Hollywood Forced SlySoft DVD Ripping Software Out Of Business, Only To Have It Return As RedFox
from the back-again dept
It never made much sense that ripping CDs in the US is considered legal, while ripping DVDs is somehow horrible piracy. If anything, it seemed to be an artifact of history. Either way, it was much more difficult for people to rip DVDs. However, whenever the issue would come up, most people would point to SlySoft's AnyDVD product, which was a clunky, but functional bit of software for getting around DRM and ripping DVDs. The company was based in Antigua and had been around for years. So it took some people by surprise when it announced it was shutting down due to regulatory changes earlier this year. It looked like Hollywood had done what it normally does and scared an innovative company it didn't like out of business. But, as reader Derek points out to us, it looks like it only took a week or so before former SlySoft employees resurfaced in Belize with a new offering called RedFox, using a somewhat similar logo.
The RedFox team consists of former SlySoft developers and staff members who were left without a job after the company was forced to close down for good on February 22nd, 2016.It kind of makes you wonder what the hell is the point of trying to shut down a tool like SlySoft in the first place, doesn't it?
It looked like the fox would be gone for good as its burrow ceased to exist with SlySoft.
Being left without any infrastructure and nothing but our forum still running, we were about to give up. After the shock wore off we considered our options and the overwhelming support of our community convinced us to pick up the pieces and continue the development.
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
Filed Under: copyright, dvd ripping
Companies: redfox, slysoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All of that effort, and somehow they still can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Why do we keep listening to an industry that thinks they can somehow magically make everyone else pretend its 25 years ago and this was never created?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait a minute..... 'have oodles of cash'. Hmm.... how is 'piracy' harming them again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh what the heck, too much effort to continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What billion in lost revenue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RedFox, please take my money! Hollywood, please FOAD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That IS an arbitrary distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slyfox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And since the DMCA was enacted AFTER the DVD was created (1998 vs 1995) it is a wholly arbitrary distinction, not a technical requirement, that serves to make the legal purchaser a criminal if they try to rip the DVD to use the information in a way of their choosing.
Hollywood - making criminals out of people who actually purchase their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't tell me that it's illegal to record the video and audio coming out of my own computer can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I guess that depends on how the DMCA is phrased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can come up with other "kinds of copy protection". Say - ROT13. Or better yet - just xor everything with 0x5a. Or even better - xor it with 0. And then you're not allowed to "break" it. So - the "copy protection" is irrelevant (as I can just xor with 0), only the "we do not want you to copy" is.
And then the difference between CDs and DVDs seems more bizarre yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have you seen the lengths that the MPAA will go to in order to define something as a "public performance"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Making a personal copy of an unencrypted DVD is fair use. Most these days have copy protection but for the ones that don't it's as easy as dragging and dropping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly this doesn't exist. It's a great idea though. You should definitely write your legislator to amend the Constitution.
But a more reasonable course of action would be to be to repeal the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA or simply stop buying products with DRM. The only reason DRM exists is because people are willing to continually give money to these large powerful corporations that do it.
Luckily that's beginning to change with the success of DRM-free media. https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111222/12435717172/louis-ck-over-1-million-sale s-just-12-days-drm-free-download.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
shouldn't that be the only reason it exists is that it can be circumvented
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Totally not arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your games are tiresome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cd's aren't copy protected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My AnyDVD updated
My license was purchased many years ago. Not that I am easily pleased with software but I never found it clunky at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My AnyDVD updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My AnyDVD updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While that's not going to happen, I can't help but think that this was not the right solution to the problem of Hollywood targeting them for some kind of legal action.
Their software is very popular in terms of piracy, this particular action of stiffing all the people that sank money into the product will just cause those people to now resort to pirating the newer versions of the software to get what they paid for.
Some companies/people just never learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their software is very popular in terms of preventing to render an investment mute because it got scratches after using it. Some DVD players don't want to play a DVD if it has even the slightest scratches which are common after playing and removing it a few times from said DVD player.
Also, still waiting for an example where someone used a gun in said piracy charges. Which if you stick to the law is necessary to count as piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Piracy: 1 the practice or an act of robbery of ships at sea;
2 a similar practice or act in other forms, esp. hijacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's your "innovation" lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw DMCA
If you doubt that this can be done then take a look at Germany. Having a copy of AnyDVD or any software that circumvents DRM or any kind of protection (i.e. to check if a website is safe) will lead to 2 years in prison or a fine (iirc §202c StGB).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screw DMCA
*** new format not guaranteed to last more than 10 days, after which you will be required to repurchase your entertainment and new hardware to view/listen to it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or others that submitted this weeks ago ...cough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because...
Because... people get paid to shut down a tool like SlySoft, that's why. It's an industry in itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From A to B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have four kids under 10 and I am a slysoft lifetime customer
Notice the deliberate use of the word "my"? It is because that is exactly what they are. Mine.
I could go on but I am just very grateful that slysoft gives me ability to do what I want with the media I own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have four kids under 10 and I am a slysoft lifetime customer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slyfox Redfox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure greed. Hurts the economy my ass!
2. Who's "economy" is it supposedly "hurting?? Surely can't be the studio drones and actors considering the mansions these people live in.
3. This is nothing but pure Republican capitalist greed. Period. They never have enough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pure greed. Hurts the economy my ass!
The DMCA was passed by unanimous vote in the US Senate and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pure Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA is a sham. The Sony Supreme Court ruling allowed the making of vhs copies of films. The studios still tried to stop copying but didn't succeed. The Studios tried to get laws through Congress years later to prevent copying, but silicon valley's lobbyists stopped it in its tracks.
DMCA is just a big scare. The studios employ outsource people to attempt to shake down those who the studios can INTIMIDATE into paying them a fee for making a copy from a torrent. The warnings on DVD menus are crap. They sometimes mis-state the truth of the law, sometimes state it truthfully, but in either case, they are not actionable crimes, they are merely civil matters. Outsourcers can try to shake down torrent users if they can find out who they are, but there's no legal machinery behind them. The cases don't got to court.
Most Internet companies comply in part with the DMCA notices, but withhold the shakedown language from the emails because they righteously refuse to take part in a shakedown. At bottom, most of the big internet operations support their customers in these matters, and only comply with DMCA by sending the edited notice. A few of the smaller companies include the complete DMCA and shakedown. But most don't. I've heard of no one being taken to court, but it is possible. Because of the Sony rule which the studios have never contested because they're afraid they'd lose again, that is where the matter stands.
Why haven't journalists learned why Antigua shut Slysoft down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to weigh in.
I have an optical drive that allows me to play the copy protected media/discs. I also have software that allows me to view what the optical drive is playing. With this being said, do I now have the right to record my own desktop or take screenshots of my own desktop? How far can legalese go in terms of this example. I am clearly not breaking any copy protection, nor am I using any software that does so. Can "they" actually argue and or tell me that I cannot record video of my own personal computers desktop just because I just so happen to be watching a movie? I just think that, this is valid. It scares me to think about such things, but we must!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to weigh in.
I suppose these days it doesn't matter as much as it once did. CDs are almost extinct and soon, I believe DVDs and the like will also be gone. Companies pay for using the digital data and we pay only to view/listen and never will we own it. I figure that this is the solution to their issues. This upsets me because I really enjoy ripping CDs and other media. Mainly for the fact that I prefer different qualities some of which I cannot find from certain companies. Also, can you purchase an MP4/H.264/AAC movie to play on your mboile devices as quickly as you could purchase a regualr DVD or Blue Ray movie? Or how about purchasing nice CDs in flac? not as easy as buying that regular CD and ripping it to flac OR mp3 yourself? finally, I notice that when I rip my CDs to mp3, the quality of my rips are better than what i hear coming from itunes. That's just sad :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RedFox Have Control Issues
If you wish to enter into a financial relationship with a company who have such a dictatorial approach to the people who pay their salaries then that’s down to you but these people now have my personal details and have (theoretically) blocked me from contacting them. Just remember the same thing could happen to you if you sign up and have a problem.
There is a debate about whether they have exploited people financially with regard to having to re-purchase the software. They claim not as ‘there is no connection with Slysoft’ (see below). Think about this – if it wasn’t to do with finances then they could have just carried on with the exact same model, with the exact same customers, with the exact same licences as with Slysoft and they would have continued with the exact same revenue stream. The fact that they have torn up the old Slysoft lifetime licence agreement to ask those customers to pay again is proof that it is financial. They needed the money to continue despite there being virtually no set up costs to continue trading. Did they do this deliberately? They won’t tell you so make up your own mind based on the evidence.
Redfox claim there is ABSOLUTELY NO connection between them and Slysoft. There are two moderators on their forum – RedFox1 and Ch3vr0n who will point this out to you if you try to claim differently – try it, you’ll get a response within a minute and the thread will be closed. The thread that I originally added to was ‘tidied up’ and closed and then I got a PM from RedFox1 warning me about what I was writing and he then put an automatic follow on any future posts I made. These people have serious control issues.
I pointed out that the logo is the same with the addition of a Zorro mask, THEY have stated that The RedFox team consists of former SlySoft developers and staff members, the website was identical (just find and replace Slysoft with RedFox), the program is the same just re-badged, they still run the old Slysoft OPD database, old Slysoft software still points to upgrading to RedFox software - the list is endless but they state that because it is a different CEO and Slysoft was a company but RedFox is a ‘closed project’ then there is NO connection. They will not concede any connection and this is my beef and what is really riling a lot of people. It’s as though if they do they will have to honour Slysoft’s lifetime licence or something. This is the attitude of the people you will be dealing with if you give them your money.
My last point is this – if you are contemplating a lifetime licence go to speak to some of those who bought a Slysoft lifetime licence shortly before they closed and see if it is a good idea. It is an atrocious business model – think of it as an everlasting lightbulb. Once everyone has got one there is no more money coming in – and sooner or later the revenue stream will again collapse and the company will close and rise again like a greedy phoenix somewhere else…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]