AACS DRM: Cracked Already?

[DereX888]

...and this is how this "it's legal" story ends. Or maybe not... you just plug THE KEY into a... what ??? OK got it, ...commercially available utility (of course, your local BestBuy)) and voila. Sounds like a plan, and this was supposed to be the best encryption industry could ever come up with? If muslix64 ever needed a legal counsel, you get my vote

So, what is ILLEGAL here, sherlock?
Please elaborate more

[jagabo]

...and this is how this "it's legal" story ends. Or maybe not... you just plug THE KEY into a... what ??? OK got it, ...commercially available utility (of course, your local BestBuy)) and voila. Sounds like a plan, and this was supposed to be the best encryption industry could ever come up with? If muslix64 ever needed a legal counsel, you get my vote :lol:

So, what is ILLEGAL here, sherlock?
Please elaborate more :lol:

If you are in the USA:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID91

[Bjs]

Considering , at the moment , anything is possible , and intercepting and interpreting such key's is highly possible ... this key has to be stored somewhere within the playback software memory or other , or nothing happens ... it sit's on it's a*** , and spins with a dumb grin on it's face .

But wait for the new motherboards and the os to support the new path way protection scheme's from device's such as these , and it's either develope a complete new set of tool's or it's game over for direct ripping of the new format's .

Actually just thinking of it , this whole "rip dvd" saga could ended tonight by microsoft getting off it's a*** and ... shit , I'll keep that idea to myself ... bloody hell I'm brilliant , but I don't want to screw over "fair usage rights" either ... damn it , that gose for the new media as well , everything ... your all screwed ... I'll shut my a**hole on that idea ... so flaming simple it bloody physically hurts just thinking about it .

I'm off to the patent's office tomorrow .

--------------------------

Yet the actual proof is in the pudding as they say ... and I haven't seen the pudding yet of what muslix64 has laid possible claim too , or any member from any other website , nor forum ...

Currently , you'd have to put this into the "load of bs" basket until such evidence can be found and brought forward of such an event actually ever having taken place ... I mean that video prove's nothing on it's own except hacking into the program itself ... any halfwitt , brain dead , moron , with the right tool's and a pinch of programing knowledge with a trained monkey companion can do that stunt .

As I put it down ... if you can see it , hear it , it can be copied ... the only issue , is getting equal quality to the liking of the original which isn't currently possible through any other method .

[DereX888]

...and this is how this "it's legal" story ends. Or maybe not... you just plug THE KEY into a... what ??? OK got it, ...commercially available utility (of course, your local BestBuy)) and voila. Sounds like a plan, and this was supposed to be the best encryption industry could ever come up with? If muslix64 ever needed a legal counsel, you get my vote

So, what is ILLEGAL here, sherlock?
Please elaborate more

If you are in the USA:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID91

Tough luck, buddy - I am NOT in the funny US of A, and so isn't MOST of the world

Furthermore, copying legally owned for personal use is straightforward LEGAL in my country...
I guess we haven't grow that many sell-out pigs-politicians owned by corporations like you did there in USA

[jagabo]

If you are in the USA:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID91

Tough luck, buddy - I am NOT in the funny US of A, and so isn't MOST of the world :)

Furthermore, copying legally owned for personal use is straightforward LEGAL in my country...
I guess we haven't grow that many sell-out pigs-politicians owned by corporations like you did there in USA :lol:

The EU is falling in line:
http://www.euro-copyrights.org/

Australia is getting close:
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/IP/

It's only a matter of time before Big Media takes over the rest of the world's governments.

[redwudz]

A notice and caution to all. If you wish to discuss politics, go elsewhere.
Please read our rules about politics before posting.

Other
No politic, religion or war discussions.

Fair warning.

Moderator redwudz

[InXess]

Redwudz, comments like this are all over this forum (law, trends etc...). Btw. no one has even started talking politics yet, have you not noticed? You're jumping the gun...

[thecoalman]

Have we read the same thing InXess? You guys up in Canada are kind of "funny" like that....

[DereX888]

Have we read the same thing InXess? You guys up in Canada are kind of "funny" like that....

them canadians, eh?

[stiltman]

Currently , you'd have to put this into the "load of bs" basket until such evidence can be found and brought forward of such an event actually ever having taken place ... I mean that video prove's nothing on it's own except hacking into the program itself ... any halfwitt , brain dead , moron , with the right tool's and a pinch of programing knowledge with a trained monkey companion can do that stunt .

Guess you have to read the whole thread.

Plus, now they have a sticky over at Doom9 with all the keys.
The guy wasn't full of crap after all. He just didn't want to lay it in everyones lap without them doing a little work on their own.

[JohnnyMalaria]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Well, that's easy - get a non-person to do it. And that's not as stupid as it may seem.

Also, "that effectively controls" - the definition of "effectively" must be quite loose. If the technological measure can be circumvented then, surely, by definition, it isn't effective....

[Noahtuck]

Well, this new crap aside, technically is it not illegal anytime you back up a plain ol' dvd ? legal to backup owned material yet illegal to bypass the copy protection ?

Politics schmolitics

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone 8)

(uh oh... i'm not gonna get busted for a religous post now am i )

oh well.... these threads are kind of funny to read at times


No casting of stones please. This is an informal warning. I will crucify the next member who posts a religious reference. / Moderator Offline

[psx_pirate]

http://www.t3.co.uk/news/247/dvd/hd-dvd_cracked

[Noahtuck]

No casting of stones please. This is an informal warning. I will crucify the next member who posts a religious reference. / Moderator Offline

I'm glad i was not drinking anything when i saw that

Okay, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones

Oh crap!!! there's those darn.... ummm..... uhhhh.... you know, those kind's of smiley's

[thecoalman]

Well, this new crap aside, technically is it not illegal anytime you back up a plain ol' dvd ?

Well having read about 100 posts from Adam on this subject no it is not and I tend to agree with him because I have not seen anyone post anything that even remotely refutes anyhting that he has posted including references. Copyright is just that, it gives you the right to make copies. If you don't have it you can't make copies. There are however specific exemptions such as the right to make backup copies of software you have purchased, this is specifically spelled out in copyright law. there is no exemption for video, movies etc.

As he has mentioned many times.... you won't ever see exemptions since you have to break the encryption to begin with.

[Specialist]

Interview with muslix64.

Link to Slyck.Com Web site: http://tinyurl.com/24u642

Question: The mainstream media tends to have many labels for you, i.e. hacker, cracker, pirate, etc., in response to your efforts. What would you call yourself and what would you label your efforts?

Answer: I'm just an upset customer. My efforts can be called "fair use enforcement"!

Question: What motivated you to help circumvent the content protection scheme associated with HD DVD and Blu-Ray?

Answer: With the HD-DVD, I wasn't able to play my movie on my non-HDCP HD monitor. Not being able to play a movie that I have paid for, because some executive in Hollywood decided I cannot, made me mad...

After the HD-DVD crack, I realized that things were "unbalanced" by having just one format cracked, so I did Blu-Ray too.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[DereX888]

After the HD-DVD crack, I realized that things were "unbalanced" by having just one format cracked, so I did Blu-Ray too.

I love this dude

[SatStorm]

I salut this man!

[painkiller]

Holding to one's principles are paramount.

How about that?

[somebodeez]

"fair use enforcement"!

I like that

[splash1955]

Well, this new crap aside, technically is it not illegal anytime you back up a plain ol' dvd ?

Well having read about 100 posts from Adam on this subject no it is not and I tend to agree with him because I have not seen anyone post anything that even remotely refutes anyhting that he has posted including references. Copyright is just that, it gives you the right to make copies. If you don't have it you can't make copies. There are however specific exemptions such as the right to make backup copies of software you have purchased, this is specifically spelled out in copyright law. there is no exemption for video, movies etc.
As he has mentioned many times.... you won't ever see exemptions since you have to break the encryption to begin with.

This is not correct. It is case law that dominates and Adam is giving his opinion bases on interpretive assertions from one side. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you have to ask: why haven't the original rights holders and their representatives such as MPAA and RIAA haven't gone after consumers? A good part of the answer has to do with the fact there is a very good chance that fair use and betamax doctrine would come into play.

I also find the assertion about the pricing and economy for consumer high density recorders making this moot in error. 1) Hdd (hard disk) space prices are falling all the time and a Terabyte of space can be had for about $220. The price will be quarter of that in a couple of years. 2) HD recorders and media are no more expensive than normal density DVD recorders and media were at the time they came out and today a burner costs about $30 and media about $0.20

Also, finding the keys appears to be essentially a permanent vulnerably for both HD and Blue-ray and something which blacklist methods won't solve.

[gadgetguy]

... It is case law that dominates and Adam is giving his opinion bases on interpretive assertions from one side...

This is huge news. I didn't know there was case law that has clarified/overridden the written law that Adam has sited. Can you offer a link or site the case(s).

[adam]

The preliminary section of copyright law lays out the rights of the copyright holder. Title 17 section 106 (1) states that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords. Therefore it is per se a copyright violation to make any copy of a copyright work without permission from the copyright holder. Then the rest of copyright law makes exceptions to this.

Section 108 allows libraries the right to make archival copies. (If there were a general right to make backup copies there would have been no need to create this law.

Section 117 allows anyone to make archival copies of pc software. (ditto.)

Section 1008 allows anyone to make archival copies of music recordings. (ditto.)

There is no express exemption for audio visual works such as commercial DVD movies.

Then there is the catchall Fair Use exemption which is codified as section 107. This is what people are always arguing allows one to make a backup copy of a DVD movie. Well every year people file motions with the Copyright Office to explain and expand on what particular copyright statutes do and don't allow. On three separate occasions the Copyright Office has addressed the request to create a Fair Use exception to allow one to make archival copies of DVD movies. Here are their comments denying such an exemption.

The proponents of this exemption desire to make backup copies of their DVDs for a variety of purposes: they claim that DVDs are inherently fragile and subject to damage; they are concerned about loss or theft of the original during travel; they wish to duplicate collections to avoid the burdens and risks of transporting DVDs; they assert that some titles are out of print and cannot be replaced in case of damage; and they claim that the duration of a DVD’s lifespan is limited.

The common denominator in all of the comments endorsing an exemption for DVDs appears to be the need to make backups of the original copy due to the alleged fragility of the medium. The question therefore becomes whether making a backup copy of a DVD is a noninfringing use.

The creation of a backup copy of a work implicates the reproduction right. While the Copyright Act contains an exception for the making of backup copies of computer programs in §117, it contains no comparable exemption for motion pictures and other audiovisual works. In addition, the Register is aware of only one court decision that has held that reproducing a copyrighted motion picture is a fair use: where an over-the-air broadcast was taped for purposes of time-shifting the user’s viewing of the work. In the time-shifting case, the Court explicitly did not address the issue of librarying such a work, and this rulemaking is not the forum in which to break new ground on the scope of fair use. The proponents of an exemption bear the burden of proving that their intended use is a noninfringing one. No proponent has offered a fair use analysis or supporting authority which would allow the Register to consider such a basis for the exemption, and the Register is skeptical of the merits of such an argument.
DVDs, of course, are not indestructible. Neither were traditional phonograph records; nor are CDs, videotapes, paperback books, or any other medium in which copyrighted works may be distributed. The Register is not persuaded that proponents of this exemption have shown that DVDs are so susceptible to damage and deterioration that a convincing case could be made that the practice of making preventive backup copies of audiovisual works on DVDs should be noninfringing.
The proposed exemption is not simply to permit remedial measures for disks which become damaged, but rather to allow reproduction of the works as a precautionary measure. While an analogy might be made to the basis for the backup exemption for computer programs that was enacted in the days of corruptible floppy diskettes, there are important differences. Congress carefully addressed the §117 exemption for backups of computer programs with restrictive conditions. One day Congress may choose to consider a carefully tailored exception for backing up motion pictures if it is persuaded that one is necessary, but the Register sees no authority under current law that would justify an exemption to enable the making of backup copies of motion pictures on DVDs. Given the tremendous commercial appeal of the DVD format at a time when alternative analog formats still exist, it seems unlikely that now is the time. And while it may well be true that analog formats are headed for ultimate extinction, the market is already beginning to see evidence of alternative forms of digital delivery over the Internet. The decision to purchase a DVD format entails advantages and, perhaps, disadvantages for some. The purchase of a work in that particular format is not, at present, a necessity and DVDs are unlikely to become the only format in which motion pictures may be purchased. The record in this rulemaking does not establish that the potential for possible future harm to individual disks outweighs the potential harm to the market for or value of these works that would result if an exemption were granted. The unauthorized reproduction of DVDs is already a critical problem facing the motion picture industry. Creating an exemption to satisfy the concern that a DVD may become damaged would sanction widespread circumvention to facilitate reproduction for works that are currently functioning properly. As presented in this rulemaking, the exemption would be based on speculation of future failure. Even though certain copies of DVDs may be damaged, given the ready availability of replacements in the market at reasonable costs, on balance, an exemption is not warranted on the current record.

The opponents have provided strong evidence of the increasing popularity of the DVD format. The Register finds it difficult to imagine that a format that is fundamentally flawed would become so popular. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine how a business model of renting DVDs, which also appears to be thriving, could be viable if the medium were so fragile. Further, it is significant that the scope of the problem the proponents describe is limited to movies on DVDs and does not address other types of works which commonly employ DVDs, such as video games. All these facts lead to the conclusion that, on the current record, DVDs are not unusually subject to damage in the ordinary course of their use. To the extent that some commenters found it more convenient to travel with backups or keep backups of their works in multiple locations, e.g., vacation homes or cars, the prevention of such uses appears to represent an inconvenience rather than an adverse effect on noninfringing uses. Indeed, the Register is aware of no authority that such uses are noninfringing. To endorse such uses as noninfringing would be tantamount to sanctioning reproductions of all works in every physical location where a user would like to use the work, e.g., the purchase of one book would entitle the user to reproduce copies for multiple locations. Except where a case-by-case analysis reveals such reproduction to be noninfringing under §107 or some other specific exemption, such reproductions of convenience are infringing under the Copyright Act. Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.

This is the official ruling of the Copyright Office, verbatim. So like I've said one hundred times before, there is no legal authority for the proposition that backing up DVDs is permissible either under Fair Use or under any other provision of Copyright Law...and that is directly out of the mouth of the Register of the Copyright Office. Yes, this only applies to US law. But if the movie is protected by a US Copyright than yes all of this applies, and that does cover most (all?) of the current HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs and a massive amount of DVDs.

[gll99]

splash1955 wrote

why haven't the original rights holders and their representatives such as MPAA and RIAA haven't gone after consumers

I'm not a legal expert by any means but here's my 2 cents worth

Are there not 2 parts to this argument which often get rolled into one?

Just thinking out loud... These comments are just as much questions as statements.

In jurisdictions where the law considers it a criminal act to break encryption is it not the "State" who prosecutes with all the rights of the accused protected under law ie... innocent until proven guilty blah blah blah..... The MPAA or their stooges etc... might be called as witnesses to the act but would not be the ones bringing charges against the accused. Wouldn't the "State" be doing that. Therefore the tax payer foots the bill for these proceedings and even pays experts (MPAA) who are subpoenaed to testify.

On the other hand if someone did make a backup copy and let's say that it became public knowledge is that not a separate civil action.
Suppose I have a copy of a copyright work for personal use. The copyright holder says I do not have that right and I must destroy it. I destroy it. End of story. What if the copyright holder decides to sue at his expense instead of just asking that it be destroyed. Does he have to prove damages? What could a reasonable judge or jury possibly grant him when I bought his original work, still have it and was willing to destroy the copy made for private use. He can't start spewing about me breaking the encryption that's out of his hands and a totally different issue which needs to be handled by the "State"
If you allow the "State to prosecute civil matters then every time there is a logos infraction (Apple vs Apple), store name, product similarity, design infringements etc.... the "State" which is we the people would be paying lawyers on both sides of the case though the teeth for things that are really private actions.

If I'm right about this then would it pay the MPAA or anyone else just to go after someone who has a backup of their work for private use. What possible compensation could they hope to get. The threat of litigation as already worked on this individual since the person is willing to cease and desist so what is the reason for the civil action. Justifying that the court action would help curb the practice won't work as an argument either. How would they prove damages or even estimate the value of such an action by a private party in their own home. Just because they accidentally discovered one case doesn't mean they can use it to quantify damages. Remember this person owns a copy of the work already so the argument is what damage to the copyright holder exists and how can it be assessed?

A judge / jury would have to wonder about the ulterior motives of the plaintiff and the negative publicity would be disastrous to them due the fact that the defendant was willing immediately to destroy the offending copy.

[thecoalman]

This is huge news. I didn't know there was case law that has clarified/overridden the written law that Adam has sited. Can you offer a link or site the case(s).

<the coalman takes bounce out of guy> That's pretty much the point, there is none. Don't take me as siding with the MPAA or RIAA but being in business I loathe government interference in business, if someone wants to sell you something and set conditions that should be there right. As I've said before this battle should be fought in the market place. Simply don't buy the product.... Unfortunately the mass public seems to want more and more and are willing to pay for it, as long as that is true you're going to see more and more restrictions put on media that you purchase. They are going to take you for all they can get, that is how business works.

Personally I'm predicting an end to this trend shortly, especially when people soon realize that all these music downloads they have don't work anymore or they have to jump through 20 hoops to get them to work again because of a variety of reasons... hard disc failures, file corruption etc.

[adam]

gll99 it is virtually impossible to calculate actual damages from any copyright infringement even when it is blatant (ex: make copies of commercial DVD and sell them on street corner.) That is why copyright law uses statutory damages. As long as you register your work with the Copyright Office, and do so before the infringement occurs, than you get a fixed amount of damages per each infringement. You don't have to prove actual damages.

The reason the MPAA has never sued anyone for making a backup copy of a DVD should be obvious. How the hell would they ever know that someone made such a copy? How would they ever gather evidence against the individual? Even if they had such knowledge and evidence what would it accomplish to sue that individual? The notion of suing consumers for making backup copies is not even a reasonable one, but the fact that no such suits exist is in no way an argument that backing up something is permissible. It works exactly the opposite. You don't have to win a suit to prove that the particular type of copying is infringing. The burden to prove that an exemption applies is on the person claiming it. Unless they do so, it is per se infringing. This language is taken directly from the Copyright ruling I posted above and its the basis for how all of copyright law works. All unauthorized copying of copyrighted works is an infringement unless proven that an exemption applies.

[oldfart13]

Sorry to hijack the thread (I didn't like that crack about Canadians being "funny") but the appointment of Judge Konrad von Finckenstein to the head of the CRTC (Canadian Radio Television Commission) should make people on the other side of the border (ie. USA) just cringe. He was the guy that made this ruling:

"In 2003, von Finckenstein was appointed a federal court judge. One of his most well-known decisions came in 2004, when he ruled that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn't constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law."

So now he has a lot more clout. Since he can't be bought off by the corporate lawyers nor will he rule against what he perceives is the right thing to do under Canadian law this must just burn up outfits like the MPAA and the RIAA....

[thecoalman]

Sorry to hijack the thread (I didn't like that crack about Canadians being "funny")

Sorry, wasn't meant to offend. I was trying to be sarcastic, read from about 4 or 5 posts up.

[lordsmurf]

Simply don't buy the product....

This is simply faulty logic in my book. When you're a monopoly over a product, you cannot be allowed to state "do what I want or don't use it". If we did that, we'd all be sitting in candle-lit houses, using the Pony Express for communication, and riding horses for transportation. There are valid reasons why the authority over the people must intervene when businessmen (now corporations) turn into greedy shits.

[thecoalman]

Well I disagree, first this is after all entertainment we are discussing. It's not gas, water or coal , your life is going to go on whether you have it or not. If it was something that you couldn't live without then you would have a point. I disagree about the monopoly as well. There are other outlets to get your entertainment even free, consider how many independent bands offer free downloads. Unfortunately not many people take advantage and prefer what the mass media companies have to offer. As long as that continues you won't see any change in the current trends, it's going to require a mass consumer revolt.... Personally I can see this happening, especially when as more and more of these people that have downloaded music tracks find out what a pain in the ass it really is.