Re: Sony, Rootkits and Digital Rights Management Gone Too Far

[Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

Great article! I actually know something now! I am gonna go tell all
me friends... both of them! (did you hear that X and T?)

Actually when I installed my OS, I made myself click "I agree" on my
own EULA; excerpt below:

"All software installed on this machine will donate 50,000 USD to a
single family of hurricaine katrina relief victims per process
running. The applications installer will be responsible for automating
the transfer of $50k in order to use cycles on this machine. Any
application installed will signify their agreement my hooking system
API calls in kernel mode (see rev 2.0 for 64 bit winsystems
compliance)"

heh, DMCA _can_ be used for good lol

-JP
"Thats what you get for listening to Country Music"
-JP



On 11/2/05, Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk> wrote:
> Jim Murray to Florian Weimer:
>
> > > The really interesting question is if you can legally publish software
> > > which removes such rootkits.  Even detection is a tricky subject.
> >
> > Why not? If they can publish software that installs the stuff, why
> > shouldn't someone publish software that uninstalls it?
>
> 8-)
>
> Couldn't agree more...
>
> > If their DRM scheme is properly constructed removing the DRM will
> > prevent playback of the protected material, thus eliminating any claim
> > that you're trying to bypass the DRM system. If that isn't the case it
> > can't really be considered DRM and removing it shouldn't be an issue!
>
> Again, I agree.
>
> Of course, that is not how the DMCA is written.  The DRM developer/
> rights-holder/etc is not, under the DMCA, under any obligation to
> implement "good" or "sound" or "proper" DRM.  They basically just have
> to do _something_ they claim protects their rights.  It could be as
> trivial as XOR'ing the digital data stream with a fixed byte/word/dword
> and anyone who eye-balled the protected data and recognized the
> "obvious" pattern of the plaintext data with an XOR overlay would open
> themselves to prosecution (at least, if they ever uttered a description
> of this "protection").
>
> > Any other interpretation seems to effectively give any 'rights holder'
> > permission to install software on your system which you are then not
> > permitted to remove - I'm no lawyer but I'd hope any sensible court
> > would have sense enough to rule that unfairly biased and unenforceable.
> >
> > If we follow this path to it's ultimate conclusion - does re-installing
> > an OS to remove such DRM systems become a crime too?
>
> Well, that almost is the extent to which the DMCA has provided
> protection as requested (demanded) by the RIAA, MPAA, etc lobbiests.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick FitzGerald
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.