Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m Suing the US Government

bunniestudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–327 of 327 posts

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#321

Post by slight »

6stringmerc wrote: post #307
joezydeco wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Bunnie is looking to develop products that redistribute video. If you've seen his previous NeTV project[1] he's looking to inject video overlays into the HDCP stream and let you do things like he described in his letter. His method of getting into the HDCP stream[2] via a MITM attack is probably what's running afoul of the government. [1] https://www.adafruit.com/products/609 [2] http://www.bunniestudio…

...and if he wants to offer that product he can license the stream and not hijack another company's product, right? If not, why not? Details please.

It's not hijacking this stream, it's allowing the legitimate user of the stream to modify it with an overlay while viewing it, at home for example.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#322

Post by ethbro »

6stringmerc wrote: post #308
ethbro wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their paid video content There are a large number of situations where you have to break protection mechanisms on content you've legally purchased in order to exercise your previously existing and legal rights to use it as an owner.

...and it happens day in and day out, and until I see drastic legal cases of enforcement going out and ruining companies and individual people and families I don't believe that the threat is particularly concerning. It exists, okay, and cleaning up 1201 would be great, but we're talking more about First Sale here in principle.

The ability to chill new development through ambiguously enforced law is just as important as the prohibitions actually in law.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#323

Post by thirdsun »

DoubleGlazing wrote: post #150
toomuchtodo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you think it'd cost to replicate the software as an open source tool? I've written grants before for funding open source projects, and this anecdote boils my blood.

Its really simple software, essentially a VU meter. The therapy involves getting patients to shout in a certain way and try and reach certain volume levels or follow certain volume patterns. E.g. shout gently for five seconds and gradually ramp up the volume over 10 seconds. It would be really easy to replicate. I reckon the most time consuming part would be testing and calibration. The whole app directory is less th…

Really, any audio editor would do.

But you should look into Max/MSP ( https://cycling74.com/products/max/ ), where you could build and bundle a simple audio app like that in minutes and have it tailored to your specific needs.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#324

Post by 6stringmerc »

slight wrote: post #321
6stringmerc wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and if he wants to offer that product he can license the stream and not hijack another company's product, right? If not, why not? Details please.

It's not hijacking this stream, it's allowing the legitimate user of the stream to modify it with an overlay while viewing it, at home for example.

While it's not something I agree with in principle, you do know that doing such a thing outside of the specific Four-Factor Fair Use test is an instance of Copyright Infringement? I'm not happy with the way the law is written, but I don't think this avenue is altruistic in the least.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#325

Post by 6stringmerc »

stickfigure wrote: post #79
6stringmerc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're telling me Andrew Huang's business model is to make derivative content devices, for profit, without permission or compensation from the original creators and/or rights holders? I don't find this litigant to be sympathetic in the least (the second one, Green, is much more reasonable - though redundant to the John Deere case going on). My initial impression is that I might actually want Huang to lose, if the…

I don't see the problem. I paid for some content, why shouldn't I be able to view it in my manner of preference? If I want to watch it mixed up with some funky third-party subtitles, or a chat window with my friends, why not? You're assuming that Andrew Huang's business model requires sharing content. Here's a practical application: Due to travel, sometimes my wife and I are apart when the latest Must Watch Episode o…

The problem with your initial paragraph is that you assume making derivative content is legal in one's own home, DMCA not withstanding. Outside of "actual" Four-Factor Test Fair Use, it's infringement. Making a device to enable it is highly suspect as a motivation for an outright repeal of the legislation.

You do know the app you describe wouldn't be illegal under the DMCA if your program was licensed by the rights holders, right? That's what we're getting to here. If Huang's post described how he went about trying to negotiate and make deals with the content providers his device wants to piggy back on, and they were terrible in response, that's a different game - I'd be a lot more sympathetic then, no doubt. Show me where he did the due diligence and crunched the numbers, really!

It certainly doesn't change the basis of argument being asinine when realistically DMCA protections don't get in the way of day-to-day Fair Use. It just takes some effort, not buying some Bunnie Studios box off the shelf so he can make a profit. That's what is so stupid about trying to digitally steamroll protections - any time a human can SEE or HEAR something they can find a way to jack it and do something. It's just reality.

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#326

Post by 6stringmerc »

greenshackle wrote: post #99
6stringmerc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're telling me Andrew Huang's business model is to make derivative content devices, for profit, without permission or compensation from the original creators and/or rights holders? I don't find this litigant to be sympathetic in the least (the second one, Green, is much more reasonable - though redundant to the John Deere case going on). My initial impression is that I might actually want Huang to lose, if the…

Yes, and VLC should have to pay movie publishers since they let users add subtitles over the video stream. That makes a lot of sense. /s

If you can't tell the difference between adding subtitles and making hard edits to video content then I'm sad for you, because it's a very easy distinction to make in the basics of how content, Copyright, and Fair Use work. Not /s

Re: Why I’m Suing the US Government

#327

Post by 6stringmerc »

ethbro wrote: post #322
6stringmerc wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and it happens day in and day out, and until I see drastic legal cases of enforcement going out and ruining companies and individual people and families I don't believe that the threat is particularly concerning. It exists, okay, and cleaning up 1201 would be great, but we're talking more about First Sale here in principle.

The ability to chill new development through ambiguously enforced law is just as important as the prohibitions actually in law.

Define new development - the security researcher has extremely valid standing, but "editing and chopping video" isn't new development in the phrasing this case presents.
Post reply on HN