from the pass-some-of-that-wisdom dept.
Joren writes "In Japan, in a case that has been five years running, the Osaka High Court on Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that had convicted and fined the developer of controversial file-sharing softwareWinny of assisting violations of the Copyright Law. Originally charged in 2004, Isamu Kaneko, 39, a former research assistant at the University of Tokyo, was declared not guilty, and will not be required to pay a 1.5 million yen fine levied by a December 2006 Kyoto District Court ruling. 'Merely being aware of the possibility that the software could be abused does not constitute a crime of aiding violations of the law, and the court cannot accept that the defendant supplied the software solely to be used for copyright violations,' presiding judge Masazo Ogura said. Furthermore, in siding with the defense, the appeal ruling stated that 'Anonymity is not something to be looked on as illegal, and it is not something that applies specifically to copyright violations. The technical value of the software is neutral.'"
An anonymous reader writes: The group representing AACS has downplayed muslix64's attack on their highly touted DRM scheme. "The large size of the files and the high cost of writable hi-def discs make large-scale copying of high-definition DVDs impractical, but the attacks on the new format echo the early days of illegal trafficking in music files," Michael Ayers, spokesman of AACS said on Thursday.
However, Slyck.com is running an article that points the fragility of AACS, and how muslix's exploit is a real danger to its longevity.
"In other words, one could argue that AACS has not been attacked directly — which in the strictest and most literal interpretation is true. However this is much like saying four stolen tires is not an attack on a car's engine. Either way, the individual is stuck — and like AACS, it has been merely ignored in exchange for the ultimate goal. In many ways, not attacking AACS directly is much worse than a direct assault, as it highlights the irrelevance of this once highly regarded copy "protection" scheme."