Microsoft's Best Response To Cracked Copy Protection? Sue For Stolen Source Code
from the seems-like-a-weak-response dept
rijit points out that Microsoft, after having failed to successfully patch their copy protection system that was recently cracked, is now suing the anonymous creator of the FairUse4WM system. They're not suing him for circumventing the copy protection, but rather claiming that he must have access to proprietary Microsoft source code in order to do what he's done. This is interesting in a few ways, including the seeming admission that Microsoft relied on security by obscurity in their DRM system, hoping that no one with malicious intent would ever get their hands on the source code. Either way, this seems like a rather pointless and expensive battle. There are plenty of benefits to Microsoft in leaving this crack out there. Sure, it will piss off some content partners (and, in fact, it appears BSkyB has stopped providing content until this gets sorted out). However, that's short term thinking. There's always going to be some crack or some workaround to get around copy protection -- and the ridiculous thing is those workarounds usually make the content much more valuable, by increasing the number of ways the content can be used. It makes me wonder if there's ever been so much effort and money spent on features that are only designed to making a product less valuable to consumers?We certainly talk a lot around here about the backwardness of the idea of DRM. The public argument in favor of copy protection doesn't make much sense. It doesn't actually protect any content, and it doesn't stop any content from being available on file sharing networks. In other words, copy protection doesn't actually protect copies. It also makes the content it protects less valuable, by limiting its uses, and harms the promotional value of the content as well. In the end, what it really comes down to is an attempt by the recording industry to try to recreate the exact business model online that they've used for years offline. Copy protection sets things up to work just like their tangible distribution model works -- and that's why they like it. They understand it. However, the success of online apps is never about just taking what worked offline and moving it online, but in embracing what the online nature of the content allows users to do that simply could not be done offline. For content, one big aspect is the ability to share that content, and let your users promote it for you. So, while Microsoft continues this pointless and expensive attack on those who make the content that plays on their media player more useful, perhaps it's time to start talking about how much more value is added to content that isn't locked down.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
pointless?
it becomes like decss, illegal in the states, varies elsewhere, but is availble everywhere thanks to the net.
they still have 'DRM' despite the fact people who want to can get rid of it.
MS are happy (ish), content providers get to point ot a court 'victory' and its business as usual for everyone else.
plus the lawyers make money.
it will cost MS some cash, drop in the ocean for them, and probably cheaper than actually fixing the problem.
and the people who wrote the crack? well just stay out of the states and i don't see a problem their either.
the looser? less control for the content compaines, but only regarding people who will proably rip the stuff DRM free and share it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, how do you sue an anonymous person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was wondering the same thing. Oh and I use FairUSE4WM and I love it. I feel like I get my money's worth now. I don't share my music. But wow does my MP3 player play my songs much faster (meaning when I go to the next song) then ever. Without having to decode that DRM it's like on crack now.
Love it. And I can use the songs in my home movies now without having to play it back to my computer and re-record which I was doing before anyway. So either way I get DRM free, this just made it easier and faster for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a fishing trip to me
"The copyright lawsuit was filed in Seattle federal court last Friday, without a name attached. Just as in the recording industry's many lawsuits against accused file swappers, it targets an unknown individual or individuals, whose true identity will be sought in the course of the case."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
access to proprietary Microsoft source code?
Good luck M$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: access to proprietary Microsoft source code?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: access to proprietary Microsoft source cod
They create their own problems by selling buggy overpriced software and trying to implement draconian activation,wga,and DRM schemes. Not to mention they have every mom and pop novice with a wal mart hp,Compaq,dell,gateway and etc computer
running the said computer as administrator instead of teaching them how to use it properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM is useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM is useless
Sad very sad.... I keep hoping for the day when artists will simply sell high-quality mp3s via their OWN websites and give a BIG middle-finger to the RIAA.
Lesser known artists (w/o lots of $$ for a website to do such) could sell their wares on a site with perhaps a dedicated section to just that......hmm... Amazon? Walmart?
In any case I refuse to buy music while the RIAA is lording over it.... I wish everyone else would refuse too, ... it would fun to watch them whine and die off. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh i just love
"internet treats blocking and filtering as a malfunction and bypass through it"
same is the case for all type of filtering , copyroght protections and so .... every thing has a crack ... another ( may be you call it illegal ) way around /....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft?
Microsoft admits to "studying the hacker's tool and trying to update its Windows Media technology to block it" -i.e committing unauthorised access to the hacker's proprietary IP.
So presumably they're going to turn themselves in to the feds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've looked quite a bit into this...
This hacker never got a hold of any Microsoft source code.
What he did was reverse engineer the code.
He posted his methods on certain user groups. His methods are not new and are hardy proprietary. It is common knowledge/method in software engineering.
I think Microsoft is just scared and is trying to bluff a lawsuit. If I were him I'd call their bluff and see hwat happens next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've looked quite a bit into this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've looked quite a bit into this...
I wouldn't worry about a thing.
In fact, the groups of which he is a member know enough about the methodology, and him as a hacker, that they still offer the software. They aren't concerned about its availability because it was never ill-gotten.
It was created by decompiling and disassembling the Microsoft executable code. Not by possessing the code itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots at the RIAA
Refraining from purchasing RIAA-controlled media is a good start. Can you encourage 5 friends who still buy CDs and DVDs to do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots at the RIAA
I am very vocal about my loathing for these people to my friends and attempt to discourage spending $$ on media such as CD, DVDs and crappy DRM-ed downloaded, but ultimately folks have to make their own choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Battle is ON!
But what they fail to realize is that by accepting this as the (status quo) proper way, they are at the same time enabling, and supporting the XXAA to do whatever they see is fitting.
If you question the status quo, we must be thieves and all punishments are what is deserved.
I'm sick and tired of these damn sheep in this country. We the people have the power, still, but aren't willing to use it because we've been brainwashed by our government for so long that we actually believe the shit they throw at us for fodder. There is a most definite concerted effort to decentralize the power from the people and into the hands of government. These sheep are simply paving the fucking way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Strategy
See my small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006/09/microsoft_will_.html
Bye,
Oliver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright v. DMCA
Frankly, they haven't got a choice chance in hell of getting successful prosecution under copyright in my not so humble opinion unless they get one very sympathetic judge and even then it would get reversed on appeal. Decompiling software is as old as the hills in the computing field. Heck, I've been doing it for decades to peak-and-tweak code that I know can perform better with the right optimizations. At worst, you may, and likely are, violating your license agreement and those have never really been fully upheld in court so far as I know. Now if you distribute the recompiled software, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish entirely but I don't do that and that is irrelevant in this case. All this individual is doing is distributing a tool to modify data files. Even Adobe learned to back down on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem isnt DRM...
It's really f*$%ng up everything that is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]