Login:
Password:

AACS LA: 'A Line is Crossed'

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

May 4, 2007, 1:15 PM

In its first public comments since the now-mostly-useless 32-hex-digit media processing key was posted to hundreds of thousands of pages, in defiance of a decision by popular commenting site Digg, later rescinded, to remove references to the key, the head of the AACS Licensing Authority's business group told the BBC it is tracking down those responsible for all those posts, and reserves the right to take legal action against any or all of them.

"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection," the AACS LA's Michael Ayers told BBC technology editor Darren Waters. "We respect free speech... But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then."

Ayers' comments point to the possibility of a serious legal concern that could yet emerge from all the folderol over whether just saying the now-infamous hexadecimal code, which begins "09 F9...," constitutes a breach of provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Specifically, is the free communication of something that could be used in the circumvention of copyright a violation of federal law? The AACS LA's position is that it is, and that millions are violating it this very moment, some by singing the digits aloud to the tunes of hymns such as, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."

On the Corante technology law blog yesterday, Alan Wexelblat applauded Digg for its change of heart: “I don't think it's possible to have a clearer distinction between the old (Cartel) business model and the new (Web 2) model,” Wexelblat wrote. “The old model treats customers as enemies to be censored, sued, and publicly pilloried. The new model treats customers as valuable assets, key contributors, and policy makers.”

Whether Wexelblat intended his phrase “key contributors” as a double-entendre isn’t clear.

All this despite the fact, as Ayers confirmed, that the key in question was indeed revoked by the AACS LA. As newer HD DVD discs are distributed, revocation keys extracted from those discs by player software will cause software that uses the "09 F9" media key not to work.

For users of that software, having paid for a device that no longer functions because it was designed not to function, may be a more important issue than whether Digg stepped on the inviolable rights of individuals to post a popular sequence of hexadecimal code in their messages.

Meanwhile, Web publishers in the middle of all this mess have stopped trying to squelch the key in an attempt to comply with federal law, allowing instead for the thunderous outcry of dozens upon dozens of otherwise unoccupied users to repeat the refrains of the now-useless key sequence, until it too fizzles out as with other passing fads like the Macarena, mood rings, and disco music.

Add a Comment (128 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By c4p0ne

posted May 9, 2007 - 5:42 PM

Betanews is scared crapless of these demons.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted May 8, 2007 - 5:02 AM

"We all know that non-DRM files is what everyone wants. Can you buy them? Rarely." A few of the INDEPENDENT jam bands offer their own DRM free downloads; but they are a small minority. Those Senate hearings were a fraud.

Senator Patrick Leahy is a follower of the GRATEFUL DEAD. He bragged about having BOOTLEG concert tapes in his Capitol Hill office; when Jerry Garcia died in 1995.

We heard his public confessions on both NIGHTLINE and CNN's CROSSFIRE programs. Does it make sense that a politician (who authors copyright laws) has pirated music not released by a RIAA member record company? Hell No. Or how about - "hey mista police chief, do you smoke dope after work?"

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted May 7, 2007 - 11:49 PM

That's amazing I have the same combination on my luggage!

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited May 7, 2007 - 3:54 PM

I had a little time on my hands.............

http://img514.imageshack...sonycheerleadersox2.png

Score: 0

By kashin

edited May 6, 2007 - 11:27 PM

You can't un-ring a bell. This reminds me of the time when MP3s were gaining popularity and those idiots in the band Metallica spoke out against file sharing. Then the RIAA did all they could to get Napster shut down. What good did that do? There were stories about Napster and the MP3 file format on just about every TV station and only made MP3 all the more popular. My point is, the more these AACS LA idiots harp on about this stupid hexadecimal code and their stupid protection being circumvented, the more negative PR they will receive and the more people will look into getting tools to decrypt and copy their HD content.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited May 7, 2007 - 12:07 AM

Yup, those "idiots" in the band Metallica who had the audacity to take exception to people stealing their material and not compensating them for it. Who do they think they are anyway?

Tell you what dimwit, when you are old enough to get a job and to stop living at home, I get half of your paycheck.

But you armchair socialists are so cute as you self-righteously entitle yourself the rights to others' property.

I am glad you have practiced typing the word "idiot" so many times. Hopefully you will remember the spelling well enough that you can sign it correctly when someone ask you to sign your name.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted May 9, 2007 - 1:12 PM

BEEER GOOOOOOD!

NAPSTER BAAAAAD!

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted May 7, 2007 - 6:57 PM

Those idiots were the flashpoint that galvanized hatred towards the RIAA. Most artists want exposure, and will be compensated through that exposure. Metallica, and the RIAA, have tried to close the system, thinking it's in their financial best interest.

In both cases, it probably is monetarily in their best interest.

That said, most people don't relate to artists who chase money. However, they are entitled to money they make on CDs and recordings. Would you like to tell me how the recording industry would have helped me PURCHASE the files? Imagine if Apple hadn't filled the gap. It's 2007, and for the last 8-10 years, people have been unable to compensate artists via the internet. They either have to purchase a CD, or get DRM'd files. We all know that non-DRM files is what everyone wants. Can you buy them? Rarely.

So since this technology, and players as well, have been around for several years, you'd think that industry bigwigs would put up a lemonade stand. But they don't. They are too concerned with what customers that pay do with the product after they pay. They should be a helluva lot more concerned with LETTING ME PAY THEM for DRM-FREE FILES. I buy those, but I won't go out of my way to. I bought Nora Jones' single when Yahoo offered it DRM-free.

So take your socialism crap elsewhere. It's not a free market, and the blame is SQUARELY on the shoulders of the industry itself. If you don't open up stores with what people want to buy, how can you possibly be surprised that people don't buy things from you?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited May 8, 2007 - 4:15 PM

"Would you like to tell me how the recording industry would have helped me PURCHASE the files?"

Without DRM they would have no interest in doing so!
Or you could buy a DRM free CD of the music! But I guess that is too confusing for you astute computer users!

But the "people want DRM free files"! Sure, for those too stupid or cheap to buy the CD, as they want files that they can trade or obtain for free! DUH!

The artists and the "industry" owns the material. You have no right to it, implied or otherwise except as they define in their terms of use! And your freedom extends to your not buying or using them. Don't.

Nobody is complaining that you do not buy something.

Oh, but I love the "for the last 8-10 years, people have been unable to compensate artists via the internet." But their CD or go to their show!

"They are too concerned with what customers that pay do with the product after they pay."

So stop stealing and distributing the product.

THAT is what the artists and industry are complaining about. And every time they get caught, they all whine and blame DRM rather then their own actions.

Who is responsible? THIEVES are responsible for stealing.

After all, if the artists and industry and DRM are all so heinous, why do you want the product anyway? Duh! Go cry somewhere else.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 8, 2007 - 11:29 AM

They are too concerned with what customers that pay do with the product after they pay.

Funny that. Why on Earth should anyone be concerned when someone buys the right to private viewing of your content and then goes and stomps all over *your* rights by usurping the rights to distribution.

If you don't open up stores with what people want to buy, how can you possibly be surprised that people don't buy things from you?

You're right, they don't buy it, but they consume it anyway. We should all be okay with that?

Score: 0

By skimore

posted May 7, 2007 - 1:02 PM

Sure.. As I recall there was 2 Bands at the debate over digital music back in 2000 when congress had people testify.. So be sure to ONLY take the comments of Mr. Ulrich. and try to wash out what Mr. McGuinn said..

"I get e-mail from young people under 20 all the time who have discovered the Byrds basically from listening to Byrds tracks on the Internet," he added. "There's a renewed interest in folk music because I've been putting traditional songs on the Internet.

It might be worth it for people to start re-watching the hearings again..

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted May 7, 2007 - 10:43 AM

You totally missed the point, and maybe the whole K-train...

Most artists didnt care about Napster too much because for one, they knew that if someone wanted to download their music that means they are into their band and want to listen to their music and will probably buy it eventually if it was good. Secondly, most of the bands knew that they would make money from having fans buy, tickets to concerts, tshirts, promos, DVDs, etc, because they were in a band to MAKE MUSIC (imagine that!) and not because they are greedy money mongers like metallica. Are you so poor Lars Olric that you cant afford another gold plated shark tank for your greedy azz? Just because they (Metallica) are such a bunch of crybaby whiner b****es, I always have their entire collection publicly shared on multiple sites. On the flip side I always buy, and support bands that actually respect their fans. What a concept!

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted May 7, 2007 - 9:53 AM

"not compensating them for it"

Ok I buy the tape, reel, 8 track, CD, DVD, HD DVD, Blu Ray, book, t-shirt, poster

I expect to be able to do ANYTHING I want with it
With one simple exception, loosing them money

LOSE OF EARNINGS should be the issue
NOT copyright - the right to copy

Why should it matter if I have 1,000,000 copys of a DVD, if me (and only me) see it

I hope you get my point

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

edited May 7, 2007 - 9:58 AM

buying one copy for the front room, one for my bedroom, one for the kids room, one for the kitchen, one for the car

NO WAY

The 'license' should (MUST) cover copying for personal use.

If it dont they loose a customer - I just dont buy it at all

Their lose
Oh and the lose of earning - ah poor poor artist - and their idiot managers

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted May 6, 2007 - 3:45 PM

Idiots-- they're gonna have to sue half the world...

Score: 0

By yokozuna

edited May 6, 2007 - 3:51 PM

I love this sudoku: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070506

Solved! :-D

BTW, the numbers were mentioned in a BBC program this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...lick_online/default.stm The numbers were read, one by one.

Score: 0

By tarrith

posted May 6, 2007 - 10:05 AM

I'm going to get a T-Shirt with the code on it :D

Score: 0

By tarrith

edited May 7, 2007 - 6:26 AM

Oh man this is just great corporate humor!
Let's SUE THE WORLD!!!

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted May 7, 2007 - 12:11 AM

Post it several more times and maybe you will get it right!

As if YOU could make use of the code!

OK, Mr. Wizard, tell us how to employ the code in a meaningful manner to break the DRM?

Simply having the code printed on a TShirt makes you about as smart as an idiot with "genius" printed on a TShirt.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted May 7, 2007 - 5:55 PM

Hmmm, ever been in an Apple store?
(grin)

--->Simply having the code printed on a TShirt makes you about as smart as an idiot with "genius" printed on a TShirt.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 7, 2007 - 11:33 PM

lmao...

Score: 0

By F1Racer

edited May 5, 2007 - 6:59 PM

If we all post 1 segment each is it still breaking the law ?

Ok I`ll start. 09

Score: 0

By MidnightWatcher

posted May 5, 2007 - 7:28 PM

FU.

Score: 0

By F1Racer

edited May 5, 2007 - 7:31 PM

U2.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 6, 2007 - 7:29 AM

R2-D2

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted May 5, 2007 - 5:49 PM

News flash: "AACSLAOSER shuts down internet".

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited May 5, 2007 - 4:28 PM

AACS was just begging to broken, just like DRM'd WMA files etc...

They will more determined than ever to post the next key and rub it right in their faces. Of course, the only people suffering are legitimate consumers.

This silly HD movie format is still just a fad for geeks like us who are into electronics and technology. I really don't give a s*** about the money but I truly dont want either player or format anymore.

I still like regular old DVD, it looks so much more film like than BD or HD-DVD.

I have a free Toshiba XA1 for anyone who wants it and I was just given another 360 that I will never use.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted May 6, 2007 - 12:04 AM

:O Free is my favorite price lol =p.

Score: 0

By aredo

edited May 5, 2007 - 2:47 PM

They are a real mafia. The issue here is that judges and politicians are at their mercy. These people should be put in jail instead, they are no different from Hitler or Stalin. They are the ones who have crossed the line.

First they release the hacks to the public to increase sales as usual (just like it happened with DVDs and CSS) and now are threatening people. This is criminal action at its worst.

Score: 0

By dan-0

posted May 7, 2007 - 10:35 AM

Well I get the mafia link, but Hiter and Stalin killed millions of people. Last I checked, even if it is a criminal organization, (it isn't because Artists and studios sign up and pay dues for them to protect and mpaa pays AACS LA to encrypt it) they haven't killed anyone. Perhaps they are doing something backwards as$ for society, but the main issue here is that what they are doing is legal. despite how much you or I cry about how inhumane it is to not allow us to copy it to multiple sources, it is in fact legal.

What you should be doing instead of consuming as they expect, is boycotting their products. don't go to the theatre, don't buy or rent movies, don't buy dvd- hd-dvd brdvd. it has been made possible to copy songs and movies to tape in the 70's-80's. CD's and DVD' are question able, but now they have drawn a line so that their products should not be copied. they have paid enough polticians to make a law, the dmca of 2000 and have the go-ahead to enforce it.

If you keep buying products with copy protections and funding their cause, you have no argument. you buy it, you fight the cause against you. Don't buy it and you fight against all of them. They will help you get the entertainment you want if you start taking their funding.

You need to write your congressman and senate to get your message out as well as voting. if you complain and have no action plan, you get what you have contributed. less than 50% of people in this country old enough to vote choose not to. 50% can make the difference. be pro-active.

Score: 0

By spamspanker123

posted May 5, 2007 - 1:03 PM

Ya know, I posted some sort of witty response here last night, and now I can't seem to find it...

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted May 5, 2007 - 12:19 PM

They know the key is useless now, they are just trying to make an example of the people who leaked it or posted it online hoping to scare everyone into not doing it the next time. That won't work obviously but they're desperate.

Score: 0

By zaznet

posted May 5, 2007 - 4:17 AM

The DMCA was poorly written in a hurry to appease constituents mentality. We can thank big money lobbyist groups like the MPAA and RIAA.

The copy protection in HD-DVD and BD-R was poorly designed in a hurry to market strategy.

Add the two broken systems together and you have strong words with weak meaning. I hope the AACS LA takes a case to court and loses big time allowing provisions of the DMCA to be rightfully overturned in the courts.

Score: 0

By Steve Austin

posted May 5, 2007 - 5:34 AM

Only AACS has been broken, Blu-Ray has additional protection, which has not yet been broken.

This could b the final straw that makes the only non-Blu-Ray studio (Universal) make the move...

That of course, and the massive market lead that Blu-Ray has over HD-DUD...

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 7, 2007 - 12:45 AM

If Blu-Ray ISN'T cracked, my dear fanboi Steve, then it will be the one shunned in the open market. When people realise they can't backup their own Blu-Ray movies, and can't (cheaply) burn their own media, they will quickly choose the option that DOES allow them to do those things.

If HD-DVD released a cheap burner, the format 'war' would be over in no time. Hell, even I'd buy a HD-DVD player if I could get a cheap ($100?) burner. :P

Score: 0

By Steve Austin

posted May 7, 2007 - 6:37 AM

"When people realise they can't backup their own Blu-Ray movies, and can't (cheaply) burn their own media, they will quickly choose the option that DOES allow them to do those things."

It's the media studios that drive the format, not consumers. If all studios suddently dropped HD-DUD because of broken AACS, and went Blu-Ray and used BD+ protection, consumers would have no choice, aside from not buy, or accept it.

The only anti-DRM people, as media pirates who want to rip off movies for free, and force everyone else to pay higher prices to subsidise this for them.

Hollywood__ is a prime example, he just hates Blu-Ray, and even thinks high def is a "slightly better picture". He obviously wouldn't know quality if it jumped out of his screen and bashed him around with face with a wet fish.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 8, 2007 - 11:48 AM

go away sony troll

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

edited May 8, 2007 - 4:39 AM

HD-DVD used to be better than Blu-Ray in terms of audio and video quality. That was before Blu-Ray movies finally caught up with HD-DVD movies by using superior MPEG-4 video compression as well as superior Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD audio. Now the two HD formats are on much more equal footing, at least on the software side.

The only question is: How do Blu-Ray players handle Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD audio? Do they convert it to 24-bit 96 KHz PCM audio or do they ruin the audio quality by downconverting it to Dolby Digital or DTS audio?

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted May 5, 2007 - 4:17 PM

The fanboys like Steve are the ones who can't afford both formats, so they pick one and cheerlead until we are all sick of them.

I have both and I really dislike them equally, the novelty of a slightly better picture wears off after a while. I still watch alomost everything on standard DVD because none of my favorites have been released for either format.

I agree, people should buy their own movies instead of leeching copies from everyone else but I should also be able to make a backup for myself.

Crack away. And yes, Blu-Ray movies have been showing up on the torrent sites, so Steve, once again you are uninformed and dead wrong.

You pathetic broke turd.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 5, 2007 - 8:48 PM

Yes and no. Blu-Ray *does* have additional protection, but it has not actually been implemented on any release yet.

It's a moot argument anyway, though. When and if they do start using that functionality, it will also be hacked.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted May 5, 2007 - 3:10 PM

Ignorance at its finest. Do you honestly think that they aren't going to crack Blu-Ray's "additional" encryption too? If you do then you are blinder to the truth than I thought.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 8, 2007 - 11:49 AM

about as far-fetched as breaking hd-dvds eh?

Score: 0

By cjb110uk

posted May 5, 2007 - 11:14 AM

Nor has BD+ been deployed on any disc so far, so AACS on both formats has been bypassed.

It's also not certian if the current players can cope with it, it might come along at the same time as the BDJ (interactive stuff) compatibility.

and the 'massive market' lead is all smoke and mirrors, neither format has enough momentum to be declared winner.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted May 5, 2007 - 12:12 PM

Now now, don't confuse him with facts. :)

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 5, 2007 - 2:45 AM

In the words of the great American philosopher Will Smith: OH HEELLLL NAW! To AACSLA, it's on now, baby. Your encryption battle was lost before it started because you have no idea what motivates hacking. Hackers are the Borg, man, you will be assimilated and compromised, whether YOU like it or not.

HD-DVD is now the weakest link. I don't care who wins; I'm just glad HD-DVD has already been stomped into a sniveling heap.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited May 5, 2007 - 12:16 AM

Please excuse the top-post, but I've read the thread and just thought I'd offer a little info as a point of reference.

I'm not sure as to the age of most posters here, however I can recall the days when, if you wanted to have a telephone, you had to buy the telephone service from THE Phone Company (AT&T) and then you were forced to RENT your telephone set from THE Phone Company because it was impossible to actually own a telephone.

You could RENT a basic black dial phone or you could get yourself one in a different color for a slightly extra charge.

You paid the phone company for the right to use their equipment, just like your cable box of today; and, as you well know, it is a crime (theft of services) to illegally receive and/or transmit the cable TV signal...which means if you splice your cable wire and share it with the rest of the guys in your dorm you can be prosecuted.

You buy a CD or a DVD and pay for the right to enjoy it in its original form. Sure, you can play it for your friends, but what you can't do is make a copy for them. They have to go out and buy their own. It's really that simple.

Score: 0

By zaznet

posted May 5, 2007 - 4:24 AM

The owner of a copyrighted media does not have the right to provide a copy of that media to any other entity. That's NOT what is at question here.

What is at question is if I have the right to know how that media works or the right to tell someone else how that media works. Being able to make a copy is not the same thing as making a copy and then distributing that copy.

They do not own a copyright on the encryption key or system. They have protection built into the DMCA that says you and I can not even look at that encryption key and the system that makes use of it.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted May 5, 2007 - 2:31 AM

Hey Straspey,

Does that mean when I'm done with my HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players and movies, they will refund my deposit?

Oh that's right, your post makes no sense.

You see, the cable company brings a box to my house and I am renting it per the agreement I signed. Where the **** does it say that the player and movies that I go to a store and purchase don't belong to me?

I dont remember seeing any agreement or seal on the movie that says "when you break this seal, you are agreeing to the terms blah blah blah..."

So, I can loan freinds my original copy? What is the difference? Isnt that sharing? Isn't sharing illegal?

So it is OK to loan your movies to other people or is that immoral and unethical?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 5, 2007 - 8:17 PM

See that copyright symbol on the Disc?

That's all it takes. It means the rights reserved for the copyright holder are theirs alone unless you have purchased other rights pertaining to that content.

The copyright symbol means you are buying the right to view the content privately. That is *all* you are buying. They don't need to tell you every time you buy ti because people are *supposed* to be smart enough to understand the concept.

I understand that copyright was brought on at a time when most folks could actually think their way out of a paper bag though, so it may be just a bit out of reach for most folks today.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted May 5, 2007 - 9:17 AM

You realize this issue has been going on for the last 25 years, if not more.

I grew up in the days of vinyl recordings. One simply went to record store and purchased an album. If you heard it while visiting your friend, basically your only option was visiting the store and buying a copy for yourself. The only was to actually copy a vinyl album at that time was if you actually had a reel-to-reel tape deck and lots of other high-tech equipment.

Then came the audio cassette and that's when the trouble began. It may interest you to know that the first issue with recording copyrighted material concerned people who were recording radio broadcasts through their home stereo. There was a big uproar about this. That's because the "Compact Disc" had yet to be invented and recording vinyl was still difficult. (Now you can simply plug your turntable into the USB port on your PC).

The issue has always been with the technology and how each new advancement in the home entertainment field makes it easier for the end user to make illegal copies of copyrighted material. The issue is becoming more intense as we are faced with a market of music lovers who have never known life without computers and the digital format; ergo you have an ever-growing population who feels it is their "right" to...

And, BTW, when they invented the CD and stopped making vinyl records, there were millions of people with huge collection who were left holding the bag and had no choice but to switch and, in many cases, replace their entire vinyl collection on CD, thus effectively forcing them to buy the same recording twice. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the history which has led us up to this point and there needs to be a viable solution.

Score: 0

By xxdesmus

posted May 4, 2007 - 10:08 PM

Do they actually think they can take down 700,000+ websites without another million popping up? What a silly idea...

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted May 5, 2007 - 12:14 PM

Probably. They thought DRM would work after all.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted May 4, 2007 - 9:17 PM

The Porn industry has adopted the HD-DVD format. End Game.. Blu-Ray Loses!

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted May 5, 2007 - 12:15 PM

I'm an HD-DVD supporter but there is porn on Blu-Ray also, and it doesn't matter anyway. This isn't the 70s, porn isn't going to make a bit of difference in this format war.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted May 5, 2007 - 2:50 PM

Exactly. Porn is shared on P2P networks way more than any other stuff and only a few maniacs are really interested or concerned with watching porn in high-definition. 99% of people are not going to pay a price premium for hi-def porn while at least 40% are surely going to pay more to get hi-def normal movies and Tv programs.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 7, 2007 - 12:53 AM

I think there's a market for HD porn. Greater detail would certainly appeal to myself, and to many other pornography fans I know. I don't think it's as irrelevant as you suggest - but the Internet certainly has reduced dependence on actually buying discs/tapes from a store.

Score: 0

By Second Shadow

posted May 4, 2007 - 11:13 PM

And here´s the Hex code to decode the upcoming first porn titles to be released:
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69

C'mon .. it WAS funny ... :P

Score: 0

By siryak

posted May 4, 2007 - 10:56 PM

Eh...Let's not stoop to the Sony peoples level by making pointless posts...I am all for HD-DVD, but this post really is pointless.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted May 5, 2007 - 2:05 AM

Take it for what it is. I'm pretty sure it was meant just as a joke; not as a "HD-DVD FTW!" comment.

Score: 0

By skimore

posted May 4, 2007 - 7:20 PM

So when my grandpa that just spent $1000 + 70$ for each of his BlueRay DVD's now has to do extra work because of this s***!!

Sorry.. BlueRay and HD DVD IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME..

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited May 5, 2007 - 12:40 PM

What extra work? Oh and $70 for the movies, what in the world are you talking about? They are about the same price as regular DVDs.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 7, 2007 - 12:57 AM

HD-DVD is typically 25-40% dearer for new releases in Australia (than DVD). Perhaps the OP isn't a US citizen? ;)

Blu-Ray discs are about the same, although have a higher mean price.

Score: 0

By ladylust

edited May 4, 2007 - 9:11 PM

HD DVD isnt that expensive. You can get a player for $250ish and the movies are about the same as a normal DVD. I paid $500.00 for my 1st regular DVD player in 1996 (funny you would think DVD's were out forever). It all comes down in price as we find more Chinese slave factories.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted May 4, 2007 - 6:59 PM

While I guess that the "hundreds of thousands of pages" were probably posted by a much smaller group of people ?!

What if there really was 100,000 individuals breaking the law ?

How are you going to catch them ?
Fines or imprisonment ?
If imprisonment, you need to think about building more prisons !

And if there is that much bad feeling towards a law - shouldnt those in the position of power be concerned ? Review the law ?
And what about election time ? if 100,000 decide to vote for 'the other guy' ?

Or is this just another example of the people speaking and those in power not listening.

Dont alienate your customers
Dont alienate your voters

Score: 0

By fuamer

posted May 4, 2007 - 6:12 PM

USA is a fascist country!!

Score: 0

By Ano

posted May 4, 2007 - 6:23 PM

fas·cism /?fæ??z?m/
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Regrettably, the U.S. only qualifies disputably under any of these points, and not at all under several. I'm afraid you're wrong.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 4, 2007 - 6:09 PM

Two words, and I'll let them arrange them:

Off ****.

Score: 0

By fuamer

edited May 4, 2007 - 6:04 PM

USA is a fascist country!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:16 PM

Specifically, is the free communication of something that could be used in the circumvention of copyright a violation of federal law?

How far are they going to take that?

9 is part of that key. It can obviously be used as part of that key to circumvent the the DRM. Sure, it's not the whole key, right? Just the same, the key itself is not capable of circumventing the DRM alone.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

edited May 4, 2007 - 3:58 PM

DO NO TR ES TR IC TD IG IT AL CO NT EN T!

copyrighted by me, you can't use it, I'll sue you... /laugh

Score: 0

By Program86

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:31 PM

Come and get me beeeotches!

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:26 PM

Yes, a line has been crossed. You (AACS LA) have:
1. Disenfranchised us of our rights to view our legitimately-purchased content on any device we please
2. Contributed to pollution by making us buy new hardware
3. Stifled innovation by making content more expensive. This is why people are not adopting high definition as quickly as you want it to be adopted.

As long as you try to shove this stuff down our throats, we are going to continue to fight back.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 4, 2007 - 4:29 PM

1. Disenfranchised us of our rights to view our legitimately-purchased content on any device we please

You never bought that right.

Let me put it this way:

(recent post on /., don't know the user)
Them: "Hey, want to buy a movie?"
You: "Sure, how much?"
Them: "$100,000,000.00."
You: "F*** off."
Them: "Sorry, that was the price to purchase all rights to the movie, including redistribution and royalties. Would you like to buy a subset of those rights instead?"
You: "Sure, like what?"
Them: "How about, the right to public exhibition, and reproduction of media for sale, but no royalties? That'll be just $5,000,000.00."
You: "No thanks, too much."
Them: "How about, the right to public exhibition? Just $500,000.00."
You: "Do I look like I'm made of money?"
Them: "Sorry. How about, the right to private exhibition? Only $5."
You: "Now you're talkin'!"
Them: "So we have a deal?"
You: "Yep." [you hand them a fiver, and they hand you a DVD.]
Them: "Have a nice day."
You: "Hey, wait, this DVD is copy-protected! I want to copy it!"
Them: "Yes, sorry, we didn't sell you the right to do that. If you have more money -- equal to the amount we'll lose on average for each copy-producing customer -- you can buy that right too."
You: "But I paid for this!" [you shake the DVD at them]
Them: "Do you understand that you paid for limited ownership, and that you consented to the limits stated and known to you at the time of sale?"
You: "No, I'm too dumb-stupid to grasp that. I can only handle concrete meanings of the idea of ownership."
Them: "Yeah, we figured. You probably also think HOAs are usurping your god-given right to paint your house pink, eh?"


You want to be able to do anything you want with it? Pay up, buddy.

3. Stifled innovation by making content more expensive. This is why people are not adopting high definition as quickly as you want it to be adopted.


Has HD-DVD slowed down Blu-Ray? Has Blu-Ray slowed down HD-DVD? Has either of them slowed down the "holographic" research? Do you think before posting?

If anything the competition between the two has only increased their pace with additional features as well as spurred alternative research.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted May 5, 2007 - 1:02 AM

Good, thats the most common sence i have seen in a post on betanews for awhile :)

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:38 PM

By your argument here (and one the RIAA would support using the same logic) you're also reinforcing that we don't have the legitimate right to transfer audio cd tracks to mp3 format, correct?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 4, 2007 - 4:43 PM

Correct.

Unless it is for backup(or research) purposes only. :)

That is the letter of the law concerning copyright and fair use.

That being said, no-one AFAIK has yet been sued for doing such (unless they then distribute said rip).

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:47 PM

Actually, that was the entire basis of the RIAA's case against various manufacturers (like Diamond Multimedia when they were going to release the Rio... god has it been that long already?). Yet the courts see copying tracks off of legitimately purchased CD's for personal use (location shifting?) entirely legal and non-infringing. Hence, by that argument, the only reason we can't do it with DVD's is because of a technological measure, however weak and breakable, is in place, and with the DMCA outlawing any attempts to circumvent those measures, again, *however weak they are*, which abridges the right to *legally* transfer your DVD movies to another format for *legal, non-infringing, personal use*.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:51 PM

for *legal, non-infringing, personal use*.

For backup. :) (I.e., putting the content on your RIO and shelving the CD.)

See? Isn't nice to agree once in a while?

Score: 0

By cbcb

edited May 4, 2007 - 9:00 PM

You certainly are a tool....

Fair use governs most of the babble you wre spouting. You're employed by the RIAA aren't you? I think I've seen your user name before.

I think that it's time to ban this "tool" troll of a non-disclosed corporate sort.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 8, 2007 - 12:01 PM

where the hell did you crawl out of?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 5, 2007 - 8:25 PM

lmao..

You cannot possibly be that stupid.

The four factors laid out in copyright and used by judges to determine if use of content falls under fair use are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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.

Does it mention backup? Does it mention format shifting? Does it mention anything *at all* regarding *personal* use???

Why no, it doesn't. Fair use is *only* guidelines (Which are open to interpretation). It offers *zero* protection for *any* specific use other than research and education.

Go away, tardball. You obviously haven't the faintest *clue* what you are talking about.

I'm not usually this much of a jerk, but you had it coming after that lame-ass post.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited May 4, 2007 - 4:12 PM

2. Contributed to pollution by making us buy new hardware

Oh puh-leeeeeeez... That's like saying software contributes to pollution because it makes you buy faster hardware.

You have to have something that will play a new format. You can't just use a VCR to play a DVD. If you could then what's the point of a new format? That would not be a little thing I like to call "progress."

I was with you on #1, but come on.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:33 PM

Actually, he has a point, they're wasting our money by repeatedly changing specifications etc that would eventually render some players inoperable in the name of protecting their interests. That's the problem... legitimate players today may become obsolete tomorrow, without any change in physical functionality or malfunctions, merely because the media giants are treating everyone like a criminal *first*, and *then* treating them like a customer *second*.

Ask the MPAA if fair use entitles you to compress a DVD to WMV for a MS Portable Media Center, or a video IPod. Instead, they'll try to sell you the same dvd material you bought in another DRM'd format.

Inherently, all DRM is anti-consumer, as it is used as a means of guaranteeing repeated purchases, restricting the ability for the user to make a backup copy of the original and use the backup, as well as stifling interoperability and the ability to transfer that to a new technology when it arises, or a new device.

What's the harm in being able to buy a dvd and then migrate the content to your portable player *LEGALLY*? When you use any software to compress a DVD movie protected by CSS to a different format for viewing, you are *breaking the law* as it is written in the DMCA.

Yet, with audio CD's it's perfectly ok to rip to mp3 or whatever format your portable audio player supports! (Although the RIAA would tell you you're stealing in their twisted logic.) Why? Because it's not encrypted. If it were up to the RIAA, you wouldn't have CD, you wouldn't have MP3, you wouldn't have anything that would even be able to *record* audio, because they have to get their grubby hands in every bite.

If it were up to the MPAA, we'd not have things like VCR's and TiVo and DVR's.

It's all about sticking their hands into your pockets repeatedly for the same material.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:39 PM

What's the harm in being able to buy a dvd and then migrate the content to your portable player *LEGALLY*?

There is no problem, so long as you have purchased that right. Unfortunately, you probably haven't.

Fair use does not cover transformation of the works, it covers (only by interpretation, mind you) backup copies, ya know... for backup purposes. (Not to view on another device, in another format)

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:43 PM

So by encrypting the material and making it illegal to break that encryption, would it be a fair assumption to say that the media providers, in doing so, are actively trying to stifle your right under fair use to back up that media?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 4, 2007 - 4:49 PM

Circumvention of DRM for backup purposes has not gone to trial yet. AFAIK, no-one's pushed the issue on either side.

They are actively trying to restrict your use of the content to not infringe *they're* rights.

Not everyone is out to get you.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

edited May 4, 2007 - 4:54 PM

Actually it has, re: the recent flap about the Home Theatre dvd jukebox device that copied your DVD's to the hard disk, although from what I understand they leave CSS intact?

Anyway, I'm not trying to say they're out to get me, I'm just pointing the other side of the argument out in as logical a fashion as I can without turning it into a you-vs-me argument, which is pointless.

Only the facts matter, which is why I generally agree with you on your argument also. If you are licensed for viewing, and it's specifically outlined as such, then yeah, you're not really acting within your legal bounds to copy.

The real rub is that people in general view a dvd as a personal purchased physical copy of that movie, not a rented license to view in perpetuity of that single piece of physical media. Instead they view it as "it's mine, I'll do what I want with *my copy*."

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 4, 2007 - 5:26 PM

the recent flap about the Home Theatre dvd jukebox device that copied your DVD's to the hard disk, although from what I understand they leave CSS intact?

Licensed for that purpose, royalties on the sale of the device (again, AFAIK) are paid to the AA's.

The real rub is that people in general view a dvd as a personal purchased physical copy of that movie, not a rented license to view in perpetuity of that single piece of physical media

People don't think. Anyone who actually stops to think about it *knows* they aren't buying *the movie*. Most folks simply don't even consider it long enough to reach such a conclusion.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:31 PM

Thats exactly why i do what i do...

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:04 PM

Go ahead; take the piss out of the pool, idiots.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted May 4, 2007 - 8:09 PM

LOL! Actually I think they are going to add more piss to the pool.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:34 PM

OMFG, thats the funniest post ive seen in a while.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:03 PM

Numbers are not protected speech. I will fight to the end of all freedoms to ensure that something as benign as a number will never be illegal to utter.

What's next, not being allowed to say 36-24-36 because it's sexist? How about removing the number 69 from our schools for its 'obvious' reference to oral sex.

This is why the DMCA is fundamentally flawed, and why the law is anti-consumer, and anti-citizen.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited May 4, 2007 - 4:09 PM

*sigh*

It looks like I have to repeat myself. Here's my reply to a very similar comment on the other story:

Your password is just a sequence of letters and numbers too (hopefully some special characters too). I'm sure you would have no problem if that was published all over the web? What about your social security number? Credit Cards? Bank account numbers?

Now how do you feel about "benign" numbers? I'm not saying the AACS is right, but you can't just compare arbitrary strings of characters and say they're meaningless.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited May 4, 2007 - 6:18 PM

I copyright the sequence of letters 'password' (and 'Password', for you pedants) as it is my password.

You may not have it, use it as the default, or use the word password for the sequence of letters and numbers that make up the phrase you use to get to your protected object.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited May 5, 2007 - 2:13 AM

Did I say copyright?

Is your SSN or bank account number copyrighted?

I was merely making the point that you can't call a random (or specific) string of characters meaningless, stateless, and therefore unprotectable just because it's "only" a string of characters.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 4, 2007 - 3:10 PM

see thats the problem, because people do not have the money to fight these laws in court. corperations will always win in that regard.

Score: 0

By Noremacam

edited May 4, 2007 - 2:53 PM

When you tell people they need to buy new video cards/monitors, upgrade operating systems, etc just to watch movies even when their computer is already physically capable - is it any wonder people bypass aacs to watch their movies?

A couple years ago I bought a Geforce 6800 Ultra with the specific goal of not having to upgrade for a long time. I have a very nice monitor; I'm not about to add to the landfills just so I have permission from the aacs to play their movies.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted May 4, 2007 - 2:38 PM

What is going to stop them from extracting the new key(s) and doing the same thing? The whole idea is to make copies of current movies and disribute them in BitTorent ect... without the copy protection.

The AACS is going to have it's hands full when the next key hits the web.

Score: 0

By siryak

posted May 4, 2007 - 6:24 PM

Yah...As I have said before. If man put it together, then man can take it apart. They can make all the DRM they want, but they will never be able to stop people from copying.

Score: 0

By hiyoag

posted May 4, 2007 - 2:12 PM

The AACS killed the key, why do they still care?
If I change my phone number because I'm getting crank calls and then someone posts my old phone number all over the internet...who cares?
They probably have a case against the original posters who did the actual cracking, but the rest of this nonsense against digg and google seems like a silly waste of time. Going after deep pockets I guess.

Score: 0