MPAA Sending Out DMCA Demand Letters

The MPAA (or rather, the MPAA's law firm) is now sending out demand letters to Web sites which they are accusing of violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by posting, or even linking to, the css-auth code. One recipient's draft response looks to be quite succinct. Wired is also running a summary of the legal maneuvers surrounding CSS.

[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.]

Comments

Re:Please, no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since CmdrTaco was murdered and Hemos took over, things have pretty much been going down the tube, as evidenced by Mr. Bates's obsession with legal stories. Of course, this probably has to do with his flunking out of law school more than anything, but normal adults usually get over such things.

Not so for CmdrHemos. Far from being content with being the number #2 injun on the totem pole, Jeff Bates concieved of a plan to destroy the only thing between him and the ability to lie to and decieve thousands of guillible Slashdot readers: his old friend Rob Malda.

It was with murder in his mind that he crept into the bedchamber wher CmdrTaco lay aslumber. Using the lantern he had carried, he slowly opened it slightly to admit but the smallest ray to fall on Old Man Malda's evil eye. But suddenly, he had the feeling that Rob was awakened, so he lay upon him with many blows, killing the feeble old gimp. Burying him under the floor, Bates laughed as his dirty work was complete, thinking that it was the perfect crime, that there was no evidence, no motive.

But he hadn't planned on the beating of the old man's heart. The thump, thump, thump from the floor inspired in Mr. Bates a madness like none other. Even when the Holland PD detectives descended upon the geek kompound to investigate, Hemos knew he was surely loosing his grip. As the chief inspector was replacing his teacup on the coffee table, prepearing to leave, Bates suddenly flew to his feat, like a living oak growing from the desert. It was I that done killed Him, t'was I. He confessed all at once.

Jeff 'Hemos' Bates was hanged the next day at the old county courthouse, and his body was left to rot and be torn at by vultures, a monument to a misspent life.

Let this be a wanring to you, my brothers and sisters! If you kill someone, eat their vital organs so they can't haunt you later!

Wasn't that nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for the lawyers to include an e-mail address in their threat letter.

Looks like I found a new address for "marketing research" site registration...

css-descramble.c

[Anonymous Coward]

/*
* 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, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e, 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a, 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f,
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98, 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c, 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75,
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c, 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95,
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18, 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a, 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f,
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e, 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe, 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a, 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f,
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8, 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c, 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc, 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5,
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78, 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa, 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
};

static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08, 0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a, 0x19,0x18,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c, 0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a,
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e, 0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41, 0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47,
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53, 0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55,
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65, 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77, 0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73,0x70,0x71,
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a, 0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88, 0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe, 0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac, 0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa,
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3, 0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5,
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1, 0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7,
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7, 0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5, 0xe6,0xe7,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
};

static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
};

/* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
*/
static byte bit_reverse[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90, 0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98, 0x58,0xd8,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94, 0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4,
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c, 0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc,
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92, 0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2,
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a, 0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96, 0x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e, 0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe,
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91, 0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1,
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99, 0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95, 0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5,
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d, 0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd,
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93, 0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3,
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b, 0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb,
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97, 0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f, 0x5f,0xdf,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
};

/*
*
* 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>>1 9);*/
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>>1 9);*/
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
}

More refs -- Lasercomb, copyright, and patent

[KMSelf]

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?

Re:Please, no...

[copito]

Also, anyone else here think lawsuits for linking to "blah" is lame? Can I sue a search engine yet?

Until the courts start agreeing with you emphatically that lawsuits for linking are "lame", and the plaintiffs of nuisances suits are punished, we will need to keep reading about these cases on Slashdot. Public attention to the absurdity of these cases is the one of the factors that has the potential to stop them.


--

Re:Here's an idea.

[Ian Schmidt]

That message means the drive's region didn't match the disc. There are a few reasons for this:

1) wrong-region disc in a region-locked drive
2) attempting to use a dvd-rom drive that hasn't had it's firmware "cold-booted" by usage on a Windows machine (don't laugh, it's true for certain very brain-dead drives)
3) incorrect or no DVD-ROM kernel patch from www.kernel.dk (the January 8, 2000 version against 2.2.14 is known to work well on a lot of drives, but if you have an oddball one email Jens Axboe and he can likely sort you out).

-Ian (not a LiViD coder, I just enjoy their work)

Another interesting theory

[GoRK]

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?

Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction

[Serf]

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.

Re:...The law...

[Roundeye]

Trade secrets are not protected in the same manner as patents. A reverse-engineered trade secret is no longer a trade secret, and is afforded no protection.

MPAA = Movie Pseudo-pirating Assault Association

[Plasmic]

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.

Excellent example ...

[Jobe_br]

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

DMCA Provisions Not Yet Effective!

[werdna]

The relevant DMCA provisions don't appear to be effective until sometime later this year. Consider the following excerpt, which Thomas reports as being enacted on or about October 28, 1998:

Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(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.

Does anyone know how these prospective plaintiffs propose to get around this language?

A great response letter

[CaptainCarrot]

It was the legal equivalent of whapping them upside the head with a large, meaty salmon. I loved it.

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?

Re:Get the Search Engines involved?

[mynameistim]

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.

Re:Get the Search Engines involved? (Yes!)

[SkulkCU]

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.

Re:The law is scarier than the lawyer

[Anomalous Canard]

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.

Read further down in that section.

(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.

`(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.

`(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 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.

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

Problem -- do they feel threatened?

[KMSelf]

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?

Legal reference -- anti-circumvention analysis

[KMSelf]

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?

DoS through Lawyers

[Effugas]

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

SIMPLE SOLUTION: embed deCSS in gcc

[Morgaine]

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? :-)

Rules under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act

[Thagg]

When the ISPs are contacted by the MPAA's lawyers, invoking the DCMA, 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.

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

They follow the path $cientology went..

[villoks]

It's funny to notice, that the MPAA is doing exactly tha same things as the cult of $cientology did few years ago. At that time $cn was trying to keep their "sacred" scriptures secret (because nobody would pay 'em $$$ if they would have a chance to read those document BEFORE paying). The result was - a'hem - opposite :-)

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 :-) (In Sweden the government HAS to keep ALL documents open to public).

WWW.XENU.ORG - Read how the cult of $cientology was beaten in the same kind of game!

V.
.signature not found

Fighting a losing battle

[RobertW103]

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.

Re:"lied under oath"? "committed perjury"?

[Keeper]

"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."

Italics are mine. This is where they swear that they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Then they state they are purguring if they are not telling the truth.

*shrug*

The law is scarier than the lawyer

[copito]

"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.

I'm afraid the law is more perverse than the lawyer in this case.

From the Connecticut suit by the MPAA

23. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

[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.



--

Dear MPAA,

[Lurking Grue]

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.

Introducing a New Conspiracy Theory...

[ewhac]

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

Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue

[Sloppy]

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.

Copying DVDs was already possible before DeCSS. 2600 had a program back in 1997 that slurped up the data downstream from a decoder. And of course, Macrovision defeaters are readily available, so making a single analog copy form the video signal (then then making a billion perfect digital copies of that) is really quite easy. If you're really worried about the ease of piracy, DeCSS doesn't change things very much.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that their fears of piracy somehow make it justifiable for them to make it hard to copy DVDs. Consumers have the right (legally and morally) to make copies of the stuff they've bought. If you've ever had a scratched Anthrax CD or a mangled Robotcop VHS tape like I have, you'll understand why. So in even attempting to inhibit copying, they were dealing with consumers in Bad Faith. 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?

When someone has such despicable motives, then their cries of "We're only trying to perpetuate the same old injustices that you should be used to" aren't likely to bring many tears to my eyes, unless they are tears of laughter.

Sorry, but copy protection just isn't a legitimate response to fears of piracy. The software industry learned that a long, long time ago. I have programmed closed-source commercial software for the last 13 years. While I admit that much of the revenue comes from custom hourly work, a very significant portion of it also comes from sales of the software, and if sales dried up due to people making illegal copies of my work, it would hurt me badly. Yet I don't even consider implementing copy protection in my software. The very idea is ludicrous.

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?

They should prosecute pirates. They should leave people who make "dual use" tools (which could be used for piracy) alone.

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

If their problem is with piracy, then they are definately not making their stand clear. It looks to me like they are taking a stand against consumer rights.

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?

This would be a horrible and unjust "solution" although I fear that something like this might actually work from their point of view. 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 I doubt that they would provide a binary for Linux PPC, and Linux Alpha, and Linux-ported-to-some-other-CPU, and HURD, and BeOS, and QNX Neutrino, and especially my beloved Amiga.

For media, open standards are the only acceptable solutions as far as I'm concerned. DVD isn't an open standard, but it looks like it's well on its way to at least becoming a documented one. :-)

---

Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction

[Big Jojo]

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.

...The law...

[mhatle]

IANAL... They cite 17 USCA 1201... Lets see what it REALLY says:

(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

MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction

[__aasfhc1949]

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

Get the Search Engines involved?

[belgin]

This may have been discussed thoroughly before this point, but what are the odds the EFF might be able to get the search engine companies involved?

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