2600.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Your Friendly Guide to the DMCA by bwt · 2000-01-28 00:10 · Score: 1 · on Crackdowns, Fools and the MPAA

Everyone should also read the transcript from the NY hearing.

1201(a)(2)(B) is what I assume will be the MPA[A]'s reponse to the defense that DeCSS was written to bridge the gap between DVD and Linux -- they'll make an effort to show that the possible illegal uses of DeCSS, regardless of its intended use, mean that Johansen should go to jail.

Indeed, reading the transcript above, the judge makes it clear that 1201(a)(2)(B) is the strongest arguement for the plaintiffs. Moreover, he notes this is not a 1201(b)(1) claim (this section bans distributing technology for copyright infringement as opposed to technology for circumventing access controlin (a)(2) ). In my opinion, cries of "Piracy!" would be (b)(1) claims, whereas "unathorized playback" would fall under (a)(2). The "Piracy!" claims are thus designed to mislead and sensationalize the issue.

...to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.

We must hammer this home: DVD licences "for home viewing only" and "fair use" both show that linux playback is not unathorized access, and thus no circumvention occurs to allow a claim under (a)(2). The playback right you purchase with the DVD, not with the player, and no "tying" can legally occur. Indeed such tying is anti-competitive and anti-consumer and perhaps runs afoul of antitrust laws. Even if access isn't authorized by the copyright holder (which it was, despite attempts to retroactively retract it) it is AUTHORIZED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT which forms the basis of "fair use" exceptions to copyright.

A better arguement still is that source code alone does not perform access. Perhaps compiling the source code in some case might be illegal, but the source itself does none of the activities bannable under (a)(2). Source code is no different that an instruction on how to do something.

the following section will probably be DeCSS's defense [...] (f) REVERSE ENGINEERING

Surprisingly, the defense did not go to town on this. In fact, they didn't even raise it very forcefully. Worse, the plaintiffs submitted a brief mentioned in the transcript (I don't have a link for this) in which they argue the bizarre idea that 1201(f) was only meant to protect computer programs and since movies aren't computer programs, the exception doesn't apply. Worse still, the JUDGE BOUGHT IT !!!! Uh, duh CSS is a computer program and a DVD contains computer files and so even under this compeletly bogus reading of 1201(f) it's allowed. Indeed reengineering of proprietary file format protocols is EXACTLY what is at hand.

This point was VERY POORLY ARGUED for the defense during the preliminary injunction hearing.

I stronly urge people to read the transcript in it's entirety. The judge came across as extremely biased. He seems to recognize that the code is speach but for some odd reason believes that copyright protections outweigh this EVEN THOUGH HE WON'T DISCUSS "FAIR USE".

Some Facts About The New York Hearing by Anonymous Coward · 2000-01-27 22:20 · Score: 4 · on Crackdowns, Fools and the MPAA

Has anyone here actually *read* the transcript from the New York hearing? The judge wasn't nearly as biased as he's being portrayed; a couple of really good points got made. The EFF lawyers actually infuriated the judge by not addressing the complaints of the suit directly.

The injunction was regarding the actual Windows program called "DeCSS", NOT the css-auth code, the algorithm whitepaper or any LiVid code. The judge himself says outright that "programming notes" are not being acted against in any way, and that he has no evidence that non-Windows clients even exist.

The secondary issue of controlled playback is being handled as exactly that - a secondary issue. The real issue here is the right to reverse engineer, and whether or not specific permission from the copyright owner is required to do so. *That* was the point that Ms. Gross and the EFF failed to address, and what pissed the judge off.

The most important point, though, is that this isn't a case of copyright infringement. It's a case of DMCA infringement under the "reverse engineering" and "copy protection circumvention" sections. This is a very important point.

Finally, the "giving them a runaway train" comment never in fact happened. The actual quote was:

"I do bear in mind the defendants' interest in speed here and in avoiding a prolonged duration for the preliminary injunction, and so, within the limits of my schedule, which is pretty clear at the moment, you can have a trial pretty near whenever you want.

So when do you want your trial? I think I'm free to start Tuesday."

Page 79, lines 23-25, and page 80, 1-4.

Read the transcript yourself at www.2600.com.

The email mirror at findcss@usa.net is still operational. Email a request for code, a mirror list or the whitepaper detailing how the algorithm is done. All emails will be deleted from the mailbox after the packages have been sent.

What MPA did NOT go after by BadDoggie · 2000-01-27 12:26 · Score: 4 · on Crackdowns, Fools and the MPAA

The Linux Journal article is very good but what hasn't been discussed at length should be raising more than a few legal arguments. The film industry (the US' single largest exporting industry) has not gone after software that nullifies regional codes. Why? It's illegal. In economics it's called "discriminatory pricing" and it's illegal in the US and most other signatories to various worldwide trade agreements. Charging different prices for the same item because of what people in various areas can afford to pay for the item is illegal. Selling some crappy Bruce Willis film for US$35 in the US, $55 in Germany and $15 in India is what they're doing, and sooner or later, the MPA is going to find their names after the "v." in some lawsuit. But not one started by the US government.

The crux of the argument against the MPA suits is that they do not have the right to control playback media and platforms, especially since the legal restriction of usable operating system is tantamount to requiring payments to Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of watching the DVD one already paid for (and such a similar statement was made by Judge Kaplan in the New York case when he said that playbility on a Linux machine was not necessarily a factor because "there are alternative bases that [he] already [has] outlined" -- meaning Judge Kaplan thinks Windows boxes are good enough for all of us [http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-tra ns.txt]).

Re:I'll print it out and send it to him in the mai by ronfar · 2000-01-26 05:03 · Score: 1 · on Kevin Mitnick Free Today

Nope, he can't even use a cell phone. However, he can use a typewriter or a standard phone, so the interview could happen.

Oh, and if the interview appears on Slashdot, someone from 2600 can print out the results for him (provided they don't show anything the authorities conclude is computer code... lest Kevin magically conjure a computer out of thin air with it.)

Kevin's restrictions are printed at 2600

Re:Sans feedback, we protest alone & in the dark. by |deity| · 2000-01-24 05:48 · Score: 1 · on Citizen Case, DVD-CCA, Napster, and MP3

I agree we should get together and show what we have done. Slashdot may or may not be the best place to do that though. Your idea of a metric is one that I agree with. We should have a page that gives a list of contacts and suggestions. We would also need a feedback page to allow people to show what they have done or heard about important issues to geeks and coders.

Sorry about the spelling and grammer. I went to public school. On a side note. I didn't want a seperate post. Mitnick may have been a criminal but the way he was treated shows a blatent disregard for cival liberties. Go get the full story at 2600 The companies involved gave false claims about the damage that mitnick did to their companies and then didn't report those losses to stockholders as they are required to do.

It's a matter of money. Look what OJ simpson got away with. If Mitnick had the kind of money that OJ did he would have been out of jail in months instead of years.

This is just spite by TheOneTruePope · 2000-01-21 11:02 · Score: 1 · on Preliminary Injunction Issued in DVD CCA Case

What we're seeing is pure spite on the part of the MPAA. If they aren't total idiots they must already realize that:
1)Nothing they can do can get rid of DeCSS at this point.
2)Even if they did manage to get rid of DeCSS, once DVD-R's drop below $600 and DVD blanks drop under $8 a piece, large numbers of people are going to begin copying DVDs.

In this light, the MPAA's actions take on a scary new signifigance. The MPAA represents the first large scale group to intentionaly attempt to destroy the internet. Previous threats have been from people/groups that simply wanted to make things better (in their opinion), not realizing or caring about the effects of this change (I don't think anyone would say that the Republican Communication's Dency Act was designed with the intent to destroy the internet, even though that would have been the effect).

The way this campain is being carried out seems to support my conclusion. Attacking 2600 can't slow the spread of DeCSS. All it can do, is piss a lot of people of and show off the MPAA's legal muscle.

It almost seems as if MPAA wants to bring together everyone who will fight with them so that they can have some sort of dramatic confrontation (expecially ironic, because that would be a very hollywood type of ending for this struggle).

Sad day by haus · 2000-01-21 10:33 · Score: 1 · on Preliminary Injunction Issued in DVD CCA Case

When I woke up this morning I thought that it would be a good news day, with Kevin being released from prison. But when I went to the 2600 site for an update and saw the first injunction I became depressed.

And now the other shoe drops. It seems to me that today we all get to experience a small amount of the insanity that Kevin has lived through every day for the last five years. We are on the verge of watching a decision made for us by a small group of people who lack the ability to understand the technology involved in the question, much less the ramifications of the final decision.

Hopefully our friends at the EFF can succeed in pulling us through this, by explaining this to a level that even the judges can understand [not a job that I envy]. In the mean time I would like to show my support by leaving up my mirror site.

all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut

Another Mirror by Axemaster · 2000-01-21 05:17 · Score: 1 · on Injunction Against 2600 for DeCSS

DeCSS

Just to put it all in one place; I know it's a tad redundant, but its nice to have it all in once place:

My Mirror of DeCSS
The Wired Article
01.21.00 2600 Served with Federal Injunction

Online tyrrany calls for real world activism by MAXOMENOS · 2000-01-21 01:54 · Score: 5 · on Injunction Against 2600 for DeCSS

2600 is calling for demonstrations against the MPAA, and I for one agree. We need to educate ordinary people on the fact that their right to free speech is in serious jeopardy thanks to the greed and stupidity of an organization (the MPAA) that fell for the DVD-security snake oil and can't admit that it's been had.

If you're not a member of EFF or the ACLU, join now.
If you are a member, or want to be more active, contact your local 2600 cell or Linux User's Group and help to organize a demonstration.
If you have a DVD player, and you're too sick to even look at it, consider donating it to a local Geeks with Guns outing, in exchange for plenty of photos. Post them on a website, and mail them to DVD CAA and the members of the MPAA (listed on the 2600 announcement of the injunction).
Consider buying a DeCSS source shirt; or if you're really radical, consider becoming a DOE (one of the 500+ anonyous people mentioned in the first injunction hearing).
Boycott movies and videos until the MPAA drops the lawsuit!
Most importantly: SPREAD THE WORD to other geeks and non-geeks. This is too important for us to keep silent!

This and the Etoy lawsuit are probably the most significant fights to hit our commmunity since the Clipper Chip fiasco. The lines are drawn, ladies and gentlemen; we need to fight with everything we've got to prevent Internet from becoming nothing but a huge, suburban shopping mall. Get involved in an historical fight and have something that you'll be proud to tell your kids and grandkids about, twenty years from now.

TOYWAR!!

2600 hit by preliminary injunction by PhilHibbs · 2000-01-20 20:40 · Score: 2 · on DVD CCA Part II - Waiting For The Judge

2600 have been hit by a preliminary injunction about the DeCSS, basically banning them from thinking about it.

2600 hit by preliminary injunction by PhilHibbs · 2000-01-20 20:40 · Score: 2 · on DVD CCA Part II - Waiting For The Judge

2600 have been hit by a preliminary injunction about the DeCSS, basically banning them from thinking about it.

2600 hit by preliminary injunction by PhilHibbs · 2000-01-20 20:39 · Score: 2 · on New DVD Lawsuits Filed by the MPAA (UPDATED)

2600 have been hit by a preliminary injunction about the DeCSS, basically banning them from thinking about it.

2600 hit by preliminary injunction by PhilHibbs · 2000-01-20 20:39 · Score: 2 · on New DVD Lawsuits Filed by the MPAA (UPDATED)

2600 have been hit by a preliminary injunction about the DeCSS, basically banning them from thinking about it.

Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction by heikkih · 2000-01-20 10:40 · Score: 1 · on MPAA Sending Out DMCA Demand Letters

celebrated a federal judge?s ruling that will force a group of New York-based Internet hackers to stop the posting

The same story is run on Yahoo.

However. It seems like the "group of New York-based Internet hackers" have struck back.
www.2600.com is still alive, while www.mpaa.org is unreachable for me :-)

Hey, here is even 2600's link to it all: http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1112.html .
While I'm into linking - OpenDVD.org got so me good facts on the matter at hand.

Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction by heikkih · 2000-01-20 10:40 · Score: 1 · on MPAA Sending Out DMCA Demand Letters

celebrated a federal judge?s ruling that will force a group of New York-based Internet hackers to stop the posting

The same story is run on Yahoo.

However. It seems like the "group of New York-based Internet hackers" have struck back.
www.2600.com is still alive, while www.mpaa.org is unreachable for me :-)

Hey, here is even 2600's link to it all: http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1112.html .
While I'm into linking - OpenDVD.org got so me good facts on the matter at hand.

Moderate this way up - people need to see this!! by Anonymous Coward · 2000-01-20 09:28 · Score: 0 · on MPAA Sending Out DMCA Demand Letters

As far as I know 2600's mirrors of the files is still working so I guess they are in contempt. So what now is the FBI going to come in and take everyone involved with 2600 to federal prison? Are they going to seize all of 2600's computer's and equipment? And what about the ruling in San Jose? Any word on that one? I am guessing the MPAA won this because everyone including the EFF didn't have the time to prepare a good case and probably their wasn't much of a "hacker" turn out at this case. Don't get me wrong, the EFF has been doing an excellent job, and I even read that they were going to ask for more time to prepare for a defense but I guess they didn't get it.

Mirrors part 1 by Anonymous Coward · 2000-01-19 02:42 · Score: 0 · on Corel Draw 9 for Linux Needs Beta Testers

Visit Humpin! (No, it's not what you think!)

Temporary restraining order DENIED!

Thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the organization and support provided by a few of our fellow defendants we are still here! Another hearing is scheduled for January 14th.

We would like to point out to all of the mirror sites with things like "fuck the lawyers" on them that it is because of a generous group of lawyers that we are still here. These lawyers are working for free (or much less than they could get by going over to the Dark Side) and don't deserve this kind of abuse.

Here is the EFF's stance on this case.

Save a copy of this web page now!

We have just been informed that the DVD Copy Control Association is seeking a restraining order against us (named as "Doe 28") for distributing DeCSS and linking to pages that distribute it and linking to pages that link to pages that distribute it.

Section 48 of this request states that we supposedly "have received notice through the MPA and refused to remove the information at issue". This is absolutely false! We have never received any such request (from the MPA or anybody else for that matter) and we obviously were not given the opportunity to refuse! Either Jared Bobrow needs to go back to law school or the DVD CCA needs to get a new firm. This is the kind of sloppy work that could get an important document thrown out.

Here is a 2600 story on this.

Explanation on legality of this information

The software (source as well as binaries) offered on this site can be freely redistributed because it was published under the GNU General Public License. The purpose of this software is not illegal copying of DVD disks. It is meant to provide information necessary to be able to program a DVD player for Linux. To do this, the CSS system needs to be incorporated in the player. Recently the (very weak) DVD content scrambling system was deciphered, freeing the way for a Linux DVD player. The CSS system is not a copy protection system, since it does not prevent copying of the disk. Writing information about the way an encryption scheme functions is completely legal. The source code and binaries on this site are completely legal too, since they contain no code from the DVD consortium or its members. The sources and programs on this site were written by third parties using clean-room reverse engineering methods which are (ready?) completly legal.

Attention www.rhythm.cx was hosting a list of mirrors for these files. That list of mirrors has been replaced with a page reading "This site has been taken down for legal reasons." Here's what the maintainer put on the site the day it was shut down:

NOTE (Thu, Nov 11, 12:17pm EST): I've recently been informed that a law firm which is likely to be one that would try get these mirrors taken down has been visiting this mirror site as well as others. With that said, there is a possibility that I may have to remove this site in the near future because like everyone else, I can't afford to go to court to fight it. Luckly, it seems fairly unlikely that any law firm will ever be able to get rid of all these mirrors at this point (there are currently 41 in 8 different countries and this list is growing every day). However, I have only seen very few mirror _lists_ like this one anyplace. If anyone has the resources, it might be wise to mirror this list of mirrors as well so that the right people will still know that these mirrors exist.

Here is a 2600 story with more details on how rhythm.cx was shut down.

Current Mirrors Last updated: Wed, Jan 19, 12:13am EST
Numbers are only for the maintainer's convenience

We apologize for the length of time between updates. This list has gotten quite large and thus more difficult to maintain.

Much thanks to this site for listing mirrors of the mirror lists.