SunnComm may sue student for exposing MediaMax weakness
Posted on 10/10/03 03:39 by Dan Bell                             
SunnComm may sue student for exposing MediaMax weakness

Quakester2000 used our news submit to tell us that SunnComm intends to take legal action against Alex halderman for exposing the weaknesses of their MediaMax CD3 DRM product. Among other things, the Princeton computer science student recently pointed out the dreaded "shift key hack" that prevents the loading of the protective software, leaving the media wide open for abuse.

The company said today it will take legal action against Halderman for revealing how MediaMax CD3 can be bypassed by holding down a Windows PC's Shift key when a protected disc is inserted.

SunnComm today said the paper was "erroneous" and contains "false conclusions". On the back of said, "Halderman and Princeton University have significantly damaged SunnComm's reputation and caused the market value of SunnComm to drop by more than $ 10 million," the company alleges.

And then there's the DMCA angle. SunnComm claims Halderman broke the law by revealing the name of the driver the app installs.

In a statement released today, SunnComm said: "SunnComm intends to refer this possible felony to authorities having jurisdiction over these matters because: 1. The author admits that he disabled the driver in order to make an unprotected copy of the disc's contents, and 2. SunnComm believes that the author's report was 'disseminated in a manner which facilitates infringement' in violation of the DMCA or other applicable law".

SunnComm's statement is, of course, a tacit admission that Halderman's information is correct: "Once the file is found and deleted according to the instructions given in the Princeton grad student's report, the MediaMax copy management system can be bypassed resulting in the copyright protected music being converted or misappropriated for potentially unauthorized and/or illegal use," it says.

Hey SunnComm, would you like a little bread with your whine? Instead of legal action, why don't you take take corrective action. Like leaving the planet! Wow, and I thought the RIAA was a bunch of crybabies. If you want to run around tooting a horn that you can provide DRM then you had best be able to do so, or just leave it to the professionals for goodness sakes. This is serious stuff your fooling with and a lot of money is at stake.

Sure, we like your DRM programs, but we are the consumer. Your client is the one that sells records. Even if you win the lawsuit, the labels aren't going to buy your product now. We wish they would, but they won't darn it. We are the ones that should be upset with Alex for "spilling the beans". But we don't have a legal leg to stand on-as usual.

The labels should provide an attorney for Mr. Halderman. Then hire him as a consultant to provide themselves protection from future idiotic creations such as this. This guy saved them millions in lost revenues from piracy. They owe him big time.

Source: theregister.co.uk

more cdfreaks.com news
3
Sony faces Blu-ray patent lawsuit
04:00
1
Panasonic chases European Blu-ray recorder market
08:22
4
Man arrested for music piracy
05:50
14
August Blu-ray movie sales drop
05:47
5
RIAA wins case after defendant deletes evidence
05:20
0
New low-price SSD's from Samsung
18:46
0
New Blu-ray media announced by Panasonic
17:30
Reactions
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
By Daemonicus, Friday 10 October 2003 06:02
DaemonicusAre they going to go after people that have autorun disabled next..... and people that run Linux and OSX, which do not support SunnComm's software that loads when the disc is inserted devil. This impending legal action by SunnComm is almost as stupid as their dreaded "copy protection"
By spacegrass, Friday 10 October 2003 06:06
We should thank SunnComm for helping to weaken the validity of the DMCA by bringing forward this pathetic case.
By kwkard, Friday 10 October 2003 07:24
kwkardhes going to get sued for holding down the shift key, this is the most frivoulous and desperate lawsuit ever.
By damiandimitri, Friday 10 October 2003 08:19
"Are they going to go after people that have autorun disabled next" shift=disabling the autorun
By GristyMcFisty, Friday 10 October 2003 10:16
GristyMcFistyBMG should sue SunnComm for making a crap copy protection system. I hope SunnComm shares crash and they go bust... devil
By 2Off3, Friday 10 October 2003 10:59
So Windows is the most "SOLD" Audio Copyprotection removal/bypass tool !!?? in Germany the use of such Software is illegal now
By Gorskar, Friday 10 October 2003 11:27
GorskarDamn, it looks like keyboards with shift keys just became illegal. Looks like we will all have to give up on capital letters and special symbols, and go buy legal keyboards without shift keys clown
By NHJ BV, Friday 10 October 2003 11:31
Yeah, this indeed means Windows now provides active means of bypassing copyprotection supergrin *waits for SunnComm vs. Microsoft case*
By maximino72, Friday 10 October 2003 12:26
Bmg should thank the student... otherwise it would have used this totally crap copy protection... go on this way Suncommsupergrin
By Poulpy, Friday 10 October 2003 12:29
Also, SunnComm's autorun stuff may not be able to install the MediaMax driver on Windows NT/2000/XP if the user is not logged in with administrative or power user rights...
By jab1981, Friday 10 October 2003 13:44
"hes going to get sued for holding down the shift key, this is the most frivoulous and desperate lawsuit ever." Didn't pay much attention did you... He's being sued for publishing the methods to counter copy protection. Some of which go beyond simply pressing the shift key. This is considered illegal. This has nothing to do with the fact he was "holding down the shift key" but rather for what he did with that knowledge. I'm not backing the company. I think it's a bullshit claim myself and I hope this starts the end of the DMCA, however it does no good to try and make their already idiotic lawsuits sound worse by exagerating. Or in this case completely misinterpreting the case. That just makes two incredibly stupid claims.
[edited by jab1981 on 10.10.2003 13:46]
By katastrofe, Friday 10 October 2003 14:25
Actually it's for publishing the driver name and saying that the way to get round it is to unload it. It's also interesting that they're not actually allowed to call this a CD! The register article is definitely worth a read if you haven't already...
By GristyMcFisty, Friday 10 October 2003 14:35
GristyMcFistykatastrofe - did Philips not kick up about this thing where CDs can't be called CDs if they're featuring copy protection because it wasn't part of the CD spec?
By Crabbyappleton, Friday 10 October 2003 14:47
Crabbyappletonspacegrass you might be on to something, saw this in a related Forbes article. http://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/newswire/2003/10/09/rtr1105123.html "Halderman's graduate advisor at Princeton is Ed Felten, a computer science professor who once sued the Recording Industry Association of America in a challenge to the constitutionality of the DMCA. The RIAA had threatened action under the DMCA against Felten and colleagues after they said they would publish a paper disclosing flaws in an industry security initiative. That suit was eventually dismissed." HMMM the plot thickens and SunnComm may have bittten off more than it can chew again by messing with Princeton. It is even feasable that they have fallen into a clever trap set by Halderman who is now pursuing a doctorate in computer science with an emphasis on computer security. I hope the suit backfires on SunnComm and weakens the DMCA. devil
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 10.10.2003 15:13]
By warforpeace, Friday 10 October 2003 16:41
warforpeacethat is why I never put out bugs I find in software, i smply might get sued.
By katastrofe, Friday 10 October 2003 17:26
Yes they did, but from what I gather this isn't outside the spec - all it is is a normal multisession with a separate program on it that blocks access to the first session. I think what philips were on about were CD's with corrupted audio or corrupted file allocation tables on as these might not play in some systems
By taddzilla, Friday 10 October 2003 17:49
Lets sue the person who created the shift key.........Stick Out Tongue
By spacegrass, Friday 10 October 2003 18:40
That _does_ make this situation a bit more interesting... There may be valid reasons to disable that driver other than to copy the disc. Possibly another case of how the DMCA may infringe on First Ammendment rights. And how much legal weight do the terms of their EULA carry, in regards to fair use, and the inherent weaknesses of their copy-protection?
By Daemonicus, Friday 10 October 2003 20:43
Daemonicusupdate on the lawsuit: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/10/10/news/8797.shtml
By Crabbyappleton, Friday 10 October 2003 20:57
CrabbyappletonDaemonicus, thank you! I would like to post this for all to see!Smilie
By chsbiking, Saturday 11 October 2003 01:57
Ok when I say DRM is taking our freedom away and trying to control our computers I mean it. So I don't have the right to hit my shift key anymore, or delete things off my computer that I don't want on my computer. Ok sure.
Name: Email:



Your comment:

Receive notification on new comments?