Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen on ABC World News Tonight
Egil Kvaleberg writes "According to the newspaper
VG [in Norwegian], a film crew is apparently on its way to Jon Johansen to shoot some footage
which most likely will appear in tonight's edition of ABC's World News Tonight. The DVD-case has created a bit of a stir, and some important principles that it raises have already been raised in the Storting (Norwegian parliament).
The EFF has offered Jon and his
father support by offering to pay for a lawyer." If you miss the story on ABC, don't worry. Jon will be Slashdot's featured interview guest next week - and we don't confine our guests' answers to "sound bite" length.
It is necessary to decrypt the data on the DVD if you wish to view it. DeCSS itself is not a viewer, but was presented as a means to make a viewer.
If I wanted to copy DVD's I would use data interception DLL's.
BOYCOTT THE MPAA, ON ALL MEDIA!
Movie free since the first injunction request.
> Can anybody who has read their coverage give an opinion?
/. becomes a hot topic on the more formal tech news sites a day or two later, and then (sometimes) migrates from there to the mainstream news sites a few days after that.
My media addiction has been in remission lately, but from what I have read/watch, the media have been all but ignoring the case until recently. However, Jon's arrest seems to be warming things up a bit.
In general, we're seeing a familiar pattern: a hot topic on
You can view ABC news online at this site. I don't see anything about the case there right now.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh you. Bringing facts into the matter. This is /. ferchrissakes. NEVER let the facts spoil a good legal argument.
For the record, and for the upteninth time, the ONLY legal issue here is really the *distribution* of IP that may have been illegally obtained.
Jon didn't have to do the cracking to have broken the law. If the IP was illegally obtained in the first place Jon broke the law by posting it on the web. If Jon didn't do the cracking, and the crack was legal, Jon has broken no law.
It may well be the case that possession and USE of DeCSS is legal under certain circumstances in any case.
One more time, only *distribution* is currently at issue here.
Simple question for those in Norway.
If/when Jon's case comes to court, will it be heard before a Jury?
And this is new how?
Since when is journalism about thruth, unbiased reporting?
Surely it died with the advertisers..
Ever read the NY Times? Seen the articles where they accuse themselves? quite hilarious, if it wasnt so scary.
Hugs SlashDread
I think you'll find "he" refers to Kevin Mitnick, in response to a post which mentioned him. This was, therefore, quite on topic. You seem to have missed the point entirely.
Kevin Mitnick did compromise systems. jon didn't: nobody's arguing with that.
Why Do people persist in stating this! Almost everyone needs DeCSS to make an illegal copy!
Perhaps we are falling into an error. Yes, almost any would would need to use deCSS to make a copy on to hard disk. But that's not illegal...
Yes, almost anyone would need deCSS to snip a clip and share it with thier friends.... but that's not illegal...
Yes, almost anyone would need cdCSS to place a copy of the movie on hard disk (or cdrom, or DVDRAM, or what have you), but that isn't illegal.
It's only illegal if you do it and it isn't for personal use, comment, or review, or you don't destroy all copies when you dispose of the original. (IANAL)
Can you agree with me that VHS tapes are easy to copy? Can you agree that most of us don't rent a move and rip a copy of it?
No sir, the question here isn't is it impossible to use it illegally , but is it more likely to be used legally.
I know quite a few people that go and buy the newest movies. These folks all know each other. Some even go buy several copies of the same movie so only one person has to go to the store.
These same folks could very easily rip copies of these movies on tape, but they don't. Why? Could it be because they are honest? Could it be they like having the original tape? Could it be that it's too much trouble?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
When I was living in Bloomington, [Indiana] and shopping for a new car, I found that I could get a much better deal by going to a dealer in Louisville [, Kentucky]. Suppose the auto manufacturer wanted to force me to buy from the more expensive dealer by forcing me to sign a "licence agreement" when I bought the car in Kentucky saying that I would not operate the car in Indiana. Should the manufacturer be allowed to impose this restriction?
No.
If so, from whence do you believe they derive the right to tell me where I can or cannot drive a car that I have legally purchased? If not, then how is this situation different from the DVD [zone restriction] situation you have described? ... [There was a] time was when people protested laws that were unjust...What has happened to us? Have we forgotten that the power of those laws derives from our consent?
Excellent point. I think the reasons for our apathy today are that Western society, as a whole, is getting lazier, and those of us who would take action are afraid to because:
- we feel that our protests would fall on deaf ears-- the people we would be protesting to wouldn't care.
- we're afraid of what others (especially those who would disagree with our protest) wuold think of us.
- (this is stretching it a little) if those who imposed the restriction or law find out about us and who we are, they might put "pressure" on us.
On point #3, consider this: the Slashdot community is opposed to the implementation of DVD security because it means only those whom the DVD licensing body has officially sanctioned can make DVD players of any kind. So, when DeCSS comes out, which allows Linux DVD players to be written, we love it! But the DVD CCA has listed Slashdot as one of its "John Does" because there are numerous links to DeCSS here. Didn't they drag poor Rob Malda into court on very short notice, too?With lawsuits and litigation flying around freely today, there a lot more reasons not to stick your neck out.
A lot of us probably fall into category #1, too. As kids, we were probably frequently told to count our blessings and shut up.
(different AC)
I definitely don't agree that this case is a good thing, but I have to agree with the previous AC (the lawyer one), inasmuch as he said something. The case is not about the CAA telling people they can't watch their DVDs. It's about them trying to establish that people are using misappropriated IP (note that I don't necessarily buy this; but that's what the case is about, not the ability or inability to watch DVDs) Demonstrating with hokey visuals that don't really count as arguments in a case that doesn't really have to do with it isn't going to help.
they probably will be sued. Of course, the mere act of suing doesn't mean the suit is well founded. Do people normally sue news organizations for this type of reporting. nooo . . . But I noticed that Wired News had up a story on the Johansen arrest, for about **** this long. I went back after about an hour to grab the url and send the story to a friend, and it had vanished. Was there a "take the story down or we'll sue you" letter involved? I don't know, but I can guess . . .
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
This is one of the best explanations of the case at hand that I've read yet. It uses some very good analogies. This should be front and center for everyone to read.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The only license DVDs are sold under is copyright law. Period.
Under copyright law you can buy material just about anywhere and view it just about anywhere. If you can't customs will let you know *explicitly* what you can and can't do. Trust me on this one. This would fall under *import* laws. Ever see import records or movies being legally sold? Aha!
You cannot legally by a US version in some countries, although in some you can, no matter what it says on the box. It goes by the laws of the country you *purchase* it in.
I have purchased hundreds of books, records, VHS tapes, CDs, and even a DVD or two in foreign lands and brought them back to the US. Nothing illegal about it. I've even had some nice chats with custom agents about the books, movies, etc. I was bringing into the country.
I've done it in the reverse as well, brought such materials into other countries. Some of these things I've had to declare to customs and if I don't *bring them out again with me* had to pay a duty on them. I can do whatever I want with them while I'm there.
One more time, DVDs are copyrighted, they have no more protection or licensing than any other copyrighted material.
Wrong! Jon did not "break into other people's systems", he reverse engineered an application ON HIS OWN PC! Good grief man, at least try to follow the story!
www.eFax.com are spammers
But you don't need CSS for that. Just macrovision disablers.
The Nation had a special issue about it in 1999, I think.
Funny, I've got a pile of DVDs here and not one of them has a license agreement. Just the usual "FBI/Interpol will kill all pirates" video screen when the disk is inserted into a player.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I wonder what the World Trade Organization would have to say about that...
I appreciate you giving me credit for this "theory" - but I am unfortunately not the one that came up with it. I did find ellen boring so I had no problem with the show being cancelled but I distinctly remember quite a bit a fuzz being made about this when it happened, including interviews with Ellen DiGeneres, Michael Eisner, etc. and what transpired from these interviews and is that Disney (or at least some of its top executives) DID in fact have issues with her being openly gay on prime time TV. At the end of the day it may not have not been the only reason the show was cancelled, but it certainly did not help her keep her show...
But this is all getting a bit off topic really.
abcnews does have a pretty good record (as far as I know) but we'll see if that hold up. Disney is a powerful owner/corporation. Don't underestimate it.
This is way off-topic, unless I'm just to dumb to see any link between David Johansen and Jon Johansen besides their last name.
Would someone please moderate it down.
Absimiliard
No, he is being prosecuted for *distributing* a tool to do so.
The above poster was talking about KM, in responce to a post above.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The above poster was talking about KM
Are you speaking metaphorically or are you utterly clueless (yes, this is a trick question)? What computer system did he break into? What software did he download? What computer time did he steal?
If it were the case that Jon is the person who reverse engineered CSS (for more than one reason I don't think that is the case but for simplicity assume he did), then he is being charged for entering his own computer. The software is in his own computer, the computer time is time on his own machine.
Also allow me to summarize what appears to be the two types of relationships. Xing has a contract with CSS CCA which they negotiated and for which consideration was obtained by both parties. Xing does NOT have a contract with people who buy products from them. If you choose not to sell something to me because I am unwilling to sign a contract or because I demand an alteration to the contract, that is fine with me. But the corporate drones want it both ways: they want to sell a retail product and pretend to have a contractual relationship.
I can understand why many people fear many things, but that doesn't mean I want to see those things banned. I'm terribly sorry if they feel that piracy is going to cause grievous harm to their industry. I'm all in favor of them prosecuting true copyright violators. I simply won't stand idly by and let them take away my rights to make my own damn copies of DVDs that I have legitimately bought, or to use them with the OS of my choice, or in any other way that I am legitimately allowed to under copyright law. I don't care how afraid they are. They knew the risks, but they decided that they could make a substantial (or more likely unbelievably huge) profit with DVDs. Business ventures are always a risk, but I'm not going to give up my rights just so that they can reap more profits and not have to worry about the risks.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What they shouldn't say:
"DVD piracy already existed in the far east long before DeCSS. It was used by shady characters who had spent considerable time developing special equipment/software for that purpose. DeCSS has nothing to do with that. The function of DeCSS is to provide an easy vehicle for any computer user to do the same, without need of special equipment or software. A nice friendly red 'record' button on the player software suite, for example, would facility much more widespread illegal copying."
Obviously they should leave out the part in Italics, as the whole truth is far more incriminating than the partial truth.
Let's prove to the outside world that DeCSS has "gone mainstream".
Join my list of people holding copies of DeCSS.
If you hold a copy of DeCSS, email the following info on the subject line to e_lehman@mit.edu:
Append a * if and only if you would like to express interest in a mass, simultaneous web-posting of DeCSS at some future date, should the MPAA prove relentless.
If the list grows to thousands, this negates the MPAA lawsuit in practical terms. Go ahead, sue 3 guys: there are thousands more where they came from.
Furthermore, we can make an important point that everyone-- not just geeks-- should understand in this case and for the future: bulldog lawyers, lobbyist-written laws, and PR goons can't prevent decent people from distributing decent stuff via the net.
Not worth your time to defend freedom of speech on the net? Take a look at Option B.
The individual liberties that will exist on the net for decades to come are being hashed out NOW. A lot of posters are clearly struggling to fairly balance copyright, trade secret, and patent issues against free speech on the net. This is certainly commendable, but anyone think the MPAA will temper their position one iota out of deference to free speech? I don't think so. This is a major, precendent-setting case, so let's win.
i think we should all tell everyone we can what's up with this story, as if Jon does get screwed, which would be totally uncalled for and dare i say communist ;-) his legacy needs to be continued. "we will not go silently into the night, we will reverse engineer all your stupid closed standards!"
Let's be precise here. The DeCSS utility itself has no real function aside from copying a DVD into an unencrypted form. All the utility does is dump out an unencrypted version of the DVD's contents onto your hard drive. Certainly, one could then play the movie from the HD, using appropriate software. But overall, this seems like a backwards way to go about it - you can thus only play movies if you have a big chunk of empty drive space.
Sure, knowing *how* to decrypt the data is useful for building a player, and you could argue that DeCSS was written as a sample of how this might be done, in order to help out the Linux DVD projects. But as I understand it, DeCSS was released in binary-only form, and the the css-auth code that everyone is mirroring right now was written by someone who disassembled DeCSS and figured out how it worked. If Johansen's real motive was to provide a practical demonstration of how to decrypt CSS-coded data, why didn't he release source?
But all this is irrelevant. Even if Johansen's motive was indeed to enable copying, his activity is still perfectly legal, for a couple of reasons. First, duplication of copyrighted information is legal under fair use: it's only distribution of duplicates without the copyright holder's consent that copyright law forbids. Second, the legality of duplication is itself of limited relevance, since what Johansen is being pers^H^H^H^Hprosecuted for is not duplicating copyrighted information, but rather for creating a tool that can be used to do so.
As for economics: Use DeCSS to store a movie on your HD. Back up the movie using CDs. To play it later, restore the backup and play from the HD. Total cost per duplicate: maybe $5 for the CDs, plus a bit of hard-to-measure cost that comes from the requirement that you keep a chunk of HD real estate empty, plus a bit of extra time and effort required to re-play. When blank writeable DVDs get down to $1/each, convert your collection to DVD.
Perhaps people misunderstood my post.
If people had taken the time (perhaps their filtering is too selective?) they would have noticed that the response I made was to a portion of a post referring to Kevin Mitnick. It was especially discussing the idea that the poster thought that it was unfair to refer to Kevin as a thief.
I believe this becomes obvious later on when I talk about the subject of the discussion being in jail for five years. As far as I know, Jon has only been in for interrogation once, and that was for less than a day. Although from all accounts this interrogation was hardly pleasant.
I will be sure that I don't make use of too many pronouns in the future. :)
For the record, I feel that it was perfectly correct to reverse-engineer the CSS encryption method. However, many countries have provisions in their copyright legislation stating that creating something that can be used to avoid copy protection is illegal. This is what the RIAA attempted to get Diamond with. It is my belief that individuals should be prosecuted for individual acts of theft, and that people should be able to make use of their properly obtained DVDs/CDs/etc however they desire.
Jason PollockI worry about how Jon will be portrayed, and how we, as a community, will be portrayed in this story. All mass media has a history of spinning things in their favor, and I hope ABC looks at all sides. I am looking forward to seeing this piece, and I hope that maybe it will bring to light what Jon, and the others were trying to do in the first place, i.e. Watch DVDs on their Linux box
Jordan
If that is true then he has nothing to worry about. Simple.
It reads them....to your hd. That's a copy. DeCSS in not a player, it's a ripper. A ripped copy is a COPY. Putting into memory has been legally determined to be copying in the US.
Note, there is nothing illegal about copying DVDs, so getting all worked up over the issue of it's not being a copier, when it plainly is, is pointless.
The POINT is that it's perfectly legal to copy to view or backup, which is NOT the same thing as *pirating* which IS illegal and it is *pirating* that the DVD CCA is claiming DeCSS is for.
I wonder if ABC News will be yet another defendant in the lawsuit. Knowing the justice system, the MPAA could probably accuse them of giving away too much information.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Get a life. De-CSS is *not* being used to pirate whatsoever
Hah, I almost laughed out loud when I read that. Are you really so dense? The files are being compressed down to VCD, and then ether burned or transferred online. Were you unaware of the existence of dvd-copy.com Take a look, and stop being so unbelievably blind.
No, I do not support the DVD-CCA, but I don't support idiotic doublethink ether.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
honestly. roblimo uses such totally moronic and self-serving turns of phrase sometimes. what an arse. someone make him stop. PLEASE.
"I think the problem with this arguement comes down to who owns the data. You own a copy of the data which you are licensed to view, but not the data itself when it comes to DVD's. The DVD content is STILL owned by the copyright holder."
No, The copyright holder owns the right to copy the data, and the right to give others permission to copy the data, and the right to receive compensation from someone who copies the data when they are not granted permission according to the laws of a given jurisdiction.
The data on the disk is simply a configuration of the surface of a disk owned by the person that bought the media. *That* is the legal fine point. This is why the DMCA is unconstitutional, it violates property rights - you need an constitutional amendment removing the ability for anyone but the nation from owning a thing. And that is the very definition of communism - so I don't think it will happen in America.
IANAL. Do you think the MPAA and DVDCCA could be accused of being communists attempting to undermine the freedom of American citizens?
Today, I found a Japanese patent that would apear to be for the CSS system. Please see: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=JP10106148A_ JP10106148A: CIPHERING METHOD, DECODING METHOD, RECORDING AND REPRODUCING DEVICE, DECODING DEVICE, DECODING UNIT DEVICE, RECORDING MEDIUM, MANUFACTURE OF RECORDING MEDIUM AND METHOD OF MANAGING KEY http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=JP11088859A_ JP11088859A: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROTECTING COPYRIGHT DATA IN COMPUTER SYSTEM This one is an American patent that seems to show most of the CSS system! http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05917914__ US5917914: DVD data descrambler for host interface and MPEG interface
Not to be TOO pessimistic, but WHY are the camera crews headed to see him?
In our reality, the media is all-too-often apt to side with the large corporation. Hackers/Crackers are bad, right?!? Why do we have reason to believe that he'll be cast in something other than negative light?
Now that Jon has been labelled "hacker", what's to keep the media from trying to label him as such, and treat him with the standard treatment of "hackers"? (Typical media sensationalism included)
I hope that I'm wrong, I really do. But I did see the 60 Minutes Mitnick interview, and while it was fairly impartial, I was really POd when the interviewer kept insisting that what Kevin was doing was theft. (No, in my opinion, it wasn't theft.)
I'll go you one better.
*Behold! Legally bought software player.
Now, I am going to LEGALLY use DeCSS technology to LEGALLY watch my DVD with my Linux OS since I have LEGALLY purchased every neccessary license to do so.
Oh? You want to MAKE me use Windows to do so? Well, wouldn't that be ILLEGAL product tying, with product that has been declared LEGALLY monopolistic by a Federal court?
I don't think you will see it here. The media has too much power to saturate the airwaves and generate any kind of pulic reaction they want. The powe rthat the media has over the public is only dwarfed by the power the media has over the politicians. The pols NEED the media desperately will never ever cross them.
Think about it Coke spens millions of dollars every year trying to get you drink brown sugar water. Would they waste the money if it did not work? Media is very effective in making the public obey your wishes and nobody knows this more then the media moguls.
War is necrophilia.
OK, I can normally overlook this sort of thing, but this is TOO MUCH!
You != u
Are != r
Questions are ended with question marks.
Nouns that start with a vowel sound should be preceeded by "an," not "a."
and finally...
You ARE judged by your attention to details. Many people won't bother to read your article or take it seriously because of your lack of basic grade four grammar.
Au contraire. I think the clear message to any company considering Linux is "write a Linux driver, or port it to Linux, or otherwise make it Linux-compatible, and the world will leave your encryption alone." If I were a business I would jump ON, not off the bandwagon.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
I worry about the involvement of the EFF and the Linux community in general, and think it might be counterproductive. Things like this are best left to the civil rights experts and do not respond well to being "open-sourced".
You may be able to ice some newbie on IRC with your bitingreasoning, but foreign judges will not take kindly to being flamed, by self-proclaimed "experts" who want to patronisingly inform them that "breaking the encryption has nothing to do with piracy". After all, even though that's not what it's for, it's what it's going to be used for. Dictionaries weren't invented to look up dirty words, but that's what they're used for.
Now we all know our bits about the tehcnical issues involved, but the priority has to be to get Jon out of jail. Then we can go back to piratin^H^H^H^H^H watching our DVDs we have bought ourselves on our Linux boxes. Or something.
I'm trying to think of a good way to send the EFF a promisary note. Maybe they need a few dozen pizzas delivered?
It's so obvious to some of us that the EFF is pimping off this issue. Instead, send your money to a genuine charity somewhere.
Not the Pirate Defense League, aka EFF.
Who owns ABC? Do they have large amounts of money invested in "protecting" the content of DVDs? Or is there a good chance of a reasonably two-sided approach to the story? I am vainly hoping for some decent journalism around this issue.
Hey, Kevin Mitnick just did, and it wasn't even his own credit card! heh
Now, I was told it's trivial to brute force said player keys. It should take couple of minutes on a PIII-500. Am I totally off?
Moderate this down (-1, Silly)
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
For a more convincing argument as to why you are a menace to freedom, see this comment
Hello, today.
Think back to the present.
What matters is today, because they are charging him with aiding pirating in the present. They can't charge him for a future crime that hasn't happened. The present is what's under consideration; and for the present it is impractical to copy DVD's as opposed to buying them due to cost.
Take away random access, and you've taken away one of the best features of a DVD. Buy a DV camcorder and hook up the video output of your consumer DVD machine (no intervening computer required), and you're in business. NO COMPUTER REQUIRED! Same quality as DAT. Shut up about the straw man and go drink some washer fluid.
Why would the judge care, even if told?
Have you ever tried recording uncompressed hi-res video to a computer? You would need 150 gigs to store a feature length movie, and that's *if* your IO subsystems could take it at all. A $40 Television tuner card is not going to let you rip DVDs, you'd need at least a full hardware MPEG compressor (not cheap).
I know this, I've got a TV tuner card, and I can tell you, it's just not possible to sample a raw movie like that.
With DeCSS, all you need is 9 gigs of hard drive space
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
He preceded an adjective with "a," not a noun.
Norwegians are notoriously right-wing Christian types as opposed to their Scandanavian brothers/sisters.
There is no country on Earth where "it is the vendor's right to apply whatever conditions, terms and restrictions they deem fit to the sale". This works great in a completely free market, but such does not exist, so you're either living in a theoretical country (cool!) or wrong.
"DVD piracy already existed in the far east long before DeCSS. It was used by shady characters who had spent considerable time developing special equipment/software for that purpose."
Please don't use the word piracy in this context. It's an emotionally loaded phrase and doesn't accurately describe what you're talking about. The people you call "shady characters" in the region your refer to as the "far east" are participating in what's better called copyright infringement or counterfeit. The word counterfeit very accurately reflects what's going on, since the copies these criminals make tend to be packaged to look like the original and then illegally misrepresented as the original at sale time.
For $50, a counterfeiting criminal could get a Macrovision filtering box that would let them produce counterfeit VHS videos from a DVD master using VCR recorder banks they may already own for VHS counterfeiting. If our criminal is tooling up from scratch, he can get some new decks with S-VIDEO inputs that record macrovision protected programming just fine. For $350, one can get a JVC VCR with S-VIDEO inputs and a TBC that will make near perfect copies of DVD's (except for the soundtrack, which must be downmixed) without any additional equipment. Since we don't see widespread infringement using these decks, nor are their manufacturers being sued by the DVD industry, we can assume that the ability for the average person to copy and illegally resell DVD's is a non-issue, since it's just not happening.
"DeCSS has nothing to do with that. The function of DeCSS is to provide an easy vehicle for any computer user to do the same, without need of special equipment or software. A nice friendly red 'record' button on the player software suite, for example, would facility much more widespread illegal copying"
We've already established with JVC's HR-S7500 deck that the average individual has the ability to press that "nice friendly red 'record' button" for only $350 - far less than the cost of a computer and DVD recorder. The average consumer, by and large, chooses not to use these decks at all - and when they do it's primarily to produce copies for personal fair use.
DeCSS is useless for running a counterfeit disk business like the ones you describe in the "far east." Producing a counterfeit DVD with a computer and DeCSS is more expensive and time-consuming than producing counterfeit VHS copies or purchasing the original DVD video because blank recordable DVD media is more expensive that pre-recorded DVD media. DVD drives are also slow and several times more expensive than VCR's. And each recorder would need to be connected to a PC. Furthermore, recordable DVD media may not work reliably in all players. At $1000 per PC, plus over a thousand for each DVD recorder drive, plus $20 for each recordable DVD disk, expensive commercial duplication equipment starts to look all the more affordable to our counterfeiting criminal while the counterfeit disk business appears all the more unfeasable and unprofitable to the normal individual.
While it's possible to copy DVD disks with the help of DeCSS, it's also possible to install railroad spikes with a tack hammer. Simple practicality demands that a sledge hammer is used to install spikes just like expensive dedicated use hardware and software are used for large scale duplication of DVD videos. Your argument that DeCSS will bring large scale "far east" style DVD counterfeiting to the masses is flawed.
Guess they choose the cuban guy at last. Now back to 3rd rock...
let us know next time will ya
I don't have details about Norway, but Free Speech has much less constitutional protection in most European countries, than in the USA.
And where did Jon ever promote piracy, or pirate DVD's? I hope you know it is LEGAL in Norway and the US to copy your own CD's, DVD's and even software.
If he ever did anything wrong, it appears to be using the Win2k beta without licence. If every government should come so hard down on every user, not owning licences for all the programs he or she is using, well then the world ecconomy would collapse in a matter of months... (80-90% of all computer users have one or more programs without the proper licence, I bet you have too!)
Ost99
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought.
---- Sig. gone.
What law did he break???
Just wondering if anyone in the Triangle knows of a bar where the ABC news is shown? I'm interested and I'd like to watch this story.
Yes, they are. But remember one thing, they did not have to run them yet they did. HerrGlock
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
It has been shown again and again that decrypting and copying DVDs for purposes of piracy just isn't feasible right now, and it probably won't be for some time
Huh? Shown by whom? Uninformed slashdot idiots? Its completely feasible! Shrink down to VCD, and send out over dorm Ethernet/Cable/DSL. There's some quality loss, but DeCSS makes it much more easy.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
It means US Patents aren't enforceable outside the USA
what the hell kind of crack are you smoking? Havn't you heard of international patents?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
> of the DVD consortium will make a player that ignores zone restrictions.
Actually, in Switzerland, almost every consumer electronics shop I know has a couple of 'code-free' DVD players (they cost about USD $60 more than the others) on their shelves.
at Copyleft, of course
He asked for a t-shirt with the DeCSS source code. If you look closely at the t-shirt in the link, you can see that it is a source file named "css_descramble.c". This is in fact a part of the "css_auth" source code package. When I view my copy of that file, the header reads rather clearly "Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus". Because, you see, this source was not written by Jon Johansen, and is not a part of DeCSS. My understanding is that this code was in fact developed by disassembling the DeCSS binary and analyzing the assembler, because it was never released except in binary form. So until you can show me the DeCSS source code (i.e. the stuff that Johansen wrote), I'm going to conclude that a desire to play DVDs under Linux was not his motive.
I'm not saying this because I'm out to trash Johansen or DeCSS, or to support the MPAA - I'm not. But I think that by claiming that Johansen's goal was to watch DVDs under Linux, and not to duplicate DVDs, we're implicitly agreeing with the MPAA's (false) assertion that any duplication is illegal, immoral, and fattening. Further, DeCSS quite obviously is useful for duplicating DVDs, and continuing to shout otherwise only makes it look like we're evading the issue and weakens our case. Instead, we need to confront the issue head on: Yes, DeCSS is useful for duplicating DVDs. What of it? Duplication of copyrighted material is not intrinsically illegal - under fair use rules, making backups and such is clearly a legal activity. To talk about Linux compatability or otherwise avoid acknowledging DeCSS' utility for duplication is to implicitly capitulate on the issue of fair use rights. These are far more important to me than the ability to watch DVDs under Linux.
Here's a clue: The MPAA isn't doing this because they're a bunch of big corporate meanies who want to keep you from playing DVDs on your free anti-corporate OS. They're doing this because it's a way for them to get a rope around the neck of fair use. By going on about Linux compatibility, you're ultimately playing into their hands - you might succeed in beating them this time, but next time they go after fair use, we won't have Linux compatability or some other red herring to use as a shield, and we'll discover that most people don't comprehend our advocacy of fair use rights because we failed to defend them this time around.
One of the CBS affiliates had run a story on the 10pm news about Jon J. Needless to say i'm a little infuriated about the misrepresntation (DeCSS is used for pirating DVDs). I'm a member of Lafix.org, a local linux users group. I'm pushing for a rebuttal to the news story last night. Does anyone have any advice to offer about how to approach a local news affiliate in these kind of manners? I do NOT intend to flame them. In fact i would like to approach them with the latest information and the utmost *CIVILITY* Any and all advice will be taken into consideration. I have read up on opendvd.or, LiViD, and many other online resources. Please respond prompty.
All comments and advice will be weighed equally and smartly. Thanx in advance.
Josh V. of LAFix.org
you never lose in ure razorblade shoes......Beck-Hotwax
Let me rephrase myself in terms a moron can understand:
DeCSS is simply a tool to watch DVD format movies on a machine running a non-windows operating system.
The proof for that assertion is that it is simple to pirate DVD's using any DVD player without using DeCSS.
My final point was that we need to stand behind Jon and try to attract as much attention as possible to the fact that Money-Grubbing Executives want to put a 16 year-old in jail for being an outstanding member of the Open Source community. Go fill out the petition!
hrm... I think this is a troll, but here I go anyway:
Or buy a player (hardware or software decoder) and load the appropriate operating system** to utilize it.
How about downloading a freeware player?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Did they take all of his computers? I vaguely remember that they forgot one of the many they had. And then, he certainly has friends who would gladly lend him one...
I don't think so. When all is said and done, the judge is going to be on our side. I imagine he's silently chuckling whenever he thinks that no one is looking. Whoever signs the checks for the plaintiffs lawyers is the one who should be freaking out.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Computer-Jon on US television
Now the American broadcast news too have caught interest in the sensational action of the Economic Crimes Division against Jon Johansen (16). Today ABC News is in Vestfold to interview the Norwegian computer genius.
The feature is planned to air on World News Tonight, (comparison with a Norwegian show), aired across the entire USA.
"We want to meet him at his school to shoot him in the surroundings there, and at home in front of the computer, where we will interview him about his view on things. Of course we will link this to the current trials in the US, where the film industry want to remove links to Johansen's program", says Norwegian Svien Mikkelsen of ABC News.
"Could be something big"
"We will also interview Jon Bing, and perhaps someone from the Economic Crimes Division. Currently we are the first of the major networks with this news", Mikkelsen says.
He works at the London office of ABC, and was the one to bring the matter to the attention of the editors in New York from the Norwegian media.
"This could be something big, even if computer news are traditionally seen more as fringe stuff. It's also possible for the feature to air in the weekend edition", Mikkelsen says.
It was on Monday the Economic Crimes Division raided the home of Johansen, after the americam film giants has reported him for crimes against penal and copyright law. They claim that Johansen has cracked codes on DVD movies and constructed a program which can be used for unlawful copying of movies.
Johanses claims that the purpose of the program is to allow playing DVD movies on PCs with the Linux operating system, and that it's both lawful and (user friendly | beneficial to users).
Not Alone
In the wake of the enormous attention this matter has recieved it has also been brought forth that Jon Johansen didn't perform the actual cracking. But he informed Verldens Gang of that himself in an interview in November last year:
"It is annoying that the media prints "15-year-old cracks code". I didn't do this alone, but in cooperation with others, a Dutch and a German. You're not getting the names, but we call ourselves MoRE," Jon said that time.
The German is alleged to have performed the actual cracking, and constructed the DeCSS program that Johansen put on his home page.
"The good die first." "Most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns." --- MST3K
Oh come on. Don't try to fabricate a noble past for Journalism.
Besides, Journalism School is where you enroll after you flunk Calculus.
The 'Do you 'pay' for your illicit MP3s', is a loaded question, as it indicates one has them in the first place. I do not. Nor do I have copies of movies on VHS that I've ever distributed to acquaintances, nor do I have casettes or copies of CD's that I've distributed to anybone either.
There's an old saying that history repeats itself, and being the fool, in the literal definition, MPAA doesn't learn from history. The reaction to this seems to be about the same as when people first got VCR's and copied movies for time shifting. Got to court. try and stop it. don't allow it. PANIC..CALL THE LAWYERS. We'll they're panicking again before using their brains. Now I'd have NO problem if they worked to go after anyone who used the code to copy/distribute copyrighted DVD content. If they pursed that to the 'make an example', then fine. And with perfect legal ground to stand on. Instead Valenti shows up again and again, reading copy that's been written for him (having heard him for YEARS as far back as his poitical days, I don't believe he has the ability to actually WRITE all this stuff he's reading).
Someone mentioned the RICO statues earlier. That's interesting concept. While the DCA is a consortium of the manufactures to promote the 'standard' and allow licensing and interoperation of content in DVD's (which likely provides the exceptions to anti-trust/RICO type statutes), the MPAA represnts the major studios, providing the content. Filing suit on behalf of ALL studios, one wonders whether anti-trust or racketeering can come into play with it's substantial damages. After all, it might make some countries...such as Norway, or the independance of France, to, under their own laws, decide the 'studios' conspire to restrict access, as a whole, to movies in other countries (ie, region codes, alternate release dates), for profiteering purposes and that if they did not 'conspire' together, then if one major stidio provided releases worldwide, the same day, that others would follow. I like it. The forfeiture possibities with RICO would let them feel the same as the kid in Norway as they get raided, everything confiscated, and convicted or not, have one hell of a time getting anything back. Oh, I forgot, that was only a dream, wasn't it. Then again, that'd be the MAJOR slapp back suit of all time .
Doesn't anyone remember when some movies distributed on VHS were passed through "scramblers" that made it near impossible to copy a VHS tape from a VCR to another VCR?
The desramblers were sold in the classifieds in Popular Science. Perfectly legal to make them, to sell them, to buy them, and to use them. Why? Fair use laws. And people were not happy about the whole scrambling thing.
I think if ABC does the job right tonight, people will be just as mad about this. The only reason there isn't a big outcry over the CSS bull**** protection scam is people don't know.
The ONLY leg the MPAA had to stand on is the Trade Secret thing. And it's now out of the bag. It's no longer a trade secret, so it's over. I've seen the code, my friends have seen the code, and so have many other people (thousands? hundreds of thousands?) The "descrambler" has been made, and by precident, should be legal to create, sell, buy, use, etc., even give away under the GPL. Unfortunately, the judge can't see through the muck the MPAA is stirring up. Or they convinced him not to see.
DeCSS cannot play DVDs, DeCSS has only one function, and that is to copy the Video Data, unencrypted, To a hard drive. It can do nothing else. I have run it, and I know. So, you can scream your mantras as much as you like, you cannot change reality.
DeCSS is for copying DVDs.
Your thinking of css-auth.
*sigh* I do not agree with what the MPAA is doing. But I do not agree with attempting to spread untruth as true.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
DeCSS makes it much easier than what? Capturing the video stream, encoding that and sending it out (or recording it onto another medium)? It's hard to imagine it getting much easier than that.
DeCSS: rip video, run throuh compressor
Capturing: Record raw video from your hardwaer Player to your 150 gigabyte High RPM AV hard drive, compress. I don't know many people with 150 gig hard drives. Yes, you could buy a hardware mpeg comperssor, but that would cost a lot of money. A lot more money the DeCSS.
Right now VCD's really the only way to do it, but in a few years, it will be posible to pass VOBs around, without quality loss.
DeCSS doesn't make perfect copies of DVDs feasible, A riped DVD will be a perfict copy, unless you really, really wanted those encryption keys, and 20 second FBI warnings...
Why would someone who didn't copy DVDs before suddenly decide to start just because DeCSS came out?
Beacuse it alows them to do through software what would have cost them at least $1000 in hardware to do (mpeg encoder, standalone DVD player, etc).
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Then, too, some people seem to view all of this as a game; that is, a set of rules that you must work within to achieve a desired objective. That is not a bad description, but if you take the analogy too far then you find yourself reasoning that changing the rules in the middle of the "game" is unsportsmanlike, and hence should be avoided.
Just some idle musings while I wait for some code to run. Make of them what you will.
-r
DeCSS is more like gzip. You extract the data into readable (or in this case, viewable) form. However, in the process you do make a copy. (Witch you can then send around the world, if you chose )
Why do you people insist on saying that DeCSS cannot be used to pirate movies?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
But what would happen if somebody submitted it in an unrelated court case?
"Your honor, please enter this listing into the evidence. It happened to be lying on the backseat of my car when I got that pesky parking ticket. And btw, for the record, the cop's unlisted phone number is +352 758672, hehe"
As I understand it, you can watch that illegally copied DVD with a licensed Windows player which has its own CSS authentication method. Thus, you have successfully pirated a DVD which is perfectly playable, without decrypting anything (until final playback, using DVD Forum approved software).
You mean, you think that you can play a completly encrypted video file, with no keys whatsoever? Windows players use the keys on the Key tracks to decrypt the video. no key tracks, no video. I cant' belive this got marked as informative.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In regards to Mitnik: my thoughts are best summed with a quote from Heavy Metal:
www.eFax.com are spammers
You want the community to be portrayed positively, but do you want the news media to deal with fantasy or reality? The purpose of deCSS was most definitely *NOT* to create a Linux DVD player, the express purpose of DeCSS is to copy DVDs, period. It does not play them, it decodes them and saves the data on your hard drive.
If you wish the community to be seen as benevolent, I think the news media would have to lie...
I think the issue here is not whether or not it IS legal, but whether or not it SHOULD be legal
You have that luxury; you are not on trial for your liberty.
I can imagine some so-called "journalist" reading your comment out-of-context and not taking the time to figure out who your pronoun refers to.
DeCSS does not play DVDs in any fashion, it only copies them.
E.
Sounds good to me. :-)
I live on the East Coast and just watched World News Tonight in its entirety. A whole lot of Clinton this, New Hampshire that, and Gonzalez the other thing... but no J.J. It's as if ABC News has mysteriously discovered a world outside of software development...!?
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Have the EFF lawyers pointed out that this sort of reverse engineering is what has always been neccessary in Linux-land? Only in recent months have any significant number of hardware manufacturers been cooperative in getting their products working under Linux.
You would be able to show several cases where a standard was reverse engineered and there is not even a hint of a reason for doing so but to acheive functionality under Linux. Out goes their "exclusively for copying" theory.
BTW, all those who keep reiterating that the media will come down in price, I have to ask when? I bet it will be at least a few years before there is a standard that will be able to be read in standard DVD players, with a price that makes copying DVDs feasible. As such, why would it make sense to work on decrypting the data now? Are crackers usually so forward looking? If its just to reencode to mpeg1 (VCD), the you lose enough quality that you might as well just playback the dvd and use a vid cap card.
Are these things being pointed out to the judge?
cot
I am ofcourse not asking the minister of culture or the ministry to overrule Økokrim, but I would like for the minister of culture to tell the parliament if she is going to initiate a review of the laws related to Internet and modern entertainment industry, to see if the laws that ensure freedom of speech and democracy are strong
/. readers in your parliament.
..to initiate a review of the laws related to Internet and modern entertainment industry,..
enough, and to see if the current application of these laws is sufficient in this context.
Until now, the Internet has been very democratic, but the forces that want to put the Internet under
strong commercial control and traditional power structures are strong, and this has to be avoided.
Wow, I didn't know there were
I would love to see a movement in the U.S. to do this very thing. I'd also like to see the public get involved. You find very few people in the general public who are sympathetic to the legislative needs of big business, esp. media/entertainment companies, outside of Congress that is.
+&x
They've already taken his computers, without bothering to determine whether he'd done anything illegal. He'll worry about how long it will be before he gets them back, and the rest of us will worry about whether MPAA will hire our local police to come steal our computers, whether what we're doing is illegal or not.
I began my legal training under my Math proffesor. After he got his Phd in math he didn't know what to do with himself so he entered Harvard law school to kill time. He graduated in a year and half. He never took his bar and so was never a lawyer.
He was a superb formal logician though, and if you wanted to argue case with you'd damn well better have your shit together!
If you've spent any time hanging around courthouses or just arguing with lawyers you'll find that over all their command of logic is just plain appalling! They are trained in debate, not logic. Debate is judged by the rules of logic but not constrained by them. You can be as damned illogical as you wish in a debate.
Ever wonder why some lawyers have such suberb records? Nancy Grace of Court TV NEVER lost a case as a prosocuter. Not one. How is this possible? Most lawyers don't really have their shit together. Some have bags full of it, ( yes, pun intended. A public defender who is also a client of mine likes to tell me that ALL lawyers are scum, even, maybe especially, the good ones.)
There is a truism among lawyers that mathmaticians tend to make exceptional lawyers. This is hardly surprising to me. They ARE trained in logic. Their "cases" almost never close and they must be prepared to defend them for YEARS at a stretch, and NOONE debates like a mathmatician who's got a theorem backed into a corner and whimpering for mercy. When a mathmatician scents a logical "kill" they are downright vicious!
I've got a question. If the DMCA says reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperabilty is legal, but a software licence says you cannot revese engineer, which takes precidence? It would seem like the DMCA, since i doubt you can go around the law with a license agreement. I mean i couldn't have someone accept a lisense agreement the i could saw off their left arm and then go do it w/o being punished, right? Or am i off base here?
Wrong motion. Your link points to a 1/10 motion to seal. The motion to seal that was heard yesterday was with regard to the Hoy declaration which was a plaintiff affadavit.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
'm sorry, it doesn't follow that people who posess a DVD drive in their computer necessarily even have the slightest interest in playing movies. If they did, they would have: 1. Bought the hardware or software decoder in addition to the drive. 2. Loaded the appropriate Operating System to use the hardware or software decoder with the drive. No they wouldn't. I wouldn't. I don't own a Win XX OS and I DON'T want to since I don't feel like paying for something that doesn't work. I also DON'T want to break break copyright laws, but I do want to be able to see DVD movies on my computer. So what do I do? I bless Mr Johanssen for finding out how to be able to watch the DVDs under the OS of my choice, Linux. I've paid for the movie, I don't want to pay for Windows to be able to watch it.
"r u seriously saying "DON'T BUY THE GOODS". " - if you do not agree with the terms and conditions stipulated by the vendor et al, then yes, don't buy. It really is that simple. Your choice.
"do u know that it is our right to buy and sell in the free market" - do YOU know that it is the vendor's right to apply whatever conditions, terms and restrictions they deem fit to the sale? If you don't like the terms, don't buy. It really is that simple, you know.
__________________________________________________ (wave court order) This is an attempt to stop a person playing a legally bought DVD on a legally bought player using a legally bought operating system on a legally bought computer. __________________________________________________ The DVD industry is strongly suggesting that you do no in fact have a legally bought player. Please demonstrate how you've come to the conclusion that you have a legally bought DVD player.
I watched the ABC World News Tonight at 5:30 pm CST and it WAS NOT ON! ZILCH NADA ZERO
I'd take that bet if I were him if it were modified a tad, DeCSS is not going to be used to produce pirated DVDs in the future, no. Its primary use as of RIGHT NOW however is to rip the video and audio from the DVD and encode it down into other formats.
If DeCSS even made a half-assed attempt at being a DVD PLAYER, this court case might have a snowballs chance in hell but the kid decided he'd make a program for the express purpose of ripping the data off of a DVD to make it available in a format more conducive to format conversion and piracy.
If you don't think this is happening right now, and happening in great numbers, you're not looking in the right places. Hop on IRC and join some movie pirating rooms, DeCSS is all the rage.
E.
The DVD Consortium/MPAA owns Delmoi. Thought y'all should know.
loose = lose
Copywrite = copyright
When you buy a car, you are also buying a database detailing what makes up the car.
No, you are buying a car. Where in the heck did you get that silly idea?
Of course, the Simpsons are more informative than ABC news, so I'm not saying much...
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
No Zen is good zen
They talked about cuban boys, presidential elections, economy, snow - but I didn't see anything that had to do with DVD...
...they didn't run it at 6:30pm EST - I'm rolling a tape on the 7pm EST feed in case they decide to run it for some strange reason. I didn't get a chance to catch it at 6:30pm so I personally don't know if it ran or not. If it does run at 7pm, then I will capture the story and post it on the net. If not, oh well :)
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder
FC Closer
The 'fact sheet' says that you can copy the data on the DVD to your hard drive, by simply doing 'ls' and then 'cp' to the HD. This is true, however those files will be worthless without the decryption Keys, on the first few tracks of the disk. What is so hard for you people to understand about that?
Sure, you can take the files off, and burn them to a blank DVD, but you'll never be able to Watch that DVD, without DeCSS
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
> Virtually every DVD-ROM drive sold comes with
> a "free" copy of a softwareDVD player.
Mine didn't. My DVD drive cost me $80. My Matrix DVD cost me $20. The DVD playing software costs in the neighborhood of $150. (Including windows operating system. Why else would I buy win98?)
Unfortunately, after shelling out all the money for a DVD player, it still doesn't work right. It skips. It repeats. Audio cuts out. Patches refuse to install. Windows crashes. It's just been one big nightmare.
I'm now holding out for linux DVD support. With window's DVD players, it's all about hype and marketshare. Nobody cares if it doesn't work. In the linux world, it's all about the quality...
Do you honestly think that DeCSS is going to stimulate piracy significantly? If so, how? Why would someone who didn't copy DVDs before suddenly decide to start just because DeCSS came out? Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me. How can you advocate outlawing a technology (DeCSS) because it provides one more way for people to do something they could already have done using other means? And what of the original claim that piracy will be what DeCSS "will really be used for"? How do you support that?
-r
pay for what? 400 pages of docs? sample source?
We already have the code to do it, all they can do is offer a free licence.
Also if you pay them , you have to adhere to their fucked agreements like , turning on macrovision, accepting region codecs, leaving on Chapters that disallow fastforward etc... Prevent screen capture or all that junk.
Good points on the illegal product tying. Can the EFF get a counter suit of illegal market manipulation, conspiracy or whatever you call it against the DVD players manufacturers for closing the market against competitive products (that play DVDs) by encryption.
If DVD are themselves a separate product every company should have the right to freely make players. Attempting to lock the DVD under encription and restricting the market is illegal restraint of trade and definitly the list of key holders is list of companies who conspired to corner the market.
Or are there reasons I am missing that allow companies to restrict the market like this?
Most people in this country are woefully ignorant of the law. I've actually been told by otherwise intelligent informed people that it's you can't sue the government.
Hello people, do you know what the constitution is and what it's FOR? Redress of grievance is a core concept.
In part I blame civics and social studies classes in our schools, which are nothing more than a branch of the government remember. They arn't to educate, they are to indoctrinate, and they do a fair job of missinforming and failing to inform people of their rights and obligations as citizens.
We also now live under a system in which it has been declared constitutional to dismiss a juror *FOR CAUSE* for knowing what his own rights as a juror are.
Think about he implications of THAT one for while.
IANAL, but that's exactly what it means. They retain the rights regarding the duplication and distribution of those copies (within limits - you can generally, but not always - copy for personal use, e.g. backups or for compatability) but not _use_, per se.
I can buy a DVD and crush it into little pieces or put it in a record player. I can resell it at a loss, and I can give it away. But I can't rent it and I can't show it publicly (as in a theater) though I can show it in my home (as in if friends/family come over)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Er, yeah. Like the "illegal" product tying of Sony MiniDisc with...
...why, a Sony MiniDisc player. Until they licensed the technology.
I'd think of other, better examples, but it's not worth it for such an obviously wrong assertion.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I've already written a post on why DeCSS should die and why we should be mirroring css-auth from the LiViD CVS. But, just because DeCSS is a Windows program dosn't mean that it wasn't necessary at the time in order to develop a Linux player. How can you present the product of your limited worldview as reality when you know the DVD CCA lawyers are reading /.?
In fact, the code from DeCSS was used to develop css-auth. If DeCSS falls as a misappropriated trade secret (the Ca. DVD CCA case) or as a violation of the DMCA (the NY and Ct MPAA cases)then css-auth likely falls too.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I think Jordan's fears are well founded. The MPA is a very skilled (PR wise) lobbying group that is already presenting this issue as a major intellectual property battleground..they are presenting people like Jon in the same way they present video pirates who get busted by the FBI. Remember as you get your expectations in check, that ABC is owned by Disney.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
If I were on trial under a bad law here in Maryland, I might well try to point out to the jury that the state constitution declares them "Judges of Law, as well as of fact" and argue why the law is bad.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If you want to make illegal copies of DVD's then don't count on me for a pat on the back - you're a thief The DeCSS program allows users of the Linux OS to watch DVD movies on their computers. Some people believe that the DeCSS program is illegal, others don't.
Since when is journalism about thruth, unbiased reporting?
up until the early 1900's?
+&x
I am hoping you are referring to mitnick here and not Jon and DeCSS. If in fact you are referring to DeCSS you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to mitnick then your comment at least makes some sense but it is posted in an illogical location.
The others in this thread since my post don't seem to understand that a DVD you buy in the shops in a NON-standard disc. There are special tracks that need special ioctls and hardware that contains the keys and such. That's why DeCSS brute-forces the password.
I have seen even ESR himself make that mistake (that a copied DVD video -> DVD-RAM or whatever will work in a licensed player but it won't) in his main article in the subject.
There's nothing new in this tactic - The Playstation does it to - a seemingly perfect copy of a game to a CD-R won't work due to deliberate errors that Sony have put on the discs.
Sorry, this is just hoss10 with some clarification of my post (which this is a reply to).
I intended but forgot to point out that the journalists fact sheet has an error.
A straight copy of a DVD to a DVD-RAM will NOT work in a licensed Windows player thing due to special tracks and the like that contain the codes.
Others, including ESR i might add, have made the mistake of claiming that it would work and therefore that DeCSS isn't needed for piracy. Now while that doesn't really affect the argument that DeCSS is just helping Linux users watch their DVD we have to remember to stick 100% to the truth (like it says in the DVD Advocacy HOWTO)
Also, even though i personally haven't tried to use such a copied DVD I have read about it in posts/comments/articles by the people that seem to know what their talking on the technical side and remember that a copied Sony Playstation CD doesn't (I have tried this many times and know how to get around it). I just mentioned Sony to show that it is not only possible but there is a precedent to making discs that are difficult to copy 100% (ie. including the errors/special tracks)
How about putting the interview with Jon online right here on Slashdot? MPEG or so? Maybe DVD? :) Would sure solve my problem of not having a TV.
--
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
I disagree with u in ur statements, we actually got a political party in norway that is no way like the commies or the christian bastards. The Progress Party(Fremskrittspartiet) I support Jon in any ways! so does my party! Go on for free speach! Let the liberals rule!
Nothing.
Not so. Essentially it protects a copyrighted work from being viewed.
It doesn't prevent me from making a copy. It doesn't even prevent me from giving those copies away to my friends who have their own decoder rings.
Correct; however, copyright infringement isn't what the New York defendants were being sued for. Again, it's very enlightening to read the transcript.
All it does is require anyone who wants to read it to [...]possess a decoder ring.
Exactly. But if you make the ring yourself, and give it to your friends, then you've broken the law (DMCA); that's what the New York lawsuit was about.
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
This is going to be ugly sham. :-(
Nimbus CD International, Inc. Tel. 804-985-1100 Fax. 804-985-9083
DVD Copy Protection / Encryption White Paper Rev. 2
1. Digital Copy Protection System: CSS "Content Scramble System"
CSS "Content Scramble System" was developed specifically for digital copy protection of DVD-Video
data. The DVD Consortium/Forum has set up the CSS Interim Licensing Organization to
administer the worldwide licensing and application of the CSS technology. CSS is optional for DVD-Video.
In the CSS system, regular DVD-Video streams created by the DVD-Video authoring process are
scrambled using a set of software keys appropriate to the title in question. The resulting CSS-protected
DVD-Video disc therefore contains scrambled or meaningless video data. The data can only
be unscrambled using a DVD-Video player with a licensed decryption chip. At this time all DVD-Video
players released to market contain CSS decryption technology.
The scrambling of data occurs at the Glass Mastering stage in the disc manufacturing plant, NOT at
the authoring and compression stage. DVD Authoring systems will NOT be used to make a CSS
scrambled DLT Master Tape since it would be an "unprotected master." The DLT is prepared such
that it calls for CSS scrambling to be applied during the glass mastering stage at the disc plant.
The copy protection process proceeds as follows:
1. Obtain CSS Encryption Keys.
Keys are supplied only to CSS Licensees. Content providers, Authoring facilities and disc
replicators may all apply for licenses. Keys are obtained by generating a "Request For Keys"
floppy disc using CSS-supplied software. The CSS software prompts the licensee to choose 12-
digit alphanumeric numbers for the disc and separate 12-digit numbers for each title on the disc.
These 12-digit numbers are the disc and title keys. The "Request Floppy" is then mailed to CSS in
Japan where the chosen numbers or keys are encrypted and the floppy is promptly returned to
the licensee containing the "encrypted keys."
Note:
Disc Keys and Title Keys must correspond to the Video Title Set Structure on the disc. There is
only one disc key to specify for each DVD-Video disc but Title Keys must be specified for each
Video Title Set on the disc. For instance; if a project is created with 7 title sets and only Title Set
2 is requested to be encrypted using CSS, the licensee will create a Request Floppy specifying one
12-digit Disk Key and 7 12-digit title keys requesting that only Title 2 be encrypted. Typically,
all seven titles would recive encryption but the option to leave unprotected is available.
2. Create DLT Master Tape
The Authoring facility is responsible for specifying that CSS digital copy protection is applied. If
a Content Provider or the Authoring facility has obtained the CSS keys for the disc, the keys are
typically placed on the Master DLT Tape by the Authoring facility. If Nimbus has been asked to
obtain keys for the disc, the DLT is prepared in such a way that the Glass Mastering machine at
the plant is prompted to insert the floppy disc containing the CSS keys prior to Glass Master
recording.
Note:
The video data on the tape is NOT scrambled but each video sector is appended to say whether or
not it is supposed to receive CSS. Unless the DLT was authored with the intent of using CSS and
with the specially appended sectors it can not be CSS-protected. The CSS Specifications dictate
that for Motion Pictures, a maximum of 50% of the video sectors may be scrambled.
3. Glass Mastering at Nimbus CD International, Inc. ("Nimbus")
The DLT is loaded in the Glass Mastering machine and the data formatter examines the DLT
control files to verify if CSS is requested. The data formatter must contain a licensed CSS module Nimbus CD International, Inc. Tel. 804-985-1100 Fax. 804-985-9083
to allow the process to proceed. The CSS Keys are extracted from the DLT or, if not present,
called for from floppy disc. Once the keys are obtained the CSS data formatter scrambles the
video data during the Glass master recording process. The video data on the DLT and the Glass
Master are therefore different (the Glass master being a scrambled version of the original).
4. Subsequent Manufacturing Processes
The rest of the manufacturing process for the DVD-Video discs is unaffected.
5. Data Verification
CSS encryption scrambles the data on the tape using the encrypted keys provided by CSS. The
data on the DLT and the replica disc are therefore different and a standard DLT-to-Disc "Bit-to-Bit"
comparison test is not possible. The CSS licensing body is aware of this and plans are
underway to develop secure licensed decryption stations to allow Bit-to-Bit testing to take place
by decrypting the disc and comparing directly to the tape. Such stations are not available to
licensees at this time.
Note on Licensing:
Nimbus CD International is licensed by the CSS Interim Licensing Organization as a Disc
Manufacturer. At this time it is not anticipated that a per disc royalty will be incurred for the use
of CSS. It is likely that as the final CSS Licensing Agreements are formulated, Content Providers
may need to obtain a license to have access to CSS encryption information, participate in the
Licensing entity's proceedings and generally use the technology on their DVD titles. Terms and
Conditions for Content provider CSS Licenses are not known at this time. It is also likely that
Content Providers may be able to use CSS Technology on their DVD discs at no charge provided
they use a CSS-licensed replicator such as Nimbus who can source the CSS keys for their titles;
this would not allow participation in CSS licensing activities by the Content Provider. Contact
information for the CSS Interim License Organization is given below.
Mr. Susumu Yamaguchi
CSS Interim License Organization
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
2-15, Matsuba-cho, Kadoma, OSAKA 571, JAPAN
Tel : +81-6-905-4155 Fax: +81-6-901-9299
2. Analog Copy Protection: Macrovision
The DVD-Video Analog Protection System (APS) for the US, Japan and Europe regions is
Macrovision. This is a widely-used technology for Home Video (VHS). Macrovision for DVD comes
in three varieties for US and Japan.
a. Automatic Gain Control (AGC)
b. 2-line Color Stripe
c. 4-line Color Stripe
Only AGC is specified for DVD in Europe.
Macrovision works by recording signals in the part of the video signal that does not reach the TV
screen so is invisible on direct playback. When recording a video signal containing Macrovision, a
home VCR records the entire signal. In simple terms, the Macrovision information causes the VHS
recorder to malfunction and improperly record the signal such that the recorded VHS copy is greatly
impaired when played back.
For DVD, Macrovision is "requested" or specified at the authoring stage such that the Master Tape
(DLT) has information in the main program that causes the DVD disc to "request" a licensed player
to add Macrovision to the output signal. The difference between DVD and VHS is that the Nimbus CD International, Inc. Tel. 804-985-1100 Fax. 804-985-9083
Macrovision signal is added by the hardware for DVD but is on the software for VHS. The system
relies on all players having an output stage that allows a "Macrovision chip" to protect the signal.
Note on Licensing:
Nimbus CD International has signed a Replicator Agreement with Macrovision. Content Providers
and Authoring Facilities are also required to sign Agreements with Macrovision to use this
technology. Content Providers rather than Disc Manufacturers are liable for agreed royalties to
Macrovision. For more information on the Macrovision licensing process contact:
Macrovision: Andrew Pillsbury tel. 408-743-8600
Web site: www.macrovision.com
3. Region Coding
The DVD Consortium/Forum Version 1 DVD-Video Specification has assigned 6 world regions. It is
intended that all hardware imported and sold in these regions be hardware locked to play Region-Coded
DVD discs that allow playback in that Geographic Region. When a DVD Disc is authored, the
Content Provider instructs the Authoring facility as to which DVD Region(s) the discs are required to
play in and the DLT Master Tape is thus encoded. The Region is encoded automatically on the disc
during manufacturing according to the Authoring instructions. Discs can be manufactured to play in
any combination of Regions or All Regions; for example, it is possible to make a disc that can play in
Regions 1, 2 and 5 but not Regions 3, 4 and 6.
The purpose of Region Coding is to vary release dates for movies. For example, Spain is in Region 2
but if a DVD movie is encoded for Region 1 only (USA) it will not play in a Spanish DVD player
since those players are hardware locked to only play discs coded Region 2. DVD discs can be specified
to play in ALL regions or any combination of the six regions.
Region Coding is encoded in the Lead-in Control area of the disc and the Video Manager section of
the data area.
John Town
February 1998.
For more information contact:
Nimbus CD International, Inc.
623 Welsh Run Road
Ruckersville,VA. 22968 USA
Tel. (+1) 804-985-1100 ext. 365
Fax. (+1) 804-985-9083
e-mail: jtown@nimbuscd.com
Or Visit Our Web Site : http://www.nimbuscd.com
>Are you saying it's impractical to copy a DVD
>video file? Have you ever used DeCSS?
>It's a Windows program!! the only way to use
>DeCSS to watch a movie in Linux would be to copy
>the file to your hard drive and then reboot.
Oooh! Nice troll! Except for the minor fact that DeCSS was distributed in *SOURCE* form. Go back to your bosses in Hollywood, Mr. Astroturf.
At least, I'm hoping that you're a troll. The alternative, that you've got an IQ less than your age and cannot distinguish between source and binaries, is also plausible.
agreed,... but given ABC's recent much publicised hype over the new years eve special and selective visual trickery, as well as him having his cpu's taken away from him... i doubt thats gonna be a viable option unless they bring in their own for 'effect'
-fezzgig
Jon needs to put the source code up on his monitor in the background while they're talking to him.
How secret could it be if several million people get it beamed to their TV's with the evening news?
The reason it can't be licensed is that there is a conflict between the GPL and DVD licenses. There is no law that says special exception has to be given to open source.
From wired article:DVD Case: Battle of the Basics
"The trade secret is out in the hacker community," said Kessler. "That's clear. But we need to stop it there or it will go mainstream, and that will cause irreparable harm."
But it's going mainstream now!!
"now i'll ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay eggs in your chest. but i'm not an alien!"-mst3ktm
I thought Norway was a *socialist* country?
Have you read up on these cases? The EFF site http://www.eff.org has an affadavit on Norwegian Law which very clearly states that people have the right to reverse engineer and that EULAs can not take that right away. The California case is toast.
The DVD CCA has come up with direct quotes from the defendents in the CA case that they knowingly and willingly ignored and violated federal law.
You're reading *way* too much into those statements. They don't admit to violating the law. The admit that they are likely to get (wrongfully) charged with breaking the law. Big difference.
After reading the transcript of the NY hearing, it's pretty clear that we have an uphill battle on the MPAA cases. But, even there, the eventual outcome is far from certain.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
CNN Interview
Are you saying it's impractical to copy a DVD video file? Have you ever used DeCSS? It's a Windows program!! the only way to use DeCSS to watch a movie in Linux would be to copy the file to your hard drive and then reboot.
css-auth is what lets you play DVDs in Linux right off the disk, and is a derivative of DeCSS (or at least uses the same ideas).
Really, the amount of doublethink on this board is shocking. We all know why DeCSS was made, and yet we persist in believing what we want.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/occ/dmca/dmcajuly 27.htm Please view the comments to the dmca. It raises the issues that will be fought over in this injunction. special interest should go to the comments of Time Warner
Anyway, what I'm scared of is, about four months ago, I took it apart and started tinkering with it. Really neat! (Ever since junior high, I've always wondered how they worked.) I bet I could buy some more locks and study them and become a decent locksmith or safecracker.
This is illegal, isn't it? I'm gonna go to jail for it, anen't I? If they can arrest that nice kid in Norway for tinkering with his DVDs, then I'm toast! OH GOD I DONT WANNA GO TO JAIL!!!
~svoboda
~svoboda
Practice kind randomness and beautiful acts of nonsense.
I've lately come to think that it might be a good idea to do some kind of a 'the rest of the world vs. the US' class action suit, since it seems that that's where most of these bogosities come from.
Why should I have to buy another piece of hardware if the DVD drive I have already is capable of reading DVDs? So someone can make an extra $200.00? I don't think so. *fwap*
Will they get any choice comments from the EFF for their piece? Maybe showing a DVD playing under Linux? How about someone saying that watching a DVD you bought with the player you want is not piracy? We can only hope.
Maybe I'll even turn the TV on, if indeed they are actually going to run this story.
kabloie
The judge, of course, would have none of it, which is why you can now buy Bleem! in your local Babbage's.
Oh, and lest you think there was something wrong with Sony's initial patent, there wasn't. They managed to successfully shut down Virtual Game Station (by a different company, for the Mac) because they used patent information. Not that patents apply to DVDs, since DVD CCA was more worried about illegal piracy than legal emulation, they didn't patent it but relied on keeping it a trade secret. You see, people can get in to look at patents, like Tengen did with Nintendo's patents so they could make NES cartridges. Tengen were eventually stopped because they had stolen Nintendo's patents, but they couldn't have been if they had "clean room" reverse engineered the cartridges. Then they could merrily have gone on making NES cartridges, while sticking their tongues out at Nintendo's lawyers. Trade secrets, however, aren't as well protected by the law:
I should note that now DeCSS is common knowledge, but I'm not even sure how strong a protection this would've allowed in any event.All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Your right in that the MPAA isn't going to stop Taiwan pirates with CSS, and they never have had any intention, as far as I can see.
What they wanted to stop was your 15 year old warez puppies from posting VOBs in IRC. Think about it, Do you 'pay' for your illicit MP3s? What the MPAA is trying to do here is stop people from sharing with there friends perfect digital copies. The net only requires one original to get passed all over the world (there was most likely only one copy of the matrix originally leaked as VCD, but thousands of people have it)
If one warez person can make a copy and pass it to his friends, then there will be no stopping it. Just like DeCSS itself.
This isn't to say that I agree with the strong-arm tactics of the MPAA, In any way. In fact it makes me very angry. But I do understand why they are afraid
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That is true. Look up Sovereign Immunity. You can't sue the State or Federal government without their permission, typically expressed in a law that permits certain types of cases to be brought to court.
> The guy KNOWINGLY breaks the law, and you guys all worship him?
All of Jon's public statements I've read were that he believed reverse engineering was legal under Norwegian law.
> The companies who bring you DVDs are entirely within their rights to license them however they wish.
No. This is false. Copyright is a balance of privileges between the copyright owner and the public. They do not have the absolute right over their material, only rights to control some copying and distribution, and in the case of movies, public exhibition.
They certainly do not have the right to make a DVD that says "by watching this you agree to give us your first born child".
> If you do not like the license, then DON'T BUY THE GOODS.
Why do you think everyone is boycotting now? But that isn't the point-- some of us already bought them and we just want to use them legally on our own equipment.
> Question - how woul dYOU like it if big companies ignored the GPL because they felt like it?
Well, for one thing, the GPL does not restrict USE in any way, unlike the DVD people who want to say what player you can and cannot use. The GPL only restricts copying, just like copyright law itself. In the DVD cases, no one is accused of illegal copying. So I don't think the analogy is valid at all.
Here's a site for a Petition against the treatment received by Jon Johansen. From the site:
This is an open letter of protest to norwegian authorities, DoEC (Department of Economic Crime). This is an expression of my personal opinion, an opinion I hope all linux-enthusiasts in Norway will see fit to support (and all others interested in the freedom of speech and government abusal). This letter, including all attenders will be forwarded to DoEC, with a copy to Johansens lawyer.
"http://linuxguiden.linpro.no/protesten g.php"
...if any of these clueless journalists will somehow manage to work the DeCSS source into their broadcast.
...and this unreadable code is what caused the whole mess. If entered into a computer it can be used to copy DVDs...
Wouldn't that be hilarious?
(camera slowly scans over the source)
Concerned Reporter's Voice:
By "player", I assume that that physical hardware was implied. You assume that "player" means the software.
CNN's article on Jon and the DVD issue is actually pretty good. They actually make the point that this case is *not* about piracy, but about playback control.
c harge/index.html
The URL:http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/ptech/01/25/dvd.
It's one of the better articles on the matter by mainstream press right now - if you need to direct a PHB towards an article to correct any generalizations or alterations they may make on a personal basis about this case (because they don't understand the big picture from the small painting they're seeing from other media sources) then this CNN article is pretty good...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Please read plaintiff's motion carefully (line 20-26): http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20000110-p i-docs/20000110-pi-docs-02.gif
/. comments) propagates a wrongheaded belief that the plaintiffs screwed up.
When plaintiffs entered the code as part of Stevenson's testimony, they requested (successfully) that it be sealed. When they received defendant's response, the defendants had (either sneakily/cleverly or carelessly) put the sealed testimony in their response, which would become public.
Plaintiff's motion is an attempt to keep their adversaries from placing the code in the public record (which would clearly be an unfair tactic in a trade secret case).
I hope this gets moderated up, because the Wired story (and many
Here's a site for a Petition against the treatment received by Jon Johansen. From the site:
.php
This is an open letter of protest to norwegian authorities, DoEC (Department of Economic Crime). This is an expression of my personal opinion, an opinion I hope all linux-enthusiasts in Norway will see fit to support (and all others interested in the freedom of speech and government abusal). This letter, including all attenders will be forwarded to DoEC, with a copy to Johansens lawyer.
http://linuxguiden.linpro.no/protesteng
Take 2: sorry for the extra quotes in the URL of the previous comment
I've only seen one person here claim that, and he's been soundly hooted at.
What people have claimed is that fair use of DVD is the same as fair use of any other copyright material. That there is nothing special about it just *because* it is DVD, rather than, say, VHS. The claim is that you have no MORE rights in purchasing a DVD, but no LESS either!
I could sell you a book, but I've written it in code. I'll sell you a secret decoder ring as well.
If you can read the book *without* buying the secret decoder ring I can't stop you.
Noone here, ( with the one exception as noted above), is saying that you should be able to decode it, print decoded copies and sell them, but fair use gives you the right to read it if you are capable.
The only fly in the ointment with regard to DVD is the secret decoder ring. The DVD CCA's position is that they are the only people in the world allowed to hand out decoder rings. That's the only issue at stake here.
Note also that noone, *not even the DVD CCA* has made any charges that *possession* of the secret decoder ring is illegal, only distributing it.
Think about that one for a minute.
To make the issue a little LESS clear, what if I published a book in electronic form, but in Swahili knowing that most of the people in the world can't read Swahili? I'll also sell you a piece of software that perfectly translates the book into English. Note that I *havn't* placed you under any license. I have SOLD you the book, you have all the legal rights that book that ownership grants you.
Is it illegal for you to read it in Swahili? How about this, is it illegal to *read it to someone else in English?* Is it illegal to write your own program to translate it?
The only difference between this situation and the DVD issue is that CSS is made up language. How does that change the legal situation above?
How about this analogy. I sell you a book, only I've locked it in a safe. The physical book is now your property and so is the safe *BUT,* I'll only sell you the combination for an extra fee?
Are you legally allowed to read the book? If not, why not? Are you legally allowed to crack the combination? Disassemble the lock and see how it works, bearing in mind that the builder willfully and by choice declined to patent the mechinism? Can you then tell your friend how the lock works? If not, why not?
Despite what some people have insinuated here, or even claimed outright, you do *NOT* have license rights that are in any way analogous to software license rights with regards to the *contents* of a DVD, that is, the movie itself. The DVD CCA has not claimed this, and you'll find that your printed restrictions are *identical* to those you'll find on a VHS tape. Your rights under these restrictions are perfectly well defined under law and are the SAME as those for a VHS tape. The only license issue here is the descrambling code. That is a trade secret.
Here's another famous trade secret, the formula for Coca-Cola. But wait, did you know that many companies have analized Coke and you can buy chemically identical brands of cola right off the shelf? If you *don't* know this it's because Coke dosn't want you to know * and can't do anything about it.* They have NO legal protection from people doing this. Is DeCSS different? If so, why?
Noone here is suggesting contravening those laws. They are suggesting that you have the same rights to view and copy a DVD that you do a VHS tape and that that right is already spelled out by law. That's all.
Note that not even the DVD CCA has *ever* claimed you don't have the right to make copies of a DVD you have purchased! Why not? Becasue they know darn well the law says you DO!
Interesting that, isn't it? I could walk right into the courthouse with a DVD I could prove I owned, copy it right in front of the DVD CCA lawyers, and walk out. They couldn't do a damn thing.
If, instead of walking out, I then *gave* that copy to someone in the gallery I'd be in deep doo doo. THAT is illegal. That is pirating. *Not making the copy!*
How could I make a copy? Well, I could spend several thousand dollars and buy a commercial quality press, off the shelf. Perfectly legal.
I could do somthing a lot easier though. How about this. I get a legal copy of a DVD software decoder, install it in my Windows partition, and rip the decrypted files to my hd or a VHS tape. The DVD CCA still can't do a thing about it because I STILL havn't broken any law.
Ok, let's go to one further layer of abstraction. I've got my computer with a DVD drive, I've got my DVD, I've got a legal software decoder, only NOW I use LiVid with CSS-auth on my Linux partition to rip the file. Have I done anything wrong? If so, why? I'll bet this one would make the DVD CCA lawyers squirm a bit, but STILL not give them grounds to touch me.
If I was allowed to crack the lock on the safe with the book in it, why can't I just crack the lock on the DVD and skip purchasing the licensed software decoder?
That's the only issue at debate here. Not whether I have right to "use it however I want."
I have read all of the available posts to the livid-dev list from September through to today. DeCSS was released on Windows first because that's where it was released first. There was code contributed from a number of people and not just the ones you hear about in the news. First the CSS hash function was posted anonymously. Then people started concentrating on finding a key or keys. Independantly, there was progress on a number of fronts.
The Windows version of DeCSS is what should die because it's not needed any more. A lot of stuff that is being mirrored as DeCSS is actually css-auth.
I went through a phase of correcting overly broad statements. I got tired of typing the same things over and over again, but the message eventually got through. There are people who misunderstand and misrepresent, but usually not intentionally.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Oh, we can only hope. B^)
You're right, I had forgotten about the BIOS issue. I thought it was an outside company (Phoenix) that had reverse-engineered it, though.
-Doug
-Doug
"Eschew abstinence"
If your line of reasoning were valid, all manufacturers of kitchen knives would have to be put behind bars since their product can be used for murder.
No dear AC, just because DeCSS *can* be used for bad purposes doesn't mean that it is bad in itself. Owners of Linux, *BSD and other free O/Ss need DeCSS in order to play the DVDs which they have purchased, and that's all there is to it. If other people want to use the same product for other questionable purposes then go and molest them, not those who merely want to watch their own DVDs on their own computers.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Not so. Essentially it protects a copyrighted work from being viewed.
That's a rather perverse approach, but okay, I can see that. The copyright holder is not given the right to do that by copyright law, which only gives them control over (strangely enough) copying. It could be argued that a license prevented the work from being viewed in this fashion, but that doesn't seem to be the case (and such a license would have to be up-front and before the sale as per the UCC).
In other words, I can't sell you a book and then tell you that it can only be read under certain conditions - unless I obtain your agreement to abide by such conditions before the sale.
But if you make the ring yourself, and give it to your friends, then you've broken the law (DMCA)
The DMCA specifically allows reverse-engineering for purposes of interoperability, BTW, which is clearly the case as DeCSS was a necessary first step toward making DVDs viewable under Linux.
So they're not being sued for copyright infringement. They're being sued for distributing software which de-encrypts DVDs. It isn't clear that this even falls under the DMCA, as CSS doesn't protect the copyrighted work from being copied, but rather the profits of the people who produce decoders. The MPAA is still trying to put forth the Big Lie that CSS has something to do with copy protection.
-Doug
-Doug
"Eschew abstinence"
Let me be clear. Giving control over DVD to an oligopoly (for that's what the DVD consortium is) will allow them basically to destroy fair use rights for any information distributed by DVD. We cannot afford to allow free use rights to wither and die, not even for something as trivial as the crap that Hollywood turns out. If we allow it here we set a precedent that will open the door to ending fair use rights everywhere. In my mind, to overcome the evil of allowing CSS to remain closed the consortium must show that an evil of equal or greater magnitude would result from allowing DeCSS to open it up. In particular, I would like to see some proof that DVD sales have dropped measurably since the release of DeCSS. If they have not, then I have to conclude that the piracy that DeCSS has enabled is not significant, certainly not a threat to the industry, and, therefore, not a valid excuse to allow the consortium to maintain its stranglehold on the format.
-r
I don't think DeCSS should die, quite the contrary. However, I don't think that its sole purpose was to aid in the creation of Livid. If it was, why not just make css-auth first?
It just pisses me off that so many uninformed morons are posting here 90% of whom don't even know what DeCSS even does!
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
As I understand it, you can watch that illegally copied DVD with a licensed Windows player which has its own CSS authentication method. Thus, you have successfully pirated a DVD which is perfectly playable, without decrypting anything (until final playback, using DVD Forum approved software).
Then of course, there are the big-time commercial pirates, who make bit for bit copies en mass without ever decrypting the disk, and sell them to consumers who have no trouble playing them in their DVD Forum Approved players.
CSS is not about preventing piracy, it is about preventing playability, and hence open competition. The DVD Forum is interested in maintaining an illegal monopoly, nothing more.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The norwegian Government are Rightwing-Christians.
I agree. A 16 year old will be very vulnerable to a major network's news lawyer team. Think about how reporter's trap people out of context ("she's a bitch.") Jon, remember you have the right not to say a word, don't let them pressure you. Don't say emotional things. Be calm, confident and reasonable. I know this ia a bid much to ask for a teenager, but we don't have a choice do we? I strongly suggest EFF to send lawyers to be on thier side during the interview. Another notion is, We NEED someone to write a REALLY good flyer so we can print them and spread it around and let people know what the case is about. I don't trust ABC. ABC is owned by DISNEY, what do you expect?
From CNET:
A digital rights licensing group seeking to ban the controversial DVD decryption program known as DeCSS has shut down yet another potential distributor: a California state courthouse.
Read the full article here.
My favorite quote: "If they didn't file it under seal, they could be seen to have given up the their (trade secret) rights."
Gosh, I hope so!
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Hmmm... but it's not... that is part of the weakness of CSS. Had the encryption been open source, or public record, then exploits in the code would have been found long ago, but at the same time those weaknesses could have been patched and thereby making the encryption even more secure.
You would need pretty much EVERYTHING for that to work.
Anybody know any congressmen? I think this would be the perfect material for a filibuster up on the hill. Just think the source code could be made public record along side the phone book and other useless filibuster content.
Time flies like an arrow;
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
Agreed, but yet again, that's not what they're being sued for.
The DMCA specifically allows reverse-engineering for purposes of interoperability, BTW, which is clearly the case as DeCSS was a necessary first step toward making DVDs viewable under Linux.
The judge specifically ruled against the defense's claim that the reverse-engineering exception was applicable to DeCSS, on the basis that they weren't trying to be interoperable with another piece of software, they were trying to strip the protection off a copyrighted work (i.e., a chunk of data). Interesting development.
They're being sued for distributing software which de-encrypts DVDs. It isn't clear that this even falls under the DMCA, as CSS doesn't protect the copyrighted work from being copied
Right; it protects them from being viewed by an unauthorized player. However, combined with the other provisions of DVD technology (like writable media with the key block made unwritable), their clear intent is to deter piracy (i.e., the creation and distribution of illegal copies). I think the DMCA applies; clearly the judge thinks so.
but rather the profits of the people who produce decoders
Effectively, this is what it boils down to: you have to pay big bucks and license their technology if you're going to decrypt it legally. Odious, but that's the law as it stands.
My big question is: is the DeCSS source code (stripped of its comments) a "device", or is it "speech"? A lot hangs on that question. What if I took the source code (with comments) and published it in a book? I bet the court would figure it out real quickly... like they did with the Bernstein case.
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
So, doesn't the DMCA have a legal obligation to provide you with de-CSS so that you can make "fair use" of what you've purchased? Seems to me that the DCMA is contravening my right to 'fair use' by not providing me the ability to de-encrypt the contents of my property. They did, after all, claim they were selling me a movie. So why won't they allow me to de-encrypt into a movie in the way I want (e.g., playing inside a window under my current OS, Linux).
If your answer is that DCMA provides licensed DVD players which have (some variation on) the de-CSS code built into them so I may view the movie, then haven't they sold me a piece of property containing (some variation on) de-CSS , and thus don't I have the right to write an interpretation of how what is now in my possesion works? Namely, hasn't the DCMA given me the right to possess a copy of de-CSS by having sold me a DVD player. Why can't I make a description of how something I own works?
Why does the DCMA insist on prohibiting me from writing about what I own?
I haven't signed an NDA with them, have I?
So, why am I prohibited from speaking about how a possession of mine works?
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
But there are certainly people I respect who have broken the law. In fact, given the scope of the law these days, I don't think I know anyone who's not a criminal - from the underage drinkers to the pot smokers to the CD tapers to the unauthorized software copiers to the sex criminals (take a look at some of the state laws), I doubt there's anyone in this country over the age of 18 who hasn't broken at least one federal, state, or local ordinance.
Then, of course, you've got your famous lawbreakers like MLK and Gandhi...there's nothing sacred about the law, or necessarily immoral in breaking it. Those who think otherwise would have made fine fugitive-slave catchers.
No, they are not. They could not, for example, choose to licence their DVDs only for viewing by blond-haired Christians on Tuesday nights when the moon is waning, and expect the state to enforce their claims.Intellectual property is an artificial creation of the state meant to promote progress in the arts and sciences. When it becomes destructive of those ends - when it prevents the spread of ideas rather then encouraging their development - no rights, legal or ethical, apply.
So long as the rest of us were also free to ignore all claims of copyright or restricted licence, fine by me. The GPL is made for a world where copyright and licencing are used to restrict our freedom to use and modify software - remove that impediment, and there's no more need for the GPL.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What does that mean?
As communities bestow right, they also convey responsibilities. In the United States, we have invested enourmous social resources in our schools, information infrastructure, etc. to create a workforce of knowledge workers who create valuable content in many forms that has improved the lives of people in this country and others around the world. Hacker individuals and hacker states undermines these social investments when Jon Johanson or the Peoples Republic of China attack the technological instruments which protect the right of workers to benefit from the content they create we all suffer. What hacker individuals and nations do in the global economy is promote a race to bottom: in values as well as in prices. Standards means not only protecting the labor of knowledge workers and content creators, but ensuring that protecting te environment and the welfare of children has a place in the global economy. Free riders in the global economy undermine these standards. Like polluting plants or shoe-factories filled with children, pirated DVDs undermine the efforts of everyone who plays by the rules. Freedom on the Internet and in community does not rest in the maximization of personal automony, but rather in the creation of communities that can address the shared needs, hopes, and aspirations of groups of individuals. If we care about poverty and inequality, a culture of hacking, a philosophy of negative freedom and excemption from communal responsibility will not get us where we want to go today. Dilly.
...so I can post it on the net :) Seriously, I want to see it, and I might be doing the news when it's on (we tape our 11pm news :) so I have to tape it.
:)
Moderate down if you wish, but this was meant to be OT and slightly humorous. I already have negative karma, so it won't really hurt.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder
FC Closer
If I purchase a clock radio, I can smash it, take it apart, reverse engineer it, paint it blue, what the hell i want!!!! Even re-wire it to transmit
This is not an Amnesty case! Jon Johansen is coming out of this a very rich kid, and I for one have have strong suspicions that this was his plan all along. Who ever heard of a hacker going out and publicly taking credit for something that was surely a joint effort ? Besides, I have more faith in the Norwegian judiciary system, than the american, and NORWAY IS NOT COMMUNIST!! IT NEVER HAS BEEN!! Einar Vollset. p.s. exam stress... p.p.s. Jon: Hvis du leser dette saa lykke til, men ikke kom her og si du klarte det helt alene, det blir for dumt...
I'm not about to go join movie pirating chat rooms because it'd probably make my stomach turn. But I'll give you the benifit of the doubt assume that your statement is valid because it does make sense.
That being said, I'm sure you've heard of LiViD. DeCSS isn't meant to be a DVD player in and of itself. It doesn't offer a UI. LiViD, however, the project based off of DeCSS, was designed with the sole purpose of playing movies. I'd guess there are just as many people who are interested in LiViD as there are pirates abusing this piece of software.
We as a slashdot community do have to admit that pirating with DeCSS is a problem. These people aren't helping the case for the legitimacy of DeCSS. We instead need to think of what cam be done to stop these illegal pirates? Obviously trying to tell them that what they're doing is wrong won't work. They know that already, they're just after money or fame or just satisfaction. Any ideas?
Hey Jack! Lick me.
> Yeah, right. That's why he built DeCSS.exe,
> a Win32 binary with a UI. D'uh.
When DeCSS.exe was written, was it possible to read DVD's under linux? Or was this capability still being developed?
As of now Jon Johansen is not in jail.
He is free to do whatever he wants until after the trial.
Look at the URLs that you've posted. These are AP and Reuters wire copy, not ABC copy.
/.?
That said, I expect that Disney won't try to fool with the ABC News Division. Remember how CBS got skewered for replaing an NBC logo with its own through digital minipulation? I suspect that other outlets would be all over ABC News if they tried to skew the story. I expect that it won't be a perfect story from our point of view, but I expect that it won't be a bomb.
Say, whatever happened to that Mike from ABC guy who used to post on
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
IANAL, but trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive. It has to be described well enough to implement for the patent to be valid, and that pretty much rules secrecy out.
I suppose the specific *keys* used in a patented algorythm could be trade secrets...
EARTH != USA, if your outside USA, DMCA means nothing.
Hi, my name is Delmoi and I work for the MPAA and the DVD Consortium. I do not realize that selling region free DVD players in Switzerland does not mean region free DVD players are available all over the world. I am unaware that in the U.S. region-free players are not sold (any more, at any rate, and never at a consumer price). I am unaware that the cases pending over DVD are taking place in the United States. I am an idiot.
Yeah, but the DVD CCA might then claim it was too tiny to read. So make sure that it's displayed in some huge letters, and have the whole code scroll by slowly. If somebody asks, pretend it's just a screensaver.
Or, you could actually use NT's "marquee" screensaver to pull it of (well, that would be one thing NT would be useful for ;-) )
Say no to software patents.
without css-auth.h, you know that right?
But it dosn't matter, The program was initaly a windows program. Just beacuse I dissagree with the 'comon knowlage' dosn't mean I'm a troll. I think what the MPAA is trying to is a bad thing, and I hope they fail. But you braindead idiots arn't helping anything
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Murder and rape have been legal in the past. Some try to make it "legal" in the present.
If you are black, female, or jewish, look back to your ancestors. About half a century or, perhaps, a bit further. Nazi Germany. Europe. Even America.
After all, the American founding fathers were slave owners. And only white land-owning males were initially allowed to vote...
would you have shot that lady that didn't go to the back of the bus
would you have turned in those jews who refused to wear a star-of-david
would you have cut off the feet of slaves who escaped?
Your generalisation about "KNOWINGLY" breaking the law is borderline psycho, you really need to get in touch with the real world
(BTW - I went 5mph over the speed limit on my way to work this morning, and didn't report that 1.00 tip I made the day before to the IRS - so what, shoot me!) BTW2: copyrights and patents are not a right, at least in the US the constitution makes it extremely clear that they are a short-term incentive to bring innovation and art into the public knowledge base - hardly what seems to be happening with these persicutions
I believe that Jon is going to have to be extremely careful what he says on camera.
Right now I would seem that the media could hinge either way although they are always more inclined to go in the direction of the scandal (which at the moment is in the 'prosecution' favour)
What I would say at the moment (and Jon, if you are reading) take care and think very carefully about what you say before you say it....
BTW Good luck to Jon with becoming a TV celeb!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Gee, I own a radar detector because it tells me when to stop, pull over, and accept my speeding ticket...
Hahahaha!!
Too bad everyone already has the DeCSS code. Not only that, but DVD's were being pirated the before DeCSS even came out. How you ask? It's really quite easy with a DVD player that has analoge outputs anda video capture card. These people don't seem to understand the fact that they already lost;
DVD's and everything else they ever release will always be pirated
Since all we want is to watch their movies on our Linux box, it is imperative that we villanize these scapegoat-hungry purveyors of digital media. Tell your friends, tell your family, tell TIME magazine, tell anyone who will listen! A teenager's life is at stake.
I'm aware of the distinction. I was also writing the words of hypothetical journalist so dumb that he broadcasts the source not knowing that it can be loaded into a computer by hand.
Where can you buy this T-shirt?
at Copyleft, of course
0 1 - just my two bits
- subsolar
Dear Editor,
I work as a computer programmer by profession, and am a website developer and computer enthusiast by hobby. I have become very concerned by recent legal actions by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and the DVD CCA (DVD Copy Control Association). In December 1999 the DVD CCA filed for a preliminary injunction that was heard January 18 against numerous web sites that feature a program called DeCSS to force them to remove the program, source code, and any materials dealing with the CSS encryption algorithm. The judge decided January 21 to grant the DVD CCA the preliminary injunction against 500+ web site operators and online news sources. On January 14, 2000, the MPAA filed suit against three individuals under the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" stating that the only possible use of DeCSS and the DVD decryption information is to pirate DVD disks. The judge heard the case granted a preliminary injunction January 20 against the website owners.
The best analogy I can come up with is if book publishers printed books in such a way that they could only be read under a special light that was only manufactured by certain companies that had promised to keep the book publishers secret of how to make the special light to prevent people from possibly making xeroxes of them. Then say John Doe takes apart one of the special lights that he had bought and discovered that you could read their book by just putting red cellophane over a normal light. John Doe then publishes this discovery in his newsletter and the information gets republished in other magazines, newspapers and newsletters.
The book publishers discover a month later that John Doe has published their secret and the worry that the information could be used to make it possible to xerox whole copies of books (never mind that the book is cheaper to buy than the copy). So they file a lawsuit against John Doe, his newsletter, and against every other newspaper, magazine or newsletter that reprinted John's article or mentioned other publications that had printed John Doe's article. The suit requires all defendants to recall articles dealing with John Doe's discovery or face fines of $2500 for each copy that contained the information.
Is this fair to John Doe and the people that republished John Doe's work? Is it fair to the general public since John Doe's discovery means that people could read the books they purchased without buying expensive special light bulbs, or a third party could make a less expensive version of the light bulb?
This is the situation facing hundreds of individuals and website operators right now, and less directly effects tens of thousands of users and software developers. The primary use of the DVD decryption information is to allow access to and play the video stored on DVD disks that people have purchased on systems they own that are other than Windows or Macintosh. I feel it's unjust and infringes on my right to "fair use" of the DVDs I've purchased to make me use only DVD players that are sanctioned by the Motion Picture Association, and to indicate that I'm irreparably harming the Motion Picture Industry if I provide information on how DVDs work or links to DVD information.
signed
ABC owned by Disney could be a good thing. At least, then nobody can accuse them of delibarately showing too much of Jon's T-shirt... Or the huge A0-size poster on the back wall... Or the writing on one of the monitors...
Say no to software patents.
No, reverse-engineering a Celica, making more, and selling it as a Celica would be a violation of Toyota's trademark, not their copyright. Whole different beast.
Selling it as a generic car wouldn't violate any trademarks or copyrights, but might well violate patents. And you wouldn't be likely to find any buyers....
-Doug
-Doug
"Eschew abstinence"
If you can read the book *without* buying the secret decoder ring I can't stop you.
But look at the DMCA again. If I figure out a way to build my own secret decoder ring, and I make it available to the public, I've broken the law (the DMCA). I've provided to the public a device whose primary purpose is to defeat the technological protection of a copyrighted work.
Everyone should go read the transcript of the New York injunction hearing. I found it very enlightening... and it made me realize just what the DMCA is going to look like in practice. What I consider "fair use", and what the law now allows, are diverging.
--
Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN
On the other hand, don't expect journalists to be honest, impartial witnesses. That's what they are =SUPPOSED= to be, but "supposed to" and "are" are very different. (For a start, "are" is much shorter. :)
Those from the UK might remember Martin Bell, the former war correspondant for the BBC, how he got involved in the Bosnian/Serb conflict by rescuing an orphan from the horrors, and how he later trounced Neil Hamilton, a conservative MP, over parliamentary abuse & gross misconduct. Such people are rare, but they do exist.
We should NOT be hasty and prejudge the ABC crew as dishonest or slaves to the paymaster. Nor should we assume they are saints, out to save the day from the Evil Media Empire. They're human, and like any human, will respond to their own sets of values AT THE TIME. We would be treating them with no more respect than the police treated Jon Johanson if we were to believe otherwise. We aren't in their minds. We don't know what angle the producer wants. We don't know what the journalists know or think they know. We don't know how they'll react when they get there. We don't know ANYTHING. And from that, some posters here can magically deduce, from thin air, exactly what the story'll be like? Give -them- a break!
Now, if the story is factually wrong, demonises innocent people, and/or goes on a witch-hunt, feel free to throw boiling oil. Here, have a lit brand to start the fires. ---*. But, if -we- are to have any integrity, that should apply even if the witch-hunt is against media moguls. If a person is innocent, they're innocent, and it doesn't matter what "side" of the fence they're on.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What if a version of LiViD were available for BeOS, Mac OS, OS/2 (good luck finding video drivers), etc.?
Would the MPAA have to concede that their problem is with LiViD (and the DeCSS code that makes it work)? That would lead to an ugly (and maybe unwinnable) stance that, in spite of a lack of lisencing agreement, the purchaser of a DVD can only run their (legally purchased) DVD on "authorized" software. Or, would the MPAA say that the DVD should only be played on Windows (and whatever othe OS's can run the things), tying their entertainment product (which might be construed as data, but not software) to particular OS's? That would lead to an ugly (and maybe unwinnable) stance that, in spite of a lack of lisencing agreement, the purchaser of a DVD can only run their (legally purchased) DVD on "authorized" operating systems.
The MPAA may have deep pockets, but couldn't this do a major end-run around their whole "piracy" claim?
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
Just because the interview was done today does not mean the story will be on today. They may actually be taking a little time to get their facts straight or they might have decided the stories they did run were of more interest to a general audience.
It could be on a later newscast, or even be sent out on the Daily Electronic Feed to affiliate stations and end up being shown on your local ABC newscast.
Doesn't ABC still do an 11pm version of the news? ( I wouldn't know... if it is, its on opposite The Simpsons)
My metamoderation cancels your moderation
I'm no lawyer...but I don't think the DMCA invalidates Fair Use...and I'm pretty sure the courts will ensure that that is the case, notwithstanding the N.Y. judge's apparent distaste for consumer rights.
New XFMail home page
> I'm sorry, it doesn't follow that people who posess a DVD drive in their computer necessarily
> even have the slightest interest in playing movies.
Virtually every DVD-ROM drive sold comes with a "free" copy of a software DVD player. If you own such a drive, you have the right to watch movies with it. Whether you use the included software player or write you own makes no difference, you have already paid for the MPEG patent rights when you bought the drive.
(although you may not be able to legally use your decoder and the one that came with the drive at the same time)
If you really have to play your DVDs on your silly little Linux box, tell your Linux vendor to license it like real companies do. Hopefully, Yon-boy and the theives who support him will get what they deserve, a good stiff sentence.
But what exactly does the decoder ring feature protect?
Nothing. It doesn't prevent me from making a copy. It doesn't even prevent me from giving those copies away to my friends who have their own decoder rings. All it does is require anyone who wants to read it to either know the native language (essentially impossible for the "real" case of DVDs) or possess a decoder ring.
Had the DVD CCA patented their encryption method, they might have a case - then making a decoder would probably violate the patent. Obtaining a patent requires that they make the process public, though, and as weak as it is, it is understandable why they chose not to.
-Doug
-Doug
"Eschew abstinence"
Copyright isn't relevant unless somebody actually obtained from the DVD CCA the actual software that they use and copied it. Instead, somebody wrote their own code from scratch which did the same thing.
Consider a similar situation from a few years back - a PC operating system called DR-DOS. It did much the same thing as the better known MS-DOS. It did not violate Microsoft's copyright, even though it was compatible with MS-DOS.
As many of you will know, Microsoft defeated it by changing an add-on product called Windows so that it would not run on DR-DOS. They could not have defeated it in court, because it was a perfectly legal product.
-Doug
-Doug
"Eschew abstinence"
The companies who bring you DVDs are entirely within their rights to license them however they wish. If you do not like the license, then DON'T BUY THE GOODS.
They are also required (at least in the US) to make such licenses up front, before money is exchanged. (How can I decide whether I like the license when I have to buy the package just to find out what the terms of the license are?) Shrink-wrap style "licenses" constitute illegal modification of terms of sale after the sale, and aren't worth the plastic they're printed on.
-Doug
-Doug
"Eschew abstinence"
One of the primary things Jon is accused of is the violation of Xing's EULA(End User Licenceing Agreement). It clearly states in the agreeement that by using/installing the program you agree not to reverse engineer. Are EULAs leagal? The law veries from state to state and country to country. What is reveling is if you look at Jon J Hoy's deposition The DVD CCA has come up with direct quotes from the defendents in the CA case that they knowingly and willingly ignored and violated federal law. Reading through this document I find that the plantifs have a superior technical case under current laws. However the moral & constitional questions that this case raises are still very much open to debate. I am willing to bet that the jeudges will find in the favor of the plantifs in both New York and California and then fast track the appeals to the supreme court.
"We will also interview Jon Bing
This could be really good (if his spoken english is tolerable). This guy is the authority in Norway on computers and law. He is also a pretty good writer (science fiction and related genres mostly).
Do a google search on his name, Jon Bing you'll find some reviews (in Norwegian) and some mailing-list archives dealing with computers, copyright and law (in english).
IS there anyway we can join forces with MP3.com to publicize our plight? RIAA is suimng MP3.com for their "beaming" technology which allows the listening of CD's people buy at MP3.com. It's basically the same deal: controlling the method of playback. As the CEO of MP3 states in his open letter: The RIAA decries that its copyrights have been violated. This is the rhetoric of a monopolist. Your organization says that it controls 90% of the off-line distribution of music. But the question is, to whom does the music belong? When a consumer buys a CD, does the industry get to tell the consumer where she can listen to her music? The type of technology that she can use to play the CD? Whether she can use new Internet technologies? What about the fair use rights of the consumer, Hilary? Is it all about forcing consumers to use out-dated technologies to induce yet another CD sale? Can we join forces and get CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, everyone and see the [Microsoft like : ) ]bulliness that is eminating from this big corporations?
I hope that the defense does not try to make any arguments along those lines, because it will totally get blown away.
Sequential media (i.e. tape) is down to around the same cost as DVD movies (a little over $2 per gigabyte) now. It is already practical (in terms of dollars) to do it if you don't mind a somewhat cheezy solution which lacks the advantages of random access. Considering that VHS still isn't dead yet, I think sequential media is good enough for most movie viewing purposes.
And that's just today. The cost per gigabyte keep falling. 5 years ago, 100M Zip/Syquest drives were "cool". $15 for 100M disk = $150 per Gig. Nowdays you can get removable random access storage at about one tenth that price, using an Orb drive. 30 Gig removable disks (enough to hold 6 movies) for $20 apiece is totally conceivable within 5 years. That's just how things go.
Please don't try the impracticality argument. It will just give The Enemy a free strawman victory.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ah, but you see, the case in New York isn't really about fair use. The DMCA doesn't directly affect fair use, but it does restrict the distribution of tools for circumventing copy protection, even though such circumvention is legal under fair use rules. It doesn't change fair use directly, but it certainly makes it easier for copyright holders to prevent us from making fair-use duplicates, and makes all duplication start to look a little shady.
> did you know that many companies have analized Coke
:-) Apparently alcohol enemas are a lot of fun too...
I'll bet that's quite a rush
... for you legal-types out there: if somebody files a patent on the algorithms used in DeCSS, can the DVD-CCA legally suppress publication of the patent? Any comments about why this would/wouldn't work to make trade secret suits useless?
There is a petition against the treatment received by Jon Johansen in Norway. Read it and sign it.
You're deeply wrong. First because not only The United States of America has done something on computers. Second because the main issue is not piracy but monopoly. And is not a problem of freelancers running wild but copyright owners getting nuts. And sincerly you "community-awarness" reminds something we call in Russia "sovki", people with a deep lack of individual awarness and with a full nostalgy of old Soviet times. As you, they consider that a community responsability shall overcome an individual's interests. As you they consider that community may address common goals by subsizing personal autonomy.
The result is well known. The Law of the Crowd. Anyone who tries to rise up will be pushed down by the members of the community. That is what Soviet Union has come into: great ideals and a huge social swamp. For a US patriot it is rather interesting to read you...
If you believe that the innocent have nothing to fear, then you're a fool.
-- Rachael
I have said all along that copyright infringment was the strongest case the DVD CCA has. People keep claiming that the CSS encryption wasn't copyrighted. 30 years ago this *might* have been true. It certainly isn't now. Ever since the US signed on to the International treaty *copyright begins at the moment of creation.* Registration is not neccessary. Registration serves meerly as a proof of possession at a particular point in time, it confers no actual rights. Since the key is a trade secret it was clearly owned IP and thus covered by copyright protection, lack of registration not withstanding. THIS is the issue that's going to push us to the wall. kfg
I have said all along that copyright infringment was the strongest case the DVD CCA has. People keep claiming that the CSS encryption wasn't copyrighted. 30 years ago this *might* have been true. It certainly isn't now.
You misunderstand copyright. Copyright protects instantiation of ideas, not the ideas themselves. A computer program can be copyrighted, but the way it works cannot be copyrighted. CSS is an algorithm and is not copyrightable.
As a method, CSS is eligible for trade secret protection or, if it meets the obviousness and prior art criteria, patent protection. [elide standard rant about PTO policies].
(The specific code CCA hands out is eligible for copyright protection, and so is the code used by Xing in its player. But no one has alleged that DeCSS used this code or that the author had access to it. Copyright, as far as the actual code is concerned, simply doesn't come into the picture.)
You and I have to first see it and then decide. Sometimes these news shows are anti-establishment because it does make for a better story/is the truth.
Just wait and then judge.
(Regarding the 60 minutes interview, don't forget Kevin was a criminal.)
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Reporters and journalists for the popular media can't handle long sentences, nor anything technical, so Jon and the EFF lawyers really need to nail down two or three simple quotable statements otherwise the facts will not survive the editorial process. They need to say:
DVD piracy already existed in the far east long before DeCSS. DeCSS has nothing to do with that.
DeCSS was developed to allow the rightful owners of DVDs to play them on their Linux and BSD systems. Look, here is my Linux computer: it has a DVD drive built in, and here is a DVD that I bought, yet the MPAA deny me the right to play my DVD in my computer. That's wrong, and DeCSS overcomes that wrong.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Yes, the case is about the DVD Consortium telling people they can't watch their DVDs. They are trying to spin it into an IP issue, but that is not the real issue. The issue is what I can or cannot do with something I own. I was sold a movie. I can definitely come up with my own interpretation of the encryption method used to hide the movie on the disc so that I can de-encrypt and play the movie on my computer.
I think that the geek community got this boy in trouble and should get him out. There are already way to geeks in prisons around the world answering to some large man that is affectionately called Bubba.
Here are some possible solutions
- Everyone pitch in $20 and buy the judge of the case a whole mirage of hookers.
- Everyone pitch in $20 and buy the judge.
- Everyone make a pizza delivery order in the judges name (whoops that is if we lose).
- Everyone forget that DeCSS ever happened.
- I heard that Russian nukes can be had.
- Did some one say tacos?
- Take resonsiblity for the hack yourself.
- Free Willy
- Find Neo from The Matrix
- Argue that the boy thought y2k was really going to happen and that his minor hack was never intended for actuall use.
- Find some of his baby gloves and have him try them on in court (hey, it worked for O.J.).
- There any one armed men around willing to take the blame?
- Kevin Mitnik
- Everyone pitch in $20 and buy all of the DVD rights and shit then all can be happy and pirate Barney songs like years past.
Just a few ideas.At least he can type engligh. (in IRC) :)
Better the most americans.
Viewers, welcome to tonights show, and first let me summarise what this case is about:
* Behold legally bought PC: (point to PC, and wave receipt)
* Behold legally bought DVD Player: (point to player, and wave receipt)
* Behold legally bought Operating system (point to (say) redhat box, and wave receipt)
* Behold legally bought DVD: (point to DVD, and wave receipt)
(wave court order) This is an attempt to stop a person playing a legally bought DVD on a legally bought player using a legally bought operating system on a legally bought computer.
The alleged crime? Theft. Apperently some people wish it to be a crime to use your *own* equipment to play your *own* DVD, without "permission". I ask the viewers to consider which party that the "theft" tag is more appropiate to: A person trying to play legally bought DVD on his system, or, the company that's trying to stop people playing that same legal DVD.
This is the self same company that requires players to have built-in incompatibilties between DVD's. There may be those of you that remember getting videos from the USA, and paying money to convert them to european format. It was "one of those things" you said, different standards grew up. How annoyed would you be if when a new standard came out, with a chance to fix all that, those self same problems were deliberitly included. Forget about getting a gift of a DVD from your aunt in the states - to have the "priveledge" of viewing your birthday present, you'd have to pay more money to do so. And this is the company that call playing your own movies "theft"? "Physician, heal thyself."
IMO, this case is not about pirating, as the water muddiers would like you to believe. It's simply about control, money, and power. Some people want to control what you watch, charge you dearly for the priviledge, and take children to court if you don't like it. That sounds more like Long John Silver tatics than a move to "combat piracy".
This case is alleged to be a breech of copyright laws, but the plaintiffs seem to have forgotten the spirit as well as the words of that law. One of the things copyright law allows, no, actually *protects* is "fair use". Is playing a DVD on your own system "fair use"? I leave that up to our viewers to decide.
This is, A.N. Other, signing off.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
lern 2 spll, kae?
It was not theft, because he did not erase the originals. The companies lost nothing, so nothing was stolen. No stealing occurred. None. Nada.
Unfortunately, Norway is not a proper member of the EU, we're only barely a member of the European common market, so we have no say in how the new directive will be worded, but will just have to incorporate the new directive into Norwegian law.
Really? The (likely distorted) view I was given by various U.S., Canadian, and U.K. media was that Norway, by not being a member of the EU, was not bound to conform to EU decisions. That is, you got free trade through EFTA and the EFTA-EU agreement, but did not have to listen to Brussels.
Steven E. Ehrbar
It is clear to everyone that Jon was only building a S/w for his Linux box so he could watch DVD. This S/w was being built on a product that already existed......
.....
.... in communism only the govt. has the right to this, so big $ making exists there also.
Effectively the case filed against Jon is void. Now if Justice is as follows :
"What he did is illegal". The we have a problem. Should the Manufactures be allowed to dictate the functionality of a product so that they along can profit for by selling it
If so then what is the difference between a LAW and a PATENT.
Also if this is illegal then the Casse of the DOJ against Microsoft should also be declared against Microsoft as this is exactly what MS$ was involved in. Bull to anyone who say's that MS$ cornered them into selling WINDOWS boxes with IE only. Everyone wants to make the big $, so instead of begging they make their product most wanted and corner everyone else into buying it.
Is this not what capitalism is all about
SO WHAT IS FREEDOM as defined by our constituiton (i guess every country has its own defeninition).
Now we will have to wait and really see the definition of FREEDOM as defined by the GLOBAL ECONOMIC and BUSINES Comunity.
The stupid fucks don't understand that being spread to hackers on every continent, possibly including antarctica, the stuff is unstoppable. *boggle*
But I have to say this..
:-)
From the C|net article:
"Court papers are generally considered public documents, available to anyone for the asking."
Isn't the LiViD code under the GPL? Doesn't this make it qualify as a public document, as anyone who asks can get the source? I just don't understand the crazy US legal system
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Copyright law protects "fair use". Is playing your own DVD's fair use?
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Yesterday when I browsed thru the norwegian copyright laws, I noticed that one is allowed to do whatever it takes in order to get access to a database that one owns or has licensed.
... Would this work in the US as well?
// Jens M Andreasen
So if the judge can be convinced that a DVD is just a pile of data and therefore the equivalence of a database, Jon should be pretty safe.
Mmm
mvh
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.
send + more == money?
There is a new Mass Media: Us. The internet. Old Mass Media will spin the story as they see fit. But no mass media outlet can ignore the internet - and thereby, no mass media can ignore /. and its contributors.
Here is the difference between old and new: They are trying to make money selling their opinion - We are doing it for free - who has more credibility? We say what we think - They say what they think we want to hear - who has more credibility?
The DVD Consortium owns Delmoi. And he can't spell worth sh*t either.
Well said!
Here is what i think we should do: We should all get together (EFF or something), each pay $50, and sue the ass off the people who require country codes in DVDs. reason: Consumer Fraud. with the arguments you have. We would win. They are a monopoly (or cartel - whatever you may call it) and abuse their power to deliberately make DVDs incompatible. i see a case here.
The counter-argument will be that they will then stop producing DVDs. i don't think so. it is way too late to stop the DVD-train, and they want to make money - which they will, even without the silly "country code". besides: the country code does not prevent one person in china or russia from mass-pirating DVDs. IT ALSO does NOT give ONE average person in russia or china more money so they can BUY western DVDs.
You're quite right to have misgivings about how the programme is going to portray Jon. The media cares only about sensationalism, never about truth (unless it's sensational).
So, let's give them something at least slightly sensational: the fact that thousands of respected people around the globe are up in arms about the action of the MPAA and the consequent unfair treatment of Jon. Signing up to the PETITION will help there immensely, because even the old TV media types are aware of the power of the Internet as a competing medium, and you can bet your life that they'll be looking at the signature count to add a factoid to their piece.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
And also, the many court cases showing that the development/distribution/use of DeCCS is completely legal due to (among other laws/precedents) the Millenium Copyright Act.Do you remember the TV industry trying to sue Sony because they used their videos (Betamax specifically) to record programmes for future viewing.
I hope that someone has taken the time to send the producers links to sites that have good information on DeCSS, and the Linux communitee. Please anyone sending comments REMBER YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY DO IT IN A POSITIVE LIGHT.
I'm sure that's a Good Thing.
Let's get this into perspective.
The guy KNOWINGLY breaks the law, and you guys all worship him?
Sad. Truely sad.
The companies who bring you DVDs are entirely within their rights to license them however they wish.
If you do not like the license, then DON'T BUY THE GOODS.
Simple.
Question - how woul dYOU like it if big companies ignored the GPL because they felt like it?
EXACTLY the same case.
(Watch as this gets marked as flamebait)
As I understand it, you can watch that illegally copied DVD with a licensed Windows player which has its own CSS authentication method.
Ok:
I copy the data the encrypted data off a DVD disk
I transfer the file to a windows computer
I play file with windows software.
If that is what the statement means, then I have not mis-read his post.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That's a very good suggestion, not only because it's a major point (at least in the USA), but also because the idea of "fair use" is something that everyone relates to, and every use of the term will in effect pose a leading question about the unfairness of the MPAA position.
However, we shouldn't pose it as a question. That would require the reporters to think, which is always a bad idea. State it directly: playing your own DVD is fair use, which the MPAA are trying to prevent.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I am not sure I buy this line of argument. Copyright gives the holder the right to dictate who can or cannot distribute copies, but the rights it gives to dictate how a legally acquired copy is used are very limited. In particular you cannot dictate where or how often people use their (legally acquired) copies. Now, do you really think the lawmakers intended for this law to be circumventable by a mere "license agreement"? If so, then why didn't they just write into the law that copyright holders could place whatever restrictions they wanted on use of their material? I mean, when is it not advantageous for a copyright holder to put extra restrictions in the "license agreement"? Add to that the fact that quite a few legal scholars have expressed doubts about the validity of making a license agreement a precondition to a mass market purchase, and I think you have to agree that this argument is on shaky ground at best.
Here's a philosophical question for you, based on a real situation. When I was living in Bloomington, IN and shopping for a new car, I found that I could get a much better deal by going to a dealer in Louisville[1]. In other words, Louisville was a "cheap" area for new cars, while Bloomington was an "expensive" area. Suppose the auto manufacturer wanted to force me to buy from the more expensive dealer by forcing me to sign a "license agreement" when I bought the car in Kentucky saying that I would not operate the car in Indiana. Should the manufacturer be allowed to impose this restriction? If so, from whence do you believe they derive the right to tell me where I can or cannot drive a car that I have legally purchased? If not, then how is this situation different from the DVD situation you have described?
Finally, one more philosophical question. You describe the DVD zone restrictions as "entirely immoral". Even presuming them to be legal, why, then, do you defend them? Time was when people protested laws that were unjust, let alone "entirely immoral". What has happened to us? Have we forgotten that the power of those laws derives from our consent?
-r
[1] Note that I am not referring to the difference in state sales tax. Louisville dealers were just cheaper in general, probably owing to having more competition.
Still don't believe me? Let's make a wager. If illegal copies of DVDs increase 5-fold from what they were pre-DeCSS before some company markets a no zone-restriction DVD player (which could be implemented in either hardware or software), then you win. If vice-versa, then I win. Naturally, if DeCSS is squashed by the courts, then the wager is off. What do you say? Do we have a bet?
-r
For Norwegians and the rest of the world who isn't within range of US/Canada...
... while you still can (Lawsuit pending) ;-)
http://www.icravetv.com, then tune to WKBW 7.
---
ABCNews.com already has a handful of pages on this. It seems they're being pretty even about it. Let's wait until they actually air the segment before making rash judgments. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20000125_1547.h tml http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20000125_2 979.html http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20000122_894.html HerrGlock
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
As you saw, the EFF's offering legal help. If you think that's worth something, how about skipping over to the EFF site and donating $10 or $20 on your credit card?
Hey, I did, and I'm just a weasely little Anonymous Coward!
The computers were taken as evidence, so this tactic is out.
He could still wear the T-shirt with the code on it.
Free Jon's computers !
Hi all, just found this nice little verse... reminded me of our friend Jon.
"You may say I'm a hacker
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will code as one"
- Daniel, BITEntertainment
This was exactly my thought.
I mean, i tend to be a bit paranoid about getting information from anywhere that has a profit motive at all, but that's just my own neurosis.
Still and all, Disney, I mean, they've got a pretty tremendous stake in controlling their own information, and a pretty bed reputation for throwing their weight around.
At the end of the day, I think that this issue is on the one hand really easy for the Information "Owners" to obfuscate, and on the other, one which, even when explained by someone unbiased, might be difficult for the lay-person to understand:
"See, it's not about *stealing*, it's about being able to access and use, legally, information I've purchased legally," says Joey Hacker.
"Umm, but you can still use it to copy dvds, right?," says my dad.
And my dad is partially right, but I doubt that ABC is going to take the time to explain the subtleties here, make him understand that Johansen did a legal thing to make use of info he'd already paid for, that exposed a weakness that *it's still illegal to exploit*.(what J.J. really ought to do is get some of the lawyers from the handgun industry -- DeCSS doesn't rip off the movie industry, people rip off the movie industry!).
Furthermore, I find it hard to imagine that ABC is going to touch on any of the freedom of information type issues, larger things, that are potentially at stake here.
god is just pretend.
Did you see the ratings for that show after she "came out"? They sucked. The show, and for that matter Ellen herself, just isn't funny. The cancellation wasn't a gay issue. Granted, there are instances where hirings, firings, promotions, and other discriminations take place on the basis of sexual orientation. However, you do not need to assume that a gay person being fired/cancelled is a gay issue any more than you need to assume that every person in a racial minority who loses his/her job is BECAUSE of race.
Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here. I don't know how ABC can do a fair story when they are working for disney. This is the problem with the huge media companies. They can control the public opinion.
I think ABC news is usually very fair. But I don't know about this. I think upper level management might be in on this one. This is just too big for their parent company for them to take the other side.
So much for fair news reporting
geach
You're kidding, right? Television news loves the underdog. And they're happy to trash a large corporation, because it's good for ratings. They'll even compromise journalistic integrity to do so - think of Dateline NBC's coverage of those exploding pickup trucks. A David-Goliath conflict like this one is great for ratings - but it requires that you make David look like the good guy.
Any coverage of this that puts a human face on the people involved is good for those of us who consider reverse engineering a legitimate activity. It's far better for us if they interview him, give him a name and face, than if they just stick to referring to him as a nameless "hacker". A real 16-year-old boy can't be anywhere near as menacing on camera as the mainstream media's vague concept of a "hacker" is.
Of course, they can still try to trash him, make him look like a computer criminal, a kindred spirit to Mitnick. But I doubt they will, because Johansen-as-criminal is not likely to sell with the public. He never broke in to anyone's computer, never stole any individual private information (such as credit card numbers). The idea that what he did was wrong will be jarring to most people's intuitive idea of property, which is that you can do whatever the hell you want with the things that are your property.
It's be interesting to see if ABC news is capable of keeping it's journalistic integrity considering the obvious conflict of interest.
Keep in mind that ABC is owned by Disney and Disney has chosen to leverage it's power repeatedly (i.e. the Sitcom "Ellen" eas cancelled because she is gay on the show and Disney won't stand for that). In this case, Disney being one of the plaintiff (indirectly maybe) we'll see what happens.
Needless to say I'd feel *slightly* better if NBC or CBS flew over for the interview...
The case was mentioned in "spørretimen" ("question hour") in the Norwegian parliament.
...,
....this is international work that we are following closely...
....
.. there are elements that we think will limit public access, the directive is currently protecting the IP owners too much, at the expense of the public. Our task is to find a balance. ...
... ...
For the Norwegian speaking, read this. Search for DVD.
Here is a quick translation.
Erik Solheim (SV): This question is for the Minister of Culture.
When a 16 year old on a small farm in Vestfold is capable of breaking the codes that the big international industry has made to protect DVD-records, then I believe that most people would consider that it is the big international industry that has a problem.
I have a very unpleasant feeling that Økokrim has too much time on their hands (don't have enough to do) when they involve themselves in a case like this.
I am ofcourse not asking the minister of culture or the ministry to overrule Økokrim, but I would like for the minister of culture to tell the parliament if she is going to initiate a review of the laws related to Internet and modern entertainment industry, to see if the laws that ensure freedom of speech and democracy are strong enough, and to see if the current application of these laws is sufficient in this context.
Until now, the Internet has been very democratic, but the forces that want to put the Internet under
strong commercial control and traditional power structures are strong, and this has to be avoided.
Minister Åslaug Marie Haga:
...important case
I am unable to comment on this spesific case as it is being investigated by the police at this point.
This is generally an important area, which we are currently looking at. And not only in Norway, but also in the EU-system. Work is going on in the European Union to develop a directive that covers how we are going to handle "opphavsrett" (IP ownership, etc) in the information (digital)
society.
....have to balance the needs of IP ownership on one side, and the public on the other side.
Erik Solheim:
We all acknowledge that IP ownership has to be maintained, and that this is a central problem (large, important area).
But there are three other areas (matters of concern) that are equally important:
The democratic problem - how to make the technology available and usable for the largest
number of people.
It is in the interest of the consumers to avoid unneccesary monopolies in the new markets (areas) of information technology.
It is also a 3rd world problem - to ensure that this technology is made available to countries outside the core markets of the large industry.
These concerns have to be considered very important when we determine how much IP should be protected [in the digital world].
I would like to know when the minister is able to return to the parliament with more information concerning these matters.
Åslaug Marie Haga:
The area of democracy, publicity (public access?) and availability is one of the conflict areas in the EU directive that is presently under development.
I find it natural to address the parliament again concerning these matters when the directive has been hashed out more in the EU system.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Could Jon go into court and submit the source code to DeCSS in his own defense and therefore make it public record? What if some enterprising congressman could make it part of the congressional record, so that it would be publicly available and uncensorable?
Again, IANAL, and I'm especially ignorant of Norwegian law, but I would imagine Jon would have an even stronger legal position than the tobacco guy because HE authored the code himself, independently. It's not like he stole secrets from a company, he came up with this on his own.
I think you yourself left out more than a word - you missed the whole point of the discussion. I agree that the company acted "legally" when it wrote the encryption system, but that has nothing to do with whether Mr. Johansen acted "illegally" by discovering how it works and telling others. Copyright law is not this either/or see-saw where the question whether it's illegal to read and distribute something turns on the question whether or not it was "illegal" to write it in the first place. Under your logically fallacious formulation, every time some college student quoted from a published work in a term paper, the jury would be marched in to decide whether to ban the quote in the paper, or ban the book it came from. But that's not how it works. If I am accused of illegally copying someone else's work, say a music recording or novel or piece of code, I don't have to prove the damn thing was contraband in the first place in order to defend myself. Instead, I need only prove either (1) that what I created was from my original mind and not a "copy" at all, or (2) that my copying was for "fair use" that did not infringe the right of the creator of the original work. #2 is key here. What Mr. Johansen did is no different from what millions of people do routinely and LEGALLY without a care: making a tape recording from legally purchased CDs so that the music can be played on their car stereo. Say I buy a CD - I have in essence bought a license from the holder(s) of rights in the music to listen to the music on it as much as I want. Now say I have a CD player in my house, but not my car, where I only have a tape deck. I make a tape recording, and presto, now the music I legally bought the right to hear can be heard on a different type of machine. That is exactly what the DeCSS does. Illegal? Unethical? "Cracking?" "Theft?" Harmful and dangerous to the music industry? OF COURSE NOT. Good lord. Mr. Johansen's code, like my tape recorder in my house in relation to music, makes it possible for him (and others) to exercise his legally purchased right to watch a DVD movie using a different machine. It is no more illegal than my tape recorder, nor should it be. These are both clearly fair uses under the law.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Yes, we here in scandinavia (I'm from Sweden) are really, really religious and right-wing fanatics :-)
It'll be good to see David Johansen finally get the attention he deserves. He and his band were an inspiration to many, proving once and for all that the guy who is willing to drink his whiskey straight from the bottle *and* wear a dress to work gets laid more than all the rest put together.
**>>BELCH
If it wasn't theft, what was it? He broke into other people's systems and downloaded software. Whether or not he did it for profit or for glory, or whatever is irrelevant. He stole from the company by making a copy.
The determination of the size of the damages was (in my opinion) skewed, but he did steal something. Even if it was only theft of computer time.
I don't, however, like the fact that it took so long for him to make it through the legal system. I don't like it when a government can lock someone up without trial for 5 years.
Jason Pollockwith this whole deal is the fact that there are now multiple instances of legal precedant where the law/a judge/someone official has made the following mental leap - by creating/owning/whatever a non-schlep-liked "thing", that can allow someone unscrupulous to do something illegal, you yourself are violating the law. this actually seems right up the ally of "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will own guns", right? or even outlawing radar detectors. you almost can NOT be honest in your defense of this stuff. i own a radar detector for one reason - so i can speed and not get a ticket. however - if i was in court defending their use there aint NO WAY i would say that. i'd totally subscribe to "i own a radar detector to remind me to check my speed when it goes off".
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
Well, I think your using the word 'owned' wrong. You have an owner of a copywrite, and you have an owner of the Media. The two uses of the word are non related.
This becomes a problem, though when things loose there physical form, but the distinction is clear. The MPAA still owns the Copywrite, but they do not own the data.
When you buy a car, you are also buying a database detailing what makes up the car. Cars are designed on computers now right? So a car is merely a physical representation of that device. Now, I don't think you would find many people who would say that You can't go an hack apart your Toyota Celica to find out what makes it work (in fact, you can probably order the technical manual that will tell you just that). But you couldn't go out and start building more and selling them as genuine Celicas, that would be a violation of Toyotas copyright.
You own the car; Toyota owns the 'idea' of the Car. You own the DVD data; The MPAA owns the copyright on the movie.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
There is a fairly balanced story on CNN.com at this URL:a rge/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/ptech/01/25/dvd.ch
"No prints can come from fingers / If machines become our hands." -- Jack Johnson
Also, it's hard to imagine that any of the nations of the world (other than the USA) would construe the region codes as anything other than an obstruction to free trade, unfavorable to themselves. I'm surprised that more haven't followed New Zealand's lead in banning them.
As others have pointed out, this is probably what the MPAA really fears: loss of legislative protection for their price-fixing technology.
We should emphasise this aspect of the case in the international media (i.e., internet sites), so that the citizens and legislators of the world will realize that their nations are being econo-fucked by a mercantilist system posturing as an IP protection scheme.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This new directive is bad news for all us Europeans. Unfortunately, Norway is not a proper member of the EU, we're only barely a member of the European common market, so we have no say in how the new directive will be worded, but will just have to incorporate the new directive into Norwegian law.
All you other Europeans, on the other side, you have a right to vote and can protest to your local politicians, your local members of the European Parliament, your government, etc to change this new directive before it comes into effect!!!
I think this is the text of the new directive. You might try to do your own searches.
I'd like to finish my little call for a united european action aganst this new directive with a quote in legalise about the new directive. (Think web-proxies, caches and buffers in routers. Think about copyright costs for ISPs.)
3. The draft definition includes direct and indirect reproduction, whether permanent or temporary, in any manner or form. The first element in the proposal relates to the terms "direct" and indirect" reproduction. Such a formulation can be found both in Article 7 of the Rental Right Directive and in Article 10 of the Rome Convention. This term means reproducing a work or other protected matter directly onto the same or a different medium. The term "indirect" covers reproductions done via an intermediate stage, for example, the recording of a broadcast which itself has been made on the basis of a phonogram. The provision is also intended to make clear that the right is not affected by the distance between the place where an original work is situated and the place where a copy of it is made. The second element (temporary/permanent) is intended to clarify the fact that in the network environment very different types of reproduction might occur which all constitute acts of reproductions within the meaning of this provision. The result of a reproduction may be a tangible permanent copy, like a book, but it may just as well be a non-visible temporary copy of the work in the working memory of a computer. Both temporary and permanent copies have to be covered by the definition of an act of reproduction, since even temporary reproduction may cause serious economic prejudice to the rightholder.
We'll have to wait and see what ABC has to say (can they get around the Disney affiliation or not). But I think the MPAA may have just shot themselves in the foot.
Outside of the US, local media (espcially public media) takes a dim view of American media interests. (Seeing as those interests usually involve drowning out the locals.) Given what I heard last night about Jon's case (on CBC radio) Canadian Public Broadcasting, at least thinks the MPAA has been heavy handed. Of course, they said that Jon was 14, and that DeCSS was "probably illegal", but they did mention that it was for viewing DVDs on Linux, and not originally intended for piracy. As soon as they start to make an issue about how unecomonical DVD piracy actually is the MPAA will probably lose the public's good opinion.
Looking at the quotes from the Norwegian Parliament, I think the whole issue of "Big American Business Persecuting Local Talent" is starting to hit home. I mean just look at Jon's picture (I don't have a link handy). He's a clean cut kid, hardly the image the public has of a "Dangerous Hacker". He's from "a farm in Vestfold". Now, if he had purple hair and piercings, sadly, the public would hate him. But the public isn't likely to hate a smart, apparently articulate, teenager who hasn't actually caused anyone any harm. They may still think what he did should be outlawed (wrongly in my opinion), but when Big Business tries to put someone who could be your kid in prison - I'd tend to react unfavorably.