Just a curious question ... is there any substantial proof that it's legal? Or is that only wishful thinking or marketing on the part of SlySoft?

The software is pretty clearly in violation of the DMCA, at least according to the way the courts are currently interpreting it. Its the same reason the MPAA went after DVD Decryptor and got them shut down.

Just my 2 bits.
--Scott

Slysoft seems to be out of Ireland, and I don't know what their DRM laws are like.

Dave T2

I've been using their DVD unprotect software for quite a while now. It's really quite brilliant. Not only does it unprotect your drive, but it removes the world zone as well. It also lets you bypass all the BS when you play a disc and go straight to the movie. Once you install it, you can import any DVD into Vegas as if there was no Macrovision on it all. No, I have never done this, but I do make backups of my son's Scooby Doo DVDs to play in the car.

A program like this only reinforces the fact that the big companies can persue any protection scheme, but it wil be only a matter of time before it can be reversed.

I suppose companies will try the arguement that they are not responsible for how an individual will use their program and as long as Fair Use is around there will be a back and forth argument.

Chad

Remember that fair use only give you the right to backup the copyrighted material; but because of the digital locking algorithms, you can't do so without running up against the DMCA.

But, slowly, pieces of DMCA are being eroded precisely because if you bought the DVD version of Star Wars, and in 10 years DVD is no longer a technology in use, you do (or should) have the right to be able to read the media to get at the copyrighted material and transfer it so that you still can enjoy it. Recently, the law was relaxed for libraries because of this "obsolete technology" theory.

Bob.

Here is another one, but only for HDDVD.


http://dailytech.com/AnyDVD+HD+Defeats+HD+DVD+Copy+Protection/article6114.htm

Quryous, is that the link? I'm seeing this link which is to an article about Slysoft AnyDVD HD, the software we are currently referring to. Also, Slysoft AnyDVD HD's ability to decrypt "Blu-Ray will be in beta before the end of the quarter."

A program like this only reinforces the fact that the big companies can persue any protection scheme, but it wil be only a matter of time before it can be reversed

the program came out after the copy protection. Can't blame the software company for forcing the hardware companies to come up with new copy protection: if they didn't have any then the software wouldn't exist.

TheHappyFriar, do you think the battle between protection doers and undoers should carry on as it has?

I feel like there is an important lesson in these events. A few companies spend a few million to develop a technology that is is undone by another single company for much, much less. Like supply and demand, I read into the speed and desire of the consumer to undo what the supplier has done. In the end I see the the demands of the consumer running up against the restrictions of the supplier at a curve which is terribly unbeneficial to them both. Instead, I've seen a greater success in emerging license agreements, or programs like NetFlix.

So....I have a bag of candy bars which I've legally purchased as a result of my hard work.
A man comes to me with a knife, and says "Give me your candy bars."
My options are:
A-Fight him as hard as I can, potentially spilling some of my candy on the ground but trying to keep possession of my property.
B-Just give up.
C-Recognize that for all of my life, there will be people holding knives to my throat, and rather than deal with them, I just create a blanket license agreement that says "I know I'm going to be robbed by thieves with knives, so I'll just agree before ever buying the candy, to a license agreement that says anyone who wants a piece of my candy can have one, but please don't hold a knife to my throat."

This is a silly, ridiculous argument. At some point, the cost of DRM and the cost of quality product development become at odds with each other. Eventually, the incentive to develop quality product goes away.
The consumer does not have the right to "demand" anything. Either he/she buys the product or they don't. Buying a movie doesn't guarantee any rights except those granted by the seller of the product. If the seller chooses to protect his product, that is entirely within his right. If a company produces a knife that allows consumers to more easily steal the property of the product owner, then the product owner then enforces his rights. End of story.
Fair Use does allow for copies of movies to be made for archiving, but if the process of making copies bypasses copy protection schemes, the act of making copies then becomes a legal violation.
The bigger problem is grossly exemplified in this post with the concept of consumers believing they have the "right" to do anything with content, software, or other electronically obtainable or transmittable product or service.

It's very little different than coming up with a software that easily allows hackers to enter your bank account and take your money from you. Except I'm sure everyone here would agree that's a horrible thing to have happen to you. Obviously, folks don't agree that ripping movies or disabling encryption is a bad thing.
It's still theft. The difference is only the victim.

Spot, I think I see your point of view, but try this on:

You not only own a bunch of candy bars, but a candy-bar-making machine, which I would submit is the real essence of what you "own."

In the course of daily life, a few unwrapped candy bars are left lying around on the sidewalk. Someone comes along, picks it up, and eats one.

It's true that he has one of your candy bars that he hasn't paid for. But:

(1) It wasn't wrapped, so it's not the same thing as getting a pretty and clean candy bar directly from you;

(2) If he wasn't going to buy a candy bar from you anyway, you're out nothing;

(3) Suppose he just loves the taste, and for the next few days he raves to his friends about how delicious your candy bars are. Sales go up. That helps you.

I know this is a really bad analogy, but look at the similarities. When someone clones music or a video, he may be getting the "candy bar" but not the liner notes and nice graphics. He's not getting the whole package, which could be worth a great deal to many people.

If that cloned copy was not available, it doesn't imply at all that the user would go and buy the official product. $1 billion of ripped CDs doesn't mean a $1 billion loss in CD sales to the CD vendors.

I do believe that the underground circulation of ripped music is a major factor in determining how widespread an artist's music is circulated, and also how fast the word gets out.

Not wanting to put lipstick on a pig here but just trying to illuminate an alternative way of looking at candy bars and the whole DRM (Delectables Rights Management) issue.

BTW I wouldn't want an unwrapped candy bar on the sidewalk. Well, maybe a Snickers.

just to put it out there, i'm not saying anyone SHOULD steal, illegally modify, etc. anything, I'm just saying that if the copy protection didn't exist, there wouldn't be software to bypass it (ie no laws = no criminals). Doesn't make it right. :)

Spot, I'd say your analogy is off. It's more like you buy a bag of candy bars. The guy who made the candy bars (not the store owner) holds you at knife point saying "Eat the candy bars with the wrapper on!"
Options:
A- fight him as hard as you can. The wrappers won't kill you, but it will definetly lower the enjoyment of the bars.
B- just give up & eat them. Maybe the next bag you buy won't contain small explosives to deter people from stealing instead of buying, but that's not in your power to control.
C-Do whatever they say, ever, even if you didn't know you agreed & that may result in you not eating the candy because it's better the the maker. You are hit biatch.

it is a silly argument because the law swings both ways, like you said: I can LEGALLY make a backup but I can't LEGALLY bypass their encryption to make said backup.

I'd imagine the purpose of this software though isn't to steal but to let someone, like me, who bought a BD or HDDVD view it in HD on my TV from my PC without buying $5000 more worth of hardware just to support it. Kinda like how the PS3 doesn't allow BD 1080 via component, only via HDMI. Even though they both (connections) support it.

We can also look at it this way: if BD took off & then Sony set up future players so only Sony HDTV's could view anything above 480p, what would we do? Go buy a new TV or try to find a way around it?

My only response to what is being said is one of disappointment overall. No matter what analogy is used, it can be used by either side to fit an argument.
I have no problem with DRM, even though it's an inconvenience to my life from time to time. The locks on my neighbors barn are an inconvenience to me from time to time, particularly when I want to borrow his tractor but he's not around to ask. I guess I should be angry with him for locking his barn door to prevent others with more nefarious intentions from taking his tractor or worse. He does like it when I use his tractor, as I typically fill his fuel tank no matter how full it was when I borrowed it. Then again, he'd probably be pretty tweaked if I allowed someone else to borrow his tractor from me without asking him first.
No one forces anyone to buy anything. This argument to my view, is as equally ridiculous as the jackass that appeared on the news for Cleenflix, saying that "If he wanted to allow his son to watch "Braveheart" then he should have the right to an edited movie in order to do so. No one has a "right" here, except the content producer.
That said, I'm also an idiot for allowing myself to get caught up in yet another pointless discussion of copyright.

I agree, Spot, it is sad. I'm sure this software is not legal in the US. Yet another DVD Decryptor, or several of the others that came before and after it. Those have been outlawed and servers confiscated so that the purchasers/downloaders could be tracked down. I bet that happens here, also.

I also say there needs to be a new business model. If the **AA's can spend 25% of their energy in trials of more creative delivery/compensation methods instead of suing grandmothers, everyone would be better off. I think the real culprits are so past the long arm of the **AA's they are having to try to prove their worth.

Torn, because I see both sides. College kids try 20 songs and buy 2 CDs or a live DVD. I couldn't afford to by 2 albums (yeah, old fart) a week.

**AA's: pay for every listen of our stuff, on your home player, mp3 player, beach house. That's 3 buys per song per person. How much for the elevator listen?

Most consumers (that I can tell): I want all the music, all the time, for no money.

Something has to give here.

I'm willing to pay a fair share for what I want. 100,000 copies at $20 or 500,000 copies at $4. My god, CDs are going up in price, dramatically over the past 2 years, at local retail stores. Amazon has good selection at $10. I wonder how sales are since they introduced the $10 price? What about a $6 price. Or $2?

I think using the analogy of physical theft in arguments over interllectual property is very bad, it only serves to muddy the waters and almost give credence to piracy.

If I steal your candy I get fat and you go hungry. That's why theft is illegal.

If I steal your DVD I get to watch the movie and you don't. If I steal a copy from a shop they're down the value of the article.

If I make a copy of your DVD you still have your DVD, so where's the harm, that's the way Joe Average sees it.

What they don't understand and what using these analogies fails to explain is that you don't own the content, you just own an expensive piece of plastic and a piece of paper. That's why it looks like a victimless crime and victimless crimes aren't high on anyones agendas.

It gets more confusing for Joe Average, I can legally loan or rent him my copy of a movie, record or book. The copyright owner doesn't get an extra nickle. But I legally cannot make a copy and give it to my neighbour. Now that's a hard one to explain, forget what the law says, consider the ethics. Isn't the copyright owner entitled to a fee per person per viewing? Well no, unlike cinemas and theatres they accepted a different business model but one that has difficult holes in it.

I agree, Bob, but I can't find another way to make the discussion, outside of getting into the ethics of ideas vs action, virtual ownership vs physical ownership. It's mostly a shortcoming of my own ability to communicate.
You own a book, as long as you loan it to me, you can't read it. No one would argue that your license to read the book expires when you reach the last page, and it's been successfully argued that one can resell a used CD, even though technically the license forbids it. Fair Use allows you to rip a song from a CD and put it on your iPod, but if you put it on your iPod and have the CD in the stereo, it's unlikely you'll be listening to both at the same time. Short of having to register EVERYTHING that can be transported in bytes, as long as people believe they have the right to do whatever...content owners will do their best to protect themselves from 'whatever.' And will fail, but the cost of protection is folded into the cost of the product. What saddens me is that there are people that have never created any media that is copyrighted, patented, trademarked, but believe they possess a 'right' to do whatever they wish regarding the legal and ethical rights of others.
I apologize for having even gotten into this discussion again. You'd think I'd know better. Shakespeare couldn't get people to understand ethical or legal rights, and he was certainly a more pursuasive soul than I.

Bob,
Am I just paying for "an expensive piece of plastic and a piece of paper" as you say? What if I download a movie from iTunes? Aren't I just paying for the "right" to watch the movie as I didn't get any physical medium? I guess I'm also just paying for the right to watch it on that particular computer. But what if that hard drive no longer works... did I then lose the right to watch that movie anymore? I'm not trying to be a ball-buster, but I've had too many CD's/DVD's/hard drives fail with a lot of $ in media lost.

It's not what I'm saying, it's what the deal is. You bought a licence to play the music / video embedded in that piece of plastic. If that piece of plastic fails you have to buy another one.
You don't like the deal, fine, don't buy the product, no one is forcing you to buy the product. If the deal really stinks and no one buys the product do you not think those offering the deal might not get the message and change the deal.

And if you think all that suck big time spare a thought for the users of high end audio tools like Waves. Have your iLok dongle die and well, it seems you just have to buy another licence for around $20K.

In commerce there is no high morality after Douglas's ideals nor is there a common right to steal just because no one looses very much. The point is we need an economic system that works so creators can create and the public happily pays for what they see as fair value. The whole system needs rethinking. I'm not offering a solution but my gut feel is there is something huge here that has not yet been discovered.

Douglas, you aint stupid to be drawn in again. Yes it is repetitious. But the "Story" needs to be told - time and time again. And then some. One of things creative people hate doing is - repetition.

. . and MH, yes . . oh yes, yes indeed!

"The point is we need an economic system that works so creators can create and the public happily pays for what they see as fair value. The whole system needs rethinking. I'm not offering a solution but my gut feel is there is something huge here that has not yet been discovered."

I should I figured that we would get into a tangent. Okay, I think it's really important to say a few things about context, so here I go.

If I jaywalked on a empty country road your reasoning would lead to, well, what if that road were busy with traffic. And what if that busy road were in an urban setting. And, what if that traffic was all school buses and church buses. And, what if there was a propane storage facility on the side of that road and when of those buses veered into a propane tank, exploded, killing everybody within a 200 foot radius. Obviously, I should get 10 years in prison for jaywalking on that empty country road, because, if the context was completely different, 100 people would have died.

Pirating media isn't stealing candy bars. Once someone takes your candy bar, it's gone. Sharing media isn't like borrowing something either, you could share your pencil with me, but actually I'm borrowing it, and while I have it, you don't. Sharing media is like sharing media. Pirating media is like pirating media.

So....I have a bag of candy bars which I've legally purchased as a result of my hard work. A man comes to me with a knife, and says "Give me your candy bars."
My options are: A-Fight him as hard as I can, potentially spilling some of my candy on the ground but trying to keep possession of my property. B-Just give up. C-Recognize that for all of my life, there will be people holding knives to my throat, and rather than deal with them, I just create a blanket license agreement that says "I know I'm going to be robbed by thieves with knives, so I'll just agree before ever buying the candy, to a license agreement that says anyone who wants a piece of my candy can have one, but please don't hold a knife to my throat." Please don't hold a knife to my throat, why? The assumption is that, well they will take your life, but one can not take what was never received, and when someone steals creative content the owner doesn't lose the content, they lose the purchase, a purchase they never received. When I steal your tractor, you don't have it while I do. When I get into your bank account I can't replicate your money to share with my friends. Spot, you sort-of pointed out that we're dealing with different concepts here. The purchase is the entire point of this tangent discussion, and the issue should never, ever be about the content. The content is aesthetic, it's qualitative. We can keep this tangent on media piracy quantitative.

CClub mentioned iTunes; iTunes uses the sort of "emerging license agreements" I was referring to. It's not silly; it's a new progression; it's new business. It's a new frontier, and rather than run from it in fear or fight it in utter disgust and denial, content providers like many of us (small fry and big fry alike) should be looking to discover the role of capitalism in this emerging world. Making a business of this new entertainment delivery means the business lives on for us, or for whoever else will make a business of it, or ... maybe it dies at the hands of pirates. I'd rather go on making a living doing what I love, and I'd rather see you all do the same. What the people at Slysoft have done, as far as this tangent is concerned, is shown content providers that their analog locks of yesteryear don't quite work on the new digital market.

farss mentioned dongles, but even those can be easily duplicated, because *drumroll* they're soft media too, and soft media can be generated by the computers we already own. So imagine, if you will, that ridiculous candy bar argument, but instead, imagine that you're stealing the exact, special formula, ingredients, mixture, and packaging of that specific candy bar, and you already have a machine that lets you recreate anything for yourself, as long as you have the instructions. It's cheap, it's fast, it's easy, and guess what.

Guess what...

We, the content providers, have been telling our customers for decades that they want our media, they want it easy, and they want it now. It's hard to fight the mob we trained to say "on demand".