DVDDecrypter site down

[HARRYSPADGE]

you can still back them up just that you will have to pay for it. but wont it be a small price to pay if you are backing up your 400 dvds.if you had to pay for it nobody would of been bothered that it had been closed down. thats what it boils down to people will have to pay for a new programme.

Dont think so mate, I would have quite happily paid for DVDdecrypter if I had to.

If this post grieves you so much may be you should stop watching it and find something that does interest you ?

[toryamos]

i believe DVD Decrypter would be rated by most people who ever used it regularly as one of the best freeware programs ever released. probably over 80% of all dvd tutorials on the NET include it as a "required" tool...autogk, dvd2svcd etc. it will be very much missed

[thevoelk]

This is probably a question for Adam, or another person with law experience, but wouldn't DVD Decrypter be considered along the same lines as a photocopier, at least in the US (can be used for infringing and non-infringing uses)? Just because it has potential copyright infringement capabilities/copy protection circumvention, doesn't the fact that it ihas other uses come into play? I know it's main purpose is to cirxumvent copy protection, but shouldn't the BetaMax come into play, i.e. Fair Use? It seems that the mystery company is assuming that every ripped DVD is put directly onto a P2P network for downloading.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

This issue is being handled by UK laws, I believe that UK laws does not support "fair use" like US laws, therefore, that argument is invalid there.

[Supreme2k]

thevoelk,
DVDDecrypter does more than a photocopier, in that it actually has to go in and crack a few things. It is not a bit-for-bit copy.

I think that the non-infringing components should be left out of the equation. It is still a great burning app. If they actually have to hand over the code, it should only be that code which infringes, such as the decryption routine. I find that it's like saying that you have a car that gets 1000mpg, with a robot arm attached to the roof that can crack safes, so we want the complete plans to the car (not just the robot arm) and you can't even sell a "stripped-down" version of the car.

[normcar]

When the bad boys come after you, they aren't going to negotiate, they are there to smash, grab, and kick your ....

[rkm69]

So Baldrick, have you been asked to remove the mirror yet?

[mcorpse]

I still think the most telling thing is how no source has been leaked. In any country with sane copyright laws this project could be continued with no government interference, and possibly even become more than it ever could have under Lightning's control. But either he has been suppressed from doing so (although he could always claim someone hacked into his private files and stole it), or he's, *surprise*, working for the enemy.

[adam]

The cease and desist surely was based on UK's DMCA-like law, the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) since he says it is a law from 2003. The US's DMCA was passed in 1998. Both countries recognize the concept of Fair Use, as do pretty much all countries with Copyright Law.

The Betamax decision, besides being US law not UK, isn't applicable. That situation deals with manufacturers charged with contributory infringement due to the direct infringements of their end users. DVD Decryptor is not in trouble for contributory infringement, an argument they could likely get around easily, they are rather in violation of sections of these two laws (DMCA and EUCD) which flat out make it illegal to distrubte devices which may be used to circumvent protection mechanisms.

If this were to play out you'd actually have a real bugger of a case. The DMCA and EUCD have safe harbor provisions which make the laws inapplicable to Fair Use or other protected rights. We saw the Fair Use defense work for Johansen under the DMCA but that was because he claimed his DeCSS routines were for playing back DVDs in Linux, NOT for removing protection for the purpose of making a copy which are the intended purposes of the protection mechanisms. That's the crucial difference. DVD Decryptor's only purpose for decrypting is to make a copy and thus it would still be a violation of the US DMCA since there is no legal or Fair Use right to backup a DVD in the US. BUT we are dealing with the much less tested EUCD and in the UK there IS a right to backup DVDs. Who knows what a court would do with this, and unfortunately Lightning UK doesn't have the resources or the deathwish necessary to find out.

As per other questions, it is unclear whether a suit has been filed or not but what is clear is that he is voluntarily giving them his domain and source code in its entirety. Its not like they can just take it all, this is all part of their negotiated settlement agreement.

For what its worth my bet is that the mystery company is Macrovision, not Sony.

[budz]

For what its worth my bet is that the mystery company is Macrovision, not Sony.

because that has been posted at other forum sites like dooms 9 & at afterdawn. it's been said because Macrovision has a new encryption tool called RIP GUARD.

http://dvdxcopy.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/160761

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-938046.html

[AlecWest]

We can only hope that this wont set a president for programmes such as AnyDVD or DVD43 etc, as they aren't based in the UK with our absurd laws.

- e404pnf

Interesting thought. AnyDVD is based in Antigua and DVD43 is based in the People's Republic of China. And, DVD43's source code was acquired by DVDidle, also in the People's Republic of China. Were I "the company," I'd be far more worried about DVDidle than AnyDVD. I'm not sure what the laws are in Antigua. But in China, I'm unaware of any instance where "contributory" copyright infringement was dealt with by authorities. China is still coming to grips with direct infringement issues and contributory infringement might not even be in their mindset as something worth pursuing. If I can make a comparison, I suspect the problems the RIAA is having with decentralized entities like Kazaa ... forcing them to go after individual users in the West ... are peanuts compared to pursuing contributory infringement issues in China.

In short, DVDdecrypter might be history. But developers in parts of the world where contributory infringement issues are not dealt with have the industry well and truly by the short hairs. :P

"SOme compaNY " now has the home site for Decrypter so like the author's message, there will be no more updates so if u havent yet TURN OFF AUTOUPDATE. Paranoia: Some company can/may now see who is accessing the old site.

Good advice. Also, if you have kids who might be tempted to visit the site out of curiosity, and if your browser has a "ban" feature, you might want to ban visits to the (old) official page. And, for the ultra-paranoid, you could always add the utility to your firewall list and DENY it access to the web ... just in case you, or another family member, inadvertently click the "autoupdate" block.

I guess LIGHTNING UK! sold SOURCE CODE to "the company" instead release it, like Emule.

I doubt seriously if he "sold" it to the company. He was more likely forced to hand it over AND promise not to release it publically as part of his deal to keep himself out of court (and the poorhouse).

because that has been posted at other forum sites like dooms 9 & at afterdawn. it's been said because Macrovision has a new encryption tool called RIP GUARD.

It's possible. With companies like Sony going their own way to find their own proprietary encryption methods, Macrovision is being slowly left out in the cold business-wise. In order to stay in business, they have to come up with something new and strong and, at the same time, not interfere with subtitles or closed-captioning (like their first attempts did). And then, they have to sell it to studios. That might be a tough nut to crack since I think most studios would prefer to take a "wait-n-see" attitude before they bought into something that could be easily thwarted. So, Macrovision as a company is like a rat in a corner ... ready to jump out and bite anyone that threatens their future. And the fact that LightningUK got bit seems to suggest that, maybe, he was working on a RipGuard workaround (or that it was incorporated into his last version, forcing Macrovision back to the drawing board).

[BJ_M]

rat is a corner -- a very good description really ...


what about cladDVD? They are also from the UK

[waheed]

Movie studios can do whatever they want to try to shut down these softwares. No matter how much they try, there will always be another one pop up.

The internet has unlimited resources and cannot be controlled by any organisation.

Besides, some contries have a more flexible law concerning copyrights and such rippings tools may not be illegal in some places.

[AlecWest]

The more I think about it, the more I think that's exactly what happened to LightningUK ... that he actually perfected a RipGuard workaround and incorporated it in his current (and last) version ... which would explain why Macrovision came down on him so quickly (if they are in fact "the company").

But, the article linked to by Baldrick on page 5 pretty much spells out the fact that Macrovision will be constantly monitoring the ripper market and upgrading their encryption as necessary. In short, it's back to the endless game of "tag, you're it." A decryption method will be found. Macrovision will beat it with a new encryption method. Then a new decryption method will be found ... and on, and on, and on ... to see who blinks first.

Movie studios? I think they'll continue to go their own way (like Sony) and keep future encryption methods in house ... further isolating Macrovision from the customer base they need to stay alive. To the movie industry, it would seem to me that playing "tag" is much better done when you don't have to pay a license fee to somebody else to play. The fact that Warner Brothers abandoned Macrovision should be seen as handwriting on the wall. Not that WB will avoid analog protection methods. But like Sony, they may have their own people try to figure out their own methods.

But, as bad as this news is for Macrovision, it's also bad for ripper developers. When there was only one CSS and only one analog protection method to deal with, development was easy. But if there are 10 or 20 different methods, digital and analog, it will force developers to do much more work to keep current ... and this may reflect itself in the pricetags paid for such rippers.

[AlecWest]

P.S. If someone knows LightningUK "personally," and if such a thing isn't prohibited by his deal with "the company," I think it would be nice if someone set up a website where people could donate money to him via PayPal ... to help him recover from this setback. Just a thought.

[thecoalman]

P.S. If someone knows LightningUK "personally," and if such a thing isn't prohibited by his deal with "the company," I think it would be nice if someone set up a website where people could donate money to him via PayPal ... to help him recover from this setback. Just a thought.

With a application like that on his resume I doubt money is going to be an issue in the future. If I was an owner of one of these companies I'd be seeking out people such as him not to prosecute but to employ.

[AlecWest]

With a application like that on his resume I doubt money is going to be an issue in the future. If I was an owner of one of these companies I'd be seeking out people such as him not to prosecute but to employ.

Perhaps ... but his letter said something about only having £50 in his pocket. And, the tenor of his letter didn't seem to indicate a potential job offer ... more like potential doom. Anyhoo, a PayPal donation scenario was just a thought.

[Tidy]

Dont you find it funny that companies like Sony say do not copy dvds (regardless of whether you own it) and yet, at the same time provide the tools needed to do so (dvd burner and blank media).

I don't find it funny at all. You know there are "legal" uses for DVD writers.

[Tidy]

Am I missing somthing? I've been able to access the site.

You are probably pulling a copy from your browser cache or your ISP might be holding cache in a proxy server type configuration.

[Tidy]

I'll point out that by using DVD Decrypter you would be breaking national and international law.

You aparently don't understand law too well. You are NOT breaking copyright law if you are backing up DVD's you own is what the supreme court of the United States says.

[winifreid]

You may not be breaking a copyright law based on fairuse, but decryter appears to break the law against hacking encryption. I am not sure that there is a law against using such software, just writing it. Whether is t is right or not is another question. I wonder how the fact that decrypter is unlikely to be updated will affect other software that uses it like autogk and rebuilder. Also it would appear that programs like fairuse and shrink that have built in rippers might be a target. But shrink may be immune since it is no longer updated.
Is the code for smartripper open source?

[dvdguy4]

Well this really sucks.

[trossin]

Hey,

Lightning UK says that his email and web site are gone forever. How about his pay-pal account? Can we say thanks for all the work by sending some cash his way for keeping us happy all these years? If not, can a bin be set up at videohelp.com so that we can contribute in his name to this great web site. Just bitching about reality does no good (we still have Bush) but maybe we can turn our outrage into more disk space.

[adam]

Tidy, the US supreme Court has never ruled that you have a right to backup DVDs under Fair Use or any other provision of Title 17. In fact, title 17 and existing case law makes it very clear that you do not have any right to backup a DVD in the United States. All of our archival rights (computer software, music cds, library archives) come via express laws under Title 17, not Fair Use, and there is no such law for DVDs.

Backing up even a DVD you own in the US is actually copyright infringement. By bypassing the CSS keys it is additionally a violation of the DMCA.

In the United States a program like DVD Decryptor actually has virtually no legal uses since it only uses CSS keys to make copies, as opposed to say playing the DVD in Linux. About all I can think of is it the person doing the copying was the copyright holder, but then they would already have the unencrypted source. But it does have legal uses in other countries which do permit archival copying of DVDs.

[AlecWest]

In the United States a program like DVD Decryptor actually has virtually no legal uses...

By virtually, I'm sure you mean "almost." DVDdecrypter does one heckuva job on ISO burns ... which was a Godsend to someone like me who had a kludgy time with Nero 5.5. And of course, not all ISO burns are infringing burns ... so, like Kazaa, DVDdecrypter does have non-infringing uses. Depends on how you use it.

[normcar]

. All of our archival rights (computer software, music cds, library archives) come via express laws under Title 17, not Fair Use, and there is no such law for DVDs.

If the archival rights are to specific type of data (and not DVD), then why did the Supreme Court have to rule on the fact that you can archive i.e. backup your own copy of the media?

[HatchetMan]

Doesn't cladDVD sound a little bit like DVD Decrypter?
EDIT- I guess it rips but does not burn?
Still looks interesting, iso and file modes, and as long as everyone archives Decrypter, it's all good

[adam]

AlecWest I meant the elements of DVD Decryptor that are actually in question, namely its ability to bypass CSS keys and macrovision.

normcar I am unclear as to what you are asking. The US Supreme Court never did rule that you have a right to archive media you have purchased. Like I said, our archival rights are expressly provided for in Title 17, not case-law. There simply isn't one for DVDs yet. What Supreme Court case are you referring to?

[ROF]

I think some people are confused here. Fair use allows you to make a backup copy of your media. It does not allow to circumvent copy protection to make a backup copy of your media.

DVD Decrypter is more than 75% a decrypter which circumvents copy protection. It is therefore not covered under fair use laws.

[adam]

Fair Use does not allow you to make a backup copy of your media. That has never been ruled to be a Fair Use.

Fair Use is a 4 prong test. It does not grant any rights at all, it is simply a defense to be raised against any claim of copyright infringement. As of yet it has never even been raised as a defense against copyright infringement committed through personal archival copying, and in my opinion it probably would not pass that test.

Copyright law grants the copyright holder the exclusive right to copy and to authorize copying of their works. This is the general rule unless there is a) a limitation on that right or b) a exception made for the enforcement of that right. As stated before there are express exceptions made for computer software and musical recordings and under the general Fair Use exception we additionally have some for libraries and for the time-shifting of broadcasts. Until a court actually hears the issue of DVD copying and rules that it is a Fair Use or until the legislature passes a bill granting that archival copying right, it remans prohibited. It is extremely telling that our right to copy cds did not come about until an industry wide agreement was made whereby manufacturers of digital audio recording devices and media had to pay royalties to the industry in exchange for immunity and for the consumer's right to copy. I don't see an exception being made for DVDs until a similar agreement is struck with the motion picture industry.