Newest MediaMax DRM
p2p news / p2pnet: SunnComm is touting its ‘new’ MediaMax Version 6 on the MediaMax Technology web site.
The Sony-BMG Settlement Agreement precluded Sony-BMG from using MediaMax V3 or V5 in the future, but no sooner had the agreement conditions been made public than SunnComm trolls were suggesting on various message boards that MediaMax V6 would be quickly released and it would be back to business as usual.
With the publication on the web site of the V6 features yesterday, the trolls were posting on Freedom-To-Tinker that Sony-BMG had already decided to use MediaMax V6 on a new release this month:
I hear Sony-BMG are thrilled with V6. It’s GO GO GO from here on in. Those who just want to steal music and those who pretend to be for consumer rights (but really just want to steal music too) lose again. And I hear Sony will be using V6 on a major release this month.
The V6 PDF file on the MediaMax Technology web site makes interesting reading. Functionally, it’s identical to MediaMax V5, except for comments regarding the redesigned EULA. However, this paragraph from the PDF file begs for further scrutiny….
Additional certifications pending … MediaMax has become the most scrutinized battle-tested software in the world. This newest version is designed from the ground up using Microsoft’s latest development tools with a constant awareness of potential security vulnerabilities. As with all previous versions of MediaMax, there is no use of rootkits or other hacker-like elements and no hidden files.
Calling MediaMax the most scrutinized, battle-tested software in the world is a bit rich. It didn’t take Alex Halderman long to discover it could be defeated by simply holding down the shift key. And when the EFF arranged for MediaMax V5 to be tested, it was quickly discovered that the product created serious security exposures.
It’s also nonsense to suggest V6 was designed from the ground up when it’s the same as V5, apart from the fact it could hardly have been redesigned and redeveloped in a few short weeks.
But it’s the last line of the paragraph above that puts beyond doubt the lack of credibility of the whole document. It claims, "like all previous versions of MediaMax, there are no hidden files".
Much to the chagrin of SunnComm ceo Peter Jacobs (upper right), all of the Q&As from his AskThe Prez web page have been archived to message boards and provide a permanent record of his answers long after they’ve been removed from the AskThePrez web site itself. The answers have often come back to haunt him and, like before, he’ll have to eat his own words when it comes to MediaMax (including previous versions) not having hidden files.
Here’s his reply to a question shortly after Princeton graduate Halderman exposed the Shift Key DRM bypass.
My friend, I´m going to print your letter as it represents the 1000´s of emails I´ve received from like-minded people who, like you, didn´t bother to read enough to understand the Princeton situation.
SunnComm´s position was that Mr. Halderman violated the DMCA by revealing the hidden MediaMax management file name that is placed on a user´s PC, along with instructions on how to remove it.
The SunnComm-alleged violation had NOTHING to do with the Shift Key. He knows it and we know it.
By publicly saying things like, "Gee, if telling people about the Shift Key is a violation of the DMCA, then we need to change that bad law," Halderman is purposely mis-directing the debate, and, by doing so, stoops to a level far below that of his adversaries. The ends NEVER justify the means. I think he´s had enough computer science classes. He needs some time in morality class.
Sorry for the long response, but you did ask me what I thought.
Sincerely,
Peter
The only reason the MediaMax file is no longer hidden is because Halderman told us about the file. But to suggest it was never hidden, or that there never was an intention to hide it, is proven false by Jacobs own words.
One could even add this comment that Jacobs made in an article to further highlight the intent to hide the file:
Future versions of the SunnComm software would include ways that the copy-protecting files would change their name on different computers, making them harder to find, Jacobs said. Moreover, the company will distribute the technology along with third-party software, so that it doesn’t always come off a protected CD, he added.
Because SunnComm has in the past managed to get away with publishing a press release on a deal that turned out to be ficticious, – the customer, Will-Shown Technology, didn’t even exist – perhaps it believes it can get away with this as well.
January 13th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Astrid,
If you had a clue about technology or a mind that allowed you to funtion independently of your “in the sauce sources” you might actually come up with a factual article.
Not much hope for you though!
January 13th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
It makes sense to me.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
ohhhhhh!!!!!
I found the Mediamax troll!!!! Do I get a prize?
January 13th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
your prize is a date with pete hehehehe
January 13th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Perhaps the corporate counsel for SunnComm and other would-be DRM companies should go back and read the DCMA and relevant advisories from the US Government Copyright Offices BEFORE they fire off nasty letters to people telling them they have violated the law?
Under the DCMA, circumvention of COPY controls is NOT illegal, whereas circumvention of access controls is illegal. With a CDDA format Audio CD, ‘access’ is inherently implied by mere possession of an original CD. Under the “rights of first sale” doctrine, the copyright holder benefits from the initial sale of the work. After that the purchaser is free to do what they wish with the item. If you buy a book, read it and love it, or read the first chapter, hate it and then give it to a friend, you have done absolutely nothing wrong. The same goes for an original Audio CD. There is simply no such thing as an ‘access’ control for an original Audio CD. As stated by the U. S. copyright office, the reason that circumvention of copy control is not illegal is so that individuals can exercise their full fair use rights which may be impeded by such controls.
The DCMA does not trump the first amendment. Informing one or more people as to ‘how’ to circumvent any kind of control (particularly if it does not involve some kind of ‘device’) is an exercise of free speech. This type of speech comes nowhere near yelling ‘Fire!” in a darkened crowded theatre, or inciting a riot. Providing written or verbal instruction to an unspecified audience in a ‘published work’ as to how to break the law is not illegal, otherwise the Anarchists Cookbook would not be available for sale.
Counsel should also remind their client that the anti-abuse provisions of the DCMA provides for penalties in the form of attorney’s fee should the client deliberately invoke the DCMA inappropriately in any legal action or threat of legal action. The most well publicized instance of this provision was the Diebold case of approximately 18 months ago. These type of incidents generally result in a PR debacle, the cost of which outstrips any actual financial penalty many times over.
–TurboGeek
January 14th, 2006 at 9:04 am
And it makes sense to me. Where are the lack of facts? She has posted the sources. Why don’t you back up your claim that it is not factual by refuting what Astrid wrote WITH FACTs.
January 14th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I feel so much better knowing that the new MediaMax was “designed from the ground up using Microsoftâs latest development tools with a constant awareness of potential security vulnerabilities.” When I think computer security, I think Microsoft!!
January 14th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
This snake oil has nothing in it I want. Any products laced with it, devalue the item. It would in my mind be better that the DRM be used for permante locks so that no one can access protected content. That would end the constant drumbeat by the content cartels of pirates. I don’t want this sort of stuff. I can’t use the protected content as it is configured and work it into my lifestyle. Making foolish moves such as locking a song or vid to a particular player does nothing for portability to any currently owned devices already within my possession. I will not buy new equipment to play new material. To many times in the past I have been hooked by picking the wrong format as the winner and buying equipment that supported those formats only to find there wasn’t enough time to delevop a library before the industry moved on to something esle and both equipment and format disappeared.
Adding virtual or digital players isn’t the answer, that doesn’t plug into my current equipment. So as long as these hindered formats exist, you keep them, I don’t want them nor will I pay for the priviliage of being prevented from using my purchase as I see fit. As a last mention of problems, the industry as a whole doesn’t think you should be able to recoup your costs on either a bad decision or pick. This method of lock down eliminates the possibility that I could sell something I hated to someone else that might love it. The end results are you are stuck with the crap. I’d rather spend my money elsewhere than get into the above problems. At least I have a choice at that point what I can do with it.
January 16th, 2006 at 4:06 am
riaa bunch of whores say whaattt??
how about i open up my linux and remove your drm files say whattT??
how about i record the playing files into unprotected mp3s say whatt!!!
how about you learn how to treat a consumer right say what?
let me see a homeless artists….
January 16th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Very lucid TurboGeek
Thanks for the legal insight.
January 16th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
“This method of lock down eliminates the possibility that I could sell something I hated to someone else that might love it. ”
next to fair use this explains the content cartels 2nd pet peeve with current media platforms (cd, tapes, general physical media).
now that they have eliminated the ability to transfer content by means of DRM files, they are of course assuming they will make more money….and when it doesn’t happen…. it’s gonna be the consumers fault again.
I mean obviously if the content consumer will purchase a 2nd hand cd for 1/2 he price they will buy the DRM infected low quality files for full price, cause the content media obviously knows their customers. (Well at least Sony/BMG doeas as they’re spying on them.)