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."
Source Code? Make it universal (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
A stupid question (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ob. Simpsons... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Source Code? Make it universal (Score:1, Interesting)
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 make any money off selling DVDs, they'll go back to it.
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:Source Code? Make it universal (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe someone just needs to make a cvs that works with freenet so a project can't really get shut down, might be a benefit enough for these loner coders to make thier source public. Before if they published it they would have the risk of getting shut down AND someone else stealing their work and making a slightly better interface for it. Need to establish a loose user based to keep the crap out. But seems like a much smarter idea then trying to use freenet for media type files.
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?
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.
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:Isn't this guy in the UK? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 a shot. And besides, isn't piracy legitimate in a completely free market? Everybody is doing whatever they can to get money, the programmers make pirate software to break the newest lock, the pirates pirate and the studios try to prevent it, just one big circle of pure-free-market goodness
Solution: Partitioned Decrypter (Score:2, Interesting)
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: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.
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.
Re:Release on Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen brother! (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Not Surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
Xesdeeni