DVD-copy program tweaked after court order
Posted by malebolgia on 24 February 2004 - 05:05 · 8 comments & 692 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by YaddaMe on 24 Feb 2004 - 05:24
QUOTE Russell Frackman, a lawyer for the movie studios that brought the lawsuit, questioned whether 321's response was consistent with the spirit of Illston's order.
"You can't sell the product with a wink and a nod and then tell your users, 'What you need to do is get the ripper (descrambling) component ... from another source,"' Frackman said. "The law generally does not permit one to do indirectly what they can't do directly."
They are in complaince by continuing on without CSS-decryption, but with this move they're walking on thin ice.... 321 Studios also announced that they are going to be removing their "good-faith" anti-piracy features (the disclaimer, etc)
It's almost like they're pissed and are now giving the bird to both the court & Hollywoord.
By bending the rules, all they have done is give Hollywood more ammo come appeal time... and their actions stand a strong possiblity of hurting their chances in future hearings.
Another reason this is a dumb idea is that DVD-X-COPY is mostly for the general public (ie. the people that in most cases wouldn't know how to add CSS-decyption to their program). They have two choices now:
1) Sell their crippled software, but instruct/assist users in adding the CSS portion on their own.
This route would result in a fully functional program, but could ruin any chance at an appeal in their favor.
2) Sell their crippled software and make no mention of how to add the CSS portion.
This would basically be in compliance with the courts, but tick off all the people that would be trying to figure out how in the world to add the CSS portion on their own (remember, most of the people buying this software are not geeks like us, and would not be able to figure it out on their own).
Unless I'm missing an angle, both situations above result in a loss.
All in all, I say bad move... both in the courts & in the sales to the general pop. IMHO they should just comply, not sell dvdxcopy, and wait until their appeal. If they go through the proper proceedures, eventually things will work out in their favor, but again, their proposed actions (continue selling, possibly instructing users how to add the CSS portion on their own, removing the disslaimer & other anti-piracy features, etc) in no way help their cause.
Last edited by 10547 on 24 Feb 2004 - 11:13-
#1.1 Posted by markjensen on 24 Feb 2004 - 08:40
- The only "features" for their so-called piracy prevention was the warning and a 'marker' that I understand they put on every DVD you make - so you can't make a copy from a copy (only from an original).
They had to remove the decoding part of the software, because the DMCA (which should be ruled illegal) states you cannot violate the copy protection - in this case the CSS scrambling. So, the company remove all 'decoding' from their software, and just does a 1:1 copy. No decoding, and therefore, no ability to add their data into the stream.
What you have now is a standard copier. Nothing "crippled" on it. Just remove a feature that decodes the stream and allows you to put the data onto a harddrive in mpeg format. (If you still want to put the video on your drive in mpeg format, just use a video card with input, or a DV cam with analog input and firewire) -
#1.2 Posted by YaddaMe on 24 Feb 2004 - 10:18
QUOTE They had to remove the decoding part of the software
Yes, and without that deccoding process, their software will not work at all.
QUOTE So, the company remove all 'decoding' from their software, and just does a 1:1 copy.
What you have now is a standard copier. Nothing "crippled" on it.
No, it is not a standard 1:1 copier, it is impossible to copy a css dvd without decryption (the css decryption key is contained in a non-writable portion of a recordable dvd, therefore, even if you could make a 1:1 copy of the movie, the css key would not transfer to the copy, leaving you a coaster).
In order to use dvdxcopy (including the soon to be relased version) it is required that css-decyption be used. The only way dvdxcopy can be used w/o css-decryption is if the disc it not css-encrypted (which basically rulse out every single commercial dvd release).
Since 321 has already stated that they will not be able to assist users in adding css-decyption to their installs, the average Joe will now become extremely pissed that his purchased software will not work unless he adds on another program, but one that 321 will not assist him in finding/installing/etc.
"Crippled" hits the nail directly on the head.... "The new product will still allow consumers to duplicate DVDs, but but only after they've downloaded other software, widely available on the Internet".
Since css-decyption is absolutely required for the program to even be functional, the anti-piracy steps could have been left in tact. But in a statement by Robert Moore, (321's president) these "good-faith" anit-piracy measure have been removed, in a basically a "screw you" type of statement:
QUOTE Because of this decision, I have decided to instruct our development department to remove ALL Anti-Piracy measures in our products. We will greatly relax the activation process and CANCEL the $10,000 REWARD program
imho, if they weren't already, they are going downhill, and fast, with this latest move.
Last edited by 10547 on 24 Feb 2004 - 11:24
-
#2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 24 Feb 2004 - 05:42
- I guess they're trying to make as much money as they can before being shut down completely.
-
#3 Posted by mipra on 24 Feb 2004 - 06:43
- I am hoping to see the DVD Writer producer crying about this
-
#4 Posted by altermind on 24 Feb 2004 - 09:13
- the thing that bugs me the most about all of this is the fact that I for one have had hundreds of films or music CD's destroyed due to pure neglagence....
I love putting them on my HDD..... I've a bucketload of storage... I've lost alot less becasue of being able to copy them to my system... (also.. I hate having to search throught a pile o disks... one day I wanna be able to control my comp without moving.. EVER...
how can I do that if I have to change disks..... USELESS I say
-
#5 Posted by notsobetter on 24 Feb 2004 - 12:20
- I still say that if you are not allowed to copy them then you should be allowed to return them for a new one if they get scratched. That would put and end to the dvd copy debate in a hurry
-
#6 Posted by aristotle-dude on 24 Feb 2004 - 21:43
- The DCMA violates fair use. A consumer should be able to make backup copies of TAPES,CDs or DVD's they own a copy of.
In order for the popular DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy programs to successfully make copies of DVDs, users will now need to obtain a separate descrambler that is widely available on the Internet, said Robert Moore, founder and president of 321 Studios Inc. "It's a hollow victory" for movie studios, Moore said. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco gave 321 Studios a week to stop making, distributing "or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software."
She agreed with the Hollywood studios' contention that 321's DVD-copying products violate the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the circumvention of anti-piracy measures such as the Content Scramble System, or CSS, that is used to protect DVDs. Makers of DVD players license keys to descramble CSS-protected DVDs, and Illston deemed 321's use of those keys unauthorized. The ruling does not affect 321's other software for copying computer games or creating DVDs from home videos, PowerPoint presentations and digital photos. It also does not cover the scores of DVD-copy products available elsewhere online, often for free.
Wind River has traditionally provided operating system software for mission-critical devices such as the Mars exploration rovers and jet fighter control panels. But as its clients become more interested in cheaper software for high-volume, low-margin business, the company said it started exploring Linux, a software which is free to use, copy, and distribute.
"Wind River brings their tools and platform to the table, Red Hat brings its services and Linux expertise to the table," said Richard Williams, an analyst with Summit Analytic Partners. "When you put these two together, it is a lot faster to provide Linux to the market."
Alameda, California-based Wind River said clients such as Nortel Networks Corp. and Lucent Technologies Inc. have asked for Linux. But its more expensive flagship VxWorks software, which is designed to be faster and more reliable, will continue to be used in areas where higher security is needed.