How far did Sony really go with XCP?

I think anyone who gets to this blog already knows about the Sony XCP/DRM debacle. some new developments to this isthat Sony potentially broke the DMCA in order to create it’s anti-iTunes copy protection.

The DMCA states it’s illegal to reverse engineer copy protection. Getting technical, Mark Russinovich of Sys Internals and the guys at F-Secure broke the law to find out that the XCP copy protection was poorly written and harmful to any system it installed itself on.

But here’s a new twist. Rumor has it that parts of the XCP code were lifted from open sources applications. Parts of the multiple program’s code were found in the XCP code.

DRMS code was found in XCP. It is used to strip Apple’s FairPlay iTunes copy protection from songs, originally written by hacker hero DVD Jon. Reportedly it’s not being utilized, but still sits on these CDs. But that doesn’t matter. think back to the Rockstar/Grand Theft Auto/Hot Coffee debacle. The code wasn’t used by the game, but it was still there.

The LAME (more stolen code found in XCP) guys have said they’re not the suing kind of guys. But they have a big gun aimed at Sony if they don’t do what they feel is right here. I’m pretty sure they’d be happy if they pulled XCP discs off the shelves for good, replaced any discs that have this on it and offered a complete uninstall and fix of whatever this disc put on computers.

So who broke the law here? Who has the right to sue who?

Sony:

• potentitally broke the law by installing this in the first place. I’m sure this will be determined in the courts.
• supposedly sviolated copyrights by including code from LAME, id3lib, mpglib, mpg123, FAAC, and DRMS in their XCP CDs.
• Potentially violated the DMCA by including software that reverse engineer’s Apple’s FairPlay in their XCP CDs.

The creators of LAME, id3lib, mpglib, mpg123, FAAC, and DRMS:

• Has a big gun aimed at Sony that says “Lawsuit”, but doesn’t plan on pulling the trigger

Mark Russinovich, SysInternals and F-Secure:

• Violated the DMCA by reverse engineering Sony’s XCP

Apple:

• Can sue Sony for violating their copy protection and the DMCA by including DVD Jon’s FairPlay stripping code

This of course doesn’t count the lawsuits by New York, Texas, California, Italy and (I think) Britain against Sony.

References:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=940
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=933
http://sam.zoy.org/blog/2005-11-21-suspicious-activity-indeed

Me and Steve Jobs are like Brad Pitt and Ed Norton

We’re the same guy. Or something.

Sorry if I just spoiled the end of Fight Club, but apparently Apple had the same idea I had a few weeks ago in that the Mac has a future in the living room.

Check out this Think Secret post to see what I mean. A Mac Mini with a DVR built into it, apparently as a part of Front Row 2.0. Hot stuff!

Here’s my personal speculation, the Mac Mini is going to have a composite or RCA output built into it. So remember that in January when the Intel Mac Mini is released.

wordpress notes

So it seems like all the images on the page have died.  Great.

 My apologies.

Can I torrent Family Guy safely?

So here’s my question:

Does torrenting a file qualify as sharing a taped broadcast? Here’s the reason why I ask:

In FOX’s Primetime FAQ website (link here), they say this about taping and sharing shows…

8. Can I get tapes of FOX Network Primetime Shows sent to me?
ANSWER:
The FOX Network does not provide nor sell videos of any of shows, specials or movies that air on the Network.
Our recommendation is to ask co-workers, friends, family and neighbors for anyone who may have taped off-the-air the show you are looking for.

 

I’m confused. The language is so vague that I can interpret this as torrent files are okay as long as I inquire about them. And what is “taping” these days anyway? And what is “asking”?

Is “taping”

• Recording to a VCR?
• Recording to a set top DVR?
• Recording to a DVR internal to my computer?

Is “asking”

• Having a conversation over the phoine/in person/IM/e-mail?
• Doing a web search? (Ask Jeeves would be a good example)
• Doing a search on a torrent site?
• Browsing a torrent site?

I think they all could be considered as viable answers to those questions. If FOX is leaving this vague language up to us, the web denizens, then it’s going to be taken for it’s most broad, general meaning. Which means by my interpretation of what FOX says is okay on their own website, it’s 100% okay to download espisodes of Family Guy, The Simpsons, Amierican Dad, Malcolm in the Middle and Arrested Development. (And you better enjoy Arrested Development before it goes off the air forever, Fox cancelled it.)

is this the future of the web?

I’m a digg.com user. I use the site to get most of my news with the occasional trip to cnn.com. And I’ve noticed a trend.

What we’re getting is lazy web users who don’t take the time to actually check the story they are reading. This is very apparent on digg.com. Users submit stories and other users “digg” the stories, and the most popular stories are displayed on the main page. Now many digg users are also Engadget readers and Slshdot readers as well. I have no issue with this, I’ve got dozens of sites I check daily for news.

So let’s look at this link right here. The company iCel has released an iPod battery that can last for 200 hours. Super neat, right? Well, the link goes to Engadget.com’s story right here. Now here’s where it gets interesting. Engadget gives their story, and they are a pretty good site when it comes to the blurred line blog/news sites. Engadget is a part of Weblogs Inc.- a professional blogging network (that’s now under the AOL umbrella). So you’d think that their “link” provided goes to The Unofficial Apple Weblog, seen here. So we’ve got a blgo that references another blog, which was originally referred to by a social news

Here’s where more fun comes in. TUAW links to Mobilewhack! proof here, and MobileWhack eventually links the original product page, but no other page up until this point has.

At the same time, Mobilewhack also references DAPreview here, and that site references ANOTHER site in french here! The string finally ends here, but let’s review…

digg.com >> engadget.com >> tuaw.com >> mobilewhack.com >> dapreview.net >> generationmp3.com >> iCelUSA.com

Is everyone too lazy to simply reference the original page? Is everyone on the web, including these professional bloggers too lazy to simply check references? It’s not like it’s that hard to follow a link. I don’t get it.

in honor of halloween

eHow’s guide to brushing your teeth.