Slashdot Mirror

Computers that use the Linux operating system. Windows- and Macintosh-based computers can play DVDs, so is it fair to deprive the Linux community?

The Linux argument is a false issue. It has always been in the interest of the Motion Picture industry that there be as many legitimately licensed DVD players as possible, including those using non-Windows operating systems. However the argument that DeCSS was written for Linux players is simply false. The De-CSS utility was written for Windows-based software, not Linux.

Also, the development of two, separate, licensed DVD players for Linux systems - which use the CSS system - were recently announced. Sigma Designs (www.sigmadesigns.com) and InterVideo Inc. (www.intervideo.com) both announced the roll-out of LICENSED, LEGAL Linux-based DVD players.

The irony is there isn't a sigmadesigns.com and InterVideo is still trying to roll out their LICENSED, LEGAL Linux-based DVD player, meanwhile anyone with the mind to can use DeCSS to do it now. One would think the MPAA would have a vested interest in speeding the production of a Linux based DVD player just to quell this argument.

I understand and appreciate your point, but this is far more than DVD support under Linux.

CSS is control access, not copy protection like the official MPAA site claims. CSS does NOTHING to stop copying. If I have an encoded message on a piece of paper, I don't need to decrypt it to xerox it.

What the DMCA provides is a method to prosecute access violations. For example, if I want to make a DVD that is only viewable by white people, I can. And viewing by a black person is illegal and prosecutable under the DMCA. Think I'm joking? An author of a protected work can set whatever limitations they want and the DMCA makes circumvention of that protection illegal.

So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest. Almost any type of protest is going to disturb bystanders - think of this week's oil blocade in France or the Seattle protests last year. The relevant question is, "does this do more good than harm, does this advance the cause?" I think it succeeds in spades.

My .02
Quux26

note--the parent post makes a lot more sense if you read its title--"The Alternative outcome."

>Now if only there was a link from mpaa.org to Warner Brothers, and so on up the ladder, they'd be illegal themselves...

hmm.. you mean the link I just saw on their link-page? :)

//rdj

Gotta wonder...

• Warner Brothers is a subsidiary of Time Warner, right?
• Didn't AOL buy Time Warner sometime this past year or so?
• Does AOL run a search-engine?
• does it link to illegal DeCSS content? (Yup. 94 items in the list, less than 3 hops from source-code. See http://search.aol.com/dirsearch.adp ?query=DeCSS)?

So... AOL's illegal? Am I missing anything here?

I'm waiting for the MPAA to sue the parent corporation of one of their member companies any day now... All it would take would be one comment/complaint to hotline@mpaa.org

Now if only there was a link from mpaa.org to Warner Brothers, and so on up the ladder, they'd be illegal themselves...

Start here, at the MPAA's "Related Sites" page.

Look near the bottom of that page, and follow the link called "United States Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Business Affairs," which will lead you here.

Now, click that ugly ass purple "Business FAQ" button, which will lead you here

Scroll down until you find a link to "State and Local Government on the Net", in the answer to the fifth question from the bottom. That will lead you here.

Now, there's a big 'ol box on the left that lets you search Google! Type in "DeCSS", and find a mirror near you! So boys and girls, let me ask one little question:

Q - Who should go to jail?

A - The MPAA and the United States Government!

Ya know, I should be an attorney instead of an engineer... this is just too easy...

--

Well, there you have it, a simple way to get to DeCSS from MPAA and Buena Vista (AKA:Disney). Have fun and remember that stealing isn't right, but neither is stopping free speach by threatening lawsuits.

Mage...

Well, there you have it, a simple way to get to DeCSS from MPAA and Buena Vista (AKA:Disney). Have fun and remember that stealing isn't right, but neither is stopping free speach by threatening lawsuits.

Mage...

..at some point on the mpaa site, there has to be an outside link that will eventually lead to a search engine or some other site that discusses the decss code.

Simple. Off of their "related sites" page is a link to Warner Bros. Warner's "search" link allows you to search "the web." Enter DeCSS. Voila.

MPAA => foot => mouth. Whee.

Why don't you let the MPAA know how you feel about their actions?

Their website is here , or give the nice folks a call at 818-995-6600. (Don't want to burn your nickel? Try dialpad.com.

"The Whiney Complainer" Pokrefke

FWIW - my laptop doesn't even have a DVD player!

If you look at the list of companies that will match the donations to the EFF made by their employees, you will find Sony Pictures Entertainment, Walt Disney and Twentieth Century Fox for example (all members of the MPAA. See About the MPAA).

With big corporations like these behind us, finding funds to help win the DeCSS should be easy...

Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.

I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.

I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.

____________________

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.

The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• DVD-CCA, licensors of CSS, and currently in court trying to prevent the spread of DeCSS,
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

Back when this whole thing started, Judge Kaplan ordered 2600 to remove the DeCSS code from the web site. Emmanuel Goldstein made a hard decision to comply with the order. The alternative would have been to practice civil disobedience, to refuse and get himself thrown in jail. Although it may have made people think of King or Ganhdi, it was more likely that the MPAA and Valenti would have successfully spun it in their favor. The media was certainly leaning that way, anyway, so 2600 had to appear to be fighting the good fight, keeping it nice and legal.

The same injunction scared off most of the other defendants, into settling separately and keeping themselves out of court. This ruling will now prohibit linking, despite the fact it may not hold up in a higher court. With the ruling, the MPAA has the clout it needs to go after other sites, which will probably bow out and let 2600 do all the fighting.

Judge Kaplan's decision gave the impression that the MPAA won, which gives them the freedom to say all sorts of things , such as that the DMCA has been proven to be constitutional, that DeCSS is only a tool for piracy, and that the 2600 group are just hackers, like the hackers that brought us the Melissa and Love Bug viruses. In the minds of many non-technical citizens (which is still the voting majority), as well as lawmakers, this is now the truth.

This is not a judge wimping out, or a sly tactical move. This move ignores the big issues (copyright, reverse engineering, Free Speech), and delivers a victory to the MPAA and corporate interests. It gains the MPAA a large slice of public opinion, and makes the opposition feel a little more desperate. Maybe Kaplan isn't hoping for the higher-ups to make the decision for him, but instead for some pissed-off teenager to start doing rash things, like breaking into the MPAA site, or posting movies to his web page with a message like "F**K MPAA! I USED DeCSS TO CRACK THE MATRIX! POWER TO 2600!", so that the MPAA will actually have evidence that DeCSS was used for pirating.

I hope 2600 wins the next round, and eventually in the Supreme Court, but I'm sure he's aware that his own fans may be his biggest liability. I hope they can restrain themselves.

"and it's hard to see the writing through the flames." - Flaming Lips

At the bottom of the 2600 article, it reads: We would give out an address for the MPAA but they've been blocking e-mail for some time and blaming hackers for every problem they have. So give them a call at (818) 995-6600 from 9 am to 5:30 pm Pacific Time. Be civil but make sure you get your point across. After all, where do you think that $4 million ultimately comes from?

So, I called. The call went something like...

MPAA-Drone #1: Hello, Motion Picture Association of America.

Me: Hello, I'd like to speak to somebody about the DeCSS case.

MD1: The what?

Me: The DeCSS case.

MD1: Ok, um... [fumbles around] Let me transfer you.

MPAA-Drone #2: So-and-so's office, how can I help you?

Me: I'd like to know if the MPAA has an official position on the recent DeCSS ruling.

MD2: You want what? In what capacity would you like to know?

Me: I am a consumer of many of the MPAA's fine products, and would like to discuss the DeCSS case.

MD2: [thinks long and hard] OK, let me transfer you...

Emily Cutner: Hello, MPAA PR dept. How can I help you?

Me: Hello, I would like to discuss the DeCSS case with a representative of the MPAA.

EC: Well, we would greatly prefer it if you would send us your opinions via Email. You see, we have only a few legal analysts on staff [ed: yeah right!] and they are busy pursuing other matters. With Email, your digital voice can be heard, and we will gladly respond. Also, please check out our web page, where we have a FAQ [etc. etc.]

Me: Well, who should I send my Email to?

EC: I am the PR Manager for Anti-piracy. My email address is emily_cutner@mpaa.org.

Me: You mean that anyone who wants to express their opinion about the DeCSS case shoudl feel free to email you personally?

EC: That's right.

Me: Well, thanks so very much.

At the bottom of the 2600 article, it reads: We would give out an address for the MPAA but they've been blocking e-mail for some time and blaming hackers for every problem they have. So give them a call at (818) 995-6600 from 9 am to 5:30 pm Pacific Time. Be civil but make sure you get your point across. After all, where do you think that $4 million ultimately comes from?

So, I called. The call went something like...

MPAA-Drone #1: Hello, Motion Picture Association of America.

Me: Hello, I'd like to speak to somebody about the DeCSS case.

MD1: The what?

Me: The DeCSS case.

MD1: Ok, um... [fumbles around] Let me transfer you.

MPAA-Drone #2: So-and-so's office, how can I help you?

Me: I'd like to know if the MPAA has an official position on the recent DeCSS ruling.

MD2: You want what? In what capacity would you like to know?

Me: I am a consumer of many of the MPAA's fine products, and would like to discuss the DeCSS case.

MD2: [thinks long and hard] OK, let me transfer you...

Emily Cutner: Hello, MPAA PR dept. How can I help you?

Me: Hello, I would like to discuss the DeCSS case with a representative of the MPAA.

EC: Well, we would greatly prefer it if you would send us your opinions via Email. You see, we have only a few legal analysts on staff [ed: yeah right!] and they are busy pursuing other matters. With Email, your digital voice can be heard, and we will gladly respond. Also, please check out our web page, where we have a FAQ [etc. etc.]

Me: Well, who should I send my Email to?

EC: I am the PR Manager for Anti-piracy. My email address is emily_cutner@mpaa.org.

Me: You mean that anyone who wants to express their opinion about the DeCSS case shoudl feel free to email you personally?

EC: That's right.

Me: Well, thanks so very much.

Check out MPAA's FAQ. Then, read up, you'll understand that they are lying to you. The truth doesn't count there, it's the $ and the $ only.

Just for note on the MPAA 'about' page, these companies are listed as members of the MPAA, amongst others:

Walt Disney Company
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
Universal Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros.

I don't have a list of the subsideries. What you do with this info is up to you.

"Computer code is not purely expressive any more than the assassination of a political figure is purely a political statement"
Judge Kaplan

Stuart Biegel commented "I'm very troubled by the implications of the analysis in this case, particularly with regard to linking"

Too Right. Try these... (with excerpts for your convenience)

MPAA
"In 1955 he met the man who would have the largest impact on his life, the then Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, Lyndon B. Johnson. Valenti's agency was in charge of the press during the visit of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Texas. Valenti was in the motorcade in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Within hours of the murder of John F. Kennedy, Valenti was on Air Force One flying back to Washington, the first newly hired special assistant to the new President."

CIA
"President Kennedy's Checklist was published daily for two and a half years, capturing the regular attention of the President and serving his needs. Created out of an almost desperate desire to please a President who had found the Agency wanting, it proved to be the forerunner of the President's Daily Brief, the publication that was to serve all presidents from 1964 to the present.

For reasons undoubtedly growing out of the earlier political rivalry between Kennedy and Johnson, Kennedy's intelligence assistant, Bromley Smith, early in the administration had ordered that "under no circumstances should the Checklist be given to Johnson."

The Transition to President Johnson

The transition to President Johnson was as abrupt for the US Intelligence Community as it was for the rest of the country. In some respects, it was also as uncertain

Saturday morning, 23 November 1963, the day following Kennedy's assassination
The new President's Daily Brief, designed specifically for President Johnson, was delivered to the White House on 1 December 1964. Its fresh appearance obviously appealed to the President. His assistant, Jack Valenti, sent the first issue back to Bundy with word that the President read it, liked it, and wanted it continued."

Jack Valenti
"My greatest achievement? I survived - I'm not joking."

Niether Am I... Check out The List - JFK Assassination Key People

JFK

"Computer code is not purely expressive any more than the assassination of a political figure is purely a political statement"
Judge Kaplan

Stuart Biegel commented "I'm very troubled by the implications of the analysis in this case, particularly with regard to linking"

Too Right. Try these... (with excerpts for your convenience)

MPAA
"In 1955 he met the man who would have the largest impact on his life, the then Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, Lyndon B. Johnson. Valenti's agency was in charge of the press during the visit of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Texas. Valenti was in the motorcade in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Within hours of the murder of John F. Kennedy, Valenti was on Air Force One flying back to Washington, the first newly hired special assistant to the new President."

CIA
"President Kennedy's Checklist was published daily for two and a half years, capturing the regular attention of the President and serving his needs. Created out of an almost desperate desire to please a President who had found the Agency wanting, it proved to be the forerunner of the President's Daily Brief, the publication that was to serve all presidents from 1964 to the present.

For reasons undoubtedly growing out of the earlier political rivalry between Kennedy and Johnson, Kennedy's intelligence assistant, Bromley Smith, early in the administration had ordered that "under no circumstances should the Checklist be given to Johnson."

The Transition to President Johnson

The transition to President Johnson was as abrupt for the US Intelligence Community as it was for the rest of the country. In some respects, it was also as uncertain

Saturday morning, 23 November 1963, the day following Kennedy's assassination
The new President's Daily Brief, designed specifically for President Johnson, was delivered to the White House on 1 December 1964. Its fresh appearance obviously appealed to the President. His assistant, Jack Valenti, sent the first issue back to Bundy with word that the President read it, liked it, and wanted it continued."

Jack Valenti
"My greatest achievement? I survived - I'm not joking."

Niether Am I... Check out The List - JFK Assassination Key People

JFK

The platform doesn't matter... by buying a DVD I have the legal right to view the DVD, period. They don't mince words about platforms, and I don't care if they happen to have a problem with watching them on Linux.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. You do not have the legal right to view the DVD "period." You only have the right to view it on licensed players. There are two licensed players under developement for Linux, (Sigma Designs and Intervideo) but in the meantime playing it on unlicensed players, on any platform, is illegal. Read the MPAA Press Releases under the FAQ.

It doesn't matter to me whether it is legal or not. I pay for a DVD, I am going to watch it. Are they going to lock me up for that?

No, I highly doubt it. It sounds very dramatic when you say that, but I suspect the most they would do is fine you. I don't blame you, I just want you to realize that it is illegal. I don't claim that it's immoral.

Me: No, because it doesn't have to say that. Just like guns don't have to say "don't shoot people!" on them, because it's already the law.

EricEldred: So guns are now illegal?

No, just like DVDs aren't illegal, only certain uses of them, like copying them or playing them on un"approved" players. Just like certain uses of guns (like shooting random people on the sidewalk) are illegal, and they're illegal regardless of whether or not the gun packaging says so. Same with DVDs. You aren't allowed to do those things (copy them or play them on unapproved players) even though it doesn't say anything on the DVD packaging about how you can't. It doesn't have to say that on the packaging, because there's already a law out there that says that (DMCA).

Well, I say I did buy it and I claim I have those rights. Show me the piece of paper that proves you are correct. You refer to some "license" I never saw nor heard of, even from Kaplan.

Okay, here's one from the MPAA: select the FAQ
Q: Don't consumers have the right to view their DVDs on the operating system of their choice?
A: Consumers looking for the DVD experience have many options from which to choose. A wide array of DVD players has been licensed for the consumer market. Companies ranging from Sony to Toshiba, Panasonic to Creative Labs, make DVD players that plug into television sets, work on PC or Macintosh platforms, or fit into palmtop devices. These manufacturers all have one thing in common: They applied for and secured a license from DVD-CCA to use the CSS technology.
Buying a DVD does not grant the purchaser the right to violate copyright protections enjoyed by the creators of that work, nor to use software that circumvents copy protection.

The emphasis was mine, but the point is that one of the myriad of ways that the movie industry makes money is by licensing their technology to manufacturers. They can do this, because that technology is their intellectual property, and circumventing it (like by using DeCSS) is illegal.

Me: In the case of VHS, they license you to view it under certain conditions, and if you view it under different conditions (like in a big movie theater with 1000 "friends" who paid to get in) then you are breaking the licensing agreement.

EricEldred: No, you might be breaking copyright law (it depends on what the copyright owner agrees to, when it comes to redistribution--it is not always illegal--look at the GPL for example). However, in some "license" (but not with DVDs) a copyright owner might try to restrict you from making a backup copy. In that case, you need not comply with the license, because that is unconstitutional.

On almost all VHS movies, at the beginning there is a little warning that says "this is for personal use only" and elaborates a bit on that and the illegality of using it for commercial use. Maybe this qualifies as copyright law, not licensing agreement, in which case my terminology was wrong. The case of making a backup copy (of VHS) is allowed under the Home Recording act, provided it fits into that act's definition of Fair Use.

Me: In the case of DVDs, those conditions are a bit stricter, in the sense that they restrict the method of viewing to a licensed viewer.

EricEldred: Who says? I never made a contract or bought a license from the DVD-CCA.

The MPAA and the US Government say. This is referred to in the Q/A I cited from their site. This is where the gun metaphor came in. It doesn't matter if you made a contract or bought a license, because the law is already the law out there, and they don't need you to acknowledge it with your purchase.

There are no "Fair Use" laws,

Oh but there are. The Home Recording act defines what uses of your media classify "Fair Use."

DMCA (not DCMA) doesn't make it illegal to "break that encryption." If that were true, any playing of a DVD in a player would be illegal, because every player has to decrypt the scrambled files.

Yes, it does. That's one of its main functions. It makes it illegal to "circumvent technical protection measures that restrict access to or prevent infringement of copyrighted works." Playing DVDs in players is only legal because those players are specifically licensed to decrypt the scrambled files. They were given explicit authorization to decrypt the information. Without that license, that explicit authorization, you are correct, any playing of DVDs is illegal. I don't like that MPAA does it that way, but they are well within their legal rights to do so.

Me: which protects information owned by the movie studio.

EricEldred: There is no "property owned by the movie studio." The movie studio has certain statutory rights for a limited time.

Not true. There is property owned by the movie studio. They own the information that composes the movie itself, and the DVD-CCA, not the studio itself, owns the encryption methods on the DVDs. The movie studio retains the rights to that information. If you wanted to say, decrypt and copy that information to your hard drive, change it, and resdistributed it, that would be well within your rights, if you owned that information. But you don't. The movie studio does.

But the purchaser of a DVD owns the DVD and can use it, view it, decrypt it, resell it, put it under a scanning electron microscope to examine the pits on the disc, play it on her dishwasher, use it to shingle the roof, or whatever use she wants, after she has bought it. There is no license, no different law for DVDs than for other digital or analog content under copyright law.

That is also not true. Once again, refer to both the license I pointed out from the MPAA site, as well as the DMCA's provisions about "circumvent[ing] technical protection measures that restrict access to or prevent infringement of copyrighted works."

Yeah, this is the "crime" that the MPAA accused 15-year-old Jon Johansen of, "breaking into" his own computer and "taking their info" so he could play the DVDs that he purchased on his own computer (GNU/Linux).

So you want to lock this kid up or give him a medal?

Neither. Yes, he commited a crime. No, I don't really want to lock him up, because I think that while his actions were illegal, they weren't particularly immoral. I also don't want to give him a medal, because his actions were not particularly heroic, not were they (I believe) done in any great magnanimous spirit of helping DVD owners everywhere. As the MPAA has gone to great pains to point out, he didn't develop anything for Linux, all he did was develop a Windows-based decoder. I think he decided to break CSS to see if he could do it. It was a challenge. This is the classic spirit of the hacker, and I don't think it's immoral. Nor do I think it is inherently heroic. Many hackers have caused damage in their efforts to "see if they could do it" and many others have lead to great advancements in technology. Their drive to hack is no more moral or immoral than gravity. It's just an impulse they have.

Now I hate to be stuck in the position of defending the MPAA, because I really disagree with most of their decisions, but much of the Slashdot and indeed the entire hacker community has gotten the impression that DeCSS is perfectly legal and that the MPAA is legally in the wrong. This is not true, and that's all I seek to point out here.

Reguardless, I'm hoping that 2600 win the case. The point is that 2600 can't possibly hope to win in the long run should the judge rule against them. Besides, at some point, it no longer becomes worth it to post the link. When we're getting something like "SAKJ9098234LKJDLKSJWJEHR" which you need to decrypt with the enclosed Perl script, then you're getting to the point where it's too difficult to bother trying anymore. Besides, I've already got my copy of the DeCSS source - both in electronic form, and as a hardcopy.

1. Amazon, for taking out absurd patents
2. Unisys, for enforcing the GIF compression patent
3. MPAA member studios, for bringing charges in the DeCSS matter

At least slashdot has quit linking to Amazon in their book reviews. But they stif use GIFs, as do Red Hat, VA Linux, and even GNOME. The MPAA boycott is a complete joke. The latest spawn of the many-tentacled corporate movie industry was much hyped through out the geek community.

So I'm not expecting much out of this boycott. Sure, a few of us will give up corporate movies and music, but the majority will keep right on eating up all the pop music, movies, and television they can ge their hands on.

For those of you with a backbone, go to independent films, attend live concerts, sell your DVD player, and turn off the TV

Has anyone looked at what the MPAA thinks of the whole thing? Their arguments sound reasonable, they doubtless get a lot of media coverage, etc., ad nauseam.

Anyone feel up to doing a point-by-point rebuttal? Or know where a good place to send it would be?

Not surprisingly, the Proskauer firm, the same one in the 2600.com case is involved, as is Judge Kaplan's old firm, Paul, Weiss. I am personally disappointed that David Kendall of Williams & Connolly represents some of the Plaintiffs. Most may know him as one of Clinton's lawyers, but I know him (personally) as a longtime and good advocate of First Amendment rights.

Isn't Jack Valenti one of these units? I mean, he's a big wheel in the MPAA, and he seems to be biting a lot of people on the ass as of late.

He (Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA) has stated before a house subcommittee: Valenti told the Committee that the digital world is far more dangerous that the analog world. "The 1000th copy of a digitized movie is as pure as the original, whereas in analog each copy is degraded in quality."

From the Deposition

Page 108 23 Q Do you know if that tech expert had ever 24 made any copies off a computer?

Page 109

5: Q Do you know if he made ten copies? 1000

6: copies?

Then the lawyer for the plaintiff (Jack Valenti's lawyer) then states:

Page 109

7: MR. COOPER: That's absurd.

The MPAA President's own lawyer states that making 1000 copies of a DVD is absurd. Why can't the MPAA realize that?

this is a big joke. I especially love that last paragraph:

Valenti also emphasized that the DMCA will not work as Congress intended unless access to the WHOIS domain name database is maintained. "MPAA's piracy investigators must determine which website is responsible for the illegal material. The WHOIS database is the first step in determining the ultimate Internet piracy."

Take a look at the MPAA's FAQ about DeCSS and copyright in the digital age - it would be funny if it weren't so downright scary.
http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm

Among other things, they claim Fair Use effectively no longer exists:
It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to works for fair use purposes.

Most importantly, this concept of fair use does not override specific statutory enactment such as the DMCA, which are intended by Congress to give clear protection to the rights of the creative community to use technological means to protect its product.

In your FAQ, there are several problems: The FAQ claims that a Linux DVD player is available. I have seen many other press releases where the MPAA states that there are many available licensed Linux DVD players. I am a user of Linux and Windows 2000 and am in pursuit of such software, I would like to purchase it immediately if possible.

However, these players do not seem to exist. The FAQ says that Sigma and Intervideo had announced Linux players, but on their pages there is no indication of this (by the way your sigma link is broken, it is missing the ".com" in the href). I have not read about any assertion that Linux players exist or will ever be developed except by the MPAA. The mainstream press does not have any story on it, the press releases on these sites do not contain any such announcement. In fact, as you may see from the following links, they announce the opposite:

== From Sigma Designs (hollywood plus page): Supports Windows 95, 98, NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 ==

From the Intervideo FAQ: == WinDVD currently supports Windows 95, Windows 98 (original and Second Edition versions), Windows NT4 and the upcoming Windows 2000. For further details on how to install WinDVD into the operating system of your choice, and Operating System specific issues follow the below links: Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows NT 4 Windows 2000 There have been many requests for a Mac, Linux, and Windows CE version of WinDVD. While none of these can be ruled out in the future, we currently do not support any of these alternative OSs. ==

I should also point out thatyour FAQ claims that the infamous DeCSS program is only used for piracy, and that the CSS encryption algorithm prevents copies from being made. However the CSS encryption algorithm never prevented copies from being made, it only prevents viewing the content. As your site admits, piracy would not require circumventing the CSS algorithm. In fact there is far more value to pirates in circumventing regional encoding. A pirated DVD MUST RETAIN the CSS encryption if it were to retain its value, since the DVD players would expect that.

The only value in circumventing CSS stems from the ability to create players. DeCSS was only created after the basic refusal to create Linux players by manufacturers of current DVD players, and the refusal of the MPAA to allow Linux coders the licensing/information they needed to do so themselves. The fact that DeCSS is for windows is a non-issue. DeCSS was developed in windows because the players the authors reverse-engineered ONLY RUN ON WINDOWS. To say this is a proof of its nefariousness is at best a circular argument.

The authors released the code so that people could quickly port this to Linux should they fail to do so. And as a result of their incarceration, they have failed to do so, the MPAA being responsible for said incarceration and the ensuing lawsuit which has scared Linux developers off from creating any players based on this code.

It goes without saying that Linux users would pay for a program that allowed them to play DVD's. However that brings up another sore point. Even the players available for Windows are incredibly clunky and buggy, and incredibly sensitive to corruption. It is clear that limiting the number fo developers who are allowed to make this software is not a good thing.

I imagine that this letter will be ignored, as will the facts, as they have been for some time. nevertheless I feel it is my duty to inform you in good faith that you are mistaken, and hope that the situation will be rectified in a civil manner, rather than becoming mired in all this inflammatory rhetoric and sabre-rattling, which is doing no one any good. For the first time in 70 years, America is taking a second look at the MPAA, and its value. This scrutiny cannot be doing your organization or the interests it represents any good. The opportunity yet exists for the MPAA to make this right.

According to the MPAA's own site the loss to the whole video industry was $2.5B US so I have no clue why and how they are attributing it all to DVD. Im quite sure that VHS copying is MUCH MUCH more prevalent. To quote their site: "The most prevalent form of piracy in the U.S. is the 'back-to-back' copying of videos. In some cases, video retailers purchase one or two genuine cassettes from an authorized distributor and then duplicate copies .... Worldwide, video piracy costs the American motion picture companies $2.5 billion a year in lost revenues." They seem to miss the point that at the moment, making copies of DVD's costs more than purchasing the original copy, so who in their right mind would do it anyway. You should check out their FAQ for more amusing, disjointed reasoning on the issue. It really is a trip.

According to the MPAA's own site the loss to the whole video industry was $2.5B US so I have no clue why and how they are attributing it all to DVD. Im quite sure that VHS copying is MUCH MUCH more prevalent. To quote their site: "The most prevalent form of piracy in the U.S. is the 'back-to-back' copying of videos. In some cases, video retailers purchase one or two genuine cassettes from an authorized distributor and then duplicate copies .... Worldwide, video piracy costs the American motion picture companies $2.5 billion a year in lost revenues." They seem to miss the point that at the moment, making copies of DVD's costs more than purchasing the original copy, so who in their right mind would do it anyway. You should check out their FAQ for more amusing, disjointed reasoning on the issue. It really is a trip.

As far as Canadian courts enforcing a judgment against a Canadian person entered by a U.S. court, there is a recent case, Braintech where a Texas court issued a judgment against a Canadian and the Canadian court decided that the behavior didn't violate Canadian law and wouldn't enforce the Texas court judgment.

Such jurisdictional issues are a hot topic in legal circles. If you want to see how a lawyer thinks about these issues, read the text of a speech given yesterday at a conference at George Mason University here. The American Bar Association has an "Internet Jurisdiction" project which you can read about here.

Finally, I think it is important to remember that there are international treaties relating to intellectual property that are very valuable to U.S. citizens because our higher than average standard of living is based, to a significant degree, on the IP that we create. You can read the two treaties that are the basis for the DMCA under the "documents" section here.

Or is this another show of editorial independance; hype disney stuff so they get even more $$$ to kick fellow hackers asses in court ?

Ever heard of loyalty ?

Boiling the DeCSS frog.

Upon reading that transcript, it seems that the way the MPAA won was:

a) finding the most obvious violaters that it could to pursue (someone with the web site "dvd-copy.com"), then trying to apply the results to everyone, and

b) the defense was totally incompetent, missing its chances to file any evidence at all and missing its best chances to contest whether using DeCSS to copy DVDs was really practical or not.

First lets recap on who controls the MPAA, from their website http://www.mpaa.org/about/ it's controlled by:

Walt Disney Company;
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.;
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.;
Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.;
Universal Studios, Inc.; and
Warner Bros.

After looking at a few of their stock prices and outstanding shares it seems the best effort would be applied by buying MGM stock. They're trading at 22.5 dollars a share with 150,902,000 shares outstanding. How many shares do we want and how much support can we get? Lets say we get 10,000 shares bought with this money. That's only .00006% of the company. How much influence would that have? Granted I'm looking at this from the standpoint of influencing the company rather then having a voice at a shareholders meeting. I suppose it would have no real effect other then a publicity stunt. If we could get 1 percent of the company that might have some major impact. But that would take 1,509,020 shares of stock, or contributions equaling 33,952,950.

If it's a go, I'll contribute a few shares but I don't expect much more then a very loud voice at a shareholders meeting.

No, that was Jack

From the mpaa.org website:

Since its early days, the MPA, often referred to
now as "a little State Department," has expanded
to cover a wide range of foreign activities falling in the diplomatic, economic, and political arenas.

------------------------------------
I think basically, this shows just how arrogant they are... "A little state department"? EXCUUUUSE ME!?!?! But what elected representatives set up this "state department"?

Looks to me like the media consider themselves a separate state, being that they are represented by a separate state department.. To whom I'm sure they pay "taxes" in the form of membership dues.

Be careful, ten years from now, they'll have their own military. They already seem to have a legislative, executive and judiciary branch.

You might try taking your own advice. Go to http://www.mpaa.org/about/ and tell me what you see.

That's right, there are two associations, the Motion Picture Association and the Motion Picture Association of America.

MPA deals with U.S. movie exports. MPAA deals with domestic stuff, like image. By the way, have a look at everybody's favorite DVD guy while you're there.

MPA deals with U.S. movie exports. MPAA deals with domestic stuff, like image. By the way, have a look at everybody's favorite DVD guy while you're there.

Just take a look mpa.org and they are refrenced on MPAA.org. Now, Mr. Smartie-grits-in-pants, check CNN Entertainment News for even more info.

Perhaps more interesting:
http://www.mpaa.org/iisadmin/htmld ocs/05_iis.htm

Like many people I think that the MPAA has stepped way over the line on this one. Each corporation has the responsibilty to protect their shareholders intellectial property, but that property is not this stupid so called "trade secret" that allows them an unfair monopoly, a monopoly which gives them godlike powers over where, when, and how there product is used. Their property is the movies they make and for the most part we want to see.

I bet that the media outlets that participate in the MPAA make the overwhelming majority of the movies sold in the United States. This loose orgranization has been the legal club which has been ineffectively whacking at the DeCss moles. This organization has nothing to do with free markets, just the opposite it seems like they are guilty of collusion.

This backroom price fixing is what really needs to be investigated...

The MPAA's site has one (and only one) email address, which is to be used to report instances of piracy (excuse my smiling). It's hotline@mpaa.org and I would guess email might be read by a team involved in the fight against actual movie piracy. Such a team might be interested in this argument: the resources being wasted on the DeCSS fiasco are now not available to comabt genuine piracy.

the MPAA is the motion picture Assoc. of america. The MPA is the Motion Picture Assoc. Got to MPAA.org to find out more

[ c h a d o k e r e ]

I was reading the MPAA Anti-piracy subsite and found some interesting numbers.

They say that they reward those that can disclose the location of a video copying lab with more than 30 VCRs. One might imagine that this would be, on average, the number of VCRs they would find and conviscate were they to raid the lab.

They then go on to say that they have "assisted law enforcement in more than 3,000 raids" and recovered 6,163 VCRs in these raids.

I get an average of 2 VCRs seized per raid. That just seems a little low. They say their largest bust was 817 VCRs. The must have an extraordinary failure rate if the average is only 2, though I imagine that some of those raids were not on labs, but on distributors of illegal video cassette copies.

I also find it interesting that they estimate 10 percent of all video retail outlets deal in illegal copies. Why aren't they cracking down on them more?

They say nothing about making copies of videos being illegal. They say only that it is illegal to distribute these copies. Supposedly, I can make a single copy of a MPAA movie, right? Can I make two? 500? What's the difference if I'm not going to distribute them?

Oh well, just rambling off topic. I spelt incompetant wrong, didn't I? Ah well.

I note that the MPAA site www.mpaa.org is curiously lacking in contact information, even if it lists tons of officers (which makes me fear that they may have troops too). I found one address however: hotline@mpaa.org which is intended for snitches and I would be most surprised if the recipient or webmaster@mpaa.org, postmaster@mpaa.org, hostmaster@mpaa.org and domain administartive contact pegge@mpaa.org wouldn't be kind enough to forward greetings to Jack Valenti, capo de tutti capi of MPAA. Better safe than sorry so send your opinions to Don Valenti to all these addresses.

I note that the MPAA site www.mpaa.org is curiously lacking in contact information, even if it lists tons of officers (which makes me fear that they may have troops too). I found one address however: hotline@mpaa.org which is intended for snitches and I would be most surprised if the recipient or webmaster@mpaa.org, postmaster@mpaa.org, hostmaster@mpaa.org and domain administartive contact pegge@mpaa.org wouldn't be kind enough to forward greetings to Jack Valenti, capo de tutti capi of MPAA. Better safe than sorry so send your opinions to Don Valenti to all these addresses.