Author Topic: AACS Is Now Dead?  (Read 5281 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
AACS Is Now Dead?
« on: May 05, 2007 at 10:37 PM »
I think we can now say goodbye to AACS

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517924

May 2, 2007 - AACS: A Lesson in Futility

Posted May 2, 2007 by Josh


The latest chapter in the fight against piracy is making its way into news headlines today, with the unofficial confirmation that a processing key for HD DVD titles (and possibly Blu-ray titles) was leaked onto the web. I say "unofficial" because while AACS has not confirmed its existence, or the amount of damage it will undoubtedly cause, they are not hesitating to issue cease and desist orders to every website and blog that posts the mysterious code. If their reaction is to be a judge of the impact, this is going to be a huge problem for movie studios.

The Advanced Access Content System (AACS) is the one of the three anti-piracy tools available to Blu-ray studios in order to protect their intellectual property from being freely distributed against their will. Thus far, it has proven to be as effective as a screen door on a submarine. The first Title Key was discovered on the web in January, and it took them three months to address the issue - not exactly the definition of a prompt response. The problem was a memory leak in a popular PC software player which left the Title Keys (codes unique to each movie) readable with a memory dump. The April fix rejected those codes and required the software players to fix the leak.

More recently, an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on was modified to allow the computer to bypass the AACS system to some degree, paving the way for future applications which could potentially bypass the system completely, meaning any key change would have zero effect on the drive's ability to read and copy media.

Now, a processing key has been inadvertently leaked to the web (some say by AACS themselves), making all HD DVD discs wide-open for copying. Whether you're for or against Digital Rights Management (DRM) is inconsequential; the effects of piracy are felt by all. When AACS was first cracked, Universal (HD DVD) and Fox (Blu-ray) pulled their releases off the table and waited for a fix. That means less titles released, and no matter how you spin it, that is bad news for consumers.

Universal's reaction to this news is yet to be seen, but they surely can't be happy. Fox has taken a more proactive stance by speeding up the development of an anti-piracy technology they helped get added into the Blu-ray spec: BD Plus (BD+). The current rumors circulating are that Fox is waiting for testing to be completed for BD+ before releasing any titles using the new technology (which should be sometime in June).

The worst aspect of this entire situation has to be the actions taken by AACS themselves. The key was posted, and then numerous hacker sites posted the key to spread the word. While it was available, it was contained to that relatively small group of individuals. Then AACS started issuing cease and desist orders, and that is when mainstream media caught on. Now, the code is everywhere - even on t-shirts - and it has become impossible to stop the virus. How one organization can be so sloppy is beyond me, but one thing is sure: AACS has failed.

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2007 at 10:37 PM »
Latest AACS crack 'beyond revocation'
That's torn it
By John Leyden
Published Friday 4th May 2007 19:33 GMT


Hackers have found a way of circumventing the AACS copy prevention technology used by next-generation DVD disks. Unlike earlier breaks, the latest crack can't be papered over simply by pushing key revocation updates.

Advanced Access Content System (AACS) encryption forms the cornerstone of the content protection technology on high-definition DVD formats such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. The technology includes a system for revoking keys, making it impossible to play newly released high-definition movies via versions of playback software known to be weak or flawed.

For example, last month WinDVD 8 users need to update their software, after crackers worked out a way to grab content protection keys. Hackers sniffed out the keys using an approach based on figuring out memory changes made after playing high-def discs on their PCs.

The latest crack, once again formulated by the denizens of the Doom9 forums, is said to be immune to key revocation. The hardware hack involves tampering with the HD DVD add-on drive of an Xbox 360 to capture the "Volume Unique Keys", Ars Technica reports.

The key can be extracted after de-soldering the HD DVD drive's firmware chip, reading its contents, and then reconnecting it. The approach bypasses the encryption performed by the Device Keys, so revoking these keys as applied by the WinDVD update. Although the latest approach involves voided warranties and potential solder burns, Ars Technica adds that the ruse takes hackers one step closer to using software to achieve the same ends.

The attack caps a miserable week for the Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA), the custodian of the AACS encryption. The organisation has been busy sending out legal nasty grams to websites that published a 32-digit hexadecimal number that represented one of the keys for cracking AACS involved in last month's attack. Predictably the move chiefly served to publicise the infamous number.

Now AACS LA has got an even more serious chink in the armour of AACS to contend with.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/04/aacs_crack/
« Last Edit: May 05, 2007 at 10:43 PM by av_phile1 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2007 at 11:15 PM »
Kevin Rose & Digg --- Bilib ako sa tapang nito!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Is Digg digging its own grave? or is DRM in deep trouble?
Robin Bloor
Published: 3rd May 2007


Late on May 1st, Kevin Rose, the founder and CEO of Digg.com, made the following blog posting:

"Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts...

In building and shaping the site I've always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We've always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.

But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying."


xxx

Full text: http://www.it-director.com/blogs/Robin_Bloor/2007/5/is_digg_digging_its_own_grave_or_i_.html



----------------------------------------------------------------------



Unpacking the Digg-AACS Controversy  
By Steve Bryant
May 3, 2007

 
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2125572,00.asp

« Last Edit: May 05, 2007 at 11:28 PM by barrister »

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2007 at 12:04 AM »
From the same site:

On the plus side, the Digg-AACS story shows both the folly of DRM and the folly of mob rule. I'm inclined to side with the mob on this one—DRM is an onerous, faulty policy. But had the information in question been something more sensitive—a social security number, national secrets, documents stolen from a presidential candidate's home, whatever—I would likely be less understanding.

Either that or I just love iconoclastic pursuits to shame studios for their contempt on consumers and paranoia over their profits.  ;D

Or I'm just bored.  Not much earth shaking news in the high def world since the first cracking from Doom9.   But this one tops it.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 06, 2007 at 12:08 AM by av_phile1 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2007 at 11:27 AM »
Digg People Power Revolution -- Blow by Blow:

The unprecedented turn of events is rooted in the fact that Digg is not an ordinary site.  Digg is a popularity-based news site where the community votes for which articles get the highest play.  Stories move up or down a queue according to a user-based ranking system.

On 01 May 2007 an article appeared on Digg’s homepage that contained the encryption key for the digital rights management protection of HD DVD.  Acting on the advice of its lawyers, Digg removed posting submissions about the encryption key and banned several users for submitting it. 

When members accused Digg of selling out free speech in favor of corporate interests, Digg released a statement explaining that the article’s take-down was in compliance with cease and desist letters from the Advanced Access Content System consortium, and was justified under Digg’s Terms of Use.

Enraged by Digg's actions, the community's overwhelming majority staged a widespread revolt.  Since the site is, in theory, collectively edited by all its users, they decided to use their combined might to overwhelm the site with simultaneous postings of references to the encryption key.

Now, Digg was forced to choose, and decided to yield to its members.  Founder Kevin Rose announced: "...(Y)ou've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.  If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying."


========================================================


I'll be closely following this story if only to see if John Naughton (observer.guardian.co.uk writer) was right in saying:

"... (I)t provides yet another proof that Digital Rights Management (DRM) is intrinsically unviable. There is no such thing as an uncrackable protection system, and no way to stop circulation of the hack that breaks it."

« Last Edit: May 06, 2007 at 01:01 PM by barrister »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2007 at 11:37 AM »
DRM group vows to fight bloggers
By Darren Waters
Technology editor, BBC News website
Last Updated: Friday, 4 May 2007, 09:58 GMT 10:58 UK 

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6623331.stm?ls
« Last Edit: May 06, 2007 at 11:51 AM by barrister »

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2007 at 02:59 PM »


Now, Digg was forced to choose, and decided to yield to its members.  Founder Kevin Rose announced: "...(Y)ou've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.  If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying."


My hats off to Digg.  It isn't everyday you see a popular site stand on the side of its members against the corporate giants to face dire legal consequencies.

Just curious Barrister, how would you defend Digg legally if you were hired by them?  OR are they indefensible?

Quote
I'll be closely following this story if only to see if John Naughton (observer.guardian.co.uk writer) was right in saying:

"... (I)t provides yet another proof that Digital Rights Management (DRM) is intrinsically unviable. There is no such thing as an uncrackable protection system, and no way to stop circulation of the hack that breaks it."


In the computer world, there's really no such thing as an unhackable system.  Just a matter of time before it is cracked.  Even among security experts, there's no such thing as a door lock that can't be picked.  ;D  I've opined similarly about this in my previous posts on the efforts of studios to protect their copyrights.  This is total futility in the face of determined professional hackers.  And now, even plain hobbyst hackers proved it.  I read in another forum that studios themselves recognize the futilty and developed the AACS/DRM to make it more DIFFICULT to hack into their material, not to make it foolproof.  And if I read the articles on the hacking right,  the studios did a commendable job developing the AACS.  The AACS wasn't hacked, it was just neatly sidestepped and rendered useless.  IOW, the security lock wasn't picked, they just found their way around it to enter.  ;D  I could be wrong though. 

« Last Edit: May 06, 2007 at 03:02 PM by av_phile1 »

Offline Mouldingo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,499
  • Life's too short, don't waste it!!!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2007 at 05:46 PM »
So that's the reason may hiatus yung releases ng Universal sa HD DVD. Now that the coming releases are also now in danger of being pulled out, I wonder whose gain is this whole mess for...

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2007 at 12:52 AM »
Just curious Barrister, how would you defend Digg legally if you were hired by them?  OR are they indefensible?

I'm not familiar with U.S. copyright laws, but as far as I can tell, it's going to be very rough.

The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is pretty tough U.S. federal legislation.  You don't have to infringe copyright to violate it.  Just circumvent a copy protection scheme and you already violate it.  What if you don't actually circumvent copy protection but merely "offer to the public" a component that is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing" copy protection?  That's also a violation.

Digg could have avoided liability under "safe harbor" provisions by complying with takedown notices.  They could have said that they initially tried to comply, but later found it impossible to do so due to the deluge of posts from protesting members.  But the problem is that Digg has already declared via an online announcement that it now deliberately refuses to comply with the AACS takedown notice.

A more prudent course of action would be to let the members' anger die down by itself.  It would probably take only a month or two before the site resumed normal operations.  It would be better to bear a couple of months in lost income than to spend millions in legal fees battling the AACS.

But Digg decided to defy the AACS.  The only thing they can do now is hope and pray that the AACS doesn't sue.  Because if AACS sues, Digg doesn't stand much of a chance.

U.S. Jurisprudence does not appear to be encouraging ---  In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, the first test case for DMCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the act of posting and/or linking DeCSS (for DVDs) violates DMCA (defendants did not appeal to the Supreme Court). 

But you will notice that despite the DMCA and the Reimerdes case, nothing could prevent DVD copy protection from becoming the joke that it is today.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007 at 01:06 AM by barrister »

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2007 at 07:37 AM »
Atty,  I have yet to read the strict provisions of the DMCA but I am again curious. When someone broadcasts to the world the security lock combination of your safe, can you have a case to sue that person and expect to win?  Because I think this is analogous to what happened at Digg.  I suspect that the DMCA is another toothless law arising from the huge lobby money from studios.  Someone should really question and revoke this law.  I hear there's a Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA) introduced by democrats to counteract this law. Weird. 

Can anyone legally claim ownership to a set of numbers?  And which one carries higher primacy: constitutional guarantees of free speech or copyright laws? I know that freedom of expression ends where libel begins, but can we say the same for copyright laws?

BBC had already broadcast the key.
http://www.dslinux.org/blogs/pepsiman/?p=81
Are they also liable?

Another question:  If I were to post a link to a site containing the decryption key, will I and/or the owners of PinoyDVD be liable?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007 at 11:03 AM by av_phile1 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2007 at 01:07 PM »
Bos av_phile1:

First of all, Philippine law is different from U.S. law.  An answer for the U.S. setting can sometimes be very different from an answer in the Philippine setting.  For this post, I'll just make some reasonable assumptions concerning the jurisdiction you're referring to.    

=======================================================


When someone broadcasts to the world the security lock combination of your safe, can you have a case to sue that person and expect to win?  Because I think this is analogous to what happened at Digg. 

Yes, if your safe's combination is broadcast to the world, that is definitely a tortious act, an actionable wrong for which the perpetrator can be held liable for damages.

It might seem analogous, but strictly speaking, there's actually a big difference.  The Digg incident is covered by pertinent copyright laws under mercantile law; the safe's combination is covered by "intentional tort" jurisprudence.


I suspect that the DMCA is another toothless law arising from the huge lobby money from studios.  Someone should really question and revoke this law. 


Yes, it's very likely that the DMCA resulted from movie studio lobbying.  But it's definitely not toothless.  In fact, I think it has too much teeth, that's why so many interested parties are pushing for a repeal.  

The problem in enforcement arises when there are millions of violators.  But once they decide to concentrate on a particular offender, he wouldn't stand a chance.

Can anyone legally claim ownership to a set of numbers? 
 

Yes, but the numbers must be taken in context.  For example, if the number combination represents a trademark or tradename, then it can be subject to ownership.  

In this case, however, it's not an issue of ownership, but an issue of whether the number is primarily a tool for circumvention of copy protection.


And which one carries higher primacy: constitutional guarantees of free speech or copyright laws? I know that freedom of expression ends where libel begins, but can we say the same for copyright laws?
 

Freedom of speech has primacy, but it is subject to exceptions.  Libel is an exception to freedom of speech, in the same manner that copyright infringement is likewise an exception thereto.


BBC had already broadcast the key.
http://www.dslinux.org/blogs/pepsiman/?p=81
Are they also liable?

No, not yet.  

BBC may avail of the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions by complying with takedown notices.  All BBC has to do is wait for AACS to issue a takedown notice, then comply by removing or editing the post.

It seems that BBC made an error in good faith.  That's what the safe harbor provisions are for.  An honest mistake is initially presumed.  After receiving a takedown notice, the BBC can no longer say that it was a mistake in good faith.

Another question:  If I were to post a link to a site containing the decryption key, will I and/or the owners of PinoyDVD be liable?

Now, this is more specific to Philippine jurisdiction.

If it happened in the U.S., the answer would definitely fall under DMCA provisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes that the act of posting and/or linking DeCSS (for DVDs) is a violation of the DMCA.   The only difference is that in the Reimerdes case, what was posted was DeCSS, an executable program; whereas in the Digg situation, what was posted was merely an encryption key, not a complete program.

In my opinion, the encryption key can be considered a "component" that is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing" copy protection; hence, posting it or posting a link thereto is a violation of the DMCA.

How about in this jurisdiction?

The DMCA does not apply in the Philippines.  Therefore, the answer must be based on Philippine law.  

In the Philippines, "copyright" under R.A. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code ("IPC") covers literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works, which includes computer programs.  

However, an encryption code is not a "computer program," which is defined under sec. 171.4 of the IPC as "a set of instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, which is capable when incorporated in a medium that the computer can read, of causing the computer to perform or achieve a particular task or result".  In view thereof, I don't think the IPC can apply.

Another Philippine law is R.A. 8792, otherwise known as the E-Commerce Act.   Sec. 33 thereof states:

"(a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be punished by a minimum fine of One Hundred Thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years"

I don't think this can apply either because you were not the hacker or cracker --- you merely posted the encryption key.

However, you can be held liable for damages under the Civil Code of the Philippines.  Based on the Civil Code's Human Relations and Damages provisions, you can be held liable for your participation in the damage caused to the owners of the copyrighted content if your acts facilitated the distribution of a tool for circumvention of copy protection.

My advice:  Just don't post it.  Even if you disagree with my opinion, it's always better to be safe.    ;D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007 at 01:55 PM by barrister »

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2007 at 02:23 PM »
Now that's quite a mouthful of revelations for me.  And for sure I'll abide by your legal advice.  Thanks again Atty.  Meron pa lang law on tortious acts and Human Relations Civil Code.  ;D

I asked the above without much regard to jurisdictions because I read in the past that crimes committed on the internet or facilitated by it are borderless.  Is that true?  So the US can go after anyone who violated any of their laws thru the internet.  This reminds me of that Norwegian kid Johansen who wrote and posted DeCSS program on the internet.  He was eventually caught and prosecuted for violating copyright laws (though later acquitted).  Just not so sure if that was for violating US laws or Norwegian laws, assuming Norway has counterpart copyright laws.

Just so happens that Digg is a site owned by a US citizen on a US-based server. (or is it?).  But the BBC is based in England.  So will they be liable even if they snubbed those takedown notices?  If those decryption keys were posted in a non-US server by a non-US citizen outside of the US, I'd imagine the US might still have its tentacles at work.  So sites like PinoyDVD might not be so immune from DMCA had the Digg incident happened in this site.  Also, isn't the PinoyDVD site hosted in the US?  I guess the question is, can a pinoy be held liable for violating the DMCA via the internet?  Specifically posting a damaging code that circumvents copy protection systems?  If there is no applicable Philippine law governing this, can the US extradite me or the owner of PinoyDVD for violating DMCA over a borderless internet? 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007 at 02:44 PM by av_phile1 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2007 at 07:27 PM »
Meron pa lang law on tortious acts and Human Relations Civil Code.  ;D

Additional clarification:

The Civil Code of the Philippines (2,270 Articles) contains provisions on Human Relations (Arts. 19 to 36) and Damages (Arts. 2195 to 2240).

Common law jurisdictions such as the U.S. use the term "Tort".  Civil law jurisdictions such as the Philippines use the term "Quasi-Delict". 


I asked the above without much regard to jurisdictions because I read in the past that crimes committed on the internet or facilitated by it are borderless.  Is that true?  So the US can go after anyone who violated any of their laws thru the internet.  This reminds me of that Norwegian kid Johansen who wrote and posted DeCSS program on the internet.  He was eventually caught and prosecuted for violating copyright laws (though later acquitted).  Just not so sure if that was for violating US laws or Norwegian laws, assuming Norway has counterpart copyright laws.

The criminal prosecution of Johansen, aka "DVD Jon", started with complaints from the U.S. DVD Copy Control Association (DVD-CCA) and the Motion Picture Association (MPA).  DVD Jon was charged under Norwegian law, and the prosecution was conducted by the designated Norwegian crime unit.

DVD Jon argued that no illegal access was obtained to anyone else's information, since he only hacked his own DVDs.  DVD Jon was acquitted.  He is now idolized like a rock star in the international computer geek community.

Related news:  DVD Jon sets his sights on AACS   http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060116-5989.html


Just so happens that Digg is a site owned by a US citizen on a US-based server. (or is it?).  But the BBC is based in England.  So will they be liable even if they snubbed those takedown notices? 

Oo nga, UK nga pala ang BBC...  :D my mistake.  I was thinking U.S. company din ito. 

I looked it up on the net and found that Europe also has its own DMCA, nicknamed the "European DMCA".  This is the law that should apply to BBC.  It's officially called the "EU Copyright Directive" or "EUCD".  It's reputedly very similar to DMCA, so even if the EUCD is applied instead, I suppose the answer would be the same.


If those decryption keys were posted in a non-US server by a non-US citizen outside of the US, I'd imagine the US might still have its tentacles at work.  So sites like PinoyDVD might not be so immune from DMCA had the Digg incident happened in this site.  Also, isn't the PinoyDVD site hosted in the US?  I guess the question is, can a pinoy be held liable for violating the DMCA via the internet?  Specifically posting a damaging code that circumvents copy protection systems? 

Unfortunately, there are no definite answers to these issues. Jurisprudence is slowly starting to catch up with new legal problems posed by the internet, but there's still a long way to go.

The traditional and historical international law concept is that criminal law is territorial in nature, which means that criminal laws are applicable only within the territorial jurisdiction of the state.

But this principle arose during the times when it was physically impossible to peform an act in one country and produce the effects in another. 

These days, it is now possible to push a button in one country to launch a missile that will hit a city in another country.  The internet poses a host of other legal problems because using a computer in one country can now have criminal results in another country.  International law is now evolving to accommodate extraterritoriality of certain crimes such as terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and other acts considered to be "crimes against humanity".

My opinion is that the DMCA cannot apply to the Philippines because, following the principle of criminal territoriality in international law, the DMCA is a U.S. federal law that can apply only in the U.S. 

That is why the Pinoy author of the ILOVEYOU virus was charged in the Philippines with Philippine law.  The accused was later acquitted, reportedly due to the lack of any Philippine criminal law specifically punishing the act of writing and spreading a virus (which was actually a worm).  Subsequently, congress passed R.A. 8792 (E-Commerce Act), which now specifically criminalizes the act of "hacking or cracking".

If the U.S. insists on applying the DMCA extraterritorially, maybe an Islamic country where preaching Christianity is a criminal offense can charge Billy Graham criminally and extradite him. 

Here's the scenario:  A student is browsing the web in an Islamic country, where proselytizing other religions is a criminal offense.  He stumbles upon the Billy Graham site, where Graham openly proselytizes the Christian faith and quotes the Christian Bible.  The student reports it to the authorities, who charge Graham criminally and request U.S. extradition, alleging that Graham committed a criminal act in the Islamic country from the U.S. via internet.

Let's see how anxious the U.S. would be to turn Graham over to the Islamic country's authorities now.

Still on the issue of extraterritorial criminality, there's this unusual U.S. case of Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer who authored the "Advanced eBook Processor" (AEBR) in Russia.  On July 16, 2001, after giving a presentation called "eBook's Security — Theory and Practice" at the DEF CON convention in Las Vegas, he was arrested by the FBI as he was about to return to Moscow and was charged with distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures, under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

He and his employer Elcomsoft were charged with violation of the DMCA, even if the violation was allegedly committed in Russia, where the acts complained of were not illegal.

The charges against Sklyarov were later dropped in exchange for his testimony. On December 18, 2002 following a two-week trial in San Jose, California, a jury found that Elcomsoft had not willfully violated the U.S. law.



If there is no applicable Philippine law governing this, can the US extradite me or the owner of PinoyDVD for violating DMCA over a borderless internet? 

No, I don't think so. 

Our extradition treaty with the U.S. contains a standard definition of an "extraditable offense" --- an offense is extraditable if it is punishable under the laws of both parties by a prison term of at least one year.

This is commonly referred to as the "dual criminality" rule. 

No dual criminality, not extraditable.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2007 at 01:48 AM by barrister »

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2007 at 11:33 AM »
I think there are crimes that lend themselves easily to being prosecuted without regard to geographic and politcal borders.  Crimes against humanity is one.  And I think traffic of illegal drugs is also another.  There's one Latin dictator who was kidnapped by the CIA operatives to face charges in the US, wasn't there?  Noriega I think.  And when Saddam was still alive, he certainly couldn't step on US or UK soil as he would be arrested immediately for crimes against humanity that happened outside the US or UK.   Also the late Milosevic and other officers in the ethnic wars in Serbia/Herzegovina. 

Copyright infringement is another area where extraterritoriality can apply.  Especially when the infringement is facilitated over the internet.  I am just not sure what international body can implement this.  The World Court in Hague?    I'd be interested to see if they can issue a warrant of arrest for China's head of state for allowing piracy to thrive in his country.   ;D
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007 at 11:35 AM by av_phile1 »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2007 at 02:13 PM »
The doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction in international law allows jurisdiction in any forum that obtains physical jurisdiction over the person of the perpetrator of certain offenses considered particularly heinous or harmful to humanity such as genocide, war crimes, slavery, etc.

The Universal Jurisdiction principle is definitely not generally accepted as it is still considered very controversial. It stands in opposition to the more accepted principles such as the territorial theory, which is the traditional principle that allows jurisdiction over persons, things, or acts performed within the territorial boundaries of the state; and the nationality theory, where a state's laws apply to its citizens wherever they may be found.

Universal Jurisdiction is still controversial even if it is presently applied only in the most serious crimes against humanity, based on the theory that if the crime is "erga omnes" (committed against everyone), then all the people of the world have an interest in the prosecution of the offender.

Since the act of copyright infringement offends only the copyright owners, then I don't think it can be generally considered serious enough to qualify as a crime erga omnes.
 
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007 at 02:30 PM by barrister »

Offline av_phile1

  • Trade Count: (+22)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,597
  • Cheers from a movie and music lover
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2007 at 02:54 PM »
Since the act of copyright infringement offends only the copyright owners, then I don't think it can be generally considered serious enough to qualify as a crime erga omnes.
 

Oo nga naman.  You're right.  They only protect the selfish greedy paranoid studios.  Silly me.   ;D

« Last Edit: May 08, 2007 at 02:56 PM by av_phile1 »

Offline mccoy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 766
  • HEY. HO. LET'S GO.
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2007 at 01:43 AM »
haha grabe usapan nyong dalawa!!! umiikot na paningin ko!! hahaha  :o
LAKAD PILIPINAS: Explore the Philippines & Beyond

Offline nels76

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
  • extraordinarily intense AUDIO
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2007 at 05:59 PM »
I am so out of place na nga din eh.  ;D
The Mysterious Gamma Ray Burst

Offline jerix

  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,154
  • got no golden ears...just loving music
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2007 at 12:54 PM »
I am in fact enjoyin  ;D
Samsung65MU6303/TCL4kPS49TV/OnkSR608/OnkTXNR676/Marantz/Akai/Sansui/PrjEssential-II

Offline NMM1

  • Trade Count: (+78)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 828
  • rock on!!!!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2007 at 02:39 PM »
sasali pa sana ko pero wag na lang, i might be found in contempt of court.... hahahahahaha..... mabuhay c digg!!!!!
« Last Edit: May 17, 2007 at 02:42 PM by lemontwyst »
Rega | Schiit| Puffin | Yamaha | Dynaudio | ProAc | Accuphase

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: AACS Is Now Dead?
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2007 at 05:53 PM »
Matrix Trilogy HD DVD, scheduled for release on May 22, will have a new volume key.  Unfortunately, AnyDVD has already cracked it.


Latest AACS revision defeated a week before release
By Ryan Paul | Published: May 17, 2007 - 10:44AM CT

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070517-latest-aacs-revision-defeated-a-week-before-release.html


Newest AACS circumvented: The Matrix Trilogy set free
Posted May 17th 2007 2:59AM by Thomas Ricker

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/05/17/newest-aacs-circumvented-the-matrix-trilogy-set-free/

« Last Edit: May 18, 2007 at 06:07 PM by barrister »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: BD+ DRM
« Reply #21 on: Dec 16, 2008 at 12:30 PM »



Latest BD+ DRM update a tough nut to crack
Posted on 15/12/08 17:26 by Seán Byrne

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/15311-Latest-BD-DRM-update-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html


Studios Win Battle in Blu-ray DRM, Still Losing the War
By matt buchanan, 8:40 PM on Mon Dec 15 2008

http://gizmodo.com/5110796/studios-win-battle-in-blu+ray-drm-still-losing-the-war