VideoLAN Announces libaacs 105
supersloshy writes "VideoLAN, makers of the well-known media player VLC, have just announced a new project called libaacs. The libaacs library's intention is to provide a free software library to implement the AACS specification, the copy-protection found on things such as Blu-ray discs. Note that this isn't meant to actually be a decoding library. It includes no AACS keys and is solely developed for research purposes."
Sounds legit (Score:5, Insightful)
"Note that this isn't meant to actually be a decoding library. It includes no AACS keys and is solely developed for research purposes."
Riiiiight
Re:Cease and Desist in (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had the power to take down BluRay decrypters, they'd be going after the commercial tools that actually work. This is roughly the umpteenth open source library announced and what they all have in common is that they don't work on any of the newer movies with MKBv11 or higher and/or anything more than the simplest forms of BD+ protection. It's unlikely open source will catch up until the MPAA gives up the DRM fight, you may not see it but there's still a constant war of updates to make the decrypters work on new discs.
Re:Without the keys, it's 1201(g) (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded.
You seem to be under the impression that having the law on your side means that you won't be harassed by lawyers.
The cease-and-desist will claim some intellectual property violation and it will be up to you to give in to the intimidation or resist by contacting your host to get your site back online.
Which "intellectual property"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be under the impression that having the law on your side means that you won't be harassed by lawyers.
This is the sort of thing that EFF jumps all over.
I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded.
The cease-and-desist will claim some intellectual property violation
One does not violate "intellectual property" [gnu.org]. One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?
Re:Which "intellectual property"? (Score:2, Insightful)
> One does not violate "intellectual property" [gnu.org]. One infringes a copyright, infringes a patent, or infringes a trademark. Which of the three would apply?
A very good question. Unfortunately, only a team of highly trained and well-paid lawyers would be qualified to determine the answer.
Did you know it's illegal in almost every state to "practice law" without a license? (source: http://www.dcba.org/brief/mayissue/2002/art40502.htm)
Re:"legally play a Bluray" (Score:5, Insightful)
no, you miss the point.
players are LICENSED. money.
freeware players skip this. that annoys those who, uhh, like money.
get it?
its JUST that simple.
(then again, you can't GET a license just by asking for it. you have to bend over and kiss corporate ass and promise never to allow users to do what they wish with the media they bought)
back in the early days of linux/dvd, authors DID try to buy 'proper' licenses. they were refused. at that point, we all turned 'rogue' in the industries' eyes.
well, so be it. don't want our 'player fees'? then you get NOTHING.
but we still will be able to play our media. you have done nothing but stopped revenue to your own self, you silly mpaa morons.
Re:Which "intellectual property"? (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to have forgotten about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the concept of a "circumvention device". That was what they chased after everybody who distributed DeCSS for. Of course, it was totally futile then as it is now, but there is a legal stick to shake at people for this sort of thing, at least in the US.