Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sending Out DMCA Demand Letters
[Aside: The strategy here is fairly clear: file suit against a few individuals who can be characterized as "hackers", "copyright pirates" or whatever the appropriate derogatory term is today, wait until that story hits the press, then use a search engine and the whois database to locate and send scary letters off to hundreds or thousands of other sites which post or link to the LiViD code.
The MPAA realizes, of course, that they cannot file suit against everyone who has posted the css-auth code. So for the suits that it does file, it's important to pick people who call themselves "hackers" and can be characterized as thieves to the court, whether they've actually committed any offense or not. Thus they chose defendants such as 2600.com rather than more "respectable" individuals.]
I think the government had better be very, very, very, very, very careful about doing something like raiding 2600's offices, especially since they are a publishing company, and more especially in light of the results of the Secret Service raid on Steve Jackson Games. Also keep in mind that the EFF got its start defending SJG, and the MPAA and its friends will be in for a very long, bumpy ride.
Then what about the legalese? (Or was that the general idea? ;-)
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.
http://www.multimania.com/sxpert/decss/
http://www.posexperts.com.pl/peopl e/wrobell/css/
http://www.koek.net/dvd
http://logical-solutions.com.au/DeCSS.zip
http://www.sarahandcasey.com/decss/
http://www.fsp.com
http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~echerry/dvd
http://people.mn.mediaone.net/bojay/s lashdot/
http://www.mafkees.com/dvd
http://members.tripod.com/donotsueme/
http://donotsueme.homepage.com
http://donotsueme.freeservers.com/
http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~marsie/
http://dB.org/dvd/
http://dcwi.com/~wench/decss
http://www.capital.net/~mazzic
http://dvdcss.newmail.ru
http://www.subcor.com
http://www.frankw.net/decss
http://danger-island.com/~dav/any.lawyer.who [...]
http://www.fortunecity.com/vi ctorian/parkwood/95/DVD/
http://www.asleep.net/dvd
http://members.xoom.com/NiKeX
http://www.geocit ies.com/ResearchTriangle/Station/2819/index.html
http://www.execpc.com/~unicorn/dvdmirr or.htm
http://members.xoom.com/chapter3/Mamma No.htm
http://www.twistedlogic.com/archive/dvd
http://wiw.org/~drz/css/
http://merlinjim.freeservers.com/dvd/
http://www.visi.com/~adept/liberty
http://mikedotd.penguinpowered.com/deccs
http://www.ct2600.org/2600-DVD.html
http://magic.hurrah.com/~fireball/dvd/
http://homepages.together.net/~ib nzahid/DeCSS.zip
http://www.save2600.8m.com
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/dantepsn/
http://mikedotd.penguinpowered.com/decss
http://members.xoom.com/mxpxguy/dvd/
http://decss.fall0ut.com
http://vedaa.tripod.com/decss.html
http://members.xoom.com/iox
http://www.hackunlimited.com/dvd/
http://hem.fyristorg.com/police/css.htm
http://elknews.netpedia.net/dvd/
http://www.idrive.com/decss/web
http://www.chello.nl/~f.vanwaveren
http://quintessenz.at/q
http://www.clug.com/~vodak/dvd/
http://www.nacs.net/~vodak/dvd/
http://ny2600.iwarp.com
http://www.wpi.edu/~nassar/dvd/
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~castongj
http://www.geocities.com/cold_dvd/
http://www.projectgamma.com/deccs/
http://members.xoom.com/mogreen/decss/
http://thrash.webjump.com/decss.zip
http://www.angelfire.com/de2/decss/dec ss.htm
http://www.krackdown.com/decss
http://www.ithink.org/dvd/
http://www.fortunecit y.com/skyscraper/motorola/1415/decss.htm
http://chaz.fsgs.com/misc/DvD/
http://www.linuxstart.com/~kv ance/projects/decss.html
http://www.darkkingz.com/DeCSS.zip
http://come.to/intelex
http://ebmedia.net/dvd/
http://www.geocities.com/decss_forever/
http://revolution.3-cities.com/~spack/dv d/
http://www.geocities.com/Sili conValley/Software/8762/
http://members.xoom.com/s_o_sam/help.html
http://www.vexed.net/CSS/
http://smokering.org
http://www.sent.freeserve.co.uk/css -auth.tar.gz
http://home.rmci.net/bert/fuckthelawyers
http://dlsf.org
http://home.rmci.net/bert/dvd
http://thrash.webjump.com/decss.zip
http://linux.uci.agh.edu.pl/~outlaw/ decss.html
http://debian.mps.krakow.pl/mirror/css/
http://www.mindspring.com/~stonethrower
http://www.geocitie s.com/SiliconValley/Hardware/6188/index.html
http://matt.frogspace.net/css/
ftp://www.spamshack.net/pub/dcss/
http://werewolf12.cjb.net
http://isupport2600.8m.com
http://imezok.tripod.com/Untitled.txt
http://warpedreality.members.easyspace. com/
http://w1.1634.telia.com/~u163400190 /DeCSS.zip
http://ts1.online.fr/dvd/
http://homepages.go.com/homepage s/4/0/3/403_error/
http://members.xoom.com/maud123/Home/C SS.htm
http://xtreme2k.8k.com/DeCSS
http://hackingdvd.homestead.com
http://www.geocities.com/soho /studios/6752/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/corporatemin dcontrol
http://darklord.darkthrone.com/user s/smith/dvd/
http://thrash.webjump.com/decss.zip
http://www.twistedlogic.com/archive/dvd
http://www.image.dk/~mbp
http://www.divisionbyzero.com/decss/
http://decss.cx
http://kevins.ne.mediaone.net/~kevins/dv d/
http://friko6.onet.pl/war/mkochano/
http://planeta.clix.pt/DJ_AmAzInG/DVD/
http://noc.res.cmu.edu
http://www.kiss.uni-lj.si/~k4ef1890/css/
http://hackingdvd.homestead.com
http://www.uwm.edu/~zachkarp/index.html
http://st-bart.net
http://decss_files.tripod.com
http://wakeupthe.net/dvd/
http://www.angelfire.com/punk/freedom/
http://www.corova.com/dvd/
http://2600.dk/mirrors/css/
http://dvdcrack.homepage.com
http://www.copkiller.org
http://www.worldcity.nl/~frank/dvd
http://members.xoom.com/iamkeenan/master/
http://www.adulation.net/css/
http://homepage.interacces s.com/~mycroft/decss/DeCSS.zip
http://underground.pl/dvd/
http://members.xoom.com/nyc2600
http://zerosoft.hypermart.net/warez/ DVDcrK.txt
http://www.deforest.org/CSS
http://members.xoom.com/freedvdinfo/
http://www.geocities.com/Sili conValley/Software/3971/
http://24.114.168.235/public/css.htm
http://fairuse.freeservers.com/
http://jupiter.spaceports.com/~decss
http://www.c0ke.com/DVD
http://2600.bigfuc.com
http://www.crosswinds.net/oakland/~ahrendt/Lawyers _are_scu m-sucking_pigs [...]
http://sdf.lonestar.org/~egg/
http://cssalgorithm.8m.com
http://www.duffbrew.com/decss/
http://heavymusic.8m.com
http://www.oblivion.net/~amar/css
http://www.charm.net/~dutch
http://members.tripod.com/ny2600/
http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/ny2600/
go.to/nairos
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/decs s/
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/dvd.htm
http://theannux.homestead.com/decss.html
http://members.aol.com/elktonstalkers/CS S/
http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/silex/mir ror.html
http://budsmoker.com/sites/decss/
http://www.geocities.com/watice2/
http://home.att.net /~phreakonaleash/ccs_mirror--screw_the_feds/
http://DECSS-Baby.tripod.com/
http://decss.cyvoid.net
http://www.azillionmonkeys.c om/qed/recess_for_css.html
http://www.reapers.org
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS
http://www.halma.nl/~bb
http://supportyourlocal2600.homestead.co m/
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/sh3/deccs/
http://www.angelfire.com/el ectronic/icebandits/dvd.html
http://killer.radom.net/~shoggoth/dvd.ht ml
http://www3.50megs.com/dvd4free/
http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/a ntigovernment/css.html
http://dbzauctions.tripod.com/decss.zip
I agree that the DCMA allows for reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability but I disagree with the attitudes of the defendants and the Linux community at large. It sounds to me like the DeCSS creators got caught with their pants down and had to come up with a legitimate excuse for their little project. Their contempt for the law is what forced Judge Kaplan to react the way he did. As an artist I am frightened by the Open Source community at large and as a whole merely because they have no respect for my intellectual property. If you wish to develop software of this nature in the future, do it legally. It seems that a few of you are finally starting to actually read the laws you are trashing.
Dude, shut the fuck up.
RSI injured geek wins against Mattel, again!
I haven't seen the jive filter running for years...
UFie is based in Canada, thereby they should be safe from American laws. I say should be, because Canada tends to be America's bitch from time to time.
Dude, copying a video cassette, audio cassette, CD or DAT is trivial, so why the big deal about DVD's? Besides, I don't see either Toshiba or the Motion Picture Experts Group listed on Mr. Gallagher's letter (only a bunch of film companies) so is this claim really valid?
I tried chkupgrd.exe to see what win2k didn't like about my various systems. HOW ABOUT any MPEG hardware or players HOW ABOUT DVD Players and Software. (NIX Win2000 Pro says it will delete.) This was 3 different DVD players...... very strange.... (A sony vaio, an ATI and another...)
Being an american and seeing how "America has the best legal instution money can buy", I donhave lost all faith in it. Why don't people start revolting against the Trillion dollar corperations that abuse them. 200gr of PB can start to fix many things.
ftp://2029.resnet.uni.edu/pub/dvd/decss/decss.zip
Just a passing thought -- has the EFF thought of investigating the patentability of the DeCss stuff? How about the groups that are independently developing playback sw? Since the US pat. office seems to be rolling over on obvious patents, and the publication was less than a year ago, perhaps the EFF could get an injunction against the MPAA for patent infringement...
Actually that might make a good defense:
If you're suing me why not (Yahoo|Excite|Google|...)
Chum
And I wonder if those suits realize that the uglier they get, the more they protest, and particularly the more they gloat, the more wide-spread, and more widely-posted that code they fear so much becomes?
I have a copy of it. Snagged it several weeks ago. I am now seriously considering posting it myself.
Twits.
According to George S. Takach (a lawyer), Computer Law,
So apparently copying for private use was not permitted before, and now it is. Whoops!! Basically, they found a way to make us pay for fair use of something that we already have paid for the right to use...
Porn. Lots of porn... -K
Time to FIGHT , its take down time.
:)
The Judge is a Lawyer CoCKSUCKKER
And when asked by friends and colleagues what I think about DVD, my answer will be neutral. Think: "yawn... not all it's cracked up to be." (Which is true to a degree, IMO, anyway. And my HT system is nothing to sneeze at.) Damning by faint praise, in effect.
CCp1c (Captain Crunch plus 1 code) Hppe Qpjou!
How many people have the MPAA named as John Does in their lawsuit? A hundred? A thousand?
I think we can do much better than that.
Let's start a campaign, getting as many people as possible to put the code up on their page, or at minimum, a link to an offshore site containing the program. Let's see the MPAA try and get a restraining order against a hundred-thousand John Does. A million. I'm sure we can find enough geeks to do it!
This law that allows them to do this is just retarded. As far as I know there has been no law that legally protected a company's right to keep something secret from us (excluding if you break and enter etc...). Now they can! Imagine having a cookie-type file on your HD but with more info on you being sent to companies, and you can't even legally look at it because it is encrypted... Scary...
And of course it will become technically illegal to create a cheat program to hack the savefiles of your favorite game because they are encrypted too. Of course game companies on the whole seem to be nice guys who wouldn't do something like that but imagine being arrested for cheating on a computer game. Patent and copyright laws suck Big Green Donkey Dicks (TM)
Infinity
Someone moderate this up. Please send some sort of correspondence to this man. But also, please keep your words civil as that is the best way to get their attention. Also, remember to boycott all things DVD, VHS and Cinema to support the cause.
RSI injured geek wins against Mattel, again!
> After all, free DVD playing software is of limited commercial use.
You don't think that there are hardware manufacturers who'd love to use the free DVD code to sell players without paying a royalty?
Your [sic] an idiot.
Think of "commercial" in a broader sense (just like the US Congress does about the commerce clause). You use the DVD player to view DVDs that you have bought, so there is your "commercial" purpose.
Does it matter whether the content is a program or not? Isn't LiViD about making the software of the drive exchange [useable] information with the software on the rest of the machine??
I quote Super Frosty:
"Let's have some civil disobedience, Slashdot style!"
"Somebody post the offending materials, and we can post them on our web pages, along with the source code to RSA, and our links to SETI@Home!"
I would like to suggest that no one actually post the code here. That would be too great a test of the Slashdot no deletion policy. Slashdot would be a tempting target for legal action.
Personally, I don't know if they have grounds for legal action. I don't expect the law to always make sense. It gets used by people for their own agenda. What I do know is that I want to be able to play DVDs on a Linux machine. I think our response in unison (virtually) should be to shout that we want our Linux DVD movies. This software allows us to use thinkgs we've paid for in good faith. If they want to provide us with an alternative, they'd better get moving. Let me phrase the question bluntly:
Why are they taking legal action to prevent me from playing legally purchased DVDs on a DVD drive that I also legally purchased solely because I run Linux?
While I am no lawyer, this sounds suspiciously like restraint of trade to me.
This is a case of big corportions with vested interests threatening and bullying people to get the result they want. What's needed is for their action to backfire on them - ie we need as many people as possible to mirror this stuff whether you are particularly interested in DVD or not because next time the information _you_ want may not be released for fear of legal action.
We know the arguments and don't need to continually rehash them - just post them on your web site with the approprate links. If people aren't willing to act to maintain some degree of control, they'll lose it.
Well, the physical DVD media may be yours, but the contents of it are definately not. Since DVD's contain data, you are simply buying a license, not the data itself.
downloading a copy of the software to burn it yourself and save yourself the trip to Canada or Thailand... that's illegal.
No, it is not. That's one of the excepted cases in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (In my opinion an unconstitutional act that couldn't stand on its own - Didn't they have to sneak it through congress on a budget bill?). The MPAA is just claiming that this action is a violation of the DMCA to have some excuse, however hollow, to bully and push around anyone who has or knows about this software because it represents a threat to their monopoly power.
(Washington Resident speaking)
No, they could really care less about the actual car tabs (only accounts for 2% of the budget), and it sets the tax to be a mandatory $30, and doesn't include other associated taxes. (in some cases, people of older vehicles are finding that they now have to pay MORE for their tabs.) What they want removed is the nifty little rider in the bill that requires a majority vote of the public for any tax increases. The gov'ment hates it when the public tries to take back control of taxation,...
I wouldn't mind trolls if they were funny or in some other way entertaining (I love a good, full-on rant), but c'mon, anybody can hit control-V in Windows and paste their innermost thoughts about Natalie Portman 545 times. Perhaps because the depth of their innermost thoughts is about that of a Tootsie Roll wrapper.
Ah well, back to being nonymous and posting useful comments.
Given they were *threatening* a trial, tho'... The sad thing is, since judges are curiously blind when it comes to us common folk, and laywers are so expensive (by and large), in the majority of cases the MPAA will never have to set foot in court, as the defendants will not have enough funds. "As much justice as money can buy!" (I think I read this somewhere...)
Maybe not a true search engine, but Yahoo certainly does have control over its contents since its a directory, not a search engine. Sue Yahoo.
0 TiVo Sued for Patent Infringement by Hemos on 03:24 PM January 20th, 2000 EST 135
1 Dolly Cloning Method Patented by Hemos on 12:06 PM January 20th, 2000 EST 71
Hemos, stop suing ppl and patenting things! What's Dolly or Tivo ever done to you, anyway?
By that logic there would never be PBS pledge drives. Don't tell me you need money, I gave you money already! Go tell other people!!
> (Yes, I believe that copy protection is a feature).
> What I'm envisioning is a hardware-based decoding scheme, which would have a documented
> interface, so open source software could play, but not copy, the DVD.
Copy protection is logically impossible. It has never worked, and never will.
If you can play something, you can copy it.
What the MPAA et. al. want to do is get the government to support their business model by force of law.
If no one opposes them, they will get away with it, and your taxes will foot the bill.
They don't care about open source. They are not interested in a fair solution.
They want monopoly control over as many channels of media distribution as possible.
This is wrong.
Print up posters with the DeCSS source, and plaster them on subways, phone poles, billboards, busses, streetcars, and anyplace that doesn't move fast enough...anyone want to collect enough money to rent a highway billboard and post it there? Print it out and send it to your American Library of Congress...email it to every representative of the US legislature...Get Howard Stern to read it over the air!
hehe...maybe y'all have been listening to "Everything you know is wrong" too much. i.e. "...black is white up is down and short is long..."
Look, making subsequent copies takes realtime, making CDR copies at 12x is fast.
So try making 10 copies of ToyStory2 on tape? thats like 15hrs, now with CDR, its less than 1hr for 10copies. Oh and quality is good and you can preservce the original AC3 file too and encode to VCD resolution but in MPEG2, its called MINIDVD.
Civil disobedience... So frequently countered with military obedience! BTW, as NON-American, does anyone out there know about the American laws' bearing on me (or anyone like me?). I know Canadian companies, under the NAFTA, can practically be sued for breathing by anyone with an American passport (not that we blame Americans, just Mulroney ;-), but I don't know about citizens. Surely a shiny new thing like the Digital Millenium Whatsit would have precious little bearing on foreigners, in the absence of new int'l treaties?
> (Yes, I believe that copy protection is a feature).
> What I'm envisioning is a hardware-based decoding scheme, which would have a documented
> interface, so open source software could play, but not copy, the DVD.
Copy protection is logically impossible. It has never worked, and never will.
If you can play something, you can copy it.
This case has nothing to do with copy protection, copying, or copyright.
What the MPAA et. al. want to do is get the government to support their business model by force of law.
If no one opposes them, they will get away with it, and your taxes will foot the bill for the enforcement.
They don't care about open source. They are not interested in a fair solution.
They want monopoly control over as many channels of media distribution as possible.
This is wrong.
the 7 CD bond collection is not $15
Is it worth copying for $10 worth for CDr? sure is
And dont give me crap about, ohh you miss the menus and extras. Like menus are anything usefull, you can copy those in HTML/JPEG, BIGGG DEAL!!!!!
Well, it's a good thing 2600 is involved, they will fight this thing all the way to the Supreme Court if they have to.
:)
Now that would be something to see-- and the DMCA overturned
The state of Connecticut may be getting no pleasure at all from this. I haven't looked into it and I have no idea what their involvement might be, but a state's prosecution arm (the Attorney General's office) is charged with defending the law, no matter how much they would prefer not to. Case in point: There's a test case in the courts right now on Washington State's Initiative 695, which took a huge chunk of money out of the state budget by making all car tabs $30. I'm sure the AG in Washington would love to see that law struck down so the state can get that money back, but because it is the law they have to defend it.
Yes, that's right. Hit those bastards in the wallet. When you go to the movie theater don't buy a ticket, just stand outside with your pickett sign and explain to other moviegoers what is happening behind the scenes. Maybe those D.A.N. guys who did such a wonderful job of organizing the WTO protests in seattle could pick this one up...
I sincerely hope you sent this to as many different people at the MPAA through as many different media as possible. Hell, it wouldn't be bad if you just read this over the phone into as many voicemail boxes as you could reach. Well, that might be taking it a little far. But this is exactly the message that the MPAA needs to get into its metaphorical head.
Sadly, the last I heard, this is no longer true. Didn't the US finally manage to bully the Swedes into violating their constitution and pulling the Scientology documents from public inspection? The US government believes every country should abide by US copyright laws and it still has the economic muscle (and guns) to back up that flawed attitude. An soon you'll see it attempting to export stuff like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to other countries. After all, anything else just isn't in the best interest of the corporations that the US government really represents.
Hmmm. $30 per movie you say? Well that's still more than the average price for a legal DVD these days. And buying the DVD means you won't have to spend all that time and inconvenience copying the movie. You can just throw the disc into the player and hit 'play'. But I guess that if some people are actually willing to pay more for a movie just because they 'pirated' it, and waste lots of their time doing so, there's no stopping them. Personally, if I had that much free hard drive space, I'd fill it up with video games instead. Loading data files from the CD is just too darn sloooowwww.
People have been able to quickly, conveniently, and cheaply copy VHS tapes and (more recently) audio CD's for years. And yet people still continue buying VHS movies and CD albums, thereby continuing to provide the RIAA and MPAA with enormous profits. Funny thing that... I wonder why the RIAA and MPAA think things are going to be any different with mp3 and deCSS? Could it be they aren't really concerned with piracy after all, but are threatened in some other way by these technologies? Could it be they are about to lose their distribution control monopolies back to the content creators?
And yet the two lawyers I have asked have both told me DMCA violates the US Constitution, was known to violate the constitution when it was pushed through congress by the Clinton administration, and should properly be thrown out by the courts. So here's the real question: Since WHEN do treaty requirements take procedence over the US Constitution and the inalienable rights of the US people?
This is SO typical of the current loser we have in the White House. Say the Constitution and Bill of Rights are getting in the way of some law Bill Clinton's corporate sponsors want passed. Well then, just make sure the law is required by some treaty or other, because obviously the "New World Order" is so much more important the the Constitution and the peoples rights it supposedly protects.
Someone , hack the MPAA website and put the CSS code on their site.
Print 1000 copies of source on paper and leave em out on the street corners and phone poles.
The more MPAA send letters the more we copy the source, its like aids
Who really cares about karma all that much. There is no reason to go for a low amount.
Do not mess up a good thing foryou childish games
Another Mirror. http://www.netby.net/Oest/Hvalfiskegade/jana/css.h tml
and http://decss.htmlplanet.com/
Well, at least this is more tactful that the ASCII art "middle-finger" I would have sent back.
so don't read it Balance (i'm at work and can't remember my PW)
Exactly right! The DVD standard is essentially a monopoly created and shared by the major members of the media industry. Access to the media released under this standard should at least be open to everybody.
If you must troll, at least learn to count.
The MPAA's piracy hotline is here. Email them to complain about their jackboot tactics.
What pisses me off about this whole ruling is that if I own a DVD player, and a PC dual-booted with linux and windows, I can take a legally-purchased DVD and watch it under windows with a legal windows DVD player. Perfectly legal. However, if I boot up linux and watch my DVD with the DeCSS code, than all of a sudden I am a thief. This is ludicrous. (This comes from the last MPAA article on slashdot 1-2 days ago where the MPAA stated the software was designed for theft purposes).
Don't these chodes realize that the CSS encryption does NOTHING to prevent copying? Whether or not a DVD is "encrypted," you could still make a bit-for-bit copy. Hell, if you were to LEAVE the CSS in place, more people would be able to use your pirated discs (in regular players and "licensed" players)!!!
Of course, you're assuming that the "average" Joe has access to some sort of recordable device that can hold 2.4gig+ of data. I don't know about you, but I don't have $20,000+ for such a gizmo...
As for the overseas pirating companies, the DVD industry can't do anything about them. They've got money and different federal laws (or cops who don't give a damn) and will continue to pirate-for-profit as long as they see fit.
I appreciate your putting your comments in bold. That way, I can very quickly scroll past your comments without having to worry about missing anyone else's. (Although it would be better if you wouldn't post the trolls at all, or at least make them easier to read.)
EBG13 nyy svyranzrf naq nyy nycunorgup punef va gur qrpff fbhepr pbqr, gura fgber ba lbhe jro-fvgr.
It's then no longer in violation of anything because it can't be compiled or even read...
Nothings lost...
This is the worst part! The software, while clearly not illegal under (A), might be illegal under this section. After all, free DVD playing software is of limited commercial use.
Well, the purpose isn't to circumvent the access control for its sake, it is to play it back! Section (B) seems to only care about breaking the access for no other reason than to do so, not so it could be watched.
BTW, it sure sounds like ANY company creating a DVD player would be guilty of violating this DMCA. There are free downloadable Windows DVD players, so what gives?
Of course, sometimes Americans can be right too! (I really don't want to offend anyone) ;-)
Sorry but can i get REFUNDS On the DVD's i own?? I intend to sell both my DVD player and the DVD-rom i own. I also want to get rid of the ~100 DVD movies i own..... Anyone has any info on this ??If the MPAA doesn't want my business they will simply not have it. End of story. It won't kill me if i view the damn movie on a VHS.
Still funny though! :-)
It strikes me that a trusted third party (trusted to guard OS ideals & recompile for different platforms, definitely non-profit), might be a compromise. Of course, this assumes that the relevant plaintiffs would *ever* listen to reason...
Now _that's_ an address.
you sir, are a moron.
why? first of all, IF i wanted to copy a DVD, all i would need is a VCR... how hard is that to get? or i could use my TV card... hmmm how hard is that to get? why would i need to use this software to copy content that i already purchased? are you daft? wake up and smell the java. This is just a prison butt-fuck. they want consumers to bend over and take it up the ass on command. And those who refuse and "trouble makers" and therefore need to see the warden, who will then have the guards hold them down, while he forces them to take their "butt-fuck" like everyone else.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
Everybody should help prevent DVD piracy by sending our friend and e-mail, phone call, or FAX with the location of a web site with a link to DeCSS. Edward Gallagher Sargoy, Stein, Rosen & Shapiro 1790 Broadway, 19th floor New York, NY 10019-1412 (212) 581-2222 (212) 581-2755 (Fax) egallagher@sargoy.com
Mattel has been doing this with me! Mattel entered a countersuit because I posted the information about my lawsuit against them (mostly against companies they bought) on my website http://www.sorehands.com/mattel. Mattel entered a countersuit on libel, but when challenged, they dropped it. At the motion for summary judgment on Tuesday (1/18/00), Mattel moved to dismiss their coutnersuit. They claimed it was to let "the people involved to get on with their lives. I think they didn't want the judge to evaluate the facts and whack them. If they really wanted to drop it, they could have long before that.
Lawyers and companies always write "obey or die" letters. If it is a lawyer giving what can be construed as advice, they lawyer could be sanctioned.
RSI injured geek wins against Mattel, again!
Note that I've only just started looking into this so I may be wrong
You're wrong. Or, more precisely, you're incompletely informed.
please feel free to correct me.
Consider this the correction. The anti-copy key sector pre-embossing technique you describe assumes and depends on two things:
- The blank media was purchased from a "legitimate" MPAA approved manufacturer who obeyed the rules and pre-writes the sector reserved for the keys.
- The DVD copying hardware also obeys the rules and refuses to either read or write the decrypt key sector when copying a DVD.
The last time I was in Hong Kong, I purchased a copy of "Titanic" for about $5 US (I refuse to pay more for this movie, but my girlfriend loves it). It came in a plain jewel case, was the complete english version (including the no-copy warning at the beginning), and had an obviously photo-copied label in chinese, so I can only assume that it's a pirated copy. Thus the anonymous post. I don't want to get a letter from the MPAA lawyers too. The disc works perfectly on my girlfriends United States only DVD player. Obviously, somewhere out there is a source of blank DVD media that allows writing on the key sector, and a DVD recorder that can read and write that sector. Otherwise this disc could not exist.The CSS 'protection' scheme on DVD's (and all other distribution control schemes like it) depend solely on everyone involved being 'nice' and playing by the rules. The Digital Millenuim Copyright Act was created to force everyone to play by those same rules whether they like it or not. So for now, it should be pretty difficult to find blank DVD media and DVD recorders in the US that don't play along with the CSS rules. Don't think for a moment, though, that people in other countries will abide by these restrictions, DMCA or no. It's self delusional to believe nobody outside the US can make completely blank DVD media (including a blank key sector) or figure out how to make a recorder that can burn a full DVD (including the key sector). There are a lot of very clever people in China, and it is well within their abilities to do so. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the blank DVD media used in MPAA approved DVD's is manufactured in China already.
I think it's pretty irresponsible of the opendvd people to knowingly (this assumes they read their feedback email account) misrepresent the facts in this way -- especially to the media.
But they are not misrepresenting anything. They are completely correct. It is very possible to copy an encrypted DVD without ever decrypting it. There exists no physical reason preventing the copying of DVD's regardless of what encryption scheme is used on them. The IEEE article on DVD only list a set of guidelines for manufacturers creating blank DVD media and recorders that will negate the possibility of copying DVD movies, but only if those 'cooked' blank discs and recorders are used to make the copies. If you can get a supply of uncooked blank DVD disks and a non-MPAA approved recorder, you can copy all the DVD movies you want. And my girlfriend has a copied disc to prove it.
Explain to them also that until the MPAA improves its behavior, you won't be going back to Suncoast Video to buy any more DVD's or other films.
Even better, beg, borrow, or steal a camcorder and film yourself as you return the DVD's and explain why. Then send copies of the tape to every local news station and news paper. Local news programs just love this sort of thing, and if they haven't been put to far under the heel of the MPAA and the companies it represents, they just might broadcast it. That will get the message out to the DVD buying couch potato public much better than any /. thread.
So, how long until they bang on my door if I post the DeCSS code on my site?
The primary purpose of the LiViD software is to play dvd under linux. Not to pirate. Not to copy. The fact that encryption was bypassed is secondary. It does not define the purpose of the program. If playing could be accomplished without breaking encryption, it would be. Saying the LiViD software is illegal is like saying microwave ovens should be illegal because their primary purpose is to roast live infants and kittens. It's just stupid. Sure, it's an unpleasant possibility with a microwave. As is copying with the software in question. But that's not its primary purpose. So long as the court is kept straight on this point, all shall be well. I hope
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
No more copyright, trademark, infringement, legal action or otherwise stories for today please, thank you.
Let's just set up "Slashmark--News for Lawyers. Stuff that's argued forever."
Also, anyone else here think lawsuits for linking to "blah" is lame? Can I sue a search engine yet?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Umm, storing it on standard hard drives is even more expensive than storing it on writable DVDs. As for making VCDs, that results in quality loss. If you're going to do that, just connect the video in on your VCR to the video out on your DVD and tape away!
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I have a quote from a highly relevent document written by Michael Moradzdeh who is identified as senior counsel at Intel Corporation. The document is "Licensing Requirements for the CSS DVD Copy Protection Method". This is from the first page of the document in the Background topic:
DVD, with its dramatically increased storage capacity, is expected to drive a revolution in multimedia software applications and movies. However, motion picture owners have been reluctant to embrace this exciting new medium until reasonable steps to deter casual home copying are in place. The studios have been concerned that the quality and reproducibility of the DVD may result in innumerable illegal copies being made by casual home users, leading to a loss
of revenue.
The motion picture and consumer electronics industries, later joined by the computer industry, have developed and negotiated a plan for limiting home copying. It includes a scrambling algorithm known as the "Contents Scramble System" or "CSS." It relies on a combination of content scrambling, key encryption, conditional access, and licensing terms to enforce a set of design rules. In order to receive the keys and algorithms needed to access the content, manufacturers must commit that systems which incorporate these keys and algorithms will meet these design rules.
Without having to read too carefully I think it is clear that what CSS is designed to prohibit technologically is what has previously been known as fair use. It has NO impact on professional pirating. Their shell game is to point at and loudly complain about pirating but the technology is designed to reverse the perceived losses they sufferred in Sony vs Universal Pictures in the Betamax decision.
I hear if you put it on a server in Thailand, no one from the USA can touch it.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
That's why we all should become our own ISPs. Just get a DSL line into your house and run your own mail/web servers.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
And just for the record, be careful of what you read here on Slashdot. According to the DVD lawyers, it is proof that you knew or should have known the legalese of the situation. One bozo who thinks the law was broken will be quoted in court as proof to the judge.
IANAL, but the DVD lawyers seem to think we are qualified to give legal advice here ;-)
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with what the MPAA is doing. But I think it's important to see this from both sides.
My counter arguement to the "every pirating dvd's" arguement is the VCR. How many people do you know make bootleg copies of VCR tapes? Maybe 1, if that? Heck, how many people do you know that borrow cd's and burn a copy of it onto another cd? It doesn't happen as often as the MPAA wants you to think.
Actually, I know many people who make bootleg copies of VCR tapes. Additionally, there was a big news coverage of the bootleg movie copies in NYC a few months back. A few people I know picked up a copy of South Park just to see if it was for real -- and it was. I do grant that most of these are copies of the movie and not the tape.
Additionally, just because the VCR is capable of allowing copies isn't a good reason for keeping things the same way with DVD. DVD is supposed to be an up and coming format, something to lead us into the next great revolution in this area. If we aren't allowed to innovate and add new features, then what's the point? (Yes, I believe that copy protection is a feature).
The cost of writable DVD media makes piracy more expensive than actually purchasing DVDs.
I don't know how long this will actually be true. It was very expensive to copy CD's just a few years ago. Now it's commonplace! From what I've read, the folks who hacked the format were trying to build an OS player. Of course, it is possible to make use of the information gained for nefarious purposes, but I fail to see how anyone is harmed by my gaining the ability to play The Matrix on my *nix box. (Not that I have a DVD player yet.)
Like I said, I think this is the real reason why this is such a big issue. We (the open source community) want open source software to thrive. And if we can't have the same features (DVD playing being one of these) as commercial software, then we lose out.
Part of their business model is that they want to sell the same content to a single consumer multiple times. Why else would there be an interest in metered viewing and rentals?
Perhaps, just perhaps, for the same reasons Blockbuster or Hollywood Video have for renting VHS tapes. Many people don't want to pay full price for a movie they will only watch once or twice; in this situation, renting the movie makes sense. And being able to watch the movie a second time without going out again to rent it does make sense (though streaming seems to be the final solution, many years from now).
I'm a little afraid that the Linux-x86 community would sell out and accept a DVD-player binary and leave the rest of the minority platforms to rot.
Somehow my ideas didn't make their way entirely to the keyboard. What I'm envisioning is a hardware-based decoding scheme, which would have a documented interface, so open source software could play, but not copy, the DVD.
As for the backup issue, I agree that this is a valid concern. But DVD's are much less likely, in my opinion, to get damanged as VHS tapes or floppy discs. While this doesn't eliminate the problem, I think backups are much less of an issue than we are making them out to be.
"I hereby state, under penalty of perjury under the laws of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification."
This is a quote from the actual letter sent by the MPAA's lawyers. I'm not sure how legit this is, but it sounds pretty clear. So, it sounds like he is guilty of perjury. I think we should set the bastard up to fry. It'd make a damned fine example!
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
ah, but piracy is all about "distribution" and the "intent to distribute". copying is mute, since your copied DVD is usless financially to anyone but you, unless you intend to go bankrupt selling hard drives full of DVD which can be purchased cheaper at Best Buys :)
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
No matter if it's perjury, threat, lies, extortion or whatever, MPAA has NO jurisdiction over the WEB.
The WEB is everywhere, that is, it can NOT be legally defined as residing in ONE country, or under the jurisdiction of any one COURT DISTRICT, so, MPAA is out of luck.
MPAA's "letters" is a desperate SCARING TACTIC. There is NO NEED to heed the letters at all.
In fact, those who received the letter can use it (the letter) as the PERFECT EVIDENCE to COUNTERSUE the MPAA for THREATENING and the INVASION OF PRIVACY.
Hope that someone will take that course to teach MPAA a lesson.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
:: coughs ::
::
Looks UUencoded
:: smirks and walks away
SB.
Lawyers admitted to the Bar are officers of the court. Their formal threat letter is a legal document. If they have material misrepresentations of fact they can have their license suspended or removed and they can be fined or imprisoned.
As has been pointed out, they are being arbritary and capricious in their choice of targets.
All in all, not to good a start to their 'battle', but if their major weapons are bluff and bucks and they pick some fearful poor folk who knows.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I was refering to several of the posts by ACs (hopefully not you) that were basically "GOO-GOO GOO-GOO ..." and one that was the text of the lawer's letter passed through a jive filter. And they are there several times each.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
What is it with these posts? Perhaps posts should be run through a compression routine and only accepted if they have a certain minimum information content.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
An open-source DVD player means that a player that *copies* DVD's is trivial. This is what the MPAA doesn't want.
So, I can copy CDs and that market is doing just fine. I should be able to copy my DVDs. After all, how will I make a backup??
--fatboy
But what happens when people decide they want to watch DVD's on another operating system that they decided not to support?
And yes, this animosity towards the MPAA and the RIAA is very well deserved. Both are just legal organizations that use there power to bully others into submission. In Canada there is a tax on blank audio cd's and that tax goes to the RIAA whether or not they were used to record legal or illegal music on.
Freedom has a price, and it isn't like either of these organizations can't afford it.
OTOH, I would call as my 1st witness an expert from the NSA to comment on the encryption scheme, the need for encryption, and the ability to crack certain schemes. Weak encryption is equivalent in this current (and future) computer environment to no encryption at all. Hence, I would argue that weak encryption really does not constitute a good faith attempt to protect their IP. Just think. Suppose I use a bad encryption scheme. In a few years from now, this bad scheme will look even more pathetic. Let's see, I can use HAL. Nobody will figure out what this really means. (And yes, I do know that this was not intended).
The MPAA should be more concerned with producing movies that people want to see. The MPAA should be wondering why their companies do not legally show a profit on blockbuster movies so that they don't have to really do profit sharing.
Damming the Ocean (which should have been a full fledged article in itself!) warns of just such a future. Other related URL's include
*C Initiative, or, a Control Freak's Wet Dream
Digital Transmission Content Protection
Copy Protection Working Group
Also, back in We Won For Now, Chris Johnson pointed out how individual and small-scale content creators are just as adversely affected by all these technical and legal hurdles as end consumers (but consumers are far more numerous, not to mention a lot whinier after generations of Consumer Reports and Ralph Nader constantly kvetching there-oughtta-be-a-law). (Can't figure out if there's a way to directly hyperlink to older, now-static comments. Search for Score: 5 "Explanation (of sorts)".) It's good to see an editorial assistant somewhere forwarded that post to an assistant editor, but these fundamental issues deserve a lot more coverage than they're getting...especially on Slashdot.
Fuck Slashdot
Pity that this isn't like a trademark case, where they have to go after everyone infringing or lose the mark.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
http://CubicMeterCrystal.com/decss/
Its been there for weeks. wheres my letter?
*grin*
Cause they charge tha ever lovin shit outta the hardware people for a license. Thats why..
It all boils down to greedy corprate bastards and their little bitch lawyers.
*deep breath*
Dont take away my freedom.
Stand up for what you believe in. Post the code on your homepage, or at least link to it. Good sites are:
LiVid
OpenDVD
The more people who post it, the more impact we will have. If everyone with a web page does this, we will win by default.
Romen
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
First of all, the DMCA says that:
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
In other words, the bit about circumventing copyright enforcement mechanism hasn't taken effect yet. It also states that this bill does not apply retroactively.
Secondly, someone earlier posted a segment of the bill which I am unable to find at the moment. It provided for an exemption from this "defeating technical measures" clause for the purposes of interoperability. This is precisely what the creators were doing - making DVDs interoperate with Linux.
The MPAA also claims that this software is designed to "defeat" copyright measures. Yet its use is indistinguishable from that of existing DVD playing software. Is Xing's player also illegal because it "defeats" copyright measures? Don't all DVD players defeat copyright protection measures? The only difference is that those companies paid a lot of money to the MPAA.
The MPAA doesn't care about piracy here. They are just using that as an excuse because it sounds like a scary word. The real thing that bothers them is that they don't get paid royalties for the use of the LiViD player.
Please don't encourage anyone to take that approach. Open Source is better. Do you want to be stuck with x86 forever?
(And yes, I make this argument because I have an agenda, and it's different from yours. But don't worry; our goals are compatable, Linux brother. ;-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that.
If that really is the problem, then surely the solution is simple? Just charge for LiViD. Yes, that's right, make it a *commercial* piece of software. How does a charge of 1 cent sound?
Just a thought.
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
And that is IMHBWSO an unconstitutional aspect of the DCMA. Mere accusation alone should never have the force of law to shut someone down. Even judges want to see some kind of evidence of at least a possible successful judgement to issue a temorary order. If I get a letter like that asking me to shut down one of my customers, what I will do with it, since I am not a lawyer, is first have my lawyer check its validity. Let them eat my bureaucracy.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
*shrugs* why not? I think google index's /., so all you have to do is search of decss and mirror and you're away.
Oh, i'd also like to see how much jurisdiction a US court has here in NZ. In other words.. NONE.
The US courts/DVDCCA/MPAA can't do shit to me unless they extradite me (or anyone else, outside of the US) and the NZ courts won't bother with something this silly.. heck, they are meeting to decide weather to send a NZ who was smuggling aliens into the US over, so I doubt they'd bother over something like this. Not too mention in US "unfriendly" nations, where they'd snub their noses.
I realise that most of the links are in the US, but there will always be links outside, and it can't be legal for the MPAA to tell ISP's to pull peoples sites, especially if they arn't in the US
(ohyeah, link Here)
My email addy? should be easy enough.
1. Piracy is possible without the use of the DeCSS player.
Possible? Yes. Feasible for your average home user? No.
2. The cost of writable DVD media makes piracy more expensive than actually purchasing DVDs.
So then make a VCD of it, or just put it on your hard drive or your ftp server or something. Who cares about writing it back to DVD once you've gotten the unencrypted data off of the DVD disk?
I agree wholeheartedly with your other two points, though.
The MPAA is trying to protect their industry.
Yes, and they're doing it at the expense of our rights as consumers. Don't get me wrong, I understand exactly what they're worried about. They have good reason to worry. But tough break.
We don't owe them a living.
Do you feel sorry for a company that goes out of business because the competition was better? Maybe. Should you outlaw competition, then? Certainly not. Same thing here. Sure, it sucks that their product isn't gonna work out the way they intended, but the suggested fix of violating everybody's rights just to satisfy a few (already very rich) interest groups isn't acceptable to me.
That defendant should also include copies of both letters in a complaint to the New York Bar Association. Not that it'd be enough to get the lawyer disbarred, but it might make him have second thoughts about the fight he's trying to pick. Bar Associations (possibly excepting Arkansas') tend to take a rather dim view of lawyers committing perjury (or at least of getting caught out at it).
-- Alastair
This language (the word "access") was probably put in there primarily with (unauthorized) descramblers of satellite or cable signals in mind, not people wanting to play media that they've already paid for. But the courts could choose to interpret it either way.
OTOH, the phrase is "that effectively controls access", and we could argue that CSS wasn't very effective now, was it? (grin)
-- Alastair
Can't we have both the response letter and whapping them upside the head with a large, meaty salmon?...
Please?
Doesn't the encryption only prevent you from viewing the material on the DVD? If you want to make an [illegal or otherwise] copy of a DVD couldn't you just copy it bit by bit, encryption and all?
One thing that has usually (certainly, not in all cases) permeated these laws is the idea that 'non-commercial, free things done by individuals are usually *exempt* from these laws, or the concept that the law should not inhibit progress, only protect someone to a *reasonable* extent.
The media industries (music, film, television, etc.) want to be the sole source of entertainment for the people of This Fine Country©. The real issue isn't piracy, but rather control of entertainment sources. Even the television industry is heading back that way with the transition to DTV. Look for digital-capable video recorders to have some kind of system to where you can't copy anything, even though the law gives you that right.
The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that. So.. in one way, they have a very valid claim about the DVD stuff.
Well, think about it. DeCSS does have a commercial purpose other than "illegal copying" or DVDs. It allows users of non-supported OS's to view DVDs, which in turn makes them more likely to buy DVDs, which puts money in the movie industry's pocket.
OTOH... we must twist the words in our own favour. The primary purpose of this software, though it could, and most likely will, be easily used to *copy* video off dvd, is to allow the OSS community to develop DVD player software, and to get access to the data for *whatever reason they want*.
I am considering setting up a site on one of the free web hosting domains (what's a good one?) that, on the front page, states in huge letters that this software is not intended for copying DVDs, but rather to play them on unsupported OSs. Of course, I will probably get a cease-and-desist letter, but the more people that do this, the more the public will be aware.
The problem, of course, is that even if it's purpose is to enable us to make a DVD player... the primary purpose of the code being linked to *IS* to defeat the CSS scheme, nobody can really argue that, and the CSS scheme is the copy protection mechanism.. or so they say.
Well, not exactly. It's always been possible to make a bit-for-bit copy with the encryption intact. CSS is more like region-lockout technology than copy protection.
I know this has been said hundreds of times, but I will say it again - vote with your dollars, people. If you don't like the greediness of the movie industry, don't buy DVDs.
Prime example - DIVX. People in general hated DIVX, so they bought DVD. Now DIVX is dead. DVD could go the same way (and I really hate to see it die, it's a great consumer format) if the film industry doesn't get their head out of their @$$.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder
FC Closer
I didn't know you could actually do that. I thought you needed witnesses and a formal court in session. Guess I need to brush up on my legalisms, eh?
Ok, if it was enacted on Oct. 28, 1998 then that portion of the law fails to take effect until Oct 28, 2000. Right? or was this law in effect since 1996??!
IANAL, but claiming in a legal document something that you know is false can land you in deep doodoo.
The DVD lawyers have protected themselves from this in some way, I imagine. I didn't read the letter THEY wrote, so for all I know it could be the same as those letters that come in the mail with big bold letters on the front saying "YOU HAVE ONE TEN MILLION DOLLARS".
Doesent this make all DVD players illegal? I mean they have technology to access the material. That makes it illegal. or did I read that wrong?
. . . . is a bunch of thugs. Anything can be cracked or hacked, that much is obvious.
They just want a ruling in their favor, then every case after this one can refer to it legally.
"Look, you can't reverse engineer anything or post that crack on your website. Your going to jail."
This is an incredibly stupid assertion. As one of the DVD sites points out, you don't need to decrypt a DVD to make a copy of it. The only reason no one does is that writable DVDs are more expensive than those with movies on them. But all you need to do is making a bit by bit copy.
They can hardly claim it circumvents access controls either - you can by a DVD player at pretty much any street corner that can show you the contents on the DVD. The only claim they can make is that it circumvents the 'region controls' (DVDs can be made to be playable only in the US, or only in Europe etc.) but that is easily circumvented by importing a foreign DVD player - a task several orders simpler than implementing the decryption algorithm from a description.
EFF got its start defending SJG...
That's a bit of an overstatement, but the early history of the EFF may be of interest to some folk.
Also, EFF can always use donations.
Again, that's living dangerously. Even if you're right, even it if was under the pretenses for creating a linux DVD player, the distribution of the DeCSS source could be seen as the original breaking of a trade secret, or publicizing an "unpublished work". And the Industry would still have the full force of the law behind them.
Unfortunatly it's more then just typical. They do it because most of the stuff they pass people won't bother to fight. They'll just give in. Well I think the DMCA is one of those pieces where people aren't just going to give it.
--Mark
Just because they got restraining orders against several new york people for distributing DeCSS, does that mean JUST decss, or does that strangely include css-auth and LiViD?
I believe this judge was not impartial, or at least is suspicious, in his disagreeing so absolutely with the defendants and agreeing so absolutely with the "plaintiffs" (if they even deserve that title).
But then, had they mentioned LiViD, and those previously quoted sections of DMCA, I'm pretty sure his lack of impartiality, was that he wasn't informed of LiViD properly.
Let's disassociate css-auth and LiViD from decss. Let decss die, and continue on with something that if they try and smash, will definitely look like a strike against personal liberty...
...against a movie company based on restraint of fair use copying? Forget CSS for a minute. From what I understand reading messages on Slashdot and opendvd.org, if making fair use copies is a legally established right, and a movie company uses Macrovision to prevent imperfect analog copies that should be possible under fair use, then they have infringed on consumers rights.
So if I go buy a DVD player and a DVD of Mulan, then try to make a copy onto VHS for my 4 year old daughter to use so the DVD won't get messed up, and I can't do it, they have infringed on my rights, no? (IANAL of course!) And everyone else who has bought Mulan.
I don't know how this would work legally, but it would be an awesome legal DoS attack on the movie companies if separate class action lawsuits were brought for individual movies. It's probable that the courts would consolidate separate suits though.
This whole thing has soured me on DVD. Actually I'm pissed off, and I feel like retailiating against the movies companies. I'm not planning on buying a DVD player for home use now until this has shaken out, and then if the results are not good, I may never buy one.
The ironic thing is, the movie companies may be ahead of their time on this one. Either by luck or foresight, through draconian measures they seek to control so-called "casual" copies. Yes, today mass production operations account for the largest losses when it comes to piracy. But in the not to distant future, when we all have fiber to our desktops and 100Mbps wireless links, it will be trivial to ship gigabytes around. "Casual" copying _could_ eclipse organized mass production of DVD movies in terms of losses in the future.
What amazed me though was a recent story on Wired about a new technique a company is developing for "expiring" DVD disks. A film that is activated by the laser that will make the disk unreadable after a specified period of time--say 2 days, but it can vary. They are hoping to use this as a DIVX-type of rental, where people don't have to bring it back. The disturbing thing is, if the movie & rental companies can profit from a DVD rental disk that is rented for $2.50 to $3.00 and is in no way different (in terms of costs to manufacture and distribute) from a DVD you purchase at retail for $25.00, what does that say about their pricing? (Not to mention their concern for the environment with all these disks that just get thrown away!) The only difference is the licensing terms!
DVD is the first battle in the coming digital revolution. Can you imagine what is going to happen when digital broadcasts become widespread, and digital VCR's or computers are recording these broadcasts in perfect, exactly reproducable form?
My wife has already built a substantial personal library of movies she's recorded legally from HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. If they start broadcasting digitally, and we are recording digitally, that's better than DVD! No CSS right?
Heck, how is a TV network going to survive when people can digitally record a show, remove commercials, then view, webcast, or email copies to everyone on the planet?!
One thing that I rarely see is an emphasis on personal responsibility, that just because a person can do a thing, it doesn't mean they must do it, that copyrights must be respected, or yes, they do lose their value, and once content producers' content has no value, and thus no profit, there is no incentive (or means) to continue producing more content. It may be obvious to us, but I sometimes wonder about the general population.
There is this page which maps out the labels: Who Owns Who
The Copyleft T-shirt have only one of the files, I wanna iron ALL OF THEM FILES on a shirt.
Calling hackers: If someone can hack into MPAA website, make sure to insert the entire code hidden in every single one of thier pages. And don't forget to insert the code in those lawyers' email signature, too.
Another way may be using one of those bubbleboy type Microsoft Outlook worms to spread the source code.
Has anybody designed a nice GIF for a link and posted some offshore sites out of reach of the shakedown artists, so we can all link to them?
Anyone have a decent list of the companies and labels that support the RIAA?
I think it's definitely time for me to boycott these idiots. And there's plenty of good music from independent folks.
Ok.. it's necessary to encrypt DVDs in order to get normal DVD players to play the disks. So wouldn't it be likely that there is some non-copyrighted material floating around on a DVD somewhere?
--
The shareholder is always right.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Perjury is not lying. Perjury is breaking an oath. Thus, lying if you are a witness in court is perjury because you swore (took an oath) to tell the truth.
You would swear to the truth if you were a lawyer sending a letter like this.
No comment at this time
Let's have some civil disobedience, Slashdot style!
Somebody post the offending materials, and we can post them on our web pages, along with the source code to RSA, and our links to SETI@Home!
I want one of these letters!
No comment at this time
if you had read the original paper sent to the defendants you would have seen that at the end it states
"I hereby state, under penalty of perjury under the laws of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification."
that is the reason the defendant added the threat of perjury at the end of the article.
Of course I have been wrong before so forgive me if I am now
This is the worst part! The software, while clearly not illegal under (A), might be illegal under this section. After all, free DVD playing software is of limited commercial use.
The subject of course is satirical. I think that the MPAA and the State of Connecticut should be ashamed of their usage of slippery legalese in order to further their vise-like grip on the distribution of DeCSS. Moreover, measures should be taken to clarify and minimize the open ended language of the copyright law--it is all too easy to take advantage of vague, poorly written laws. The MPAA and the RIAA have repeatedly shown their "concern", nay, paranoia, regarding online distribution of content which may infringe on exceedingly overencompassing yet incoherent copyrights.
It is clear that OSS is synonymous with Openly Satanic Sources with the MPAA and RIAA. They do not know how to reposition themselves in digital entertainment; they choose to cling to the former status quo.
"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
Anyone notice the snail mail address on the demand letter: "2600 mindcrime Pkwy"? This is also the address the domain name is registered under, but it doesn't show up in any online maps, and the name sounds too weird to be true. Anybody in the Lowell/Boston area can verify this?
What really gets me is that they're trying to get the person's address. Usually you need a warrant or a subpoena of some variety, sent out by an actual court of law - you can't just expect companies to give out customers' vital information like that. The ISP I work for never gives out data without a warrant or subpoena, except when we catch one of our own members doing evil things and need to report it to the police or FBI.
Great, try to sue that pants off the little guys who don't even make a significant dent in the market. Doesn't this just leave a bad taste in your mouth??? Brian's page doesn't have anything that's illegal either! This draft from the MPAA accomplishes nothing. Actually I take that back, what it does accomplish is this: When the next weak encryption scheme comes along and someone cracks it, instead of taking credit for their cleverness they'll just release anonymously. Then who are you going to sue MPAA? The MPAA knows they can't stop what's out there already but they can try try try to take down the figure heads to discourage further spreading of the LiViD player and the cracking program. They still don't understand that the nature of computers makes it nearly if not totally impossible to make anything that we can stick in our computers and play, secure, because the player has to break the encryption, liscensed though it may be, that means we can break it too, liscensed or not.
It's funny that none of this would have happened if they had not ignored Linux and just made us a stupid DVD player.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
Make all forms of media, and their respective players/viewers/recorders, illegal. In doing so, you would have then eliminated ANY chance of any illegal copies of anything, from ever being made.
Sure, to some this might seem a bit draconian, but as I see it, only these kinds of thorough measures will achieve our collective goal of eliminating illegal copies of copyrighted material.
Does this mean that people can no longer create art? OF COURSE NOT! I mean sure, I do want to put a few new laws on the books, but let us not get crazy and go overboard.
HOWEVER, once you have created said work of art (regardless of media) you must then destroy it since the art itself lies within the creation. Being patted on the back for having done something "brilliant" is ego and can not be tolerated, and... we all know the everyone would want to make and distribute illegal copies, and we can't have that soooo......
Ignore Alien Orders
Rather annoyed by the actions of the MPAA (and their legal representatives, I have put a copy of css.tar.gz on my homepage:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dhbayneI have also sent the follow letter to Mr. Edward Gallagher, one of the aforementioned legal representatives:
Dear Mr. Gallagher,
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dhbayne
Bite me.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXX
I shall be interested to see if this generates any response at all. I imagine that Mr. Gallaghers email account (egallagher@sargoy.com) should be well and truly /.ed by now. I'll also be interested to see how much clout they have in New Zealand. Actually, probably more clout than New Zealand itself. Oh well.
Cya all, :-)
Gomez
I in fact welcome the lawsuit (upon myself).
They're claims are so funny that, hell, sue me! I'll get joy out of it!
Claims you say? Well, they got a few, like we're making it possible to copy DVD's, which is false, or that it's illegal, in general, or that copy protection is good for the industry, and that copying is illegal (Which it's not, in fact).
The file for DeCSS is at ftp://altair.dhs.org/pub , my email address is charles@nospam.altair.dhs.org (Just remove the "nospam." from that.
If you DVD-CCA people email me, I'll give you my PO Box and you can tell me which court to go to!
And don't forget to sue me, I'de really appreciate the entertainment!
(thanks!)
Well, this may be offtopic for a copiright discussion, but it is very interesting to note that it can be applied to the act of reverse engineering the Xing player. Under this precedent it would be legal, even if done in the EEUU.
Therefore, to publish the knowledge adquired by doing so, would be legal, so even if DeCSS can be stopped on the grounds of the DMCA (I hope not), the act of publishing the encription algorithm and encription keys is completely legal!
(tip) Somebody should sue the RIAA for breach of fair use consumer rights.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Well, if M$ can argue that Explorer is part of the operation system, just because they have spread the code all arround windows, we sure can create a DVD viewer wich uses the knowledge that was (legally) gained by reverse engineering the encription.
If the decription code is an integral part of the dvd viewer (for a judge and most of the non technical people out there is probably enough to make them compile into the same binary), it would be within the law.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
I hereby state, under penalty of perjury under the laws of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification.
A written document can contain an oathbound statement, and that statement is (potentially) perjurious because of the phrase "which are being infringed as set out in this notification." If no rights are being infringed upon (as the reply states) then that statement is false, and the lawyer who wrote it damn well knew it.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Well, taking these guys to court for perjury would probably be the stupidest thing anyone could possibly do, sort of on the order of a spectator jumping into a bullfighting ring to challenge the bull because his smell offends you.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
But why the hell should they CARE about the home user making a copy or three?
It's been clear for some time that this isn't about piracy. As has been pointed out before:
So what is the point of this? It's been suggested that they really want to control the market for drives...and that's possible, I guess, but according to the DVD FAQ, the license for CSS is free.
Could they be wanting to control the format in order to restrict use of it by independent artists? That would explain the MPAA's interest, I guess, but my understanding is that DVDs that aren't CSS-encrypted can still be played on any player.
Then there's maintaining the region control as a possible motivation...and while I'm sure studios prefer to be able to control which countries can see a movie, I somehow can't see it as being important enough for this level of attack.
I'm left with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and specifically the anti-consumer provisions that make it illegal to access content you own in a way that the copyright holder doesn't want to allow. This the potential to enormously increase the power of the MPAA and its members over the public, surely enough reason for the ferocity of the attack on DeCSS.
However - the actions and words of Judge Lewis Kaplan today notwithstanding - this is an awfully weak case for them to test the DMCA with. It straightforwardly pits the interests of the plaintiff against the right of consumers to create software for interoperability and to make fair use of content (in this case, to play legally purchased DVDs on a computer player they own).
I'm left with one of two conclusions: either there's some deep dark mystery here, or the movie industry is run by idiots. At this point I wouldn't rule out either possibility.
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.
The "innocent until proven guilty" bit does not have as much of an effect in civil court as it does in a criminal case. And, in "Real-life", innocent until proven guilty is meaningless.
However, this is the first time the DMCA has been tested in court (from what I've heard). The language of the Act in question does provide for immediate (but possibly temporary) shutdown of a website, with very very little evidence required. No law enforcement personnel need to be involved. All that's needed to get a site shut down is that you own a copyright, believe "in good faith" that a site is infringing on it, and send the notice to the proper address. Welcome to the DMCA.
I hope the DMCA gets stopped quickly, but until then, watch out for the copyright holders.
Of course they're sending ominous letters and e-mails! Their multi-million dollar executives are scared to see the bottom of the money trough! Just think; if a few of those letters and e-mails cause a few people to pull their sites down, they've just solved a small part of the "problem" with no more effort than pressing "send"!
I'm just glad to see that the website owners aren't taking this lying down.
1260 Portland, Oregon Bands
Love 'em all and let God sort 'em out...
I'll do the same. I suspend my company domain (I own the company, I can do that) and post the program and the source code. I'll even give them a nice html letter so that when they look at it and want to send me one of those letters, it'll give them my reply, so they can save the paper.
GIHM -The light at the end of the tunnel is only the oncoming train.
Generic DeCSS mirror www.bbx.org.uk/dvd - also has "50 things to do with the DeCSS source".
Thinks: maybe the DeCSS source is small enough to "store" in the data of ICMP Ping packets and so have it stored on both many and no systems at once...
The question is, what is being protected under the law, the video on the DVD, or CSS itself?
I doubt that the court will agree with you that digital video is actually a "program". I think that it will decide that video is simply data that can be handled under the first part of the law, but not under the later parts (that you quoted).
This doesn't necessarily mean that the deCSS case should be won by the MPAA. I think that the freedom to duplicate data on a DVD that you own is protected by fair use. There is a very real chance that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act will be declared unconstitutional.
Good ridance to it!
Steve
Moderate this up! If the judge askes the lawyers how they figured it out, they'll have to say: "Well gee, it wasn't really protected too well". (You really should have copyrighted your post tho ;)
It's not the DVD Video that was reverse engineered. It's the ROM-based software in the DVD Decoder that actually decodes the DVD in the first place, so under the provisions of the Act, it remains legal to reverse-engineer that, create a program (called DeCSS) that provides inter-operability with Linux, and distribute it.
Or am I wrong?
Salocin.com
As far as I know, this is bullshit. The site you are referring to is the openDVD journalist reference page. They say:
"However, as this letter clearly shows, the encryption only hinders playback. It is possible to (illegally) copy a DVD disk without decrypting anything! You can do this because the decryption is done at play time and doesn't have anything to do with copying."
Note that the IEEE article on DVD says:
"This is done by pre-embossing (or in the case of write-once DVD-R media, factory pre-recording) the sector reserved for the DVD-Video or DVD-Audio disc decryption keys. As a result, the recordable blank cannot record a copy of the disc decryption key associated with a bit-by-bit copy's transfer of content, and while the copy itself is not prevented, it is impossible to play back."
That is, titlekeys are written to static *unwritable* location(s). Rick Moen (the person referenced by the opendvd site) says that the linked email 'was not fully informed' , but that he's come across other points to support the defense.
I think it's pretty irresponsible of the opendvd people to knowingly (this assumes they read their feedback email account) misrepresent the facts in this way -- especially to the media.
Note that I've only just started looking into this so I may be wrong -- please feel free to correct me.
.c
ftp://ftp.foon.net/pub/decss
-- when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
Gotta love that image of the crowbar-wielding hacker breaking open the MPAA's desk drawers, though I'd say it was probably more along the lines of a screwdriver and a bent coat hanger! ;)
Stop going to the movies, stop renting or buying videos, do NOT buy another DVD.....and make sure everyone knows that you are doing this because the MPAA is STIFLING freedom of choice AND freedom to innovate (recognize THAT argument?)
You may not be able to put DeCSS up on your website but you do have the right to expose the censorship and descrimination that the very industry that cries when censored is trying to impose on us.
Perhaps hitting them in the pocket book by the alternative operating systems groups might work. (Linux/OS2/BeOS/etc..)
You're right. If I gave you instructions on how to cut meat with a knife, does that mean if you go an butcher your neighbour it's my fault?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Hmmm... what does the word "effectively" mean here in legalese? If the measure is ineffective, because it can be trivially circumvented, does the law become non-applicable?
Maybe the MPAA lawyers should take a look at this UF strip.
The person from the lawfirm claims in their demand letter that they have received information
Since they do not specify what kind of infofmation they have received it could be anything from a proven fact to a rumour.
What seems so strange to me is that a site can be taken temporarily down solily on the grounds of "what might be a rumour". The fact that their letter did not contain any facts would make an action like taking the site down be the same as arresting a person on grounds of a rumour that that person killed someone.
True the lawfirm can obtain their evidence just by surfing to the web page and saving the illigal parts on one of theur local computers, but since they did not mention it in their demand letter it is easily to believe that they do not have any.
I believe that in the US law enforcement is on the principle of "not guilty until proven otherwise", so I can hardly believe your statement to be true, or if it is true, that such a law can be enforced without resulting in some lawsuit for a big damage compensation to be paid by the lawfirm (or the MPAA) to the maintainer of the website in case that, in a court the, judge finds that this specific website is not illegal.
"You sold me this thing and said it would play DVDs on my computer. It does not do that..."
The suit would have to be directed against the hardware vendors, not the MPAA of course. However, the hardware vendors undoubtedly have some clout with MPAA. Seems like there ought to be enough Linux users to amount to a class.
Then, you shoot all the lawyers...
I am sick of lawyers thinking that they can tell people what to do. I am getting the software and posting it to my own web site on a page where I talk about freedom of speech. I don't even own a DVD player.
If everyone does this I think that we can shut _them_ up. After all, they can't go after all of us.
-- Never make a general statement.
Wow, that's Microsoft's PR firm.
h y.asp#top
"To control the message to these audiences, Edelman applies Convergence, a new model of supportive persuasion, where message dissemination involves the simultaneous influencing of opinion leaders and consumers."
http://www.edelman.com/company_profile/philosop
'nuff said.
A DVD movie is much more of a program than, say a random email or text file. It has a precise structure which is intended to produce a specific result on the screen and speakers when interpreted. I only introduced the idea of a DVD being a program to get around some poor language that I don't understand in the act. Specifically the "interoperability between programs" language. I think that fair use also enters here. The DMCA specifically states that it does not intend to restrict fair use. Playing a DVD you own on Linux clearly falls within fair use.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
It's really hard to say. It seems to me that CSS is the copy protection protecting the DVD movie which is the copyrighted work. The reverse engineering exemption allows subverting an access control mechanism for the purpose of inteoperability between computer programs which is whi I was trying to make the case that theDVD movie can be considered a computer program.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
123 Main Street
Anytown, USA 01234-5678
RE: Infringement of Copyrighted Motion Pictures:
illegal posession of deencryption hardware
Dear Mr. America:
Sargoy, Stalin, Rosellini & Shapiro represents and is authorized to act on behalf of the following copyright owners:
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
United Artists Corporation
AOL-Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have received information that at the above address there exists a device with the purpose of defeating DVD encryption so that multiple copies of the information on DVDs can be created. Your location posesses the capability of displaying the unencrypted information from a DVD on a video display screen (to wit, a television screen) while the information simultaneously exists in its encrypted state on the DVD.
Such concurrent posession of multiple copies of the DVD material constitutes an infringement of the exlusive rights to make copies of the data; and constitute an infringement of copyright by using a device which is primarily designed to circumvent technolgical protection measures. United States Copyright Act 17 USC 106 and 1201 (which does not take force until 28 October 2000, but we're going to try to get you under it now anyway.)
We request that you immediately divest your premesis of any devices which posess the capability of deencrtypting DVD data (commonly known as "DVD Players"), and take other such action as may be appropriate to suspend your illegal activities. We would also request that you advise us of any other such individuals who posess such deencryption devices that you might have used or known about.
You may contact me as follows:
We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested so that the illegal infringing activity can be stopped.
Please telephone or write to me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Edward Gallagher
I'm Not A Lawyer, But I Play One In Letters
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A letter is not "under oath" or perjury.
On the other hand, it could be construed as legal advice, and offering intentionally deceptive legal advice would be fraud.
Just once I would like to see someone get sued for damages caused by one of these frivolous intimidation legal letters or lawsuits.
If you haven't yet taken those two movies out of the shrinkwrap, why not take the back to Suncoast Video and get your $65 back. And while you're doing that, take the opportunity to explain to the clerk behind the register (and possibly the manager of the store) exactly why the MPAA's actions have influenced you to get your money back. Explain to them also that until the MPAA improves its behavior, you won't be going back to Suncoast Video to buy any more DVD's or other films. This will mean lost sales for Suncoast Video, and you'd better believe that if enough people start doing this, the word will get back to the MPAA and the distributors. Actual countable lost profits will be a much stronger message than just a few people sending in letters vowing to stop buying DVD's. They'll start listening when they actually see the money slipping out of their grasp.
I was happy to see in the Wired article that the EFF is planning to use the case filed in NY and CT as an opportunity to challenge the legality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in court. We've seen a number of stories on /. where the DMCA was used as a tool to intimidate defendants who don't have a lot of money and who may not have "popular" causes. Many of them have been very similar to the demand letter linked above - vague and questionable accusations followed by very heavy legal threats from a high-powered lawyer. In some cases lawyers have even preemptively threatened web sites (I'm thinking Lucasfilm and Star Wars DVDs here) when there were no cases of infringing materials to be found. These actions are in clear violation of the DMCA (which requires plaintiffs to describe exactly where the offending content is located at, and forbids requesting anyone to police their site for such content before it appears there), but lawyers are apparently happy to only bring up the parts of the law that are convenient for them.
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the DMCA is overturned and we return to a more normal policy on copyright, the better. It isn't as if normal copyright law wouldn't be sufficient in cases where there really is illegal copyright infringement. The only difference the DMCA makes is that it encourages suits to be filed quickly and against a large number of targets, in hopes that threatening legal wording and the untested nature of the law itself will scare the accused into submission.
The fact that the anti-circumvention statute is not yet effective was mentioned in a CNI-Copyright response this morning, with a pointer to the Library of Congress feeback page at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc .html.
The Copyright Office is first seeking written and reply comments from interested parties in order to elicit information and views on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the prohibition against circumvention of access control technologies. Persons interested in submitting comments should consult the November 24, 1999 notice of inquiry published in the Federal Register. Further background on this rulemaking may also be found in the notice of inquiry.
Comments are due February 10, 2000
Unfortunately, Andy's overlooked the fact that the NY & CT cases are based both on 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(b)(1) & (2). Reverse engineering applies only to the Norwegian minor who cracked the DVD CSS algorithm. The plaintiffs in the New York and Connecticut cases are charged with violations of 17 USC 1201(b). There is no grace period for violations of this portion of the statute.
other interesting section though, 1201(c)(2):
There is an(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17 /1201.html)
What does this mean?
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Copying DVDs is trivial given either an open-source DVD player or a reeingineered sound/video driver which allows interception of the datastream on its way to your monitor and speakers.
The difference between the two methods is that the DVD player approach is one step closer to source, and nominally provides a higher-quality clone of the original material. However, if the economics of bootlegging are favorable, quashing DeCSS will not protect the movie industry against the purported threat.
The fact remains that the economics of pirating DVDs are overwhelmingly unfavorable to producing cheap knock-off disks. Archival space, duplicating equipment, blanks, and transmission time are currently cost-prohibitive -- it's easier to spend the 15 bucks on a legit version.
This case is not about piracy and bootlegging of content, it's about manufacturer interest in closing out competitive replay technology, especially free technology for which no cost-recapture is possible. The rest of the rhetoric is simply hot air.
What is extremely aggregious is the perversion of copyright law to something which has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement. The legal threats against those who link to DeCSS code is removed from piracy by:
That is SEVEN degrees of seperation from real economic damage. Hello!?
The fact is that what is being called a copyright infringement is, while a technical violation of copyright law, in no way whatsoever actually infringing the copyright of any DVD in existence.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
In all seriousness, as the movie industry enters an era where production costs are made cheaper through use of computers (if not now then in two years) and duplication and distribution costs are an order of magnitude cheaper (quiz: how much merchandise as VHS tapes can you fit in a truck? Now, how much as DVDs?), wouldn't a real free market _have_ them take a serious blow in the form of competition doing the same thing at the _real_ profit margins of the industry? Apparently the actual breakeven costs of DVDs are nearer three dollars, as the modified 'disposable' DVDs are being suggested at such a price, and all the copying and transportation costs are a tiny bit higher than regular DVDs due to an additional process.
The movie industry _should_ take a serious blow to their pricing structure. It is foolish to argue that they should be protected from capitalism- look at what the opposite condition did to the computer hardware industry! Sure things have been a bit tough for computer hardware makers, but huge progress was made. Why shouldn't there be huge progress in the movie industry? What gives them the right to rot happily on piles of money? Let them fight it out in the marketplace like normal people.
Have one of the MPAA lawyers try extracting the title key with tstdvd themselves.
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: ATAPI device hdd:
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: Error: Illegal request -- (Sense key=0x05)
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: Media region code is mismatched to logical unit -- (asc=0x6f, ascq=0x04)
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: The failed "Test Unit Ready" packet command was:
Yeah, big threat to the movie industry here. Good luck getting your DVD's decrypted. You ever wonder if they're just trying to generate publicity for DVD? The same kind of publicity that caused every college student in Sweden to write an mp3 encoder.
If a DVD is a computer program, than any data file is a computer program. Interestingly, computer program is not defined in this section.
I think however, that (2) might apply, but only if we can claim we are interoperating with the DVD writing software. Again a bit of a stretch. If legal DVD writing software exists, it is a much better argument.
A better bet might be to say that breaking CSS allows us to write a program which creates DVD files readable by software DVD players and then LiViD allows us to write software which reads those same files.
I think the best bet would be to have the whole damn section declared unconstitutional and start over.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
The key is authority of the copyright holder, which the DVD manufacturer has under licence.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
While it seems a little strong (it's not a good idea to piss off a pissed off lawyer), the original letter from the MPAA lawyer states plainly that he swears the information to be true under penalty of purjury, so I guess the reply had some justification.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Thanks to all for the encouragement. I just went to this site and left my thoughts regarding the matter. I am very satisfied with Suncoast's service and selection, and indicated as much in my note. But I also told them I am seriously considering a DVD boycott because of the MPAA's behavior. I would encourage all who feel the same to go to this site and provide Suncoast with your thoughts. If you decide to contact Suncoast, please remember that we need them on our side. It also would not hurt to include your Replay Club member # if you have one.
In the last few months, there seems to be a lot of animosity on Slashdot against the MPAA. But is this animosity really deserved?
The MPAA is trying to protect their industry. An open-source DVD player means that a player that *copies* DVD's is trivial. This is what the MPAA doesn't want. I don't think any of us really want that, because if everyone goes and gets pirated DVD's, the movie industry takes a serious blow.
So what is the MPAA to do? Are they to just stand back and watch as their domain gets trampled on by the likes of us? No, they are doing the only logical thing at the moment -- they are standing up for themselves. Okay, granted, they don't have much of a case here. But that isn't the point. The point is that they can make their stand on the issue clear, that they will not stand for piracy. I think almost anyone would do the same thing in their position.
Of course, the real solution is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better DVD, one that is more difficult to crack, this time. Then provide Linux/FreeBSD software so the Linux community won't be reduced to having to figure it out for themselves. Would any of this really be much of an issue if it weren't for that?
You are amazed that publishing something about cryptography could be illegal. Ah my son - you should have been around when the IEEE tried to hold a symposium on it back in the early 80's. The NSA tried to get the entire proceedings classified! Things are bad right now - but in some ways they were a whole lot worse!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
That's an interesting tack, but I bet the search engine could argue "common carrier" status - that they have no control over what is included in their database. (Unless you pay them lots of money, of course...) :)
----
Wouldn't it be neat if we e-mailed the MPAA, their attorneys, and our representatives in The Senate and The House with the following?:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am in posession of the css-auth code, the supposedly-illegal DVD decrypting programming code. I hereby turn myself in.
Respectfully,
Waldo L. Jaquith
"You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar." - Arlo Guthrie
This actually happened to me. A person who shall be un-named (but I know who it is, and he is on my permanent shit list) sent emails to the dean of a school I went to, complaining that I was sending him harrassing emails and making obscene posts to a newsgroup. The dean recieved a lot of these emails, who were signed with a pseudonym (with NO contact information). The Dean tried contacting me at a Groupwise address that I never used, and made no attempts to contact me by any other means (even though he obviously had my home phone number, knew I had a mailbox with the department, could have used any of my other email addresses, &c.) He shut down my email service on all accounts for 24 hours as a result. He claimed that he would eventually revoke my email service, but that never happened. Eventually it came down to a shouting match between the dean and the department sysadmin.
I have very fond memories of that institution and I recommend it highly. But even in the best of institutions, there will occasionally be idiots in charge. Those are the people you need to watch out for.
TOYWAR!!
Finding God in a Dog
The DMCA is self-contradictory in this way. It's not OK to distribute something that decrypts a copyrighted work, but it is OK to write something that decrypts a copyrighted work if it's for the purpose of interoperability. Eh?
In talking with Robin Gross about this bill she told me that it's pretty typical of Congress and the President to pass unconstitutional legislation and then leave it to the courts to decide.
Sorry folks, it's not perjury until it's submitted to a court. The paragraph this legal assistant has used is just a form that lawyers use.
Usually, any document submitted as evidence in court must be authenticated, meaning that a human being whose credibility the factfinder is able to evaluate says "yes, I wrote that document." Just submitting the document alone isn't enough. However, in some circumstances, courts will accept a document (called a "declaration" or "affidavit") that contains language equivalent to what the witness would have said if he or she were in court.
No, it doesn't make any sense -- why doesn't the witness then have to authenticate that document? -- but it's a practical solution to a stringent legal requirement, especially if it's a routine matter you're testifying to, or if the witness has been (for example) killed in a terrible accident before he had a chance to testify.
So, to sum up, attorneys frequently put that boilerplate language on just about anything that might someday be submitted to a court (particularly when written by a legal assistant). But until it's really offered in lieu of court-sworn testimony, it's not subject to perjury laws.
Well, maybe your version has better lyrics, but (IMHO) they don't scan quite as my version from a couple of weeks ago.
-- Alastair
IANAL.. but here's something I've observed as of late.
In the past, many laws have been made to protect business, various trademark, patent, copyright, and other IP related laws, as well as much business law. One thing that has usually (certainly, not in all cases) permeated these laws is the idea that 'non-commercial, free things done by individuals are usually *exempt* from these laws, or the concept that the law should not inhibit progress, only protect someone to a *reasonable* extent.
A good example of this would be the DHRA, (digital home recording act)... you know, the one the RIAA threw a fit over with the Diamond RIO.
When the DHRA was being drafted, it was *insisted* (not by the riaa, but by others on the committee) that personal, home computers be exempt from it's restrictions, as something as simple as music copy protection should *not* be able to hamper the technology.. ie: had this not been a clause, it could have been illegal to make a computer that could deal with digital audio, period! So it made sense.. it served it's purpose for a while.
Now.. we have this dreaded DMCA. I hated it before it was drafted, and passed, and I sure hate it now. The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that. So.. in one way, they have a very valid claim about the DVD stuff.
OTOH... we must twist the words in our own favour. The primary purpose of this software, though it could, and most likely will, be easily used to *copy* video off dvd, is to allow the OSS community to develop DVD player software, and to get access to the data for *whatever reason they want*.
The problem, of course, is that even if it's purpose is to enable us to make a DVD player... the primary purpose of the code being linked to *IS* to defeat the CSS scheme, nobody can really argue that, and the CSS scheme is the copy protection mechanism.. or so they say.
Yes. WE all realize this. But to a court....
Can joe average with his 'puter copy DVD? No.. he doesn't have the gear. Can he copy the movies if he has DeCSS? YES.. he can...
Does Joe have something that can hold 2.4gig+ of data? Sure he does.. a HD! (I just bout a 30 gig drive.. that's enough for... 10 2.4gig movies?, my drive was $300.. that's what.. $30/movie, for permanent, fast storage? COOL!
Wow. That's a *major* victory? Gimme a break. IT won't even make a dent, and it will just enrage everyone.
Seriously folks.. I'm not one for disobedience... but I can see it coming, this is just the tip of the iceberg. People are damn well going to do what they *want* to do, and not let the politicians and lawyers push them around.
Are we going to stop working on DeCSS? no...
Ok, let me restate what has already been said...
Trade secrets do not have legal protection from anyone outside the company. All trade secrect laws deal with employees leaking information, NOT outside individuals or companies reverse engineering products.
HTH
Umm, isn't that only true if you say a thing as a witness in court?
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but as a general rule I don't get out the old swearin' bible and swear myself in every time I sit down to write an email.
They teach it right after straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Anyway, he'd have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he, indeed, "damn well knew it."
If the law firm is competent, they'd hire a lawyer for these notices about whom they could establish a reasonable possibility of stunning stupidity.
It's about control to be sure,
they want to control how you view the DVD, but
they really want to control the means of distribution.
That's right, this is more about not allowing independent film makers the ability to press their own DVD's that can be read by 'open' players or even 'closed' players using the reverse engineered crypto keys. The MPAA controls who can use those keys on the DVD and in the DVD drive, open the keys, and anyone can now author DVD content and the MPAA does not get a cut of the profit. That's what really drives them to send out all the threats. They are on the verge of losing control of the media and distribution channels. This is why they want audio to go to DVD, they get control again, they lost it with CD, any artist can cut a CD now for not much more than the studios pay. But when the artist promotes with MP3 and direct sells the CD, they get all the profit, not some middleman. These people dont give a rats arse about Linux or PC players, its about the control of distribution.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Note that the MPAA never has to even threaten a search engine for this to happen. They just have to sue a site that doesn't have questionable information on it, but links to a site that does (like, say, Slashdot?). If they do that successfully, the precedent can then be used by anybody to beat search engines senseless.
At any time, any computerized search engine can link you to hundreds, if not thousands, of sites with illegal content. The content is out there, and the sites link to everything.
Interestingly, there is already precedent the other way to protect search engines. It's the phone book. Any major metropolitan phone book consists of hundreds of links (phone numbers) to known felons. Imagine a parent suing the local Bell for posting the phone number of a local pedophile? I think not (egad, I hope not).
--The basis of all love is respect
And just as Scientology lost with the DMCA (See http://www.primenet.com/~xenubat/un blocked.html for details), I don't think the MPAA is going to win in the long run on this.
I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude people have to the law when posting the DeCSS source. I bet most of the people didn't consult a lawyer before the distribution of software they should have known violated copyright law.
I'm confident that the DVD consortium will argue that "Sure, so you decoded it for interoperability. But you didn't protect the trade secret when you distributed the working code. There's no free speech issue here. Fair Use law doesn't cover the breaking of trade secrets."
A reasonable judge should be able to see it this way....
And that's where the folly is in your logic. A reasonable judge could rule against DeCSS -- *GASP* -- finding that it is fine to reverse engineer the CSS for interoperability, just as long as reasonable steps were made for protecting what the defendents should have know what was a "trade secret".
Reasonable steps might be that the DeCSS was distributed as a complete pre-compiled DVD player rather than an open-source program that exposes the inner-workings of CSS.
Agreed.
While it may or may not have been the most wise or prudent response that could have been written, I think we're all in agreement on one thing - for responding to an MPAA demand letter with accusations of perjury, this guy's proven that he doesn't merely have brass balls, but that he actually goes "clank" when he walks down the street :-)
"We have received information that at the above address there have been offers to provide instructions on defeating DVD encryption so that illegal copies of DVDs can be made."
Nevermind the fact that this information can be used to PLAY dvd's too...
"and constitute an infringement of copyright by offering goods or services which are primarily designed to circumvent technological protection measures"
Too bad it isn't trying to circumvent the protection measures than it is trying to show the owner the real data... (ie: the movie)
"We would also request that you advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating this site."
Translated: We want to sue someone. Give us his name or we sue you.
I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law"
Translated: I'm being paid a bunch of money to think whatever my "boss" wants, so I think that anything which has CSS involved in it is bad.
"this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification"
Translated: They can pay us more than you can.
"We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested so that the illegal infringing activity can be stopped."
Translated: Be scared of us, or we'll sick more lawyers on you.
"Please telephone or write to me if you have any questions."
Translated: We want more stupid quotes to send to media outlets; it also makes for a good laugh on Friday afternoon.
-----
If anyone actually looks at the website in question, you'll find it is a rather well written "paper" describing how CSS works. It can almost be considered an academic paper...what kind of precident would this be setting...
For example, drills would be illegal if their primary purpose were to drill out locks on people's homes; plasma torches (very cool device) would be illegal if their primary purpose were to cut the doors off bank vaults.
The point to be made is that this CSS software, while certainly capable of removing the encryption for numerous illegal actions, is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose" of playing back a DVD movie on systems other than Windows.
If they (MPAA, RIAA, DVDCCA, et. al.) are so concerned about piracy, duplication, etc. then why is Philips allowed to make a dual deck CD-R and Go Video several dual deck VCRs -- which, I might add, will duplicate MacroVision intact with zero distorion.
(B) is basically a re-wording of (A)... (B) stipulates that it is still illegal if it's only commercial significance is to break the copy protection even if that's not what it was primarily designed to do. For example, "slim-jims" would be illegal by this clause; even though it was NOT designed so people could break into your car, it "has only limited commercially significant purpose[s] or use[s] other than" to break into peoples' cars.
The CSS software does not fall to this clause either as its "commercially significant purpose" is in allowing a broader audience to view their DVDs -- I can play back my DVDs on an AlphaBook, for example. (In this context, it is irrelevant that the software is free.)
(C) makes it illegal for me to sell (as it were) you the software if I know you are only going to use it to break the copy protection. Thus, it would be illegal for me to sell you a plasma torch if I knew you were going to use it to break into a bank vault -- sortof like the laws preventing gun stores from sell you a gun if they know you're going to go out and shoot someone. [This is the only clause that has any merit -- weak as it is.]
"I will never work for your company, nor will I, in any management position, hire any person who worked for your company in any technical capacity after the first of Feb. 2000."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The goverment tried to do that but it was rejected as it was against the Swedish constitution.
I think it is sad that they even tried to comply to the US goverment in this case.
/Thomas (Swedish).
-Sig-
Then we should ban floppy disks, zip-drives, CDRW-burners, printers, scanners and yes, even pen and paper. They can all be used for pirating and stealing intellectual property (eg. DVD movies).
I thought it was the criminal act or intention beyond reasonable doubt (plans, hiring criminals etc), that was illegal. The last one is pretty important against Warez and Cracker sites, but that doesn't stick against fair use. I think watching your newly bought DVD on Linux is fair use within a good range.
The movie/media industry knows this, they're not stupid. However, they see themselves as big and strong, yet terribly vulnerable to pirating. They're paranoid and want to have a stranglehold at the market to relieve their fear. The little legal grounds they have for ammunition is the EULA of the Xing-player, which forbids reverse engineering. But everyone knows EULAs targeted at mass-production will never stick in court, as people are left with very little choice. Usually the EULA appears during install. Well after the purchase, and there's no negotiation. Besides, there are ways to bypass the EULA during install before consenting to it.
This is all a ploy to limit our freedom, so an old boy's club can have monopoly on DVD-player licenses. And to give the movie-industry a false sense of security. If we as people don't stand up to this, they're going to eat our hand, foot and whatever's left of us. The whole incident is yet another proof that security through obscurity just doesn't work that well. Humans have an ugly tendency to underestimate eachother, and a terrific sense of competition.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Your continued attacks on the Linux DVD community will not be tolerated. Your claims that this is a piracy issue are bold faced lies. DVD encryption does not prevent piracy, it prevents viewing the content without an "authorized" player. DVD pirates do not need DeCSS to copy DVDs: they have expensive equipment designed to copy in bulk on a bit for bit level. Ever try to send 5GB of data over the internet?? On an average DSL line that would take over 20hrs. Most people have 56k dialup access. You are fools to think DVD copying on the Internet is a quick,easy, or even common practice. It is clear to me that what's at stake is not piracy but your iron-fisted control of the DVD medium. I will not tolerate this either. Since you probably understand the language of money best, let me put it this way:
All of the money I would have spent on purchasing DVDs will now go to the EFF defense fund.
I will also make sure that everyone I know learns the facts, in spite of your attempts to deceive the general public through the media ("Hackers Crack DVD Encryption in order to Pirate" etc, etc). I will persuade them not to purchase anything DVD until you submit a public apology. In general, your attempts to "protect" DVD have only harmed it. Yes, I am only one person, but there are many more like me and we will fight you.
Erick Waldchen
ps. I suggest you take a history class on VCRs. The movie industry was outraged at their invention, claiming they would somehow hurt box-office sales. Now video cassettes are one of the biggest cash cows for the industry. I suggest you stop alienating the people who would support DVD the most: computer geeks.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
they have no choice but to pull the site immediately. The DCMA mandates a procedure
for accusing someone of violating copyright on the 'net, and the first part of
the procedure is that, upon accusation, to pull the site.
That sounds an awful lot like what happened to etoy.com at the behest of a certain toy vendor by everyone's favorite, NSI. The only problem with that comparison is, in the case of using the DMCA against sites linking to DeCSS or information about said stuff, there are a hell of a lot more gophers to whack with the rubber mallet, to use a really, really bad metaphor.
The sites will get pulled. Then the person whose site it is gets to ask forclarification, which must be supplied by the MPAA lawyers. Basically, proof of the
copyright violation must be presented to the ISP. At that point, the ISP will either
put the pages back up or keep them down permanently.
I'd liken this to, say, a publisher shutting down some periodical or cutting off all printing and distribution of some book or other because there's simply the question of its legality - the only difference here is that our lawmakers passed too restrictive a law. They'd have never allowed such measures for printed material, but somehow, they fail to understand that the 'Net is just another medium, albeit a newer and potentially more powerful one.
The other thing that bothers me about that, though, is that it would seem that all this could happen outside the view (subsequent jurisdiction) of a court. Am I wrong on that count?
The DCMA is a draconian instrument; designed exactly for this kind of suppression of speech."Draconian" is damned right - although given time, I think the courts will take care of the constitutionality of the various icky sections of the DMCA for us - assuming, of course, that they don't make the same old-fashioned assumptions. It'll suck in the meantime, though...
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
I want my, I want my, I want my DVD
I want my, I want my, I want my DVD
So MPAA won't write no code for linux,
let me tell ya - that really was dumb
If they won't help us to watch our movies,
I don't think CSS will last too long!
We got to hack these OSS programs,
GPL code, X, artistic, BSD
We got to code these programs for linux
We got to watch these DVDeeeeeees
See this little hacker down in copenhagen,
he's been working all through the night.
This little hacker got his DVD working,
This little hacker put it on his website.
We got to hack these OSS programs,
GPL code, X, artistic, BSD
We got to code these programs for linux
We got to watch these DVDeeeeeees
Here come the lawyers writing scary emails
and filing lawsuits against our friends,
because their clients are stupid and greedy
But they can't stop us no matter much they spend.
because:
We got to hack these OSS programs,
GPL code, X, artistic, BSD
We got to code these programs for linux
We got to watch these DVDeeeeeees
Looks like I found a new address for "marketing research" site registration...
/*
, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b, , 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b, , 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f, , 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91, , 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75, , 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, , 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11, , 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f, , 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b, , 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb, , 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f, , 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1, , 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15, , 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5, , 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71, , 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
, 0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e, , 0x19,0x18,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c, , 0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a, , 0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38, , 0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47, , 0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55, , 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63, , 0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73,0x70,0x71, , 0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c, , 0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e, , 0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8, , 0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa, , 0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5, , 0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7, , 0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1, , 0xe6,0xe7,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
, 0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0, , 0x58,0xd8,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8, , 0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4, , 0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc, , 0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2, , 0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa, , 0x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6, , 0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe, , 0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1, , 0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9, , 0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5, , 0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd, , 0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3, , 0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb, , 0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7, , 0x5f,0xdf,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
1 9);*/ ;
1 9);*/ ;
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
/*
* Still in progress: Remove the use of the bit_reverse[] table by recoding
* the generation of LFSR1. Finish combining this with
* the css authentication code.
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css-descramble.h"
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5
};
static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
};
/* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
*/
static byte bit_reverse[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
byte k[5];
int i;
lfsr1_lo = im[0] | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = im[1];
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
combined = 0;
for (i = 0; i >1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
unsigned char o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
lfsr1_lo = SALTED(0) | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = SALTED(1);
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
sec+=0x80;
combined = 0;
while (sec != end) {
o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
}
Among related legal cites, there's a case Lasercomb America v. Reynolds involving allowable licensing conditions in which licensing terms were overturned by the court. Though the scope -- licensing, not copyright -- is different, the conclusion is of interest. Essentially, patent-like protections from deploying technology are not attainable without resorting to patent protection itself.
Quoting from http://www.richmond.edu/~jolt/v1i1/l iberman.html:
{96} Overreaching occurs where a license agreement places
impermissible restrictions on the licensee's activities relating
to the licensed software. Under such circumstances, the license
agreement may be invalidated in whole or in part. Common issues where
overreaching takes place are prohibitions on reverse-engineering
coupled with copying of the program, and non-compete clauses which
are anticompetitive.
{97} Often overreaching occurs where the licensor is trying to
contractually obtain patent-like protection for licensed software
without meeting the rigorous requirements of patent law. It
also occurs where the software sought to be protected contains
functional elements unprotected under copyright law, and where
reverse-engineering is the only method available for the licensee to
understand how the licensed software works to achieve compatibility
with other components of its computer system.
One wonders if the same logic might be applied to copyright law itself.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
We just want to watch DVD's damn it!
Let's just for kicks say there is no deCSS and/or CSS wasn't feasably breakable. So I open up my DVD player and solder a few jumper wires from the data pins of the MPEG2 decoder chip, wire them up in some bizzare way to a computer, and press play. There we go. Decrypted DVD.
Look, MPAA. The assembly language code for deCSS is pretty much present in the BIOS or some other form of firmware inside of every DVD player ever made. Why don't you go sue every DVD player manufacturer? Why don't you go sue yourselves?
So, let's see if I follow Judge Kaplan's line of thinking: saying that lawyers are cocksuckers means that I obviously intend to break the law.
Um.
Here, let's have a quick demonstration:
THE DVD CCA'S LAWYERS ARE COCKSUCKERS.
There. In all capitals,too. Since I'm making vulgar remarks about those lawyers, I must obviously intend to break the law. (Ok, ok, poor argument, but I couldn't resist.) In fact, I believe that the DVD CCA's lawyers may actually be very nice (if misguided) people. Making these sorts of comments about them may be rude, vulgar, in poor taste, or any number of things, but, as far as I can tell, it only demonstrates a dislike of the DVD CCA's lawyers (or, in my case, the desire to make a point). Though I must admit, I certainly don't like the cause the DVD CCA's lawyers represent.
From what I can tell from this report, though certainly seems like Judge Kaplan is not a disinterested party. I'm not saying that the MPAA is paying him off or anything like that; maybe he's just offended by the implications of the pseudonym "Emmanuel Goldstein", maybe he doesn't like the way the defendants look, or maybe he happens to worry that DVD piracy means that he might have to pay a little extra for his DVD movies. Whatever the reason, he seems to harbor a severe bias against the defendants, which would make him exactly the wrong judge to try this case.
From what I've read above, it seems to me that Judge Kaplan is looking for any excuse he can find to weaken the defendants' position and strengthen the MPAA's. Admittedly, it's possible that the defense could have had a poorly presented case, but I expect that they most likely had an excellent case, so hearing that he constantly gave the defense's lawyers a hard time demonstrates that he really didn't care what the defense had to say. It seems he had made his decision before the hearing had even started, and he just wanted wrap them up quickly because, as far as he was concerned, it only served to make his decision official.
If Judge Kaplan rejects the EFF's application for another date, there will be no doubt remaining in my mind (unless somebody can give me an excellent argument otherwise) that he couldn't care less about reaching a fair decision in the case, and is just going to give the MPAA whatever it wants if that's what works best for him.
It's incidents like this that shake my faith in the US legal system. Well-informed, fair, impartial judges are essential to its functioning, and if Judge Kaplan is what he seems to be, he's exactly the kind of judge that the system can't have.
And a disclaimer: I can't pretend to know anything about courtroom proceedings, and my information about the case is certainly biased. I've attempted to compensate for this, but who knows if I've succeeded or not. I trust someone will let me know if I'm way off base.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
The 'demand letter' reads as follows:
"We have received information that at the above address there have been offers to provide instructions on defeating DVD encryption so that illegal copies of DVDs can be made."
Did the MPAA copyright the procedure for cracking their own encryption scheme? If not, I don't see how this relates to anything. I would think that providing instructions on building bombs would fall into the same category (illegal) if what the MPAA twits are asserting is true.. and it isn't.
They go on to say:
"offering goods or services which are primarily designed to circumvent technological protection measures"
Technological protection measures, eh? Well, I think that the sad part is that they have a much better case than they would've if the friggin' DMCA wouldn't have been passed. Nonetheless, this particular individual didn't even links to DeCSS; the notion that white papers on encryption technology could be illegal is quite startling.
These people suck.
However, they were kind enough to provide us with their e-mail address and phone number. I suggest that we NOT harass them, as this would only make their case seem stronger: "a bunch of out-of-control punk computer warriors are trying to destroy the motion picture industry".
Don't paint the wrong picture of the defendants in this case.
This letter is an excellent example of what should happen when lawyers attempt to strongarm people into coersion. I've encountered lawyer-like behavior many times in which a strongly worded letter with much mumbo-jumbo (by that I mean: things common people may not be familiar with) is used with the intent to scare into submission.
I thank my parents for insisting that I read, read, and read some more as a youngster. My vocabulary is sufficient to see through many such lawyer-like letters and at times sufficient to respond in much the same fashion.
Its awesome that someone isn't just folding and pulling their site down, instead responding and calling their bluff. Bravo.
I concur with all that's written in the letter and I commend the force with which the language is used. Excellent.
-Brice
Does anyone know how these prospective plaintiffs propose to get around this language?
Surely, considering the buzz surrounding Linux and Open Source these days, going after an OS project is bound to be a bad PR move, isn't it?
And the brethren went away edified.
This probably would be a good defence. It comes down to the difference between a broadcaster (publisher, webmaster) and an "innocent disseminator" (bookstore, directory service). The broadcaster can be reasonably expected to be aware of the content that they are distributing, but an "innocent disseminator" would not be expected to know exactly what he is distributing (although after being informed of some illegal content -- libel, for example -- he would no longer be "innocent", and would be required to take action to stop disseminating the content).
If the search engine/directory service can convince a judge that they are an innocent disseminator, then they should be home free.
Having big engines on our side _WOULD_ help.
Instead of linking to sites that have DeCSS info, why dont we just link to the Yahoo, Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, etc results for relevent search items? If they go after anybody for this, they couldn't without getting the search engines, too, right?
Another not-so-great idea, brought to you by... me.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Read further down in that section.
Is a film on DVD a 'computer program' within the sense of the act? If so, (and I think that a case can be made that it is) then it is legal to circumvent the copy protection for the purpose of interoperability with other soiftware (the Linux operating system).
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
This is a good idea, though there's one immediately apparent problem: Just because a party has the right to sue doesn't mean they have the obligation to sue. MPAA can pick its fights. It hasn't yet picked on the search engines. Rather, they've attacked a handful of loosely organized and likely poorly defended individuals. It's easier to establish a favorable precedent this way.
Though the search engines might be considered possible legal targets based on their actions, their ability to muster legal resources makes them less likely to be considered feasible litigation targets. If this is how the search engines perceive themselves, they're likely to see little direct motivation to get involved in the current cases.
Methinks we need to do some marketing to the search engines.
Or more pointedly, archives such as Remarq and Deja, who directly hold copies of the alleged infringing content.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
The DeCSS/DVD case revolves around a little-known and recently (Oct, 1998) enacted bit of copyright law known as 17 U.S.C. 1201, Circumvention of copyright protection systems
There is an excellent review and analysis of this law by Professor Pamela Samuelson of the University of California, Berkeley. Her paper Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised , published last year, takes a long look at the law, its history, and many, many problems. I recommend it strongly to anyone, legal community or lay, who wants an understanding of the problems of the law. Samuelson also presents some of its weaknesses, which may be helpful in developing a legal defense in the California, New York, and Connecticut cases.
It's a long read (40 pages), give it a shot. From the introduction:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA") prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures used by copyright owners to control access to their works. It also bans devices whose primary purpose is to enable circumvention of technical protection systems. The Clinton administration proposed these anti-circumvention rules as implementations of U.S. obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. However, the DMCA?s provisions are significantly broader than the treaty required. They violate the Administration?s stated goal of only imposing "predictable, minimalist, consistent, and simple" regulations on the budding digital economy.
Although Congress heeded some concerns of digital economy firms by crafting certain exceptions to authorize legitimate circumvention, those exceptions are overly narrow and shortsighted. They should be supplemented by a more general "other legitimate purposes" exception. The DMCA's anti-device provisions are, moreover, overbroad and unclear, especially on the question whether it is legal to develop a technology necessary to engage in a privileged act of circumvention (e.g., a fair use). Either Congress or the courts will be forced to constrain the reach of the anti-device rules so as not to undermine Congressional intent to preserve fair uses and so as not to harm competition and innovation in the information technology sector. Finally, though the DMCA provides for a study of one class of potentially harmful impacts of the anti-circumvention rules, this study needs to be broadened to consider the full impact of this unprecedented legislation.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Everyone likes to talk about Denial of Service attacks through packet spoofing, twisted fragments, etc...
Perhaps the MPAA is teaching us about attacking not the technical but the administrative infrastructure!
Think about it: Spoof an email from a major law firm, claim that a certain individual has been writing harassing emails from a given account, attach utterly forged harassing emails, and watch the target account get dropped like a rock.
Do that to the phone company, you'll get ignored. Do that do a small ISP, you'll *still* get ignored. But do that to any ISP with a division between engineers and management, and your target is toast.
Thanks, MPAA! You've just taught me a beautiful new technique for denying internet service to targets who talk about things I don't want to hear about. I guess you're just the greatest hackers of all.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
If that's what the Act says then it's easy to bypass the whole problem: just embed deCSS in gcc.
:-)
The CSS functionality will then clearly not be the primary purpose of the product, and the massive worldwide commercial significance of gcc equally clearly invalidates the other clauses.
How long did it take lawyers to draft the Act so tightly?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The sites will get pulled. Then the person whose site it is gets to ask for clarification, which must be supplied by the MPAA lawyers. Basically, proof of the copyright violation must be presented to the ISP. At that point, the ISP will either put the pages back up or keep them down permanently.
The DCMA is a draconian instrument; designed exactly for this kind of suppression of speech.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Unfortunaly few inviduals got quite badly financially harmed during that time (it's not a good idea to try to fight against an army of lawyer without education even if the case seems to simple) so if you want to join the fight, it might be a good idea to check out what went wrong..
Anyway, let's start a bet how long it will take before those CSS-documents can be found from Swedish parliament
WWW.XENU.ORG - Read how the cult of $cientology was beaten in the same kind of game!
V.
.signature not found
These companies are fighting a losing battle. What we are seeing here is old line companies that were built on old analog technologies fighting to remain revelant in the face of the digital tide. What these companies don't seem to realize is that they can no longer control the disemmenation of information, kinda like the Catholic Church when the printing press was invented. Basically if someone can get information into a computer, its bits can be twiddeled. The only way to completely ensure that stuff cannot be copied is to lock down the entire playback system and I'll be a monkeys uncle if I'm gonna let some company tell me what I can and cannot do with material I legally purchased.
I'm afraid the law is more perverse than the lawyer in this case.
From the Connecticut suit by the MPAA[emphasis added]
Thats right. Making or distributing program/device/whatever that's only purpose is defeating encyrption on copyrighted material (no matter how weak the encryption or whether the end user has full rights to perform such encryption) is against the law. This is a part of the copyright law enacted in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The DMCA was enacted precisely to allow weak protection schemes like CSS to be feasible since it criminalizes selling or distributing anything which breaks it. I hope that this provision will be struck down by the courts since it undully restricts free speech by the author and distributor of the decryption program and restricts fair use by the consumer who otherwise has wide latitude to do what he wants privately with legally obtained copyrighted material.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I just got back from Suncoast Video, where I purchased two movies (Star Trek: First Contact and Weird Science). Total out-of-pocket expense for tonight: $65. That brings the total number of DVDs in my collection up to 65, with 3 more South Park episodes due to arrive in my mailbox any day now. If you take an average price of $20 per movie (conservative), that would be about $1300 that I have spent on MOVIES for home viewing during the past year. It doesn't include the money I have spent going to the movies. Then I went online and saw the article about your latest stunt.
Every time I read about your pressure/scare tactics regarding the deCSS program I get more vocal about the subject. People around me who never knew anything about it receive an introduction, complete with description of your strong-arm tactics and bogus claims. You see, I feel that by virtue of spending this significant amount of money on something as non-essential as movies, I should have every right to view them on whatever player I choose. Even if that player is on a PC running Linux. Or OS/2. Or Be. Anything!
At first, I thought maybe you'd pull your collective heads out and look around at who is paying your salaries. (That would be we, the movie-going, DVD-purchasing public.) But it seems apparent that your would rather be wrong and have your way than admit you are wrong and satisfy your customers. Be warned that you are going to receive a wave of bad publicity, the likes of which you have never seen. If you think you are immune to the pressures of the public, please review the results of the last Major League Baseball strike. Or the NBA strike. Yes, you can piss on the fans. But the fans can piss back, and there are more of us.
Please keep in mind that your pursuit of the casual viewer is severely misguided, and poses the greatest threat of all to advances in video technology. Don't blame us, for we have flocked to the stores to spend millions of collective dollars on these movies. You would be wise to invest these dollars in advancing the technology, not suing the customers. You have a chance to get it right. I'd suggest you start appreciating us instead of beating us up.
Sincerely,
A customer.
NB: To paraphrase Dave Barry, I swear I am making this up.
It's fairly evident that someone within the motion picture industry has taken it upon themselves to attempt to disrupt meaningful discourse on the issues by spamming Slashdot with large, irrelevant posts. Already there's a megabyte of spam on this topic.
It's interesting that this is precisely the same tactic employed by the Scientology cult way back when, when it spammed USENET groups in an attempt to drown out criticism of the cult's harassing, deceptive, and illegal activities.
It's even more interesting to observe that, if the movie industry finds itself compelled to resort to such juvenile, cowardly tactics, it must be because they recognize the fundamental indefensibility of their position. If their position had any merit, they would engage in meaningful discourse with the rest of us, rather than resorting to peurile antics.
Further proof of their foolishness, methinks.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
From the POLITECH mailing list ... looks like the MPAA have themselves a "hangin' judge" and know it.
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:14:40 -0500
To: declan@well.com
From: John Young
Subject: NY Court Grants MPAA Preliminary Injunction
Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan today granted a preliminary injunction against three defendants sued by the Motion Picture Association of American for offering the DeCSS DVD descrambling program on the Internet.
At a three-hour preliminary hearing today in the Southern District of New York, arguments were presented for MPAA by its counsel, Proskauer Rose, and for the defendants, Shawn Reimerdes, Roman Kazan, and Edwin Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein, by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Attorney Katz. EFF's attorneys, Robing Gross and Allon Levy, participated from its California offices by way of teleconference.
Judge Kaplan rejected every argument, point by point, made by the defendants and firmly endorsed, point by point, the claims of MPAA made under provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for protecting intellectual property.
A clear link with made by this federal case with the California case by the plaintiffs and Judge Kaplan. MPAA counsel argued that the suit was reluctantly filed in response to widespread, global posting of DeCSS in response to the California suit. The judge agreed that this backlash warranted a preliminary injunction to prevent "irreparable harm" to the copyright holders, among other justifications which he elaborated in a lengthy statement on the case, its opposing arguments and law governing copyright and the First Amendment.
Judge Kaplan will issue a final written version of his statment and order early next week. Upon completion of his verbal statement he signed and presented to counsel his order for the preliminary injunction.
Defendants Reimerdes and Kazan were present during the hearing, Corely was not.
Judge Kaplan offered a speedy trial for the suit, "as early as next Tuesday if you want it," he said to MPAA counsel. "I would like this tried as soon as possible. I offer you a runaway train if that's what you want. My schedule is clear for this."
Defendants' counsel requested a delay and the judge agreed to accept an application for an alternate date.
During the hearing it became clear which way the judge would rule. He repeatedly urged defense attorneys to get on with their argument, hectored them and lectured them on the law. He had earlier refused an adjournment in the hearing to allow the defense more time to prepare responses to the suit.
Defense papers of Roman Kazan apparently were not properly submitted to the court in time to be considered. Judge Kaplan refused to allow late submission and dismissed the need for more time, saying, "these rapid schedules are customary in preliminary injunction cases, there was plenty of time to respond. I am obliged to rule on what the court has."
Judge Kaplan stated there was a clear intent to break the law as indicated by vulgar remarks on Reimerdes' Web site. For emphasis on this point he repeated them as if with distaste on three occasions during the hearing: "the DVD CAA lawyers are cocksuckers."
There was a single reporter was at the hearing in Judge Kaplan's chambers, Jeff Howe with the Village Voice, two observers from Cryptome, and the MPAA public relations representative, Ken
Frydman, who distributed a pre-prepared victory statement from Jack Valenti, President and CEO of MPAA:
"Judge Kaplan's ruling represents a great victory for creative artists and consumers everywhere. I think this serves as a wake-up call to anyone who contemplates stealing intellectual property."
Cryptome asked Judge Kaplan after the hearing if he would answer questions. He said he does not speak to the press. We couldn't explain that's not us.
We asked chief attorney for MPAA, Jon Baumgarten of Proskauer Rose, for comments. He said no, statements will have to come from MPAA public relations and that he would be briefing that office shortly.
We spoke with Shawn Reimerdes and Roman Kazan about their views of the hearing. What they said is what Jeff Howe will tell in another forum, tomorrow I believe.
(a) Violations regarding circumvention of technological measures.--(1)(A)No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. (Oct. 28, 1998)(
...
Sounds bad... but wait!
(c) Other rights, etc., not affected.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies,
limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.].
...
(f) Reverse engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a
person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of
that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program
that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program
with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person
engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do
not constitute infringement under this title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.].
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent
protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and
analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary
to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement
under this title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.].
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means
permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in
paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the
purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with
other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.] or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term "interoperability" means the ability of computer
programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information
which has been exchanged.
(g) Encryption research.--
(A) the term "encryption research" means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws
and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these
activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption
technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and
(B) the term "encryption technology" means the scrambling and descrambling of information
using mathematical formulas or algorithms.
(2) Permissible acts of encryption research.--
It continues on that research must actually be research and not some guy in his basement pretending to do research while trying to hack the latest and greatest in order to steal the work..
The way I read this is that DeCSS source, css-auth, etc are all legal if they are being used as a tool for interoperability. If they are being used for pirating movies that yes they are illegal.
IMHO this leaves DeCSS in a wierd position because it used to be posted more of a pirating tool then an interoperability tool. But DeCSS, css-auth, LiViD stuff, etc are now being used primarily for interoperability. A reasonable judge should be able to see it this way....
Hope this helps...
--Mark
Found this at www.mpaa.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - January 20, 2000
Contact:
Rich Taylor or Phuong Yokitis
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
202/293-1966
Emily Kutner
MPAA
818/995-6600
John Stodder
Edelman Public Relations
323/857-9100
MPAA's Valenti Hails New York Federal Judge's Ruling Shutting Down DVD Hackers
as "Major Victory" in Battle against Digital Piracy
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (January 20, 2000) - In a major victory for copyright protection, the motion picture industry today celebrated a federal judge's ruling that will force a group of New York-based Internet hackers to stop the posting of software that allows illegal copying of DVDs.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York late this afternoon granted a request by the major motion picture studios for a preliminary injunction against operators of Internet sites that posted an unauthorized de-encryption formula on their sites. This software was developed to hack the DVD encryption system.
The judge's order means three New York defendants, Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley A/K/A "Emmanuel Goldstein" and Roman Kazan, must immediately remove the de-encryption formula from their Internet sites or face contempt of court.
"Judge Kaplan's ruling represents a great victory for creative artists, consumers and copyright owners everywhere. I think this serves as a wake-up call to anyone who contemplates stealing intellectual property," said Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America. "This ruling also means that when Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, it gave the creative community a powerful tool to defend our rights."
Additional information on this case may be found on the MPAA web site at www.mpaa.org.
# # #
Copyright Press Releases
----
Rajiv Varma
If it enters common law that you cannot link to a site containing "illegal" material without being sued to death, it is only about two lawsuits away from them being under a constant barrage of lawsuits. I think having a well known name like Yahoo on our side increases our chances of coming out of this intact. Whatever you might think about the search engine companies, they should care about this. They might not be willing to touch this case for fear of bad publicity, but it would certainly make some more people stop to think instead of assuming that the MPAA must be right because we've heard of them.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."