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!"

Comments

NO IT IS NOT

[delmoi]

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 ]

Trademark law vs. trade secret law...

[Danse]

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.

contact the MPAA: email and snail mail

[nylon66]

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

Re:No More Games

[penguinicide]

Oh, and note that your Slashdot comments are being used in court. To all parties concerned: I have no interest in making illegal copies of DVDs. I am almost certainly going to be spending significant amounts of money buying them in future. I just want to be able to bypass the cncryption so I can view my legal DVDs with whatever software and hardware I choose to do so.

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.

MPAA's try at intimidation

[gotan]

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.

Is a "clean room" DeCSS possible ?

[maroberts]

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.

Re:Is a "clean room" DeCSS possible ?

[maroberts]

I don't think one would have to go so far as to invent an esoteric method for performing DeCSS.

Whilst the inner workings of CSS are covered by a licensing agreement, the basic interface specifications may not be; in addition, if it can be proved that keys and decryption algorithm may be obtained without use of Xing and one can document the whole procedure, with only reference to those documents and possibly access to any DVD drive, then AFAIK this would probably qualify as a clean development in a similar way to how early BIOSs were cloned for PCs.

Where do Xing figure in this ?

[maroberts]

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

Re:Clip & Save

[Squeeze Truck]

I think we should make a t-shirt with this code on the front and back.

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.

Why is everything last minute

[ajs]

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?

Re:Why is everything last minute

[cpt kangarooski]

Ah, but many of the rights enumerated in the amendments to the constitution (including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights) are inalienable rights. Everyone has them, although they may be saddled with a government which, because it restricts them, is therefore bad. YMMV in other parts of the world, but Americans are more or less supposed to believe that everyone naturally have these rights no matter where they live or are from.

My personal interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (which gives Congress powers to promote the Arts and Sciences) would be that they have undefined powers, and any specific act of congress to promote the arts and sciences (like passing copyright laws) is obviously subordinate to the First Amendment. (were there some specifics about the matter in the constitution itself we'd be in much more of a pickle)

There must be some reconciliation between the First Amendment and the aforementioned clause, but it's probably a moot point, or a great opportunity for precedents to be made in a completely new field.

After all, the DeCSS code (et al) are _NOT_ copyright violations in and of themselves, or so it is thought. That would ONLY be true if it turned out that the code used by the DVD CCA is identical or so exceptionally similar that it could be considered plagarism. In that case an argument could be made that DeCSS is infringing on the copyright, not of movies, but of the DVD CCA's code. Plagarized material is not useful to the public and would therefore probably have little protection or sympathy from the court. But I can live with that.

Given that there was a clean reverse-engineering process though, this would not seem to apply.

In that case, the freedom of the DeCSS authors to express themselves, and the advancement in the arts and sciences that it permits (after all, it now makes DVDs more widely available, and was an interesting challenge in itself) would seem to weigh only in favor of its' protection.

The entire case of the DVD CCA is founded on the idea that by permitting freedom of expression you are simultaneously restricting the freedom of expression of the authors of DVDs. But that's clearly not true - there is no inalienable right to freedom from competition in the 'marketplace of ideas.' That right is only granted by Congress and cannot stand against the 1st amendment.

Futhermore by allowing people more freedom with regard to the whole DVD situation, you'd be promoting smaller copyright holders who are not part of the DVD CCA and may wish to use DeCSS on material for which they hold the copyright to.

---

Whew!

On your other points though, yeah it's very sad how people are permissive of the erosion of rights and liberties simply because they can't be bothered to think about the matter rationally. Makes me want to move to some Geek-run country where we would have a chance to do things a bit differently. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Re:Why is everything last minute

[doogles]

In a world where it normally takes months and months to have a hearing, it's interesting that all it takes is a few billion dollars behind you and you can get a hearing in a matter of hours.

Re:Why is everything last minute

[Danse]

It's a CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

As a previous poster pointed out, in most countries, "constitutional right" doesn't have the meaning you seem to think it has.

This is an UNALIENABLE RIGHTS as I've mentioned before and CAN'T under any laws be deem ILLEGAL.

Sorry, we're owned by rich people. They determine what the laws will protect. People are, in general, too stupid to know what's happening to their rights. If you can convince them that you're doing something good and moral (not hard to do, just talk about the children and stuff.. doesn't hurt to mention God a few times either), they'll back you up as you strip their rights away. They don't listen to rational arguments, they vote with their emotions, which is why politicians have the ability to manipulate public into supporting their idiotic legislation.

The "war on drugs" is a classic example of this. Tell people that the whole reason you need to be able to take people's property with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing is in order to protect the children from the evil drug dealers and they'll give you all the power you want. After all, they'll only enforce the screwed up laws against the "bad guys."

Re:Why is everything last minute

[Danse]

the "war on drugs" is a much needed campaign.

That may be, but not the way it's being done now.

What needs to be done is to fix the problems in this country that are producing people stupid enough or desperate enough to use these drugs in the first place. What needs to be done is to lock up anyone who commits a violent crime, drug-related or not, and not let them out again 2 years later instead of filling up the prisons with people convicted of "drug use" or "drug possession." Drug use should not be a crime in itself, nor should possession, except in very large amounts when intent to sell can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have a problem with them prosecuting people for selling drugs that are addictive and have well-known adverse effects, especially without a doctor's prescription. (This should apply to tobacco too, but there's too many people already hooked and it generates too much money for the government for them to do anything about it.)

What I take serious issue with is the government's blatant disregard for people's rights. If I'm carrying over a certain amount of money with me when I cross the border, they are free, without any evidence whatsoever, to confiscate it. They decided that they should be able to just assume it's drug money and take it from you. No trial, no conviction of anything, they just take it. Same thing they're doing with some of the alleged computer crimes now. They take people's computers and any related hardware and they keep them for as long as they are allowed (5 years). They don't need to prove you did anything. By the time you get the stuff back, it's virtually worthless.

I'm entirely in favor of reducing drug use and illegal drug sales in this country, I just vehemently oppose the methods they are using.

Re:Why is everything last minute

[sahtori]

Hey, choose your conspiracy and theorize.

The only reason for the suit to move as fast as it does, is to create the illusion that it is valid and to spread FUD within the Linux community.

Coding features into Linux that bring it closer to the consumer-friendliness and ease of use of Windows and MacOs bring Linux closer to the point where home an corporate users will see less reason to run Windows 2K or the latest blunder-set out of Cupertino. The companies in question, including Microsoft, see the maneuvering in court as a way of maintaining market control and holding back innovation in Linux by warning the Linux community that anything that an ill-informed judge might see as a cause of action will rapidly become one.

For a large corporation, high-powered lawyers come as a shrink wrapped tax-deduction, while for Joe programmer, defending a lawsuit_even one with zero-merit_can become a quick cause for bankruptcy. The speed with which things have gone to court and with which things are happening internationally, support the pretense that the DVD manufacturers have suffered real damage and that they need quick action to "put the genie back in the bottle." At the same time, the rapid legal action demonstrates that Linux innovation that touches on commercial patents will be met with a fast and nasty slapdown.

Re:Why is everything last minute

[Danse]

Ah, but many of the rights enumerated in the amendments to the constitution (including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights) are inalienable rights.

Why? Because the United States government says so? That may fly here, but why should other countries conform to our beliefs? We sure don't conform to theirs. We'd raise holy hell if China tried to tell us what rights people should have. Why should it be different when we tell them what rights people should have?

I think I agree with most of the rest of your post though. I should probably read it again when I'm more awake :)

Re:Why is everything last minute

[mindstrm]

What do you mean, off balance? This is not something that needs to be defended, and not about an actual court case. There is no 'defense'. Council asks the judge for an injunction (or in this case, to seal the records) and the defense has the opportunity to state why it isn't necessary to do so.

Given that the judge already granted a temporary *TEMPORARY, get it?* inunction against many web sites in the suit... preventing them from distributing DeCSS source until *after* the trial.. and the purpose of the trial is allegedly to protect trade secret information, it makes sense that those court documents that include said alleged secrets should be shielded until the trial is over.

Re:Why is everything last minute

[mindstrm]

What does the defense have to gain by arguing that the court records should not be sealed? On what basis will they claim that this is unfair?
It harms them in no way. You can't just say 'it's supposed to be a public document!'.
Court records are sealed for a number of reasons.

Re:Why is everything last minute

[Wah]

Relax, just a little bit. This is uncharted terrirtory for most of us, it's best to keep a level head.

Re:Too fast -- too slow -- just right?

[werdna]

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.

petition against the treatment of Jon Johanson

[LazyGun]

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

Re:This is comedy!

[ajs]

No, if the records are sealed, it's not legal to distribute the info. That's why they're having the hearing. The judge will likely seal the records as a matter of course.

Re:Legality of DeCSS

[Danse]

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.

Can I sue the DVD CCA?

[UncleRoger]

I paid a fair bit of extra money for a DVD drive in my Laptop. I've bought a number of DVD's, and got quite a few this past holiday season as gifts. I am putting together another computer (with a wood case!) to put in the living room to play DVD's on. I want to run Linux on both machines, to play these movies that I have purchased legally.

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?

Devils Advocate

[Outlyer]

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.

Re:Ohio was made a state 150 years ex-post-facto

[danb35]

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.

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:

1. Today, I cross the street while facing north. Tomorrow, the state passes a law which says it's illegal to cross the street while facing north, and they try to apply it to what I did today.
2. Today, the penalty for speeding is a $50 fine. I'm pulled over, and given a ticket. Tomorrow, the fine is increased to $100, and they try to make me pay the $100 fine.

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.

Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data

[ars]

You can write it back, but every single blank DVD disk sold, in the space where the master key block is located, has the meduim "burnt out" so it's impossible to write an encrypted DVD.

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.

Re:MPAA

[Roundeye]

Send regular mail (I've been sending a lot of letters lately), it takes more resources to read, and shows them you're pissed enough to lick an envelope:

Motion Picture Association of America
15503 Ventura Blvd
Encino, CA 91436

RICO and punishing the real miscreants

[coats]

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...

What about a countersuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act? The motives and actions of the MPAA certainly seem to me to be aimed at subverting "fair use," a right protected by the Copyright Act. They also present a formidable barrier to entry for recording artists, for anyone except their own cronies. It's my understanding that the RIAA has had to settle at least a couple of RIAA lawsuits already; why shouldn't the MPAA be similarly vulnerable? (Note that losing a RICO suit opens you up so much to further ones, and has such serious penalties, that it is the litigator's equivalent to the UDP (except that it lasts forever!) Use the legal system to stick it right back to them!

Director of NASA

[debrain]

Not to be the odd one pointing this out, but the USA is well known for human rights violations (see Amnesty International USA campaign). It might be of particular interest that the director of NASA has the right to arbitrarily imprison anyone in the USA, including the president. (The president wouldn't like that very much, but it is within the director's legal right.)

Your advice is good, and perhaps more pertinent than you be believe it to be.

Re:Director of NASA

[debrain]

Ironically, no, it is actually the director of NASA that is empowered to do arbitrary detention with military force, IIRC. I wish I could remember the actual article in the US legislature that this is in -- if I do, I'll post. (This is offtopic, but nonetheless, I always chuckle.)

My presumption for the existence of this law is in case the Presidency is taken over by aliens who mimic humans, NASA is best able to determine this and arbitrarily detain them. Now, if I were an alien, I'd take over NASA and make sure we never found out that aliens existed . . .

The director of NSA can surely detain you as well, with military force, but no one would ever know that you were detained, including yourself ...

Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data

[Ralph Bearpark]

You can also buy yourself a multyregional player but this of course costs _more_ money

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.

Re:Closing already public record data?

[bwt]

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.

WIndows or not, doesn't matter...

[Danse]

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.

Re:WIndows or not, doesn't matter...

[Danse]

I guess this is why we have courts. I read it differently.

Let me substitute some words here to illustrate what I think it's saying. Keep in mind, IANAL, so I may be misinterpreting a word or two, but it sounds reasonable to me.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a DVD may circumvent an encryption scheme that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that DVD for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of the DVD with other programs, and that the decryption routine has 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.

The way I see it, since the decryption routine wasn't available to the person who wanted to write a DVD player, whether other DVD players are available or not, they have the right to reverse engineer the encryption scheme in order to make their program work if the decryption routine isn't already available to them. Just because other players have built in decoders, doesn't mean I can achieve interoperability with the program I'm writing. Therefore I have the right to circumvent the protection that is keeping me from making my program work with DVDs.

Sure about that?

[dmaxwell]

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?

Perhaps, but who stole what?

[Millennium]

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).

Re:This case is realy against RedHat and Diamond

[dieMSdie]

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.

Get the docs now!

[Millennium]

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.

Under US Law

[KMSelf]

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?

Re:Clip & Save

[Shandon]

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.

Re:No More Games

[Kris_J]

Oh, and note that your Slashdot comments are being used in court

Fine.

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)...

Re:This is comedy!

[gorilla]

Not legal for people in the US to distribute the info.

People outside of the US are not affected in any way.

Conspiracy Theories (Re:Why is everything last...)

[fprefect]

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.

DeCSS

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU CAN'T STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!











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);
}

/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
* 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);
}

/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
* 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;

/* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the
* 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;

/* Feed the secret into the input values such that
* 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);

/* This term is used throughout the following to
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = Varients[varient] ^ Table2[varient];

/* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each
* 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};

Re:DeCSS

[Sloppy]

Hmm.. Slashdot is one of the named defendants, no? Looks like a potentially interesting test of Common Carrier status.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Yeah.

---

Sense of humour

[Ratface]

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 "

Re:Sense of humour

[arivanov]

Very, very, very good point.

Though I would say that this is not authopities sence of humour, it is a MPAA legal problem.

It will actually be reproduced in any such case in the future. All the defendant will need will be to make sure that the "offending code is entered as an evidence in court.

After that it is a matter of the public record accessible freely in almost any country. Any motion to close it will be a motion for a closure of a public record which has very low chances to succeed.

This has to work

[RPoet]

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.

You are ignorant of the facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Anarchy anti-defamation league sez...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.)

Uh, read that again.

[adamsc]

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

There's nothing in there about viewing a DVD. You can't copy it, edit it, set up an exhibition or public performance, rent it, etc. but there is NO clause prohibiting private not-for-fee playback, which is the intended market of DVDs sold to consumers.

Make Backups!

[Stiletto]

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!

________________________________

Re:Make Backups!

[Bryan Andersen]

By the time they are obligated to give it back your equipment and data are useless and out of date.

Make those backups and keep them off site. It's the minimum you should be doing anyways. Ever heard of fire, flood, and theft? Keep backups and keep a copy or two off site.

The other thing to do is make sure your restoration strategy works. It does no good to make a backup if you can't restore it. This includes having all the copies of the programs and OS you need for restoring. Also keep a copy of the hardware specs for your backup drive of choice. 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.

Re:Make Backups!

[PhilHibbs]

I did. I copied the dvd-hoy-reply.htm and put it on my web site, along with my opinions, and handy links.

My Mirror: http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/dvd

Re:Make Backups!

[TheGratefulNet]

I don't see how they can take something of yours and be under no obligation to give it back.

your first mistake is to assume the US legal system ia a fair and just system, treating people with respect.

ha! yeah right - wake up and smell the coffee.

I've known folks who had their house raided and posessions stolen by the thugs^H^H^H^H^Hcops just because they were suspected of posessing drugs. yes, this country has a very screwed up sense of priorities. some ultra non-violent 'offender' gets royally fscked by the feds and permanently loses all rights to his posessions. has to face an incredibly expensive legal system - and still has ZERO recourse to regain his stolen (ie, stolen by the police) posessions. all for some right-wing moralistic scapegoat we call the 'war on drugs'.

but now, since they've come for the drug users and they're getting bored, they're now coming for the linux dvd viewing folks. what was that saying about "they came for the {mumble} and I wasn't a {mumble} so I didn't speak up. then they came for the {...} and I wasn't a {...} so I didn't speak up. then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me".

its getting chillier and chillier outside.

--

Re:Make Backups!

[Danse]

They can sieze your computer equipment (all of it, not just things that could actually contain evidence) and hold it for 5 years, at which time it's worth approximately nothing. Hell, it sounds to me like we should be able to buy insurance against acts of our own fscked up legal system.

Re:WRONG

[Gigs]

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".

Re:Clue sticks at the ready..

[ctj2]

Let's face it, the DVD CCA isn't really worried about the guy with the ability to bit copy one DVD and make/press thousands of exact copies for resale. They've always known that this is possable. If you do a search for cable box instructions you'll find loads of information from crackers on how they use electron microscopes and other fairly high tech equipment to crack the cable scrambling.

But this isn't what the DVDCCA is afraid of, what they are afraid of is you snagging a copy of the DVD you rented last night because it is so good that you want to watch it again this weekend but don't want to rent it again. Or you wanted to give a copy to Uncle Jimmy because it just happens to exactly express your political opinion.

Those are the "pirates" that DVDCAA is worried about.

How many of us have borrowed a friends ablum and cut your own tape of it. Or maybe even made an MP3 for your own personal use. According to the MPAA and DVDCCA that's piracy. The big pirates are pretty easy to catch. The FBI goes after them and there are lots of foot prints all over the place. Relativly easy to find and relatively easy to prosicute.

But the FBI just isn't going to want to spend a few grand just to prove that you made a copy of the Matrix and handed it to your brother. Its just to small to bother with.

DVDCCA came up with a technical solution. They hid some bits and then did a simple encrypt on the data, no big deal. But what it did was it made it difficult for you and me to make those single copies. Of course it also ment that anybody using a real OS got screwed. No DVDs for us FreeBSD users or IRIX or BeOs, or oh yea, Linux. We just got left out.

DVDCCA and MPAA isn't nearly as worried about 10 people stealing 10,000 copies each as they are of 1,000,000 people stealling 2 or 3 copies each.

All that aside, I got my builitin from the EFF and sent them a check to help fight this and I hope that the good guys, that's us, win.

No More Games

[Effugas]

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

Re:No More Games

[Eccles]

Let 'em reseal it. It's the *right* thing to do.

Or more to the point, it's almost certainly what the judge is going to do.

The basis for the judge's ruling in granting the temporary injunction was that not doing so would cause great harm to the DVD group, while doing so wouldn't cause great harm to the DeCSS group (he probably had no role in and no knowledge of the police's action in Norway.) So if he's consistent, he'll order those records sealed. If the case is won by the DeCSS guys, they'll be unsealed, and the code widely available anyway.

As Dan says, save the big guns for the actual case.

Oh, and note that your Slashdot comments are being used in court. To all parties concerned: I have no interest in making illegal copies of DVDs. I am almost certainly going to be spending significant amounts of money buying them in future. I just want to be able to bypass the cncryption so I can view my legal DVDs with whatever software and hardware I choose to do so.

Re:No More Games

[Effugas]

Or more to the point, it's almost certainly what the judge is going to do.

No. It's what the judge should do, unless the judge wishes to change his mind on the entire matter and decide that the trade secret is too widely disseminated and too innocently added into the court record to be anything *but* public knowledge.

There's certainly an argument to make in that regard, but I'll be blunt: I don't think it's worth making. I'd rather beat these guys once than face stream after stream of legal harassment, only to weasel out at great expense and useless precedent.

Your Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:No More Games

[Effugas]

Dan, What are you doing up at 5:30 AM reading slashdot? Do you ever sleep?

Do you know me personally?

Ahahha, I *arrived* at work at 9:00PM. I've been trying desperately to keep my mind focused on this major project I've been hacking on forever. Stilllllll goin...

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data

[RPoet]

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.

Creative dxr2

[Dr. Sp0ng]

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)

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 .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 :-)

"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds

CSS Patent

[Sloppy]

Hey, has anyone noticed this part in Exhibit C?

A. [Blank] and [Blank] (as defined below) have developed a Contents Scramble System (as defined below) to provide reasonable security to the contents of DVD Discs and thereby provide protection for copyrighted content against unauthorized consumer copying, and have filed patent applications with respect to the Content Scramble System.

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.

---

Re:Corporate America Has No Right

[dillon_rinker]

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...

The last resort....

[Sanity]

What if the law fails us and the DVD people win the day? It is certainly a possibility we should consider. I have been considering this possibility for over a year now, and the result is a piece of software called The Freenet Server. It is currently nearing completion, and will be released under the GPL. I won't go into more detail here, visit the website for more information.

--

Re:Clueless in court

[Cramer]

Gez, you people never went to school did you? You won't be made to take it off; you'll be made to turn it inside out so the text is no longer (readily) visable.

Re:Clip & Save

[Q*bert]

Better yet, go to Lemuria's Become a Doe page and "turn yourself in" as one of the 500 unnamed defendants who have posted the code, buying a shirt with the code and donating $5.00 to the EFF. You get your Doe number printed on the shirt. Naturally, the edition is limited to 500. ;)

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

Buy the T-Shirt!!!

[Megaweapon]

Everyone go to Copyleft.net and buy a DVD t-shirt with css_descramble.c source code on the back!

Cluestick not necessary

[flatrock]

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.

Re:Conspiracy Theories (Re:Why is everything last.

[G27 Radio]

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

Re:This is comedy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Provided the information is entered into the public record, it is legal to disseminate the information.

That doesn't mean its legal to download and compile the source code, you are merely free to read. Obviously redistributing this information to others is when it gets messy.

Now, there are limitations that can be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, that is (normally) done on an individual state basis (unless the matter is a matter of national security or a similar federal government "concern").

In other words, if they haven't had a judgement in your state, then it's legal to read. I believe there's only been that kind of action in CA and NY (where the litigants are from).

Now, the information can also be pulled from the public record (which is what this meeting is about). After that point you no longer can claim to be merely disseminating that public record to others like a nice, proper news agency, and can be held liable for your actions.

If there are any lawyers present, please, correct me!

Before Y'all flip out..

[mindstrm]

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.

Why we're going to lose just like we lost mp3

[heroine]

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.

Re:Why we're going to lose just like we lost mp3

[Habanero]

First, this is a bit of vainity, don't you think?

when you graduate from college you'll inevitably have more rights

I'm sure you meant, once you turn 21. Lots of people don't go to college...

Anyway, so far, pretty much each move by the court seems appropriate to me. Preliminary injunction? It's probably the right thing to do. Now, I'm not sure what MP3s have to do with it, but I think I know why you say the biggest argument is about individual freedom. It seems to me the case is about the following:

The DVD-CCA filed a suit based on the fact that the CSS was stolen. Was it? That's for the court to decide, apparently. The DVD-CCA says they are the sole licenser of the CSS, but does that give them certain rights/controls over individuals who have not entered into license agreements with them? If the case sets the precedent that I don't have the freedom to not enter a license agreement that I've never seen with a party I want no business with and maybe have never heard of; then, yes, I'd certainly say this is about individual freedom.

What I find repugnant, on both sides, is the heated way the point is obscured. The DVD-CCA in their original filing give three disrespectful /.-style quotes in the very introduction of the application! It's as if the court is expected to find someone guilty of a crime because they are impolite! "Here's the kind of thing the defendants say. Don't you just want to stick it to them, superior court of California?" Furthermore, their paper is littered with discussion of piracy (no evidence of such was even submitted, as far as I can tell) of the hypothetically underlying intellectual property (the MPA's business.)

On this side of the issue, it seems that the DVD-CCA should be screwed because of one of the following reasons:

• It is a big, rich orginization and therefore symbolizes ENEMY, who naturally should be fucked. We are at war, no?
• They encoded something that is crackable (and therefore ought to be cracked) What the hell did they expect?
• They havn't convinced a Linux vendor to buy a CSS license so we can watch Matrix on our little computer screen. Goddamn Microsoft! They're in league with the devil.

Now, the point is obscured (do you even remember it, or have the above three bullets gotten your blood so hot, that you're already off linking another "mirror."?)

It's hopeless that the press can get it right. I hope the court can be more clear-headed.

Re:Why we're going to lose just like we lost mp3

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, the point is obscured (do you even remember it, or have the above three bullets gotten your blood so hot, that you're already off linking another "mirror."?)

No, the point isn't too far obscured. What seems to be driving the mirror-mania is that the MPAA isn't really using the courts to prove their case - they're using the courts to bludgeon this thing to death.

They've won TWO - COUNT THEM, TWO - preliminary injunctions in the United States against a total of 75 or so parties, of which two thirds are not even named. Based on this, and an enormous amount of pressure, they've somehow managed to convince the Norwegian government to arrest a 16-year-old kid based on law which has never been tried and is weak at best.

The truth is, these people aren't interested in moral issues or playing fair. They will paint each and every one of us as evil cyberterrorists, they will twist this in the press, they will threaten huge lawsuits against ISP's thereby assuring that few ISP's will allow anything even remotely controversial.

The most important thing, though - even more than "consumer freedom" - is that they will have gone a long way towards convincing the general public that understanding how technology works is a bad thing, an immoral thing. We already have too much of that crap as it stands. *That* is the real issue here.

The mirror-mania is only the beginning. Until the tide of law turns the other way, we need methods of protecting free software. Someone here mentioned not long ago an "underground railroad". I for one think that's a great idea.

You may not like the idea of keeping an underground going, and to a large extent I agree with you. But we need to be aware that sometimes - quite often - the high moral ground is the first place to bomb into the High Moral Crater. That's the reason for the mirrors.

Re:ex-post-facto is legal now, apparently

[mindstrm]

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.

Too fast -- too slow -- just right?

[werdna]

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.

Re:Too fast -- too slow -- just right?

[fugue]

This is not the unconcionable part -- it is in fact routine and expected legal stuff.

I fail to see why the fact that it's "routine and expected legal stuff" necessarily implies that it's not unconcionable. And just because individuals (unwealthy ones, even) use it doesn't mean it's a good thing. Unwealthy people also mug and rape and steal from the undeservedly wealthy. Does that make it right? Rarely...

Re:What disturbs me is..

[Robert S Gormley]

Is that for the DVD movie itself, or the "PC-Friendly" software that comes with it? I'll think you'll find tis the latter, the cheesy software with promo material, dodgy games.

I'd be pissed if I was "not allowed" to play a DVD in my standalone player, because it wasn't a Windows PC.

Clueless!

[tilleyrw]

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.

Norweigan Constitution on Free Speech

[Traser]

The following is from the Norweigan Constitution. Was the law wilfuly or manifestly broken?

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.

Doubtfull

[adamsc]

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.

Legality of DeCSS

[jd]

My 2 cents worth:

1. CSS is an interface between the DVD and the display. Interfaces are NOT patentable OR copyrightable, either in the US or EU.
2. Encryption is not significantly different from simply using another language. Translation is, again, completely protected by law.
3. DeCSS has no write capability. It's read-only. So what if it could be -modified- to be read-write. You could modify a cookie, with a dash of liquid oxygen, to being a highly explosive device. Does that mean cookies should be classed as munitions? Potential is not enough.
4. The companies are getting away with this, because Rich Companies have more power than small Governments. Whilst I'm not going to accuse anyone of corruption (including the police in Norway), who exactly is dictating the law, in this case?
5. The case is about copyright, in Norway, yet no equiptment exists for copying entire DVDs, and the disks & writers that -do- exist are so expensive, you could buy the originals and have money left over for a 5-course sushi banquet.
6. The Copyright Office has not yet decided what the terms of the Digital Millenium Act -ARE-! The judge is being pressured into reaching a verdict and passing sentance quickly, IMHO, because they have to do so -before- the Government can decide what the law means. It's the only way to be sure of securing a conviction AND a media coup, and even if the law is "clarified" to legalise DeCSS, afterwards, nobody'll dare, in face of the threat, and the sentances already passed are unlikely to be revoked & the people pardoned, in retrospect. The industry wants blood, and it wants it before they're forced to be vegitarian.

Re:Conspiracy Theories (Re:Why is everything last.

[Kris_J]

There's a good chance that hackers will become the corporate equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."

What's with the future tense? It's been happening for ages. Anyone with a deep understanding of computers and technology is an instand enigma to the majority of people-in-major-power (PIMPs) *grin*. I've been labeled a security risk in two institutions (not to my face, mind you) and I've never cracked into a single system in my life. I'm also heavily pro-security, just real security not this fake, smoke & mirrors, crap.

This case is realy against RedHat and Diamond

[Forge]

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.

Re:What disturbs me is..

[Robert S Gormley]

In which case, the words of Jules in Pulp Fiction come to mind:

"Man this is some fucked up shit!"

:-)

Re:This is why they sort-off legalised mariuana

[radja]

And ofcourse because it's hardly any threat to public health.

Slightly OT: last CNN article pretty objective

[orcrist]

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

Re:This is comedy!

[SEWilco]

Yes, this is what "sealing the record" means. Court records are public unless the judge seals them. That single judge then is the only authority who can unseal them (exceptions rare).

However, this sequence shows that the DVD clowns still don't understand what publication on the Internet means. Even with the example of hundreds of links to their former trade secret, they allowed this information to be placed in a public place.

Mongering

[mindstrm]

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.

Yes. Legit.

[kinesis]

Defendant #2 here... Yes, this hearing really is about to happen.

Preventive Lawsuit

[PhaserBlast]

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.

The Horse is Gone! Close the Barn Doors!

[hanway]

All legal and ethical questions aside for a moment, I can't understand the zeal with which the DVD CCA and MPAA are pursuing this. It's a safe bet that every unscrupulous DVD bootlegger in the world already has the DeCSS code and will not hesitate to exploit it if it would do them any good. Confiscating some teenager's computer, entering T-shirts into evidence, suing web sites and Anonymous Cowards for posting links, is not going to change the fact that CSS is no longer a viable form of copy protection (or content protection or license enforcement or whatever it was ever claimed to be).

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?

Re: a new contest is open... + a huge concern

[CodeShark]

You blew the URL, buddy, even though there's a reminder right under the box. (you forgot the http:// in the HREF). So I'll fix it for you, and then ask my question. The contest is called the Obfuscated DeCSS contest, and what the site author seems to be starting with is a request for us to send ideas for a good set of ground rules, then kick off the contest around the middle of February.

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.

Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data

[MindStalker]

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.

Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data

[MindStalker]

Where I said cd, I meant DVD. Don't flame me people.

What disturbs me is..

[Justin Wake]

.. this little piece:

23. Gilmore goes on to state that "[o]ne major reason [for making such copies] is to allow Linux developers and users to watch their DVDs on their non-Windows computers." (Id. at 10). Linux is an alternative operating system to Windows. It was developed as an "open" system which is available at no charge to the user. To date, no person or entity has taken a license from DVD CCA or its predecessor to use CSS in a Linux application. If a person or entity were prepared to take a license on the same terms as existing licensees, such a license would be granted. At that point, Linux users could lawfully view motion pictures on their non-Windows operating system. Until then, Linux users have no "right," via a "hack" around other software licenses, like the Xing license, to gain access to this proprietary technology. (my emphasis)

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 :p

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 :)

Re:What disturbs me is..

[mindstrm]

Your 'right' to view them simply means you cannoy be punished for viewing them. The act of viewing them within the context of the stated terms is legal.
The act of *publishing the decryption routines & keys* is what is in question here.

Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data

[arivanov]

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...

Retroactive?

[Sloppy]

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?

---

Re:This is comedy! -FIA

[penguinicide]

Here is a link to the FOI act itself.

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.

Re:@@@@@@@@ WHAT HAPPENED TO XING!!!!! @@@@@@@@@@@

[Danse]

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).

Thank you!

[mosch]

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.

Closing already public record data?

[Thomas Charron]

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..

Re:MPAA

[ajs]

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...

You must be joking.... That would suit their purposes perfectly. The last thing that the DeCSS folks need in court is to have the DVD folks pointing out that the response from the evil pirates was to crack their systems. That would do more to sway the judge than any 100 wacko Slashdot postings....

Of course, if I were they, I'd just buy a copy of Windows NT and "forget" to install the service packs. Gee, these evil hackers broke in in no time flat; clearly they cannot be dealt with rationally. Sigh.

In case this does get read in court:

Your honor: we, the technical professionals who use Slashdot as a way to stay in touch with out fellow "geeks" and to keep abreast on issues too technical for the mainstream media, wish to thank you in advance for not writing off the entire high-tech (specifically, Open Source) community for the mallicious acts of a few individuals who do not represent our collective attitudes, ethics or motivations (as evidenced by Slashdot's moderation system). The attempt to create software to access our own media is in no way an attempt to redeem, justify or condone the acts of piracy that the DVD consortiae so often try to label us with.

Re:This is comedy!

[Wah]

If you're outside the U.S. you just have to worry about the International Corporate Police. The power of greed is truly astounding, eh?