AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
I'm sure the MPAA black copters have already been launched. The Gestopo is on the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,289 Posts
I think the DMCA includes specific exemption for cryptographic research. I dunno what comes from publishing such research, though. The thing is, though, that this paper didn't publish specific technique per se. It's mostly a mathematical analysis, without the specifics of how to break the algorithm. So, I would say that they should be pretty safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
I've looked at the DMCA , and I'd like someone to tell me where it says that you can't discuss how to break a copyright protection mechanism. It just says that you can't use devices implementing such methods, sell or otherwise distribute them. And it does allow cryptographic researchers to actually implement and use the methods, to verify the theory of their research, though probably not to distribute that part of their work, except to the makers of the mechanisms. After all, the point of cryptograhic research is to help to make systems that are attack proof, not to help the public break deployed ones. Of course, HDCP has not been widely deployed--it's in two shipping products today, and no matching STBs.


Interestingly, the way they've expressed this, you'd have to be fairly plugged into mathematics to attempt to apply their work. They don't suggest what sort of real effort or amount of equipment or time it would require to break HDCP for practical purposes--Neils Ferguson, the Dutch researcher who's stated that he broke it but wouldn't publish his results for supposed fear of the DMCA, estimated that he could permanently break the system using four PCs and 50 displays for two weeks. That wouldn't be an attack that one need worry about the casual hacker successfully attempting. Which is, of course, not to say that someone wouldn't finance such an attempt. But, having paid for this, would they give it away for free, or attempt to sell things that would get them sued under the DMCA?


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Quote:
I've looked at the DMCA
That puts you way ahead of most of its opponents. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
Quote:
...I'd like someone to tell me where it says that you can't discuss how to break a copyright protection mechanism.
From the EFF


What is Dmitry [Sklyarov] charged with?

Two counts. First, with violating the anti-trafficking provision in section 1201 (b)(1)(A) of 17 USC , which was made law by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), and secondly, with "aiding and abetting" under 18 USC 2.


Section 1201(b)(1)(A) prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking 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 that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof".


18 USC 2 provides that any person who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense against the United States or "willfully causes an act to be done" by himself or another person which would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal offender.


Sklyarov is accused of "trafficking" in or providing to the public, software that can circumvent technological protection on copyrighted material under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions (section 1201(b)(1)(A)). He's also charged with aiding and abetting. The Complaint doesn't identify the factual basis of that charge, but people have speculated that the US government would claim that Dmitry, as an employee of ElcomSoft Co. Ltd., aided and abetted the company to manufacture and distribute software that circumvents a technological protection that effectively protects a copyrighted work.



The Affidavit sworn by FBI Special Agent O'Connell filed in support of the Complaint alleges that Dmitry was the holder of the copyright in Elcomsoft's Adobe eBook Processor (AEBPR) program. The ElcomSoft website claims that Dmitry simply developed the algorithms on which the AEBPR program is based.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Not only can you be prosecuted for discussing such technology, you can be prosecuted for LINKING TO a website which discusses the technology. (See Universal v. Reimerdes a.k.a. MPAA vs. 2600 Magazine).


Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by rbird
Not only can you be prosecuted for discussing such technology, you can be prosecuted for LINKING TO a website which discusses the technology. (See Universal v. Reimerdes a.k.a. MPAA vs. 2600 Magazine).


Bob
The sites that 2600 Magazine linked to contained the source of DeCSS--not just "discussions" of it. Working devices for circumventing a copyright protection mechanism. Linking to the sites was aiding and abeiting the distribution of these.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Man E
The Affidavit sworn by FBI Special Agent O'Connell filed in support of the Complaint alleges that Dmitry was the holder of the copyright in Elcomsoft's Adobe eBook Processor (AEBPR) program. The ElcomSoft website claims that Dmitry simply developed the algorithms on which the AEBPR program is based.
"Developing algorithms" for a company whom you fully know will incorporate them into programs for breaking copyright protection mechanisms is no different from writing the code. As I understand it (and I may be wrong) Skylarov was not an academic cryptographic researcher--he was an employee of ElcomSoft who did what he did for pay. If he is named on the copyright for this program, it's a matter of public record that will come out at trial which would tend to incriminate him.


-- Mike Scott
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top