Is Microsoft Using RIAA Legal Tactics? 239
Nom du Keyboard writes, "CNET reports, 'Microsoft has filed a federal lawsuit against an alleged hacker who broke through its copy protection technology, charging that the mystery developer somehow gained access to its copyrighted source code.' Looks to me like since they can't figure out how else he's doing it, they'll sue on this pretense and go fishing for the actual method through the legal system. They clearly have no proof yet that any theft of source code actually happened. This smacks of the RIAA tactics of sue first, then force you to hand over your hard drive to incriminate yourself. Isn't this something the courts should be putting a stop to at the first motion for dismissal?" Viodentia has denied using any proprietary source code, according to CNET.
Re:Why is it so hard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tenuous Grounds, IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has released two successive patches aimed at disabling the tool. The first worked--but the hacker, known only by the pseudonym "Viodentia," quickly found a way around the update, the company alleges. Now the company says this was because the hacker had apparently gained access to copyrighted source code unavailable to previous generations of would-be crackers.
Tenuous grounds -- Microsoft is in effect claiming nobody could have reverse engineered their code, or cracked it, so fast, therefore they must have cheated by having access to Microsoft's original sources. Sounds like a logical assumption, but it's a bit like claiming a driver went from Point A to Point B, 100 miles apart, in one hour must have been speeding, though there was no witness to the driver actually speeding.
I expect what Microsoft really wants is to find if they have an inside man leaking code. Have to get Viodentia to reveal that by poring over his/her drive, which may yield absolutely nothing and be fairly claimed as harrassment.
"FairUse4WM has been my own creation, and has never involved Microsoft source code," the developer wrote. "I link with Microsoft's static libraries provided with the compiler and various platform SDK (software development kit) files."
Sounds almost as if those at Microsoft pursuing this case do not even know what their own library routines may be capapble of.
well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even WITH the source code microsoft cannot figure out how their code works and issue patches...so how would they be able to tell if some 'hacker' is really hacking their ultra secure corporate network? What do they do when third parties issue unofficial patches for IE? Are they going to start filing lawsuits against the white hats too as they might have figured something out on their own?
I am neither for or against hacking DRM and such, but honestly, assuming somebody hacked their way in and stole source code is a little bit harder to believe than simply figuring out a way around what I'm sure is an elementary DRM code. Poking and testing is easy to do, hacking, finding, downloading, and analysing source code is probably adding a bit more effort to the process than most guys trying to beat DRM are willing to go through.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If he just plain figured it out by trying several different things, I'm inclined to believe him.
SCO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds more like SCO's tactics than the RIAA's...
Re:Tenuous Grounds, IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tenuous Grounds, IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
That's nearly right.
More accurately, it's like claiming someone who managed to cover the distance from Point A to Point B, 100 miles apart, in one hour must have been driving and is therefore guilty of speeding.
Sounds a lot like SCO tactics to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
This smacks of SCO tactics to me. Accuse first, offer no proof, sue so you can fish for evidence...
Say, didn't Microsoft indirectly fund the SCO fishing expedition? Nuff said...
Exhibit A, for the defense... (Score:5, Insightful)
A disassembler.
I mean come on! Really! Read this from TFA:
Microsoft has released two successive patches aimed at disabling the tool. The first worked--but the hacker, known only by the pseudonym "Viodentia," quickly found a way around the update, the company alleges. Now the company says this was because the hacker had apparently gained access to copyrighted source code unavailable to previous generations of would-be crackers.
Um, hello? People have been disassembling code to disable copy protection since the first days of the warez scene. You don't need the source. All the source does is speed things up a bit.
Not that I'd know anything about that. *ahem*
The system works. Why are you bitching? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just that now corporations are the only real citizens-- a situation no different than the late 1700's/early 1800s when only the rich white landowners were considered citizens.
Again, I'll ask --the system works; why are you bitching?
Re:Viodentia motive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Arrogance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some developpers are extremely slow to realize that things which seem nigh impossible to them are in fact, run-of-the-mill easy for talented hackers, crackers, upper-teir skr1pt k1dd13s, and others. Code obfuscation is not by any means adequate protection.
Neither is sticking anti-debugger crap in your code, for that matter.
Re:Sounds a lot like SCO tactics to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Users are beta testing M$'s DRM implentation (Score:3, Insightful)
If they do end up in court, at the very least only third party investigators should have access so as to protect the defendents trade secrets and IP. Afterward, to top it off, M$ should open itself up to verify that it isn't secretly using anything it learned in the trial without paying compensation.
Mozart's Memory (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozart, being the prodigy he was, heard the piece once and memorized it in its entirety. When he got home he wrote down the score without a single missed note. When Church authorities heard that Mozart had an unauthorized copy of the Miserere they took him to court, accusing him of stealing a copy of the score. The young boy was able to prove that he had not stolen the work only by writing down the piece again, perfectly, from memory in the presence of the court.
Obviously this probably isn't the case here, but isn't this a good example that you should not be allowed to sue somebody for copyright infringement unless you have some proof they obtained what they got thru illegal activity?
Re:RIAA's Legal Tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
10. File suit against 5 month old infants, senile great grandmothers, and the deceased.
Re:Dismissal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, but if someone did not commit a tort against Microsoft, what right does Microsoft have to use the court system to find out how someone did something?
Don't write about law if you know nothing about law
The legal system continues to claim ignorance of the law is not a defense. Until the legal system owns up to the fact that this is bullshit because the laws themselves are contradictory, the people empowered to enforce the laws break the laws (who is spying on Americans?), and the judges don't even know all of the laws (they make the lawyers tell them what laws matter to the case and then hide behind this limited set of laws as being the laws pertinent to the case, unless they want to find another law on their own to rule the way they want).
Don't write about law if you know nothing about law
The Patriot act was passed without even a single legislator having read its contents. If the laws are passed without being known by those who pass them, why do you expect Slashdot to give a shit about your desire we not talk about the law?
Re:Why is it so hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although it's not like MS and Apple aren't, the RIAA is simply interested in money and control, not information. This isn't RIAA style extortion so much as Apple style ass-backwards investigatory tactics.
Re:The system works. Why are you bitching? (Score:1, Insightful)
Whenever I scratch a lotto ticket, it's "supposed" to be a winner. Modern Americans are nothing more than smug, fat, indolent and apathetic consumers, who serve no purpose other than to feed cash into the system. They have no worth beyond the number of eyeballs which view the corporations' ads, or the number of tickets which by the corporations' movies, or the numbers which buy the corporations cds.
You are viewing your status through the lens of an early-20th century mindset, but that doesn't change the truth. You -as a citizen of the EU or US- are nothing more than a serf whose place it is to channel your economic allotment to the content industries you are told to, and to be used as pawns in a larger game which is -in all honesty- not your place to worry about.
Work. Consume. Die.
That is your place.
If you are not a corporation, you're a serf; remember your station and do not attempt to rise above it.
The bottom line might be (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess what else is against the law? His/her best defense is an admission of guilt to breaking the system/scheme of protection. It is probably a win win for Microsoft.
And regardless if you are for or against the law(s), it seems as if some law has been broken.
I wouldn't say Microsoft is adopting RIAA tactics because that would be crediting RIAA for inventing the use of the courts to stop something they don't like. Companies have doing that for a long time.
The real reason for this lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is it so hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
You dont need to know (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not really about Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
When I buy a song that uses DRM that ultimately ties me to a platform I'd rather not be using, I feel that the DRM is restricting my fair use rights. In this case, I agree that DRM punihes the honest and does nothing about people who are going to steal.
However, Microsoft's PlaysForSure is in some cases used by rental services. Personally I don't want to rent music, but some people might, and it needs to be enforceable. If someone is paying $15 a month to rent all the music they can hold on their hard drive, some kind of DRM is needed to disable the music if they aren't paying for it. Do you expect Napster to just say "We'll trust you to delete all your music from your hard drive when you decide you don't want our service anymore?" And this DRM hack has enabled people to pay $15 for a month's subscription, download everything they want, decrypt it, and keep as much music as they want, only paying $15 once.
DRM's fatal flaw (Score:4, Insightful)
You give them the lock, you give them the key, and you hope that they can never figure out how to use them together.
Why the content industries keep believing that this is a good idea is a true mystery.
Re:Why is it so hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't DRM be uncrackable even with access to source code? Just like open source encryption methods?
Two Wrongs... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dismissal? (Score:3, Insightful)
in other words.. this is a legal support framework for wealthy interests or outright trolls to go on fishing expeditions..
I think it's time to change this, because it's fundamentally opposed to the founding premises of the american system, the most pertinent in this case being protection of privacy and property unless concrete probable cause can be provided otherwise, and no "I think he did it but have no evidence" doesn't count.
Re:Mozart's Memory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is that contradictory? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You'd think they were building killer cyborgs.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. At best software requires win98 or better. Most software I have seen requires XPSP2 or better. Like I said even MS software has different versions for different windows.
"Based on history, I would expect the vast majority of common-use software to work transparently out of the box,"
In that case we are living in a different universe. Where I work every version of windows disrupts our software some way or another. SP2 was especially painful. Migration from
Re:You'd think they were building killer cyborgs.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Were you the one that claimed that windows vista had to keep compatiblity for everything between dos 2.0 and windows xp? If so then you were lying.
"For example ?"
IE for one.
"In-house or third party software ?"
Both.
"The list of software SP2 broke wasn't particularly big, relatively speaking."
Even if it broke one application that proves that it's not 100% bug for bug compatible. So once again you have been proven wrong.
"The list of software it broke that wasn't already broken by virtue of being badly written, vanishingly small."
Even if just one application broke that proves that it wasn't 100% bug for bug compatible and you have been proven wrong.
So you admit that SP2 was not bug for bug compatible. That's a service pack update to the same version of the operating system.