What happened to the DVD Decryptor Gone thread?

[malore]

Did the original poster kill it or was it censored?

[Opus4]

Sorry, but SageTV doesn't want threads about defeating the encrption on DVDs, per rule #4.

- Andy

[Kanati]

That's kind of odd though considering what we do with sage is borderline according to the mpaa... And re-encoding to divx/xvid/h.264 probably irks them off to no end. Isn't making archival copies of dvd's the same thing considering it's legality is really up in the air?

[dbfresh23]

I bet my post put it over the top

Very interesting since Cayars STV has support for decryptor.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Kanati

Isn't making archival copies of dvd's the same thing considering it's legality is really up in the air?

The problem with DVDs (and what makes them different) is that they have encryption on them, and all the ripping programs have to break that encryption to rip them. It's the breaking encryption that's illegal (DMCA). That's why "legitimate" programs, like Nero Recode, only work with unencrypted DVDs.

[dbfresh23]

This thread is headed in the same direction, Look for it to be deleted shortly

[heffe2001]

Main reason I posted it in the first place is there are lots of people on these forums who use it, and there are at least 9 other threads that talk about it (including the Cayars STV). I'd also wager that at least 90% of the people here who store DVD's or ripped DVD's on their drives use something similar to do it.

If my thread was against the rules, I'm assuming the discussions in the Cayars thread would also be, so shouldn't they be deleted as well (as well as the offending STV file, since it supports DVD Decryptor)? I know I took the wrong approach, and should have just mentioned that it had been shut down and left it at that. Instead I asked for alternatives

[Opus4]

What makes anyone think that other DVD posts haven't gone away? I try not to give special consideration to anyone & I usually notify the thread starter. (So far, very little gets pulled off the forum.)

Not all DVDs are commercial disks and/or disks that are encrypted. So, as long as the discussions stay within the framework of dealing with non-encrypted DVDs, things are OK. When the discussion is pretty blatant about ways to break the encryption on commercial DVDs, I have to get involved.

I didn't previously close this thread (which is different from deleting it), because I figured there would be some questions popping up to clarify this.

Edit: No, I don't have time to go back and search for everything that might not be allowed around here. I try to leave things alone (everyone is happier that way, including me), but if you _really_ insist that I go look at something...

- Andy

[pawn]

Originally Posted by stanger89

The problem with DVDs (and what makes them different) is that they have encryption on them, and all the ripping programs have to break that encryption to rip them. It's the breaking encryption that's illegal (DMCA). That's why "legitimate" programs, like Nero Recode, only work with unencrypted DVDs.

My understanding is that decrypting DVD's is NOT illegal according to the DMCA. The distribution of tools used for decrypting digital media is what's illegal. I guess discussing decryption techniques, and allowing discussions about such techniques, on a web forum site would fall under the same category.

[Crashless]

Originally Posted by pawn

My understanding is that decrypting DVD's is NOT illegal according to the DMCA. The distribution of tools used for decrypting digital media is what's illegal. I guess discussing decryption techniques, and allowing discussions about such techniques, on a web forum site would fall under the same category.

Circumventing encryption is what's illegal under the DMCA, and 'decrypting' a DVD falls under that. Sage just like to play it safe by not allowing conversation about, and I'm glad they're on the safe side. I'd really be pissed if Sage got shutdown on a DMCA technicality.

[pawn]

Originally Posted by Crashless

Circumventing encryption is what's illegal under the DMCA, and 'decrypting' a DVD falls under that. Sage just like to play it safe by not allowing conversation about, and I'm glad they're on the safe side. I'd really be pissed if Sage got shutdown on a DMCA technicality.

Not to go on about it, but most of the opinions I've read online suggest it's not illegal to carry out the act of circumventing, it's the act of distributing such tools.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...e+Search&meta=

I won't pretend to be an expert though.

[dbfresh23]

It's not illegal to backup your media. It is however illegal to crack/hack the code that these organizations put on the media to make it "harder" to backup. Unfortunately it isn't illegal for these organizations to put this code in place to circumvent us from our legal right to back it up. Go Figure

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by pawn

Not to go on about it, but most of the opinions I've read online suggest it's not illegal to carry out the act of circumventing, it's the act of distributing such tools.

Personally I don't think it's wrong to circumvent copy protection for personal use, but it's very important to distinguish between opinion and fact/law.

Strait from the horse's mouth (as it were)
Title 17, Chapter 12 of the US Code:

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine -

(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;

(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;

(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;

(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and

(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability

of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection -

(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Based on that, it's in the best interest of a small company like SageTV, to stay on the "right side" and avoid any potential problems. Better safe than sorry.

Now onto the personal fair use question:

Some interesting tidbits:

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Take it as you will. I'll continue ripping the DVDs that I own, but I completely understand the desire of SageTV, to not want to be involved in the technicalities of this.

Interesting PDF:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

[dbfresh23]

I wish that congress would just clear this issue up. As it stand right now, the Fair use act and Audio Home Recording Act say that I can backup my media that I purchased. The Acts just don't stop the media mfgrs from making it impossible to do without needing to decode their copy protection(illegal). A clearer amendment to the copyright law would be very welcome, although with the high price lobbyists the MPAA and RIAA have, it probably wouldn't swing our way. Going by the Fair use act and Audio Home Recording Act, it should be illegal for the studios to put this copy protection in place in the first place.

Macrovision in my eyes is equal to a broadcast flag on a disk.

[buck1952]

I'm sure many people are interested in the passing of DVDDecrypter.
cdfreaks com has some good conversation.

[heffe2001]

Here's the quote from the author from CDFreaks. Won't post any links so as to not go against the rules:

Hello world, 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 bad: DVD 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 ;-) As I"ve recently been made aware (by a letter, hand delivered to my door, last Tuesday), due to some law that was changed back in October 2003, circumventing copy protection isn"t allowed.

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)

OH, and if you decrypt your CD's with a piece of software that circumvents the CSS encryption, you are in violation of the DMCA, no ifs, ands or buts. You can say you aren't because of 'fair use', but in the eyes of the law, you are guilty of violating the DMCA. That will be the case until we see a higher court overturn the DMCA, or rule for a defendant in a fair-use suit.

[Naylia]

Support the EFF and write your congressman if you think fair use is being trampled on. Check out HR 1201. It's an amendment to the DCMA currently in committe in Congress.

I particularly like this:

b) Fair Use Restoration- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in order to obtain access to the work for purposes of making noninfringing use of the work'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(5) Except in instances of direct infringement, it shall not be a violation of the Copyright Act to manufacture or distribute a hardware or software product capable of substantial noninfringing uses.'.

Also you can contact your local congressman here through the eff website - write your congressman. There's a nice starter email for you to use, and it only took me like 30 seconds to make a couple personal touches and send it along.

[broderp]

wow, this whole thing reminds me about the speed limit and radar detectors.....It's legal to speed I guess, as long as you don't get caught. As radar detrectors are blatenly used to circumvent the police radar for catching offenders, not the "help you monitor your speed and drive safely....." bull the detector makers say.

As far as this topic, all I can say is I thank (insert your god of choice) "......" I bought a certain 321 STUDIO product 2 days before they went RF (ripper free)! I back up OWED (Bought and PAID for) DVDs for the kids to use. I'm not about to let my 6 year old play with the $30 copy of a limited edition of BAMBI for him to ruin or smudge up!

The law as it reads is designed to confuse and keep anything from happening quickly. Someone needs to fire all those lawyers and start righting laws that are SIMPLE and without catch 22 loop holes..... a mean, what sense does it make to say it's not illegal to copy something, but it's illegal to have the tools to do it with? So how do we copy it if we don't have the tools? Rubbish.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[mikejaner]

My opinion is simple. Eff the lawyers and eff the laws which say copying a DVD is illegal.
I bought the damn DVD, therefore I own it! Nobody can tell me otherwise, even if there is a piece of paper with the acronym DCMA saying it's illegal. I have the right to do with this DVD whatever I want in the confines of my own home.
As for distributing a backed up DVD/CD outside of your home (yes this means the internet even though it is in your home, hehe), I agree with whatever law is in place saying it is illegal.

[Kanati]

That's my view as well mike.