MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility 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."
why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't AACS encryption just AES? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Law (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Law (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Copyright? caveat (Score:2, Insightful)
in USA and applicable only to US residents
the other 5.7 billion people can enjoy their HD rips
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
What the law said does not matter to **AA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Law (Score:3, Insightful)
They can enforce take-down notices against anyone in the US. Fixed.
You Misunderstand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
How is it unauthorised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? My car is capable of going 100 mph and my car isn't illegal.
Re:Law (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
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]Re:why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but what the hell does that mean? There are only two relevant "IP" laws: copyright and patent. Since the code is original, copyright does not apply. Is AACS patented then? Again, I have no idea what exactly the legislation is, but I would assume that in most jurisdictions the law does not apply to PCs. I am under an impression that there might be a patent on a device with the said software, but that would probably not apply to a general-purpose device which can run any software.
Re:Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing a movie DVD constitutes a performance of a copyrighted work. A license to perform the work in a private residence is concomitant with the purchase of a copy. There is nothing anywhere that says how you must perform the work. The license is relevant only to the performance, not the performer. You may perform the work either in a super-uber high-end jewel-encrusted DVD player, or in a crufty piece of junk you bought second-hand at Salvation Army.
...Or, in a DVD player program you wrote yourself.
I don't need "permission" to write a program, I don't need "permission" to run a program, and I don't need "permission" to have that program crunch on data in my lawful posession. The End. There is nothing inherent in the statutes or the Uniform Commercial Code that grants copyright holders the right to constrain the method of performance, nor can it be reasonably argued that they should enjoy such a right.
As for the DMCA, well, that needs to be repealed yesterday.
Schwab
Re:Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it IS illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore the law all you want (Score:3, Insightful)
MPAA response (Score:2, Insightful)
Next, on Slashdot, the MPAA sues God for decrypting all their copyrighted works!
Re:Copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is illegal for the consumer to access the work, if there is an access control, if the consumer lacks authorization. The studios never give consumers authorization (and the implied authorization argument has, so far, fallen flat). Rather, they authorize devices, which can be used by people who themselves lack authorization. That is, the authorization is an attribute which flows through the player, rather than the disk. (Though it's still attached to the player -- the owner doesn't have authorization, save for with regard to that player; a possessor of the player has authorization with regard to that player, even if he isn't the owner, etc.)
From the programmers' point of view, as long as the code that they write isn't taken from a licensed user of the software, they're not violating copyright -
This conversation is about access and circumvention. We are not talking about copyright, which is a different, though related subject.
and as long as the primary purpose of the code is simply to view the DVD, then I think that that (at least arguably) keeps them on the good side of the DMCA.
That argument has been tried, and it has failed. Feel free to keep trying a loser argument, but don't be surprised when it keeps on being a loser. I'm not suggesting how I want things to be, I'm describing how things are. You'll have better luck coping with this, and in changing things for the better, if you deal with reality, rather than pretend that things presently are how you wish they would be.
really there are 4 ..... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:really there are 4 ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Turtles all the way down (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to worry. With the advent of Trusted Computing, your next computer won't.
Not illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and decrypt. Either you do have the authority of the copyright holder, or the disc is unfit for purpose and you are owed a full refund. In either case, you will find your purchase receipt very helpful.
Re:Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't really matter though, you can't sell someone something without implicitly giving them permission to use the thing.
If that means they need to decrypt it to view it, and you knew that, that must mean that you intend to let them use the product, or it wouldn't be a sale. (And the courts have ruled solid that, if it looks like a duck, it is. If you think you bought something, you did.) If you've given people the rights to decrypt it, that means it's not a DMCA violation ("
Further, as the MPAA would *have* to know this. Contract/Sale law is pretty well understood here. So for them to send a DMCA takedown they *must* be lying.
Clearly, the law intends to stop unintended decryption - trying to put the files on P2P. Sure. But it's insanity to just assume that this applies to legitimate use of media you purchased legally.
The MPAA have no leg to stand on, but they aren't above cold-blooded and calculated direct misstatements of fact, lies, of outright fraud as an reading of Hollywood history will show. What's a little intentional perjury? So like the RIAA they continue to send takedown notices against legit files, having sworn to be the rights-holder, etc, and continue to do so merely because nobody has enough money to punish them in court. Thieves.
Re:why bother (Score:2, Insightful)
DMCA all the way (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that I can only peruse the film on a "licensed device" is racketeering (I'm looking at you, iTunes!)
The only protection they have is their flimsy "encryption". Flimsy because it gets broken by a couple of guys in a couple of weeks (thanks doom9 people!) Because the RIAA/MPAA/etc aren't THAT stupid, they pushed for the DMCA with its non-circumventing rule. You cannot legally break encryption, even if you are not breaking the copyright it protects. Let me say that one more time. You can't break the encryption on your legally bought disks, even when you just want to watch the movie. Said in yet another way: every person in the USA watching a DVD on their Linux system is a criminal under the DMCA.
> 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.
It's only illicit because of the DMCA. There is nothing wrong with me opening the hood of my car, replacing a couple of parts and driving off if that suits my fancy. The car is mine, the manufacturer has nothing to say about it any more (bad car analogy: cars aren't usually copyrighted. But you get my point)
> 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.
I don't understand how you can say that. They have obviously given me explicit permission to watch the damn movie. The movie is encrypted. Do I need to spell it out? How does it NOT follow that I can decrypt the movie? It's so obvious that it's painful. Again, the only protection they have from me doing what I'm supposed to do with the movie is the DMCA.
What the **AA successfully does is turn the copyright system into a "we can say what you can do with our stuff because of copyright". Copyright law was never intended that way. Copyright gives the holder a government granted, limited monopoly on distribution. The starting point is that we can do with our stuff what we want. Anything. Copyright was invented to give artists incentive to make more of their art by giving them a short monopoly over the distribution, making them the only selling point of the art, so they can make money. It's like the difference between opt-in and opt-out. It used to be that we could do anything, except for a few things (ie distributing content), for a short time (some years), because of the copyright. The **AA makes it sound like we can do nothing because the content is theirs, except for the few things they allow. This is wrong because it goes against the grain of the law.
Re:Copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's there to be read by end users, who will hopefully not question the strong wording.
What I don't understand is why, if I've encoded something using AACS, that I own the copyright to, why I'm not entitled to give permission to any and all to use an AACS decryption program to decrypt my copyrighted work. Wouldn't that basically make possession and distribution of such a decryption program be unaffected by the provisions of the DMCA (since it would be "with the authorization of the copyright owner")?
Or, in the world of regular DVDs, if you made CSS-encoded DVDs, couldn't you authorize people to use DeCSS, which would legitimize it? Feel free to give it a shot, but I doubt a court will go for it in the real world.
Doing so doesn't automatically make any 3DES or AES decryption program a DMCA violation, that would be silly!
A lot depends on the reasons for which someone distributes a copy. If RSA distributes a general-purpose decryption program using 3DES, then they'll be fine, even though it could be used against 3DES encrypted movies. If Doom9 does it, then they're not going to be fine, since they really only ever distribute anything for it to be used in conjunction with movies. That they might even be identical programs isn't relevant. Intent isn't something that is found in the bits of the program, but the law can still recognize and infer from the circumstances.
More accurately: he shared (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)