The VideoLAN Forums

After an extensive amount of research, I have become convinced that the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Acts), along with other DRM-promoting legal acts and laws, are hurting both consumers and the artists that produce the effected media. Why? I can give you several reason why. Here they are:

[*] The DMCA hurts consumers because it restricts and otherwise infringes upon their legal copyright rights to using media, such as fair use, and also free speech rights (to those that examine code to determine how DRM works).
[*] The DMCA hurts artists because it significantly decreases the amount of legal ownership they actually have over the media they created.
[*] The DMCA also hurts artists because the fact of unwarranted DRM protections, along with the inability to make legally permissible backup copies (the DMCA does not permit archiving, regular copyright law does with re-distribution, a paradox), make people less likely to purchase or otherwise view media legitimately, hurting legal media sales, decreasing royalties available to performers.
[*] The DMCA hurts technological innovation because it provides a convenient excuse to illegalise hardware that cannot be easily regulated or controlled under the terms of the DMCA; Aereo, a now-defunct attempt to provide OTA streaming of cable content to legal viewers is an example.
[*] The DMCA's takedown provisions are regularly abused; Google, Yahoo, and others listed illegitimate takedown requests as composing a significant amount, over 1/3, of their total takedown requests. This limits fair use abilities of media content.
[*] Artists have had their rights demolished under the DMCA, requiring court battles to recover their legal rights and gain penalties against companies illegally controlling their media.

I will, to the best of my ability, provide examples to illustrate the above points.
As follows:

1. The DMCA restricted legal free speech and fair use provisions in the following cases:
Lenz v. UMC (Universal Music Corporation)
Provisions violated: Fair use
Violator: UMC
Violation: Legitimate free use (a 20-second video of someone dancing to music, hardly a bona-fide attempt to copy the media)
First action: YouTube granted takedown notice; video removed from YouTube
Second Action: Lenz (the plaintiff) sued UMC for legal costs after successfully persuading YouTube to restore video; US District Judge Fogel ruled many of UMC's defenses invalid
Sony v. George Hotz
Provisions alleged violated: free speech
Alleged violator: Sony
Alleged violation: Hotz was sued under Section 1201 of the DMCA due to attempting to persuade consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation consoles.
Action: Mr. Hotz barred under injunction from ever reverse-engineering or hacking any further Sony products
2. The DMCA allowed for (temporary) illegal seizures of rights in the following known case: (covers points #2 and #6)
Defendant: Summit Entertainment LLC
Plaintiff: Artist Matt Heart
Case: The entertainment company attempted to illegally remove and violate copyright against certain media released online by Mr. Heart.
Allegation successfully made against company:
[*] Wrongful assertion of copyright violation
[*] Fraudulent assertion of copyright interest
[*] Intentional interference in contractual and business relationships
[*] Defamation (through claiming they owned the copyrights)
Result: Victory for plaintiff
3. The DMCA blocks legal fair use and archiving permissions
Found: On almost all commercial video and audio DVDs, on almost all Sony CDs; the list could just go on and on.
4. The DMCA allows for hurting of technological innovations not easily controllable by its provisions.
The case: ABC (American Broadcasting Companies) v. Aereo
Arguments against Aereo: Violation of both protocol and copyright
Initial (and current) decision: Aereo must cease all transmissions under its service.
First argument by Aereo: Its service and content are provided under a public wireless spectrum, render arguments of protocol violations moot.
Second argument by Aereo: As the court ruled they are a legally regulatable cable company, they are entitled to a mandatory copyright licence.
Current state of affairs: Court has refused to acknowledge either claim as valid.
Legal violation: Court will not rule copyright licence must be granted, despite deciding company is a cable system, in violation of copyright law and legal procedure.
5. The DMCA allows for abusive takedown of legitimately posted content with hard-to-use recourse.
The sites I mentioned all have listed, each year since about 5 years ago, the amount of takedown requests they have received, along with their validity. The amount of illegitimate takedown requests is consistently above 25 or 33%, making them a major constituent of their total takedown-request amount.

Conclusion: Based on the examples I have provided, it should be easy to see that the DMCA is a legal mechanism that has gone way too far out of any control, with ease of abuse by major media companies and conglomerations, along with individuals seeking to impinge upon legal copyright usage by means of takedown, being far too easy for any sort of comfortable situation, potentially legal or otherwise. I'm not trying to create a controversy here; this post was not created with the intention of starting a flame war, so, please, if you wish to discuss this topic, let's all keep level heads. I'm not trying to backseat moderate with that comment, it's just that on any forum, any discussion of real weight easily enough spawns flame wars. So, yes, I would be interested in hearing your opinions, but not any swearing involved, please. Also, if you can, through your own research, provide other examples to expand upon the points I have listed here, please, I encourage you to do so. Maybe, if through legitimate discussion and telling our favourite artists that we won't support them if they support the DMCA, things could change.
Please note that this poll is flexible: if for any reason you come to a different opinion than the one you submitted, you are welcome to change it.

My voice is first!

Consider this: the DMCA allows for almost totally unrestricted implementation of DRM. Some examples below:

Some P2P sites (such as Kazaa), were found in 2004 by PCWorld magazine to be putting up files that purported to be popular songs in the WMA format
(first example: Alicia Keys Fallin' Songs in A Minor.wma) that actually attempted the loading of adware and malware. The perpetrator: a company known as Overpeer (owned by Loudeye). Their job description: Upload files to P2P sites that claimed to be popular music downloads, but only either played a short loop of the song or displayed an antipiracy message. Bad for two reasons:
1. Files claimed to be legitimate music downloads, but actually contained measures designed to ward of piracy. Bad because: Site lied to users, misrepresented files as something they were not.
2. As PCWorld discovered, the implementation of this antipiracy feature was very insecure. How it worked: Microsoft WMP 8/9 were known to contain an insecure implementation of DRM: a file that could not access the DRM permissions needed to play it could request to contact a digital rights server for the necessary code. The problem: Using a cleverly designed file, the request for permissions could go to a badware server, thus serving up ads, installing malware or adware, or even a combination of all three. How it worked: The DRM implementation used the IExplore shell to make requests. The result: The DRM request initiator could be treated like a regular IExplore window. Voila, no restrictions on site visitation. Hello, malware!
(Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/119016/article.html)

Some commercial DVD players, Sony's, notably, would end up being unable to bypass the latest encryption on commercial DVDs, due to the different implementation of things such as ARccOS, RipGuard, and other DRM systems. Some online users complained this was an example of tinkering with existing DRM standards to render existing players unable to play the affected discs, requiring the purchase of a new model player to watch them. Likely only a conspiracy theory, but then again, it sounds plausible.

The aforementioned Aereo issue is something I'll bring up again. Consider the fact that major media corps like ABC, CBS, and NBC offer locally affiliated broadcasts for free OTA. The same with US religious broadcasts done by TBN. Plus PBS and a host of other local companies to top the typical OTA offerings off. They get away with free broadcasts, potentially driving people not interested in complex or expensive cable plans to purchase digital antennas from their local consumer electronics store. They aren't being sued by the cable companies. Why? If they did, they'd have the fight of their lives. Consider the fact that all of these news companies are conglomerates, managing thousands of local news stations affiliated with them. They're huge. So if the cable companies sued them for improper broadcasts, they would lose. Aereo lost because it hadn't had time to get traction yet. It didn't have time to acquire the financial protection that could have saved it.

Sorry to keep bashing Sony, but they kind of deserve it. Consider that because of the lack of restrictions on DRM, CDs released by Sony's UMG could legally contain rootkits (yes, rootkits, you read that right) that were designed to hijack a computer's CD writing system and check to see the number of copies of a disc burned by a system. Even holding down the Shift key to cancel AutoPlay wouldn't stop it. Consider the fact that it was only after researchers discovered what a massive, gaping hole it left in a user's security (which not even antivirus programs could either detect or stop) that the FCC became involved and ordered Sony to stop what it was doing and apologize to people that had bought the discs. Sony was effectively joining the black hats to hijack someone's computer and ensure increased revenue by requiring people to keep buying the discs to make copies. Having listened to a few legitimately made copies (not given to me, I just listened) and then bought the CD because I liked what I heard, this was a really dumb move on Sony's part (because many people make legitimate media purchases after listening to or watching some form of copy).

Please, if I'm wrong, you can provide clarifications, help me expand on a section to provide more info, or just want to provide feedback, please, don't hesitate to do so. My ears are open!

I have decided to update my topic because it was too narrow in scope. While the DMCA affecting artists may cause concern, the only thing that may motivate people to really participate in a discussion around it is the realisation that it affects them. The title was confusing, because I was implying that the decisions made under the DMCA only can have negative affect on artists, which is completely false. I appreciate that this post has reached 250 views; this shows that 250 people at least are open to an open discussion on the issues. If you don't want to post, I understand completely. But anyone that wants to affect change on an issue that is important to them needs to be well-informed; therefore, it was and still is important to me to collect as much information on this as possible. Perhaps as more people become interested in this type of issue, I could expand this article beyond merely the DMCA to concern any digital rights concern, within a reasonable limit, of course. As the scope of people that are interested in such matters expands, we then will have the power to influence those in charge, to tell them we need them to respect our rights. I would therefore reiterate that this is a very important topic, because ultimately it goes beyond such nation-limited matters as the DMCA; it should extend to all violation of our digital media rights, because they are important as pertaining to our use of players such as VLC. When our free speech rights (using VLC, and the source code contained therein, is a free expression of views, and therefore should be protected) such as these are affected, should not we take charge and stand up? Please, if it is possible for you to do so, I ask you to participate in this topic however it best suits you to do so. Change, after all, for better or worse, ultimately begins with us.

My opinion: The DMCA is hurting artists

This thread has impressed me; I initially expected, like to many posts in this section, that it would just die away, fade into nothingness, get a 100 views if it was lucky. Why? Because it is a controversial topic. But I am impressed; this thread has progressed far beyond what I expected. I wish it could recieve more consideration, but pushy I will not be. If you are disturbed by the realities presented here, I can say once again that I've done the job I've given myself. I do not mean to shock, but shock you it just might. I do not wish to engage a flame war, because they serve no purpose. What I do wish to do is present a place where all whom are concerned can have a sensible discussion of the issues at hand.

Admins, I would appreciate your thoughts on this topic; you are sure to have strong opinions and I would heartily welcome them. Also, admins and those generally in the know, I would welcome any links, expansions, etc., that you can give this topic. While the EFF is doing much of the work behind this, they still have far too much on their plate. We can help if we wish to do so, by simply expressing our concern. Also, thoughtful discussion and evaluation empowers us in this matter, because it keeps us from sinking to the level of those who would hurl lawsuits and such against us. Peaceful discussion gives us the higher moral ground.

As always, thank you for your consideration of this matter. Any postings you put here, as always, I highly appreciate. The poll is also something I would enjoy seeing work, if only to see how the majority feels on this issue.

This thread has now been updated to apply to all matters of DRM. In the interest of keeping things civil, I will constantly be monitoring it for abuse or flame wars. Now that all matters of DRM are up for discussion, what bad examples can you show us? How can you help bring this to a multinational scale? If enough of us get motivated we can spread our knowledge on this and get others involved. I invite you to share the information I have posted however you wish. Whilst I cannot gurantee 100 percent the veracity of the information, as some of it has come from Wikipedia, it should serve as an extremely reliable starting base, due to the thought and consideration that went into those posts. All I ask when you share is that you mention my username. All I ask with this thread is civility towards each other. In return, I can help empower you with knowledge of these matters. Welcome to all who wish to help in this great endeavour.

I've been trying to play Bluray discs on PC for some time and have had a nightmare of it, stumbled upon this thread in search results. My understanding (could be wrong about any of this btw) is that DRM is largely responsible for the bizarrely terrible PC Bluray playing market. Something to the effect that the DMCA makes breaking encryption for any reason illegal, even for your own purposes. That means that you can't just up and make a player that breaks the encryption without going through legal hoops or some such and paying licensing to implement AACS. Thus, players like VLC which can usually do just about anything can't let you watch Blurays without being in legal hot water. PowerDVD, to my knowledge, is just about the only totally legit software for it, but it's really expensive and everyone seems to hate it.

Just now I was able to finally get VLC to play my Blurays, but it took days of nonsense and research to track down everything needed. You get VLC, get some libraries (libaacs, libbluray, something like that) that implement the AACS standard, get FindVUK for ketting Volume Unique Keys, and get DVDFab Passkey which FindVUK relies on to get the VUKs, and snag that database of keys. It's a ton of stuff to need just to watch some media, and I'm now dependent on all of it. So if DVD Fab just stopped working, I can't get keys that aren't in that database. If the FindVUK developer got busy with other things and couldn't keep it working, then that would also be problematic. So many things could go wrong. Compare with playing a CD, which can be played by anything and can be easily ripped to any format you want using free open source software.

And this DRM does NOT stop the pirates. My understanding is that if you're so inclined you absolutely can go out and just pirate these Blurays. All that the DRM is doing is frustrate someone like me who genuinely does want to give my money to people who make things I care about. I just want to be able to watch it is all!

And to top it all off, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the DMCA says that breaking encryption for any reason is always illegal, doesn't that mean that using MakeMKV to rip and backup your own discs for private usage is illegal? Doesn't that mean that even just using VLC like I described is also illegal? Crying out loud, I WANT to pay you guys for the discs, I'm totally down for that. I just want to be able to watch it now that I've paid for it, yknow?

Is there anything we can do to push to change these laws? I would love to help.

I've been trying to play Bluray discs on PC for some time and have had a nightmare of it, stumbled upon this thread in search results. My understanding (could be wrong about any of this btw) is that DRM is largely responsible for the bizarrely terrible PC Bluray playing market. Something to the effect that the DMCA makes breaking encryption for any reason illegal, even for your own purposes. That means that you can't just up and make a player that breaks the encryption without going through legal hoops or some such and paying licensing to implement AACS. Thus, players like VLC which can usually do just about anything can't let you watch Blurays without being in legal hot water. PowerDVD, to my knowledge, is just about the only totally legit software for it, but it's really expensive and everyone seems to hate it.

Just now I was able to finally get VLC to play my Blurays, but it took days of nonsense and research to track down everything needed. You get VLC, get some libraries (libaacs, libbluray, something like that) that implement the AACS standard, get FindVUK for ketting Volume Unique Keys, and get DVDFab Passkey which FindVUK relies on to get the VUKs, and snag that database of keys. It's a ton of stuff to need just to watch some media, and I'm now dependent on all of it. So if DVD Fab just stopped working, I can't get keys that aren't in that database. If the FindVUK developer got busy with other things and couldn't keep it working, then that would also be problematic. So many things could go wrong. Compare with playing a CD, which can be played by anything and can be easily ripped to any format you want using free open source software.

And this DRM does NOT stop the pirates. My understanding is that if you're so inclined you absolutely can go out and just pirate these Blurays. All that the DRM is doing is frustrate someone like me who genuinely does want to give my money to people who make things I care about. I just want to be able to watch it is all!

And to top it all off, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the DMCA says that breaking encryption for any reason is always illegal, doesn't that mean that using MakeMKV to rip and backup your own discs for private usage is illegal? Doesn't that mean that even just using VLC like I described is also illegal? Crying out loud, I WANT to pay you guys for the discs, I'm totally down for that. I just want to be able to watch it now that I've paid for it, yknow?

Is there anything we can do to push to change these laws? I would love to help.

Yeah, kind of insane. But you can also find massive KEYDB.cfg files that have most VUK in them.

Yeah, kind of insane. But you can also find massive KEYDB.cfg files that have most VUK in them.

Definitely, but in my case at least I was surprised to find that most of my discs were not in that DB, so the FindVUK method was essential. The DB had entries with titles that sounded like my discs, but they didn't work so perhaps they were for some other release of these shows / movies.