Slashdot Mirror
Crackdowns, Fools and the MPAA
werdna was one of many to submit a Motley Fool column which takes the MPAA to task, neatly summarizing the events to date. But the best DVD story so far has to be this Linux Journal article, Crackers and Crackdowns. The author has some personal experience with crackdowns, and offers tips on what you can do to fight them.
Somehow we grovelled through several thousand years without movies prior to their invention around 100 years ago. I'm sure we can do without them again.
But it may not be necessary. Here's how to really hurt the MPAA in the long run: Work on tools and technologies that decrease the upfront investment required to make and distribute a movie. Cheaper and better cameras and lighting equipment. Digital storage and projection technologies that make it less expensive to create and distribute 'prints' of a film to theaters. When the advantages that money can buy diminish, the power of large companies that can muster enormous financial resources diminishes, as well. I don't see large movie production companies being rendered as thoroughly irrelevant as large record companies probably will. But certainly some of the wind will be taken from their sails.
Has anyone here actually *read* the transcript from the New York hearing? The judge wasn't nearly as biased as he's being portrayed; a couple of really good points got made. The EFF lawyers actually infuriated the judge by not addressing the complaints of the suit directly.
The injunction was regarding the actual Windows program called "DeCSS", NOT the css-auth code, the algorithm whitepaper or any LiVid code. The judge himself says outright that "programming notes" are not being acted against in any way, and that he has no evidence that non-Windows clients even exist.
The secondary issue of controlled playback is being handled as exactly that - a secondary issue. The real issue here is the right to reverse engineer, and whether or not specific permission from the copyright owner is required to do so. *That* was the point that Ms. Gross and the EFF failed to address, and what pissed the judge off.
The most important point, though, is that this isn't a case of copyright infringement. It's a case of DMCA infringement under the "reverse engineering" and "copy protection circumvention" sections. This is a very important point.
Finally, the "giving them a runaway train" comment never in fact happened. The actual quote was:
"I do bear in mind the defendants' interest in speed here and in avoiding a prolonged duration for the preliminary injunction, and so, within the limits of my schedule, which is pretty clear at the moment, you can have a trial pretty near whenever you want.
So when do you want your trial? I think I'm free to start Tuesday."
Page 79, lines 23-25, and page 80, 1-4.
Read the transcript yourself at www.2600.com.
The email mirror at findcss@usa.net is still operational. Email a request for code, a mirror list or the whitepaper detailing how the algorithm is done. All emails will be deleted from the mailbox after the packages have been sent.
Too many people confuse fascism, oligopoly, mercantilism and fraud with actual fair trade. (A truly free market requires informed consumers, not passive drones; but we cannot force everyone to be equally intelligent, nor expect everyone to be equally desirous to live freely.)
Groups can never have more rights than the individuals which comprise them -- the individual is the smallest minority. The privileges of a private guild conflict with the inalienable rights of individuals? Too bad; the latter trumps the former.
A lot of so-called "capitalists" have swallowed the CCA/MPAA lies hook, line and sinker. They think it's about piracy. It's not. What IS it about? A lot of things which can't be easily condensed, as the last few weeks of discussion here have shown. Meanwhile, lots of hackers see "capitalism" as the problem, when it's fascism, mercantilism, oligopoly and the like that they're really upset about -- they just don't realize it.
You already know the State claims you don't even own yourself? Now private guilds are ready to violate your rights just as thoroughly, and abuse the legal power of the State by using sovereign national's police forces as their enforcement arm. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "property" as
When you lawfully purchase a DVD, do you really own it? Do you only have the right to expose your eyeballs to its images and ears to its sounds? How far may ownership be abrogated -- and by what process is this happening?In the good old days, you were lucky: If you opened the case, all you did was void the warranty. Now, you can be declared a criminal. This harkens back to medieval days, when everyone had "special knowledge" and people were routinely exiled from the guild or killed by its members for revealing the secrets of smithing, healing, or even reading and writing.
But lawful behavior (fair use, reverse engineering and the like) can never be made unlawful, by any amount of legislation. It can only be declared illegal.
Of course it's easy to see how capitalism gets its bad name, given the retarded poster children that get all the press. Steve Gilliard once said, "The reason that some of us are more worried about government power than corporate power is that Coca Cola rarely strafes the villages of Pepsi drinkers." Unfortunately, a lot of groups out there seem to be eagerly competing with governments everywhere to see who can violate the rights of the individual more efficiently and thoroughly. Disney and other companies get together to extend copyrights, while every two-bit jackass who throws together a CGI script slaps a patent on it and sues anyone running a web-based store...
The future, where your only freedom is the freedom to make money (but not too much); where tools like compilers and debuggers are restricted to an elite, privileged and licensed class; where it doesn't matter whether it's government or a corporation giving you the shaft, because they're fascistically intertwined so thoroughly you can't tell one from the other.
"Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory."
Have a nice day, citizen-unit.
-dj
the problem with an information superhighway is that everyone wants to be a traffic cop
Fuck Slashdot
Because The Motley Fool is investor-oriented they have brought out some important points which we have been ignoring on /.
DVDCCA has defrauded investors and content-providers by telling them they have a copy-proof technology (when we now know they had a third-rate encryption system). They got people to give them money on false pretenses. They got people to put content out in their format by lying to them.
They also got people to buy DVD players on the premise that the players would be able to play all DVDs. Now, they are threatening to release a new encryption system which would make all current players obsolete. Even if they didn't do this, the companies which have agreed to release material on the format are being harmed by the court actions because those actions restrict the market for their material.
The Motley Fool brings out the real issues by showing that it is economic reasons, not technical reasons, that prevent illegal copying. The article even shows why that will continue to be true in the future.
All of this suggests better strategies for fighting these idiots. Boycotts are all well and good, but only a small percentage of the moviegoing public is going to understand these issues. (Taking back your DVD players and demanding a refund or boycotting the player-makers may prove more useful since geeks are much more likely to be the target market for these kinds of tech.)
How about a class-action lawsuit against the DVDCCA on behalf of everyone who legally owns a DVD but is being prevented from using it legally?
How about suing on behalf of investors who were lied to and whose interests are being undermined by the phony DVDCCA lawsuits? If DVD goes the way of DIVX because these guys are overplaying their hand, some people are gonna lose some big-time money.
How about a lawsuit on behalf of content-providers who were defrauded and then had their markets curtailed by DVDCCA legal actions?
I know most slashdotters are morally opposed to things done by lawyers. I share a certain amount of disdain for some parts of the legal profession. But this may be a time when the courts are the right venue.
Certainly, plenty of lawyers ought to be willing to try it on contingency. It's an easy case. The tech issues are straightforward, and the economic issues (as demonstrated by The Motley Fool) are pretty simple.
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire.
Any lawyers out there interested? If you've got the credentials, we can probably get you an unusually long list of named plaintiffs for a contingency-based class action. (Remember, this could be a very high-profile case and function as pretty good PR.)
BTW, what about a volunteer lawyer in Norway for Jon Lech? I don't know what the laws there are like for malicious prosecution, but there could be some big money there. Maybe a legal fund isn't even needed.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
It's MUCH easier to overwhelm a small, splintered group, than to confront a large, united group. This is, in fact, a lot of how the DVD group is trying to destroy US! By attacking piecemeal, it's hoping to be able to overcome an opponent that is simply too great for it, when united.
There is only one way to defeat this - splinter them, first. Focus, as you say, on MGM, or one of the others. Seperate it out. Castigate it. Throw on all the mud you can. Get the spotlight on it. All the negative press that can be mustered. Chances are, it'll fold - the risk to it's shareholders and it's profits is too great.
With one company under interrogation, the other companies are likely to distance themselves. They aren't equipt to handle united struggles against adversity. They're RIVALS, for the most part. It's not in their blood to try and rescue a cornered comrade.
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)
BZZT! Wrong! RAH was writing about how a society of people who are held responsible for their actions from birth would be a good thing! While I can see how Mr. Landley might get the impression he has if he had only seen the movie, if he had indeed read the book, he would have no such misconceptions.
OK, go ahead and moderate me down as offtopic...
www.eFax.com are spammers
the well written motley fool article
will probably be the first wall street,
and the stockholders of the big media
companies will ever hear of this. This is
a very good thing. a few years ago these
guys were ignored by TPTB, but they are read
by financial people now. they get quoted
in financial circles the way slashdot gets
quoted (and is unoformly read by) the tech
journalists.
Long range this may be the turning point between
where the Great Unwashed thinks cracking css
is crimal and where they think it's obvious that
MPAA is in the wrong.
I, for one, was very glad to see this.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
We've been screaming this until we're blue in the face, but the media hasn't been listening too much. I consider The Motley Fool to be a lot more mainstream (read: folks who wear suits) than /., so this could mean that our message is finally getting out. It's also good to see they're looking at respectable sources from our sector (Eric Raymond instead of the flaming ACs) for a rundown of the situation. I have a bunch of friends who aren't exactly /. types, and it took a lot of explaining to convince them that DeCSS was legal. I think they'd give it more weight coming from Dan Rather, so it would be good if the message can keep expanding into the rest of the population. The DVDCCA is out to cover their asses, but if they realize that they'll piss off millions of customers by furthering these ridiculous lawsuits, they might back down, saving us all a lot of trouble, and legal bills.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
That's about it. Remember to act like reasonable adults, and be ready to give reasons to anyone who asks you "Why are you boycotting?" We've got the moral high ground here; let's act like it. It's like Linux advocacy: if you maintain your cool and act reasonable, many more people will listen to you than if you shout and scream.
Briefing's over, ladies and gentlemen. You know what to do. Now get out there and execute Plan Boycott! They'll never know what hit 'em!
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Let me repeat all this: The deCSS program is neither designed nor necessary for copying DVD movies, which isn't economically feasible anyway and not technically possible with the partially prewritten blank disks being sold today. In any case, a tool to copy DVDs would be legal for personal use.
If the matter can be summarized to this two sentence paragraph, why in the world is this even an issue??
I have to read The Motley Fool more often, and so should lawyers, judges and execs.. Poor Jon Johannsen.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I posted this recently, but I'd like to post it again, because the Linux Journal article is related to my point here. I think that, no matter whether linux users choose to move that way, we will be pushed towards stronger radicalism, in our beliefs, our tactics to retain our right to free speech/code, etc.
The good thing is that, unlike most activists and radicals, we're in a *very* strong position, because the stock market, and the economy in general has bet the farm on the industry we work in...
Imagine what were to happen if, in protest of the recent attacks against the linux community, we were to coordinate a general strike?
Even more powerful is another possibility, what if great portions of the industry took large paycuts in order to work on free software?
We may not always be at the forefront of our economy, IT jobs may move wholesale to India where wages are much lower. If you don't think it'll happen, I'm sure I could introduce you to a GM worker in Flint, MI who thought the same thing about his job in the 70's. But for the time being, we are a very strong force in the economy, and because of that we have a responsibility to protect freedom.
In any case, here's my post from a while ago. Think about it, and remember that whether you consider yourself a right-Libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, or an Individualist Anarcho-Syndicalist, you and your peers (the linux community) will have your freedoms attacked, and it will radicalize you. Think about it...
--
Which means you should prepare to face a barrage of court orders, attacks on individual freedom, attempts to bottleneck the Internet, and arrests of prominent Open Source gurus.
It's quite possible. I'm not saying it's definite, but the possibility exists. Keep in mind that Food Not Bombs gives away free vegetarian food to anybody who's hungry. Their reason? Because "food grows on trees."
Despite this wonderful example of altruism, they've had numerous encounters with the police, and are a constant target of brutality and harrassment. Strange, no?
Maybe not. Food Not Bombs are very progressive and radical (as opposed to being liberal, and just whining about poverty), and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Becuase of this, they also use the opportunity to hand out flyers, organize protests, meet other social activists, etc. Most probably, this is what scares the government and corporations into repressing them.
Probably open source's saving grace is the fact that most of it's members are not equating the sharing of code with political ideologies. Regardless, it will be targetted by the corporations it threatens, but in the first wave of repression, you'll see very IP-oriented attacks (such as the actions by RIAA), lobbying to forbid the use of open source software in government institutions, along with future attempts to use the antiquated patent and intellectual property laws against the open source community. As this begins happening, you will start seeing open source advocates becoming increasingly more radical in order to challenge the powers that be.
More protests, more electronic civil disobedience, etc. Once people start using the freedom of open source as a point of advocacy towards a more free and equitable society is when you will see the real repression by the elites. Not because giving away code (or food) is inherently dangerous to them, but because it represents a flaw in their dominance that they will go to great lengths to conceal. What is that flaw? That we don't need them!
One of the popular Linux slogans has been "Welcome to the Revolution." So welcome - and welcome to the front lines. Prepare to duck!
Make no mistake, Open Source is a revolution, but what most "Linux zealots" don't realize is that the people in control never welcome a revolution of any kind.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc
society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found!
society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression',
society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer
society.cc: function.
Proceed with compilation? Y/n
Michael Chisari
The crux of the argument against the MPA suits is that they do not have the right to control playback media and platforms, especially since the legal restriction of usable operating system is tantamount to requiring payments to Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of watching the DVD one already paid for (and such a similar statement was made by Judge Kaplan in the New York case when he said that playbility on a Linux machine was not necessarily a factor because "there are alternative bases that [he] already [has] outlined" -- meaning Judge Kaplan thinks Windows boxes are good enough for all of us [http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-tra ns.txt]).
One comment in the Linux Journal article that I found interesting was the comment about the new, encrypted CD's. They said:
I'm not the tiniest bit convinced that the manufacturers consider this to be a problem at all. The consumer electronics industry depends on constantly shoveling new technology down our throats, which is where we got lousy ideas like quadrophonic sound, 8-track tapes, minidisks, and the advanced photo system. They positively hate things like old-fashioned LP's that remain technically adequate for decades. I am sure that they'd like nothing better than to force everyone to buy new players to play their new encryped CD's. The truly sad part is that all they have to do is A) stop putting out the most popular music in the old format and B) provide some thin shell of an argument for the technical superiority of the new system and gullible people will start buying.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Of course it's easy to see how capitalism gets its bad name, given the retarded poster children that get all the press
It seems to me that capitalism gets all the good press round here and that Socialism is attacked and vilified at every turn - look at the original article, it lumps socialism with fascism, what sort of goonery is that?
A complaint that capitalism is not getting a fair crack of the whip in the media is untrue - I'm sick of hearing free-market rhetoric that challenges to shake off the reigns of governmental control (my government!) and to let business blindly run the world with it's invisible hand. No thanks! The results of that laissez-faire mentality were exactly what stimulated Engels (a capitalist himself) to investigate how a better society could be run.
I really sympathize and empathize with the Libertarian emphasis on freedom and the dignity and sovereignty of the individual but I don't believe that these can be achieved through business. They can only be acheived through ensuring that monopoly and aggregation of resources unto indviduals is prevented by the common, agreed will of the people.
PROPERTY IS THEFT!
as Proudhon declared and I heartily agree with him. A world which denies that we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a world that endorses the mad policies of the free-market that allow the accumulation and sequestration of capital unto individuals by cheating and exploiting their fellow humans.
To return to the topic of this article, I fully support the call to take action against the motion picture companies. Is this best achieved through a boycott?
I think as the writer himself points out that it is impossible to boycott effectively. It is far more effective to purchase ethical alternatives - rather than buy nasty Starbucks coffee, purchase from Bridgehead by mail, bring your own coffee to work in a flask etc. W.r.t. the movies...hmm..pretty centralized industry there - are we strong enough to go to no movies? Or are there independent alternatives that we can support instead.?
The future, where your only freedom is the freedom to make money
Well, isn't that what the free-market is? No? Then you must be talking about introducing some sort of regulations - sounds like government to me.
What bothers me about the DeCSS mess isn't that the geeks are mobilizing...it's that the geeks aren't learning. Let me clarify that statement...
The geeks have been cracked down on repeatedly the last 20 years with example cases. In just about every case, the govt and plaintiff were able to make their point (you are bad, you must be punished, we've taken your toys and your freedom; see how we punish). Whether the geek was exhonerated in the end didn't make nearly as much impact on the non-geeks as the crackdown did.
So the geeks now are better at mobilizing when the crackdown comes. So what! The point has already been made. It is already sticking in the backs of the non-geeks heads- geeks now have a two front battle of proving they aren't pirates to the court, and fixing their already dubious reputations with their own communities.
What the geeks need to start doing is heading off the problems when they see the problem at the outset - think of it as a good security policy for your community network (rather than your LAN/WAN). You see a nibble, you do a check, and if you find a hole, you plug it in as many places as possible.
The geeks, after the first filing, should have pre-emptively filed in EVERY federal jurisdiction. This would have headed off most of the mess going on now, and forced the MPAA off balance (disrupting their entired choreagraphed passion play to the media). What really gets me is this- nobody suspected that the first LAME attempt at a suit filed in California was just to test the waters, and to come up with more defendants for a case that HAD to be in the MPAA's works prior to the Copy Authoity's original filing.
So while everybody here is congratulating themselves on what the suits might think about how righteous we geeks may be, what is anyone doing to ensure we don't get a repeat? Volunteering to rebuild your local Congressperson's network/website to get their ear on tech issues? Finding new resources to work with on future problems that WILL come up? Even following current bills and measures being deliberated at the local level?
We may be laughing at how stupid the lawyers may look because they are technologically inept in regards to these proceedings, but how do you think the geeks look for leaving themselves open to this kind of stupid-ass suit in the first place? Do something, but don't just sit there.
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
It should probably read "because Indians have less money". That is the whole point of region locks. If you are the sole supplier of some sort of product (a movie, a music album, a book, a car, etc), you can charge what you want for it.
.au equivalent of RIAA) started a big advertising campaign in opposition. They claimed that if parallel import was allowed, then they would have less money to support local artists (personally, I believe there will always be a market for local music -- the same way there will always be supporters for local sports teams. By taking a small cut off the profits from some bit name artists, they could easily support a local music industry). This campaign did not really educate people about the issues, to the extent that a lot of musicians didn't know what ARIA was on about.
You may decide to sell the product for one price in Australia or America, and at a lower price in a poorer country since you figure more people will buy it there if it is cheaper, so you will make more money. You can do this because no one else can sell the product to the customers.
Now you have a problem if someone decides to import quantities of the product from the poorer country and starts undercutting you in the richer country. To prevent this sort of thing, the Government has tarrifs and other measures which help support your `right' to sell the product for different prices in different places, or even withold it from certain countries.
Of course, occasionally governments do stupid things like introducing laws to allow parallel imports. A while back they did this in Australia for CDs, and ARIA (the
To get around these government `mistakes', a lot of new forms of media have region locks. This way, even if parallel imports are allowed, you can keep your profits high since the stuff your competitors import doesn't work!
This is what it looks like from the corporation's side. If you are a consumer, region locks allow big companies to screw you for as much money as possible without having to worry about competition.
This is one of the reasons a lot of consumer watchdog associations don't particularly like the idea of region locks.
Hi, I do not live in the USA nor I know much about US laws.
Here is something I have been wondering about. We are constantly arguing that DeCSS is NOT used to COPY DVDs but its just an aid to VIEWING DVDs.
However, how will you show this to a judge in USA?
Isn't it possible for defendants to bring a DVD Recorder in court, copy a DVD bit-to-bit *LIVE*, play the copy and show the judge that DeCSS is not about COPYING since it has not been used in the process?
Then, if the ruling says that DeCSS is illegal, I believe, DVD recorders should be outlawed as well.
Can something like above be done in a US court?
Dont flame me or something if the above idea is just stupid.
Sincerely,
Simpleguy
Not that there's anything wrong with boycotting something because it makes you feel good, or with one-handed exercises in general. But do they actually effect social change? My guess is: never.
I'd like to hear suggestions for how to combat this kind of nonsense that sound a little more effective than sticking out your tongue at the corporations and saying ``yeah well I'm taking my toys and going home!''
I disagree. A good boycott should pick just one studio, say MGM. Reasons:
OK gang, so we're talking boycots and we're talking about how MPAA et al are bastards. Great - even if all of us just boycot, I'm sure we're not going to impact that much (unless we buy lots of DVD's on a daily basis :)
/. are fairly typical in one respect. We'll bitch, we'll moan, we'll talk it up - but when it comes to the crunch, we never quite get around to doing something about it.
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
:)
So, why not take the time & effort to email/contact them? Tell them that you're boycotting, that you're telling your friends and that you're supporting the DeCSS/LiViD folks.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a statement that could be wrong: I'd say most of us on
Don't you just hate that? This is why governments/corporations take notice if 1% of a target demographic respond. For every person who does do something, there are at least 10 who want to but don't get around to it. Thus that 1% represents about 10% and that's enough to count as a vocal majority.
This is also why highly organised groups/cults/sects/religious organisations/etc get the ear of politics/corporates. They manage to influence/order a lot of their consituents to do something, thus inflating the numbers and throwing out the "Total Number x 10 = % population who are annoyed/concerned"
Anyhow, to help you folks tell these people what you think, here's some handy info:
MPAA
Their web site has no "contact us" that I could find. How convenient, no?
If you want to get physical, try their snail mail address:
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
USA
Or phone on: (818) 995-6600
Otherwise, email to WareNet (the guys who made their site) and ask why no online "Contact Us" was supplied.
Disney
The investor relations feedback form at http://disney.go.com/mail/investorinfo/ would be a good place to hassle them.
Sony
Go to http://www.world.sony.com/Feedback/in dex.html, select the part of the world you're in and tell them you're so annoyed, you're not going to buy any more PlayStation stuff and you've kicked your AIBO out in the snow
MGM
Fill in the form at http://www.mgm.com/corporate/email/in dex.html and let them know.
Paramount
Send an email to info@pde.paramount.com and ask for information about their logic behind this as you're sure it's not what's being said in public
Fox
Send an email to askfox@foxinc.com and ask them why they're doing this. You might also want to mention the fact that their Simpson's splash page is seriously lame
Universal
Go to http://www.mca.com/fp/contact_form.html and fill in the form.
Warner
No "contact us" in an obvious location, so I gave up - there must be one somewhere here but it's very well hidden
Now, much in all as I'd love to say "Wild, uncontrolled bursts - we do more damage that way" - the reality is that a reasoned, controlled message stating that you disagree with their actions and have commenced boycotting their products will have much more impact than a flame or mail bombing.
Do it right and we get respect. Do it in classic "Script Kiddy, 31337 Wanker Fuckwit Mode" and we're doomed
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
Excerpts from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
full text available here.
Section 1201
1201(a)(2)(B) is what I assume will be the MPA[A]'s reponse to the defense that DeCSS was written to bridge the gap between DVD and Linux -- they'll make an effort to show that the possible illegal uses of DeCSS, regardless of its intended use, mean that Johansen should go to jail. that's kind of like trying to outlaw FTP servers because software piracy can happen there. the following section will probably be DeCSS's defense; however, this probably would not save anyone from the Xing EULA. however, i think that violation of the EULA is a purely civil matter, not a criminal one, and wouldn't involve any jail time -- I've been wrong before though, does anyone else have any knowledge? does the EULA itself say?
enmity.
Have you ever read 1984?
I read the book just last week; witch may be why it's so prevalent in my thoughts right now. In the past, it always bothered me when someone would cite a fiction book as a reason not to do something (or even worse a movie). But, I'm going to do precisely that right now. Mostly because I feel a little bit like Winston Smith right now, knowing something to be true when increasingly the world around me, and the people in it believes the opposite.
No, I don't like what the DVDCCA is doing; I think that it is morally wrong, both in the suppression of free speech, and the fact that they would knowingly squelch all of our liberties for a few profit points. But it isn't the ever-present Man that's perpetuating the doublethink; it's us.
There was a technical flaw in the fool.com article
"Let me repeat all this: The DeCSS program is neither designed nor necessary for copying DVD movies, which isn't economically feasible anyway and not technically possible with the partially prewritten blank disks being sold today. In any case, a tool to copy DVDs would be legal for personal use."
Or rather, two compound technical flaws.
In reality, DeCSS can do nothing but copy DVD movies. I doubt that many of you have even run the program. If you had you would know that it is a windows program (though, I'm not sure if DeCSS itself had been ported to Linux, of if just css-auth was derived from it by LiViD). DeCSS, or at least they copy I have is a Windows GUI application with only two buttons. One says "Select Folder" and the other says, "Transfer". I've posted my own mirror, if anyone doesn't believe me, they can see for themselves.
The other flaw is a bit deeper, and it comes from a failed technical understanding of what comprises the Movie on a DVD disk. Frequently, and this article as well, I've seen it stated that you can simply copy the data right off the disk with a standard file system read. This is incorrect, you can copy the encrypted data, but there is a fundamental difference between encrypted data and 'regular' data. The DVD movie is an element of pure data. The images and are nothing more then information. When you copy the contents of a DVD with a standard file system read, that is not what you get. Instead what you get is white noise. Worthless garbage. The encrypted data and they key are two halves of a whole, without ether, you do not have a movie.
What DeCSS does is remove the pure data from the physical medium, and into the pure ether of information. What DeCSS does, is copy the MOVIE. In its pure form, unprotected from copying, it can be viewed in Linux, or anywhere with an mpeg2 decompresser. It can also be shrunk down to VCD size and passed around the Internet.
Yes, it is possible to digitize the movie, and get the data that way, but it would require much more hardware then what would be required with DeCSS. Simply dumping the video to the hard drive uncompressed would require a 150 gig hard drive for a two-hour movie. (This hard drive, of course, would be able record at 21.3 megs/second-sustained as well...). Alternatively one could purchase a MPEG encoder card for a few hundred dollars. Along with an external DVD player to plug into
Yes, you of course wouldn't be able to duplicate the DVD image onto a burned DVD, because of the zeroed out pits, but after you merge the two halves to form the movie, it wouldn't be necessary.
Right now a 40gig UDMA hard drive sells for about $350. That's about $40 per movie. And that's bound to get cheaper as the year progresses. Using a data Tape would only cost $10 per movie, and if you really wanted to span 7 CD's the cost would be about $5 per movie. This is hardly what I would call economically unfeasible, and certainly less so then not using DeCSS to copy movies.
I've posted this information to slashdot before, and in several cases, I was ether called a moron or a Troll. I find it amazing that people could be so blind, so steeped in doublethink as to not only believe that DeCSS is can only be used to play movies in Linux, but to outright attack anything that doesn't conform to whatever it is they choose to believe
I've also been told that I shouldn't say what I'm saying, and that by saying it I am weakening our case. But, I cannot deny what I know to be true, and I cannot stand to see these untruths touted as reality.
At least Winston Smith got laid...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In the US, if you're under legal age, you can't be bound by a contract. If the same is true in Norway, even if the no-reverse-engineering license is legal, Johansen could have just voided his end of the deal without penalty.
Even if Norwegian law doesn't save him, the plaintiffs in California could argue as follows:
Does the EFF have some email address for "silly legal ideas from amateurs that might prove useful"?--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com