RSSMicrosoft Sues FairUse4WM Developers
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 27, 2006, 12:05 PM
In a federal district court in Seattle last Friday, IDG News Service is reporting, Microsoft filed suit against ten "John Does," one of whom goes by the screen handle "viodentia," for allegedly using stolen Microsoft source code as a means to make corrections to a utility called FairUse4WM, whose purpose is to strip Microsoft copy protection from media files.
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the group, and contends Microsoft has suffered more than $75,000 in damages - a legal milestone.
One of Microsoft's lawyers was quoted this morning as saying that viodentia gained unlawful access to Microsoft source code, as a means for circumventing a Microsoft security patch that rendered FairUse4WM unusable.
Today, a post attributed to viodentia on a public forum where links to FairUse4WM are also posted, said, "FairUse4WM has been my own creation, and has never involved Microsoft source code. I link with Microsoft's static libraries provided with the compiler and various platform SDK files."
Previously, viodentia has contended that, although his source code does contain elements from Microsoft's own SDKs -- which are licensed to developers under, ironically "fair use provisions" -- he and his group have had as much right to do so as other developers. But apparently parts of the suit, IDG reports, claim that the group is using SDK code for purposes other than that which Microsoft allows under its license agreement.
In an interview with AOL's Engadget on Monday, viodentia took full credit for being the principal developer of the product.
"I am the only developer," he said, "although my friends served as early beta testers and sounding boards, and with the initial release I've gotten to know some very helpful people." When asked if there were any personal reasons for wanting to crack Windows DRM, viodentia responded, "My selfish rationale is the challenge in pitting my skills against the industry leader."
What neither Engadget nor anyone else in the press knew on Monday was that Microsoft had sued viodentia. Although at one point in the interview, he appeared to defend himself against the lawsuit's chief allegations, stating that he disapproved of Microsoft "claiming copyright to my program." In perhaps a counter-challenge, he said he looked forward to Microsoft's next round of improvements to its DRM technology.
BetaNews has contacted Microsoft for further comment.
Two weeks ago, security expert Bruce Schneier commented on his popular blog, "If you really want to see Microsoft scramble to patch a hole in its software, don't look to vulnerabilities that impact countless Internet Explorer users or give intruders control of thousands of Windows machines. Just crack Redmond's DRM."
No software vendor likes to issue patches, Schneier argued, because it makes the company look vulnerable. Yet, as he's implied in the past, companies can couch fixes to their ongoing problems as "security patches" in order to compensate for the appearance of vulnerability.
The problem is when Microsoft or some other company, he said, tries to frame a vulnerability in DRM -- a feature which few people will actually claim they want -- as a security breach. "No user is ever going to say: 'Oh no. I can now play the music I bought for my computer in my car. I must install a patch so I can't do that anymore."'
Version 1.3 of FairUse4WM was posted to a server today. In a response to a question from a user regarding a possible error, viodentia stated the cause could involve a feature of Windows Media DRM-encoded files that tries to send tracking information about, for instance, how often the file is listened to, back to a host. He suggests a work-around to disable this callback function.
What else can't I do with my music today?
Score: 0
Given that he reverse engineered the code:
The gentleman concerned should promptly dump the code into the public domain in a country other than America where the thought police can\'t demand its immediate muzzling, and then let the chips fall where they may.
In fact, ALL devs of DRM breaking code should do this by default as an object lesson.
Score: 0
As if the majority of the posts here have any more substance than MS' 'PR exercise'!
So, rocket scientists, which XP 'fix' pertains to this so that one can remove it??????
Or would that be asking a question that comes too dangerously close to being useful?
Score: 0
I'm sure a lot of people are thinking it so I'll say it.
Eh?
Score: 0
It is a PR excercise. If Microsoft let this go unchecked then there is no incentive for the public to pay for wma or wmv if FU4WM will just strip the protection. As has been argued, if wma and wmv didn't have such restrictive protection then I'm sure people would stump up the money. But there's too many restrictions and even if the author is successfully sued - there's always someone else around the corner. Address the problem of the restrictions placed on users first and then people like the author of FU4WM will not be needed.
EDIT:
Quite a smart insightfull comment was posted over at Slyck -
"This guy must be laughing at MS. In a recent interview, he said that his motive behind coding the software was that authorized WM* media offerings weren't available in his area. This indicates he may be in a country where DRM-protective legislation either doesn't exist or isn't really enforced. Thus, their legal action is quite possibly toothless."
Score: 0
Windows XP CORPORATE circulated for more than 4 years, until Micro$oft even tried to prevent thieves from using their own software. Windows Genuine Advage hasn't stopped many people either. You want bet that Bill Gates has lost $75,000.00 a hundred times over? Wanna bet that much the same happens with VISTA too?
On the other hand they go nuts over this DRM baloney and file lawsuits like crazy over the RIAA's crippled music files. I will never buy any music or movies crippled by DRM. F--- em'...
Score: 0
You know, maybe they should come up with Fair Use rules for [edit]:corporations.
In other words, I'll buy your product, but you may only spend the money i give you for the product, in a way that i see fit.
Like for instance, you may not use my purchase money to sue people who promote freedom. Yeah, they would ignore that just as much as i ignore DRM. So send the DRM back to the abyss from whence it came!
Score: 0
Does it not scare anyone that MS is suing, rather than putting the smackdown on this guy by technical means?
Kinda scary to me. So let's say a virus writer pwns MS's other software. What is MS going to do? Sue them?
Does MS really think this is a good long term strategy and use of investor resources? Are suits against spammers going well? Pirates? The creator of the SQL Slammer worm in 2003?
No: Ms's legal threats have antagonized the malicious codewriters of the world. Just doesn't seem like a good long (or short) term strategy to me. The reaction of this developer was to shrug and release a new version.
Score: 0
I wonder if viodentia has PayPal? I think I should donate him some money. :P
Score: 0
"John Does." Lawyers salivating somewhere. All of $75,000. Bruce Schneier making an excellent point. The time-old notion of plugging one hole and having another appear holding firm. WGA isn't phoning home all the time, but something else made by Microsoft tracking users and their behaviors -- and, without the users being clearly told again? (Gee, that's sorta like the reappearing hole thing.) Microsoft seeking an injunction that is currently a day late and a dollar short.
Microsoft, why do you go out of your way to make yourself look both silly and the bully?
Score: 0
Because they have an obligation to the content publishers who were promised that Microsoft would protect them against DRM breaches. I'm not defending DRM, but I recognize that any DRM provider would be expected to uphold their responsibility to the licensees of their DRM.
Score: 0
logical statement...out I say! :)
On the topic of monetary amounts though, it is irrevelant $75k or 7.5 mil, a amount is lost.
For all it's worth, MS could have used those lost funds to provide for say...any of the numerous charities it contributes to.
Score: 0
The crack would actually make me willing to pay for the subscription. If you think about it. You pay $12-$15 a month to download unlimited tracks, crack them, and do what you want with them. And not have to worry about viruses or poor quality from P2P programs.
Score: 0
From my understanding, this is only for PURCHASED tracks. I could be wrong.
Score: 0
It works on subscription, too. But they don't provide any claim that it does so that people don't abuse it's purpose.
Score: 0
Microsoft is crying about $75,000? HAHA. thats all... nothing more to say, just HAHA
Score: 0
$75,000 that all, sheesh talk about crying over spilt milk...
Score: 0
$75,000 may not be a lot for Microsoft but hopefully it will be a lot of money for the hacker trying to illegally crack Microsoft's DRM.
Score: 0
Why hopefully? Not hopefully. Microsoft is doing what Microsoft does best, buying out the competition.
Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer starts a computer related business from home. Then Bill Gates and crew pay him a little visit. Bill says, "Buy him out, boys!" And they proceed to trash the place.
Back to the subject. He did it for the greater good, not to benifit of it himself. He should be free to crack the DRM for as long as MSFT doesn't make a secure one, or allow people to use it the music the way they want to.
Score: 0
The $75k doesn't mean anything to Microsoft. They will spend many times that in legal fees suing viodentia. They must sue him so that companies like Napster and the record labels that have music on Napster don't lose faith in the DRM security. From Microsoft's perspective, this is the best move, but as a Napster user this pisses me off to no end. I like being able to put my legally purchased songs onto my iPod. People shouldn't be punished for not pirating songs.
Score: 0
Good. F*CK all DRM "technology" and F*CK MS.
Score: -1