Microsoft sues Viodentia for copyright infringement

Microsoft filed a lawsuit in federal court last Friday against "John Does 1-10," for breaking their PlaysForSure DRM software. The defendants include Viodentia, the famed hacker who has now twice broken Microsoft's DRM through his application FairUse4WM. Microsoft alleges that Viodentia and his posse infringed on the company's copyright by creating and distributing their program. From what Viodentia told us in our interview with him yesterday, we know that he doesn't live in the US, so it's unlikely that this suit will have any meaningful effect on him for now. Further, given that Microsoft admits that it doesn't know how to find Viodentia -- and we assume that a hacker of his caliber would be good at covering his online tracks -- this suit appears (again, we invoke the "we are not lawyers" clause here) to actually be a way to get at the records of Google and Yahoo, where Viodentia is said to have email accounts. A declaration filed yesterday in Seattle federal court by Andy Cookson, a Microsoft investigator, states: "Among the third parties who have possession of such information are email service providers Yahoo! and Google. Subpoenas to those entities is likely to provide information about the defendants' locations, and also provide additional information about third party services used by the defendants. With such information, through subpoenas to third parties, it is reasonably likely that I will be able to identify defendants." In other legal filings yesterday, Microsoft declared that it "expects to complete its Doe discovery and identify defendants in 120 days."

[Thanks, resource]

[mcheddadi @ Sep 26th 2006 9:39PM]

Owned

[Deluxe @ Sep 26th 2006 9:42PM]

Guys like these are like Hydras - You chop off one head and another will grow right back!

[steve @ Sep 26th 2006 9:56PM]

nooooooooo!!!!
i hope he hurries up and releases a new version of fu4wm in 119 days
mine wont work
but seriously i dont think microsoft will be able to find them
and if they do well hopefully they are in a country that couldnt give a sh!t

[derek @ Sep 26th 2006 9:59PM]

hahah, he should release a new version and spit in Microsoft's face

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 26th 2006 10:15PM]

im sure engadget will also be subpeonaed,
a company as powerful as M$ has enough money to buy whatever info they want,they will find this person and bury him.

but they cant stop the hackers,defeat one and you encourage more to take the risk and challenge the system.

the source for it will get out also,just to give those that want it a head start.
after all we are at the peak of the communication age.

[Ryan Block @ Sep 26th 2006 11:00PM]

If you think I or Engadget would give up sources, you're totally and completely wrong. As far as I'm concerned Viodentia is the DRM Deepthroat.

[Ben @ Sep 26th 2006 10:25PM]

fuc*k microshaft

I call BS on them having any kind of evidence at google or yahoo. Thats statement by the investigator proves nothing more than the punk police he's already caught you on tape.

[Ben @ Sep 26th 2006 10:29PM]

oops

*that statement by the investigator proves nothing more than the punk police that says he's already caught you on tape.

[o rly @ Sep 26th 2006 10:40PM]

Damn Microsoft & Billy Gates, they keep copying Apple & Stevie Jobs, now by suing EVERYONE!

[3rdsun @ Sep 26th 2006 10:45PM]

They stand a better chance of spamming every email address on yahoo or google and hoping for Viodentia to reply.

[- @ Sep 26th 2006 11:01PM]

Wait. MS spends, presumably, millions creating this technology, can't secure it and now thinks they can find an anonymous hacker in a sea of Internet users in less than 120 days! They can't even secure their software in that much time.

Unfortunately, this provides MS with a good precedent to release their new WMP11 protection for the Zune. I hope the content providers don't follow suit and phase out the PlaysForSure content.

[tekdroid @ Sep 26th 2006 11:07PM]

Microsoft would like to add:

Dear Valued Customers

As you may or may not know, recent events have seen our intellectual property violated.

We need your support.

Please buy DRM-infected lossy content from the Zune marketplace and PlaysForSure vendors to support our ongoing fight against people violating our intellectual property. Heaven knows we have enough trouble fighting completely patant-free, superior open source codecs such as Ogg Vorbis http://www.vorbis.com and the great lossless FLAC http://flac.sourceforge.net and of course mp3 and AAC (which we must support now to get where we want to go; lock-in can come later).

We intend to take over the digital music business. Video too. We don't care if it takes 5 or 50 years, we have the cash. Please support us so we can trample on anyone and anything that gets in our way (much like the Windows monopoly we illegally obtained and that we continue to build new businesses on). We worked hard to use every dirty tactic in the business world to get where we are. We hope you understand this means many late nights.

The latest chapter in our quest for control over digital content makes us look the fool. Our future business is at stake. Of course, educating you all not to buy our lossy proprietary Digital Rights Restricted rubbish will never happen, so we ask you to support us so we can (again) trample on those smarter than us. These individuals will single-handedly stop you all from obtaining digital content. Think of the artists, will you. We all know independent artists cannot market directly to their audience using open-source codecs; that would make too much sense. You need us. They need us, too. The artists deserve to be financially rewarded. We give them 0.5% of every transaction. More than enough.

These latest violations would eventually mean no corporate-approved music to our valued customers - at all. That means YOU. The future of entertainment is at stake if we don't work together to put an end to this. So, buy up and keep the money flowing so we can continue to build up the userbase; our Digital Rights Restrictions should become standard before too long. Reliance on our formats is growing each day. The support and fanboyism over our new Zune prouduct is fabulous. We aren't even scratching the surface of what where we want to take this.

Please continue to support us so we can litigate well into the next century. Or at least until the market is so reliant on our lossy Digital Rights Restricted infestations, there is no going back.

Rock on,
Your Windows Media Team

[glacia00 @ Sep 26th 2006 11:17PM]

Hacking is at best like civil disobedience where you're trying to make a statement but then you fully expect to be arrested because the arrest is part of the statement.

I'm making no judgment about this just asking, if it's not civil disobedience then what is it? Because if hacking is just for fun then isn't it just another criminal act? Someone is now going to say something asinine and sure you might hate MS for some perceived reason which probably hasn't personally affected .01% of the people who with their junior-high metality like to substitute $ for the S in Microsoft.

And don't get me wrong unlike the majority of posts I read I'm no 'fanboy' of anything; I'm fairly tech agnostic and buy what works for me regardless of who makes it. But I recall dozens of posts in response to another company's lawsuits the jist of which were "they have to defend their copyrights."

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 26th 2006 11:24PM]

tekdroid;
that made my day,its a good laugh,but your right!
and that parts not funny.
damn i hate microsoft,and yes its because im jealous of bill gates money.he has enough money to end world hunger yet he never invites me for dinner at his place,what a guy.

[Jack @ Sep 26th 2006 11:28PM]

I don't get it --- would Engadget support people renting movies and then illegally copying them? If not, then why are they supporting FairUse4WM which allows people to steal music --- if you pay 9.99 a month for unlimited music, and then you strip the DRM, that is not a "fair use" by any possible definition but it is stealing. Microsoft should subpoena Engadget and Engdadget deserves it. . . . I know it's not PC around here to say that, but Engadget is supporting stealing.

[anon @ Sep 26th 2006 11:36PM]

Jack, you don't get it. Engadget isn't saying that you should pay $9.99 once or sign up for a free trial, download all of the music you want, strip the DRM, and then cancel. They are supporting your right to pay the monthly subscription fee, but then use it on any device that you want, and to have it in a non-crippled format. Of course there are people who will sign up for a free trial or pay once and download all they want, that's not fair use, but that's not what Engadget supports. They are supporting our right to legally pay for our music, but to be able to use it as we wish.

[Peter Rojas @ Sep 27th 2006 8:53AM]

Bingo. We think copyright holders should get paid, but that DRM in an unnecessary burden on the rights of consumers.

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 26th 2006 11:37PM]

i just got a reply from engadget regarding my first post in here.
"Ryan Block @ Sep 26th 2006 10:53PM

If you think I or Engadget would give up sources, you're totally and completely wrong. As far as I'm concerned Viodentia is the DRM Deepthroat."


i tried to reply back with this,

"then what will you do if subpeonaed?
refuse to cooperate with authorities?
perjer youself?
or trade information for money?"

but apparently i cant reply to a reply,or something,i dont know.
i sent it but it disappeared.

[Paul @ Sep 27th 2006 12:26AM]

News Blogs are like any other form of journalism, this has stood up in court, so they do not need to reveal their sources and can not be subpoenaed for them.

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:48AM]

Wow, Paul, I'm not sure what country you're writing from but MS is in the US and you can absolutely subpoena a journalist. They can't 'force' them to reveal their source ut in 1972, the US Supreme Court ruled that a journalist had no right to refuse testimony where he or she had witnessed criminal activity. And after that they've held that a journalist who fails to comply with a subpoena can be held in contempt of court and fined or sent to jail.

A journalist doesn't have to reveal their source but that doesn't make it legal.

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:49AM]

ROBOGAMERX, don't worry we'll have no such restrictions at my blog Engadget.net

[Jake @ Sep 27th 2006 12:56AM]

Jack, good luck getting anybody here to even understand what you're talking about. I do. And you're correct.

[William @ Sep 27th 2006 1:02AM]

I always think DRM is just a tool to infringe end-users ownership. In the past, we borrow our CDs to our friends and neighbour, so people explore the new content, and increase sales for the content author in the future. Why now everyone is talking- I only grant you to listen, not to borrow, share, or give away to anyone. That completely breaks the sense of ownership. Its just so allerging!

http://bugthis.blogspot.com

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 1:16AM]

kerunt, as hard as it is for me to believe I find myself on the DRM side of the argument but the other side is just being ridiculous.

If you don't want music with DRM then don't buy it. You voluntarily entered into a legal agreement knowing it had DRM and knowing the restrictions. Don't want DRMed music don't be a baby and cry about it.

I might, I stress might buy (no pun intended) your argument had you bought a CD and ripped it but frankly your argument is misguided at best. In 20 odd years in the tech industry I've watched a couple of my patented ideas roll off of Chinese assembly lines. And trust me when it happens you lose the Robin Hood fantasy real fast.

Thanks by the way kerunt, you got me off the fence about this. I say sue 'em hard and let the subpoenas fly.

[z @ Sep 27th 2006 1:30AM]

Once again Microsoft tries to get to its goals using brute force instead of intelligent brains. It's a shame.

[ROBOGAMERX @ Sep 27th 2006 1:36AM]

i knew they had some kind of legal coverage like that.im no lawyer.
what i was really asking is if bill gates offers them a bundle of money that they can spend on hookers and drugs,or whatever.
are they going to pass it up?
everybody loves money.

[MFKilla @ Sep 27th 2006 1:53AM]

hahahahahahaha......just wanted to say what everyone already knows: Viodentia & co., we're all behind you and wish you luck. Even if you don't need it haha.

[Julian Bond @ Sep 27th 2006 2:35AM]

I don't get it. "Microsoft alleges that Viodentia and his posse infringed on the company's copyright by creating and distributing their program." So this isn't a DMCA call? Is it because they used the letters WM in the name of the program?

DRM Is Killing Music. And it's a rip off.
Just Say No To DRM

[Julian Bond @ Sep 27th 2006 2:58AM]

Ah. Now I get it.
"Now the company says this was because the hacker had apparently gained access to copyrighted source code unavailable to previous generations of would-be crackers."

So who's the anti-DRM mole in Microsoft who slipped eht source out the door? Or is this MS trying to spin the fact that Videntia is jjust plain cleverer than they are.

DRM via obscurity is no DRM.

[Robert @ Sep 27th 2006 5:53AM]

i forget if he cracked APPlE DRM ? I would absoloutely love him if he did i am going to switch to a zune in a month and need my files back any help man i know you are an Engadget reader????

-

[red @ Sep 27th 2006 7:38AM]

Am i the only guy that just thinks it's particularly stupid to have it be okay, in any legal system, to sue someone that is not going to be able to have his/her say due to extreme lack of presence?

I don't think it's weird that Microsoft wants to sue, but doesn't the guy you're gonna sue have to be in custody first?

Anyway, Most DRM is like taking away your car keys on a thursday because you just might be drinking on some saturday after that. Which, to me, is theft in it's own right.

[Robotron @ Sep 27th 2006 9:07AM]

Boo Microsoft.
You suck.

[billy s. @ Sep 27th 2006 9:35AM]

Ughhh. I guess I'll never purchase online music. If I can't play a music file that I paid for in the mp3 player of my choice, then what the hell is the point?

All of this "strong-arming" the consumer into buying Microsoft or Apple products is beginning to turn me completely off of electronics...........

[William @ Sep 27th 2006 10:04AM]

Alright!! Fight microsoft

[Andy @ Sep 27th 2006 10:25AM]

DRM isn't stripped for only illegal reasons. People want it stripped for good reasons as well, like to be able to use the stuff they paid for. A friend of mine bought some music on ITunes for the sole purpose of putting it into a slideshow...then she calls me up going ''what is this m4p, m4a, the slideshow software wont let me do it!" i'm like ok you have two options....burn a CD and then rip it with CDex, or get the software to take the DRM out of the itunes music file, then convert it to a format you can use.

[menatekera @ Sep 27th 2006 11:00AM]

FairUse4WM v1.3 (NEW)

Work with the latest IBX fix from microsoft.

http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/FU4WMver13.zip
http://s9.quicksharing.com/v/9438118/FU4WMver13.zip.html

[Ben @ Sep 27th 2006 11:45AM]

Kerunt, how does that work with subscription services? Are you trying to say that paying $9.99 a month, you now own the right to make unlimited copies of every song the service has (for your own use, of course)? Why would you continue your subscription then? And why would other people pay $0.99 a song when apparently you should be able to get every song ever for just $10 total?

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:10PM]

Andy, I might have bought that argument at one time but after reading the posts here it's very clear that with all of the flowery speeches about 'using music you paid for the way you want' aside the majority of people simply see it as an opportunity to fill their hard drive for the price of a one month subscription.

And the only justification they offer for it is because they can. In other words they have the means and opportunity to commit the crime.

If you're so opposed to DRM then don't buy it. It's pretty pathetic to enter into an agreement then afterward decide you don't like it and steal from the other party.

I have no love of MS but I could easily use the same excuse for any number of crimes. This isn't a legal gray area like ripping CDs where you can argue you paid for every piece of music. You never bought the music in this case; you subscribed to a service. Don't kid yourself into believing it isn't a crime and that the people involved aren't simply very common very petty criminals who've made things worse instead of better. Because whether anyone likes it or not this simply proves that DRM is necessary for a subscription service.

[Flip21 @ Sep 27th 2006 12:21PM]

Federal courts generally frown upon identifying Does in lawsuits, but I guess Microsoft really can't find out their identities until discovery. Hooray for notice pleading!

[Forrest @ Sep 27th 2006 5:44PM]

kerunt:

If you have DRM'ed music, then you have already _paid_ for it, so it is yours to use.
--------

Yes, it's yours to use, so long as you use it according to conditions under which you purchased it.

If those conditions were that the music only be played on certain devices, then that's all you paid for.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about this.

You're paying $1 (or $9.99 a month) to listen to the music with certain restrictions. You agreed to those restrictions when you made the purchase. If you don't agree with the restrictions, why did you buy it?

If those restrictions weren't there, then the vendor would want you to pay more. Either people aren't willing to pay for a song without those restrictions, or the market hasn't been smart enough to offer such a service. But one thing is clear to me - if tools to strip DRMs become widespread, then the cost of the music is going to go up (to pay for the increased resources dedicated to the need for ever-changing DRM schemes), but the restrictions will not be removed. So we'll be paying more for the same inconvenience, instead of paying more to have the inconvenience removed.

[Jim Scott @ Sep 27th 2006 6:00PM]

I wish Microsoft would apply this much horsepower and talent to making Windows and it other applications more reliable and bug-resistant. Oh wait. I'm not not multi-billion dollar client am I. Silly me.

[DrNick664 @ Sep 28th 2006 10:43AM]

this man/thing is my hero.... omg... hes so owning microsoft is their an itunes version of him?

[wireless010101 @ Sep 29th 2006 12:48PM]

Music rental services aside, I just can't believe anyone knowingly pays for DRM'ed music.
It's like buying a car you can only drive on certain highways.

And any unaware users later running into incompatibility problems should have their purchase immediately and easily refunded. But fat chance of that...