Slashdot Mirror
DVD CCA Emergency Hearing to seal DeCSS
Anonymous Coward writes "The DVD CCA notified the defense lawyers on Tuesday that they
are seeking an emergency ex parte motion to seal Hoy Exhibit
B, which has been up at John
Young's Cryptome for days, and was mentioned on Slashdot on
Monday. This will be heard at an emergency hearing at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 26, at
the usual Santa Clara County Courthouse in San Jose, in Judge
Elfving's court. If you're reading Slashdot before breakfast
and you're near San Jose, it's time to come on down!"
It should be fairly easy to make a RAW rom for the DVD reader, read raw data, and create a new one in exactly the same way.
No, No, NO, It is not 'fairly easy' to do that. The DVD drives you buy for home use cannot read the tracks that store the keys in a 'normal' way. Only when playing back a movie, and only the key that corrisponds with the only player. Also, DVD-writers will not be able to write to those sectors. It *isn't* posible, and it never has been. Why do you people persist I stating this? Just beacuse some guy on TV couldn't articulate it dosn't mean it isn't true... *gah*.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Don't know about the DVD you looked at, but I looked at several in my collection (over 180) and they all had something to the effect that they were for use on a PC/Windows system ONLY (other than their NORMAL use in a DVD player)
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Jim
Remember to take out the trash if you want to send email to me.
You're thinking of trademark law, not trade secret law. IANAL, but as far as I know, the only trade secret laws apply to employees and other people or entities that have legitimate access to the secret. They can be prosecuted for revealing the secret. In this case, trade secret law could possibly be applied to Xing, since they were not careful and left their key unencrypted which made DeCSS possible (or at least easier). That probably violated an NDA or three. Other than that, once the secret is out, it's not a secret anymore. The DeCSS guys didn't reveal any trade secret, Xing did. They just took advantage of Xing's mistake, and they did it in a legal way since even the DMCA allows you bypass security measures in order to achieve interoperability. That's why this whole case is such a crock. But that won't stop it from happening. There's too much money behind it for it to stop.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Because "our" legal system is owned, lock, stock & barrel, by the corporations. It exists to serve their in interests. Welcome to a capitalist society.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
Good. because his other decisions are crap.
Folks,
Someone asked up above about how to contact the MPAA; I thought (aiiiiieeeeeee) that we might want to use the following addresses:
1) hotline@mpaa.org
According to the MPAA, this address is to be used for notifying them of video pirating operations. I should think we're justified in using it; after all, we lot are "pirates", every last one of us, if the MPAA is to be believed.
2) Snail mail. No, really. I'm going to write this evening. If your penmanship eats it, use this as an opportunity to beta test WordPerfect 2000. Write to:
Motion Picture Association of America
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
(818) 995-6600
/* The People's Republic of Chocolatey Delicious! */
One problem. They are picking and choosing a handful of posts from hundreds and claiming the handful to be representative of the "attitude of the community".
I hope the defense counters that one with the multitude of informed and supportive posts (and the ones correcting those that the defense is using) that actually were posted.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
They paid the licensing fees.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Wouldn't resealing this document mean instituting prior restraint? This is what the Pentagon Papers were all about, and the Cigarrette papers. In an article in the Nation they talk about a case where the University of California won a suit over documents from a tobacco company because they had published the documents on a CD and the Web. This case should be a precedent that publication on a web site should mean that the documents are public, and not secret.
DeCSS is based on material that was not encrypted, and was available for public scrutiny. At worst, they violated copyright. The supposed trade secret was not a secret because of oversight by licensed users. It strikes me that this case has numerous parallels with the Cigarrette Papers case, which was also in California.
Perhaps a lawyer familiar with the Cigarrette Papers case can tell me why that case did not set precedent.
The code of DeCSS is all over the net now and even the MPAA can't hope to put it out of the world again. AFAIK it is planned to implement a new encryption scheme anyway, so the question is what they are trying to achieve by going to court:
Obviously the MPAA wants to intimidate others so there will be no DeCSS for their next encryption. I don't think that they will succeed though, because so many people have to know how to implement decrytion to build a player that the information will leak sooner or later, because of some carelesness. So the question is only via which channels the next DeCSS will be distributed. The decision to sell some Linux player for DVD's would probably help more, since then there is much less motivation to implement and distribute such a program.
The second reason for going to court is probably to test the leagal grounds and set some precedent. In my opinion this makes the current case very important, because many other cases might be influenced by the outcome of this one.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
A lot of the legal case seems to hang on the fact that Xing was reverse engineered. What I would like to know is if it is possible to reverse engineer DVD operation using "publically" available documents i.e. is it possible to create a "clean room" DeCSS ??
If it could be proved that it is possible to create a program such as DeCSS without reference to Xing or any other player involving a license agreement, then AFAIK all the MPA arguments involving copyright and trade secrets become almost totally irrelevant,especially if one can write a paper plus code detailing how it was done.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
looks like the true believers are AC too... go figure..
Could it be possible that the DVDCCS lawyers are reading these news groups? Could we have tipped them off? Does this bother anyone???
Is this really just a coincidence that they just realized their oversite. Or are they reading what is being said, and acting accordingly?
I haven't read the Xing license agreement, but unless the license is very carefully worded, the "click license" agreement is between the manufacturers of Xing and the person who licensed the software. Do the MPA have a right to sue for breach of copyright when they are not a party to the license agreement ?
Regards
Mark Roberts
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Har! Let's see them club us and take us to jail for wearing forbidden clothing!
# Really die? (Y/N)
# Ok, so you don't die.
# You survived that attempt on your life.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It seems like part of the strategy here is to keep the community off-balance by scheduling everything too fast for us to keep up. Why does our legal system allow for this?
One problem. They are picking and choosing a handful of posts from hundreds and claiming the handful to be representative of the "attitude of the community".
Of course for all we know, the posts they "hand picked" were posts they also planted either themselves, or by someone paid by the company.
They have lost, they just don't have the good grace to admit it.
Another day closer to redwood heaven
# Really die? (Y/N)
# Ok, so you don't die.
# You survived that attempt on your life.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
This is great, Here they want to make it go away but it is part of the public record. Now ANYONE with a website can post it LEGALLY!!!!! Wonder if someone got fired cause they didn't count on this one... This is really turning into a circus...
I'll stand by my previous statement that the present motion is both routine and not unconcionable. In a legal action disputing whether subject matter is trade secret, it is routine and proper that publicly availalbe files containing the subject matter of the lawsuit be redacted to exclude the subject matter of the suit. When this is overlooked, for whatever reason, it is common to make an emergency motion to seal it -- and such motions are commonly granted.
You may choose to take the position that anything that is done by MPAA concerning the lawsuit is unconcionable -- this is a common view in this community. However, going ballistic over routine motions will simply get you ignored as one who "always cries wolf" when you go ballistic over the real ones.
Assume for the sake of the argument that the subject matter *WAS* a trade secret. If so, having the court files containing the subject matter (if indeed it did contain the subject matter) laid open to the public is a grievous technical error that should be immediately corrected.
The motion was routinely made and probably will be routinely granted. I can't think of any meaningful defense to this motion(particularly since a P.I. was already granted) except, perhaps, that the declaration does not contain subject matter claimed to be secret. In that case, no more than a few hours notice is necessary to prepare the appropriate papers and to appear for hearing.
And no, I'm not defending the plaintiff's position. I'm not fond of what they are doing either. I'm just saying it would be best for the credibility of the committee to call a spade a spade and save their vitreol for the really bad stuff.
There is an amazing power in the advocacy of making concessions. If you give to others what is theirs, particularly before the Court, then when you do ask for things, the Court sits at attention. If you oppose EVERY motion, and gainsay EVERY argument, you will eventually get tuned out. This is particularly true when, looking at things practically and objectively, you can't win the motion.
Unless facts and California public records and trade secret law is substantially different from the reports, it is time to say, "Your honor, assuming their allegations were true, of course this motion must be granted -- the fact that they let this happen is proof, indeed an admission, that this plaintiff doesn't take reasonable precautions to preserve secrecy of that information, and that is why we must ultimately prevail on the merits. But for the record, we do not oppose this emergency motion."
To win in disputes like these, you have to stay very cool, you have to judge the judge, and you have to stay credible. I am reminded of an excellent story about the New York case in which West Publications tried to keep others from making a database with citations to legal materials in West Reporters, using page numbers. After West's lawyer argued at length (well over the allotted hour), the exhausted Judge turned to the defendant and a hero lawyer said something like the following:
"Your honor, the plaintiff claims copyright protection of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and so forth in sequence. We find this an astonishing position and have nothing to add to our briefs."
He then did the most important thing a lawyer can do -- "he sat down." He knew when it was important to speak, and when to shut up. Interestingly, that lawyer won that case with that brief argument, when several other lawyers (including a friend of mine who handled a case in Minnesota on the same issues with a different defendant) failed on the same issue.
Stay cool! Direct your rage appropriately. Ignore the silliness when they overreach and it doesn't matter, or look for ways to use your advantage at another time. Then, when it is right, use it to best effect. Advocacy is much more effective that way.
The people who created the DVD encryption spent millions of dollars convincing the recording industry and the electronices industry that this DVD idea would work. There are two good reasons why the encryption needs to be there. One, the recording industry isn't going to release the movies unless they think the format provides some method of limiting or reducing pirating. The other is that the people who created the format are making their money licensing the technology. DVD CSS is fighting for their livelihoods. If they lose this trade secret, they have the choice of comming up with a new encryption method, and convincing hardware manufacturers and the recording industry to support it, or they're out of business.
They created the technology, and license it to make money. Now, because someone has stole that technology, they are in danger of losing their shirts. And why? There is nothing preventing a software company from licensing the technology to create DVD software that runs under Linux. This ins't Microsoft Word, where you can only achieve compatability by reverse engineering. It's not free, but don't the people that worked to create this format deserve a reasonable profit for their efforts? And as for the lame excuse that the encryption was so simple that cracking it can't be wrong... I think I read that it lasted 3 years before it was cracked, and 40 bit incryption was as strong as they were permitted to use because of US export restrictions.
Jon Johansen had a reasonable expectation that what he did was wrong, and if the Norwegian courts find that what he did was against their laws, then he should be held accountable for his crimes. If the DVD CSS is smart, they've already applied for a patent on this technology, and if it's awarded, this will become a mute point then, because DeCSS will likely violate the patent. As long as they applied for the patent before the algorithm became widly available, it won't matter that it's been published all over the internet now. Time will tell.
A Norwegian Linux web site, have started a petition against the treatment of Jon Johanson Sign the petition against the treatment received by Jon Johanson! http://linuxguiden.linpro.no/protesteng.php
Why isnt there a "contact us" button or e-mail adress on the MAPP web site? I just looked and it contains some drivel about their heroic fight against evil internet pirates. Why do these guys want to paint a big red bull's eye on themselevs? They must not realize that they are going to draw fire from every 16-year-old with a computer and a malicious streak. I guess they'll find out the expensive way...
> But you can't write the software.
"can't"? It's already been done. Look for it on the Internet in countries that still value free expression.
> Let's see, a normal person would go to the DVD CCA and apply for a key.
And several people did try to do this for Linux. Their mails were completely ignored.
> You crack CSS (in violation of the DCMA) and then act all surprised when people get upset.
"You"? Up to this point, there has been ZERO proof or evidence as to who actually performed the reverse engineering. What makes you think it was even in the US? The DMCA don't apply outside US borders...
> I say again: a DVD-ROM drive does not a DVD player make.
Agree. But you are arguing something completely different, that reverse engineering is illegal.
Well here's a wake up call:
THE ENTIRE PC INDUSTRY, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREATEST SURGE OF GROWTH TO THE US ECONOMY TO DATE, AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFITS, WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY AN ACT OF REVERSE ENGINEERING: COMPAQ REVERSE ENGINEERING THE BIOS OF THE IBM PC.
> And neither does unauthorized illegal software that was developed without permission from
> proper authorities
The movie studios are NOT "proper authorities". That's why these cases are being tried in a court of law, not some executive boardroom.
That half-mumbled quote refers to the Nazis. So, Godwin's Law almost applies...
---
Oper on the Nightstar
Ignorant fuckwit. Cops are people too. If you respect them and treat them like you would anybody else, they react in kind. If you're a fucking criminal and pull a gun on them, threaten their families, scream obscenities, run away, etc. then you are going to get the same sort of reaction from a cop that you would from any other individual. Except that the cop can't easily back down if he wants to continue supporting his family.
The CSS encryption apparently exists to prevent people from copying DVDs illegally. DeCSS exists to allow people who have legitimately purchased DVDs to view them on their PCs running Linux. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. Perhaps DeCSS could be used to make digital copies that could in turn be transmitted to other people, but that doesn't really matter as it isn't its primary purpose or the purpose intended by its creators. I could stab you in the eye with a hunting knife, but that doesn't make hunting knives illegal. Sure, stabbing and cutting is their primary purpose, but you should not use them in an illegal way. If someone buys a DVD, they have every right to convert the data contained on it into a format that is useful to them. Even the DMCA explicitly states this.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It isn't so much the DVD licence fees (well, for CCA, maybe it is...); it's about maintaining the region codes, killing off CDs and therefore those pesky MP3s with DVD-Audio, and eventually the ressurection of DIVX!
But yeah, this is the key. The CCA might be Keystone Cops, but the MPAA knows very well they can't squash pirating; what they want to prevent is a *legal* challenge to control of the distribution channels.
> But the second piece of the puzzle is hardware and/or software
> to take the data from the physical media and display video and play
> audio for the movie. That's the piece that you lack.
So if I write the software, then I don't "lack" it, moron. I know that's hard for you to comprehend. You think software falls out of the sky, like manna from heaven. Well, you just continue to believe that, Windows user.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
If you aren't given licensed access to protected media, you are circumventing the measure. If there are no licensed tools available for Linux, then ipso facto you are violating the above provision if you are viewing CSS protected DVDs on Linux. In the US. Possibly elsewhere.
...and if you are attempting to play it on your *licensed* DVD player that came with *licensed* Windows DVD playback software, but you're running Linux... you're licensed, just lacking software that will run on your Linux machine.
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
Just a question to anyone who might know anything about trade secret law, but can the fact that the MPAA did not ask for these records to be sealed when they were submitted as evidence be considered neglect?
If you neglect to protect your trade secrets, don't they lose trade secret protection?
This, frankly, can actually be beneficial to the CCA case.
IANAL, but it does seem somewhat clear cut to me.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Now, the DVD CCA says I can't do that.
They are trying to outlaw a valid use of items I bought and paid for. Items I want to use within the terms of their licenses. It's like if Oral-B got the courts to rule that I couldn't use their toothbrushes to clean car parts.
They are trying to make the money I spent a waste. So, do I have any rights -- can I not seek some kind of reparations?
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
You can get the player shipped from the other regions.
Eventually you probably will be able to get a mod chip for the player itself (a-la playstation) that sould be able to supply a region code of the users choosing.
Printing a dvd costs as much and usually more thatnjust buying another copy. $25 for a blank writeable disc, and a few thousand for the writer. Add the time that needs to be taken to write one and it just isn't worthwhile.
A foriegn black market manufacturer would be able to get around the problem of scale and make it worth their time, but then again, they will not care about the outcome of the trial, and probably have reversed engineered their own software/secrets.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
I agree that this is ridiculous. The witchhunt has no basis in legality. Is it a patent? No. If it was, it would be published, but using it would be illegal. On the other hand, if it's a trade secret, there are no provisions to protect it once it's out.
On the other hand, someone could, in theory use DeCSS to copy a movie into MPG or ASF format. The quality would suck though, so it's not really an issue. After all, no one has really made a fortune copying CDs onto cassettes, because of the quality and feature loss.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
That would work, and I'm sure that they could collect all of the papers out there. You could get it by if you dealt with a clueless person. And then it gets put on microfishe, and so on, and so forth.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
How about using their own tactics against them?
It's obvious that they are using the legal bullying not only to set a disturbing precedent, but to also put fear of lawyers into anyone that might dare to post code they don't like.
So let's make this real expensive for them. Everyone who bought a DVD while linux software was 'legal', should file a claim against the vendor in their local small claims court. You bought it in good faith, and now it "Doesn't work anymore" since they chose to outlaw the software you need to play it.
20 thousand suits in backwater towns around the world will give their lawyers something useful to do.
Unfortunately I think we're forgetting the underlying question here. This question will, most likely, be decided years from now after numerous court battles.
... ?
Should consumers be allowed unrestricted personal use of DVD movies that they own?
Well, let's see...
The industry doesn't care if I:
- Play them (on a "sanctioned" player)
- Make a backup on VHS (provided I have a "sanctioned" DVD player).
- Sell them to someone else.
- Break them.
-
Legal, but the industry doesn't want me to:
- Make a backup to DVD.
- Play them on a non-sanctioned player.
- Reverse engineer the encryption for purposes of interoperability (DMCA).
Illegal:
- Make copies for reasons other than fair use.
- Other copyright violations (broadcasting it, or whatever).
The corporations in the DVD business are trying to change the law, folks. That's the bottom line. If they can win the proper court cases, then slowly but surely, the things they WISH were illegal will BECOME illegal.
Tread carefully.
- SEAL
I'll just call my buddy Steve Jobs and have him send his nice new jet out to pick me up and run me to the hearing. Damn... I wish that were true...
In case you haven't been paying attention, DeCSS doesn't help you pirate a DVD movie. It lets you play a DVD disc, regardless of whether it is legal or not. You can pirate a DVD disc, and you end up with.. A copy of an encrypted DVD disc is still encrypted, and you need a decoder to watch it. Companies (like Xing) paid $10M apiece to get a license to build DVD players or write DVD software.
There is nothing preventing a software company from licensing the technology to create DVD software that runs under Linux.
Again, you obviously have not been paying attention. Several companies have applied for licenses to make DVD decoders for Linux, and have been denied each and every time.
What we are witnessing is not the DVD industry trying to protect DVDs, we are witnessing the DVD industry posturing to make the DVD hardware companies happy, since they promised the involved companies that by buying a license, they would become part of the elite DVD player oligopoly.
Conrad
If so, it might be an interesting bit of weaponry for future legal action.
That much is right, but your example is somewhat mistaken. The only thing which constitutes an ex post facto law is one which either (1) criminalizes an action which was done before the law was enacted, or (2) increases the penalty for such an action.
These would be examples of ex post facto laws:
Grandfathering is not required by the ex post facto prohibition. In the example you gave, it would be perfectly legal for the state to require anybody practicing after [whenever] to have 500 hours of training, irrespective of whether they'd been practicing before that. They just can't prosecute you for practicing before [whenever] without those 500 hours of training.
I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer--don't rely on this advice.
Thus, Mr. Johansen created the software necessary to play back DVDs under Linux. Now that we have all the pieces, are we still not entitled to view DVDs we paid for and have both the hardware and software components needed to play?
Chuck.
"So many ways to skin a cat, and still everyone uses a great big knife."
But then I ran across this from a Routers clip:
- Jeffrey Kessler, lead attorney for the DVD Copy Control Association trade group, said the decision "establishes that the rules of intellectual property apply on the Internet, just like in all areas of commerce."
They're not that naive, are they?Kessler was not worried the program would continue to circulate in defiance of the court order. "Most people are law-abiding," he said.
http://linuxguiden.linpro.no/protesteng .php
So far its been pretty limited to non-US addresses. There are some US ones in there but not a lot. Its quite a geography lesson to say the least. Sign it today!
The main thing they are upset about is the destruction of their regional coding scheme. This allows them to sell movies in Britain for double the price of the US ones. It also allows them to make sure a DVD isn't available in a particular country until the movie has come out in that country. A DVD player in Britain won't play American DVDs.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I hope this gets moderated up, because a lot of people have the same idea - and it's won't actualyl work because of this.
-Ariel
--------------
Notice, we are not some spekky 14 year olds here, many
--------------
This is about the only thing in the post that should have been seen!
Nothing exists exept atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
I agree. If "we" want to come to out of this looking good, we have to play the game. In this case, it means going along with what the judge decides. He says to remove the source for the duration of the trail, we do that. Playing mean won't get us anything. It'll probably just get the judge angry at us, and let the DVD CCA win.
So instead of spreading the source all over the net in defiance of the court ruling, try something different. Contribute to the EFF (I think that's the TLA). Read up on the relevant material and suggest strategies. Do things like that.
-RickHunter
--"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
--Gray council, Babylon 5.
Well, there's dozens of places in the UK where you can get multi region DVD players.
These might not be quite so popular in the US because they get most films before everyone else anyway.
No they can't stop us all. They may stop one of us, but thats one out of how many? And what are they gona do about the non-US bound people? And if they do /try/ to sue me what are they gona get? My outdated PC and my networth of $600? Let them spend $100,000 to try to track me down :) I don't even own a DVD player but I still mirror the source and i know many that do the same.
Point is, this could be done before DeCSS also, and still is. DeCSS wasn't the first program that made it possible to rip DVDs ..
Point two: Asian DVD pirates (that actually make their own DVDs) don't use DeCSS ... they don't have to.
it's in my head
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Refer to this /. post. I put all the contact email addresses I could find in it. Then send the zuits a polite email explaining our side and requesting that they back out of their support for the DVD CCA.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
These are some of the best posts on this subject I've seen - I they really do deserve more than just 5 point.
Good work, werdna!
himi
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and Donald Becker come to mind. I would venture a guess that the percentage of graduate degree holders among Linux hackers[1] is more than twice that of the general population. In fact of the Linux users I know close to half are college graduates, about half are in college and around 10 percent or so are under 18.
Acording to a demographic study done by Linux Today magazine, their average reader is a 32 year old employed professional. Acording to Slashdot poll the mode user is in their 20s. I base the rest of my estimates on known developers in the Linux community. Admittedly the accuracy of all of these figures can be questioned as can any statistical data, but you seem to offer no justification what-so-ever for your portrayal of the Linux community.
[1] I'm using this term to refer to anyone who has contributed code to the Linux kernel. As Linux is a kernel and you seemed to be using hacker to indicate a programmer.
Actually, something very similar happend several years ago in a case involving the Church of Scientology, in which some of their secret "scriptures" were entered as evidence and therefore freely available in any government office. I believe the case took place in Sweden.
Check out this link for the story. It's a rather amusing read.
Dan
au contraire, looks to me like it's very personal. We've done the equivlent of the part from Bravehart when the Scots moon the British.
--
--
The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge. You get it in the end.
I just checked and this isn't correct.
All the Geocities mirrors seem to still be working (although I wasn't able to get through to them all on the first try for some reason).
Could be that they're just having problems.
Your advice is good, and perhaps more pertinent than you be believe it to be.
Actually, remember the contest we had for whoever came up with the best distribution of the source code for CSS? This is the winner, I think. You've got to wonder what the hell they were thinking. Then again, they're lawyers. They'll be getting paid all the way to the courtroom.
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
Can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in Switzerland, region-free players are routinely available at no extra cost. Region 1 (US) DVDs are also routinely available in the stores.
What's sad is that this means that some uninformed people are going to end up buying US DVDs and not be able to play them on their Region 2 devices when them they get home. The customer is not always right.
What's fun is that I can now order DVDs from the states and see films before they've even opened here (takes time to add the German & French sub-titles I guess.)
What's odd is that I am even allowed to buy DVD from the states. For too many products (PC software, accessories, gadgets, etc.) that I'd like to order off some US-based website I see the smallprint Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.. If The Man can stop us filthy Europeans buying so many products from the US then why not DVDs too?
Not complaining, not requesting, just wondering.
Regards, Ralph.
So what happens if people mirror the court records? Do you have to be "served" with notice that what you publish is sealed? Even if they're sealed, this sealing should only have jurisdiction in the US, so if they're mirrored in other countries, they can stand. I would also argue that by FAILING to seal these documents before they were published, the lawyers have failed to protect their claim of a trade secret.
Since the court record will not compile without modification, it cannot be argued that it does anything other than communicate. Never mind that that's all the DeCSS code does -- communicate.
After all, the DeCSS SOURCE CODE itself cannot DO anything. Contrary to misconception, the source code cannot copy or even playback DVD's. It is instructions on how to do this.
Even if making a bomb or making LSD is illegal, instructions on how to make a bomb or the chemical synthesis of LSD are protected speach. Of, course viewing a DVD "for home use only" is not illegal anyway, as the copyright notice on the DVD grants this authority.
Using it for playback in Winblows would be illegal because there are already software DVD players for Winblows available.
Actually, it would be legal to do it in Windows as well. It doesn't matter if other players are available or not.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have read this claim repeatedly but in every case I can recall it has always been stated as a "well known fact". My question is has anyone actually done it? Would it be possible to confirm that this claim is more than just hot air? There must be some geeks out there who have access to a DVD-ROM burner. It does not count to claim that a properly modified burner could do the deed. Has anyone actually confirmed this "well known fact"???
I've already seen flash rom images to make popular DVD-ROM region free. It probably won't be that big a deal to "chip" or "flash" a writer to do anything the owner wants. And why not? It's the owner's isn't it?
Was this technology stolen? Hardly. Saying it was stolen would be like saying Columbus stole America because Leif Ericsson technically discovered it first. They worked completely independently, and achieved similar goals; neither "stole" anything from the other.
Now, on to your points...
One, the recording industry isn't going to release the movies unless they think the format provides some method of limiting or reducing pirating.
Explain, then, why they still release movies on VHS, which has no effective copy-protection (yes, there are a few methods, but all are easy to defeat). Or why the recording industry releases unprotected CD's. Because piracy doesn't do them nearly as much damage as they'd like the public to think, and they know it. That doesn't mean it's right to pirate, but it also means that unreasonable measures such as CSS are not justifiable on the grounds of antipiracy alone.
CSS isn't about limiting piracy. It's about being able to artificially inflate the prices in the US and other regions where people who don't know any better pay through the nose, while still allowing the movies to reach markets where it has to be sold at lower but still very profitable prices. In short, it's about conning US and European customers out of more money than they should have to pay. CSS, not DeCSS, is the true theft. And if something of mine is stolen, I have the right to get it back.
There is nothing preventing a software company from licensing the technology to create DVD software that runs under Linux.
Other than millions of dollars in license fees, insanely-restrictive NDA's, threats and FUD from Microsoft, and corporate elitism, you mean? There are plenty of things preventing a software company from using the technology for Linux. The barriers aren't legal ones, but they're just as real.
It's not free, but don't the people that worked to create this format deserve a reasonable profit for their efforts?
CSS is not a format. DVD movies are encoded using the MPEG-2 format, which is free. CSS is only an encryption system, and a piss-poor one to boot.
And yes, they deserve a reasonable profit. But CSS isn't about reasonable profits; it's about artificially inflating them by forcing consumers to pay more than they should.
DVD CSS is fighting for their livelihoods. If they lose this trade secret, they have the choice of comming up with a new encryption method, and convincing hardware manufacturers and the recording industry to support it, or they're out of business.
One: it's DVD CCA, not DVD CSS.
Two: DVD CCA is not a coporation. It makes no profit at all from CSS. The CCA is a group which represents the major makers of DVD's. If CCA is dissolved, no one loses any jobs, except maybe the lawyers, because CCA doesn't employ anyone per se. It's not a business, it doesn't make any profit from CSS (the profit is made by the member groups, who already get plenty of profit from DVD sales unrelated to CSS licensing).
The judge met in chambers, with one public witness present as well as the lawyers. He ultimately decided to seal the exhibits A and B. of the Hoy Reply Declaration. This only eliminates peoples' ability to get them from the court itself. It does not affect anyone's right to publish or duplicate the records that were already received. Those who were previously enjoined (the 70 named defendants) are still enjoined and cannot duplicate the info. Those who were not enjoined remain free to duplicate the info, as before. John Gilmore
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on this whole sorry matter!
Yes, you nailed it. They could care less about Joe Hacker downloading and compiling decss source. They want to stop RedHat/Mandrake/Suse from distributing FREE Linux DVD players.
As usual, it's all about money.
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
In this post I state "I sincerely doubt that the DVD CCA or MPAA lawyers are so stupid as to allow unsealed CSS source into open court records." I hereby retract that statement.
But this has to be very embarassing for the high-priced DVD CCA lawyers.
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
From here: http://www.ionapre p.pvt.k12.ny.us/projects/persecution/poem2.htm
"First They Came for the Jews":
By Pastor Niemoller
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Thanks the the Constitution, no law can be ex post facto. If you get the docs before they are sealed, you can legally keep them. You do have to stop distributing them once they are sealed, but you may keep your copy.
This will be good for the CSS Documentation project I mentioned on Monday (and which, sad to say, is probably what prompted the lawyers to hold this hearing; I apologize for that). I do intend to get this started.
There's where you lose the right to view your DVDs on your Linux machine. The CCA licenses the right to play DVDs to several manufacturers, none of whom produce a product for Linux. LiViD is not licensed by the CCA, therefore using it breaks your DVD purchase agreement.
The CCA has no copyright case, they have no trade secret case, and they have no piracy case. But they may have a case if they claim that using a non-licensed player to play DVDs is unauthorized use. I doubt they'll make that case unless they have to, because then it's them versus Linux, as opposed to them versus 'DVD pirates'...and Linux is well-respected by the public, lately.
What the CCA wants us to do is to purchase a license from them, then make a player. The problem is that a grassroots engineering effort like the Linux community cannot come up with the hundred thousand dollars it takes to license their tech. Because of how we do things, we can't do it their way -- and they're too greedy and too hidebound to realize that.
Just another big clash between the Old Way of doing things and the New Way of doing things, folks. There'll be more like this.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I don't know Australian copyright law. Much of copyright law is standardized internationally under the Berne Treaty. I don't know what the status of the DMCA act enacted in 1998 in the US is internationally.
What are known as the anti-circumvention provisions of US law (17 U.S.C. 1201. In part it reads:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
If you aren't given licensed access to protected media, you are circumventing the measure. If there are no licensed tools available for Linux, then ipso facto you are violating the above provision if you are viewing CSS protected DVDs on Linux. In the US. Possibly elsewhere.
There are other legal dimensions to the case. Distributing DeCSS code falls under another portion of the same law (scroll down the link provided). Trade secrets law is being used in several instances, this appears to the be hook used to snare Jon Johansen.
IANAL, this is not legal advice.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
I've been using Linux for a few years (and I plead the 5th concerning hacking). I haven't graduated from college, but I did go for a year or so - 14 years ago.
Hackers (and Linux hackers) have been around for years - in fact I probably know a hacker movie or two that is older than you are (guessing by your post)
-Want to play a game?
LRJ
The T-Shirt is available at Copyleft. Here is the url. $4 US goes to EFF with each purchase. According to the Copyleft page, 1370 of the shirts have been sold as of this writing.
None of the stuff I buy on video appears to be coming out on DVD (mostly TV shows). Even if it does, it's unlikely that it will be released in Australia, and the region coding screws me out of being able to import the stuff I want. I therefore don't give a toss whether DVD lives or dies as a format. If it continues to be a closed, expensive, limited system I would imagine it will go the way of LaserDisc (and BetaMax). If it opens up and becomes cheap and available then I would imagine that it will succeed, like VHS.
Actually, that's an interesting point; Mac, closed, small audience. PC, open, large market. BetaMax, closed, died. VHS, open, everywhere. Time and again it's shown that an open, cheap standard will win over a closed expensive thing. Previously it was just about licencing fees, now it's also about protection against piracy (supposedly)...
Well... when you're a professional (and it's not illegal duplication in a number of countries which have no copyright law, so there), you tend to have the same kind of equipment that other professionals have.
Obviously _someone_ manufactures enough DVDs to sell them at ~$15-30 and make a profit. They're the ones sold normally. Work on that kind of a scale and it's no trouble, I'm sure.
The expensive blanks are really more like the equivalent of CD-Rs, which themselves cost more than a 'real' CD. It only stops amatures.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
1st, Jon says he didn't write it, only distributed it. (course, cant verfiy without links but o well) You know, every time somebody cracks some kind of encryption or copy protection or whatever, always it seems to make sense that the cracker should be employed by the (incompetent, obviously) guys who made said cracked thing.... and I've only heard of that happening once. Posted on www.zophar.net a few months ago was some info about how Someone (don't remember his name...) was hired by to write N64 games, because he was the lead programmer for a promising (and discontinued) N64 emulator. This also reminds me of the Sony v. bleem, llc case... (bleem! is a playstaion emulator for Win 98) Rand makes a program to run PSX games on a PC and gets sued. Sony loses 2 injunctions, the court date is set for Apr 24 I think. Likewise, Jon Johansen & Co write software to play DVD on Linux and get sued..... Whatever
True but once the point is made of how new the DVD CCA is, I doubt that this tactic will be worth much.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Instead of a shadow conspiracy, isn't it possible that they just realized that the source was in the court documents (it's been hyped enough here)? If so, then they'd have to plug that "leak" as well.
Do I think they're greedy, yes. Do I think everything is a plot, no.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/*
/*
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
/*
/* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the
/*
/* Feed the secret into the input values such that
/* This term is used throughout the following to
/* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each
css-auth.h
----------
typedef unsigned char byte;
struct block {
byte b[5];
};
extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
css-auth.c
----------
* Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
* These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before
* calling engine() to do the main work.
*
* The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of
* the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to
* try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it
* actually adds anything to the security.
*
* The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied
* parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and
* the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised.
*
* The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first
* (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter.
*
* Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the
* code table driven in order to improve readability.
*
* Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even
* abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining
* the nature of the reordering it has to do.
*/
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output);
void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(varient, scratch, key);
}
* 4 -> !3
* 3 -> 4
* varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> !1
*/
void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d,
0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d,
0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05,
0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key);
}
* 4 -> 0
* 3 -> !1
* varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> 3
*/
void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e,
0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c,
0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f,
0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key);
}
* We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to
* generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams
* are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final
* sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that
* 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer.
*
* The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of:
* x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1
*
* The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of:
* x^15 + x^1 + 1
*
* I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus
* represent maximal-period LFSR's.
*
*
* Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in
* bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's
* are implemented in bit reversed order.
*
*/
static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, struct block const *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte carry;
* initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s->b[0] b[1] b[2] & ~7) b[2] & 7);
lfsr1 = (s->b[3] b[4];
++output;
carry = 0;
do {
int bit;
byte val;
for (bit = 0, val = 0; bit > 24) ^ (lfsr0 >> 21) ^ (lfsr0 >> 20) ^ (lfsr0 >> 12)) & 1;
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 > 16) ^ (lfsr1 >> 2)) & 1;
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 > 1) & 1)
combined = !o_lfsr1 + carry + !o_lfsr0;
carry = BIT1(combined);
val |= BIT0(combined) 0);
}
static byte Secret[];
static byte Varients[];
static byte Table0[];
static byte Table1[];
static byte Table2[];
static byte Table3[];
* This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations
* one the same theme depending upon the choice in the
* varient parameter (0 - 31).
*
* The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into
* a 40 bit output.
* The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of
* the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed
* by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number
* generators.
*/
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output)
{
byte cse, term, index;
struct block temp1;
struct block temp2;
byte bits[30];
int i;
* we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then
* generate the bits to play with.
*/
for (i = 5; --i >= 0; )
temp1.b[i] = input[5 + i] ^ Secret[i] ^ Table2[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1);
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = Varients[varient] ^ Table2[varient];
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = input[i]) {
index = bits[25 + i] ^ input[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[20 + i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp2.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {
index = bits[15 + i] ^ temp2.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp1.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index];
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[10 + i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp2.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index];
}
temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {
index = bits[5 + i] ^ temp2.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
output->b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
}
static byte Varients[] = {
0xB7, 0x74, 0x85, 0xD0, 0xCC, 0xDB, 0xCA, 0x73,
0x03, 0xFE, 0x31, 0x03, 0x52, 0xE0, 0xB7, 0x42,
0x63, 0x16, 0xF2, 0x2A, 0x79, 0x52, 0xFF, 0x1B,
0x7A, 0x11, 0xCA, 0x1A, 0x9B, 0x40, 0xAD, 0x01};
static byte Secret[] = {0x55, 0xD6, 0xC4, 0xC5, 0x28};
static byte Table0[] = {
0xB7, 0xF4, 0x82, 0x57, 0xDA, 0x4D, 0xDB, 0xE2,
0x2F, 0x52, 0x1A, 0xA8, 0x68, 0x5A, 0x8A, 0xFF,
0xFB, 0x0E, 0x6D, 0x35, 0xF7, 0x5C, 0x76, 0x12,
0xCE, 0x25, 0x79, 0x29, 0x39, 0x62, 0x08, 0x24,
0xA5, 0x85, 0x7B, 0x56, 0x01, 0x23, 0x68, 0xCF,
0x0A, 0xE2, 0x5A, 0xED, 0x3D, 0x59, 0xB0, 0xA9,
0xB0, 0x2C, 0xF2, 0xB8, 0xEF, 0x32, 0xA9, 0x40,
0x80, 0x71, 0xAF, 0x1E, 0xDE, 0x8F, 0x58, 0x88,
0xB8, 0x3A, 0xD0, 0xFC, 0xC4, 0x1E, 0xB5, 0xA0,
0xBB, 0x3B, 0x0F, 0x01, 0x7E, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0xD9,
0xAA, 0xB8, 0x3D, 0x9D, 0x74, 0x1E, 0x25, 0xDB,
0x37, 0x56, 0x8F, 0x16, 0xBA, 0x49, 0x2B, 0xAC,
0xD0, 0xBD, 0x95, 0x20, 0xBE, 0x7A, 0x28, 0xD0,
0x51, 0x64, 0x63, 0x1C, 0x7F, 0x66, 0x10, 0xBB,
0xC4, 0x56, 0x1A, 0x04, 0x6E, 0x0A, 0xEC, 0x9C,
0xD6, 0xE8, 0x9A, 0x7A, 0xCF, 0x8C, 0xDB, 0xB1,
0xEF, 0x71, 0xDE, 0x31, 0xFF, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x5E,
0x07, 0x69, 0x96, 0xB0, 0xCF, 0xDD, 0x9E, 0x47,
0xC7, 0x96, 0x8F, 0xE4, 0x2B, 0x59, 0xC6, 0xEE,
0xB9, 0x86, 0x9A, 0x64, 0x84, 0x72, 0xE2, 0x5B,
0xA2, 0x96, 0x58, 0x99, 0x50, 0x03, 0xF5, 0x38,
0x4D, 0x02, 0x7D, 0xE7, 0x7D, 0x75, 0xA7, 0xB8,
0x67, 0x87, 0x84, 0x3F, 0x1D, 0x11, 0xE5, 0xFC,
0x1E, 0xD3, 0x83, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x29, 0xF6, 0xC7,
0x15, 0x61, 0x29, 0x1A, 0x43, 0x4F, 0x9B, 0xAF,
0xC5, 0x87, 0x34, 0x6C, 0x0F, 0x3B, 0xA8, 0x1D,
0x45, 0x58, 0x25, 0xDC, 0xA8, 0xA3, 0x3B, 0xD1,
0x79, 0x1B, 0x48, 0xF2, 0xE9, 0x93, 0x1F, 0xFC,
0xDB, 0x2A, 0x90, 0xA9, 0x8A, 0x3D, 0x39, 0x18,
0xA3, 0x8E, 0x58, 0x6C, 0xE0, 0x12, 0xBB, 0x25,
0xCD, 0x71, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x64, 0xC6, 0xE7, 0xFB,
0xAD, 0x94, 0x77, 0x04, 0x9A, 0x39, 0xCF, 0x7C};
static byte Table1[] = {
0x8C, 0x47, 0xB0, 0xE1, 0xEB, 0xFC, 0xEB, 0x56,
0x10, 0xE5, 0x2C, 0x1A, 0x5D, 0xEF, 0xBE, 0x4F,
0x08, 0x75, 0x97, 0x4B, 0x0E, 0x25, 0x8E, 0x6E,
0x39, 0x5A, 0x87, 0x53, 0xC4, 0x1F, 0xF4, 0x5C,
0x4E, 0xE6, 0x99, 0x30, 0xE0, 0x42, 0x88, 0xAB,
0xE5, 0x85, 0xBC, 0x8F, 0xD8, 0x3C, 0x54, 0xC9,
0x53, 0x47, 0x18, 0xD6, 0x06, 0x5B, 0x41, 0x2C,
0x67, 0x1E, 0x41, 0x74, 0x33, 0xE2, 0xB4, 0xE0,
0x23, 0x29, 0x42, 0xEA, 0x55, 0x0F, 0x25, 0xB4,
0x24, 0x2C, 0x99, 0x13, 0xEB, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0xC9,
0xF9, 0x63, 0x67, 0x43, 0x2D, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x07,
0x60, 0x89, 0xD1, 0xCC, 0xE7, 0x94, 0x77, 0x74,
0x9B, 0x7E, 0xD7, 0xE6, 0xFF, 0xBB, 0x68, 0x14,
0x1E, 0xA3, 0x25, 0xDE, 0x3A, 0xA3, 0x54, 0x7B,
0x87, 0x9D, 0x50, 0xCA, 0x27, 0xC3, 0xA4, 0x50,
0x91, 0x27, 0xD4, 0xB0, 0x82, 0x41, 0x97, 0x79,
0x94, 0x82, 0xAC, 0xC7, 0x8E, 0xA5, 0x4E, 0xAA,
0x78, 0x9E, 0xE0, 0x42, 0xBA, 0x28, 0xEA, 0xB7,
0x74, 0xAD, 0x35, 0xDA, 0x92, 0x60, 0x7E, 0xD2,
0x0E, 0xB9, 0x24, 0x5E, 0x39, 0x4F, 0x5E, 0x63,
0x09, 0xB5, 0xFA, 0xBF, 0xF1, 0x22, 0x55, 0x1C,
0xE2, 0x25, 0xDB, 0xC5, 0xD8, 0x50, 0x03, 0x98,
0xC4, 0xAC, 0x2E, 0x11, 0xB4, 0x38, 0x4D, 0xD0,
0xB9, 0xFC, 0x2D, 0x3C, 0x08, 0x04, 0x5A, 0xEF,
0xCE, 0x32, 0xFB, 0x4C, 0x92, 0x1E, 0x4B, 0xFB,
0x1A, 0xD0, 0xE2, 0x3E, 0xDA, 0x6E, 0x7C, 0x4D,
0x56, 0xC3, 0x3F, 0x42, 0xB1, 0x3A, 0x23, 0x4D,
0x6E, 0x84, 0x56, 0x68, 0xF4, 0x0E, 0x03, 0x64,
0xD0, 0xA9, 0x92, 0x2F, 0x8B, 0xBC, 0x39, 0x9C,
0xAC, 0x09, 0x5E, 0xEE, 0xE5, 0x97, 0xBF, 0xA5,
0xCE, 0xFA, 0x28, 0x2C, 0x6D, 0x4F, 0xEF, 0x77,
0xAA, 0x1B, 0x79, 0x8E, 0x97, 0xB4, 0xC3, 0xF4};
static byte Table2[] = {
0xB7, 0x75, 0x81, 0xD5, 0xDC, 0xCA, 0xDE, 0x66,
0x23, 0xDF, 0x15, 0x26, 0x62, 0xD1, 0x83, 0x77,
0xE3, 0x97, 0x76, 0xAF, 0xE9, 0xC3, 0x6B, 0x8E,
0xDA, 0xB0, 0x6E, 0xBF, 0x2B, 0xF1, 0x19, 0xB4,
0x95, 0x34, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x37, 0x94, 0x5D, 0x7B,
0x36, 0x5F, 0x65, 0x53, 0x07, 0xE2, 0x89, 0x11,
0x98, 0x85, 0xD9, 0x12, 0xC1, 0x9D, 0x84, 0xEC,
0xA4, 0xD4, 0x88, 0xB8, 0xFC, 0x2C, 0x79, 0x28,
0xD8, 0xDB, 0xB3, 0x1E, 0xA2, 0xF9, 0xD0, 0x44,
0xD7, 0xD6, 0x60, 0xEF, 0x14, 0xF4, 0xF6, 0x31,
0xD2, 0x41, 0x46, 0x67, 0x0A, 0xE1, 0x58, 0x27,
0x43, 0xA3, 0xF8, 0xE0, 0xC8, 0xBA, 0x5A, 0x5C,
0x80, 0x6C, 0xC6, 0xF2, 0xE8, 0xAD, 0x7D, 0x04,
0x0D, 0xB9, 0x3C, 0xC2, 0x25, 0xBD, 0x49, 0x63,
0x8C, 0x9F, 0x51, 0xCE, 0x20, 0xC5, 0xA1, 0x50,
0x92, 0x2D, 0xDD, 0xBC, 0x8D, 0x4F, 0x9A, 0x71,
0x2F, 0x30, 0x1D, 0x73, 0x39, 0x13, 0xFB, 0x1A,
0xCB, 0x24, 0x59, 0xFE, 0x05, 0x96, 0x57, 0x0F,
0x1F, 0xCF, 0x54, 0xBE, 0xF5, 0x06, 0x1B, 0xB2,
0x6D, 0xD3, 0x4D, 0x32, 0x56, 0x21, 0x33, 0x0B,
0x52, 0xE7, 0xAB, 0xEB, 0xA6, 0x74, 0x00, 0x4C,
0xB1, 0x7F, 0x82, 0x99, 0x87, 0x0E, 0x5E, 0xC0,
0x8F, 0xEE, 0x6F, 0x55, 0xF3, 0x7E, 0x08, 0x90,
0xFA, 0xB6, 0x64, 0x70, 0x47, 0x4A, 0x17, 0xA7,
0xB5, 0x40, 0x8A, 0x38, 0xE5, 0x68, 0x3E, 0x8B,
0x69, 0xAA, 0x9B, 0x42, 0xA5, 0x10, 0x01, 0x35,
0xFD, 0x61, 0x9E, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x9C, 0x86, 0xED,
0xCD, 0x2E, 0xFF, 0xC4, 0x5B, 0xA0, 0xAE, 0xCC,
0x4B, 0x3B, 0x03, 0xBB, 0x1C, 0x2A, 0xAC, 0x0C,
0x3F, 0x93, 0xC7, 0x72, 0x7A, 0x09, 0x22, 0x3D,
0x45, 0x78, 0xA9, 0xA8, 0xEA, 0xC9, 0x6A, 0xF7,
0x29, 0x91, 0xF0, 0x02, 0x18, 0x3A, 0x4E, 0x7C};
static byte Table3[] = {
0x73, 0x51, 0x95, 0xE1, 0x12, 0xE4, 0xC0, 0x58,
0xEE, 0xF2, 0x08, 0x1B, 0xA9, 0xFA, 0x98, 0x4C,
0xA7, 0x33, 0xE2, 0x1B, 0xA7, 0x6D, 0xF5, 0x30,
0x97, 0x1D, 0xF3, 0x02, 0x60, 0x5A, 0x82, 0x0F,
0x91, 0xD0, 0x9C, 0x10, 0x39, 0x7A, 0x83, 0x85,
0x3B, 0xB2, 0xB8, 0xAE, 0x0C, 0x09, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x1C, 0xE1, 0x8D, 0x66, 0x4F, 0xF3, 0xDA, 0x92,
0x29, 0xB9, 0xD5, 0xC5, 0x77, 0x47, 0x22, 0x53,
0x14, 0xF7, 0xAF, 0x22, 0x64, 0xDF, 0xC6, 0x72,
0x12, 0xF3, 0x75, 0xDA, 0xD7, 0xD7, 0xE5, 0x02,
0x9E, 0xED, 0xDA, 0xDB, 0x4C, 0x47, 0xCE, 0x91,
0x06, 0x06, 0x6D, 0x55, 0x8B, 0x19, 0xC9, 0xEF,
0x8C, 0x80, 0x1A, 0x0E, 0xEE, 0x4B, 0xAB, 0xF2,
0x08, 0x5C, 0xE9, 0x37, 0x26, 0x5E, 0x9A, 0x90,
0x00, 0xF3, 0x0D, 0xB2, 0xA6, 0xA3, 0xF7, 0x26,
0x17, 0x48, 0x88, 0xC9, 0x0E, 0x2C, 0xC9, 0x02,
0xE7, 0x18, 0x05, 0x4B, 0xF3, 0x39, 0xE1, 0x20,
0x02, 0x0D, 0x40, 0xC7, 0xCA, 0xB9, 0x48, 0x30,
0x57, 0x67, 0xCC, 0x06, 0xBF, 0xAC, 0x81, 0x08,
0x24, 0x7A, 0xD4, 0x8B, 0x19, 0x8E, 0xAC, 0xB4,
0x5A, 0x0F, 0x73, 0x13, 0xAC, 0x9E, 0xDA, 0xB6,
0xB8, 0x96, 0x5B, 0x60, 0x88, 0xE1, 0x81, 0x3F,
0x07, 0x86, 0x37, 0x2D, 0x79, 0x14, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x73, 0xDF, 0x3D, 0x09, 0xC8, 0x25, 0x48, 0xD8,
0x75, 0x60, 0x9A, 0x08, 0x27, 0x4A, 0x2C, 0xB9,
0xA8, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x73, 0x62, 0x37, 0x16, 0x02,
0xBD, 0xC1, 0x0E, 0x56, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x14, 0x5F,
0x8C, 0x8F, 0x6E, 0x75, 0x1C, 0x07, 0x39, 0x7B,
0x4B, 0xDB, 0xD3, 0x4B, 0x1E, 0xC8, 0x7E, 0xFE,
0x3E, 0x72, 0x16, 0x83, 0x7D, 0xEE, 0xF5, 0xCA,
0xC5, 0x18, 0xF9, 0xD8, 0x68, 0xAB, 0x38, 0x85,
0xA8, 0xF0, 0xA1, 0x73, 0x9F, 0x5D, 0x19, 0x0B,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x33, 0x72, 0x39, 0x25, 0x67, 0x26, 0x6D, 0x71,
0x36, 0x77, 0x3C, 0x20, 0x62, 0x23, 0x68, 0x74,
0xC3, 0x82, 0xC9, 0x15, 0x57, 0x16, 0x5D, 0x81};
Oh hell, you're allowed to listen to the thing on a record player if you want. There are no restrictions on your USE of the thing at all - only on the duplication. It's a copyright, after all, not a usageright.
Boilerplate legaleese is usually stuck on things like that to prevent people who don't know any better from fully exercising their rights. About the only thing in there that seemed reasonable (IANAL) is the public viewing bit. That's been upheld IIRC but I can live with it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Accoding to news.com,Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Elfving today placed under seal source code submitted in a trade secrets case filed by the DVD Copy Control Association against 72 Web sites and individuals earlier this month.
What does this mean for those of us who already have these court records posted? When will this madness end?
And I will add another one for every negative thing the mpaa does.....
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I would guess that the CCA would say that use of DeCSS consists of "Unauthorized copying," which is "strictly prohibited."
For that matter playing the video under Linux could be called "unauthorized exhibition," which they also prohibit according to the text you quoted.
I agree this all sucks. I purchased a license to use the content on my DVD and certainly feel that I should be able to use this content, for personal use, in new and creative ways. It's not like I'd be profiting from it in any way.
I liken this comparison to the guy who built a wooden case for his Palm Pilot. While the legality of him making those available for sale without the appropriate license is questionable, nobody is going to haul him into court for doing it to his own copy, for his own personal use. There is no reason that something analogous for DVDs, and any other software for that matter, shouldn't exist.
BTW: I am not a lawyer.
Plenty, myself included. So what was your point ?
We need a nice, noisy, media-visible protest right outside the courtroom. California folks, break out your placards! Call the local TV stations!
:(
However, for the love of Pete:
- Dress nicely (no Obi-Wan costumes!)
- Dress even nicer if you go into the courtroom
- Don't harrass anyone. Be polite!
- DON'T PISS OFF THE JUDGE!
I wish I could be there to help.
The rest of the replies in this thread fairly well cover the rest of your questions, but when you buy a DVD license, you are not buying the rights to make X number of decoders, you are buying space in the encryption keys section of encrypted DVDs. If a DVD doesn't have your manufacturer's encrypted key in it, you can't watch the DVD.
Seriously though -- and recognizing that the discussion which follows is slightly off the main thread topic --IIRC the limiting issue isn't whether or not you can pass a law that has retroactive effects, it's what those retroactive effects can be.
For example, if I live in a community that requires 200 hours of training for some type of job, and there is no state requirement. So I get my training and am legally licensed in the community which is in the state. Then the state passes a ruling that says I have to have 500 hours in order to be licensed. The laws are usually written with a date cut off, e.g. this law will go into effect on xx/xx/xxxx date and anyone wanting to be licensed thereafter must have the requisite number of hours. Those licensed previously are "grandfathered in" by the prohibition against ex-post-facto prosecutions. (which may include on-going education requirements, etc. that still force me to get more training, etc.) because they can't prosecute me for legally practicing my profession in the community, so I am in effect legal anyway in the state.
Now then, I am still not a lawyer, so if anyone out there is, step in and correct me if my understanding is wrong on this.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Well, Baron Munchausen doesn't say anything but "all rights reserved", that I can find. A few of the Monty Python and Star Trek ones I have don't say anything at all, save the copyright info on the movies themselves. The vast majority of my DVD's, however, have something to the effect of "this is licensed for home use only, not to be resold, distributed, publicly exhibited, copied, or loaned". Usually with slightly stronger language. Yes, they include lending it to friends as unauthorized use, and copying it for home use. I don't see 'for windows only' on anything though. Even my Matrix DVD, with the enhanced features, only says that the enhanced features will only work on Windows, not that you aren't allowed to view it on anything else.
I hope that's what you meant, not that they state that you cannot use them on anything but windows. That _would_ be enforcing a brand.
The 'lending and copying' thing got me, though - according to that, you can't even lend it to a friend for him to watch without authorisation from the copyright owner. However, that has nothing to do with DeCSS, except to point out that they didn't _expressly_ forbid us from being allowed to view the things in our own home on our own machines.
-Elthia
Who says that the authorities don't have a sense of humour. Surely, packaging the source code that is contested in a case into public court documents so they can be spread freely around the whole world is one of the funniest hacks going.
:-)
I nominate this for Slashdot's Greatest Hacks of the 21st Century competition that will probably show up in 999 years or so
Thank you "SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA "
A little planning goes a long way...
Help spread the love! :)
http://www.vis.colostate.edu/~scriven/css/
The thing I keep wondering about is how we can get the news to report the facts in this case?
It seems like most of the press I've seen is very negative and filled with blatent lies. (A while back on CNN I heard them say that you couldn't copy DVDs before this was released).
So how can we get the news shows and papers to report facts instead of what the MPAA tells them? I don't see much research going into the news stories, so its up to us to provide the facts.
Any ideas?
Ok, help me out here. Either I'm missing some fundamental point, or the game is already over..
Please check me on my "facts"
#1: My Copy of the Exhibits A & B (The DeCSS source) are Mine no matter if they seal the documents or not.
#2: One would assume that while I may not pass the information directly to others, I am NOT enjoined from telling people I have it, or describing it in General. (I can't read it to them, tho.)
So, starting from the above... can I use my GENERAL knowledge of the CSS implementation gained from reading the document to build my own Decrypter/Player?
And if THAT is YES, I believe there would be no way to prevent me from distributing it (The Newly Written Decrypter/Player).
Or am I full of it?
Nipok Nek
Why choose white shoes?
There have been 1735 signers as I write this (the number actually went up by three in about 20 seconds :). It's great to see the enourmous support Jon gets, although it's no surprise.
On a completely different note:
Yesterday was a debate on our national television (in Norway) with very prominent debaters on "our" side and some twisted, desperate ones on theirs. The DVD associatons' attorney, Tøndel, were the biggest joke of a lifetime, especially when he couldn't explain why copying DVDs is impossible without DeCSS... He kept talking non-stop througout the show to try to silence the opposition. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunately, at the point where the charges against Jon were called fascism, the show ended.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
> Most of the kids I'm contacted by think DVD's should be played using dedicated appliances and
> hardware decoders only.
Think about it. This doesn't solve anything. First of all, there are very few true hardware DVD cards for computers. Most are really just hardware MPEG encoders, so the issue of CSS is just as relevant if you have a hardware card than if you don't. Secondly, we won't ever get specifications for these cards anyway, because the manufacturers signed agreements with Macrovision not to reveal anything to prevent the Macrovision from being turned off. (of course, people have already worked around this for all the cards anyway)
And most of all, we'll still be stuck with the obnoxious practice of region coding if we use somebody else's secret hardware system.
> The biggest argument is that deCSS was written to allow playback on Linux yet the defending
> lawyer emphatically denies the existance of any player for DVD files on Linux.
The defendents' lawyers argued that was WAS no DVD player for Linux before DeCSS. As a matter of fact, there now is one, and I am sure it will be publicly demonstrated at the trial.
> The public interest in this case has not been about playing DVD's on Linux but individual
> freedom. That makes the argument as credible as wanting to drink under the age of 21.
What, are you saying you shouldn't be allowed to buy DVDs and watch them until you're 21?
> So without any credibility behind the DVD argument, no DVD player,
The argument is that it is immoral for the MPAA or DVDCCA to tell us what we can or cannot do in our own homes, with the movies we paid them for. And see above, there is a DVD player for Linux. You know this because you've posted on the mailing list for it, so stop being facetious.
> we can only expect a repeat of the Fraunhoffer Gmbh fiasco.
This is where you are most wrong. Fraunhofer claimed to own the patent rights "essential" to the MP3 format. Moreover, no one could argue with them, because none of the people making free encoders bothered to really understand MPEG audio and know if the claim was valid or not. They were just copying the ISO source code and hacking it.
This is a case of legal reverse engineering, and CSS is not covered by any patent. And before you talk about the Xing license agreement, don't forget that U.S. courts have declared such licenses invalid in numerous cases already directly involving reverse engineering. (see the EFF web site for references) The MPAA is treading on thin legal justification for their actions.
And what makes you think we are going to lose? Have you looked at the press coverage recently? The headlines are "Linux DVD player denied", not "pirates arrested". There is strong public support for Johansen in Norway. The movie companies are going to end up tarnishing their imagine more than they ever could have possibly imagines.
This was mentioned on the memepool. I don't have the link handy, but just take a look at htt://www.memepool.com and it's fairly recent. $15.00 each. I may have to order one before they get shut down, too. I wonder if they'll subpoena their customer list for further pers^H^H^Hrosecution.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Er, ALL statements on /., are, I believe, copyright the original owner. Sorta how GPL code, while free, is still copyright by whoever originally wrote it. So, IF the DVD CCA decided to use, say, my post in defense of their position, I could then sue them for copyright infringement.
This message can be freely posted, except for lawyers or employees of the DVD CCA.
"Though it may take a thousand years, we shall be FREE."
The ruling will just be about sealing "Exhibit B", not the whole internet. And in case you forgot the internet is not a US only thing, so how could non-US people be in defiance of a US court?
I have to return some videotapes...
An AC posts:
No but..
Anarchy+Greed == Chaos
Anarchy+Stupidity == Chaos
Anarchy+Conceit == Chaos
So as you can see, Anarchy is half of Chaos.
On the other hand:
Govenment+Greed == Chaos
Government+Stupidity == Chaos
Government+Conceit == Chaos
But the biggest source of chaos is two or more governments claiming the same hunk of land, population, or resources. So:
Polyarchy == Chaos.
And the more governments, the more chaos.
(What gripes me the most is people - generally in the government or the establishment media - who point to a polyarchy and its associated violence and tell us that this shows us how bad "Anarchy" is.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I know of one case where they had to buy three different tape drives before they found right type that could read the tapes. Keep them all safe and off site.
Better yet, buy one of each type of backup media, unwrap them and write some cryptic lablels on them. That ought to keep them guessing :)
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
IANAL, but to the people who are listed in all of these lawsuits, make backups of everything you need and keep them in someplace secure, like a safe deposit box somewhere.
Even here in the good free USA, the government can and probably will barge into your homes, confiscate everything that looks technical, including your computers, CD's, discs, manuals, CD players, DVD players, etc. etc. They are under no obligation to return your stuff to you, even if you are eventually found not guilty!
Make sure you have backups of important stuff and possibly a computer you can use in the mean-time if they do raid you.
And if you do get raided, don't say a word to them without your attorney there. This should be obvious, but police and government agents can be very intimidating!
________________________________
"In order for the federal government to survive, men of influence and wealth must be interested in its success." -Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, 1789.
| Steve Sawyer |
| Support DeCSS |
| Support Reverse Engineering/Emulation |
| http://www.eff.org |
How many Linux hackers have I met that graduated from college?
Thousands.
and many more are PHD's and Masters degree holders.
These men and women are the best of our computer world. Maybe people like you are the reason Linux is still a "hacker" level OS. Kind of like the School and Business administrators that Looked down on those bright students of the 60's and 70's that invented the world you live in today.
Face it.. your world was built on Hackers work.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, they can take your stuff, and then never let you have a trial. It happened :(
:)
to my friend, money artist (and NOT a counterfeiter!!!!) J.S.G. Boggs. The SS
took his stuff and didn't charge him, in order to make him sue. They knew from
long experience that when he gets in front of a jury, they let him off, so they
forced the issue by never charging him after stealing his stuff. Stupidly, the US
Supreme court just denied cert. after he finally had to sue to get his life's work
returned. Not good from a free speech or property-rights perspective.
His studio page, with links to the
appeals court transcript and an
article about him. Here's a
Swiss gallery with some of his stuff (they may have counterfeits, too, according to Boggs).
another article. And
another. Finally, if you want to see one of the REAL reasons my friend Boggs gets in trouble, click on:
this and note the inscription over the dome: "Red Gold We Trust," in a year of campaign finance
scandals. That, and making folks actually THINK about the value of art & paper
money is not counterfeiting, but it IS very subversive. IMO. I don't own that bill
anymore, and the current owner, if he will sell, wants a lot of gold for it. Don't ask.
JMR
(Speaking only for myself, again.)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Ok lets see here, If I buy a telephone line then I have to buy a telephone from Bell Atlantic? No! I can build one. If radio signels are beamed in to my home, then do I have to buy a radio from Westinghouse? No! So if I buy a DVD disc why do I have to buy an DVD CSS licensed DVD player.
These battles have been fought before and when the free market is allowed to enter the consumer always wins. "Us gimme-it-all-now types" are why you have 5 cents a minute long distance and 500 local/long distance minutes on your cell phone. We're also the reason you'll get flat rate long distance in the very near future.
Now I know where this argument will get taken so I'll address it here. Cable TV. If I build a descrambler and watch all of a cable systems channels how is that different than decoding a DVD? The difference is that I payed for the DVD. Once I pay for the channel I get it descrambled by the cable company. But what if I still use my descrambler after I pay? The cable company has no course of action against me. I am now paying for the signel. At which point I can tape it on my VCR, encode it as an MPEG stream and write it to VCD or if I have the authoring equipment, burn it on to a DVD and play it back on my linux laptop while I'm on a plane to Norway.
America was founded on the principle that I have the right to risk it all. I might win, I might lose. How much I lose is based on how much I risk. But Corporate america wants it to be "I can risk it all and win, but if I don't I'll press charges".
http://linuxvideo.org
SEAL
By the way, it looks like Geocities has shut down all websites relating to DeCSS, whether they're actually hosting code or not. Just a note to everyone out there keeping up mirror lists - check all your Geocities accounts.
Before people start screaming, remember that Geocities is located in the Santa Clara jurisdiction.
Angelfire still looks good, tho.
Let 'em reseal it. It's the *right* thing to do.
There is no reason to be craven about this. We don't need to argue that it might not have come from Xing, we don't need to argue that an accident in court suddenly invalidates a trade secret, we don't need to rely on cheap tricks to get our way.
It's called the Moral High Ground, folks.
Yes, the code is everywhere on the 'net. Stop for a moment and realize that this isn't a magic talisman. A horde of thieves is still composed of thieves, and that's all we're saying by saying we've all got it and you can't stop us.
But guess what, folks. We ain't thieves. Lets not fall into their trap.
(Yes, this post is conspicuously absent of my defense of DeCSS, mainly because I want to finish my main paper on the topic and release all at once. Email me if you believe in the spirit of the law, because believe me, in the end it's going to be the spirit more than the letter that will carry the day.)
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
That was my point - copying DVD movies IS, and always has been possible. They can be copied bit-by-bit, like any other digital media. This is what the DVD associations deny - believe it or not - and this is also why they don't have a case.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
More companies should take an example from Creative and their drivers for dxr2 (regardless of the fact that they didn't write them themselves, they still provide them on their website and provide information on how to use them) As I'm typing this, I'm watching Pink Floyd's The Wall in a window under Linux, and my roommate is watching it on the TV in the other room through the S-Video out. It works perfectly, except for the fact that menus don't work. I just ran across the link to the drivers last night, downloaded a devel kernel, recompiled, and everything worked perfectly. The image looks better than it does under Windows, as well (why, I don't know, but it does noticeably)
:-)
.VOB file you want to play.... but once you start it, it plays through the whole movie uninterrupted) There's a GNOME player (gdxr2 or something like that) but it sucks - it's extremely buggy. I may write a GNOME DVD player (as soon as I get bored with working on PowerShell... hehehehe shameless plug :-)
The drivers are even open sourced... the only binary needed is an image of something, I forget what. (I was drunk last night when I set this up
If anybody's wondering, the URL is http://opensource.creative.com. The command line program works decently (but you have to know the number of the
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
Hey, has anyone noticed this part in Exhibit C?
Have filed patent applications, huh? Well, that should certainly calm down the Slashdot crowd.
Not!
Maybe this code will soon be available by browsing patent databases. Alas, a patent will be enough to keep it underground and out of Linux distros. It looks like there's a lot of fronts to fight these guys on. I'm beginning to think I didn't give EFF enough money.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
He "could" have been malicious about it and not said anything.
Yeah, not saying anything about code created to play DVDs would have been REAL malicious...um...trying to think how...
With mergers like Time-Warner+AOL+EMI how many news agencies are really going to report in-depth on the whole DVD controversy? Are we going to face an unresponsive news media because the bosses say stay away?
There appears to be several different issues coming to head here.
1) Reverse engineering. What can and can't be done? Could reverse engineering still be safe but what happened really was illegal? How much law does a 16yr old Norwegian (or US) boy really know?
2)Conflict of the Digital Millenium Act and what it allows us to do in our own home with DVD's or CD's. Is it really illegal for me to lend my mother-in-law my copy of "On Golden Pond" for her to watch? I can't copy my old albums to cassette tape anymore?
3)The whole marketing scheme of the Movie Industry to control the distribution and playback of the movie industry. Why do we have region codes? What is the "carrot" being held out in front of the electronic industry that makes them voluntary subject themselves the DVD licensing program. (1 milion dollar penalty per person if more than 3 people know the info given your company providing you don't disclose it the licensor. Read the license which is in the court exhibits documents.)
The case needs to be put forth sanely, clearly, rationally, intelligently to drive the point home.
The whole issue of not being able to lend a DVD to a friend, or playing a DVD you bought in Europe could become a rallying point that the normal consumer could embrace. A major consumer outpouring against this type of marketing could do much to help the cause. However if the news media is throttled by corporate bosses because they also own profitable movie studios we have a terrible problem. How do our brothers, sisters, friends, co-workers learn what is really going on if the news media is not reporting the story?
My thoughts.
Well from what I've heard, you can grab a copy of Matrix for $3 in the Asian piracy market. Don't really know how though, since blank disks are supposed to be priced at twice the price as recorded disks...
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
--
I did not end up in the back of a cop car because i did nothing, I ended up there because a broke the law.
I did not end up serving some time because i did nothing, I ended up in jail because I BROKE THE LAW.
When I would get pulled over for speeding/running a light/what ever I got pulled over because I broke the law, not because I was just some punk kid or because some cop was up on a ego trip.
If someone if braking in your house or if someone shoots your brother DONT call the cops. You don't want their help anyways, they are just a bunch of "racist, inbred comrades"...right?
The cops do not make the laws, YOU AND I do(well im not sure if I'm allowed to vote anymore
I've seen alot of cops, and for the most part they are just trying to do their job. There are alot more good cops then there are bad ones.
They just don't get it -- once it was posted to the web it can't be called back. The source they're trying to control has passed irretrievably beyond the control of any human being -- there are certainly thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of copies floating around the net by now (not to mention T-shirts. Anyone for a wet crypto T-shirt contest?)
:)
Lawyers and judges aren't used to situations which they can't control. They can't control this in the same sense as they are used to being able to control things, and it frustrates them and gives them evil authoritarian thoughts of revenge. They're probably next for bondage and S&M scenarios because that's just about the only venue where they can still exercise their control fantasies. I'm not sure how that last effects crypto but hey, the mental imagery is compelling, don't you think?
At any rate, it seems to me that the only real purpose of further legal proceedings will be to 'punish' the 'miscreants' as a warning to others. Given that the interesting portion of the net is mostly the adolescent (and the adolescent at heart, despite our balding domes,) this is almost certainly a waste of time but then the courts never have minded a good exercise in wasting the time of as many people as possible.
As for making an example to others, I must have e-mailed over 500 copies of the source to sundry destinations over the past week, using various IPs and accounts. And erased the server logs. If you can figure out how to get all of them back I'd love to know how you did it.
:)
Thanks for the notice.
I heading south now with a small box of doughnuts for the luck few who attend the gathering. I'm printing code now....:)
As of Sunday, I'm Doe number 191, so there are plenty more identities to go around. ;)
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_0_4_1533048_00.ht ml According to lawyers quoted in the above article, it is posible that the accidental unsealed submission of the source code to DeCSS could jeopardize the trade secret status of CSS.
So, does this mean the DVD lawyers will not quote you in court to prove you knew or should have known better?
Everyone go to Copyleft.net and buy a DVD t-shirt with css_descramble.c source code on the back!
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
it allows for this since it is inefficient
IANAL, even if I play one in virtual reality.
Hell, I own a DVD player and have ever since they came out in the UK. I bought a PC DVD-ROM drive the week before the UK launch of DVD, and later on picked up a standalone player for my home video setup. I must have 60 or 70 DVDs by now.
... yeah, right.
Am I buying any more? No way. Not until we win these cases, and possibly not even then. In fact, I'm not sure I'll even set foot in a cinema for the time being, at any rate.
I loathe piracy. I view it as common stealing. I don't even record films off the TV, unless they're something obscure that I can't buy a copy of. I have no interest at all in trading copies of my DVDs. I do have an interest in playing them on my Linux box. And I view reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability as being thoroughly legitimate.
Rachael, wondering if Compaq would fund the defence
http://www.drmach.demon.co.uk/encore.html
-- Rachael
Companies (like Xing) paid $10M apiece to get a license to build DVD players or write DVD software.
I hadn't hear the $10M figure before, actually I never heard any figure. Usually the terms of licensing agreements are closely guarded info. Licenses also usually sold by a certain dollar amount, for a certain number.
Several companies have applied for licenses to make DVD decoders for Linux, and have been denied each and every time.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought I read yesterday that the DVD CCA specifically told the Judge that no one had requested a license to create DVD software for Linux. I can't seem to find the article back, but if you can tell me where you heard that several companies were denied licenses, I'd happily look there for the info.
My statements are based on the facts I've read in articles. I thought I read the bit about no one requesting a Linux license in the court documents, but I can't seem to find it back. But I have to ask why the DVD CCA wouldn't license the technology to a company that was interested in making Linux software. After all, more licensing fees means more money for them. There's nothing about a Linux client in itself that makes it easier to crack than a Windows client. The only reason I could guess is that the company requesting the license didn't have the finacial backing to afford a reasonable licensing agreement (by the DVD CCA's definition of reasonable), or they had concerns that the company would simply leak the propriatary information.
The cluestick isn't necessary, just show me the facts. Who are the companies? Where did you read or hear that they had tried to attain licenses? I'm also curious where you heard the $10M licensing fee.
Have you considered that if the Supremes shift two digits right and decide to whack every law and regulation that sticks out too far past the commerce clause it might be a civil right bonanza? I could deal with continuing to wear my hair short and saying "Yes sir! Wasn't watching my speed, sir! Thank you, sir, for the warning, sir!" to the cops in exchange for that.
I wrote parts of this stuff
The source code is damning evidence against the DVD CAA that the encryption was weak. That in itself would be a big reason for them to bury it. If they truly promised that CSS would protect content producers from piracy and companies invested money and content in DVD media based on that promise they could be held liable. What better way to take the blame off of them then to place it on people that they know don't have the resources to defend themselves.
I think this is the beginning of a new trend. There's a good chance that hackers will become the corporate equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." This kind of thing either needs to be nipped in the bud now, or we might as well get used to it.
We really need more discussion about how we can fight back. Can we change public perceptions of hackers? Can we expose the fact that corporations are attacking our freedoms? What CAN we do? I really wish I knew the answer. Someone suggested a couple days ago to donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I grabbed my credit card and did it. It only takes a minute and you can get a cool book if you donate $65 or more. If you haven't donated to the cause yet, make sure you do--NOW.
numb
Forgive me for not "getting it". But, who cares about the suits? Screw 'em. I never got invited to their IPO anyway.
_ .:*~*:._.
.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:.
_.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._
ASCII art?? I thought it was a REGULAR expression
If Jon Johansson had been a US citizen it is mostly his *father's* rights that would have been
violated, not Jon's. It was not Jon's house, and it may not even have legally been Jon's computer.
--------------------
Since Jon is a minor, his parents are, technically, responsible for his behaviour.
Nothing exists exept atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
Two interesting paragraphs in chapter 12 are:
(e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term ''information security'' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
I know there are many other examples of this, but it bothers me when the Government can do something legaly but the people (who the Government is supposed to represent) can not.
(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.
To me, this paragraph all by itself says that the creation of DeCSS (for Linux) is completely legal, as long as you are doing it for your own personal use. Using it for playback in Winblows would be illegal because there are already software DVD players for Winblows available.
LRJ
If they manage to win this, they wouldn't even need the DVD crypto anyways!
Hope that those lawyers aren't Adam and Eve supporters, would they burn the dino-skeletons?
With DeCCS it's too late, but what did you expect?
Bizar technology?
I've created a web page to make a practical point: DeCSS is now so widely distributed that further legal action by the MPAA is silly. I think that the sooner the media, the courts, and the MPAA understand this point, the sooner this sorry episode will end. (Though MPAA's motives are so murky-- who knows?)
:) )
The page will simply list people who hold copies of DeCSS. If the list becomes large enough, I will try to notify the media, so that the absurdity of trying to stamp out DeCSS through legal bludgeoning becomes apparent to all.
Feel free to check out the site and join the effort. (As of this posting, I'm the only one listed!
This is so perverted, but in this day and age logic and law doesn't seem to coexist - Why don't the defendants in the MPAA suits sue Xing, or attempt to force them to be a party to existing suit so MPAA is it's own members/licensee. After all, their failure to protect their own NDA was 'assisting and providing data necessary' to provide the decryption program.
I think the cat is truly out of the bag now. All it'd take is one media organization (yeah, i know, they own most of them) to publish what had been in the open court documents. I don't think any court would attempt to restrict publication, and should they try, I don't think it'd ever hold up. At that point it'd be MPAA against journalists, and you get the good ones they'll go to jail before pandering to anything they believe is an attempt to hinder the 1st. Thanks lawyers. It might even be damn difficult to get anyone to force removal of the court transacript, which was public prior to sealing, from ANY web site, let alone from some major print media. That's a whole different thing.
Remember, these are prelimenary injunctions/motions we are talking about.. *NOT* final court decisions.
THe court simply says... what is the cost/benefit/likelyhood of success?
It is *possible* the DVD CCA will win. Perhaps their rights *have* been violated. If they HAVE, then having all this code all over, including in public documents means any ruling the court would make after the fact meaningless. on the other hand.. the courts simply say 'stop doing this until the case is decided'.. doesn't this make sense?
Hey... nobody said it was unfair an injunction was granted acgainst Microsoft, to make them stop distributing J++ until the Sun-MS Java trial is over... hey.. same thing there, no? TRIAL isn't over.. no judgement made...
but the jude figured that if MS was in the wrong, then by letting them continue, sun's whole plan could be shot, wheras if MS was right, they would simply suffer a minor setback in sales.
->So what happens if people mirror the court records? Do you have to be "served" with notice that what you publish is sealed?
I'm not a lawyer, so only qualification is being old..so I remember things like Pentagon papers. As far as relevance, I believe the court will seal the record, ie, you can't get a copy from them or any involved attornies, plaintiff, defendants. But I don't believe they can uphold any restriction to publish after being relased originally (w/o expectation of being reversed on appeal). I believe in pentagon papers where it was feds vs. washington post ? it was held that even if the papers were stolen and illegally taken, that did not prevent the press, not having been a party involved in stealing them, but simply a recipient, from publishing them. government was enjoined from any retrainst of the publication of them in full. (This is REAL old recollection, so I anyone has more brain cells left than i, please correct any error) The question being if the fact this isn't gov't but civil (but not civilized) will impact. But hey, the 1st is still the 1st.
Most of the kids I'm contacted by think DVD's should be played using dedicated appliances and hardware decoders only. CmdrTaco uses a DVD appliance. VALinux uses WinNT.
The biggest argument is that deCSS was written to allow playback
on Linux yet the defending lawyer emphatically denies the existance of any player for DVD files on Linux.
The public interest in this case has not been about playing DVD's on Linux but individual freedom. That makes the argument as credible as wanting to drink under the age of 21. Face it. When you're a teenager you have no rights, but when you graduate from college you'll inevitably have more rights. How many Linux hackers do you run into who have graduated from college? So without any credibility behind the DVD argument, no DVD player, and no interest we can only expect a repeat of the Fraunhoffer Gmbh fiasco.
NOt really. As someone said before, it doesn't mean they can't change the law, or that it doesn't apply to you, just that you can't be charged under new laws if what you did was legal when you did it.
These cops *own* guns today.. the act of *owning* is continuous, and in their case, no longer lawful (what a silly law...).
The only thing they did in the past was *acquire* the weapon, which may be covered under different terms.
The legal system is an administrative nightmare in many respects, and can never move with adequate speed, except when things are moving at a breakneck rate. As a practicing lawyer, I can say that the vast majority of practice is to diligently work following the Boy Scout Motto, so that when the SHTF, you can flurry out a vast amount of work product, appearing to have been superhumanly quick.
To a layperson, the law seems to move glacially (and it generally does). Nothing ever gets decided, and when it does, only a little bit at a time.
There are some exceptions, however, and good agressive lawyers can use them to achieve partial results with remarkable speed. One is the preliminary inunction/TRO -- which by rule must be decided promptly. The other are these administrative emergency motions. The court is highly likely to seal this initially, and promptly, on the theory that it can always be unsealed, but that if not sealed, the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. (cat-out-of-bag, genie-bottle, pick the cliche of your choosing).
It certainly *DOES* seem unfair when you represent defendants (as we seem to be doing a lot of these days), and a plaintiff who has had months to prepare a complaint and preliminary injunction/TRO papers just files, serves, and gives you just days to rally (usually just hours, since the client has spent days shopping for a lawyer). In practice, though, this is often enough time to address the status quo questions.
I cannot defend the conduct of MPAA, but I note that the results obtained so far, and the tactics used, are not unusual or surprising. Such tactics are regularly used by plaintiffs representing not only corporate monsters but also individuals. (I presently have a case where an individual unwealthy single mom who sued a corporation for copyright infringement. Her lawyers used precisely the same tactics.)
In other words, cool your jets. This is not the unconcionable part -- it is in fact routine and expected legal stuff. The unconcionable part comes on the bringing of the case and the results on the merits.
In just a few weeks, the opportunities for breakneck nasties are over, and we will be communally criticizing the system for being so onerously slow at being able to finally resolve these questions.
I know its not as much fun as presuming that the judges are cowtowing to wealthy powers-that-be in whose pockets they reside, giving opportunities to the monied not available to mere mortals. But this just isn't the case as to *THIS MOTION* -- it is a fairly routine matter, and one that doesn't require much effort for which to prepare a response.
Or, maybe it's just that the MPAA goons won the moderation point lottery for once?
If This Keeps Up I will Start Advocating Piracy and go to war with this So Called "Justice" that is being done by our wonderful legal system.
Frag 'em all...
My last post didnt get your attention so I made a new heading to cut trough. Sorry about the spam. Note how the message above says Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus. Why then is it Jon johansen who is cahrged for "breaking the code"?
redundant? Looks like a sound idea to me, and I don't think I have seen it mentioned before. In any case, if you want to help, but don't have the time to set up an organization, you can donate to the EFF
>By posting anonymously, you might prevent me from
>finding out who you are, but you're deluding
>yourself if you think you can hide from God as an
>AC
Deluding whom? Since there is no gods, how can
I as an atheist try to hide from one? It's like
trying to hide form Santa, or the easter bunny.
> Why do you seem to think you can hide from the
> Almighty? (Hint: you can't.)
Uhm, I don't think I can hide from the 'Almighty',
I -know- I can, hiding from a figment of someones
imagination isn't that hard y'know.
> I'll be praying for you.
Damn what I hate hetting this line from theists.
It's really insulting y'know, would you like it
if I ended my post with "I'll try to get a shrink
to deal with your delusions of existance of gods,
you por sod."?
Secondly, wouldn't praying for me be the same as
saying that you'll try to get your precious god to
invalidate my free will and turn me into a theist
(The same free will that seems so precious to
god, to allow all manners of evil things to be
commited, rather than take mans free will?).
*sigh*
_ _
I'd be pissed if I was "not allowed" to play a DVD in my standalone player, because it wasn't a Windows PC.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
The MPA (Motion Picture Association) is an American organization that
has trouble with the fact that the DVD "code" mechanism has been broken.
They still don't realize some facts of life.
When recordable cassette decks became common, they were feared as a
means of breaking the back of the music industry -- one person would
buy an album, and then distribute copies.
This happened with videotapes.
With CDs.
Will happen with DVDs.
(Just buy a Phillips DVD recorder and make bit-wise copies of a DVD for an
exact copy.)
The majority of people (the market) will still buy original copies.
This is not a theory or hypothesis but a simple truth. It is easier
for a person to go to the local MediaShop to buy a movie, or music, or
anything else than to find Joe "Jon Johansen" Hacker to burn them a copy
of Titanic.
Sure some people copy their work and distribute the copies. There is always
going to be a "grey" (I think chartreuse, but that's me) area surrounding
the profit zone. Grow up and live with it.
Focus on the profitable area and be satisfied with it.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I decided that I would buy a DVD player. I have a relatively useless 13" TV that I use only for watching VHS tapes and playing video games. It has a coax connection on the back for an antenna, but the DVD player only has the yellow/red/white video/l-audio/r-audio jacks. No big deal, I can run the video through the VCR to the TV and then hook the audio up directly to the stereo.
Not so fast.
When I put in my movie produced by the bastards at Columbia, it played the FBI warning fine, but when the movie started playing, the picture started fading in and out. This was the first disc I had tried, so I put in another one (also by the bastards at Columbia) and the same thing happened. "Damn it", I thought, wondering how I was going to return the player to the guy on Ebay. I was trying to figure out what could be wrong... the only thing I could come up with is some sort of frequency interference caused by the VCR (I have an EE degree and work as a software engineer - this degree may have value yet). I look in the troubleshooting section of the Toshiba manual, and I see an entry that says "Brightness is unstable in the playback pictures". Bingo! The cause? "Effect of copy protection". WTF? Correction? "Connect DVD player directly to the TV. Avoid connecting the DVD video player to a VCR or TV/VCR combination".
<rant smokelocation=head>
Unbelievable! I am not even trying to copy movies, just watch them, and I can't even do that! These people are incredible. What am I supposed to do, buy a new TV just because of this BS? How does it even know that I've connected to the VCR? I'm sure there is a way to circumvent this garbage, but it's just a pain in my arse. If you know of a way, please email me.
</rant>
Then, just to appease my thirst for blood and add some fuel to the fire, I tried another DVD disc that I had purchased which was published by a much smaller company that I had never heard of and of course it worked.
So, my friend, it isn't only the linux users who are affected by this control.
Jesus may love you, but I think you're garbage wrapped in skin.
A choice of masters is not freedom
Visit my site "home.earthlink.net/~tilleyrw/" for a look at the (in)famous source code.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Does anyone know what all this legal fuss is actually trying to stop? Realistically speaking, if all these guys were worried about pirating or something (hard to believe, but I'll get there) it's too late. Pirating already occurs on large scales without the encryption codes being broken. Just see the press releases on http://www.mpaa.org/jack/ if in doubt. They seem to think the possibility of someone downloading a DVD movie off of the internet is a real possibility, and a major threat to profits. Uh, well, I don't know who their ISP is, but I sure don't have any speeds that would make downloading a mulit-gigabyte file worthwhile, or feasible. Granted the future may hold great promise, but they have to know that the breaking of encryption isn't going to make much difference. Can they actually be unaware, being the creaters of the system, that the codes make little difference to the copying process, if anyone wants to burn a DVD copy? It's like that video example they have under the Anti-Piracy link on their main page. The major organized operations are where the biggest problems occur, because they are the most organized. Do they seriously think that, if a 15 year old Norwegian boy and a few friends coding in their spare time can break it, any serious pirating organization couldn't? They use the period of three years the code went unbroken as evidence of it's strength. Does the non-appearance of the algorithum on the internet in that time mean that A) it wasn't broken, B) it was broken but not openly published on the internet, or C) no one cared enough to break it because it made no difference to the copying process? If anyone really wanted to break the algorithum I suspect they would find a way. If movie pirating is what they are afraid of, the practical approach is to attack the locations of the download. Don't try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. It won't do anything to stop illegal activity, and it will stop the Linux community from ever using DVD (or at least slow it down.) That's probably the funniest part of this whole deal. If these guys had paid any attention, they could have written a Linux driver and eliminated the reason for this whole farce. (Not to mention opening up a new market for legitimate video sales.) They are now going to see it bounce back into their face as a defense in this whole issue. They obviously can't think the reason to break encryption is to write a driver, or they could have headed off the breaking of the encryption (publicly anyway) by removing the reason to break it! What is the deal,anyway? Do they just have a blind spot when it comes to the existance of Linux, or do they have some other compelling reason to avoid our platform? Surely a driver would be less trouble than paying lawyers for all of this legal fuss. Just for that, we should come up with a better way they could store DVD data and present it for the defense as proof that they weren't putting all possible effort into the problem. I mean, if a bunch of spare timers are breaking their algorithums and writing better ones ourselves, maybe they need to look into some better security?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Visit my site "home.earthlink.net/~tilleyrw/" for a look at the (in)famous source code.
If anyone knows an address for the MPAA, I'd love to fart in their general direction by notifying them of my code display.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
http://odin.dep.no/ud/nornytt/uda-121.ht ml - Norweigan Constitution.
Article 100 There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Article 101 New and permanent privileges implying restrictions on the freedom of trade and industry must not in future be granted to anyone. Article 102 Search of private homes shall not be made except in criminal cases.
Insanity is contagious. - Yossarian
How many Linux hackers have I met that graduated from college?
Thousands.
and many more are PHD's and Masters degree holders.
These men and women are the best of our computer world. Maybe people like you are the reason Linux is still a "hacker" level OS. Kind of like the School and Business administrators that Looked down on those bright students of the 60's and 70's that invented the world you live in today.
Face it.. your world was built on Hackers work.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Given that there was a clean reverse-engineering process though, this would not seem to apply.
Didn't the DeCSS authors get the first key they used out of Xing's DVD software? Unfortunately, I think that means that DeCSS wasn't a clean reverse engineering job.
Since they depended on clues they extracted from Xing's DVD software to discover valid decryption keys, the plaintiffs could argue that DeCSS would not exist if the authors hadn't stolen the intellectual property of the plaintiffs.
--
Greetings New User! Be sure to replace this text with a
Clear, Dark Skies
Earlier, someone said:
Given that there was a clean reverse-engineering process though, this would not seem to apply.
Didn't the DeCSS authors get the first key they used out of Xing's DVD software? Unfortunately, I think that means that DeCSS wasn't a clean reverse engineering job.
Since they depended on clues they extracted from Xing's DVD software to discover valid decryption keys, the plaintiffs could argue that DeCSS would not exist if the authors hadn't stolen the intellectual property of the plaintiffs.
--
Greetings New User! Be sure to replace this text with a
Clear, Dark Skies
Actually, the Blade DVD (at least this release) doesn't have the PCFriendly crud on it.. As far as I can see, it's their standard warning - The Matrix DVD (which has PCFriendly) has the exact same text on it.
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake..
No, but you can build one to watch it.
no
So people can do things they want, without doing it illegally
Bizar technology?
I doubt that would be the case legally. More importantly, it doesn't control the viewing equipment. Either all viewing falls into "exhibition or broadcast" and is thus explicitly authorized on purchase or none of it does.
At 8:19 AM EST Anonymous Coward posted DeCSS on this forum, making the ***Slashdot site itself*** part of this mess. Will Commander Taco be dragged away in chains for running a pirate info site? Will Slashdot be shut down by the Feds if Hemos refuses to delete the posting on First Amendement grounds? Will the 8:19 posting itself quietly disappear? Just where does this end?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It would seem that under todays happenings, the CSS can no longer have a case against him:
1) The source code is released into the public domain
2) Jon is not a US national so he can legally distribute the software from his fathers website again......*not* that it ever was illegal.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
It's called prosecution by proxy.
I have said it before and I will say it again. This hasn't got squat to do with weather you or I have LiViD. It's actually about making sure Diamond Multimedia can't use it. It's so RedHot and Mandrake can't distribute it to the next generation of Linux users.
What's the deference between us and them ? They have money, wide distribution channels, deep pockets and the will to sell DVD players ( software and hardware ) for less than they cost now.
The aim of this lawsuit is to get a court to rule that DeCSS is outlawed. This is why http://www.2600.com was one of the defendants in each and every case. They have been protesting about Kevin M. for like 5 years. They have a bad rep to judges and the like ( "how dare you say he is being held unjustly" ).
Once such a ruling exists DeCSS and LiViD will remain things a technically savvy user downloads and installs on his own to play DVDs. Without the ruling it becomes something smaller electronics companies use to avoid forking over a few bucks for ever DVD player they ship. The big companies ( Sony ) will follow suite and the DVD-CCA will seas to exist.
So the fact is distributing it far and wide doesn't mean squat. What we need now is to win in court. We need to make a *Judge* say that these people are talking out of there asses and the stuff was revers engineered fair and square.
This is also why they went after that kid so brutally. They don't so much want him to stop distributing it since he did that months ago when they asked the 1st time. They want to pressure him into signing an Affidavit to the effect that "I stole this data illegally and apologize for letting it get out."
That last point explains why his father was also taken. It's all an attempt to scare his mother into making him "confess". Some of the Linux hackers in Norway need to be at that family's house today. Comfort them, tell them you care and most importantly be prepared to fight for them as much as possible. That way you keep the kid in the fight and we can't afford to have him quit. Ever.
BTW : Somebody loan him a new PC for me.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
"Man this is some fucked up shit!"
:-)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Oh, selling the code to a pirate factory in Hong Kong, without telling anyone it exists, though I'm pretty sure the pirate factories in Hong Kong can copy DVDs just fine without it.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I didn't see it mentioned yet, but the latest article at CNN about this rash of legal actions by the CCA, and specifically the abduction and questioning of Johansen, appears to be relatively unbiased. They also make it a point to mention that their parent company is involved in the suit.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
If they come for me (see below), I'll let you know.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Calvin Coolidge has risen from the grave and is posting to Slashdot as an Anonymous Coward. Shudder at his oft-repeated quote, "The business of America is business!"
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Folks.. let's think rationally for a second.
Judge already granted prelimenaty injunctions agatinst TONS of sources of the DeCSS code. It follows that he most likely seal this as well, for the exact same reasons. He would have done it at the same time as the previous one, had they asked.
Having court records sealed until the trial is over is *not* a violation of your rights.
We all know the CCA is *evil*... me included.. but, hey.. they *are* *LAWS* that the CCA thinks should apply here, and they have gone to court to have the court decide. *IF* the CCA is correct, and they can have their work protected by the acts in question, then it follows that the court record will be sealed.
Rather.. if the Judge doesn't seal the record, it makes his other injuncions useless anyway.
Defendant #2 here... Yes, this hearing really is about to happen.
Believe me, this is not just about recalling the DeCSS code off the web. They KNOW they cannot effectively enforce doing this. What's this about is more a preventive lawsuit - it will make any hacker out there think twice before posting his work.
This lawsuit is also a fiendish stab against Open Source, because the next time such code will be posted annonymously (so that the hackers can avoid being harrased), and the targets will not be the individuals, but the OpenSource community, and the companies that use it, like Red Hat.
This fight is not only about freedom of expression - it is the fight about the validity of the Open Source concept, and there are great many players out there that wish it was dead.
Let's presume for a second that the DVD CCA prevails in every suit -- what are they going to collect, some judgement leveled against a 16-year-old kid in Norway? That might be worth almost as much as the judgement in favor of the U.S. Football league in USFL vs. NFL ($1). What good is that going to do?
In a different vein, I have what I think is an important question related to the public documentation part 'though: If we downloaded the "exhibit a", part of the document while it was "open" (which is the DeCSS source in question), and then they seal it, what is the legal status of those copies we downloaded?
The closest analogy I can think of is this: if I went to the courthouse and made xerox copies of a public document which was later "sealed" by the court, would I somehow be in violation of the law? If so, it seems like it would be an "ex post facto" law (a law passed making a crime out of an act which had not previously been legislated against). At least in the US of A, "ex post facto" prosecution is against our constitutional rights. IANAL and this has me very very concerned.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Just think of what could happen if we win this case. Suddenly, all the developers who have agreed to licenses for using CSS code can bypass those licenses and save some dough in the process. A new breed of players could crop up, designed by people/groups who have the programming ability but not the cash to afford a license.
Totally true, but also remember that the movie industry currently is using this licence to control the electronics industry. No electronics company really wants single region DVD players. Regions were just introduced to appease the movie industry. If this case gets through, there's nothing stopping them from producing multi-region players, with macrovision disabled by default.
ewwwww, gross...I think. ;) 'Course, we'd just find someone who could probably make a washable body tatoo of the code.
Judge: Young man, you can't wear that shirt in here, it's got the source code on it.
Young Man: Okay Judge, I'll take off the shirt...
or alternatively (in the interest of fair representation of the fair sex)
Judge: Young Woman, you can't wear...
Say what was the address of that court room again?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yes, of course, its always been possible to copy DVDs straight. But very few people do it, simply because of the cost. What CSS enforces is a few rules about playing (there may be more, I don't know)
1. Region encoding, a movie sold in one part of the world can only be played by dvd players sold in stores in that same region. (I'm sure you can ship the players around, but that gets complicated) Same with many other countries. I don't know where the accual borders are set, but it creates problems for people trying to copy a cd and spread it across the world.
2. CSS, only playback on industry specified players, by industry specified software. In other words, I couldn't just go into buisness making DVD players, I would have to get a license from DVD CCA. (I think this is a huge part of the deal, as its not patented or anything, if the CSS is in hte public domain, the licenses are no longer needed). Its about control people, pure and simple.
Where I said cd, I meant DVD. Don't flame me people.
I am trying to understand the DVD thing. I think that their (The evil corporate media empire, if you like) argument is something like this:
DVD's are regionally encoded (ie. A DVD sold in N. America will only work with a DVD player sold in N. America). DeCSS would allow a company in a country with lax intellectual property laws to buy a N. American or European DVD, DeCSS it, ReCSS it in their own region and start printing DVD's. Of course that company could always get a local DVD and raw copy it, but maybe movie companies like to release DVDs in one region before another.
Do you think that this is accurate?
It seems to me that CSS was a poor scheme to begin with. Now that the cat is out of the bag they are mad and looking to blame someone.
Could someone please point out to me where it states on my DVD discs (or associated containers/sleeves/whatnot) that I have "no right" to view them on my Linux system?
Looking at the back of my "Blade" case I can see the following warning:
WARNING: This digital video disc is sold on the condition it is not offered for sale or hire outside Australia (Fine with me.. I'm Australian and live there)
The copyright proprietor has licensed the film (including the soundtrack) comprised in this digital video disc for home use only (Fine also, my computer is indeed in my home) All other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, exchanging, hiring, lending, public performances and/or broadcasts of this digital video disc or any part thereof is strictly prohibited.
Did you see any mention of Linux there? Me neither.
In my opinion, it is becoming more and more obvious that this case is not about DeCSS; it is about the DVD CCA's right to charge exorbitant amounts of money for their beloved "licenses", along with imposing restrictions on said licenses that would be prohibitive of Linux development (which would most likely be under the GPL).
Just think of what could happen if we win this case. Suddenly, all the developers who have agreed to licenses for using CSS code can bypass those licenses and save some dough in the process. A new breed of players could crop up, designed by people/groups who have the programming ability but not the cash to afford a license. All of this would lead to one thing: reduced income for the CCA. Indeed, is CSS not the CCA's main asset (if not the only one)? If so, then the CCA could stand to lose their entire reason to exist if this case fails..
In any case, I think it is appalling that the CCA can openly suggest that Linux users have no "right" to view movies that they have legally purchased. Isn't this called product tying? I hope they get what they deserve.. a solid beating
As a side note, does this mean they will be adding the court to their list of defendants, thus effectively suing the entire United States of America? Maybe the US Govt. will be able to put up some cash towards the war effort
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. (how typical) I'm posting this from Australia (of course), so I apologise in advance if the records are resealed before this was posted - I'm not entirely sure what the time is in the US
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake..
Some flames ;-):
You frogot to note that regional encoding is not for just to make copying harder. Movies cost different in different regions. You can also buy yourself a multyregional player but this of course costs _more_ money. So it is not just for control, it is milking the consumer to the maximal extent possible permitted by the consumer statuatory rights and slightly beyond...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Mainly because the source is PD now and the source posted is incomplete anyway.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Forgive my ignorance, but assuming that the judge seals it, would it be retroactive? Would this effect copies of the court record that were made prior to it being sealed? Would it effect copies of those copies?
If someone has read the court record prior to it being sealed, and then written a description of CSS based on it, and then the court record is sealed, does that description then also fall under the seal?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The exclusions are below:
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and
(B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Someone once posted some software here that converted C source to English ad vice versa. If someone can find this, please post a link. It might be useful to the EFF's case that this is a free speech issue.
But they let the cat out of the bag by not encrypting their key like they were supposed to. That's what made DeCSS possible (or at least a lot easier than it would otherwise have been).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Truly, there are some of us who have no desire to use DeCSS (or more accurately, derivitives thereof) to pirate movies. Currently I own a modified Pioneer DV-09 which plays all regions and does not output macrovision. The perfect machine to make copies on my DV recorder. I own approximately 150 DVDs and how many copies have I made? zero. exactly zero.
I'd love to have a DVD player available for FreeBSD/Linux/etc. Hell, I'd even like to see open source software on the windows platform. Without the technology in DeCSS, that just isn't possible. Much luck to those who fight this fight.
As to the video industry, as one of your more active consumers, I have to say, chill. One-way cable systems everywhere are vulnerable to descrambling, yet most people pay for their premium channels. DirecTV is vulnerable to card reprogramming with the older smart cards... free everything... yet most of us still pay our monthly fees.
And most importantly, those of us who know anything about DVD production know that you don't have to decrypt the DVD to clone it.
I don't really see what's so bad about this. I mean, aside from being able to laugh at these guys for being so stupid in the first place, there's no real benefit to us (at this point) to have the DeCSS source available in the Court Docs. The injunction only affects a few websites, not the Internet as a whole. We don't need to have the source in the court docs, you can get it anywhere, even on a tee-shirt.
That isn't to say that I find this whole thing reprehensible, but this particular action doesn't really seem that bad. I think these guys'll probably get it sealed, and to be honest, I don't really see why it shouldn't be.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I'm not a lawyer in any sense of the word, but how can they 'seal' something that is already a matter of public record? I'm not sure that they CAN seal those records.
Or, perhaps they CAN seal them, but I don't think that they can then stop anyone who has archives of the original records from distributing them. You can't just 'take it back'.
The cats out of the bag..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
There's a saying about barn doors that seems appropriate here. Dang...it's right on the tip of my tongue!
Oh, well.