|
Intel will sue you if you use HDCP 'Master Key'
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 19 September, 2010
Intel has said this weekend that it will sue anyone who uses the HDCP "Master Key" that was recently leaked to the Web.
The crypto key can be used to break the HDCP tech that limits users from recording digital TV streams and Blu-ray discs.
The technology giant, which developed HDCP, says: "There are laws to protect both the intellectual property involved as well as the content that ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2010 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Go and look up the laws against reverse engineering, then how can you say it's perfectly legal... when US companies can sue Chinese companies for ripping off US made or designed products then how could jailbreaking be legal.
DCMA means nothing as your not pirating an IPhone, your altering it's default OS to run another version and you'll find that is against US law.
As it then allows you to run another OS which the original designers never ever intended you to run.
In Geohotz case he could be sued by IBM because he is or was trying to emulate the security SPU in the PS3 Cell processor, That would have been patented by IBM to protect their CPU product.
Also generally by opening the products box also means you agree not to alter the product in anyway, so you'd have agreed not to jailbreak the product anyway in a contractual way just simply by opening the box.
Much like MS's T&Cs you agree to once you rip open the plastic wrap.
1. OK man, mystic said it was legal for PERSONAL use and you go and give examples of how it's illegal for COMMERCIAL use. could you PLEASE present proof where it is illegal for personal use?
2. People buy computers from a store with windows 7 on it and take it home and put linux in its place. Are they going to jail for altering the default OS???
3. I saw the video of geohotz EXPLAINING how the ps3 security works. He was examining the process of the ps3 with some computer programs. Which is hardly altering and reproducing.
4."Also generally by opening the products box also means you agree not to alter the product in anyway,".... if someone alters their Iphone by putting a sticker on it, could they go to jail too??... please, don't 'pimp' you Iphone!!.. you can do hard time and then you'll really need a "jailbreak" rofl
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2010 @ 14:39
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. September 2010 @ 14:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can alter the frimware of a device but can not bypass copy protection, this may or may not be a issue if you put a new OS on it that dose not use copy protection, since you can not do with with most game consoles thats why they remain illegal in the US.
You can create yourself a crack and use it you however can not distribute it.
You can make a backup of a film but you can not bypass the copy protection.
I can try and dig up the copyright chapter and verse if ya are interested in what it says to the droll...rer facts I just posted, just remember I drool alot lulz .. well that and the courts have been siding with the corps alot...all hail our new corporate masters*bends over* !.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2010 @ 15:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
So.. is that proof jailbreaking is legal? Is there any copy protection involved in jailbreaking? I never jailbroke anything so I'm clueless.
But I'm a firm believer in "If you bought it, you own it". And can do whatever you want to it. And all that other legal bs goes towards commercial exploit.
|
|
SomeBozo
Member
2 product reviews
|
21. September 2010 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sui-cyco:
So.. is that proof jailbreaking is legal? Is there any copy protection involved in jailbreaking? I never jailbroke anything so I'm clueless.
But I'm a firm believer in "If you bought it, you own it". And can do whatever you want to it. And all that other legal bs goes towards commercial exploit.
Starting off in software a long time ago, it use to be very clear you only get a lease to use software, and to only use software in a prescribed manor, you may not try to reverse engineer it and understand you don't own it nor the intellectual property contained within... Good or bad, right or wrong, from what i know software licensing has really never changed, you might have purchased the phone but never the software. Perhaps you should go back and read the EULA and the fine print of the terms of use...
|
|
tjack360
Newbie
|
21. September 2010 @ 23:16 |
Link to this message
|
The funny thing is, with trying to protect every little thing, which they can't do when it comes to media, they are spending more money do find ways that eventually don't work. I can remember back in the day people were taping tv programs, cassettes, vhs tapes, etc. I dubbed stuff for friends all of the time. Seems like it's more of a big deal now because of the internet. LOL! Ways to do the old stuff was just as widely shared just not as blatant as the internet allows. It's all BS and people will still copy and share media no matter what. They can't sue everybody. It's ridiculous. I think if they didn't make such a big deal about it, it wouldn't seem as bad as they make it out to be.
I actively archive my videos, movies, tv shows, etc. as PSP Movies.
|
Senior Member
|
22. September 2010 @ 02:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
It's the same deal for the PS3jailbreak or iphone people just because you can jailbreak something doesn't mean you have any legal right to do so.
Your rant would have been more effective had you known that it IS legal to jailbreak your iPhone.
X360 - iXtreme1.4 ||| Xbox - EvoX Dash ||| PS2 - CC 2.0 PRO SLE ||| Dreamcast ...lol ||| NDS - Acekard 2/M3 Simply/EZ Flash 3-1 ||| Rooted HTC Hero with Ic3rom
|
|
davidike
Suspended permanently
|
22. September 2010 @ 06:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Joshewah:
Originally posted by xtago:
It's the same deal for the PS3jailbreak or iphone people just because you can jailbreak something doesn't mean you have any legal right to do so.
Your rant would have been more effective had you known that it IS legal to jailbreak your iPhone.
only in the USA and can apple appeal the decision?
no companies want you to have you own code running on their hardware because they want to be able to sell you updates that add functionality that the open source community would give away for free.
perfect example from sony here:
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/09/21/sony_playtv_update_charge/
Quote:
Sony piques PS3 fans with PlayTV patch fee
You want the firmware update? Cough up
Sony is to charge PlayStation 3 users for a PlayTV firmware update that brings to the tuner and console the ability to view a seven-day programme guide and record entire series of shows at the push of a button - features DVR owners already take for granted.
The Japanese giant announced the major PlayTV update back in April, and last month added details: the addition of Series Link, support for the TVTV online programme guide, chat-while-you-view over PSN and make recommendations the same way.
Then came the bombshell: "You will be able to get the software update on PS Store at a reasonable price," Sony blogger James Thorpe let slip.
Sony's reasoning: that the update respresents the company's "strong community commitment", that "a lot of effort" went into the firmware's development and that the "premium" update will "make PlayTV a very unique product".
Ignore for the moment the fact that something can't be very unique - it either is, or it isn't one of a kind - the key EPG and series-recording features are, as we say, widely available on other DVRs, and there are already TVs and set-top boxes that let you Tweet or post to Facebook while you're watching.
Sony's right to charge whatever it likes for the products it makes aside, the news that the PlayTV update won't be free has raised plenty of ire-filled comments on the message boards.
As yet Sony is keeping its cards close to its corporate chest as to what it plans to charge for the update - or quite when the update will debut. It's worth noting that the TVTV EPG, which usually is sold on subscription, will be free. But with a perfectly decent over-the-air EPG, we wonder why Sony is bothering with TVTV in the UK.
Sony's action isn't unprecedented - other companies have done the same before. Apple notoriously charged iPod Touch owners for updated system software it was giving away free to iPhone owners, and to bring 802.11n Wi-Fi to early MacBook Pros.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2010 @ 06:52
|
Senior Member
|
22. September 2010 @ 10:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by SomeBozo:
Starting off in software a long time ago, it use to be very clear you only get a lease to use software, and to only use software in a prescribed manor, you may not try to reverse engineer it and understand you don't own it nor the intellectual property contained within... Good or bad, right or wrong, from what i know software licensing has really never changed, you might have purchased the phone but never the software. Perhaps you should go back and read the EULA and the fine print of the terms of use...
Who reads the EULA??? Really, we know they force people to select the EULA agreement to install programs. And we know it's a bunch of crock. And technically, you don't sign EULA agreements on programs that are pre installed. But that is all technical rhetoric. Honestly, if they don't have the resources to enforce their agreements themselves then they should be repealed. A new agreement should be made on user rights and digital media. TOO much whining and moaning from digital media and software companies. They know what the world is now and so do we. They better invent better security measures on their software because in the end THEY are responsible for their products' security. Nobody should police the internet for them. If they can't deal with this then there are a slew of other companies that would. Just to take a share of the business left behind by greedy software companies.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
23. September 2010 @ 04:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sui-cyco:
Originally posted by SomeBozo:
Starting off in software a long time ago, it use to be very clear you only get a lease to use software, and to only use software in a prescribed manor, you may not try to reverse engineer it and understand you don't own it nor the intellectual property contained within... Good or bad, right or wrong, from what i know software licensing has really never changed, you might have purchased the phone but never the software. Perhaps you should go back and read the EULA and the fine print of the terms of use...
Who reads the EULA??? Really, we know they force people to select the EULA agreement to install programs. And we know it's a bunch of crock. And technically, you don't sign EULA agreements on programs that are pre installed. But that is all technical rhetoric. Honestly, if they don't have the resources to enforce their agreements themselves then they should be repealed. A new agreement should be made on user rights and digital media. TOO much whining and moaning from digital media and software companies. They know what the world is now and so do we. They better invent better security measures on their software because in the end THEY are responsible for their products' security. Nobody should police the internet for them. If they can't deal with this then there are a slew of other companies that would. Just to take a share of the business left behind by greedy software companies.
Few do read the ELUA, and that's why 1 suropean company owns about 1 million people's souls, because they agreed to the ELUA and that had a contractual agreement that the person will allow the company to do anything with that person's soul by law.
It was only found out because the company said it was in their ELUA on some IPhone software they sell.
It's not crock and it's not technical rhetoric, because it a contractual agree you make between you and the software company in law.
So yes a company could sue you for 10 million for reverse engineering but that's purely up to the company if they do so, they aren't forced into suing you.
That's the risk you run.
What sort of agreement like the ELUA you agreed to?, many companies do sue but not home users as it's generally a waste of money though MS are more than happy to sue anyone, I've seen that happen.
It's not something you want really, as even if you do win they will simply appeal until you win outright or simply go bankrupt along the way, and most home user's will end up bankrupt long before the company loses.
Well a lot of companies are wanting to move to a rental type software useage so that even if you do use the software everyday you have to pay them money.
MS is wanting to move windows in this direction, that's why so much of Windows requires a net connection to work properly.
Google already have it's OS on the net and to access anything you need to access their website so their premuim software will end up being a rental type thing with some stuff staying freebie yet crippled.
You'd get very little access to any software code this way and yet get the privilege of paying for a couple hours or days use via credit card.
I really don't like the rental thing but that's the way things are going to stop this sort of stuff from happening.
AutoDesk and other companies are starting to have 3D rendering software that you use via the web and you pay for the rendering farms time on their side.
|
|
telewig
Newbie
|
23. September 2010 @ 06:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Reading this made put me in mind of the identity theft situation. People tell a bank that they are you. The bank let's them have your money and the Law says you have to convince the bank that you didn't rob your account.
Laws seem to be made to enable the rich to rob the ( comparatively) poor.
Personally I would like to see the rewards related to "intellectual property rights" severely curtailed. Nobody deserves to be paid more than they could conceivably spend, for simply adding another tweak to other people's work.
|
|
telewig
Newbie
|
23. September 2010 @ 06:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
One extra thought. Patents were introduced by King Charles II ( If I'm right, then perhaps all patent offices should be paying the British Crown for this bit of intellectual property) to reward invention and encourage innovation.
Copyright was introduced with the same intent.
All this insistence on EULA's and attacks on back-engineering seem to be an attempt to stifle innovation and our legislator's should be re-thinking these issues in the interests of the people that they are supposed to represent, rather than their paymasters.
|
|
davidike
Suspended permanently
|
23. September 2010 @ 07:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by telewig:
One extra thought. Patents were introduced by King Charles II ( If I'm right, then perhaps all patent offices should be paying the British Crown for this bit of intellectual property) to reward invention and encourage innovation.
Copyright was introduced with the same intent.
All this insistence on EULA's and attacks on back-engineering seem to be an attempt to stifle innovation and our legislator's should be re-thinking these issues in the interests of the people that they are supposed to represent, rather than their paymasters.
as you are aware the corporations own the government, the corporations want to own patents and copywrites forever, thats the bottom line.
corporations are not pro consumer and the only way to make them change is to stop purchasing their goods and services.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. September 2010 @ 07:26
|
Senior Member
|
23. September 2010 @ 08:22 |
Link to this message
|
I was thinking how microsoft holds pretty much a monopoly on the OS market. That's because almost every software has to be compatible with windows OS. And that pretty much makes windows the "standard". So, if windows gets declared a standard, can other people makes OS's that run along the "windows standard"? I think they should be able to. In the US we try to prevent monopolies on any market. It's seen as unethical. And if the windows is the standard then it would be fair to let companies make OS's that run along the same codes. That way software companies don't have to provide different versions of software for different OS's. Or just make a standard off to the side and make ALL OS's comply to it.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. September 2010 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
In the US you can also sued for just about anything. Best to make your device in a Bananna Republic and share the profits with someone who can protect the project.
|
Senior Member
|
23. September 2010 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by bankai987:
Suing really scares people, yeah right. There will be a blu-ray ripping program in the next few months, and Intel bringing out the lawyers isn't going to do a thing about it.
There have been bluray ripping programs forever; this has nothing to do with ripping blurays, or piracy in general; there are other, cheaper ways of pirating stuff. This is just about restricting freedoms to honest users who don't pirate anything.
Right on the pulse Killer, this is about preventing us from using standalone DVD & Blu-Ray recorders to copy HDCP programs from TV. I have a baseball game I'd like to record to disc because I was televised in it, but it is protected, so hopefully I won't have to cannibalize an old TV to make my own device to strip the CP out of the signal.
This is great news!
Mez, They could also make them in Russia too.
sui-cyco, We aren't talking about MS or Standards or Monopolies? Those arguments are for another day or soap box.
|
Senior Member
|
23. September 2010 @ 15:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Mr-Movies
The conversation was being steered towards "reverse engineering" and "EULA's". And how companies are trying to protect their "intellectual property" for their codes and software. When they are really just trying to create monopolies where technology is stifled and hoarded.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. September 2010 @ 15:34
|
|
n0b0dy187
Newbie
|
23. September 2010 @ 19:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by tjack360:
The funny thing is, with trying to protect every little thing, which they can't do when it comes to media, they are spending more money do find ways that eventually don't work. I can remember back in the day people were taping tv programs, cassettes, vhs tapes, etc. I dubbed stuff for friends all of the time. Seems like it's more of a big deal now because of the internet. LOL! Ways to do the old stuff was just as widely shared just not as blatant as the internet allows. It's all BS and people will still copy and share media no matter what. They can't sue everybody. It's ridiculous. I think if they didn't make such a big deal about it, it wouldn't seem as bad as they make it out to be.
I agree just like the steroid's in sports issue. The more they bring these things up the worse they seem. If I told the same story a thousand different ways to make it seem like a different one then it will seem worse.
I agree just like....well you can see where this is going
Im as new as it gets to all this, so please bear with me.
|
Member
|
23. September 2010 @ 22:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by tjack360:
The funny thing is, with trying to protect every little thing, which they can't do when it comes to media, they are spending more money do find ways that eventually don't work. I can remember back in the day people were taping tv programs, cassettes, vhs tapes, etc. I dubbed stuff for friends all of the time. Seems like it's more of a big deal now because of the internet. LOL! Ways to do the old stuff was just as widely shared just not as blatant as the internet allows. It's all BS and people will still copy and share media no matter what. They can't sue everybody. It's ridiculous. I think if they didn't make such a big deal about it, it wouldn't seem as bad as they make it out to be.
I remember in the early 60's when I had a Robert's reel to reel tape recorder. The radio station I listened to at the time would notify his listeners that a certain song would be coming up after this next commercial so make ready your recorders because you'll want to play it over and over when ever you want. So what's the difference between doing that or downloading it and listening to it?
"Do not underestimate the power of an enemy, no matter how great or small, to rise against you another day." - Atilla
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. September 2010 @ 22:16
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
24. September 2010 @ 04:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sui-cyco:
@Mr-Movies
The conversation was being steered towards "reverse engineering" and "EULA's". And how companies are trying to protect their "intellectual property" for their codes and software. When they are really just trying to create monopolies where technology is stifled and hoarded.
Yes, mainly because that is how the master key had to be gotten.
EULA's came up because people are running around thinking they can open a software box and think they aren't agreeing to a contract, when in law they would be.
Yes and No type answer.
Yes - sometimes it holds back moving forward like the IPhone is still stuck on a tiny wee screen, compared to some win mobile / android phones.
No - because sometimes people are coming up with something so they can make some money or to make sure they are rewarded with the right's and or money for doing something.
A good example is penicillin, the process was made by an Australian French and German men in the UK.
But because the Australian didn't want to patent the process an USA company put in the patent and claims to have invented the process, when that isn't right. therefore the USA company gets all the royalties for anyone using their process that they never came up with.
Now just think if you came up with say a new way to compress music and say Sony patents the way you do that then Sony would get all the royalties and you'd get nothing but of cause you wanting a fair world and all will be perfectly happy with that arrangement while Sony rakes in a few 100 million at your expense.
So yeah I'm sure you'd be really happy about that.
|
|
telewig
Newbie
|
24. September 2010 @ 08:53 |
Link to this message
|
the best story about patent rip-off is edison's electric light bulb. he nicked it off Charles Swan, who based his on some frenchman's prior work.
In order to protect his ripped off patent Edison joined with Swan to form Ediswan , although the company ewas more popularly known for their Swan brand electric kettles.
Sir Isaac Newton said "if I can see further, it's because I stood on the shoulder of giants" .It's a good job he didn't patent his math on gravity, projectiles or calculus or his "corpuscular theory". If he had been a Bill Gates or an Edison, we'd never had satellites, the internet or blu-ray.
|
Senior Member
|
24. September 2010 @ 11:43 |
Link to this message
|
But what is going on here isn't somebody stealing software codes. It's about "unlocking" a software code. It's modification of a product you own. And "intellectual property" is being thrown in people's faces. When people are using their own "intellectual property" to unlock HDCP. So it's not stealing their property. It's like if I sold 20 million people a book and I told them to not to alter the text as it is my property. Then they turn around and scratch out words and replace them with others. Then I find out and sue them for altering my intellectual property. So basically, opening or unlocking a program is a little childish to pursue in courts.
|
|
telewig
Newbie
|
25. September 2010 @ 05:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you photocopy a book then that's an infringement of copyright. If you copy short phrases then that is not (same for recordings of songs and video). If you re-write the books and re-draw the diagrams, then that is your own intellectual property and your own copyright. This last is important from Society's point of view not just because textbooks do this but because how do you decide where Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet becomes West Side Story, or any of the other countless variations in-between. Software is of the same nature and Society needs to resist the Corporate greed and the imposition of EULA's designed to stop the more enterprising from back-engineering or extracting useful "phrases".
|
|
okokyea
Newbie
|
26. September 2010 @ 20:29 |
Link to this message
|
its about time they cracked it, I need to keep up grading my blueray player and for awhile, they stoped giving up grades and it took, a law suit, to make the company start sending up grades over the net! so now, maybe they will stop with the crazy code on the bluerays, so our dvd players will work on all the new movies!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. September 2010 @ 20:30
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
wazzat
Junior Member
|
28. September 2010 @ 11:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mysttic:
I wonder if I could sue if someone farts in my house.. Say it damaged the integrity of my home and kept tears in my eyes.
don't forget, makes the furniture stink. As in the "New Christine" episode where she was told her couch smelled like farts. What's copying streaming tv? Is that like copying streaming Netflix? Bought an older rv this year and everything but the cab AC works. When I disappear from the grid [retire] will make a portable wifi and satellite system so this is of interest when things get boring.
|
