Software company to sue student over using shift key (Orwellian)

[TahitiNut]

Someone's slipped mescalin into our coffee, surely
By INQUIRER staff: Friday 10 October 2003, 11:50

A STORY on forbes that we read with some disbelief makes us think that maybe someone has slipped mescalin into our morning coffee.

A student that pointed out copy protection software could be blocked if people used the SHIFT key when they inserted a CD, will be sued by SunnComm, company motto "Light years beyond encryption".

(more)

Student sued over CD piracy study

Falling CD sales blamed on piracy by the record labels

A US student is being sued for showing how to get around anti-piracy technology on a new music CD.

Princeton graduate John Halderman published a paper online showing how to defeat the copy-protection software by pressing a single computer key.

This has angered the company behind the software, SunnComm Technologies, which is now planning to sue him.

It is just one of the firms working on ways to make it harder to copy and trade music over the internet.

(more)

[KittyWampus]

1. Serious Mind Control Issue Here

First Amendment for Individual Citizens under assault...

The only people who will be allowed to have an education will be those Corporate approved.

Everyone else will be working on a farm ala Chairman Mao.

[alexwcovington]

2. That's not copy protection

So easily circumventable to be laughable... completely readable on non-MS operating systems...

They haven't got a claim under the DMCA.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Thanks. I Was Wondering If The Case Was Sound

Didn't seem like it to me. Certainly it would seem that he has only found a software flaw. He didn't rewrite the copyrighted code! So, the basis of the suit seems to be intimidation, not law.
The Professor

[CheshireCat]

3. SunnComm needs to wake up

If pressing the shift key while putting in the CD is all it takes to break their "light-years ahead" encryption, SunnComm Technologies has enough problems without taking this student to court.

Think about it? How long would it have taken for someone else to figure it out. They need to go back to the drawing board with this encryption algorithm.

[sendero]

12. sounds to me like....

... Fox suing Al Franken. No chance of winning, merely good for calling attention to the problem. Morons.

The fact is this: whether it be trivial or slightly difficult or a major pain, no matter what kind of "copy protection" these fool-baits come up with, it will be broken within weeks. And any business model that depends on them will fail.

The sooner these folks accept the new environment they are in and learn to exploit it, the sooner they can get back to profitable business. The VCR did not kill movies, cassette tape did not kill the recording industry, and downloading won't either if these people pull their heads out of their backsides.

[short bus president]

21. I'm sure lots of other people "figured it out"

including those, like me, who disable "CD autorun" feature on their windoze systems. That is, after all, the way this "protection" was broken. You can enable autorun and hold the shift key down on insertion to defeat it, or you can disable autorun altogether. Either way, windoze is prevented from starting its disc-reading software (or any other software) based on the insertion of a disc. Fucking ingenious. SunnComm should have all of about zero investors left after this.

[LuminousX]

4. Isn't this like

putting a row of bricks down on the ground and calling it a fence?

[DBoon]

10. Yes, and

You get to prosecute anyone who calls it a row of bricks, and says you could easily just step over it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. KICK

That's the DMCA in a nutshell.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. It gets worse

From MSNBC:

"Future versions of the SunnComm software would include ways that the copy-protecting files would change their name on different computers, making them harder to find, Jacobs said. Moreover, the company will distribute the technology along with third-party software, so that it doesn’t always come off a protected CD, he added."

Cool freeware file compession program? BOOM, your computer is now part of the RIAA Gestapo.

The lesson, boys and girls, is: USE LINUX!

[david_vincent]

24. You're absolutely right!

Linux, one of the BSD variants, or a minor (now termed "hobbyist") OS such as BeOS, which I use. There are now millions of people, companies, and government agencies around the world who find it wiser, and probably more ethical, to use a non-MS operating system. DUers, care to join us?

[Bozola]

6. Not that they're worth much to begin with....

http://www.nasdaq.com//asp/quotes_news.asp?pageName=Company%20News&selected=STEH&consumer=NDQ&StoryTargetFrame=_top&market=Other%20OTC&coname=SunnComm%20Technologies%20Inc&symbol=STEH&cpath=20031009\200310091338CTXBIZ40880493.htm

In addition, SunnComm believes that Halderman has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by disclosing unpublished MediaMax management files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted. Once the file is found and deleted according to the instructions given in the Princeton grad student's report, the MediaMax copy management system can be bypassed resulting in the copyright protected music being converted or misappropriated for potentially unauthorized and/or illegal use. SunnComm intends to refer this possible felony to authorities having jurisdiction over these matters because: 1. The author admits that he disabled the driver in order to make an unprotected copy of the disc's contents, and 2. SunnComm believes that the author's report was "disseminated in a manner which facilitates infringement" in violation of the DMCA or other applicable law.


Lightyears beyond? My ass! Incompetent wankers who rely solely on the ignorance of the user is hardly any form of security!

Idiots!

[Occulus]

7. more information here

http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/8369

" In addition, Halderman violated the DMCA by disclosing unpublished MediaMax management files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted," says Sunncomm. "Once the file is found and deleted according to the instructions given in the Princeton grad student's report, the MediaMax copy management system can be bypassed resulting in the copyright protected music being converted or misappropriated for potentially unauthorized and/or illegal use."


Ok, soooo.... I no longer have the right to even know about every file on my hard disk that I purchased?

Are seriously trying to argue that point?

edit: hmm, seems we posted the same info from different sources.
Another quote: "SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used."

Compare and contrast that statement with "disclosing unpublished MediaMax management files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted". They're talking out of both sides of their mouths here.

[0007]

8. Putting a filter on a cigarette

didn't stop a fucking thing, did it?

.........and the beat will go on and on and on my fine feathered friend.

[lostnfound]

13. Hmmm..is this the type of frivolous lawsuit Shrub is warning us about?

Just checking. Or maybe he's worried about the SLAP lawsuits like McDonald's suit against the protesters of McDonald's in England.. No? Not that either?

[Wickerman]

14. I did not know that

very cool. now I can make car copies of some of my favorite CDs - which, incidentially, I should've been able to do anyway.

[trogdor]

15. I'll tell you all what I told the folks at FARK

Connect a CD player to the line-in jack of your sound card. Record the CD in real time. I do this with my old vinyl LP's all the time. The result is a really nice copy you can play in your car or on your PC. That is what you want, right?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. You shouldn't have to jump through artificial hoops to do that

Besides, the RIAA wants to block even the kind of copying you describe -- the "analog hole", they call it. Their objective is a "pay-per-use" world, where no one outside the 0.00000001% of the population who comprises the ruling class will truly own anything.

[northzax]

22. actually, the thing is

when you buy a CD you don't own the music, you own only that one particular medium for that music. you own a piece of plastic, that just so happens to have music encoded on it. If I go out and buy "Catcher in the Rye" what do I own? 186 piece of paper with printing on them. I don't own "catcher in the rye" I can't photocopy it for my friends. I own the physical medium for an idea, but not the idea itself. I can't, say, make a movie from the words, or reprint them somewhere else, or anything like that. I can resell that one physical manefistation, but I cannot make a copy for myself first. (or if I do, I must transfer my copy to the purchaser.)

why is this so difficult for everyone to understand? you don't own anything you don't create yourself, or buy directly from the creator who transfers title to you. which means they give up the right to make copies without compensating you. and that ain't the case with music.

now, you cna argue that it is sissiphyan for the industry to do this (and this lawsuit in particular reeks) but if they don't defend their copyrights, they lose them. and you can't honestly expect them to abrogate their copyright ownsership, can you? it's their entire raison d'etre.

[htuttle]

26. Actually, I CAN photocopy 'Catcher in the Rye'

I just can't photocopy it and sell it. There's something called the Fair Use rule, that among other things, allows duplication for personal use, and various academic purposes.

What the RIAA seems to say is that there is no Fair Use rule when it comes to their own intellectual property.

[northzax]

28. actually

the fair use rule is an exception. please find for me, where in the federal copyright laws, the right to copy something, in it's entirty, is permitted. it ain't. not for scholarly purposes, not for personal copies, not for nothing.

in case you don't have the CFR in front of you, allow me to give it to you:
Title 17, Chapter 1
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

hmm, nothing on copies for personal use. Let's check out the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, shall we?
Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1)
to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2)
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3)
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6)
in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission


I find 106(1) to be interesting here, don't you? it is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to copy the item. The copyright holder may grant you the right ot make a copy for your personal use, but it certainly isn't guaranteed. In fact, the law specifically makes an exception, in section 108 for archives and libraries to make ONE (and in certain cases three) copy for public use. now, if anyone who bought a material representation of a certain piece of intellectual property has the right to make a copy, why does the law specifically grant this right to libraries and archives only? those insitutions are the only ones granted an exception from the prohibition of making a copy of an entire work. Sure, you can copy a certain piece of a story, or Catcher in the Rye, for academic or review purposes, but you can't make a copy of the entire thing. that is a fallacy.

by the way, a good place to find the USCFR is http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

[Occulus]

16. UPDATE

The company has backed off.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12041

[eileen_d]

18. Did they make it harder to bypass their "encryption"

-- like maybe holding down CTRL while pressing SHIFT?

Too funny...

[Occulus]

19. some of their comments are disturbing

They tried to argue that the DMCA allows them to make it illegal to disclose the locations and nature of files installed on a user's own hard drive. Now, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't my hard drive my personal property?

Why are they trying to tell me I can't know what's on my property?

[JackDragna]

20. Anti-piracy software installs itself on my system?

Call me crazy, but I'd like control of my own bloody hard drive, thank you very much. I already have enough problems with sneaky little bits of spyware getting on there from advertisers.

[david_vincent]

23. Typical response from a largely reprehensible industry

The software industry is run by lawyers - intellectual property specialists. Characteristic of corporate greedheads, they have an "end justifies the means" attitude. Maybe this company can establish in court that sheer stupidity is their intellectual property; then they could sue themselves and stick the judgment right where the sun don't shine. As someone at DU pointed out earlier, Mussolini said that fascism is a corporate state.

[GregW]

25. Really?

I work in the software industry ... in fact I have for most of the past 20 years. Tell me again about this largely reprehensible industry, and the ogre I must be to work there.

BTW ... and you work in ????

[david_vincent]

27. Yup!

Trying to suggest that I made an inference that, in fact, I did not make, is an invalid argument. I NEVER said anything about the natural persons who work in the industry; in fact, I didn't say anything about any artificial persons, i.e. corporations, either. I aired my opinion about an industry. It's just my two cents' worth. Hey, I thought that's what these forums were for. And in what possible way would attacking ME be a valid defense of an industry that clearly doesn't need any help defending itself, since it has the BSA? The ad hominem approach doesn't cut any ice with anyone.
You're not an ogre; neither am I (just airing my opinion on that - disagree if you like).

[Junkdrawer]

29. When this was posted here earlier this week, I said they would DMCA...

him and every one laughed. DMCA is one seriously screwed up law.

[neuvocat]

30. Yes I see the logic here.

Don't expose any problems, just leave them undiscovered so that way the company can instead lose untold millions. Yep, that sure is smart.

[northzax]

31. basic rule of cryptography

which is all this is, in essence, the more secret something is, the less secure it is. The best systems are thrown out there for people to play with, and try to break. The algorithims may be mostly public, the keys are kept secret.

[DeathvadeR]

32. SunnComm won't sue grad student

update In an abrupt reversal, SunnComm Technologies said Friday that it will not sue a Princeton University graduate student who published a paper that describes how to bypass CD copy-protection technology simply by pressing the Shift key.

SunnComm had angrily assailed Princeton doctoral student John "Alex" Halderman just a day before, claiming that his academic paper was "at best, duplicitous and, at worst, a felony." The company had pledged to file a civil suit against Halderman under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and lobby federal prosecutors to indict him on criminal charges.

SunnComm CEO Peter Jacobs acknowledged his threat to file a lawsuit was a mistake. "I felt the researcher has an agenda, which he does," he said. "But that's not relevant, and I learned that...The long-term nature of the lawsuit and the emotional result of the lawsuit would obscure the issue, and it would develop a life of its own."

<http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5089448.html>