Slashdot Mirror

Hollywood made their intentions clear today: Your computer no longer belongs to you, but to the corporations that provide "content" for it.

Today, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge William J. Elfving presided at a preliminary hearing in the case of the DVD Copyright Control Association versus... well, everyone. The judge heard arguments to determine if a Temporary Restraining Order should be imposed on the entire Internet forbidding the dissemination of the now-famous DeCSS decryption code.

I woke up this morning at 06:10, an abhorrent waking hour for a software geek. I then proceeded to do something which, if you know me at all, is completely out of character: I put on dress slacks, shirt, and a tie. I hadn't tied a tie in several years, so it took a couple of tries before I got it right. The drive to the courthouse in San Jose was amazingly uneventful. Highway 101 southbound during rush hour is ususally a complete mess.

I was one of the first to arrive at the courthouse. After having my bag X-rayed and depositing my set of screwdrivers with them, I found myself joining a growing group of people waiting for the court offices to open so that we could find out to which courtroom the case had been assigned. Some of the people present were well-known names to most Slashdotters, including Bruce Perens and John Gilmore. I imagine we were a bit of a conundrum for the law enforcement officers present, no doubt used to parades of well-dressed lawyers who, unlike us, know exactly what to do and where to go.

At 08:15, the offices opened, and counsel for the plaintiffs filed their complaint, which was assigned a case number. We then made our way to courtroom two on the second floor, awaiting the doors to open. By the time the doors opened, we numbered about thirty people. Plaintiff's counsel pretty much kept to themselves, while we made a slight racket talking to each other. One individual (don't know who) started passing out copies of the DeCSS code, both in printed form and on repurposed Microsoft Office setup floppies. One such set was handed jovially to plaintiff's counsel.

Interviews were also being conducted by, among others, a reporter from WiReD Magazine, and Tracy Romine for KCBS radio.

Eventually, the doors opened, and we all became quiet as church mice and filed into the courtroom. Once counsels for both sides were ready, Judge Elfving was announced and entered, and court was in session.

Appearing for the plaintiffs were three lawyers from the law firm representing the DVD CCA. Appearing for the defense were two lawyers from the EFF. Of the fifteen or so named defendants and the 500 John Does named in the DVD CCA's complaint, only one appeared in court, summons in hand, whom the EFF were representing.

The hearing was to hear the filing of the complaint, and to consider imposing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which would forbid everyone named in the complaint (basically the entire Internet) from further distributing the DeCSS code. If imposed, this order would be effective until the date of the next hearing, at which will be considered imposing a much longer-lasting Preliminary Injunction.

The first order of business was to set the date for the next hearing, and the dates for the filing of notices, papers and arguments prior to that hearing. The next hearing to consider the Preliminary Injunction will be at 13:30, 14 January, 2000.

Finally, we got to oral arguments for and against imposing a TRO. At this point my report gets hazy, as I didn't start banging out notes until after the recess. Basically, plaintiff's counsel repeated the main thrust of the complaint arguing that, if left unchecked, irreparable, serious harm would befall the DVD CCA, numerous Silicon Valley firms, the movie industry and, presumably, the American way of life. Counsel also produced the copy of the DeCSS code which he'd been handed earlier, and asked that it be admitted into evidence, and requested that its contents be sealed. This request drew polite laughter from the gallery. The Judge nevertheless agreed to the request, in the interests of not prejudicing the case, and admitted the exhibits and sealed them.

EFF counsel then began, and proceeded to characterize this case as hinging on freedom of speech. They drew upon numerous citations, including a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that code is speech. Defense made note of the fact that, in free speech cases, prior restraint of speech is presumptively invalid unless extraordinary circumstances are present.

The EFF also noted that the true original source of the DeCSS code is not known, therefore characterizations about its origins are speculative. Plaintiffs assert that it was obtained illegally; defense asserts there's no evidence or inference to that effect.

The EFF then went on to debunk the plaintiff's claim of irreparable, serious harm. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that sales of DVD discs, DVD players, and DVD encryption licenses have suffered due to the release of DeCSS. Defense made the revealing statement that DVD discs may be copied without the use of DeCSS.

Defense also drew notice to a similar case in Chicago concerning door locks being reverse-engineered by locksmiths; the lock manufacturer attempted to sue for theft of trade secrets, and lost.

Plaintiff's counsel then rebutted the EFF's arguments, claiming that this case had nothing whatever to do with free speech; that in no way were the plaintiffs seeking to quash discussion about this case. They asserted that this was a clear-cut case concerning misappropriation of trade secrets, and that all they claimed they were interested in was halting further dissemination of their trade secrets. They asserted that all parties "know, or should have known," that the DeCSS code was obtained illegally.

DVD CCA's arguments seem to hinge rather pivotally on the license "agreement" that accompanys the Xing player. CCA states that, in order to be able to use the software, you must become a party to an "agreement" that, among other things, forbids reverse-engineering. If the "agreement" is binding, then the Xing keys were extracted in violation of it, and thus the DeCSS code is illegal. (I wrote a long editorial on the subject of shrinkwrap "agreements", and why they are ethically and legally indefensible. It may be found here.)

The plaintiff then went on to assert that, if a TRO was not granted, a campaign would ensue on the Internet to spread the DeCSS code as far and wide as possible, until it finally reached the hands of an "innocent person" who could not reasonably be shown that they "should have known" the code was illegal, at which point CCA's trade secrets would be lost forever.

The EFF took the floor again, and cited the recent cryptography case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was found that computer code is speech, and thus protectible under First Amendment auspices. They reasserted that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the disputed material was obtained improperly.

EFF also made the point that the Xing player may be inspected and analyzed without ever seeing the "license" that purports to govern its use. CCA tried to claim, "Hacking around the license is itself improper," but the EFF lawyer corrected him, saying, "I did not suggest hacking was employed."

Finally, Judge Elfving retired to his chambers to consider the arguments, and court was adjourned.

Our group filed out of the courtroom, and eventually ended up in the courtyard outside. There were some members of the press conducting additional interviews, including Tracy Romine of KCBS radio, who interviewed Bruce Perens, John Gilmore, and also snagged a soundbite from me.

Most of the group then wandered off to have lunch at a Cuban restaurant selected by Chris DiBona, which I couldn't find, so I settled for the nearest Hobee's for a very late breakfast. Afterwards, I headed back to the courthouse, made another trip through the metal detector (they didn't take my screwdrivers this time), and went upstairs to courtroom #2 to see if there were any new developments. No one knew if the judge had rendered his decision yet, so I sat down in the hall and started to write this report.

As I did so, at around 14:30, Judge Elfving walked past. I asked if he had rendered a decision on the TRO yet. He said he was still studying the issues and would have a decision by the end of the afternoon.

Sometime later, Dan "Karma Whore" Kaminsky ( :-) ) walked up, and we got to chatting about the case, the Internet, the nature of digital media and its social and economic implications, the legitimacy of shrinkwrap "licenses", and so on. Around 16:30, we were joined by a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, and asked us about what had brought us there.

Dan focused on his desire to play DVDs on his Linux box, asking the question, "Why shouldn't I be able to do that? More important, why should a movie studio have the power to tell me I can't do that?"

I preferred to focus on preserving the freedom to explore. "I taught myself about computers by taking apart other people's stuff, understanding how it works, and using that knowledge to build new stuff. I have a good job today because I had the freedom to make those explorations and gain the knowledge and skills I now have. They're trying to tell me that's illegal. I don't buy it."

The reporter also asked what possible reason, other than copying, could there be for DeCSS to exist? I tried (probably unsuccessfully) to draw a parallel to that neato display hack, Cthugha. Since the images generated by Cthugha are the direct result of the copyrighted digital data coming off the CD, are the generated images therefore covered by the same copyright? Since the publishers of the CD didn't explicitly grant the right to use their CD in this particular way, does that make it illegal, or even unethical, to do so?

While we were discussing this, around 16:30, one of the court employees emerged from the judge's chambers and informed us that the request for the Temporary Restraining Order had been denied. We got a brief look at the document issued from the judge. No reason was given for the denial; it was simply the proposed order written by the plaintiffs, with the TRO sections crossed out, effectively turning it into a notice as to when the next hearing would occur. Judge Elfving was unavailable for comment.

And thus ended an unusually long and interesting day. The San Jose Mercury reporter left, and Dan and I parted ways. I headed home and finished this report. Traffic on Highway 101 was, once again, astonishingly good for five PM.

The next hearing is at 13:30, 14 January, 2000. It's a Friday afternoon. I expect the session to be packed.

Schwab

Site is /.'ed, so this might be redundant...

I've actually done this before (a long time ago). A mirror, a lens, a box, and an old monitor and voila! But it's not as K-RAD as you might expect.

You lose A LOT of brightness from the expansion (imagine the brightness of a 14"er spread over a 6'x6' square!), from lens impurities (it's plasitc for christs-sake!), and from 'leakage'. This last one will KILL this project. If you try this, make SURE you enclose the box and paint it with matte black paint on the inside. Turn the brightness on your monitor up FULL-BLAST (BEWARE: I'm convinced this is what killed 1024x768 on my 14" throw-away). Also, close all your windows and shut off all the lights. Ambient light will force your pupils open and you won't be able to see the screen clearly.

The lens was $3 (!) at the local surplus store. My brother tells me it can double as an asphalt melter, but I've never tried. :) A 12"x14" mirror was only a few bucks, too.

I use this setup to have a CTHUGA box (486 w/ DOS, no flames, please) playing constantly in my living room. It's a very entertaining thing for me and my friends when it's all fired up, and with a program like Cthugha, the slight blurring kinda works to it's advantage. (if you've never seen/heard of Cthugha, you've missed the coolest thing I've even seen on a computer: http://www.afn.org/~cthugha )

Not exactly perfect for games, but definitely a fun geek project for a weekend. If anyone has any questions, don't hesistate to email me.

Bart "We don't need no stinkin' accounts" Grantham
grant_b@cs.odu.edu


PS - Add MAME to the mix and rock on out with some Ms PacMan. Don't deny that is what computers are for!

Scryer said:

Somebody running MapBlast told me the location is in Glen Echo, MD in a CIA parking lot. I wonder whether it was a parking lot in 1980. Think "ID BY ROWS" could relate to parking lot rows?

Well, from what I've been able to find out, yes, it may be in a CIA parking lot. However, it is in Virginia rather than in Maryland. ;)

For those who are interested in seeing for yourself where it is, I've got maps from various online map services and posted the lot of them here. Have fun ;)

>I certainly can't imagine doing anything in front >of the computer on acid!

What about Cthugha? 8-P