DMCA takedown notice for BackupHDDVD at SF.net

[noclip]

I just got a message from SourceForge informing me that they were issued a DMCA takedown notice for BackupHDDVD and have complied. I'm pretty sure BackupHDDVD doesn't violate much of anything so any info (NO legal advice) as to what exactly my options are would be much appreciated.

[Guest]

You have to host it yourself to avoid problems like this. Nobody wants to fight legal battles for you.

[MLS]

Can source code that circumvents copyright protection when compiled be considered a breach of the DMCA? Were there binaries hosted?

I wonder if this could be avoided by just hosting the source tree there.

Obviously my assumption is that source code on its own is merely text and cannot do anything that would be considered DMCA breaching.

Not that sourceforge wouldn't take it down anyway even if it wasn't under the DMCA's jurisdiction. I'm just curious.

/MLS

[cypher_soundz]

create a torrent, uplaod to http://www.megashares.com/, buy a rapidshare.com account and uplaod to it, (it will never expire and you get points per download ), share via p2p and paste magnet links / ed2k links.
purchase an off shore host , there are some cheap ones around :)

Regards
cyph

[NuMessiah]

Try developer.berlios.de (just like www.sf.net but in Europe). They are situated in Germany and I don't belive that DMCA is effective there.

German DMCA (EUCD) was already discussed in forums here and I think the circumvention prohibition is less strict there (read: more fair-use oriented).

[HyperHacker]

buy a rapidshare.com account
Rapidshare is easily one of the worst web sites I've ever been to. Downloading from there is like having a tooth pulled. Tip: Free web page hosts (as opposed to free file hosts) are good for mirroring small files like this, as they tend to have a lot less restrictions and ads.

[Galileo2000]

Overall, www.sendspace.com has been great so far.



..On a different tune, SlySoft lets people download AnyDVD HD for $$$ from their website with no fear whatsoever.

Makes me think..Double standards?

[cypher_soundz]

i totally agree with you hyperhacker ... UNTIL i purchased an account :) now i must say they are the best thing around :) i max my connection and can download off RS all day and its cheap (IMHO). But even without an account this file is so small that waiting will be quick and it will not be big enough to exceed the bandwidth limit :)

The rapidshare points also is a plus, allowing each download to = more account time.

i forgot this is a small file, i agree your idea of free hosts is also good :)

Regards
cyph

[HyperHacker]

this file is so small that waiting will be quick and it will not be big enough to exceed the bandwidth limit :)
In my experience the wait is at least 1:30 for any file, and when that time is up, I get an error message in German and have to press Back and try again which restarts the timer. After about 8-15 attempts I might be able to download the file, or I might be told I've exceeded my bandwidth limit even though I haven't used the site in months. Can I really trust these people to keep my credit card number secure when they can't even make something this simple work correctly? If something goes wrong with my payment, will I receive any support in English?

A quick glance at the source code reveals that the "download timer" is simply a Javascript timer counting down from a randomly determined value. You can use a filtering proxy to disable it and go to the download immediately with the same results. In other words, this wait serves no other purpose than to annoy you into buying an account while forcing you to look at the ads (and presumably allow more time for popups to spawn, I have popup blockers out the wazoo so I wouldn't know). Where is all the money from these ads going?

[Mr_Odwin]

Google offers a free hosting service via its pagecreator/googlepages service - just get a google account and then sign up for it.
Here's an example: http://favcfavc.googlepages.com/home
(The files linked to are actually hosted on my webspace, but you can upload files to google too.)

[linx05]

Overall, www.sendspace.com has been great so far.
Yes they are a great service. MUCH better than rapidshare. Then again, anything is better than rapidshare. God if anyone uploads to that site one more time I'm going to...

..On a different tune, SlySoft lets people download AnyDVD HD for $$$ from their website with no fear whatsoever.

Makes me think..Double standards?
They live in a country (Antigua) exempt from laws which would try to take them down.

Good luck noclip.

[blutach]

Not all that sure this has much to do with Decrypting (except peripherally).

Transferred to Geeral Discussion.

Regards

[Morbo]

www.mediafire.com

Another good one.

[Doom9]

Did they at least send you a copy of the notice? I wonder how they argue that backuphddvd infringes any copyrights - and of course who's behind it.

[moon1234]

This is less about "where" the potentially infringing code is hosted and more about where the person who "owns" the code lives. You could host the files on a server in sealand, but if you live in the US and the code is found to violate the DMCA, you still sunk. They have to find you, but there is always a way to do that.

I am sure this is more strong arm tactics. ISPs, especially sourceforge, don't want anything to do with even potential lawsuits. If the person is anonymous and can guarantee that they can not be tracked (use of offshore proxies 100% of the time in a country that does not have any connection or diplomatic relations with the US or the the EU) then you can pretty much have open communications.

Unfortunatly in todays world the US is no longer about the free exchange of ideas and more about big corporations using the legal system in place of a good DRM system.

All they would have needed to do was come up with a simple flashing system for the firmware on their devices so that in the case of a comprimised device code, a simple reflash of the device would fix the problem.

In any case ideas and methods should never be supressed in a free and open market. The free exchange of ideas is what made much of corporate america today. Now the media giants want to supress the free flow of ideas to maintain an outdated mode of collecting royalties.

I wish you luck in finding a place to host the code. I fear your only option to have "freedom" with this type of research is to host in a country that many of the free countries consider their enemies. My how far we have fallen.

[shevegen]

1) Its not only the USA, you know. Other countries follow with similar legislation, some blatantly copy, and some even are lobbied by US companies to implement even more rigid measures (they point out the DMCA covers it, even though it doesnt.) But its really the bigger companies that are to blame here, not just countries. I was often surprised how certain parts in countries can do really GOOD work while their government totally sucked/sucks, devotedly listening to the lobby of these companies and consortias ;)

2) Well sourceforge probably didnt want to risk to have any proxy-problems,
ok so far, and I can perfectly understand why they use the DMCA to go against what they think its a break of the law (*cough cough fun time when company attorneys do less real work for law cases and more work writing cease and desist letters*). It would be nice to show the notice anyway....
However the right for fair-backups is totally abolish by protecting it with a law pushed by them, hunting down source code hosts.

I wonder how this can be put into effect? I still do not know of any law case that has effectively abolished the fair use clauses. How can the law that denies a user the right to make backup copies to prevent damage to the medium, stay in effect? It conflicts with consumer rights, and is more akin to an industry-dictated law state.

EDIT: Oops... i forgot... BackupHDDVD doesnt even REMOTELY have anything to do with "breaking copyright protection".
Where is the basis for the "legal" action (attempt) against sourceforge??

[Karyudo]

...big corporations using the legal system in place of a good DRM system.

Actually, that's precisely what should happen! There should be no DRM, and no stupid DMCA, but only lawsuits brought against real infringers of the existing (i.e. pre-DMCA) copyright laws. That would be fair and equitable.

The current system is stupid. To think that even the mere discussion of an idea of how a DRM system works can be made illegal -- or at least something that can't be discussed for fear of a lawsuit, whether valid or not!

[trodas]

I keep wondering how long we will be even permited to write own software... :mad:
With the way the Vista-crap is trying to enforce (eg. pay to have driver that works under Vista and at any given moment we could make it stop working...) it might be very soon gone.

Let's boycot these suxxkas! :mad:

[HyperHacker]

See this is why we need to fight DRM as much as possible. Check out sites like defectivebydesign.org (which has been pretty dead lately, but does some nice stuff) for ideas how. Of course the best thing you can do is vote with your wallet - don't buy products (or from companies) that support/use DRM.

[adam]

I'm not familiar with exactly what BackupHDDVD does. My understanding is that you must input keys and then it will decrypt the encrypted content. If this is the case, than according to the language of the DMCA it does sound like it is infringing. Section 1201(a) says that it is an infringement to "circumvent a technological measure." The phrase, "circumvent a technological measure" is defined as "descramb(ling) a scrambled work or decrypt(ing) an encrypted work, ... without the authority of the copyright owner." If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that.

I see the argument that the distribution of BackupHDDVD is only the source code so it can't be infringing. This isn't true. Under general copyright principles the source code is the most important part anyway, but more specifically the DMCA states that it is a violation to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure." It seems that even a useless portion of the source code could be infringing if you could determine that it is "part" of an infringing program.

I see the argument that Fair Use allows backups of DVDs and HD-DVDs/Blu-ray discs and therefore this type of decryption cannot be prohibited by the DMCA. This is a tough pill to swallow...I am sorry. But Fair Use does not allow personal backups in the United States (and it seems this DMCA take down notice is referencing US law.) There is no authority that has ever supported a Fair Use argument to backup DVDs and the Copyright Office has actually made its own ruling on this issue on three separate occasions, based on motions filed by consumers and consumer organizations. The jist of their ruling was that there is no existing authority for the argument, that the validity of any such argument would be viewed with skepticism, and that if such an exemption is ever created it will need to be implemented by Congress, just as was done with computer software and musical recordings (which can be backed up per specific statutes unrelated to Fair Use.)

Here is the exact language of the Copyright Register in their ruling. Please don't shoot the messenger. This is the only real authority on this issue in the US and it creates a very steep slope to overcome to win this issue on Fair Use grounds.

The proponents of this exemption desire to make backup copies of their DVDs for a variety of purposes: they claim that DVDs are inherently fragile and subject to damage; they are concerned about loss or theft of the original during travel; they wish to duplicate collections to avoid the burdens and risks of transporting DVDs; they assert that some titles are out of print and cannot be replaced in case of damage; and they claim that the duration of a DVD’s lifespan is limited.

The common denominator in all of the comments endorsing an exemption for DVDs appears to be the need to make backups of the original copy due to the alleged fragility of the medium. The question therefore becomes whether making a backup copy of a DVD is a noninfringing use.

The creation of a backup copy of a work implicates the reproduction right. While the Copyright Act contains an exception for the making of backup copies of computer programs in §117, it contains no comparable exemption for motion pictures and other audiovisual works. The proponents of an exemption bear the burden of proving that their intended use is a noninfringing one. No proponent has offered a fair use analysis or supporting authority which would allow the Register to consider such a basis for the exemption, and the Register is skeptical of the merits of such an argument.
DVDs, of course, are not indestructible. Neither were traditional phonograph records; nor are CDs, videotapes, paperback books, or any other medium in which copyrighted works may be distributed. The Register is not persuaded that proponents of this exemption have shown that DVDs are so susceptible to damage and deterioration that a convincing case could be made that the practice of making preventive backup copies of audiovisual works on DVDs should be noninfringing.
The proposed exemption is not simply to permit remedial measures for disks which become damaged, but rather to allow reproduction of the works as a precautionary measure. While an analogy might be made to the basis for the backup exemption for computer programs that was enacted in the days of corruptible floppy diskettes, there are important differences. Congress carefully addressed the §117 exemption for backups of computer programs with restrictive conditions. One day Congress may choose to consider a carefully tailored exception for backing up motion pictures if it is persuaded that one is necessary, but the Register sees no authority under current law that would justify an exemption to enable the making of backup copies of motion pictures on DVDs. Given the tremendous commercial appeal of the DVD format at a time when alternative analog formats still exist, it seems unlikely that now is the time. And while it may well be true that analog formats are headed for ultimate extinction, the market is already beginning to see evidence of alternative forms of digital delivery over the Internet. The decision to purchase a DVD format entails advantages and, perhaps, disadvantages for some. The purchase of a work in that particular format is not, at present, a necessity and DVDs are unlikely to become the only format in which motion pictures may be purchased. The record in this rulemaking does not establish that the potential for possible future harm to individual disks outweighs the potential harm to the market for or value of these works that would result if an exemption were granted. The unauthorized reproduction of DVDs is already a critical problem facing the motion picture industry. Creating an exemption to satisfy the concern that a DVD may become damaged would sanction widespread circumvention to facilitate reproduction for works that are currently functioning properly. As presented in this rulemaking, the exemption would be based on speculation of future failure. Even though certain copies of DVDs may be damaged, given the ready availability of replacements in the market at reasonable costs, on balance, an exemption is not warranted on the current record.

The opponents have provided strong evidence of the increasing popularity of the DVD format. The Register finds it difficult to imagine that a format that is fundamentally flawed would become so popular. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine how a business model of renting DVDs, which also appears to be thriving, could be viable if the medium were so fragile. Further, it is significant that the scope of the problem the proponents describe is limited to movies on DVDs and does not address other types of works which commonly employ DVDs, such as video games. All these facts lead to the conclusion that, on the current record, DVDs are not unusually subject to damage in the ordinary course of their use. To the extent that some commenters found it more convenient to travel with backups or keep backups of their works in multiple locations, e.g., vacation homes or cars, the prevention of such uses appears to represent an inconvenience rather than an adverse effect on noninfringing uses. Indeed, the Register is aware of no authority that such uses are noninfringing. To endorse such uses as noninfringing would be tantamount to sanctioning reproductions of all works in every physical location where a user would like to use the work, e.g., the purchase of one book would entitle the user to reproduce copies for multiple locations. Except where a case-by-case analysis reveals such reproduction to be noninfringing under §107 or some other specific exemption, such reproductions of convenience are infringing under the Copyright Act. Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.

[Bathrone]

Good post Adam. People have to accept the basis of law that exists now.

I saw a news report today for a bill on fair use to be discussed with congress.

I find it objectionable that property rights has extended so far in the USA that circumventing copy restrictions for fair use personal backups is an offence. Its time for the law to change.

[johndmes]

Overall, www.sendspace.com has been great so far.



..On a different tune, SlySoft lets people download AnyDVD HD for $$$ from their website with no fear whatsoever.

Makes me think..Double standards?

No double standards at all in this case -

SlySoft is based in Antigua, one of the few places on the earth where DMCA-like legislation does not exist. It's perfectly legal to sell the software there.

Might want to look into a Web-page hosting company based there as well. From what I understand, Sweden may also be a safe place to host the source code as well, their version of DMCA regards hosting binaries, not source from which a binary may be created.

[Doom9]

While this is a slipperly slope, in a free society it is the duty of the informed citizen to regard what is "imposed from above" with a certain amount of scepticism and act accordingly. Civil disobedience not only has negative effects - just consult your history books (as a good example read up on Ghandi). Your home country was founded on the notion that the English rule was oppressive and unfair (although the liberation process was somewhat less than peaceful).

When I went into basic training, we were told that even though the chain of command is holy, if your superiors demand that you do something outright extremely stupid and or that needlessly puts the our own life and or that of your comrades in arms into danger, you have the right to refuse. You are likely to be thrown into the brig for starters and have to fight for your right to refuse a stupid order, but nontheless those are the words of the head of our training unit. Needless to say we never had to resort to such measures (there was plenty of complaining, but that's just part of the normal process).

Hence, you see people doing perfectly normal activities every day, whether they are explicitly allowed by law or not (there's no fair use in the UK and Australia just as two prominent examples.. yet there's no financial loss whatsoever that they incurr as long as people keep their copies within the same 4 walls).

The phrase, "circumvent a technological measure" is defined as "descramb(ling) a scrambled work or decrypt(ing) an encrypted work, ... without the authority of the copyright owner."The thing is.. the copyright owner gave you that authority.. you have parts of that authority sitting in your HD DVD drive, and parts on the disc. You even have to present that authority (the vuk) to backuphddvd for it to work (this is not considering keyfinder applications and any AACS licensing issues but at least the latter clearly isn't a matter for the DMCA but for patent law)

Furthermore, you cannot argue away the right to use parts of a copyrighted work for academic purposes. No matter where you stand on how much fair use goes, that one is a given. But, any teacher or researcher needs to go through the same descrambling process that Joe Average needs to go through to make a copy of their discs. And I dare you to try and get a studio to grant you written authority for just that purpose - it's been tried before and you'll be laughed at. So, if studios continually violate the law by not enabling those who beyond a shred of a doubt have the right to descramble, why should anybody adhere to a law that clearly was passed against the interest of the people?
Also, an interesting notion to ponder on: if I have a DVD with CSS pressed from content that is public domain or whose copyright has run out.. do you have the authority to decrypt now since I don't enjoy copyright protection for that work?

[dragongodz]

whether they are explicitly allowed by law or not (there's no fair use in the UK and Australia just as two prominent examples.. yet there's no financial loss whatsoever that they incurr as long as people keep their copies within the same 4 walls).
yes the only people i have heard of that have been gone after or arrested are those selling copies etc.
i think the police and to some degree the government realise how out of touch certain laws are. so some are ignored. for example taping a tv show to watch later is illegal for instance but video and dvd recorders are sold no worries. nobody is charged with this though so as i said its ignored, even by the police.

you cannot argue away the right to use parts of a copyrighted work for academic purposes
Australian law actually has "fair dealings" exceptions.

The "fair dealing" exceptions to infringement
A person can make a "fair dealing" with copyright material for any of the following purposes:
·
research or study;
·
criticism or review;
·
parody or satire;
·
reporting news; or
·
professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney.

What does "fair dealing" mean?
In this context, a "dealing" with copyright material means using the material in any of the ways reserved to the
copyright owner.

there was talk of also introducing exceptions based on fair use aswell. however that has basically gone nowhere at the moment. as you would imagine groups like aria(Aus version of riaa) are totally against it.

[greath]

I find it objectionable that property rights has extended so far in the USA that circumventing copy restrictions for fair use personal backups is an offence. Its time for the law to change.

And which way do you think the law will change - keeping fair use rights and relaxing copy protection avoidance, or reducing fair use rights...................?

[HeadBangeR77]

Having just a vague knowledge on Anglo-Saxon system of law (just telecommunications, mainly FCC's rules and regulations), I'm still kind of shocked by this statement:

Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.
If someone has committed a crime, he's treated as not guilty until it's been proven before a court. No matter how strong the gathered evidences are, a trial is needed. The rule is considered to be common for all civilized countries' criminal law. The above statement is just an opposite, a contradiction to what's commonly acknowledged as one of the basic rules of law.

Just a remark,
cheers,
HDBR77

[setarip_old]

@HeadBanger77

Hi!Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.This statement only defines what will not be accepted as legal justification for making backup copies under this particular law.

If someone is brought to trial for allegedly breaking this particular law for this reason, that person will still be presumed innocent of making illegal backup copies unless/until proven guilty of having done so...

This concept is no different than a law that defines murder as being illegal...

[HeadBangeR77]

Yeah, I misunderstood this sentence, pardon me.

Correct me then, if I'm wrong:
If fear of malfunction or damage or the conveniences enabled by backups don't satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a non-infringing one, then what's left? I can't even think of anything that could potentially be considered as a non-infringing use, except the mentioned above scientific /educational purposes, which, as stated, aren't treated seriously by large (or any) corporations. It's tricky then: if you can't think of any other reason, they can easily prove your backups are copyrights infringement. It's almost the same as: "All backups are forbidden under the penalty of ...", but said more politely. ;)

Hence, if they catch you with your original DVD and one backup copy of it, you will be treated almost as badly as a pirate (with all circumstances that could milden the potential punishment in such a case) (?) Scale and consequences of such an infringement will surely be smaller, but your reasons for making a copy are treated as almost as evil as illegal (internet) distribution, aren't they?


***
Although it's certainly possible (and a rare one or two such events have occurred in the past), I'd suggest that it's highly unlikely that any of "the powers that be" have any interest in someone who makes one backup of each of his/her purchased DVDs...
I agree with you. It resembles the above example with taping TV-shows for home use. Yet under the banner of fighting the piracy they tend to forbid all kinds of backups, no matter if it's just one back-up copy for safety reasons or large-scale piracy, thus putting "=" between those two, in certain sense.

[setarip_old]

It's almost the same as: "All backups are forbidden under the penalty of ...", but said more politely.I absolutely agree with your interpretation!if they catch you with your original DVD and one backup copy of it, you will be treated almost as badly as a pirateAlthough it's certainly possible (and a rare one or two such events have occurred in the past), I'd suggest that it's highly unlikely that any of "the powers that be" have any interest in someone who makes one backup of each of his/her purchased DVDs...

[Lord_KiRon]

http://files-upload.com/

[manusse]

Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.

If the studio want it to be accepted what they should do is guarantee that if the DVD that you've bought is damaged or malfunctioning they will exchange it with a working copy for free with an unlimited period. It's also the same for software. I remember some friends of mine that had bought a PC a few years ago. The PC was bundled with Office 2002. However the kids didn't pay attention and they damaged the DVD (they walked on it, I think).

Some time later, when the PC was infected by a virus, I had to reinstall everything. However I couldn't reinstall Office 2002. I phoned Microsoft support to ask what I could do (the PC was still under warranty). They answered me nothing was possible.

Those guys want to sell you a licence, forbid you to copy the software and you have no guarantee when your DVD or CD is damaged. THIS should be illegal.

Either you can make a backup copy or they allow you to exchange your support if it's damaged.

Manusse

[setarip_old]

@manusse

Hi!

The PC was bundled with Office 2002. However the kids didn't pay attention and they damaged the DVD (they walked on it, I think).I presume, as is typical, the PC came with "Office2002" pre-installed or,if not, I'm sure someone immediately installed it using the provided CD/DVD. Either way, the end result is the same - The PC owner initially had a functioning version of "Office 2002" installed on the PC and still had the CD/DVD available for reinstallation, if necessary. In this situation, I for one don't see why you would expect the software company (That actually initially licensed the PC manufacturer, not the end user) to be obligated to provide yet another copy of its software.

On the other hand, if the software had not been pre-installed and the CD/DVD proved to be faulty, I'm sure either the PC seller or the software provider would be willing to TAKE IT BACK and provide a viable replacement - which is the same behavior we all have a right to expect if, instead, we had purchased a flawed commercial DVD...

[Mug Funky]

in the office 2002 example, i believe OEM software comes with an end-user license agreement. so i see no problem with the user asking for another copy (maybe they could send a burnt disc in the mail? or even give a download link to an encrypted rar with a password sent via email) so long as they can quote the license details.

in this case, there's not much difference between just making a backup originally, except less hassle.

after all, the content is what is licensed, not the disc it is on.

[int 21h]

You aren't necessarily licensed to use the content as you see fit (in the case of software, especially Microsoft software). You're actually granted installation and use rights on a specific number of copies of the software and the exact nature of those installations and uses is strongly defined. (See here (http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/2/5/12538ba0-3d24-4f00-aab1-dd9ff4aacfc9/en_client_eula.pdf).)

Given that EULAs have already been shown to be enforceable (Blizzard v. BnetD (http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/)), how long before we have much more visible EULAs accompanying our DVDs?

US Copyright has always been vastly skewed towards content producers (Mickey Mouse... hello?), if you don't agree with how they are distributing their content, don't buy it. But chances are that if you visit this forum, you knew well before now that if you bought any sort of movie or film on digital media that you are unable to exercise your fair use rights on them (legally in the US anyways).

Even if this DMCA route doesn't work out for the MPAA, there are still many legal avenues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret) for them.

[foxyshadis]

Given that EULAs have already been shown to be enforceable (Blizzard v. BnetD (http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/)), how long before we have much more visible EULAs accompanying our DVDs?

And in the grand tradition of EULAs, they'll be placed inside the DVD case and begin with, "The act of breaking the seal upon this case you signal acceptance of the terms of this license," or some such nonsense. The more progressive might include the license on the DVD, requiring acceptance to watch or "If you choose not to accept the terms, remove this disc and return the package to the point of purchase," but as we've seen in the software world, once a package is opened what retailer will ever take it back?

[HyperHacker]

And in the grand tradition of EULAs, they'll be placed inside the DVD case and begin with, "The act of breaking the seal upon this case you signal acceptance of the terms of this license," or some such nonsense.
"This product is subject to the end user license agreement ("EULA") included on the enclosed media. By opening this envelope or installing or using the product, you agree to the terms of the EULA."
Written on an envelope containing a Simply Accounting software update I found at work. You agree to the license by opening the package so you can view the license! Why is this sort of thing legal?

as we've seen in the software world, once a package is opened what retailer will ever take it back?Shows how much store managers believe in DRM, hm?

[Xayd]

create a torrent, uplaod to http://www.megashares.com/, buy a rapidshare.com account and uplaod to it, (it will never expire and you get points per download ), share via p2p and paste magnet links / ed2k links.
purchase an off shore host , there are some cheap ones around :)

Regards
cyph

paying for and/or using third party file sharing services is silly. if you want to pay for something, pay for usenet access and use that for distribution of whatever you want to distribute.

using google, or rapidshare, or any other third party doesn't do anything to solve your problem. the only difference is those third parties will get the takedown notices instead of sourceforge, so you've made zero progress.

usenet can be used anonymously, and doesn't concern itself with takedown notices because they are common carriers and not liable for content.

[Doom9]

Given that EULAs have already been shown to be enforceablejust in countries where lawyers dominate over reasonable people ;) You can even sell OEM software without a PC in Europe.
there are still many legal avenues for them.trade secret won't cut it if the specs are out in the open for everybody to read.

[Mistar Muffin]

My host for hdkeys.com, Layered Technologies (http://www.layeredtech.com/) received and forwarded me a DMCA takedown notice they received for the modified copy of BackupHDDVD I was hosting. The takedown notice only requested that I remove the file, but my host demanded the removal of the whole site. I have removed the file and have asked that they let me keep the site. I can post the notice for anyone who wants to see it, I don't think there's any legal problems with that.

[Doom9]

I'd be very interested..

[SvT]

I found this blog :

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/02/the_pressure_is.html

According to Seirmarco, after investigating AACS' claim that BackupHDDVD contained copyrighted cryptographic keys, and finding that it did, they complied with the DMCA and removed the offending material. When I asked Seirmarco if they would be willing to host a sanitized version of BackupHDDVD, he said they would; "It would be difficult for us to see a compelling reason not to host that software." (With the caveat that it would have to be under a proper open source license)

Interesting point of view......

[Mistar Muffin]

Here's the takedown notice for Doom9 and other interested parties.

[lightshadow]

Here's the takedown notice for Doom9 and other interested parties.if the keys are not hardcoded in the progam, you don't violate any of the matters in the letter.

Let the program be as general as possible, and let the user provide the keys of choice e.g. by a --key parameter.

Aim at making the program as legal, none related to Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and general as possible then they have nothing.

Ask where the Hymn Project (http://www.hymn-project.org/) gets they FairPlay DRM remover hosted. I remember they found a provider that was willing to fight for the right to remove DRM. I think it was in India.

[noclip]

I found this blog :

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/02/the_pressure_is.html



Interesting point of view......

The TKDB.cfg file hosted on SourceForge was the original one provided my muslix. It only contained keys if you count 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 as a key.

[arfster]

I just got a message from SourceForge informing me that they were issued a DMCA takedown notice for BackupHDDVD and have complied.

Wow, they got it taken off one site. Clearly on a place like the Internet it will now be impossible to get hold of :stupid:

[FoxDisc]

Here's the takedown notice for Doom9 and other interested parties.
That letter is not a DMCA "takedown notice." A DMCA takedown noticet must include some very specific information. It must identify the copyrighted work (song or movie allegedly copied that must be taken off the web), assert a "good faith belief" that the material is unauthorized, etc.
That link just goes to a simple cease and desist letter. The claim in the letter is that the software violates the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.

[Inventive Software]

Which it doesn't, cause you need the keys which the AACS LA will NEVER provide directly, at least, not to the average consumer.

[Mistar Muffin]

Originally I got a DMCA takedown letter via my host, Layered Technologies, demanding that I lose my copy of BackupHDDVD. After complying, all has been quiet...until today. I received a letter sent to the registrar of my domain, which they forwarded to me. They demanded the removal of all the volume and title keys that allow for decryption of HD DVDs. The power of the DMCA literally makes me sick to my stomach, and I'm really not sure what to do. I want to just ignore them out of principle.

[Carpo]

host it on some servers outside the usa and give them the finger :D

[Doom9]

Care to post the letter? I wonder what kind of story they came up this time.