This Company and their software

[artsunlimited]

I'm with Cats4U on this one. Circumventing the AACS protection means AACS sues you. Circumventing Widevine would be in the hands of Google, PlayReady would be Microsoft and FairPlay would be Apple.

If it was the MPAA suing then i would say it covers AACS, Widevine, PlayReady and FairPlay.

In theory, the AACS could win and seize the DVDFab domains but another corporate entity that isn't a subsidiary could own StreamFab and its websites.

I know a ton of shit concerning IT but absolutely nothing of copyright law so i am figuratively talking out of my ass

That why the lawsuit reads "JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and/or XYZ COMPANY" - that covers anyone doing business under another name, but not recognizing that said other name is an independent legal entity, as well as covers their asses in case the claim should've actually been brought against XYZ Company as a separate legal entity. (This is also why IT is a heckuva lot more interesting than IP law.) StreamFab wasn't a thing AFAIK in 2014, but it appears to be a subsidiary of DVDFab or else somehow part of the FengTao family.

You're quite correct in that circumventing the AACS protection means AACS has the grounds to sue you, but under its 193 PAGE ARE YOU KIDDING ME HERE adopter agreement as the Licensor, AASCLA makes it clear that Widevine, FairPlay and PlayReady are considered to be among its Trusted Source Mark Allowed Technologies or TSMAT. So it does appear if anyone circumvents Widevine or any content protection system on their allowed technology list, they could ultimately be dealing with AASCLA as this agreement does seem to give them standing.

[Sebastian001]

We send Wilson to the witness stand :-)

[NewMelle]

my goodness, it's more exciting than your Trump trials....

I haven't watched the news in decades and all the better for it. I figure whatever they're fighting about these days let em fight it out. Fewer to get rid of when the dust settles.

But in the end, what does that mean for us?

Probably nothing. As SF is moving towards a full blown screen recorder instead of a direct downloader (circumventing DRM) by the time any of the litigation comes to a head (if it ever does), if it even applies to SF, SF will no longer be decrypting anything and just like so many other things they've copied can then also copy MovPilot's decryption disclaimer of not circumventing DRM.

I have a few suggestions for the new direction, and yes, I am being facetious.

[artsunlimited]

my goodness, it's more exciting than your Trump trials....

But in the end, what does that mean for us?

Oh, who knows at this point. If SF hasn't figured out going into the fifth month that they don't have the in-house talent to crack even one DRM, don't look for them to get wise to it and hire someone who can do the job anytime soon. If they find they can peddle an overpriced screen recorder to the gullible with some success and slap on a few more porn modules, then that's what they'll do.

China is a signatory to the1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which basically means it will likely enforce foreign arbitral awards from recognized foreign arbitral bodies, like a US Federal Court. What they're less likely to do is enforce default awards based on a failure to show up for a foreign arbitration the defendant knows they'll lose, which the 2023 order basically was, and Chinese companies count on that.

But SF may be reluctant to put forth any real financial effort to start decrypting things if they think they'll have to shut up shop soon, so my guess is that either way, we won't get a direct downloader back again.

[jpp72]

I'm with Cats4U on this one. Circumventing the AACS protection means AACS sues you. Circumventing Widevine would be in the hands of Google, PlayReady would be Microsoft and FairPlay would be Apple.

If it was the MPAA suing then i would say it covers AACS, Widevine, PlayReady and FairPlay.

In theory, the AACS could win and seize the DVDFab domains but another corporate entity that isn't a subsidiary could own StreamFab and its websites.

I know a ton of shit concerning IT but absolutely nothing of copyright law so i am figuratively talking out of my ass

[artsunlimited]

I still stand behind what I previously wrote. I don't think this AACS lawsuit directly applies to StreamFab (or MusicFab). Perhaps another lawsuit will follow in the future from the organization that handles streaming copyright violations, but I don't see where AACS has any standing for that.
As for the service to Tao, they made the mistake of hiring a lawyer and even acknowledging that anyone in the US had any jurisdiction over them. They should have just hid behind the bamboo curtain.

If you're thinking only video content on DVDs, then that would make sense. But as it's pre-recorded media, the AACS might also consider online content like streaming video to be part of its content distribution system since it's actually pre-recorded content. I can't see that there's a loophole to allow for downloading streaming copyrighted content in the injunction.
The question is whether there's any teeth in enjoining credit cards to cease providing services to them by processing payments. I suspect there isn't.

Doing anything to acknowledge AACSLA had filed against them was probably not wise, but as there are probably ways to prove an email has been received, this way they dragged out the suit for a good 9 years. AACSLA was pretty clever in serving Feng Tao himself by email, since The Hague Service Convention permits alternative service methods, such as mail or email, if the State of designation doesn't object. Thing is, when China adopted the Convention, it DID object to those alternative service methods, so if a US company wants to serve a Chinese company in China, they need to make requests for service to the Ministry of Justice of China, which would then forward the documents to the requisite Chinese court to serve the documents.

It's time consuming, but it doesn't necessarily mean that DVDFab/Feng Tao Software wouldn't ultimately be served, and as soon as that happens, the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed is established. But as they listed Feng Tao himself as dba DVDFab and Fengtao Software, they didn't limit the complaint to just a company, so I believe that allowed them to circumvent China's refusal to accept alternative methods for service.

[Sebastian001]

my goodness, it's more exciting than your Trump trials....

But in the end, what does that mean for us?

[NewMelle]

Gibson is the most sue-happy lazy redneck company in the world and if they can't do anything no one can.

[Cats4U]

I still stand behind what I previously wrote. I don't think this AACS lawsuit directly applies to StreamFab (or MusicFab). Perhaps another lawsuit will follow in the future from the organization that handles streaming copyright violations, but I don't see where AACS has any standing for that.
As for the service to Tao, they made the mistake of hiring a lawyer and even acknowledging that anyone in the US had any jurisdiction over them. They should have just hid behind the bamboo curtain.

[artsunlimited]

LMAO!!!! So true!

*snerk*

[NewMelle]

LMAO!!!! So true!

[artsunlimited]

My head hurts! artsunlimited my friend you have a Titanium constitution. I mean that in a good way. If I'm ever in trouble I know who to contact! And with my temper?

Legal people can complicate the F out of a potato! This is why I moved to the boonies, put up no trespassing signs and a warning sign indicating I have 19 acres to hide the bodies.

Rather than firing up the backhoe, you'd be much better off claiming insufficient service of any and all complaints because your crank-up internet connection is gawdawful!

Not one single judge who experienced it for themselves would think of denying the motion.

[NewMelle]

My head hurts! artsunlimited my friend you have a Titanium constitution. I mean that in a good way. If I'm ever in trouble I know who to contact! And with my temper?

Legal people can complicate the F out of a potato! This is why I moved to the boonies, put up no trespassing signs and a warning sign indicating I have 19 acres to hide the bodies.

[artsunlimited]

I finally got around to reading the court case. I'm not so sure if I agree with your assessment about "all circumventing activity". I don't think this has anything directly to do with StreamFab. According to the AACS website, they only deal with security of optical products. All the programs that are listed as conducting circumventing activity are all those that we usually associate with DVDFab DVD and Blu-ray products. DVDFab Streaming products, such as StreamFab and MusicFab, use a different copyright protection not represented by AACS (Widevine, PlayReady, Fairplay). Of course, if the injunction closes down domain names, websites, distributors, and financial resources, that will surely have a major effect on StreamFab and MusicFab.

I'm going to have to reread it again, but I can't understand why Tao ever responded back to the preliminary injunction in the first place. They are sitting pretty in China where most of the world's laws don't apply. As far as I know, email is not a valid method of serving papers. I think the magistrate just closed his eyes to those facts, and it should have gone through the Hague.

They're enjoined from trafficking anything that circumvents AACS technology "including but not limited to the DVDFab Software" - but since AACSLA does claim it "facilitates the ability to offer exciting, new, flexible entertainment experiences for consumers to enjoy in stand-alone, networked home and portable device environments," it sounds like it might cover streaming video and not just DVD technology. The injunction enjoins them from further use of any domain names and website where "circumventing activities take place." StreamFab may be advertised "since 2019" but it's advertised on, and can be downloaded from, the DVDFab site, so it may fall under that umbrella. It also enjoins "any banks, savings and loan associations, merchant account providers, payment processors and providers, credit card associations, or other financial institutions which receive or process payments or hold assets on Defendants’ behalf" to stop providing services to them.

I also would've not responded after the court awarded AACSLA that preliminary injunction in March of 2014 by default since Feng Tao et al didn't appear, but his counsel filed a motion to amend it on April Fools' Day - which is pretty ironic, if nothing else. You can motion a lawsuit to the moon and back to delay it, but by April 2016 AACSLA was demanding that Feng Tao et al be found in contempt of the preliminary injunction and demanding a second one be issued, which it was. Feng Tao filed what's known as an interlocutory appeal in the Second Circuit Court, which is an appeal of a non-final order that's been issued while litigation is ongoing, and actually won that one in 2017. It's only after that, in 2018, when they were probably giddy that they'd won something, that Feng Tao's counsel filed the motion to dismiss AACSLA's complaint based on insufficient service of process (which was doomed to fail since four years of legal motions demonstrated that Feng Tao certainly had knowledge that he'd been served), and the next day AACSLA filed for a default judgment. 11 months later Feng Tao's motion to dismiss due to insufficient service was denied, and an order of default judgment against Feng Tao et al was entered.

Then in 2019, Feng Tao et al filed an opposition brief and there were further back and forth motions about that. They also argued insufficient service for a second time, this time for AACSLA's injunction order, claiming service had to be done according to The Hague Convention - the idea here was if AACSLA couldn't serve Feng Tao personally in China, then any injunction order would essentially be unenforceable (remember that AACSLA claimed they could never come up with a physical address for him, which is why he was originally served by email.)

The problem is, their counsel couldn't cite any case law - and worse, the brief quoted from a statute that specifically states that an order granting an injunction binds those “who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise" - since Feng Tao was represented by counsel and had obviously received actual notice of other filings through the ECF (Electronic Case Filing) system, claiming he hadn't received those notices 4 years into a lawsuit was a non-starter, so oops. Feng Tao et al’s request to require service of the plaintiff's permanent injunction in accordance with The Hague Convention was denied.

Email is actually considered a valid method of service for courts here in the US, as long as the plaintiff can establish that the e-mail is likely to reach the defendant, and can demonstrate due diligence to obtain a physical address so that more traditional forms of service can be carried out. AACSLA hired private investigators to suss out Fen Tao's address, apparently to no avail, while Feng Tao refuted this, claiming it was easy to find his physical location.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE - Feng Tao tried insufficient service yet again in July 2023, but as he'd earlier admitted to having received the summons and complaint by email in February 2014, and a lawyer from another firm contacted him that same month offering its legal services because he was being sued in the US, and because he'd also extensively participated in pretrial motions, it was dismissed. Courts usually consider that knowledge of a suit combined with pretrial activity on the defendant's part is essentially a waiver of any insufficient service claims by the defense, especially where any delay due to motions of insufficient service has been to the detriment of the plaintiff’s case. You can't actively participate in your own defense before the trial even starts and then several years into that same trial claim you had no idea you were being sued because you weren't properly served.

[Cats4U]

Fast forward to August 21, 2023* when a permanent injunction against Feng Tao et al was granted on AACSLA's behalf, with damages of $14,927,000. That injunction covers "all circumventing activity," not just DVD encryption, which was the focus of the original 2014 suit, and calls for disabling all the DVDFab websites. I have no further info regarding whether SF plans to comply, or if there any other legal filings on behalf of either party.

I finally got around to reading the court case. I'm not so sure if I agree with your assessment about "all circumventing activity". I don't think this has anything directly to do with StreamFab. According to the AACS website, they only deal with security of optical products. All the programs that are listed as conducting circumventing activity are all those that we usually associate with DVDFab DVD and Blu-ray products. DVDFab Streaming products, such as StreamFab and MusicFab, use a different copyright protection not represented by AACS (Widevine, PlayReady, Fairplay). Of course, if the injunction closes down domain names, websites, distributors, and financial resources, that will surely have a major effect on StreamFab and MusicFab.

I'm going to have to reread it again, but I can't understand why Tao ever responded back to the preliminary injunction in the first place. They are sitting pretty in China where most of the world's laws don't apply. As far as I know, email is not a valid method of serving papers. I think the magistrate just closed his eyes to those facts, and it should have gone through the Hague.