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.
I 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
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?
Who owns ABC?
Disney owns ABC. If I'm not misaken they're a member of the DVD consortium. Doesn't mean they won't do an unbiased interview -- MSNBC has had some pretty fair reporting on the Microsoft antitrust case.
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."
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.
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
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)
There is a petition against the treatment received by Jon Johansen in Norway. Read it and sign it.
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
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
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!
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.