Clean-Room RTMPE Spec Created From rtmpdump 115
lkcl writes "A clean-room RTMPE specification has been created using the source code of rtmpdump-v1.6 for guidance. Adobe recently issued a DMCA take-down notice against SourceForge, resulting in copies of rtmpdump hitting quite a few bittorrent sites worldwide."
Vote for it (Score:2, Interesting)
We need people to nominate it on sourceforge
heres a handy dandy link(everyone who reads this should vote for it):
http://sourceforge.net/community/cca09/nominate/?project_name=rtmpdump&project_url=http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtmpdump/ [sourceforge.net]"
Re:RTMPE nothing more effective than SSL (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, I don't think the former doesn't follow from the latter--you don't need to be a good or even plausible system to be considered a copyright protection mechanism.
By the way--thank you for doing this work. It's usually pretty thankless, and it has the potential to piss off armies of lawyers. Thank you.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for the link, but is it a proper takedown?
I think the problem hinges on the use in the law (17 USC 512) of the phrase "material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity" (emphasis mine).
The rtmpdump does not infringe on any of Adobe's rtmp copyrights and Adobe don't claim it does (see section (a) of the letter). Thus Adobe must be claiming that rtmpdump is the subject of infringing activity. However this raises two issues.
First, does Adobe own the copyright on any of the works mentioned in part (a) of the letter (e.g. Catch Up, The Daily Show, The West Wing, etc.)? If Adobe doesn't own the copyright for any of those works, then Adobe has no standing to file a DMCA take-down for infringement of those works.
Second, supposing Adobe has standing and given that rtmpdump doesn't infringe Adobe's copyrights, could rtmpdump be classified as "the subject of infringing activity"? If it cannot, then the take-down is improperly formed and should be ignored by SourceForge.
Unfortunately I can't find anything that clarifies the meaning of the wording "subject of infringing activity". It could mean anything from "tool that could be used to infringe" to "material that is being copied in an infringing manner even if it isn't infringing". The former reading would make this a valid take-down while the latter reading would make this an invalidly formed take-down. The former reading however has problems because it not only makes every web-browser the "subject of infringing activity" but is also makes it impossible to determine whether any infringing activity occurred. This is because the wording is not "subject of potential infringing activity". Adobe provides and likely has no evidence that rtmpdump was ever actually used to infringe on the claimed works.
Can anyone shed light on precedent for interpreting the phrase "subject of infringing activity"?
Re:The OP doesn't know what "clean room" means (Score:2, Interesting)
Clean rooming would be irrelevant if the actual encryption keys were included in any other project.
What if the software did not include the keys itself but provided an option to pull them from a known location on the internet (or maybe from torrents using a magnet link)?