better.

[malducci]

AND1,

Yeah, I read your original statement.

Thanks Tjtoed, for pointing out the reason why DVD2one and IC do not need to decrypt the CSS. AND1, if you read my original statement then you would have come to the conclusion TJtoed did; that I did not know DVD2one and IC were not standalone, all-in-one DVD coping programs like DVDxcopy and that they require a the DVD to be decrypted.

I do agree that DVD2one, IC, and the rest have the ability to receive upgrades and improvements while DVDxcopy, if they lose, will be terminated.

[madmax-zz]

Is the court case finished or is it still ongoing

[Cornucopia]

If I'm understanding the method correctly, it seems to me that DVDXCopy doesn't "get around" the encryption on DVD's, in the sense that DeCSS does.
That is, where DeCSS, etc. use methods to crack the codes (brute force trial and error of lists, "known" cracked codes as seeds, etc), it seems that 321 is citing DVDXCopy as using the older method of actually beginning to play the title through on the drive--as if it were to be playing and displaying the movie. It's just mimicking what a DVD player actually should do when playing a movie. It then intercepts the stream downstream of the "valid" decryption and reroutes it to VOB files instead of displaying on-screen.
If this benign way of obtaining the streams is deemed illegal, this is bad for a LOT of softwares that do similar things. Total Recorder, ASF recorder, TINRA, some screen capture progs, etc.

What's next?
Scott

[taz291819]

Also, if 321 is forced to remove DvdXCopy from the market, users that already own it aren't screwed. If you have it working now, it's not going to make the software "worthless" without any updates. It'll just make the software as it is now. I just hope the Platinum version will be out before/if the Hollywood studios win.

[vitualis]

That to me sounds like a load of bollocks though I concede that perhaps I don't fully understand how how DVD encryption works.

The whole "downstream" thing sounds like nonsense to me as the CSS encryption still needs to be decrypted. For a software DVD player, the producer of the software needs to have a decryption key (that needs to be bought and licensed from the DVD forum) before it can decrypt the DVD.

As far as I know, there is NO way that a DVD drive on its own can decrypt the DVD -- otherwise, it would be pointless to have CSS encryption in the first place.

If what 321 studios claim is true, then they actually "play" the video with some sort of software DVD player -- which would IMPLY they would have had to license from the DVD forum a decryption key. Somehow, I doubt this is the case, and even if they did, I'm 100% sure what they are doing would be in breach of that license...

This is all speculative, but my gut feeling is that this is all smoke and mirrors and what DVDXCOPY actually does do is to use some sort of DeCSS algorithm.

Regards.

[Cornucopia]

I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I believe DVDXCopy makes use of whatever software player you already have installed. After the software player decrypts the stream (with the original intent to display the program on-screen), then DVDXCopy kicks into action and pipes the stream to an external VOB file. This isn't nonsense, but it might also not be the way it truly works, either. And I don't know what it does if there isn't a software player already installed...

I know DVD drives can't decrypt on their own. However, every licensed DVD player software will at some point pass the decryption keys to the drive, do the handshake things, and output an decrypted stream. Otherwise, we would not be able to view it.

I know also that one of the big initiatives of Hollywood, along with CE manufacturers, politicians and software giants like M$ is to have a more secure digital pipeline at that output stage, where only limited "approved" devices will be able to receive the output. This is supposed to be being built into most all all-digital monitors. Don't know how far along this plan has gone though.

I wonder if the true method of 321 will be revealed in the courts?

This, of course, doesn't affect me too much since I usually only produce my own or my clients' own content and I rarely use rippers/backer-ups at all, but it could be important on a more academic, global consumer rights scale.

Would love to have someone give more info here... 8)
Scott

[vitualis]

I believe DVDXCopy makes use of whatever software player you already have installed. After the software player decrypts the stream (with the original intent to display the program on-screen), then DVDXCopy kicks into action and pipes the stream to an external VOB file. This isn't nonsense, but it might also not be the way it truly works, either. And I don't know what it does if there isn't a software player already installed...

This is why I question whether this is the case. How can DVDXCOPY function if you don't have a software DVD player installed? Furthermore, how exactly does it use/co-opt the multitude of different software DVD players all for the same purpose FLAWLESSLY?

IMHO, this is MUCH more difficult proposition.

I wonder if the true method of 321 will be revealed in the courts?

This is of course speculation, but I believe that DVDXCOPY MUST somehow decrypt CSS with code that COMES WITH the program rather than already resides on your PC...

Perhaps someone can give us a clue... Does DVDXCOPY work in Win98SE or Win2K? Neither of these OSes have a software DVD player built in (unlike WinXP). If so, the CSS decryption code MUST be included in the DVDXCOPY code itself...

Regards.