John Halderman's critical analysis of SunnComm Technologies' MediaMax CD3 Copy-Prevention System "caused the market value of SunnComm to drop by more than $10 million," says Sunncomm in a press statement. Moreover, Halderman violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, claims the company.

It now plans to take legal action against Halderman because, "The conclusions contained in the Princeton University grad student's report issued last Monday were derived from incorrect assumptions by its author. The author did not ask for, or receive, SunnComm's MediaMax 'white paper' documentation available on the technology prior to concluding that 'MediaMax and similar copy-prevention systems are irreparably flawed ...' "

Sunncomm, which has just announced testing of another anti-piracy product, says that by, "making erroneous assumptions", Halderman came to, "false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm's MediaMax technology, continuing:

"Based on several of these incorrect assumptions, Halderman and Princeton University have significantly damaged SunnComm's reputation and caused the market value of SunnComm to drop by more than $10 million."

In addition, Halderman violated the DMCA by disclosing unpublished MediaMax management files placed on a user's computer after user approval is granted," says Sunncomm. "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.

"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."

Added Sunncomm ceo Peter H. Jacobs, "This cat-and-mouse game that hackers and others like to play with owners of digital property is over. No matter what their credentials or rationale, it is wrong to use one's knowledge and the cover of academia to facilitate piracy and theft of digital property. SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used. Owning copying technology is not an unconditional 'free pass' to replicate or distribute protected work."

Critical reviews written in part as an attempt to pressure the record industry into abandoning further development of technically protected audio CDs are ethically suspect when based on inaccurate assumptions. The act of publishing instructions under the cloak of "academic research" showing how to defeat MediaMax such as those instructions found in Halderman's report is, at best, duplicitous and, at worst, a felony.

"We caution the reader that such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance," says Sunncomm at the end of its press statement. "Unknown risk, uncertainties as well as other uncontrollable or unknown factors could cause actual results to materially differ from the results, performance or expectations expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements."

Heh, I like to see this stand up in court.

firt of all, Halder syas in his report tha he "bought" the CD, so there is no case as far as him violating any copyright laws(fair use). Also, his actions were for research, and not economic gain, which is in his favor.
Suncomm is just crying because of the giant fools they made of themselves. They are basically scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Where DO they come up with these figures? And the "game" is over? Shoot, it's just beginning. Sunncomm, face it. Your "copy prevention" stuff failed miserably, as evidenced by it being cracked so easily. You suck, Jacobs. Just like your software.

This is a joke, right?
Why dont these 'industries' have to play by the same rules as others-
This is akin to GM selling (as it has) an automobile with a design flaw.
In the case of a major automaker, the company recalls said flawed product, and repairs or replaces at no cost to the consumer, and thanks the litigation gods that it was not sued.
Here, the customer is sued for pointing out that the product is a failure!
Didnt these ppl have to take college courses concerning business, prior to assuming roles as 'captains of industry?'

Rule 1) dont expect to sell crap
Rule 2) sell crap, expect stock to fall

morons!

OK, rant over-I realize that my example was a stretch, apples compared to oranges maybe.....but suing Halderman for pointing out that sunncom screwed up? puuhleezzz!

~time flies~

I'm gonna sue you because you held the shift key down isn't going to hold up in court.

The real amusing thing about this is that he didn't 'crack' anything... he merely observed that the disc was a multisession data/audio disc that relied on the autorun feature of windows to auto-install it's windowsmedia DRM software. Holding down the shift key (which i've done many times to stop autorun software from popping up on other users machines) is not exactly l33t hax0r 3k1lls.

~MaW~

snicker...

this game goes WAY back... they used to copy protect data-cassettes (remember those? )... yeah, i'm an OLD guy!

we couldn't copy them with the computers, but we COULD copy them with other cassette recorders....

they'll make fools of themselves, spend a lot of money and make some lawyers wealthy, and we'll still be where we are now....

they CANNOT suppress intellectual curiosity...

Autorun can be turned off, as well. Not a groundbreaking, new, enlightening discovery. Well, except to suncomm, it seems.......

10 million will be a drop in the bucket if they sue, and stockholders realize who is running thier company.

~time flies~

another misuse of the DMCA

I'd like to see SunnComm get laughed out of court like Fox' suit against Al Franken. Then they can sue themselves for damaging their own reputation.

"...significantly damaged SunnComm's reputation..." Oh, I think you did that pretty well without Mr. Halderman's help. It may be cliche to say so, but this really would be funny if it wasn't true. Matter of fact, wasn't this exact weakness mentioned by several people on this site? Suing people for pointing out your own incompetence is beyond idiocy.

When you outlaw circumvention devices, only outlaws will have shift keys!

LOLOLOL@carla and hang!

As far as the limted number of burned copies allowed goes, all you have to do is either use anothe PC, or restore your PC to a point before it ever saw the disc and start over at 0 copies again. I can't believe people actually invest in this company, talk about throwing your money out the window!

The RIAA seems to be starting a sue-your-consumer trend.
I find this laughable...

Though... a small voice inside my head is saying "This is an indication of a very, very big problem."

The RIAA are not stupid - just desperate. They sued Napster into oblivion and thought they didn't have to deal with the evil p2p again...only to realize their mistake with the onset of all the open-source progs. Now they realize it's here to stay, so they're trying to gain control of it by (1) scaring everyone off the current p2p networks and (2) reinventing "Napster" to try to funnel all the scared sheep to their own greedy pockets.
They realize now that if they had worked with Napster before, it would have been a good business idea. They're trying to undo their mistakes. And they are trampling all rights and morals in the process...

I find it kinda sad actually...

Oh well, let them burn.

Vive la resistance!!!

yet another company crying DMCA to cover up their short comings and to maintain their control and revenue stream.

Inkjet 3rd party makers and laser toners 3rd party makers fell victim to the same.

I guess DMCA prevents people from having an opinion if it goes against a major corporation.

The biggest problem with the DMCA is that it's illegal to tell anyone that their security is crap because that means you bypassed an access control, therefore violating the DMCA.

I don't think it makes any distinction for access controls that are poorly devised.

And if all it takes is a Shift key to bypass SunComm's software, well, they deserve to lose market value. More hyped garbage that the record labels wasted millions on.

What a joke. sunncomm is a crappy pink sheet penny stock. They're probably suing so they can make money, since BMG will likely stop payment on the check for a shoddy copy protection scheme.

hmm, companies suing because their shoddy product was exposed..., sounds like another industry we all know & revile.

Wait a minute ....

I thought that Sunncomm very recently informed the public that Halderman's revelation about the shift key was not a big deal since the Sunncomm folks already knew about this weakness in their copyright protected CD.

Just yesterday (or the day before) someone on this web site suggested on another post (jokingly, I thought) that Halderman may get charged or sued.

Now, does this mean that if I teach someone how to use a P2P application, or if I teach someone how to stream rip from internet radio, I could be prosecuted for "contributing to piracy"?
get sued.

I have long crusaded against stupid litigation, and lawyers working part time at the burger joint because there are simply more laywers than lawsuits (despite their best attempts)-but Im really beginning to wonder-if this trend keeps up, will there be enough lawyers? Judges? courtrooms? To actually try all this garbage?

~time flies~

Can we buy a CD (not that I would advise doing that) and say we bought it because it was copy protected and then sue because we found out it wasn't copy protected and we all feel cheated? (This can't be any less inteligent than sunnnnnnnnnnn commmmmmmmm trying to pass this off as legitimate copy protection.)

I hope that Mr. Halderman is fighting this in court. They are making virtually anyone who uses a computer a criminal.
Pretty soon they'll sue people like me (I build computers) for not installing the correct anti priacy hardware.

GOD BLESS THOSE NERDS WHO FOUND HOW TO BREAK ANYTHING THE RIAA THROWS AT US TO "PROTECT" THEIR CD'S

I build them as well compmore!
finally, another hardware d00d...

Yes, we will soon be sued, as the software ppl will, for 'aiding and abetting'
*aka, makin stuff that actually works like its spose too!*

~time flies~

"SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used."

One thing: DON'T SELL IT. Keep it to yourself if you're afraid someone will find out that what you're doing doesn't work.

Since when can you get sued for having an opinion on something?
Maybe I'll roll over my entire retirement fund into SunnComm stock,..yeah right!

I know this has been said before adnausem but a cd is not a cd if it is bastardized in some way as to prevent being able to copy/backup the media!

And as far as ceo Jackoff's quote:
"We caution the reader that such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance," says Sunncomm at the end of its press statement. "Unknown risk, uncertainties as well as other uncontrollable or unknown factors could cause actual results to materially differ from the results, performance or expectations expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements."

wtf are they smokin'???

The shift key is a copyright terrorist. It must be removed from keyboards immediately.

I think mac users should sue their ass for damaging their computers and voiding their warrentee without warning. How many physical products can you think off that damage people's property or selves without propure warning that are allowed to escape legal tort action. I can't think of any. But these guys suddenly implement a software virus on the back of a mainstream product that results in damaged functionality of Personal Computers, and damaged hardware/software on macs. I say we all buy a disk. Install it and start a class action suit. Just because it's DRM software doesn't mean the consumer protections we have do not cover it. These company's are still responsable for the crap they sell to us.
As far as trying to sue that guy for researching into the outer workings of the product, thats just bull shit and if they get away with it the judge that reasons it should be shot.

I just read an article at the register's website http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33322.html

According to this the product that they are selling is not even a CD. Maybe that means that they cannot apply the DMCA in this case.

Here's a quote from the article:

"It's worth noting that the BMG distributed CD Halderman tested lacks the familiar CD logo. Thanks to the inclusion of SunnComm's technology the disc can no longer be described as a CD - an item that has a very specific description as detailed in the standards documentation written by the format's creators, Sony and Philips. A disc that doesn't follow the standard to the letter can't be described by its supplier as a CD.

Odd, then, that the EULA, as quoted above, claims it is a CD - and is arguably in violation of the CD licensing regulations. Just a thought..."

~twinke will rule you

yup and a good thought at that.
"Certain computers may not be able to access the enhanced portion of this disc. None of the manufacturers, developers, or distributor make any representation or warranty, or assumes any responsibility, with respect to the enhanced portion of this disc."
This tells me it is Sunncomm we need to sue.

how does the world keep turning? and why havent we all killed each other buy now?

remember, napster was largely killed because a computer was ruled as not being a 'home recording device' and thus not protected by the fair use act.
Twinks observation is astute and correct, in my view.
This will never happen, but if we all chucked 5 bux in a barrel and hired a lawyer to challenge this, there would be no question as to the outcome.
its about definition, if the CD is not a CD, then why is the computer not a home recording device?
i can record at home.
anyone wanna hear CNN in the background? Of course thats copyrighted, im in error again.
the point is, the computer has been defined as not being a home recording device. that set a precedent.
well, my computer can burn, or record at home, anything.
the question becomes one of definition, is a thing defined by its use, or its capabilities?
granted, a cassette player cant IM-this should be obvious to judges, whose salaries after all, are fixed.
To rule that a computer is not protected under the fair use act, is like saying semantics is not bullsh*t.


~time flies~

What does the method have to do with the classification of a home recording device? If it is at home and it can record, it most certainly is a device.... Thats friggin crazy

Once the file is found and deleted .

Don't these imbeciles now that if I do not want something on my machine I can take it off. And it should be illegal for any one to automatically up load or down load on your machine. Wait I think that is illegal?? Any one.

I cant believe they think the average american is so stupid, 100,000,000 people would have figured out how to bypass that crap 5 minutes after opening it.

What a JOKE !!!

Just what I was thinking. Now it's a crime to remove an unwanted file from your own personal computer.
This stuff is getting out of hand.

The Kid

The company makes a piece of crap program, then gets pissed off because with one swift move of the finger the program is rendered useless. Sounds like a company that doesn't have there act together and gets mad at the world when they screw up.

Evidently a more sinister, diabolical variation of the old "kill the messenger" tactic used by totalitarian regimes throughout history.

this is great - somebody set up a sefense fund because I want to donate...

A while back i watched an episode of CyberCrime on TechTV where a guy in arizona was taken to court because he installed software on a PC at his office. The premise of the arrest was that he broke a statute that stated it was felenous to place any files on, or take any files off, a computer you do not own without express concent from the person or people who own it. This company appears to be putting files on peoples computer without their consent. That is all i have to say.

purfus! stop that nonsense!

if you keep it up, someone at the riaa will purchase a copyrighted clue!
DANGIT!

its about sole purposel, which relates back to all this crap. the DMCA, the private use act....and others.

The laws as they stand are not capable of fitting a 'device' like a computer into standards that already exist.
makes one wonder how the model T or the very country we live in ever happened....
dont apapt the law to the device, adapt the device to the law. that is the current thinking. it has failed so many times before that its beyond silly. but, as we see, it happens still.......

~time flies~

Is there an agreement on the case of this so called 'CD' stating that you agree to the terms of the licence etc? Is it displayed when you put the 'CD' into your equipment? If not then I say foul play since you have not agreed to anything and thus they are installing software onto your system without your express permission.

The simple act of purchasing does not mean you agree to their terms. I would contest this.

sunnccomm is located here in phoenix I think they are just a bunch of whiny cry babys, oh no someone broke the encryption oh well we're not worried about it oh no our stock just went down we better sue like the RIAA maybe we can recoup the cost since our rep is hurt lol what a bunch of doofus's

also the way I see it the more hurt they are the more we gain victory over DMR issues AhOY sail away mate, capture your flag another day

"those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used"

Well then that means I have ultimate authority over how my money is used. Guess you or anyone else I deem unfit won't get any.

Yea sure. Isnt it False Advertising to list something as Copy Protection when it can be bypassed or broken to begin with? How about listing it even more blatantly as COPY PROOF?

I hope they all lose their jobs and end up sittin in the welfare line so i can spit on em if i ever get caught dead in the unemployment office and need to take a piss.

Well they very well may be soon. First the marker trick, now the shift key. A person would have to be stupid to invest in them. They certainly arrent going to recover 10 million or whatever it was from a grad student.

"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"

Isn't this an admission that "our copy protection sucks". Their CP is supposed to be so great, but all you have to do is disable a driver (trivial in many ways).

Sigh. RIAA better know that people aren't buying their cr*p because of exactly sh*t like this.

Oh, yeah, one more thing: Suncomm calls Halderman a "hacker", when all he is displaying is some basic Windows knowledge that anybody can get from Windows for Dummies. Is my 6 year-old a niece a hacker for knowing to disable autorun (equiv to hitting shift each time)? (BIG NOTE: this is actually a security feature, folks.)

What's really funny is that Halderman didn't circumvent anything. He merely used a software provision of his system software. Would using a provision that exists on a PC's system software constitute a method to avoid copy protection? Hardly. Sunncomm cannot and will not win any lawsuit, unless, of course, they buy out the Judge.

THE DMCA NEEDS TO BE REPEALED.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ON HOW TO CIRCUMVENT COPY PROTECTION SCHEMES UNDER THE DMCA.
Get Codewarrior's Bill passed, as it
provides for Repeal of the DMCA
codewarrior.50mb.org/digitalconsumers.htm

next new software will have instructions on which keys not to press to circumvent security measures......software will also include a screwdriver to pry off your shiftkeys and and an envelope to mail them into the company.....idiocy thrives in some of the places you would least expect it

Sorry, my bad (someday I'll learn not to type until after I've imbibed my traditional loads of coffee).

The CD autorun feature launches a LaunchCD.exe program. This *DOES* have a EULA. If accepted their driver will launch every time you start your machine. If rejected, presumably it will eject the CD. (I think that is what I read, but I can't find it in the report now.)

The point is still the same. If autorun is disabled (either permanently or temporarily), the user will never see the EULA *or* have the copy-protection program installed.

However, the CD cover does contain this text: "Usage of this CD on your computer requires your acceptance of the EULA and installation of specified software contained on the CD". Uh-huh. (Again: if no autorun, what is the user supposed to do? Is there a manual with this CD??)

My main point is: most computers likely have CD autorun disabled (for security reasons). Most people don't read all the text on a CD package *before* throwing it into a player (dedicated or computer based). Duh.

And: it is offensive to me to be told what I have to have running on my computer. [I will never ever buy or listen to this CD, or anything copyprotected, or anything released in future on an RIAA label, so it is someone moot for me personally.] I already purposefully make sure 1) autorun is off 2) nothing is started automatically when I start the machine unless I have a very good purpose for it.

This is way more of a joke than their 1st attempt (MediaCloq, defeated with a felt tip pen), because it requires way to much legalese up front. If they don't hate their typical customers, why are they doing this? They'd be better off giving their customers what they want instead of treating them like criminals and assuming that they are felons...

Final comment: no Linux version of the SunComm MediaMax sw? Presumably putting the CD into a Linux machine is a violation??

[Apparently now I need to get a lawyer before I listen to a CD on my computer. One more reason to boycott, one more reason to despise.]

Sorry, one more: the CD text: "Usage of this CD on your computer requires your acceptance of the EULA and installation of specified software contained on the CD".

"Requires"? If I read that as a normal person I would think that this was a technical requirement, a requisite, as in "you need a Pentium 5 running Windows 3000 to run Doom 23". Not as a obligiation, as in "students are required to attend class."

Any lawyers?

Here is some more ammunition against the DMCA, though it may be farfetched.

Hitting the shift key is a violation of the DMCA, so that means, all capital letters, ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) that require the shift key are also violations of the DMCA. ( 29 violations of the DMCA in this paragraph.)

Since @ is in that list and is a violation of the DMCA, e-mail addresses such as bill@microsoft.com are violations of the DMCA, so that means internet e-mail itself is a violation of the DMCA.

+ and * are in that list, so calc.exe is a DMCA violation. So that may mean all addition and multiplication are illegal.

And further more, $ is on that list, so that means the US Dollar is illegal.

Sorry, one more: the CD text: "Usage of this CD on your computer requires your acceptance of the EULA and installation of specified software contained on the CD".

I agree Rex, who is any one to tell me what is required on my box to run any thing, it is MY box. I will not and do not buy RIAA product, and this asinine attempt at copy protection just goes to prove that the RIAA has no clue about computers or the ppl using them. When the RIAA finally goes away, in to the dark of the nite, we will rise and be JAMMIN.
no RIAA product, no purchasing, no down loading. If the RIAA likes their material so much they can keep it.