DVD Decrypter Author Served With Take-Down Order 674
the-dark-kangaroo writes "The DVD Decrypter author has announced that he has been served with an order to cease his development of DVD Decrypter. The developer has been forced to hand over all source code and the domain that he was using. It is thought that it could be Sony who have served this notice, as it is rumoured that he broke their new copyright protection within 72 hours of its release."
Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
If I held my breath every time I was surprised by the abusive use of the abusive DMCA, I'd.... oh wait, I'd be breathing perfectly normally because it doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.
Of course, many of the people responsible for the passage of the DMCA were re-elected, and few, if any, people raked Clinton over the coals for signing the damned thing. What amazes me most about all this is not that companies are using this +5 Tool of Corruption, but that nobody outside the technical circle seems to care.
So fuck 'em. I say let the little bastard consumers wallow in their own shit until they're paying $11 every single time they want to watch the newest shitty hollywood flick that they can no longer obtain through any means but 24-hour-per-use download.
Cracking this garbage isn't going to get rid of it, it's just going to get people dragged into court. If you want it gone, let them piss consumers off enough that there's a backlash and the distributors and producers have no choice but to strike a reasonable compromise between fair use and protection against theivery.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
TORRENT PLZ (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Informative)
I personally think that they are trying to drive the consumer back into the theater, where they can make fat cash off of stale popcorn and swimming pool sized soda sales.
The only people who make money off the concessions in theaters are the people who own the theatres. Seeing as how (in the US at least) movie studios are barred from owning movie theatres (old anti-trust case that goes back at least 50 years), the studios aren't making money off the concesions.
Nope. They just want full control of the
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's pretty much the way it is already. You pay $9, you get to watch it exactly once, when they feel like showing it to you. It's called "going to the movies".
For a long time it was the only way that movie studios made any money. If they think they can't ma
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that DRM enforced by legislation is about as far from capitalist as you can get. Let us not make a habit of associating free market capitalism with pro-corporate authoritarianism, if that is indeed what you were doing. The two are polar opposites.
If you want it gone, let them piss consumers off enough that there's a backlash and the distributors and producers have no choice but to strike a reasonable compromise between fair use and protection against theivery.
I am positive that they won't actually push consumers that far. They always stop right before the breaking point, let people get used to it, and keep going. The problem is that they have been allowed to go too far already, and as people become accustomed to the rising temperatures, they are willing to stomach even hotter waters.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious: how exactly would you suggest, in a purely capitalist system, that the creator of a thing which can be copied (and thus re-sold without any money going to the creator) protect his product? Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?
Easy example: suppose the existence of a molecular replicator on a small level, i.e. a device capable of "reading" medicine and generating perfect (i.e. digitally perfect) duplicates of the original at a significantly reduced cost. Now, there is a disease (it doesn't matter of what type). A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently). However, the existence of the replicator means that anyone who obtains a microscopic sample can easily and cheaply replicate countless amounts. How is the developer to recoup his costs? He cannot sell the medicine for any more than it would cost to replicate it (assume that one person bought it at full price, but then sold a ton of it at cost).
Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're talking about an end of (or drastic reduction in) physical scarcity, much like how there is very little scarcity in the electronic realm. Just like copying a bit is nearly free, copying a physical molecule would be nearly free.
A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently).
Do they not have replicators? Just like pressing CDs, we can assume the procedure for making the drug is "take existing sample of drug and place in replicator; push go".
Given a replicator, I would be amazed to find a drug that cost billions to develop. You would never need to run a reaction larger than what fits in a lab, and you would never need to worry about running out of rare materials or difficult to produce intermediate steps -- just replicate everything you need. If we assume that the replicator can make small changes to copied molecules, then there is no need to run any reactions at all. Just fabricate the molecule you need.
Okay, there are still costs involved in researching the drug. How does the developer recoup these costs? By selling the drug at a reasonable price. Take, for example, music: most people do want to reward the creator. Even with a price disparity of $0 vs $15, most people choose to pay $15. Yet today, in a replicator-less world, pharmaceuticals still charge so much that they not only recoup their development costs, they also recoup their 2-4x larger marketing costs, and then still post profits that are the envy of every other industry.
So how would a pharmaceutical survive in a world with replicators? Well, if they are as greedy as existing corps, they wouldn't. Good fucking riddance. If instead they wanted to charge a fair price, they would survive.
Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
I do not consider the end of scaricity to be a problem. There are, of course, those whose power is based on scarcity and thus do see it as a problem. If the replicator is ever invented and runs as cheaply as we assume here (unlikely to put it mildly), then there will certainly be huge and horrible wars fought over the right to use the device. I tell you this right now: I will be fighting on the side that wishes to end physical scarcity and grant everyone access to replicators. Anyone who wishes to tell me I don't have the right to do this I will consider a mortal enemy.
Re:Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Paying a bunch of private-sector PHD guys (i.e. expensive salary) to spend years and years on an item that most likely won't pan out
2) We've gotten the easy drugs out of the way, to do the stuff on the next level we are skirting the safety line and testing for a decade along with legal ramifications.
For an example look at drug Tysabri 2 months ago, Biogen lost half of it's value (and it's a multi-*billion* dollar company) because one of the secondary drugs from another company that it combines with theirs to fight the affects of MS possibly caused a death after the decades of testing. They had a market cap of $22 billion, after that they had a market cap of $12 billion.
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost.
Re:Problem? (Score:3)
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost. [emphasis mine]
99.9%? Bullshit. Show me your source for that figure, or did you just make it up off the top of your head like the
Re:Problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, most of the cost of drug development goes into clinical trials. In order to test a drug, you need 10,000 volunteers. They are not paid. However, their doctors are paid - handsomely. You see, for every company trying to recruit patients, there are three other companies also trying to recruit patients. Doctors sign patients up for the highest bidder (which is to say - the company paying them the most - not the
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you're going to erect analogical strawmen, how about this one? Suppose my business model is, "I smile at you nicely, and you give me $1." When I discover that I'm not making enough money using this model, I get Congress to pass a law requiring you to give me the dollar.
(In other words, I'm deeply suspicious of any newly proposed, auth
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I should have mentioned that. You're correct.
"In such a system, DRM backed by legislation would not be an issue, since there could be none. I would see two results from this scenario: the development of "perfect" DRM; or a change in the present business model."
per se, but rather an indirect criticism of outright dismissal of DRM. I believe DRM to be a flawed but properly-intended attempt to protect innovation. If you're rejecting DRM, which is a valid perspective to take, I was just asking what your ideal solution to the problem would be.
My feeling is this: in a purely capitalist state of that kind, it'd be impossible. That is why, much like a purely communist state, human nature precludes the long-term survival of a pure capitalist state. I define myself as a subclass of libertarian, an 'anarcho-capitalist'. The Wiki has a good article about it. My basic point though is that either complete intervention (communism) or the lack of any intervention (pure capitalism) inevitably result in the stifling of innovation (not to mention a variety of other flaws in either system). By simple logic, if either extreme leads to such an undesireable result, then the only possible solutions which may lead to a desireable result must lie somewhere in between the two extremes.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want to misunderstand you: are you stating that in the absence of any monetary rewards (but NOT in the absence of monetary needs, i.e. money to acquire non-microscopic goods in my hypo such as a car or food) innovation wouldn't be stifled?
If that is your opinion, I have to respectfully disagree. Granted, if some replicator technology existed which eliminated ALL needs (i.e. it could so cheaply reproduce both micro- and macro-scopic products that no one suffered for poverty) then I believe it is possible that innovation would survive. The problem is that if person A needs macroscopic goods, but there are only replicators for microscopic goods, then A has zero incentive to invest his time/money in researching new microscopic products since those products will be unable to recoup him costs, much less provide the profits needed to purchase those macroscopic goods.
"In your example, the companies labs and resources would be offered up free to anyone with apropriate backgrounds. They would then use the facilities to do research and release the end product into the public domain."
Why would the companies do any of this? Your answer seems to be altruism (or, altenately, a self-satisfying desire to create without the need for external gratification), correct? My problem with such an answer is that it doesn't agree at all with history. There is no record of any civilization, ever, sustaining such motivations. As noted earlier in my post, I do not believe those motivations can exert the proper pressure against the society as a whole (as opposed to a handful of possible individuals) unless the technology for duplication applies to ALL goods.
Bringing it back to focus: right now, I can digitally copy most intellectual property, but I cannot copy any real-world property (ignore the overlap, e.g. books, for the moment). If there is no profit-incentive to produce that intellectual property, why would any person who still needed to pay for real-world goods enter the intellectual-property production market? Some, of course, will be so driven by the artistic/altruistic drive, but do you honestly believe that is even a significant minority, much less the majority of the population? Such a market crash hasn't occured yet, because it is too difficult for most users to actually obtain copies of most intellectual property (MPAA/RIAA concerns aside, most people in this country obtain their music, video and video games legally), but what happens which it is easy enough for your arthritic grandma with no eyeballs to do so? Why would most people - at such a point - spend his time doing the unexciting parts of intellectual property creation?
Wrapping up a long post: it seems to me that, in the absence of universal replicator technology, your theory relies on the presence of a large number of artists and altruists, correct? If so, does your experience with humanity seem to validate that theory? I'm asking you, personally, whether you think there are a sufficient number of altruists and artists in our species to fulfill the innovative needs of our world without economic (or possibly even social) compensation?
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
One definition of capitalism [answers.com] states:
The "government restriction", for many libertarians (often seen as the biggest promoters of true capitalism) at least, would include the argument that the government should not aid OR abet any enterprise, in addition to not restricting them.
The real issue comes down to why corporations feel that "trampling our rights" is okay. Well, you needn't look any further than the myraid of government licenses, regulations, and tax laws to see why businesses feel justified in harming the citizens that work for them. Our "us vs. them" mentality has only turned competing businesses to do the same back to us.
What we need to see is a seperation of corporation and state. We need to have a government that doesn't exist to promote any corporate policy just like our government doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) promote any religion. Unfortunately, there is a false belief that government intervention and regulations on businesses actually work for any real change in this direction to occur.
I had high hopes that our generation would be the one to establish the seperation of corporation and state, but I continually see this misconception of the US economic system as being "capitalist" as detrimental to any real progress. The US economy is FAR from capitalism, there is HEAVY government intervention and involvement.
About the libertarian comment: There is the start of a revolution in libertarian (note, small "L" to indicate philosophical as opposed to political party) thinking that copyright laws actually serve to "harm" rights of the individual. I belong to this group of thinking and if you're interested, I would encourage you to read up on it [libertariannation.org].
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue comes down to why corporations feel that "trampling our rights" is okay. Well, you needn't look any further than the myraid of government licenses, regulations, and tax laws to see why businesses feel justified in harming the citizens that work for them.
Solution To Consumerism (Score:3, Insightful)
People spend so much time complaining, but very little time backing up their complaints with a
Re:Solution To Consumerism (Score:4, Interesting)
I buy my entertainment "used" whenever possible.
The MPAA doesn't see any additional licensing fees from me.
The RIAA doesn't count me, and I pay considerably less by being patient.
This works really well for video games and computer hardware too. I don't need to show anyone how cool I am by having the latest and the greatest because I'm patient.
The entertainment industry is all about shiny things and intensity, and immediacy. They market shiny things to people who crave them.
I don't crave any "manufactured" entertainment so much that I can't wait...but then I don't feel the need to buy an H2/H3 to prove my penis is large either.
Amen brother! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Solution To Consumerism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Pardon me if I mis-interpreted, but it appears to me you are posing a rhetorical question to the effect of: if sueing the people making a tool is OK, who is sueing Smith & Wesson?
If so, this isn't a rhetorical question. The answer is: The US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, usually known as "HUD". At the time, S&W was owned by a British company, who thought it was a good idea to settle:
http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/gu nagree.html [hud.gov]
The results were disastrous for S&W. The "agreement" required S&W to impose additional burdens above and beyond federal law on dealers. As a result, many dealers dropped S&W products altogether. The remaining dealers found themselves unable to sell an S&W product to anyone that was familiar with the HUD fiasco.
S&W was nearly bankrupted, even after massive layoffs. Tompkins LLC finally sold S&W for a small fraction of its value to an American company. They are turning a profit again, but only after the US Government has effectively repudiated the agreement.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak for most people, but I use it back up DVDs before my 6 year old or my 2 year get near them... I let them scratch up copies instead of originals.
tsk tsk -- turning your 2yr-old into a pirate (Score:5, Funny)
What will you do when you 2yr old turns into a 12yr old who robs little old ladies at gunpoint for heroine money, all because they saw Daddy do it to the movie studies when they were little? hmm?
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Funny)
see, if I buy origionals I give $30 to a lawyer in the US... these guys can already feed themselves, they don't need another $30 from me as much as...
if I pirate the move I'm giving 3c to a princo factory worker in the 3rd world... 3c might not sound like much, but it's enough for them to feed themselves for the day.
And don't give me the 'think of the artists' crap, Tom Cruise is not likely to go broke anytime soon.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Funny)
Unless, of course, he sticks to $cientology...
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
Xesdeeni
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we?
Because... It doesn't actually work for that particular purpose, most of the time.
Personally, I use it to extract soundtracks from (for example) concert footage for listening in my car. For making something that passes as a backup of movies I actually own, I use DVD Shink.
Why?
Because almost all new releases on DVD use double-layer. Meaning that making an actual copy would currently cost you $10-$15 per disc just for the DL blank, more than you can outright buy a legal copy of most movies on sale.
Now, sure, HDDs have gotten rather cheap. But I suspect the number of people who would set up a cheap raid of SATA drives just to hold their pirated movie collection, at a cost only about 25% less than just buying the movies, falls quite a bit lower than those who would use such a program legitimately... Which I also consider a low number, quite likely.
So what do I think most people do with it?
I would say that yes, they rip movies they rent. But for the purpose of 1) Keeping it just a little longer than the rental period (perhaps keeping a constant rotation of 5-10 movies on their HDD), and 2) To remove the incredibly annoying pUOPs - Personally, it drives me to near rage when I put a movie into my player, and it tells me I can't skip right to the main menu. And yes, I will admit that more than once, I have taken such a movie (rented or not) immediately out of the drive and ripped it on a temporary basis for precisely this reason.
And, y'know, I seriously believe THAT bothers Hollywood far more than outright piracy. I see movie sales following the same path magazines took half a century ago - They only charge a cover price as a sort of token of interest (to keep people from taking home the whole print run to burn for heat through the winter). They actually make the vast majority of their money from the ads they run, not from the cover price (thus explaining how they don't hemorrhage money when they let you subscribe for over 90% off cover).
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Informative)
No, it just means that you rip the DVD, split it into two pieces and burn it to two DVD+-Rs that cost you a tad over a buck apiece. So you have to store two DVDs and change the disk in the middle of the movie. Not that big a deal.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think things like this hurt the MPAA/RIAA, which is why I don't consider people who make/use the cracking programs public heros. I would think more charitably about people who assassinated them. Do I seem extreme? These are people who have corrupted our government (even more than it already was). It is hard to think of something bad happening to them that I would not applaud, unless it adversely affected innocent bystanders. (Unfortunately, all too likely.)
And I have yet to hear any justification for their behavior that holds any water at all. They show neither signs of remorse, nor even any sign that they realize that they are enemies of humanity.
Calling them enemies of humanity requires a bit of justification, because they're up against some stiff competition, but basically:
1) they bribe (legally, usually) the legislators
2) they are endeavoring to steal the entire history of human culture, and seal it away under lock and key so that it will never again be retrievable by anyone without their permission.
3) when they lose interest in any particular piece of culture, they abandon it WITHOUT taking the necessary steps to allow others to preserve it. And it's all recorded on quickly degradeable media.
4) in addition, they are attempting to crowd out all content that they don't own, so that noone can even discover that it exists.
They haven't been totally successful, but these are what they are attempting, and for just attempting it I feel that they are deserving of death. These are crimes against the very essence of what it is to be human. How many folk songs do you know in a non-proprietary form/b? Generally they make some small change, which entitles them to claim the copyright on that form of the words. But they don't tell you which pieces they are claiming as proprietary, they claim the whole thing, and unless you can PROVE that the form you know is public domain, any court will presume that their copyright is valid.
Try to copyright a tune, just try, and you'll get some small flavor of what I mean. Every folk tune around has been copyrighted, and the copyright doesn't say what part is original, so courts will presume that the entire tune is copyright by the copyright holder, even though their original contribution may only be a change of three notes in the fourth measure. (This is second hand, but I believe it to be true. I know that Joan Baez & Vanguard copyrighted minor variations of a multitude of folk songs...and they don't tell you what they changed from the original.)
I wouldn't regard suing the people who made the tool as wrong if the entire system wasn't so unjust. As it is, I reguard everything the RIAA/MPAA member companies do as irredeemably wrong.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
speak for yourself. i use it so i can watch dvd's on my linux box - without being forced to watch those goddamn fucking piece-of-shit advertisements, toothpick-in-the-eyes-Clockwork-Orange style, unable to skip or fast-forward through them.
if dvd makers treat me like a fucking lab rat, i reserve the right to hop the walls of the maze, if i can.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
- Speak for yourself. I use it to make copies of my purchased DVDs so they no longer have restricted user actions. That way I can pop it in, hit menu when it starts showing the FBI warning and not have to sit through the FBI warning, the Company's logos, the Dolby or THX logo or whatever else crap they think I should be forced to watch on a DVD I bought. I don't even rent DVDs myself, if I like it I'll buy it, but I'm not going to watch their shit before the movie, that wasn't part of the deal.
So this is, in all honesty, not the real reason to be upset with the MPAA. They are just trying to protect their investments.The issue isn't the MPAA trying to protect their investiments, it's about the MPAA _controlling_ when/where/how and on what you can play movies you _BUY_ from them.
Say no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say no? (Score:5, Interesting)
The main reason for a lawsuit in a case like this is to attack the defendents perseverance. While the courts will ultimately uphold him in the long run, in the short term he has a lengthy and very expensive court battle in front of him. Even with recovery of costs at the end of a trial, it will severely damage his means in the short time. Unless he has a healthy savings account, the big guys are going to wear him down financially throughout the case, hoping he will give up or surrender without a fight.
I for one hope this guy gets some backing to put up a fight, and while we are at it, lets throw him some punitive damages from a corporation attempting to bully a guy using quasi-legal methodology.
Say no, goto jail (Score:5, Informative)
Is this morally right? No, of course not. But its how the laws that the media bought are written.
Sometimes its easier to comply then go to jail or be sued into oblivion. You may be against it morally, but you still have a family to feed and have to cave in to 'the man'.
Crowbars.. (Score:4, Funny)
And those are crow bars?
Yeah, it breaks down like this: okay, it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hardware store, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, but, but - but that doesn't matter 'cause -- get a load of this, allright -- if you get stopped by a cop in Amsterdam, it's illegal for them to search you. I mean that's a right the cops in Amsterdam don't have.
Oh, man, I'm goin', that's all there is to it -- I'm fuckin' goin'.
Re:Say no? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just the law of the land, that's all. (Score:5, Informative)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Re:Say no? (Score:4, Insightful)
-Z
Re:Say no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then there's your solution. Just do what congress does and start calling DVD decryptors "Child Protecting, Terrorism Stopping Patriotism Programs".
Re:Say no? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody is going to care about the backpage headline saying "DVD Decrypter author in legal fiasco" but they might see and wonder about the slightly larger print "PatriotDVD CE (capitalist edition)." They would tell all of their friends about how they read an article such and such a studio trying to infringe on their rights by killing the patriots.
Its far out there, but if you are looking for a name for a similar program, just give it
It's still available... (Score:4, Informative)
Release on Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Release on Freenet - not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Because just providing the software to the world is not their only -- or maybe even primary -- intent. Freenet denys a lot of the ego satisfaction you otherwise get from being recognized on your own web-site with your own page counters.
And besides, they'd have to actually write help files since there wouldn't be a website and e-mail link for questions, problems, and enhancement requests.
Now is the time for someone to put it on Freenet -- or Usenet.
Re:Release on Freenet (Score:3, Informative)
This thing isn't going away just because the main website went down. Development has stopped, which is too bad, but it's still available. Who knows? Perhaps somebody can convince the author of the program to "accidently" release the source code into the GPL or something. If it did go open source then at least it might continue a little longer.
Re:Release on Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
No real need to release the code under the GPL. Just release the code. Release the code to the public domain and let EVERYONE go nuts. There could be 500 new versions by the end of the week. Let the movie companies go after all of them.
Although that is probably covered in his legal settlement.
Re:Release on Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
Shame to see this tool go (Score:2, Insightful)
From the author of DVD Decrypter (Score:5, Informative)
I"ve got some good news and some bad news.Let's start with the good.... (tumble weed passes by)Ok, and now onto the badVD Decrypter 3.5.4.0 is the last version you"ll ever see.We hoped this day would never come, but it has, and I can promise you, nobody is more gutted about it than I am.
What started as a bit of fun, putting a GUI around some existing code, turned into something that I can only describe as 'part of me' - yes, I know that's sad
Ok so it has taken a while (almost 2 years), but eventually "a certain company" has decided they don"t like what I"m doing (circumventing their protection) and have come at me like a pack of wolves. I"ve no choice but to cease everything to do with DVD Decrypter.I realise this is going to be one of those "that sucks - fight them!" kinda things, but at the end of the day, it"s my life and I"m not about to throw it all away (before it has even really started) attempting to fight a battle I can"t possibly win.
If 321 Studios can"t do it with millions, what chance do I have with £50?! As I"m sure most of you have already noticed, the site has been down for a few days. That surprised me as much as the next person (slight breakdown in communication), or I would have issued this statement on it directly.
So anyway, from this point forward, I"m no longer permitted to provide any sort of assistance with anything that helps people infringe the rights of "a certain company".That means, no more emails, no more forum posts, no PM"s, no nothing! END OF STORY.The domain name will be transferred over to the company by the end of the week (9th June, according to the undertakings I have to sign) so don"t email it thinking "Oh, I"ll just ask LIGHTNING UK! for support on this". You"ll not be getting the intended recipient and could be landing yourself in sh1t!
With 3.5.4.0 being the last version, it makes sense for everyone to disable the "check for new versions" feature, as obviously there won"t be any. Of course what I really mean is that you should all stop using the program out of respect for the company's rights.
Anyone hosting DVD Decrypter is advised to cease doing so immediately. I"ve the feeling they won"t stop with just me. I"m having to contact anyone I know of that is (at the very least, the "mirror" sites), and tell them to stop. Copies of those emails must also be sent to the solicitors so they can check I"m doing everything I"m supposed to. If I don't, I die.
It is of course down to the owners of those sites to react how they want to. It"s not my job to force you to do anything you don"t want to, I"m just giving you some friendly advice. Maybe it"s just me, but I see this as a bit of an "end of an era". I realise there are other tools, but there"s no telling how much longer they"ll last, and not only that, mine was the oldest! I"ve met loads of great people over the years and I want to take this opportunity to wish them every success for the future - yes DDBT peeps, that includes you lot! : "(I hope you"ve all enjoyed my contribution to the DVD scene and maybe I"ll see ya around sometime.
LIGHTNING UK!
(Author of the once "Ultimate DVD Ripper", DVD Decrypter)"
Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter (Score:3, Funny)
I thought that it took ten years for stupid ideas from the States to reach the UK. Not seven. (The DMCA being signed in 1998.)
Re:From the author of DVD Decrypter (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly the formation/joining in a European Union has made the process of the import of the United States' stupid-idea exports more efficient.
Re:Isn't this guy in the UK? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't this guy in the UK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hey dudeeo (Score:4, Insightful)
2. You can't fight back without money for a solicitor.
3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.
You think the guy deciding not to throw his life away is "lamo"?
There are other ways to fight (Score:4, Informative)
If he'd set up a one-man limited liability corporation and released DVD Decrypter via the LLC, then the worst that could happen would've been that his LLC went bankrupt. But most of you seem to think corporations are evil, so instead you put your personal lives at stake should an Evil Corporation® ever set its sights on you.
I believe the adage that applies here is: Fight fire with fire. The fight against corporate corruption doesn't have to reside solely in the political domain. It can be done in the market domain as well. Sean Fanning did it that way. He lost, but he now has millions he can apply to any future battles.
Source Code? Make it universal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Source Code? Make it universal (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope he thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope he thought (Score:2)
A stupid question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A stupid question (Score:3, Informative)
Because breaking the 'old' copy protection is also violating the DMCA.
we should know company soon.... (Score:2)
This sucks, btw..
What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:5, Insightful)
But as you suggested, might makes right. Or, more accurately, money makes right.
I'd like to see the author fight it, but the risks for him are far greater than the possible benefits, so it make sense for him to simply give them what they want. Overall, the world will have lost, but he'll personally come out better for having just caved. It's not ideal, but it's the way things are. Fighting this would cost money.
The ACLU or EFF probably would like to help him, but they only have limited funds to work with as well, so they're going to pick their battles carefully and pick the fights that they have the best chances of winning and which will provide the most overall benefits to their causes.
Also note that the announcement said nothing of the DMCA -- he only mentioned a C&D (cease and desist) letter. The DMCA may be involved, but he hasn't mentioned it that I'm aware of. But judging from what he said, he's talked to them a lot more than just having read a C&D that they sent him.
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Terms of extortion. They don't have any rights, in fact, if you read the author's post he states that he's also got to contact anyone who was mirroring the site and ask them to stop, then turn over a copy of that request to Sony (or whomever).
This is what their lawyers came at him with if he wants the gun pointed somewhere besides his temple. I have no clue what license DVD Decrypter was under, but this is why the Free Software Foundation encourages authors who license code under the GPL to turn the copyright over to the Foundation. The FSF has more than $75 (approx conversion), to fight things like this.
If you're going to write cool stuff that might get a legal posse out to lynch you (legally), you should consider a strategy like the one the FSF offers to protect your personal assets. It is still possible to stick it to the man, but you better act smarter than the man.
IANAL, yet.
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would appear that the company more or less approached him and said. "We get to hijack your domain, steal all your source code, you stop all work on the project, tell your mirrors to do the same, and avoid referring to our company by name. You can either agree to this extortion, or fight it out in court where we have millions to pay a legal staff and you have jack." Okay, they probably spun it with language a bit more favorable to their firm, but that would be the gist of it.
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to quote an apropos line from a page on Wiley's [wiley.com] site for the book Brand Name Bullies:
Offshore website for hosting (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of countries that have no DMCA-type laws for such tools. If this were a just rule, the WTO would be suing the shit out of each media company that even put out region encoded DVDs, which clearly are intended as a restraint of free trade.
And the moral of this story is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead make your code Open Source; share it, publish it immediately, don't publish just working binaries in the US on an American host. If you are from the US get someone else to publish it anonymously in a different country. Share. Share. Share. Why do people keep making the same mistake over and over and over ?
Otherwise you are just trying to say I'm cool look what I can do. If you genuinely believe DRM is wrong then share your code and publishly anonymously.
regards
Sharing the source code. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without Jon releasing the source code, there would be no T-shirts and haikus to show how stupid and simple it really was to crack the useless DVD protection. I'm pretty sure this new scheme is just as useless if it was cracked within 72 hours, but this very important message may now be lost forever.
When will corporations learn? Only when us consumers show them the way. I'm all for copyright and IP protection (I come from a family of artists), I'm all against piracy and fully understand its terrible consequences (I live in one of the top 3 pirate countries in the world), I'm a loyal consumer and don't own anything counterfeit or pirated but I'm pissed that people like me are starting to get crippled and outdated versions of everything, including our rights.
Last august I attended a presentation in Los Angeles of the new anti-ripping scheme Sony was developing for DVDs (don't know if it's the same but they DID mention DVD Decrypter). I was thinking "do these people really believe it will work?". I mean, the game consoles are meant to be closed standards and they still get cracked open in a matter of months, sometimes even days. How can they expect a protection scheme like that to work on an open standard like DVD? I wanted to scream "IT'S THE BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID!" during the presentation but I'm pretty sure I would've been kicked outside of the hall if I did.
That didn't stop me, though. During the Q&A session I told them it just takes ONE clever person to rip the DVD and get it through the illegal distribution channels, they simply responded the scheme was aimed at the casual ripper. Some people (especially the ones from Disney) listened to my concerns and seemed to be more receptive, since they had a wonderful presentation that day, showing a deep and surprisingly honest study on the issue of copyright infringement and its distribution mechanisms, kudos to them.
I'd say the moral of the story is to not keep your opinion to yourself, and that includes your code as a form of speech.
Re:Sharing the source code. (Score:3, Informative)
If you look back at the history of DeCSS, I believe you'll find that he did NOT actually share his source code. He refused to let anyone see it. But it leaked out due to an error on his part... don't recall if he was hacked or it was just unintentionally available by ftp on his site for a while.
But nonetheless, he never intended it to be shared at all, much less open source. Bu
Re:And the moral of this story is... (Score:4, Interesting)
They could have, but they wouldn't. The media production companies may be greedy - and amazingly short sighted at times - but they are not stupid (or at least most of their lawyers aren't).
They won't sue without some expectiation of tangible benefit. Without hope of stopping the program's development or distribution, there is little to be gained by suing - except to create a martyr that EVERYONE will attempt to emulate. Besides, most corporations are loathe to sue under controversial laws that have not been tested in court as there is always a chance that the judge will invalidate the law entirely. They would obviously prefer to threaten and bully everyone into doing their bidding without going to court.
So, aside from cutting down an exceptionally tall poppy from time to time as an example to others, the media companies will generally ignore the medium size poppies and hope that they just go away. And even that can backfire badly. The DVDJon Trial left them with egg ALL over their faces.
Besides, once the product has gone opensource one can claim that they are no longer in control of their creation. That really limits liability - and the fact that it wasn't illegal (in the UK) when it was created goes even further in that direction.
As for deciding to give in without a fight, however, I certainly can't fault DVDDecrypter's author for that - I probably would have done the same. But is still a shame that source remained closed, because now no one can carry on his work. This fight isn't about one man doing all the work while the rest of us cheer; it's about one man carrying the torch as far as he can and then passing it to others. Together we might cross a finish line that none of us can reach by ourselves.
What good does this do? (Score:2)
To which he replied simply, "I've posted it all to Usenet... you can get it off of there!" Seriously, cat's out of the bag, and even confiscating the developer's PC isn't going to make all those other copies go away.
Google Cache (Score:5, Informative)
For now at least, that's the list of mirrors for the software - most still seem to be hosting it.
Rant (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully this criminal will get what's coming to him: full forfeiture of all property and property owning rights, plus several years in an east Asian manufacturing compound for good measure.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Refresher course in cryto theory (Score:5, Informative)
Cory Doctorow explained it very nicely (in his talk to the Microsoft Research group to be found here [craphound.com]):
When will they ever understand?Re:Refresher course in cryto theory (Score:5, Insightful)
They understand perfectly that technical solutions on their own aren't always tenable; they also understand that technical solution + threat of lawsuit == "teh win".
Re:Refresher course in cryto theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify Users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify User (Score:3, Informative)
- you do not need to break encryption to copy a DVD. You can copy the encrypted bits all you want.
- you doneed to decrypt to play the DVD.
So all of the claimed DMCA violations are complete bull, as the encryption is not actually a copy protection mechanism -- it is a play-prevention mechanism.Any exact copy of a DVD will play in all the same DVD players that the original played in.
So what does this mean for other such tools? (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds fishy - what exactly has happened here? (Score:3, Interesting)
If it was a cease-and-desist: then it has no actual legal force (it's an unsupported demand from the writer, and the only immediate consequence of telling them to screw themselves is that they may then attempt to do something real instead), and if he didn't consult a lawyer before complying, I have no sympathy. And if he did consult a lawyer, I'd still like to know a lot more about what threat they made that made compliance appear advisable.
If it was a DMCA takedown notice: that makes no sense because such a notice would only require him to take down his site - not "hand over" the domain registration or source code. I'm not sure what "handing over" the source code is even supposed to mean; did they demand a copy of it? Or that he stop distributing it? Or what?
If it was a court order: then it is or ought to be in the public record. I want a case number, and the name of the court and the judge that issued the order.
If it was something else: WHAT?
Fair Use Killer (Score:3, Interesting)
Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to the new world of IP, no need for trial, hand over everything you own and pay your fine or we'll ground you into dust with our crooked lawyers and politicians.
10 years from now we will be looking back at the 90's to 00's as the "Glory Days" when you could actually backup and control your software and hardware.
I know its sounds totally cliche but when you find out whoever did this make sure and A) let them know you won't be buying from them again and way and also B) make purchases and them email them explaining exactly what you bought and how much they should have made from you.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Easy, it goes like this:
"Dear Filthy Pirate,
You created an illegal program, according to the DMCA. We know you're wrong. You know you're wrong. We have a near-infinite supply of money and lawyers to demonstrate that you're wrong. But rather than go to court and cost you untold tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees which you can't recover even in the remote chance that you're able to successfully defend yourself, we'd like to propose a settlement. Hand over everything... the program, the domain, the source code, a list of your friends and their email addresses and phone numbers, publish a public apology, and send us three bottles of the best 20 year old scotch... and we'll agree not to take this to court.
Sincerely,
Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe
Attorneys at Law"
What about creating an encryptor (Score:3, Interesting)
But what if...
1. I reverse engineer Company S's encoding method -- legal.
2. I create an encryptor, which can be used to encode a disc using that same technique, and open encryptor code to public (as long as it can't directly decrypt) -- legal, with patent caveat.
3. I create and publish my OWN content encoded using that method (to which I own the copyright) -- legal.
4. I then create a decyptor program which will decrypt MY content, which has a built in simple password "copy control" mechanism (but since I'm lazy it's pretty trivial) -- legal.
5. I open up my decryptor program with source for all people who download my content and pay me $1 for the "password key" -- legal?
Now, by "conincidence", the password key which protects MY work for which you purchased a license, also just happens to decode all Company S's content too, since it uses the same legally reverse-engineered algorithms. But since that code was legally developed, and is used to protect MY OWN content, then can't I release it?
Isn't the key to avoiding DMCA nonsense to create your own content...then don't you have the same right to protect and decrypt your own content as Company S does? Who says only S**y is allowed to create discs with intentionally corrupt sectors; and therefore only S**y can say who can write programs that ignore such sectors?
Torrent Link: Well seeded torrents are fast. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.torrentspy.com/directory.asp?mode=torr
No political movement no change in laws (Score:4, Interesting)
A prime example is the case of the McDonalds libel trial [bbc.co.uk] which turned into a major public relations disaster for McDonalds and for the government and which has some aspects still dragging on [bbc.co.uk].
Note that due to the nature of England's libel laws even the pair involved in the litigation knew they had no chance of prevailing at trial; but they chose to sacrifice a huge chunk of their life because the damage done to them is far exceeded by the damage the movement could inflict on McDonalds.
The difference then boils down to this--some people view causes such as the environment as being important enough to sacrifice their lives for. These people and their movement get results. Far fewer seem to feel that the concept of digital rights is important enough to sacrifice one's livelihood. I view the political system we have today is an arena of Darwinism for ideologies--survival of the fittest, the ones that can inspire people to make actual sacrifices.
Work around it (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM Flawed (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps not realistically, but at least theoretically, doesn't the DMCA encourage lazy/passive copyright protection schemes that as time passes will become increasingly easy to hack? Doesn't it give companies a false sense of security what it comes to protecting their valuable copyrighted material?
You're not going to stop people decrypting dvd's by making it illegal, you're going to stop it by making the encryption better... in theory anyways.
He should be releasing the source code. (Score:3, Insightful)
code and then let the community take care of the rest.
Thats what any good netizen would do, wouldn't they?
Arash Partow
DVD Decrypter caused a DVD sale, in my case... (Score:3, Interesting)
I happen to be a big Doctor Who fan. A relative from Great Britain was coming to visit a few weeks ago, so I asked her if she could bring me the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie on DVD. When she brought it, I immediately used DVD Decrypter to make a region-free DVD-R copy. I now keep it in the same DVD case as the original, and use that whenever I want to watch it. The movie's not available in the States, so without DVD Decrypter I probably would not have bought the Doctor Who DVD.
On a related note, I also used DVD Decrypter to rip the first CD of my original Battlestar Galactica DVD box set; not because I wanted to distribute copies, but to see if it could work around a flaw in the disc that crashed every player I put it in at one specific point. It took numerous tries to read that one sector, but it finally did. I ended up with a DVD-R copy that actually could play in my DVD player. It now sits in the BSG box with the original flawed disc.
I wonder how many other people out there are in the same boat I am: not using DVD Decrypter so much to pirate or make copies to distribute, but to watch discs they would never have been able to otherwise....
Just my $.02...
(And yes, there probably is a way to make my DVD player region-free. It was just easier to make a disc that was region-free so I could take it whereever I go.)
Needed - an Open Source Escrow (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue is control. How can an author maintain control over their program if they release the sourcecode? On the other hand, how can they get the sourcecode out after they receive a C&D Nastygram?
What I propose is this: We all know that software can be released under multiple licenses (eg Proprietary and OpenSource) simultaneously. Suppose an Author releases his program under both licenses simultaneously - but only gives the opensource version to 2 or 3 trusted individuals (Who have agreed NOT to further distribute the program until the Author ceases development)?
In this way, the Author would retain his control, but when he quits developing the program for any reason, it would be free for others to develop.
This is somewhat akin to what the American press is fond of calling the "Nuclear Option", because forcing a developer to give up his program would become the very worst thing a media company could possibly do. In fact, I suspect that the simple announcement that a project is released under simultaneous Proprietary and Open Source (escrow) licenses would be enough to stop a media company dead in its tracks.
Even the dumbest hunting dog won't attack a skunk twice.
Re:Sony? (Score:3, Informative)
copy protection is a euphemism - try copy crippled (Score:3)
It's amazing how the the copyright cartel has co-opted a term like "copy protection." It sounds like a technology which helps protect copies from becoming lost or damaged, or protects your ability to make a new copy, but in reality it does nearly the opposite.
The term "copy protection" more accurately refers to the money paid to the music mafia when you buy recordable audio media