As has already been widely reported, SunnComm Technologies - "Lightyears beyond encryption" - has wisely decided against bringing an action against John Halderman who demonstrated how easy it is to copy an uncopy-able Sunncomm CD.

"Legal action would not repair the damage done and could potentially cause a 'chilling effect' on the type of research that faculty, staff, and students of institutions of higher learning elect to pursue in the future," says the company.

Read on for the full statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why we decided not to sue John

By Sunncomm

SunnComm Technologies, Inc., a leader in digital content security and enhancement for optical media, announced today it will not seek legal remedies against Princeton researcher Alex Halderman. SunnComm believes Halderman wrote an inaccurate critical report of its recently released MediaMax CD-3 Copy Management technology (V1). Mr. Halderman included in his research report several methods of circumventing the MediaMax music file security used to slow down the casual copying of unprotected files. Because Mr. Halderman felt the file security was too easily bypassed, he deduced the product failed in its primary marketing mission. In actuality, MediaMax, which has been licensed to BMG Music, one of the world's largest record companies, as well as other labels, performed exactly according to its Version 1 design specifications. SunnComm felt that Mr. Halderman missed the fundamental goal of MediaMax - to provide CD buyers with a licensed and legal method of making and sharing authorized copies of the music they purchase.

Prior to the development and release of MediaMax this year, the only way to obtain a digital copy of the music on a CD was to "rip" the music from the disc to the hard drive of a personal computer which produced a copy in an unsecured format. The resulting music files could then be copied ad infinitum, making unauthorized discs, and moving the content to illegal P2P file sharing networks. These issues have been the fundamental cause of the piracy issue for the music industry.

With MediaMax CD-3 Technology, users can opt to make legal and licensed copies of the music and have this content stored in a secure format. This secure format allows the consumer to listen to the music, copy the files to the computer, move the content to a compatible player device, share a controlled copy with a friend by e-mail and even make a limited number of extra CD's for personal use. These features and the flexible functionality were designed to offer the consumer a reasonable alternative to violating the copyrights of their favorite artists and avail themselves of the additional "bonus" features included as a component of the product.

SunnComm president, Bill Whitmore stated, "A technology has not yet been invented that will keep all those individuals from appropriating the unprotected music without limitations if they intend on taking it that way. MediaMax creates an opt-in "speed bump" of security which encourages licensed music copying and sharing without deteriorating the music experience. With each subsequent version of MediaMax, the "speed bump" will have improvements in security, as well as consumer friendly functionality."

Whitmore concluded, "I feel that this is a very important distinction which was overlooked in Mr. Halderman's report when it was disseminated with Princeton University's consent. Had Mr. Halderman evaluated the product as a copy management solution that was purposely designed to deliver a licensed and legal structure for limited copying and sharing, he would have most likely yielded a different result. Instead of being rated as "flawed" his final conclusion may have found that it performed as it was intended to perform. This insight would have prevented the negative impact on the SunnComm product, reputation and valuation."

Peter Jacobs, SunnComm CEO said, "MediaMax performs EXACTLY as "advertised" to the companies who purchased it. The ultimate proof will be in the results we obtain from the marketplace - and not in the courtroom. I believe that researchers should have consequences for inaccurate research they perform and publish that result in damage to others. Because SunnComm is, itself, a company which relies on research and development for its survival, we feel that bringing legal action for damages against researchers in a higher learning environment may contribute to a chilling effect on the type of research that faculty, staff, and students elect to pursue. Therefore, we've decided to move along and not pursue legal remedies in deference to "the bigger picture." SunnComm directors and employees feel that research plays an incredibly vital role at SunnComm and in our society, and we need to do everything we can to nurture it."

Jacobs concluded, "We realize now that Mr. Halderman had mistakenly expected to be researching an "extremely hack resistant" copy protection product when he evaluated MediaMax -Version1. SunnComm's security features, though scheduled to be more robust with each MediaMax upgrade, have always placed second in importance to achieving SunnComm's goal of near-universal playability and the delivery of an exceptional consumer experience. The "marching orders" we received from the music industry was to build an integrated system for the vast majority of consumers who, when given the option, would elect to use a licensed and legal method for accessing their CD music because, in doing so, they would be honoring the wishes of their favorite artists. For the first time in America, MediaMax gives CD buyers a structure to make that choice."

It's such a laugh that they are not pressing charges cause they're worried about blocking research. SunnComm isn't pursuing it because they know they would loose and further erode their damaged credibility. That's more important to them then research. If Research was the major reason they would've come up with a better security system to protect their CD's (Though it would still have been broken)

to provide CD buyers with a licensed and legal method of making and sharing authorized copies of the music they purchase

so what thay are saying is if i use the shift key i can bye all means shar that file becose thats the only way that file can be shared thair for every time i push the shift key it is a authorized copy? so i can buy this CD and will be granted a full license do with that type of media what i choose

humm maybe thay are getting smarter?
lol this is meant to be a joke and it is but heck why not just release a statement saying thay finaly found a way to truly copy protect CDs on a digtal format while wear at it hahahaha
whate thay did :0)

The "marching orders" we received from the music industry

I think that says it all

Bullshit alert!!!!!

How much do you want to bet this decision was influenced by outside parties who know that if the DMCA is put on the spotlight in the courts over this aspect of it, it will be deemed unconsitional as it conflicts with our first amendment rights to freedom and speech.

This is the same reason they never sued Princeton Professor Ed Felten (who is Alex Halderman's graduate advisor).

I wish someone would take this to court and put the spotlight on this as it is indeed unconstitional to be able to pull the DMCA card to silence people's first amendment rights.

Which do you think is more important.. copyright or our constitional rights?

I think the answer to that question depends on where your livelihood is. If you are a ceo of a recording studio you will be more concerned with copyright because with the money you make on the copyrights you can buy your human rights. However, if you are on the other end of the spectrum you will be more concerned with human rights because you will most likely not have the money to buy them. So copyright can be used to not only pull money out of society but also to trample the human rights, shifting the balance of power almost completely to the side of business. with no money, and no law on our side we will have a rough fight.

SunnComm, in a moral sense, is reminiscent to me of the companies throughout the world that aided and abetted Nazi Germany's implementation of the Holocaust (i.e. IBM with its cataloguing databases, I.G. Farben with the machinery). That is, although the situation here is different, this outfit pushes, or (as some would see it) enables, aids and abets other like-minded multinational corporations to push, products that not only adversely affect our rights, but our very quality of life. Not to mention all the human-rights implications mentioned by "purfus."

I don't think Suncomm programmers are idiots. I think they fully understand that they can't make a copy-protection scheme that will work unless they change the CD-burning hardware in every single computer in America. What they are doing is paying lip service...
Imagine for a second you are a Congressman who is old and knows NOTHING about computers. All you hear about for weeks is "Pirates! Pirates! Sales are down!" then you hear "We gave them a legal alternative and they are bypassing it!" and then you hear "We are noble - see, we didn't even sue the perputrator of how-to-hack-us information!". After weeks of that, if you've never heard of CD Autorun or still think of the Shift key as the button that shifts the typeface up a notch to get bigger letters, you'd actually think the poor music industry is doing their best to help the situation in a moral way. They even appear to be the victims!

They're not stupid - they just know their audience. Old congressfolk don't know enough about computer technologies to argue with them. So all they have to do is pay lip-service, and the Congress keeps giving them what they want -- power by law to subpoena the hell out of the rest of us. As long as the law allows them to stomp our rights like that, they are winning...

Instead of gloating about our inevitable victory over the RIAA, we need to grant them the benefit of the doubt and react accordingly. Perhaps not in this case, becaue it's mostly over... but in the future try to think about what they are trying to accomplish with their bullshit. It's the job of every member of the boycott to shine the light of knowledge on their PR campaign. They want to keep the power through the laws in place, and they want to keep the money through control-by-fear.

Just my 2c... please don't flame me for playing devil's advocate.

Of course it would be in their best interest to allow public disclosure. The last thing this type of company would want to do is start a new unground group. Researchers would release this information to the general public via the Internet or p2p msg networks with out fear of being exposed.

They're not stupid - they just know their audience. Old congressfolk don't know enough about computer technologies to argue with them. So all they have to do is pay lip-service, and the Congress keeps giving them what they want -- power by law to subpoena the hell out of the rest of us. As long as the law allows them to stomp our rights like that, they are winning...

MikeTwo,

I think you hit a very important point, and you are right! And how hard is it to "teach an old dog new tricks?"

SunnComm Technologies, Inc., a leader in digital content security and enhancement for optical media? Leading it where? The toilet? hahaha

SunnComm's "speed bump" seems more like a pothole. Idiots.

Just you wait until Version 13 is released! It will let you copy a cd one track at a time to a floppy so you can send the songs via snail mail to a friend. Providing you still have floppy drives... lol

'What a maroooooon, what an ignoranamous!' ~bb

Seems to me if Sunncomm got their "marching orders... to build an integrated system for the vast majority of consumers who, when given the option, would elect to use a licensed and legal method for accessing their CD music... ", they probably got their "marching orders" not to sue Halderman too. Why? Because right now the RIAA doesn't WANT the DMCA to be challenged in court, since it provides a way for the RIAA to scare everyone away from peer-to-peer by suing them!

What is that they say to do when a scewup happens?

PUT ON A HAPPY FACE...

"...illegal P2P file sharing networks."

Huh? When did P2P networks become illegal? Did Congress sneak a bill through for the President to sign when I wasn't looking?

They probably have we just dont know it yet. Miketwo your absolutely right. We need some new blood in the government. Ideally we should have all not said a word about any work arounds and let them think they had a good system. But it would never happen. That is why they made it so simple. Ideally we should all have stopped buying any of their products, thats everyone, a long time ago. But thats probably not going to happen. Basically they are trying to use something that is currently illegal and virtually unstopable and inevitable to form the laws to tools that would allow them to control, well, everything.

Very sad.

DRM is not acceptable...DRM lasts forever..COPYRIGHT DOESN'T....

DRM is a de facto copyright extension forever.

"could potentially cause a 'chilling effect' on the type of research that faculty, staff, and students of institutions of higher learning elect to pursue in the future,"

But I thought that's what they wanted. Masses of stupid people with no free will that will just hand over money when they're told.