Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Head Valenti on DVD "Hackers"
Anonymous Coward writes "Commentary from Jack Valenti, MPAA President and chief executive, in today's L.A. Times, with his side of the DeCSS issue: 'The intent of these Web sites is clear. Break the encryption. Steal the product. The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets.' Yikes." Yep. We've heard Jack's words of wisdom before, when the first MPAA lawsuits were filed. This article is definitely required reading for anyone interested in this battle.
Take them to court on the basis that they are violating your rights to have total access to teh disk, and the right to make backups for your DVD. It seems to be one of the key points in your defense, and if it's so illegal, why not take the MPAA to court on it?
In Australia, maybe.
[...]
I've participated in several boycotts, particularly related to the attempts to end apartheid and the Nestle boycott, and it takes things that this crowd just doesn't have.
Well, my experience with anti-apartheid protestors was that a lot of them (if not most) were quite unwilling to participate in any boycott that didn't fit into a PC worldview. I frequently offered to stop drinking Coke (or whatever we were supposed to boycott) if they would stop buying Soviet-made products (like most vodka) on the grounds that the USSR was at least as bad as South Africa. I was accused of (at best) trying to steal attention from their "legitimate" cause with my "frivolous" cause, or (at worst) helping to bring the world closer to nuclear war by antagonizing the Soviets, or of being a fascist.
You can probably guess I wasn't too enthuiastic about their boycotts after a while...
Since most of them only went after corporations, and countries mislabeled "capitalist," it should be easy to spin an anti-DVD boycott to fit their particular mindset.
Not quite - some smaller DVD manufacturers (Manga Video, for example) do not use encryption on their DVDs. (For example, "Ghost in the Shell" is stored 100% unencrypted on the DVD disc.) Players do not require it - but they do check that they are not DVD-RAMs, as far as I know (probably by checking the preburned disc sectors that mark them as DVD-RAM discs). However, most of the large movie houses do encrypt all, or nearly all, of the VOBs on the DVD discs, under the mistaken impression that the CSS encryption will protect the movies from piracy.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
[ramble]
I think Valenti's statement smacks of a point of view which holds individuals, in general, as sources of power, in the financial sense (References to The Matrix go here), who cumulatively create a power base for those that place themselves in between a resource and the individuals that consume it. It is the goal of subscribers of this point of view to maximize the power gained from each unit of resource used by an individual This is done by artificially (a)controlling the resource or access to the resource, (b) controlling the price of the resource, and (c) ensuring that the subscriber's environment is free from interferences of (a) and (b). For lack of better terms, I'll call this line of thought "Divine Right of the Market Maker"(DRMM).
The "strange ideology" as referred to, rejects the above notion. Without blind faith in service providers, subscribers to this point of view seek to minimize the effects DRMM followers place upon them, through (1) self-production, (2) self-provision, and (3) abstinence. I don't have a name for this line of thought, although "Educated" comes to mind.
Legislation, quasi-legislation, propaganda and deceit are required to bring a market under a DRMM-er's thumb. Once controlled, DRMM-ers seek to remove options (1) and/or (2), leaving individuals with provision through the DRMM-ers, or abstinence. Basically, DRMM-ers seek to make self-reliance impossible or illegal wherever they can, and where they can't, they attempt to fool the resource consumers into thinking their choices are limited.
[/ramble]
T-h-e-i-r ? Looks OK to me, in context.
This was most likely published as an op-ed piece in the editorial pages. You can write a letter to the editor of your paper and get it published even if it's a bunch of garbage. So, it follows that Mr. Valenti can get a letter to the editor published even though it's garbage. The Washington Post published a letter from Microsoft VP Steve Ballmer (who was responding to an opinion column, I believe) under "Letters to the Editor". This is perfectly fine. If this was published as a news article, there is a problem. However, it's not even written like a news article, so I seriously doubt it.
The encryption and licensing scheme does help to prevent piracy: it allows them to prevent anyone from selling a $200 bit-for-bit writer. Piracy will almost certainly be more common when such a piece of hardware is available. Not that this justifies the MPAA's tactics in responding to the crack.
The encryption doesn't give them complete and total control over the technology. Only a judge's decision to punish someone who has reverse engineered the encryption scheme will do that.
You do NOT have the right to watch it any way you like. When you buy a DVD, you are buying two things. The physical medium, and a license to use that physical medium. But the owners of the content on the physical medium can put whatever crazy clauses they want in that license.
If I understand optical technology right, the encryption does nothing to prevent piracy, that is making bit for bit copies. Anyone could sell a writer that read 0 and wrote 0, read 1 and wrote 1. You don't have to unencrypt it to copy it bit for bit. I can make as many copies of a PGP-encrypted message as I want, because 1s are always 1s and 0s are always 0s. But to actually make something useful out of them, I need to decrypt it.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
how many "warez" sites have you seen with captured VHS tapes on them, I havent seen any
I know a guy who gets copies of all the latest new releases. He downloads ripped MPEGs of them and dumps them onto VHS. If you haven't seen them, I guess it's because you haven't looked.
DVD's would be even MORE difficult to capture and distribute just because of the sheer SIZE That's like someone in the days of ENIAC saying that computers will never be in the home due to the sheer SIZE. Size is only a problem until bandwidth, compression, and physical media catch up. Just look at the popularity of MP3: Ten years ago, no one would have even thought of digitizing a record and sending it over the phone lines. The speed, compression, and disk space wasn't even close.
I have a legal right to make an archival backup of ANY media I purchase. Copy protection is wrong, it always hurts the consumer.
Nobody is stopping you from making an exact copy of the media you purchase. What they are stopping you from doing is converting that media into another form which is more easily pirated. Copy protection is a misleading name, so perhaps you are confused. In most cases it doesn't prevent you from copying the media (anything that can be read can be copied), it just attempts to prevent you from making unlawful copies of the media (for instance copies for friends). What harms the consumer is the difficulty in making it impossible to make unlawful copies without impairing the customer's ability to use the software and make lawful copies. But it is, after all, easier to criticize an existing system than think one up yourself, so go right ahead.
People seem to be arguing that it doesn't make sense to pirate a DVD. If you look at pirate ASF/AVI/MOV/DAT/MPEG movies circulating on the internet, you'll probably notice that most are "camcorder" rips of movies in theatres. There are also DVD rips. Yes, believe it or not, some people rip DVDs into 300MB-1GB files and transfer them over the internet. Why would someone do this? Burning a CD-ROM (or two) of a ripped DVD is likely going to look and sound better than a ripped VHS copy of the same movie (encoded to the same format with the same level of compression, etc) AND there is extra footage included in many DVD releases that is not available in VHS releases. Total cost to illegally acquire a "permanent" copy of a movie : $4 for the two CD-Rs and bandwidth costs which may just be fixed regardless of usage. This is cheaper than buying an official VHS copy of a movie, and MUCH cheaper than purchasing a DVD copy of a "new release" movie. Some people don't care about pristine quality in the end product either - Betamax and Laserdisc couldn't topple VHS. Not everyone has a home theatre or a top notch PC soundcard and/or speakers which they can use to realize the full potential of DVD. So they'll gladly make due with lower quality DVD rips that they'll burn to CD-ROM. (illegally, since they did not purchase a copy of the movie on videocassette, DVD, etc) So that takes care of the storage issue. What about bandwidth? DSL and Cable modem access is abundant in many places. Here, the local ADSL provider has a quota of 5 GB of transfer per month before charging overage, but users of the service may transfer files between themselves without using up any quota. So what happens? Some users pool together their "external" quota and each download a movie, then transfer those movies between themselves at no additional bandwidth charge. Cheap and easy.
Ripping the DVD to a low-quality format and distributing it is still piracy!
However, one does not need to DeCSS to do this...
You're mistaken.
I own a number of non-encrypted DVDs and they work perfectly in all my players (both salon DVD player and computer ones).
For those interessed in unemcrypted DVDs, they are most of the old Jackie Chan movies, the Godzilla (not the american movie, only the 5 old ones) and a promotional dvd from InsideDVD (which happens to include a multi-angle track, yummy).
OG.
The point is not whether it will work, but whether they sell it to you under the assumption that it will work. You may be able to get Microsoft Office to run on Linux, but since Linux support is not guaranteed by Microsoft, you have no right to complain if it doesn't run. Similarly, if your DVD player said "supports Windows 98", you can't accuse the company of lying to you when it won't work under Linux. You can certainly complain, but it's not fraud.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
How many videos do you have at home that you havent paid for? Two,three,maby more? Well what the hell is the diffence? What is one more late breaking and deserves more respect? Well honestly I don't see a difference between VHS theft and DVD although bouth are wrong why is there more contriversy around DVD's? What makes these round little moveis so special? I can go to any flee market and find some video that hasent yet made it to PaperVeiw none the less the retal store(yet this is ok because its VHS)Its not digital so we can just over look it! Well all this hype about the pimply faced teenagers providing a fleemarket on the internet is just stupid. We can't control every thing yes i belive it's not correct but what can we do about it? I give any one permisson to reply to this ONLY if they havent downloaded/pirated a DVD video.
Maveric
"How many posts contain a copy of DeCSS? I found at least 5."
That's irrelevent, they are not slashdot any more than I am.
"But you didn't call me a criminal. You can call me stupid, dishonest, whatnot, but not a criminal. If you did, I could sue. "
That's not true either. Look at the OJ Simpson case. Regardless of what most people think happened when he, err, someone killed his wife and her lov, err, friend, he was found to be not guilty. Which means he is not a criminal. I don't see him sueing 3/4 of the people in the US that said to everyone else "He did it, mmkay."
It (slander and libel) only takes effect if monetary loss is provable, not a maybe kinda sorta coulda happened.
The internet is a strange place where nothing like that is provable.
Still, my original point still stands, the Judicial system is not to be used as a tool to further an agenda, it should always be used defensively. Whic
Dan
4. Create DVD's of original material to which you hold the copyright
You are totally right, I forgot this one (and it is a very important one (my guess is that they probably are breaking the antitrust laws by controlling the access to the market)).
I know that currently this is not a very likely scenario, but when DVDRs and media become more common and less expensive it may become an issue.
Let's say I want to put my holliday on DVD's, this is completely legal isn't it? But how do I do?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
is a Virtual Kick In The Nuts http://nuts.webdice.net
Boycott Hollywood!
'nuff said.
--
--
A PC without windows is like chocolate cake with no mustard.
It's all his office's propaganda, of course.
The article doesn't deal with actual technical issues, doesn't explain how poor planning, short-sightedness, and plain arrogance created the situation in the first place, and serves only to try to convince Joe Consumer that "gee, the MPAA is only protecting my rights."
My rights to their monopoly. Bull.
Cam
- Cam MacLeod
He fails to mention that these exact same keys are needed to even be able to play the video.
is Jesus your personal savior? click here
Should I laugh because he is so stuppid....
Or should I cry because American judges are so stuppid that they are believing it....
I hope the Dutch judges have any brains.......
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
So I guess all copying of keys should be done by a single private institution, thereby keeping any keys from being copied without the consent of the lockmakers regardless of who owns that which is contained within.
"I disagree profoundly what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it." -Voltaire
Right, there are legal uses of copying. I wasn't clear enough, then: it's the illegal copying I'm concerned about, though secondarily I also believe that discussing legal copying just muddies the waters.
No, we must insist on it I think, and for three reasons:
1. if we don't we may manage to keep our right to view DVD's but our right to copy them (or other copyighted material for that matter) for personal use will be a little bit more diluted because we haven't fought for it. Some more dilutions and they will manage to make it illegal.
2. Even if CSS was protecting against copying (which isn't the case, you just copy encrypted data) the fact is that it would protect against any copying, included fair use, so even in the case were Free Software Players for any platform you can think of there probably would be a case against the MPAA (or maybe just the DVD-CCA) because they are violating their customers rights to copy.
3. Even if players were legally available for any OS you can think of there would be at one time or another (when DVD-R's prices fall) where people would have done a software to copy DVD's, not to illegally copy it (thought some would have done so, as always there are some black sheep) but to make backup copies (which are completely legal). Today they are more likely to buy a new copy given that the price between a DVD-R and a new DVD makes it stupid to pay more to have less (the cool box), but when DVD-R's prices fall we may want to exerce our right to copy.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Don't place the blame on the industry or Sony. IIRC, the blame goes to the United States Congress which mandated such copy protection at the urging of, say it with me, the RIAA. The equipment manufacturers were actually quite upset about it because not only would they have to spend some money to redesign the equipment, but their entry into the market would be delayed (thus pushing back the timetable for recouping their development costs). Congress dickered and quibbled about it for quite some time -- so much time, in fact, that many industry observers predicted that DAT would never be introduced in the American market.
The real reason the MPAA is fighting this so
much is to enforce their hegemony over the DVD
player manufacturers. If the code to play
(decode) DVD's were available to anyone (such
as Linux users, who may very well own a DVD
player and DVD's already) then they would
lose a revenue stream from DVD manufacturers
for the right to build players.
It is little to do with actual pirating. CD's
are pirated too but only because the audio
industry charges so much per disc relative to
the perceived value of a movie vs. a record
album.
Ask nicely. It's just not justifiable to shut people out of the workings of things they own (and argue what you like about the DVD, people definitely own their players...)
Preventing unauthorized copying of intellectual property through technological means is like preventing speeding by shipping cars with a tamperproof engine that tops out at 25.
Or out-of-the-box region-free players for the consumer market. Now they're even insisting on hardware regions for DVD-ROMs, according to the same FAQ. (I recall making this point before in response to an earlier article...including that they're not really trying to make money on the player license per se.)
Including merchandise, quality packaging, nicely printed liner notes in addition to the extras on the DVD, in addition to leveraging the fact that people will know some of their money will go into producing further works.
This has worked pretty well for distributors of anime VHS tapes, despite high prices, huge black and grey markets which have some legitimate reason for existence, and a notoriously persnickety fan base. Of course, their audience also includes a lot of fanatics who spend insane amounts of money, and their are picture quality issues with copied VHS (even off laser or DVD masters) which don't apply to digital copies, but people should try approaches like this instead of just dismissing them.
All well and good except that you don't need DeCSS (or the equivalent knowledge) for this. DVD players will play unencrypted DVDs.
The MPAA is still in the wrong, but ignorance and misinformation serves nobody but a con man (like Valenti) so we really should be clear on these points.
Then you can make videos without CSS. CSS is claimed to be an 'optional' scheme, although due to the 900-lb Hollywood gorilla the only people who can effectively exercise the option not to have it and still get any real use out of the format are studios. Lucky for you, you get to play that role. Let me know if you do produce some unencrypted DVDs, I'll buy some to show my support of the non-CSS DVD format. You can reach me at 'james Embryo netcsi Pebble "comma"-minus-a-term-for-mother'.
Sorry for the non-linked address and the need for some clever decoding by a human, but I'd rather only get promotions from people making non-CSS DVDs and not everyone with some spam tools to sell and some spam tools to sell them with :)
The price here has less to do with the actual exchange rate of currency and the varying taxes and levees (read: more taxes) that the government enforces. Manufacturers also have to pay more shipping costs to ship their goods here.
We're also so technology crazy that we seem to be willing to pay these inflated prices! 100 pounds is about $200 here - yuo'd be lucky to pick up a good CD player changer (jukebox style) for your home amp for that much, let alone "new fangled" DVD.
email me or not.
Maybe you weren't listening the first time it was mentioned, but it doesn't work with a $300 DVD burner. The difference between the end results is like the difference between a CD-R and a printed CD. Only with CSS, so a DVD burned with a $300 burner won't have the keys.
This source package does two things.
/path/to/dvd/device
/path/to/dvd/device
/path/to/dvd/device /mount/path/video_ts/vts_01_1.vob
/path/to/dvd/device
/dvd/video_ts/vts_01_[1-9].vob|css-cat -v1P -|mpeg2player -vob -f -
.key in the sources to .key1/.key2
a) It contains code to perform the css authentication protocol,
allowing locked sectors on the DVD disc to be accessed.
This also allows us to read the disc key and title keys.
b) It contains an implementation of the css decryption algorithm,
so that we can watch DVD's.
Also included are some test programs to wrarp around the above code
blocks so that something usefule can be performed.
The programs included are tstdvd, reset, dvdinfo and css-cat.
tstdvd can be used to unlock the disc (saving the disk key) and
to extract the title keys. usage is:
reset
This will reset all AGIDs that the drive has given out. This
can sometimes be useful when something goes wrong.
tstdvd
This will authenticate the device and save the disk key into
a file in the current directory called "disk-key".
(mount the dvd somewhere)
tstdvd
This will reauthenticate and then read the title key for
the chosen vob file, saving it in a file in the current
directoy called "title-key".
Do the above title key extraction for each title on the disc,
renaming the title-key files to title1-key, title2-key etc.
dvdinfo
Displays some info from the physical and copyright pages. This
includes the region limits on the disc, its encryption status,
and the authentication status.
css-cat [-t title-no] [-m mpeg-audio-no ] [-vPpm12345678] vob_file
This will decrypt the selected vob file and send to stdout. It
needs the files "disk-key" and "titleX-key" to be in the current
directory. The default title-no is one, so by default it will look
for "title1-key".
The options select what will be sent to stdout. By default, nothing
will. The m option is not yet coded, the v option selects video, the
numbers select the appropriate AC3 stream.
It will normally extract the selected stream from the enclosing
Program stream, thus giving an elemental stream. However if the K option
(or more than one stream) is selected then the data will be left inside
the PES packets, allowing a subsequent demux program to determine the
data type.
I tend to use:
cat
NOTE: To use the above you need to have a kernel which incorporates the
DVD ioctls. This can either be the original patch by Andrew Veliath
or Jens Axboe's patches. If using Andrews versio of the patches,
you'll have to change the use of
(the places are quite easy to find).
Jens site is www.kernel.dk
Changes:
Patches have been applied to use the OpenBSD headers, so maybe it'll
work.
There a some more keys included. It should now be able to decrypt
all titles currently on the market. I think the last two keys can
be removed. Someone with 'The Matrix' please test and get back to
me.
Mpeg audio streams should now be extractable when filtering, this is
untested.
It now copes with System headers in the Pack layer (those 0x000001bb
start codes).
The command line options have changed between the last version and
this one - pay attention.
/*
* A noddy program which tries to reset all AGID's on the DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include
#include
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include
#include
static int fd;
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
char *device = DVD;
int i;
if (ac > 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
for (i = 0; i 4; i++) {
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof(ai));
ai.type = DVD_INVALIDATE_AGID;
ai.lsa.agid = i;
ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai);
}
return 0;
}
"Another thing: The MPAA and accessories have recieved a lot of criticism over their attempt to prevent piracy using proprietary encryption."
As far as I can tell their encryption system is in no sense proprietary, as you go on to note it isn't patented so it's free for anyone to use, they just though that they could keep it secret that's all (okay, so they're pretty stupid, feel sorry for them).
Yeah, where's Eric Raymond right now? Why haven't we heard anything from him? Isn't he the self-proclaimed voice of the Open Source community? Why hasn't he even posted anything here recently?
--Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
Can you pirate the disc easily without DeCSS? no, well, then I guess CSS does protect against piracy. Not all piracy, but against most piracy. Sure, their encryptions sucked, but they didn't put it in there for fun. The lock on your door may suck, but that doesn't mean it's legal to break in just because you didn' buy a steal bomb proof door.
/*
/* Host data receive (host changes state) */
/* Host data send */
/* Returning data, let LU change state */
/* Returning data, let LU change state */
/* Init sequence, request AGID */
* tstdvd.c
*
* Example program showing usage of DVD CSS ioctls
*
* Copyright (C) 1999 Andrew T. Veliath
* See http://www.rpi.edu/~veliaa/linux-dvd for more info.
*/
/*
* If supplied with one parameter it gets the disk key and
* saves it to a file. If supplied with a second parameter
* (a LBA) then it gets the title key for the supplied LBA.
*
* When getting the disk key, only the first 10 bytes of it
* are printed. The whole key is written to the file.
*/
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include "css-auth.h"
byte Challenge[10];
struct block Key1;
struct block Key2;
struct block KeyCheck;
byte DiscKey[10];
int varient = -1;
void print_challenge(const byte *chal)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i type) {
case DVD_LU_SEND_AGID:
printf("AGID %d\n", ai->lsa.agid);
ai->type = DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE;
break;
case DVD_LU_SEND_KEY1:
printf("LU sent key1: "); print_key(ai->lsk.key); printf("\n");
if (!authenticate_drive(ai->lsk.key)) {
ai->type = DVD_AUTH_FAILURE;
return -EINVAL;
}
ai->type = DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE;
break;
case DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE:
for (i = 0; i hsc.chal[9-i];
printf("LU sent challenge: "); print_challenge(Challenge); printf("\n");
CryptKey2(varient, Challenge, &Key2);
ai->type = DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2;
break;
case DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE:
for (i = 0; i hsc.chal[9-i] = Challenge[i];
printf("Host sending challenge: "); print_challenge(Challenge); printf("\n");
break;
case DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2:
for (i = 0; i hsk.key[4-i] = Key2.b[i];
printf("Host sending key 2: "); print_key(Key2.b); printf("\n");
break;
default:
printf("Got invalid state %d\n", ai->type);
return -EINVAL;
}
return 0;
}
int authenticate(int fd, int title, int lba)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
dvd_struct dvds;
int i, rv, tries, agid;
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof (ai));
memset(&dvds, 0, sizeof (dvds));
GetASF(fd);
for (tries = 1, rv = -1; rv == -1 && tries [title_path]\n");
exit (1);
}
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd 0) {
perror(device);
exit(1);
}
if (ac == 3) {
lba = path_to_lba(av[2]);
title = 1;
}
authenticate(fd, title, lba);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
Point #1: this is exactly what the MPAA does not want the courts to realize. Point #2:this really doesn't mean much, kinda ticks me off when people use this as a reason for the CSS people to just let the issue go, deCSS will be around for a long time and in the next few years blank DVD's will drop down to CD-R levels, so lets not kid ourselves ok? Point #3: EXACTLY! they are afraid of DeCSS because they won't beable to control the DVD player market anymore, in fact they my flat out lose it all together. Point #4: you are correct this is just a reaction from the public in response to being ignored by DVD makers. Point #5: the DeCSS people most likely violated Xing's license agreement, so XING should be the one sueing people here, and the CSS people should be going after Xing for screwing up big time. Saying Xing screwed up so its ok to break the license agreement is essentaily the same as saying its ok to hack a gov site because they didn't have enough security.
When I purchase a book or a magazine, it is mine. I can shread it up into little pieces or read it. The work is actually from someone else. But the book is mine. I paid for the ability to posess the book.
I purchase a DVD and it is still not mine? Let me try and understand Mad Jacks way of thinking. The work is from someone else. But the DVD and the work on the disk is not mine? Should libraries start renting books and give subsidies back to the authors?
Another thought, why is Mad Jack equating encryption to copywrite protection? To follow that to a conclusion, if it is not encrypted, it is not copywritten. I think Mad Jack needs to fall off of the Tech bandwagon for a day or so and read a book......That doesn't have encryption. I wonder if he copywrites his encrypted email?
He has a large supply of DAT tapes, bandwidth, or hdd space.. Otherwise he will use his macrovision disabled DVD player to copy onto a $2 VHS tape.
From what people in threads above are saying, it seems that the only thing this does is allow the playback of dvd's in regions that they are not licensed for. I would not be surprised to see this come up as the major problem that the mpaa has with decss.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The EFF definitely needs to get active in the press battle. Perhaps OpenDVD.org as well. I'm more than willing to spend time developing press kits, handouts, fliers, and camera-ready advertisements, etc. for this effort, though I imagine people may want me spending my time coding. I do have the tools (PageMaker) and the experience, however.
Also, I came up with a good title for a rebuttal:
"If You Can't Watch What You've Purchased, You've Been Ripped Off"
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
Seriously, what motivation does the mpaa have to try to stop people from linking to files that can decrypt css or even linking to sites that have those files. I mean, any company now can come along and make a dvd player(either software or set top) and they don't have to pay the mpaa anything because they don't have patents on css. And if they are in the least bit intelligent, they will not be able to keep these sources away from us, because we are the all powerful open source communitiy. Nothing can get in our way! We will continue developing programs that can "circumvent copyright protection" and will continue "disseminating" these programs over the internet. Even if they file an injunction against every web site that supports decss and other css decryption information, we cannot be silenced. Our supreme power comes from our decentralized network of information, and they simply cannot destroy any information that we discover. They have no hope. They are already beginning to develop css-2, another encryption scheme, which will be used on audio dvds and probably on any future dvds. that is their best bet, since they cannot defeat the open source community. Seriously, has anyone ever waged a war against us and won? Nope. Anyway, have a nice day.
"Sometimes Truth... is stranger that Fiction." - Bad Religion
It's inevitable, but they're too proud to admit defeat. No matter what they do, DeCSS is not going to just disapear.
I love it when big money-grubbing corporations lost out like that. Welcome to the future guys! The Internet is the great equalizer.
Of course RIAA = MPAA. *duh* :)
I'm not asking politely. I paid for a DVD player. I paid for a DVD movie. They won't play on my Linux box because I can no longer download the free software to use them for fear of being the target of a lawsuit. If the MPAA speaks for the manufacturers of these products then they were sold to me fradulently. I am not claiming that they are defective. I am claiming that they were sold to me with the intention that I would not be allowed to use them except under conditions that were specifically not specified. The packaging should say: "You are not allowed to use this product unless you have paid your Microsoft Tax." That condition was omitted. Therefore, it is not part of the contract.
I think it is time that we demand that the MPAA provide us with an operating system that lives up to both their conditions and ours. For them, it must be a recent version of Windows. For us, it must never crash, must be open source, must come with a rich set of programming tools, must be free (as in beer and speech), must have a community already maintaining and supporting it. Or they can let us use our DVDs under Linux.
Hahahahahahhahaah So for having a differing opinion that has pro MPAA settiments in it, Im automatically a MPAA member? Wow. You must be one of those crackers who cracked CSS because you have an anti-MPAA settiment. How stupid can you get? I was mearly expressing my opinion on this article and the things it deals with. I know you must live a hole, but there are actually people who think different than you. Novel thought eh? Someone thinking different than you?
To me it seems more like mass producing the keys to a segregated store to allow anyone to buy things there. What some people will say to draw attention away from there own mistakes...sheesh!
---
What exactly are the commercial possiblilities of Ovine Aviation?
JV's words are only surprising from the vantage of those who thought there was honesty left in Hollywood. We should not be so naive. What he's said is completely in line with the role he's supposed to play, which has nothing at all to do with the merits of their case or the truth of the matter. What matters to the MPAA et al is a business objective, and any means to that end is apparently OK -- including lying under oath (misrepresenting playback technology as a means to duplicate content) and bullying foreign governments into search/seizure acts using baseless claims of potential criminal acts.
JV is saying the appropriate thing at the appropriate time to help those means. Nevermind that his words are a disgustingly twisted abrogation of the truth, that he's deliberately confusing the issue of DVD encryption hacking for playback versus pirating (which has no need for decryption). Valenti and his MPAA cohorts know that they are lying. It's just another Hollywood role. The role he's playing is one solely calculated to confuse the issue, redefine the common understanding of the decryption tools away from the real technolegal situation, and deceive people into believing a thriving business is somehow the victim of the open source movement. It's a classic well-funded, well-executed snowjob. One can only hope that there's enough brainpower and willpower in the judicial system to survive it.
Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
Of course, he is denying us our rights by disallowing private backup copies -- including copies to another media type -- which the courts have said is legal.
I agree, and forgive me for asking if this has already been adressed somewhere else, but do the laws governing legal back-up copies state that the individual is must be able to make *exact* copies? I'm just curious, since if the answer is no then doesn't decrypting DVDs for the purpose of archival back-up become an invalid argument (though the play-back argument is still quite valid)? Dave
The credit seems to be the MPAA guy, but there are all kinds of quotations that aren't attributed to anyone. makes it look like they were taken off of sites distributing deCSS, but they arent credited. On the other hand it may be written by someone from the LA times in which case its incredibly onesided and misleading and in general just a case of bad reporting. Or it my just be an editorial, but its sure hard to tell from the page.
That is the EFF's goal, providing a more powerful voice than a few people posting on slashdot, but we have to do something to stop this. We need an organization with the power and moeny to DO something to stop the MPAA.
Ah... the web has a long memory, even though I do not. He's been consistent, at least (or at most).
...
...
...
a ily/OldArchives/199703/1997031405.html
. html
...
a lenti.html
...
c h-valenti0.htm
...
...
[4/2/98] http://www.calinst.org/bulletins/bull 512i.htm
he suggested that the U.S. should expand copyrights to match the extended copyrights of European nations; continue its fight against worldwide piracy; and, expand intellectual property right protection by enacting the WIPO copyright treaties agreed to in Geneva in 1996 (see article below). He also stressed the necessity of other countries enacting and enforcing similar penalties for copyright infringements
[04/03/1997]http://www.star.so.swt.edu/97/04/ 03/040397n3.html
As a war pilot, scholar, White House special assistant, movie industry leader and author, Valenti has worn many hats throughout his career
He received his bachelor's degree in business from the University of Houston in 1946 and his M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1948. In 1952 Valenti co-founded Weekley and Valenti, the advertising/political consulting agency, which was in charge of coordinating the media during President John Kennedy's and Vice President Lyndon Johnson's visit to Texas in 1963
Valenti was in the motorcade in Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated, and within one hour of the shooting was hired as the special assistant to newly inaugurated President Johnson
[Mar. 14, 1997]http://www.mediacentral.com/Magazines/MediaD
"Sen. Lieberman believes if you say 'V, S and L,' nirvana has arrived," Valenti said, adding that such a content rating "winds up lumping The Three Stooges in the same category as "Natural Born Killers." However, Valenti on Feb. 27 told a Senate committee hearing that he was not opposed to some changes in the system. "I've changed my mind," he said at the hearing. "I'm not inflexible."
[1992-1997(?)]http://iitf.doc.gov/members/valenti
Apparently, he was on "The President's Information Infrastructure Task Force." This site has not been updated in a while: "Use Netscape 1.1, IE 2.0, or CyberDog in 8 bit color" Cyberdog? Heh.
[1-28-98]http://www.twsu.edu/~news/insi de/1-28-98/forum1.html
Valenti will explore the relationships among free speech, censorship and personal responsibility in "Lights, Camera, Rhetoric! Who has control of television and movie violence?" on Monday, Feb. 9, at 7:30 p.m. in the Metropolitan Complex
No stranger to controversy, Valenti's first movie content battle came just weeks after becoming president of the MPAA in 1966 with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" and its frank language. Other controversies followed, along with a Supreme Court decision that stated cities had the power to prevent the exposure of children to books and films which could not be denied to adults.
Those events led Valenti to announce in 1968 a new voluntary movie rating system, which has been revised occasionally to reflect changes in the movie audience.
In 1996, Valenti helped create a similar, and controversial, rating system for television.
[July 16, 1998]http://www.internetnews.com/i wlive/summer98/key4.html
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association Of America, took on the persona of a fire-breathing, circuit-riding preacher as he talked about digital copyright protection to the afternoon keynote audience today at Summer Internet World.
"The only way to protect works [of intellectual property] and to guarantee their future is to employ technology to protect them whenever they go on the Internet," he pronounced. "If Congress confers legal status on any machine whose mission is to commit copyright burglary, we're in trouble."
Valenti's jeremiad was inspired by proposed U.S. legislation being revised later the same afternoon in Washington. The bill would implement an international treaty--the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty, signed by more than 80 countries in October 1996--extending copyright protections to digital works, such as digitized movies, software, and the contents of Web sites. Each country must pass enabling legislation for the treaty if its existing laws don't already cover the treaty's provisions.
In its original version the U.S. bill would have criminalized the manufacture of any device that could be used to circumvent copyright--for example, software to decrypt an encrypted movie--but this provision has been opposed by hardware and software makers who don't want to be responsible for every possible use to which their products could be put. They have proposed criminalizing the act of copyright violation rather than the manufacture of the equipment, but the motion picture industry and recording industries oppose this strategy as being too difficult to enforce.
"We don't want to ban VCRs," Valenti said. "The only folks who have cause for concern are the makers of black boxes, which are nothing more than stealing machines." The film industry fears unleashing the ability to copy movies on DVD, since such technology could produce unlimited copies with no degradation in quality, removing any intrinsic incentive to purchase a commercial DVD rather than a pirated one.
Valenti cut his remarks short so that he could fly to Washington to attend congressional meeting involving the WIPO legislation, saying that when he accepted the invitation to speak several months ago, he didn't know the bill would be revised the same day.
Valenti wasn't exactly preaching to the converted, however. In a panel discussion put together to fill the rest of his speaking time, speakers pointed out that the Motion Picture Association of America's approach to the WIPO legislation could make it a criminal offense to commit such everyday acts as setting a Web browser to refuse cookies, if they were being used as part of a copyright protection scheme. Moreover, even manufacturing a browser that is able to refuse cookies would become a crime.
"Jack doesn't want these laws to be so sweeping, but Washington doesn't always get it right," said Jason Catlett, founder of Junkbusters, a company dedicated to stopping the spread of Internet junk mail.
"I run a Web site, and I think that people who violate copyrights should all go to hell, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions," said David Fiedler, editor of the Mecklermedia site Webdeveloper.com. "This legislation might make your computer illegal because if programmed correctly it could be used to circumvent copyright." He also pointed out that the Motion Picture Association of America had in fact sought to ban VCRs and video rental when they were first introduced.
[December 12, 1996]http://www.cme.org/press2.html
"The age-based system that Valenti's group is proposing is inadequate and will not be helpful to parents," explained Kathryn Montgomery, CME President. "The ratings group has chosen to ignore the recommendations of academic experts, parents, child advocacy groups, and professional organizations to develop a usable ratings system that can work with the V-chip," Montgomery added. "Instead, they have purposely devised a system that will not tell parents whether a program contains violence, sex, or offensive language."
[April 25, 1966]http://www. resignation.com/historicaldocs/letters/04251966_v
The economic commitments to my growing family cause me to regretfully submit my resignation as Special Assistant to the President, effective May 15.
(reply:) Dear Jack:
It has been a very long day.
[Tuesday, 19 May, 1998]http://www.chl.ca/Cannes98/may19_pirac y.html
CANNES, France -- The film industry is making progress in its war against piracy, but digital copying is posing a new and "cancerous problem," the head of the U.S. film association said Tuesday.
Recent raids, including the seizure of 8 million videos in Hong Kong, show progress is being made against pirates who cost the U.S. industry up to $5 billion a year, said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America.
"In digital, the 1,000th copy is pure and pristine as the first copy. So digital presents a cancerous problem," Valenti said.
His trade group is spending about $50 million annually to fight piracy, including employing ex-FBI agents to bolster other countries' efforts.
"What we're trying to do in China is get market access," he said. Hollywood is limited to 10 films a year in the world's most populous nation.
Valenti said he'll try again with a trip in the fall.
The carrot for the Chinese?
"We'd like to invest with Chinese partners in state-of-the-art cinema," he said. "We are looking forward to a partnership relationship with China."
[September 28, 1995]http://ww w.economicclub.org/Pages/archive-old/abstracts/ar
Currently, a good many public officials have certified that the so-called "popular culture"-defined as movies, television, and musical recordings-is the prime villain in what they perceive to be the clanging of the last ding-dong of doom for this society, the source bed of much of our ills. TV is a powerful medium, but there are deadly combustibles in the community, more noxious than any movie or TV program, and violence has been on the decline in movies and television for the past decade. A restoration of the homely" standards by which ordinary Americans have so long and through so much turmoil sustained their values, maintained their families, and guarded their country--not rating systems and censorship--is the only means for solving American social ills.
[02/07/96]http://www.house.gov/judiciary/461.htm
But what we do know is this binary numbers future is coming. It will have large impact, as well as both sublime and dislocating effect, on millions of Americans. It is the mandate of the Congress to peer beyond the veil, to make sensible and required judgments about how to make absolutely sure that America's grandest trade asset, its intellectual property, is protected in an era of technology so magical it verges on fantasy.
This committee knows full well the broad global sweep of American intellectual property which in 1994 produced over $45 billion in international sales, and is that rarity, a producer of surplus balance of trade, a phrase seldom heard in the corridors of the Congress. These creative works are the jewels in America's trade crown. To protect these delicate products in cyberspace is of transcendent importance. For if you cannot protect what you own, you own nothing.
[03/26/99]http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/14 _1/199903/t4151392.htm
President Kim Dae-jung yesterday told visiting U.S. commerce secretary that Korea will maintain the controversial screen quota system which limits imports of foreign movies into Korea, in defiance of U.S. demands for film market liberalization.
He made the remark as Jack Valenti, head of the American Film Producers Association, suggested that Seoul scrap the system, saying Korea is the only Asian country which maintains a quota.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
29 January 2000. Thanks to 2600.
- ----------------x
- ----------------x
Source: http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-trans.txt
See also:
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-ac.htm
Preliminary injunction: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-pi.htm
Plaintiffs filings: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-3.htm
Defendants reply: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-dr.htm
[89 pages.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.;
PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION;
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC.;
TRISTAR PICTURES, INC.; COLUMBIA
PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.; TIME
WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.;
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; and
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SHAWN C. REIMERDES; ERIC CORLEY
a/k/a "EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"; and ROMAN KAZAN,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------
00 Civ. 0277 (LAK)
January 21, 2000 2:45 p.m.
Before:
HON. LEWIS A.
KAPLAN,
District Judge
APPEARANCES
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BY:
LEON P. GOLD
JON BAUMGARTEN
WILLIAM M. HART
KENNETH RUBENSTEIN
PETER L. KATZ
Attorney for Defendants
and-
HUBER & SAMUELSON, P.C.
BY: ALLONN E. LEVY (via speakerphone)
ROBIN D. GROSS (via speakerphone)
(In chambers)
THE COURT: All right. So one of the people on the phone is Robin Gross and the other gentleman is--
MR. KATZ: Allonn Levy.
Judge, if I may, in the interim, these are two applications pro hac vice for Ms. Gross and Mr. Levy. Judge, I've lost them. I'll
get Ms. Gross and tell her we're ready to proceed.
THE COURT: Once more. Ms. Gross? Ms. Gross?
MS. GROSS: Hello?
THE COURT: Ms. Gross, are you there?
MS. GROSS: Yes, I'm here.
THE COURT: Mr. Levy, are you there?
MR. LEVY: Allonn Levy here. Thank you.
THE COURT: Everyone is present. Let me first indicate that this is being held in chambers rather than in the courtroom to
accommodate Ms. Gross and Mr. Levy, who are in California and, for various reasons, were unable to get to New York for
the hearing this afternoon. And I have usable conference facilities here, but not in the courtroom. The proceeding is nonetheless
public. There are various members of the public and I believe the press in attendance, and they are certainly welcome.
Mr. Katz has given me pro hac vice applications on behalf of Ms. Gross and Mr. Levy. I will hear Ms. Gross or Mr. Levy this
afternoon. These applications are not in the right form and they're not accompanied by the necessary check that the clerk's
office will insist on, so you should make those applications and pay the fees in due course. But I'll hear you this afternoon.
MR. LEVY: Thank you, your Honor, and I apologize for the errors.
THE COURT: No problem. All right. It's the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. I'll hear you, Mr. Gold, on behalf of
the plaintiff.
MR. KATZ: Judge, if I may just have one housekeeping matter before we begin. Your Honor had directed that reply
documents be served via fax by 12:30 today. It's my understanding that counsel in California had not received it when I had left
my office.
Counsel, have you since received the documents.
MS. GROSS: I have not received the documents.
MR. LEVY: I have not, your Honor. However, I have not been back at my office. I understand from Mr. Katz that there were
some 94 pages faxed, so I don't imagine that I would have been able to review them in any case. But, no, I did not have them.
THE COURT: Mr. Katz, did you receive them?
MR. KATZ: Judge, I received 71 of the 94 pages. I had to leave my office to get down to court on time. I simply, even though
they were faxed prior to, I believe the fax started coming through about 11:30, it took well over an hour for the transmission to
complete and, as a result, Judge, because I was travelling in a car, I did not have an opportunity to review these documents, 94
pages. I simply wasn't able to do so in the period of time in which they were sent.
THE COURT: Duly noted.
MR. GOLD: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold.
MR. GOLD: Thank you, your Honor. This case, your Honor, is all about digital videodiscs, DVDs, which is the latest
technology for watching copyrighted motion pictures at home. Competing with and catching up on the videotape that so many
of us are used to, the DVD gives us much clearer, sharper pictures than the videotapes. However, the DVDs can be copied if
unprotected. And unlike videotapes, where if you run off one copy, you get a substantial decrease in the quality and two, much
more so, and it gets worse and worse so you don't really have a copying problem, with a DVD, you can copy an endless
number of them and they're just about as clear as the original DVD.
THE COURT: Is the content of a DVD simply a data file?
MR. GOLD: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GOLD: Now, before plaintiffs were willing to make DVDs available, they decided that they had to have an encryption
technology so that the content and their copyright interest in the content could be protected, something that would scramble the
picture and scramble the sound. And that system was created, and it is called CSS, which stands for content scrambling
system. And you can't watch a movie unless you have an authorized DVD player, and the authorized DVD player has the
computer key to the program. So with a DVD and an authorized player, the authorized player will unscramble the picture and
the sound and you can watch your movie. But you can't copy it. The CSS technology prevents that.
THE COURT: And the key is what? Is it software? Is it hardware? Is it a combination?
MR. GOLD: The key is software.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GOLD: So what CSS is is a safety device which protects the copyrighted material. Now, the motion picture studios, in
creating DVDs and getting them out to the public and increasing the number, relies not only on the encryption system, not only
on CSS because given the developments in the world over the last ten years and even over the last two or three years, it was
known to them that there was a possibility that there would be decryption of CSS and there was a lot of pressure by many
copyright owners to get extra protection from Congress, and a statute called a Digital Millenium Copying Act was passed. And
what it created was a new right that a copyright owner would have if he had to protect the system, a technology which would
protect his copyrighted material. He got the right to that safety device and the right not to have it circumvented as a matter of
federal law. So this is like a guard or a moat surrounding the house, the protected material.
THE COURT: Filled with litigators instead of alligators.
MR. GOLD: And increasingly so. Yes, your Honor, that's true. And I appreciate the differential between those two. And the
act was passed to bring the U.S. in line with the world intellectual property organization which had created a treatise of which
there are perhaps 12, 14 countries that have signed it, and this treatise provides legal protection and legal remedies against
circumventing technology systems that protect copyrighted devices.
So what the motion picture studios are relying on in terms of selling DVDs is their copyright in the motion picture, a licensing
system that they have created to allow people to use the copyright, and the anticircumvention law, and what they believe is their
right to court enforcement of the anticircumvention law in a rapid and effective way, through preliminary injunctions and then
final injunctions. That is the safety net, they believe, surrounding their copyrighted material.
Now, in late '98, I believe, a technological device, a computer device, was created called DCSS, DeCSS, and I guess it
stands for decrypted CSS.
THE COURT: Was it '98 or '99?
MR. GOLD: '99, did I say 98?
MR. HART: Yes.
MR. GOLD: Now, what that device does, if you have it, is you have it in your computer, it will unscramble the system,
unscramble the movie, unscramble the movie.
THE COURT: Is it a device or is it a program?
MR. GOLD: It's a computer program. I think that's a technological device computer program, which protects, which does
away with CSS. And once it does away with it, it does away with it, you can watch it on your computer, you can watch the
movie, copy it, download it, and run off lots of copies. Once CSS decrypts, it decrypts.
Now, what we did, as soon as this started to be used was to send out letters telling everybody they had no right to use it, that
they were violating the law and we would seek enforcement of the law, and that did an awful lot of good because an awful lot
of websites that were posting DeCSS stopped doing it.
Then there was a lawsuit that was started in California under a trade secret law. The motion picture companies are not parties
and don't control in any way that litigation. There was a hearing in court, as I say, in state court, under the trade secret law, to
try to enjoin the use of DeCSS. There was a hearing on preliminary injunction; it was not issued and a lengthy hearing was
conducted on the preliminary injunction this Tuesday. There has been no decision on the preliminary injunction. However, it is
not brought under the Digital Millenium Copying Act; it's brought under state copying, it's brought under state secrecy laws,
trade secret laws, and we are not parties to that action.
I think what I would like to do, your Honor, since a major defense in the reply papers has been that defendants aren't
appropriate parties, I would like to get into who the defendants are and why they have been named and what are they doing.
And if I can refer you to the declaration of Mr. Boyden, Bruce Boyden, a lawyer in my office, an associate in my office, in
support of the application for preliminary injunction, I will be able to show you just what's happening.
THE COURT: I've read your papers. Each of the defendants is listed on some registration or other, the domain name
registrations, I suppose, as at least the technical contact, if not other positions, with the registrant of each of three websites that
have posted DeCSS. Am I right?
MR. GOLD: Yes. Each one of them is posting DeCSS and one of them is also linking DeCSS. Now, by that, I mean one of
them is posting the names of other websites and, if you click on to the other website, you are delivered to a page of another
website on which DeCSS appears, and then, if you double click DeCSS, you get it right into your computer, just as though it
was originally done.
So one of them is linking as well as posting, but all three of them are posting; except for at the present time we've been advised
that one of the defendants, Mr. Kazan, called us and he said that, if we got a court injunction, he would take it down, just send
him the injunction. But when we checked in the next several days, he had taken DeCSS off of his website.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLD: And as your Honor has seen, when you went to our papers, when you go to one of these websites, you just have
a section which has DeCSS underlined and you simply put your mouse on that, double click it, and you have DeCSS. You can
then watch a DVD without an authorized player and copy it if you want.
Now, under the statute, three conditions need to be satisfied: Are defendants offering, providing, trafficking in this device, and is
it designed to circumvent the technological measure that's controlling access to protected copyright work? We think it's all
very, very clear.
Circumvent means to descramble, and that's what DeCSS does. A technological measure effectively controls the access here
to do the protected work and CSS is such a measure and it's designed to control access to our copyrighted works. Because
CSS is an encryption technology, you've got to have a software key to open it, so CSS qualifies as an access control measure.
And all of the statutory requirements are met, and defendants are clearly violating them.
The statute does say something about primary purpose, and I'd like to get into that for just a moment. Under 1201(a)(2), the
statute says that no person shall manufacture, offer, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, in any technological device
that is primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure. That effectively controls the access to a
work protected under the title.
Now, if you look at the statute, if the technological measure did not control access to a copyrighted work, then the statute
doesn't apply. For instance, you could have some device that controls access to work that is in the public domain. It's not
protected by copyright and the statute wouldn't be applicable. Here, the issue is whether the primary purpose of DeCSS is to
get around the safety measure in order to get to a protected, copyrighted work, and the reason that it's so clear it was primarily
designed to do that is that it has absolutely no other function. There's nothing that you can do with DeCSS except decrypt
CSS. That's all it does.
So I think the question of the primary purpose is quickly and easily answered by that analysis. Now, there are several
exceptions that the defendants have talked about and, naturally, all of the major exemptions are the statute so they're thrown in
here and they claim each one of them means that they haven't violated the statute. One of them is a reverse engineering
exception. The legislative history that we've cited in our brief makes clear that the reverse engineering exception only applies to
a technological device to a program that prevents access to a computer program and nothing else.
Congress decided that would promote competition in the computer world, and they did not want to protect computer programs
that were guarded in that way by a protective device. But as the legislative history is very clear, reverse engineering does not at
all in any way protect or provide an exemption for someone who is getting around a safety device for the purpose of getting at a
copyrighted act, at a copyrighted piece of work, a picture or a book or anything like that. The only thing that would be
exempted would be the computer program. Now, aside from that, there's nothing in any of the papers before you that would
indicate that these particular defendants have those kind of skills.
All of the evidence would indicate that they're using DeCSS and telling other people to use DeCSS to watch movies that they
otherwise would have to watch on licensed players. And they can also download movies, they can trade them with their friends.
There's nothing in the record to suggest that these people are involved in or could possibly be involved in reverse engineering.
But even if there were, they can't use that exemption here because the exemption only applies to a safety device around a
computer program and not around any other kind of copyrighted work.
Next, they talk about an exemption because they are doing research and the research has something to do with coming up with
an alternate player, a Linux system, a Linux player. Again, one would have to note that there is nothing that indicates that these
particular defendants that are before you and charged with violating the statute would be able to do that research.
THE COURT: Is there not a more basic answer to that argument?
MR. GOLD: Yes, there is. And that is that you have to go to the copyright owner and ask his permission and negotiate with
him before this exemption applies, and they haven't done it and they don't claim to have done it.
THE COURT: But even more basically, you're suing under 1201(a)(2), right?
MR. GOLD: Yes.
THE COURT: And doesn't the encryption research exemption apply only to 1201(a)(1) claims?
MR. BAUMGARTEN: No, your Honor. I think there is provision for a limited application, 1201(a)(2), in fairness--
MR. HART: It relates to the dissemination of the fruits of the encryption research and provides strict limits on qualified
collaborators. They have to be people trained or skilled in the art of cryptology, and the legislative history makes it quite clear,
your Honor, that when the encryption device or the tools or the fruits of the encryption/decryption research are disseminated
indiscriminately outside of the fold of what you would consider to be qualified researchers that the exemption clearly doesn't
apply.
There's not only scholarly commentary on the subject; we are dealing with some of the statute, but also substantial legislative
history to say there has to be a line between using encryption research as a pretext, if you will, and that which really goes to the
pejorative of hacking.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: It's clause 4 of paragraph G, your Honor.
THE COURT: Clause 4. Okay. Thank you.
MR. GOLD: Finally, the defendants claim that the statute applied in the way that we're asking the Court to apply it violates
their rights to free speech under the First Amendment.
Your Honor, this DeCSS, I would submit, is not an expression of anything. It doesn't communicate any ideas. What it is, and I
think the closest analogy, is it's a burglary tool. It's like a lock pick. And it has nothing to do with free speech.
We would also point out that there is an awful lot of speech on the websites of defendants and many other websites where
DeCSS is offered where long soliloquies are given about the inappropriateness of the copyright laws, the inappropriateness of
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the anticircumvention act. We're not seeking any injunction against any of those
expressions or statements of opinion and expression of rights. We're only trying to take out of these websites the thing that says
DeCSS that you put your mouse on and click it twice and you have circumvented the protective device on our copyrighted
films. That's all we seek from you, both in the case of posting and also in the case of the linking that I described to your Honor
before.
Touching on irreparable injury, I think, again, it kind of speaks for itself here. The plaintiffs have a huge investment in these
copyrighted movies, a huge investment of putting out DVDs. The public has a huge investment now in DVD players, and all of
this with continued dissemination of DeCSS unabated by the courts will be lost, including a lot of the value of our copyrighted
films.
On the other side, what is the injury if a preliminary injunction is ordered? For the time it takes to try this case, they--the
defendants--will not be able to post DeCSS and people won't be able to avoid the safety device on our copyrighted movies.
If we lose the trial, they'll be able to in four to eight weeks or whenever the trial is held. It seems to me that irreparable injury
concepts and concepts of equity compel the issuance of a preliminary injunction here, even if the Court felt that there was a
material issue as to any merits of the case, as to any point that the defendants have raised because the equities tip so strongly in
favor of plaintiff that preliminary injunction be issued until the time of trial.
With that, your Honor, I'll conclude.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Who wants to be heard for the defendants?
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, we had discussed among the defense counsel, with your permission, we would like to handle several
issues separately. Would that be acceptable to your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. KATZ: With regard to the facts, Ms. Gross, do you want to take that?
MS. GROSS: I think Mr. Levy would like to.
MR. KATZ: I apologize.
MR. LEVY: Thank you, your Honor.
I will discuss briefly the facts in this case because the vast majority of them will have to be fleshed out at the trial stage and that
is essentially the difficulty that the Court will be facing with this preliminary injunction, and that is they that it did not have all of
the information before it. It cannot have all of the information before it.
As for the basic premise, yes, we know what DVDs are and we have at least some grasp of what DeCSS purports to do and
what it says. And I say what it says and what it does because those are two separate things. Part of the issues that we'll be
facing here are the overlap between something it says and something it does. The DeCSS code is just that. It's a code, it has
been posted in various different ways. Sometimes there have been discussions intermixed between the code. There have been
notes by different programmers, and the code itself is in and of itself an expression of academic importance; that is to say, the
cryptology that those who enmesh themselves and have dedicated themselves to the science of ciphering and deciphering and
the study of codes are dependent on the continuing research in this field. And so I would take issue with the concept that this
DeCSS code is a lock pick. It is certainly not a lock pick the instant that it is written, and there are cases that suggest that as
soon as something is written there is already a presumption that it is speech. That's certainly the case where the writing is
expressive to another and we know that although machine code is difficult to read it can be read by individuals; it's frequently
read by individuals. The same is true for the source code. Certainly I don't understand source code very well, but others do,
and source code can't even be understood by machines.
Now, the other part is that in between that source code, there are various notes and notations of how programmers arrived at
different ideas. All of those are expressive. And finally, the plaintiffs, I think, focus only on the distribution of the speech and
have failed to discuss the receiving of the speech, and, in this case, that is a very important counterpart to the dissemination.
Certainly one is entitled to disseminate, but others--that is, the public-- are also entitled to receive.
Now, the facts themselves in this case are likely fairly complex and fairly convoluted. I say "likely" because the defendants had
all of one and a half days to present those facts to the Court, and I understand that that issue has been discussed, but I would
like to simply flag it briefly.
THE COURT: With all due respect, counsel, that statement is simply false. So let's just proceed.
MR. LEVY: Very well.
I think the importance of that statement is that it will require that the Court look very carefully at what is presented to it; that is
the extent of the point of my statement.
In addition, we would offer to the Court that there are many useful affidavits on file in the California case of which the Court
may take judicial notice and review, and we would be happy to put those items before the Court at the end of this hearing.
THE COURT: Counsel, the order to show cause was signed almost a week ago. Your clients were served almost a week ago.
The order required that any papers you cared to submit be submitted earlier this week. The record is now closed, and it says
what it says. Now let's proceed from there.
MR. LEVY: I understand. The record that the Court does have before it shows a request by the plaintiffs to curtail a number of
individuals, one of whom is a journalist, from expressing what they have discovered. It is not something that they've created; it's
simply something that they have discovered and are attempting to publish to others. I, of course, am referring to the defendant
and the website 2600. That is essentially a news organization and that's their purpose, to offer these things into the public. And
Peter Katz will be discussing that issue at greater length; that is, the standing issue and the arguments regarding whether or not
these individuals are even properly before this Court.
Additionally, there are a number of legal issues regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and that, of course, goes to the
likelihood of success in this case; that is, whether or not at trial the plaintiffs would be able to show what it is that they have of
theirs. And Robin Gross will be fleshing those points out, discussing both the applicability of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
to this particular set of facts and also the appropriateness and the constitutionality of that act in general.
THE COURT: Look, I do appreciate the preview, Mr. Levy, but I wish we would get into the discussion instead of the
discussion about the discussion.
MR. LEVY: Very well. Then I will pass the virtual pulpit over to Ms. Gross to discuss the Digital Millenium Copyright issues.
MS. GROSS: I think first Peter was going to talk about the proper defendants and the improper defendants.
MR. LEVY: Sorry. That's right.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, I'll run through that quickly for the Court. As I noted, the Court is in receipt of the opposition papers
that we had submitted. Judge, we have three defendants here. One is a news organization that, as Mr. Levy had pointed out,
2600.com also is involved in a--it's a distribution of a quarterly document. My understanding is that they have over 50,000
subscribers and receive approximately 10,000 unique visitors on a daily basis who view information that's posted on the site.
The defendant who should be named here is 2600.com. 2600 Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation. If your Honor, and it's not
entirely clear from the documents here, but if someone were to go to its website, on the left-hand side, on the bottom left-hand
side of the site, they would see it says 2600 Magazine. On the right, they would see the corporate information. And when one
goes to what's known as a DNS registry, which has been annexed to the documents in the order to show cause as referred to
"who is" through Network Solutions, there is a registry. The registry indicates that 2600.com is 2600 Enterprises. And the
individual who's named as Emmanuel Goldstein is listed merely as a technical contact. Mr. Goldstein is the defendant in this
case. It's the position under Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that Mr. Goldstein is improperly named and it should
be, rather, the corporation.
THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm just getting a book.
MR. KATZ: Thank you, your Honor. With regard to Shawn Reimerdes, once again, your Honor, we have information on his
website which has been annexed to the order to show cause indicating a Leach Software, Inc.
THE COURT: Before you go on to Mr. Reimerdes, are you telling me that the gentleman you were just discussing, who you
said is listed as a technical contact, is not involved in any way in offering to the public or providing DeCSS?
MS. GROSS: Actually, it's a journalist who was reporting on it on the website.
MR. KATZ: But in terms of providing that document, no, he does not provide the DeCSS. He reports on it. But if you're
referring, Judge, to Mr. Goldstein as involved with 2600.com, yes, he is involved. It's my understanding that he is an editor
and/or reporter of 2600 Enterprises, Inc.
THE COURT: You'll get your chance later, Mr. Hart.
MR. HART: Thank you.
MR. KATZ: I had mentioned Mr. Reimerdes to your Honor and his involvement of Leach Software referring to defendant
Roman Kazan. Two parts to him, Judge, one is that he is listed through "who is" as the technical contact for
www.Krackdown.com. We understand they had the link to DeCSS. Mr. Kazan is what's known as an ISP. He's a host. His
company--actually, that's how we get involved in the proper party--his company, which is Escape.com, hosts sites. My
understanding is that Escape.com hosts approximately a thousand sites and the purpose, his business, is to provide hosting. He
does not have actual control over these individual websites and Krackdown.com is the site. However,
Escape.com is the actual host and the distinction is very important, your Honor. When we deal with Mr. Kazan and his
corporation, which is very clear on his DNS registry, at the very top is registrant Kazan Corporation, administrative contact
Roman Kazan. We say that he would fall also as an improper party, as it should be Kazan Corporation.
THE COURT: I don't get this improper party concept at all.
MS. GROSS: Perhaps I could explain it.
THE COURT: Perhaps I could finish the point, Ms. Gross.
good point. maybe the mpaa fears that the next largescale pirates will be online pirates that mass distribute copies somehow. not the people who spend 6 hours a night in warez channels :)
They have circumvented copyright protection illegally and without authorization.
hmm.. wasnt the DeCSS code created from good old fashion reverse engineering, which isnt illegal in Norway? and merely having the code is NOT a violation the the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (which again is a US only thing).
If Web sites are allowed to pass along computer "keys" that disarm protective locks, then all copyright-protected work is put in jeopardy.
slippery slope arguments never go far with me.
In the trial, the defendants no doubt can count on support from activist groups that have been seduced by the hackers' strange ideology, which equates copying and stealing software code with free speech.
Hackers (read bad people) are the real cause of our problems and should be stopped because they dont understand the difference between free (as in beer) and free (as in speech).
The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets.
is this just blatent lying or does he actually believe this!?!
the one thing we agree on..
Those who passionately believe in freedom of expression and consumers who value creative storytelling have a lot on the line as the judge considers this matter.
Actually we have published DeCSS on our cover CD, enciphered. The official statement is we are going to release the key when the whole affair is settled and DVD companies put their efforts back to making money instead of suing teenagers. Now I'm looking for a way which would allow everybody to read the code without us being accused of propagating piracy. Any suggestions?
-Laplace
The middle mind speaks!
You fucking racist idiot.
Once again, some stupid Slashdotter equating Nazi Germany to DVDs.
Why does this happen with every single Slashdot post?
I hereby invoke godwins law.
Maybe its time the eff gets a gag order to equal the playing field.
He's also right about how weak the "free speech" argument is, and the argument that the weakness of the cryptographic implementation extends to a legal justification to break it.
Memo to the EFF - KEEP IT SIMPLE. Any court will understand the following logic:
- The DMCA prohibits "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."
- DeCSS was not primarily designed or produced for the purposes of circumventing protection that protects the copyright of the owner. This is because playing a legally purchased copy, on whatever platform, does not violate a copyright of the owner.
- Some DeCSS users have, evidently, used it or announced that they will be using it for piracy. The EFF does not support or represent (I certainly hope) such persons. An illegal use by third parties of an otherwise legal product does not an illegal product make.
Polluting the issue with "free speech" irrelevancies is unnecessarily burdensome - leave it alone.Jack Jack Jack...
What ever are we (the consumer--you know...the people who buy products from the people you supposedly represent) to do in a situation such as this?
Not only have you managed to circumvent the Bill of Rights (most specifically the First Amendment, but you have managed to do so by dangerously distorting terminology so that even someone such as myself (who knows a great deal about the legalese behind this case) was a little confused after reading your article.
You begin your article of confusion by stating If you cannot protect that which you own, you own nothing.
Yet I am confused as to who the "you" is in this statement. Obviously not the consumer. The MPAA has shown virtually no personal regard whatsoever when it has come to the people's ownership of their own property.
This lawsuit is a blatant defamation of fair use as determined by the BetaMax decision of 1983.
Of course I havn't even addressed the atrocities that occurred with the search and seizure of Jon Johansen's computer and cell phone, among other emnities.
There are more problems with this than could even be listed in this letter.
Here are a few key issues:
1)How does California state law dictate that which occurs in Europe?
2) Why persecute someone who did not even create the code or crack your weak encryption...all he did was post the DeCSS code.
3) The DeCSS code was created LEGALLY under the Digital Millenium Act, as ironic as that sounds.
4) Cracking the Encryption is not necessary to pirate DVDs and the MPAA has been quite complacent in regards to Hong Kong piracy for some time.
Finally, Mr. Valenti, I must say that given these severe atrocities, abuses of authority, and just plain ignorance of technology and fair useage, I have no other choice than to encourage a boycott of all of the studios mentioned in your suit.
I have been an avid cinema-goer for nearly 30 years now, review cinema for various web and news publications, and have some clout with a fair amount of readers.
Until the MPAA shows some semblance of sense, you will not hear the last of me.
Humbly,
Valeria Fiorenza
Come on, Tinkler, Tink!!
#6 The media could already be ripped on a frame by frame basis before DeCSS.
#7 Blank DVDs have the part where the key goes pre-burned with zeros to prevent copying encrypted home videos.
This is not about pirating. The DMCA under which the MPAA is taking action says nothing about piracy. The only reason piracy's mentioned at all is to inflame the public, and to get that injunction. Don't be fooled.
This is about extending the rights of copyright owners to prevent fair-use, and expecting the government to pay the costs of enforcement.
It's a bad law.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
Paying $10k for a DVD burner absurd, especially since one could be bought for $300. -Desi
* A noddy program for getting and printing some info from the
* DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include <sys/dvdio.h>
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include <linux/cdrom.h>
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int GetASF(int fd)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_ASF;
ai.lsasf.agid = 0;
ai.lsasf.asf = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai)) {
printf("GetASF failed\n");
return 0;
}
printf("%sAuthenticated\n", (ai.lsasf.asf) ? "" : "not ");
return 1;
}
int GetPhysical(int fd)
{
dvd_struct d;
int layer = 0, layers = 4;
d.physical.type = DVD_STRUCT_PHYSICAL;
while (layer < layers) {
d.physical.layer_num = layer;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_READ_STRUCT, &d)<0)
{
printf("Could not read Physical layer %d\n", layer);
return 0;
}
layers = d.physical.layer[layer].nlayers + 1;
printf("Layer %d[%d]\n", layer, layers);
printf(" Book Version: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].book_version);
printf(" Book Type: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].book_type);
printf(" Min Rate: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].min_rate);
printf(" Disk Size: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].disc_size);
printf(" Layer Type: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].layer_type);
printf(" Track Path: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].track_path);
printf(" Num Layers: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].nlayers);
printf(" Track Density: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].track_density);
printf(" Linear Density: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].linear_density);
printf(" BCA: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].bca);
printf(" Start Sector %#x\n", d.physical.layer[layer].start_sector);
printf(" End Sector %#x\n", d.physical.layer[layer].end_sector);
printf(" End Sector L0 %#x\n", d.physical.layer[layer].end_sector_l0);
++layer;
}
return 1;
}
int GetCopyright(int fd)
{
dvd_struct d;
d.copyright.type = DVD_STRUCT_COPYRIGHT;
d.copyright.layer_num = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_READ_STRUCT, &d)<0)
{
printf("Could not read Copyright Struct\n");
return 0;
}
printf("Copyright: CPST=%d, RMI=%#02x\n", d.copyright.cpst, d.copyright.rmi);
return 1;
}
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
int fd;
char *device = DVD;
if (ac > 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd < 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
GetASF(fd);
GetPhysical(fd);
GetCopyright(fd);
return 0;
}
Because making copies of CDs onto audio cassettes, and minidisks, is covered, "exact copies" cannot be part of the criteria. Dito for VCRs. All copies made onto VHS tape, cassette tape, or minidisk are lossy and therefore not exact.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Rule says that every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Now, the people who are prosecuting
this case are not your clients. They are defendants and they either are or they're not liable. And so far I don't have before me
an affidavit from any of them saying that we have nothing to do with providing or making available DeCSS.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, if I could be heard with regard to Mr. Kazan in that he falls under the immunity provided by DMCA
which is Title 2, which is entitled the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.
THE COURT: What's the citation?
MR. HART: 512.
THE COURT: Of the Copyright Act?
MR. KATZ: Yes, your Honor.
MS. GROSS: U.S.C. 17 U.S.C. 101, and then the specific--that's the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
Act. MR. HART: 512.
MS. GROSS: Give me one second.
THE COURT: I think I have it in front of me.
MS. GROSS: Section 512(c) limits liability for information residing on systems or networks at the direction of users and limits
the liability, for injunctive or other equitable relief, for information of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a
user, which is exactly what's going on in this case.
MR. KATZ: Judge, the limitations have about four parts to them under 512(c), the transitory communications caches, storage
of information, direction of users and information location tools. The limitation pursuant to 512(c) --
THE COURT: Just a minute. Before we get carried away in the minutia of 512(c). What 512(c) provides, if I'm reading it
correctly, is a limitation on liability for infringement of copyright. Am I correct?
MR. KATZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Your clients are not being sued for infringement of copyright. They're being sued for violation of Section 1201.
Right?
MS. GROSS: But 1201 is designed to protect copyrighted work.
THE COURT: Maybe so, but it's not infringement of copyright. Isn't that true, counsel?
MS. GROSS: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: An infringement of copyright, by definition, is the violation of the copyright proprietors' exclusive rights as
conferred in the Copyright Act. That is not what your clients are charged with, as I understand it. So I don't see what the
applicability of 512(c) to this is at all. Now, if I'm mistaken, that's the reason I raised the point; I'd like to hear about it.
MS. GROSS: This is a case of first impression.
THE COURT: That doesn't make it any better.
MS. GROSS: But I think that it's a jump to say you can't violate one, or you have to say you have to violate one without the
other.
THE COURT: Come again, please.
MS. GROSS: I'm sorry. It seems to me that there's no direct infringement. If you were not infringing a copyrighted work then
there's nothing that shows how anyone is providing a tool to others that are doing that.
THE COURT: The charge against your clients is providing a device which is a means for circumventing an access limiting
factor. The infringement would be done by someone else, although it might be done by your client, it need not be. Nor is the
infringement essential to the violation of 1201. Is there some error in that, counsel?
MS. GROSS: I think you need to have--I'm sorry.
MR. LEVY: Essentially, your Honor, our reading of the DMCA, certainly in order to make it a constitutional reading, is that it
does not outlaw any type of decryption. It only outlaws decryption that affects copyrighters' rights, and to that extent the two
are read together; that is, it is not the case that as soon as you engage in the science of cryptology you have violated the
DMCA, though certainly those raise other constitutional issues. That's essentially what we are saying. Is that clear?
THE COURT: What you've said is clear. It's just very different from what Congress said.
MR. LEVY: I think we're working on finding the citation, if the Court will bear with us. It's a rather lengthy statute. Perhaps
we'll continue looking through that and we can move on.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, at this time, I'll turn this over to Ms. Gross to handle the DMCA issues.
MS. GROSS: Okay. First I'd like to talk a little bit about the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, and you have to, as
the plaintiffs have pointed out, show a threat of irreparable injury and likelihood of success on the merits or series of questions
and balances that equities tip in their favor. So with that as our starting point, let's talk about injury.
I think it's important to note, and I'd like to draw the Court's attention to the fact, that in all of these hundreds of papers that
we've been deluged with the last couple of days there's not a single sentence that talks about current or actual harm. Everything
in the documents that have been submitted to us only talks about speculative harm, possible harm, potential for harm. I'd like to
just draw the Court's attention to a couple in particular. If you look at the Atwater declaration, let's see, paragraph, the harm
alleged is that the plaintiff would have to abandon DVD in favor of another format, and I don't think that asking businesses to
consider alternative methods is a proper type of harm for a court in order to issue an injunction.
Additionally, in that same declaration, the next paragraph, they talk about plaintiffs' potential loss and then the sentence ends it
by saying it could well be higher and so, again, it's all speculative, potential, possible, future, maybe harm. If you look at
paragraph 16, it says there is even--
THE COURT: Ms. Gross, let me save you a little time. If all of the harm already had occurred, you would be arguing that I
shouldn't issue an injunction because there's no need for it. Injunctions are issued to protect against threatened harm which, by
definition, is future harm.
MS. GROSS: But what I'm saying is this is speculation because it's all based on if this other thing were to happen, then there
would be harm. So they're skipping a step in between. There's an assumption that this other thing will happen that will then
cause there to be harm.
THE COURT: What do you think people are going to do with DeCSS, put it on floppy disks and use it to fertilize the garden?
MS. GROSS: No, actually, because it wouldn't fit on a floppy disk, which is another reason--
THE COURT: I stand corrected. Their hard drives.
MS. GROSS: You could put about one on your hard drive in which case it makes a player and your computer becomes your
player, and that is actually what is the case here. In fact, this computer program is--
THE COURT: Ms. Gross, is there the slightest doubt that DeCSS can be used to permit one who has it to make unauthorized
copies of copyrighted movies?
MS. GROSS: Well, DeCSS, by itself--all DeCSS is a part, a piece of a player that's under construction. It's computer code
taken from a project where they were trying to build a DVD player, and this is the part of the program that handles the
descrambling and the playing and so it itself does not circumvent a right because all it does is play.
THE COURT: Okay. Could you answer my question.
MS. GROSS: I'm sorry. Could you tell me your question?
THE COURT: Is there the slightest doubt that it would permit somebody to copy CSS scrambled material?
MS. GROSS: I believe you could copy it onto your hard drive, but, again, it's sort of like putting your tape in your VCR player
and, yes, your television set, your screen, now has made a copy, analogously. Same like a computer when you put your DVD
in, but, again, it's a copy that you are making only temporarily to be played on your player.
THE COURT: And once you have that on your hard drive, can't you churn out as many of them as you want?
MS. GROSS: Perhaps your hard drive or your computer will do that, but this particular program is separate from what your
computer will do or not do, you know. That, again, is speculation. It's saying that using this program in conjunction with
something else, and even if that is not the case--
THE COURT: Now, look, Ms. Gross, please. I really think that it's a mistake to assume that you're talking to a moron. On
one of your clients' websites, it says, and I quote, "Yes, you can trade DVD movie files over the Internet."
Now, is that true or not?
MS. GROSS: Actually, I don't--I'm not aware of anyone who is doing this and particularly because it's impossible for
practical purposes. It would take over 300 hours.
THE COURT: So why do you think your client said that?
MS. GROSS: Well, it could be, it could be a source video, something that someone else has authorized. It doesn't have to be
an unauthorized movie that he's talking about. There's no assumption that it's illegal copying or illegal trading.
THE COURT: And why do you suppose right after that he put on his website: "Notice the DVD Copy Control Association,"
which I understand to be the movie industry here--is that right--"are cock suckers"?
MS. GROSS: I think that while that kind of language is certainly inappropriate, nonetheless, it is of itself not speech that can be
enjoined, and I think if my client were present to answer that question, he would say it's because of all the cease and desist
letters going out over the Internet and shutting websites down based on fear of litigation, and a lot of people are very upset
because they feel their civil liberties are being trampled on, and that's the reason for the statement. And I'm not going to defend
the statement.
THE COURT: Ms. Gross, if it were the case, as you seem to be trying to imply, without saying, that DeCSS does not permit
unauthorized copying of copyrighted movies recorded on DVDs, I would imagine you would have said that to the plaintiffs and
they would have taken you up on the offer to demonstrate it and they wouldn't have bothered hiring a high-priced law firm to
come in here and sue you all. I don't think it's for exercise. That doesn't mean they're right, but nobody has said under oath
before me that the assertion that you can copy DVDs using this software is false.
MS. GROSS: I think that it's important to look at the actual wording of the statute in question here, and we're talking about
Section 1201(b) and they say no person shall manufacture, etc., offer to the public, etc., for the purpose of circumventing
protection that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner. So I think it's important to note that what we're talking about
here is a circumvention that protects a right of a copyright--
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Tell me exactly where you're reading from.
MS. GROSS: Section 1201, which is the circumvention copyright protection system.
THE COURT: 1201 what?
MS. GROSS: 1201(b), additional violations.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. GROSS: Then (b)(1)(A) we're talking about here--
THE COURT: Now what about--
MS. GROSS: What we're talking about--
THE COURT: Ms. Gross, don't get carried away. What about (a)(2), which is the statute you're being sued under? I mean,
I'm sure the Internal Revenue Code isn't a big problem for you on this either.
MS. GROSS: Because--
THE COURT: It says that you can't offer to the public any technology, product, service, etc., that's primarily designed or
produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work. Now,
is there any doubt that CSS protects access to a copyrighted work? Is there any at all?
MS. GROSS: Agreed.
THE COURT: Is there any doubt at all that DeCSS is a device that circumvents CSS?
MS. GROSS: It does descramble it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. GROSS: But that--
THE COURT: With that established, let's proceed.
MS. GROSS: But it's not primarily designed to do that. It's not designed to be a player. This is software that was taken from a
project that was being built for a new DVD player. So it's just a component of a player. And so, therefore, it was not primarily
designed to circumvent. It was designed to act as a player and the player is not the right of a copyright owner. Copying is not
prohibiting from playing.
THE COURT: Is it not an exclusive right of the copyright owner to make copies of the copyrighted work?
MS. GROSS: It is. It is, except for the fair use exception, and it's very clear in copyright law that copyright--that owners of
legitimate copies have a right to make fair use, and that's not something that's in dispute here. And so when you put this DVD
in your computer, you're making a fair use. You are playing the copy that you have. You have to be able to put it on your
computer in order to see it on the screen. So, yes, a copy technically has to be made, but only for the purposes of playing. It's
not something that can practically be used to make lots of copies. It's not possible.
THE COURT: And fair use is a defense to infringement, right?
MS. GROSS: That's right.
THE COURT: It's not a defense under 1201, is it?
MS. GROSS: But we're talking about--we are talking about something that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose
of circumventing a right, and so it is not a right to prevent fair use. Copyright owners do not have the right--
THE COURT: You're quoting the wrong statute again, Ms. Gross.
MS. GROSS: I don't believe so. This is the statute in question here.
THE COURT: Let me rephrase that. You're quoting the section of the statute they didn't sue you on. You're not quoting the
section they did sue you on.
MS. GROSS: But, see, they don't have a right to stop the fair use here, so this isn't something that--
THE COURT: Under (a)(2) they don't need to. That argument might have some merit if it were a (b)(1) suit or a (b)(2) suit,
but it isn't.
MS. GROSS: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. So what else?
MS. GROSS: You have to read the two together because (b)(A)(2) says as used in this section. So (a)(2) is simply the defining
criteria for (a)(1).
THE COURT: No. Actually, you're reading (a)(3) now.
MS. GROSS: (a)(3)?
THE COURT: That's the one that starts with "as used in this subsection."
MS. GROSS: That's (a)(2).
THE COURT: No, that's (a)(3).
MS. GROSS: Right?
THE COURT: (a)(3). Look, if you have other points about the statute, you better get to them.
MS. GROSS: I'm sorry.
MR. LEVY: I apologize, your Honor. Some of the difficulty here is because we are all using different copies of the statute.
There might be some confusion. We're trying to review what the courts have said and ensure that we're all on the same page,
and Ms. Gross is madly flipping through our version of the DMCA to make sure that we understand where the Court is coming
from and also what we're saying.
THE COURT: I'm coming from the United States Code.
MS. GROSS: Okay. Well, I think it's important--I think it's important to note some of the clauses that are specifically
mentioned in this same code section.
THE COURT: I'm ready to listen to you.
MS. GROSS: It specifically says, if you read 1201(c), it basically says nothing in this section shall affect the right of, including
fair use, under this title. So this section is saying it doesn't affect fair use and these people are making fair use.
THE COURT: Ms. Gross what you did was to read about half the words of that paragraph.
MS. GROSS: I can read the whole one, but I picked out the ones--
THE COURT: That helped you. What you did is left out the ones that hurt you. It says, "Nothing in this section shall affect
rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement"--those are the words you left out--"including fair use." In
other words, were you being sued for copyright infringement, nothing here would take away your fair use defense. But you are
not being sued for copyright infringement.
MS. GROSS: If there's no copyright to violate, how is a device being enjoined to protect that right?
THE COURT: Ms. Gross, if you have another point to make, you better get to it.
MS. GROSS: I think at this point I will turn it over to--Allonn will talk about the First Amendment issues.
MR. LEVY: Your Honor, I'd like to discuss one final point on the likelihood of success, which touches upon the First
Amendment issue, which is essentially, if we read this statute with the type of breadth that I think that we're talking about here,
that essentially what we're saying is that any type of computer code that decrypts something is illegal, that would be an
unprecedented disruption of our First Amendment rights to, in this case, participate in or in any way discuss a totally legitimate
area of educational work. And that is encryption.
Cryptology has been around for generations. It's incredibly important. There are thousands and thousands of individuals in this
country who dedicate their entire lives to learning, understanding, and bettering this very important field. I think that if we read
the DMCA as saying that--that is, that it does not matter what it is that you're decrypting, that it's simply the act of decrypting
itself as put in computer code--that is an impermissible and thoroughly unconstitutional reading of that statute, which, of course,
for our purposes--the only reason that's important for our purposes, it would mean that the plaintiffs cannot succeed on the
merits of their case, and I'll just flag that point very quickly.
Now, the other First Amendment issues come into play for this particular hearing. This particular hearing requests preliminary
relief, and the relief that it requests is a removal from, among other things, a press site of what is essentially offending speech.
Now, plaintiffs' counsel points out that there are many words on that site that are rude and are inappropriate. Of course, we
have the Cohen case, which is the illustrious or famous draft case, and I'm sure the Court is aware of that point. We all have
well ingrained in our history that it is permissible to be rude.
THE COURT: Look, Mr. Levy--
MR. LEVY: That is admittedly a side point because they're not trying to enjoin--
THE COURT: It's a nonpoint. They're not talking about that.
MR. LEVY: True. Admitted, to the extent that that's not the relief that they request. I merely bring it up because we ought not
get lost in the fact that because these folks may be are a bit irreverent we should jump to the conclusion that they are bad or
they are doing something improper. That's the only purpose for my comment on that.
The matter that they are attempting to suppress, however, is the DeCSS speech in its various forms, and, as we've discussed,
that is information that is readable by individuals. Indeed, both from the standpoint of those involved in cryptology and also now
because of the various lawsuits involved, to the wide public, this matter has become a public issue. It is a matter of public
concern and the individuals that are trying to suppress this are actually trying to suppress ideas.
Now, the point here is that in order to have a free discourse and a free discussion, you must be able to reference things.
Drawing on my limited experience, I can only address some of the facts that are in the California case. Here the San Pedro
Mercury News is our sort of local news. It's very well respected and it has also links to these sites because it's a matter that
should and is being discussed in public forums. Now, to step in and stop that speech, I would submit to the Court--
THE COURT: No one is asking to stop any speech about this issue. What is being requested is an injunction preventing the
dissemination of the DeCSS program.
MR. LEVY: Your Honor, respectfully, I would submit to you that the link itself is speech. Now, if you remove the link, are we
really to stop telling people where to go to get information? I would submit that that's improper. The code itself is also speech. I
cannot cite the Court directly to the appellate Bernstein decision which is on review, but certainly the arguments are the same.
And, additionally, we have guidance from Bernstein one, which is noted in our papers, that has very carefully reviewed this
issue and found that the code itself is in fact speech. Indeed, in our case--
THE COURT: But, Mr. Levy, let's suppose that's true. That does not mean you win, does it?
MR. LEVY: It does not.
THE COURT: So let's get on to the more important issues.
MR. LEVY: But it does give a strong presumption that we win.
THE COURT: Let's just explore that. Suppose you opened a hamburger stand and you put in front of it two golden arches to
express something about your hamburgers and you put up a big sign that said Levy's McDonald's to express the idea that your
hamburgers were as good as theirs and you were sued by McDonald's for trademark infringement. Now, do you think that if
you went into court and said, Well, I'm just speaking out here and conveying an idea that that would get you even remotely
partway down the first baseline?
MR. LEVY: I think it would get me partway down and I think I would be stopped partway down. I think that what the Court
would do is it would hold a full hearing on that issue. I think that there would be evidence adduced on both sides and if, indeed,
those arches were found to be a property right and that property right was stolen, then the Court would say, Well, perhaps you
have speech here, but you don't have protected speech here. And so the prior restraint doctrine does not apply.
But that's not what we have here. We don't have stolen speech. We have speech that was independently created, we believe,
we suspect. And we have commentary on that speech. And I should point out that when I say "commentary," I also mean
within some of the source code, and there have been postings all over so I cannot tell the Court which one is which. But there
are discussions within the source code reminding the Court that source code is intended for programmers only, it does not run
on a machine, that discusses the code.
THE COURT: But these would be nonexecutable program notes, right?
MR. LEVY: That's correct. Now, I suspect that because--
THE COURT: And when the program was compiled, the programmer's notes would not be compiled into object code, right?
MR. LEVY: That's correct. That is correct.
THE COURT: Is anybody trying to restrain the posting alone of programmer's notes without the source code, the executable
instructions?
Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: No.
THE COURT: No. Let's move on.
MR. LEVY: The notes are intermingled within the source code and they are commentary within that source code, so if you
suppress the source code, you have suppressed--
THE COURT: But nobody's trying to stop you from disconnecting the programmer's notes from the compilable executable
instructions and doing whatever you want with the programmer's notes.
MR. LEVY: True, but you lose access to the programmer's notes as soon as you lose access to the source code. But if you
suppress the source code, you have also suppressed additional speech.
THE COURT: Counsel, that's simply a bald assertion and we all know it not to be true. I would take judicial notice that it's not
true.
MR. LEVY: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: I said we all know that isn't true and I would take judicial notice, if I needed to, that it isn't true.
MR. LEVY: Judicial notice of the fact that--
THE COURT: That the programmer's notes are available to whoever has the source code and even if you were enjoined from
disseminating the source code itself, as distinct from the programmer's notes, they're not going to vanish.
MR. LEVY: I'm sorry, your Honor. I actually have a technology expert with me. Would the Court like to or would they agree
to hear a very brief statement on this point from that expert?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEVY: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: No. Let's go on.
MR. LEVY: As an example, and by way only of argument, Frank Andrew Stephenson, who is one of the individuals who
created the LVD [sic] project, which is the player that eventually made this playable on Linux, was able to create his
innovations by reading the source code and the expressions within that source code. And I use that to show the Court that,
first, the two aren't inseparable--that is, the source, the bits of code and the programmer's notes--and, second, to show its
utility; that is, that there is a very real need and a use for the posting of this code.
Now, going back briefly to your Honor's analogy of the golden arches, we do not have a situation here where there is, if you
will, stolen speech that has gained a property value to it. What we have is allegedly offending speech that may run counter to a
state--I'm sorry, a federal provision.
THE COURT: Let's start off with the fact that your premise about property rights and trademarks is really highly inaccurate
and the basis of trademark protection lies not in some theoretical property right and the senior user, but rather in the fact that
the junior user's use of the mark in circumstances where it is likely to lead to confusion in the marketplace ought to be enjoined
in the public interest. Now, you're welcome to go on from there, but the premise of your analysis is wrong.
MR. LEVY: I think that that's an excellent point. I used the term "stolen property" because it's easier for my feeble brain. But,
yes, the point and what the courts generally hinge on is that ability to make a mistake. That is, you'd ride into the burger stand,
you see the golden arches, you think, Oh, McDonald's, and you walk in.
There's no such danger of mistake here. It's a completely different type of speech, and I would submit that we are not
permitted to carve out a new exception for speech that simply would seem to run counter to a federal provision. In fact, I
would cite the Court to the DMCA, and I shall work a bit harder to try to get the letters correct here. We are on Section 1201.
I believe this is (c)(3). And again--I'm sorry. It's (c)(4). And this, again, is in regard to the entire act, not a certain portion of it.
It says, "Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press," which is involved here, "for
activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications or computing products." And that is the portion in its entirety.
So it's very important that we not use this particular statute to create a new exception to the prior restraint doctrine. And I
submit to the Court that the evidence that's been put before it--that is, as the Court noted, exclusively that of the
plaintiff--does not come close to raising to the level of national security and the like that we have in the Pentagon papers and
the Progressive case and other similar cases. Certainly using the Progressive case, if we cannot even do a preliminary injunction
to enjoin seriously dangerous speech such as the H-bomb instructions, because it is speech after all, as well as potentially
classified military information, we certainly ought not issue a prior restraint on the manner in which DVDs work. The interest to
the public is simply not that important.
Now, if we are incorrect, if our analysis of the DMCA is wrong, then that can be proven at a trial, but certainly not before that.
And I would submit to the Court that this line is a rather dangerous one of going down, and attempting to reach this decision
prior to the trial in that it will seriously chill not just the speech rights of those who are in this suit but it will do the same for other
individuals who post information on their websites because, again, assuming that there is some type of original sin here,
assuming that there is a problem with the DMCA, these individuals didn't cause it; they merely found something and they put it
on their websites. I think that when deciding how we would like our Internet policed we ought to be very careful to ensure that
we retain our traditional rights to express ourselves freely and to provide others with information.
THE COURT: Would you say the same thing if they posted the text of a copyrighted book?
MR. LEVY: Likely not. And, again, though I might say it at the preliminary stage, and certainly there are several very interesting
and illustrative Law Review articles that discuss exactly this problem, and that is that courts may have accidentally run afoul of
prior restraint issues in some copyright cases because they did not wait until a full and final hearing is done, they did not satisfy
themselves that indeed this does fall within the copyright exception, and instead they rushed forward in a rush to judgment. And
I really hate using that term, following the OJ Simpson case, but I feel that I have to in prior restraint cases, that they have
rushed to judgment and they have accidentally restrained speech where they perhaps ought not have. And as one of many
illustrations, I would cite the Court to an interestingly article, 48 Duke Law Journal 147, which is freedom of speech and
injunctions in intellectual property cases.
Now, this argument is exclusively aimed at the preliminary injunction hearing. As for this argument only, defendants could be
100 percent wrong on everything else, but as for the restraining of this speech prior to it reaching the intended audience, courts
must exercise the highest diligence possible.
Today: CDR(W) burner $150, CDRs $0.50/disc.
Woah. Woulddja look at that! Tech got cheaper! It'll happen with DVDs too. It. Will. And it'l happen with whatever new super format Hollywood comes up with decades down the line too. It always does.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You discribe the actions of the movie industry as "people protecting their right to protect what they made."
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a company wants to make DVD's, and keep them, DeCSS does not help me break into their storehouse and take them. DeCSS, a DVD burner, or any other method of copying DVDs doesn't enable me to take away any other person's (or company's) property.
What it does do is make those DVD disks more useful than the producers had planned on. But that is their mis-step. Either they can suck it up, or stop selling DVDs and take the sales hit. But they can't go running to the courts to stop people from using the DVD disk however they please. It's not their DVD disk anymore, *because they sold it*.
Suppose someone sold printers that automatically broke after 2,000 pages. Suppose I looked inside and set some pin to ground or whatever and it now lasted until it physically wore out. Is that illegal ? No, because it was my printer after I bought it, and I can modify it as I please. That kid in Norway bought a computer and a DVD drive and a DVD, and whatever he did with them is completely OK, and he should be able to tell other people about what he did.
There is nothing wrong with cracking copy protection on software, writing code to access *your* hardware anyway you please, or looking under the hood of that Camaro to disable the 115 mph cut-out on the carburator.
To put it shortly, the movie industry wanted to sell a non-replicable disk, and it turned out they were accidently producing replicable disks. They decided to try to use the courts to make up for their technological miscalculation rather than go back to the drawing board.
In other more mature industries, companies usually expect and anticipate that people will try to find out how to get more use than out of products. Texaco isn't suing because because we have found out how to drive further on a gallon of their gas.
The DVD producers have two choices: 1) suck it up, 2) stop selling DVDs and invent another scheme.
tstdvd_objs = tstdvd.o css-auth.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
validate_objs = validate.o css-auth.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
cat_objs = css-cat.o css-descramble.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
all: tstdvd reset dvdinfo css-cat
tstdvd: $(tstdvd_objs) $(headers)
gcc $(tstdvd_objs) -o $@
css-cat: $(cat_objs) css-descramble.h css.h
gcc $(cat_objs) -o $@
validate: $(validate_objs) $(headers)
gcc $(validate_objs) -o $@
clean:
-rm -f *.o css-cat tstdvd validate reset dvdinfo
dist-files = css-auth/COPYING css-auth/README css-auth/Makefile \
css-auth/css-auth.c \
css-auth/tstdvd.c css-auth/dvdinfo.c css-auth/reset.c \
css-auth/css-cat.c css-auth/css-descramble.c \
css-auth/csstable.c css-auth/cssdebug.c \
css-auth/css.h css-auth/css-auth.h css-auth/css-descramble.h
dist: ..;tar cvf css-auth.tar $(dist-files) )
(cd
>>> He does have a point. The encryption is there to ensure a profit for liscensed DVD player manufacturers. By busting it, someone can potentially create their own, unliscensed player, taking profit from the manufacturer.
My response to this, however, is that anyone who cares enough can go out, buy all the parts, and build their own VHS player. It seems to me that distributing DeCSS is akin to distributing the plans and circuitry diagrams to a basic VHS player: It tells you how to make a player, if you want to make the effort.
I NEVER agreed to use a "licensed" player, I paid for MEDIA, and who's player I use for this media is my own F**** business.
--AROS is an Open Source AmigaOS clone, and source compatible with AmigaOS! Try the x86 build at http://www.aros.org
Can someone moderate this up? How can an insightful essay from RMS be scored a "0"?
Mr. Jack Valenti
c/o The Motion Picture Association of America
1600 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Source:
http://www.cme.org/letter.html
Read this site for MPAA news:
http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/index.htm
"The lock on your door may suck, but that doesn't mean it's legal to break in just because you didn' buy a steal bomb proof door."
Correct, it is legal for me to break the lock on my door not because the lock is weak but because it is mine to do with as I will. The same applies if I bought a box of DVDs with a physical lock on it, whatever the motivation for the producer in putting the lock there it is my box and I can smash it to bits if I like. Following your analogy, I should be equally entitled to bypass any software locks on my DVDs, so long of course as I don't break any other laws for example by actually illegally distributing copies.
In fact, some reasoners, of course, do not particularly agree but are nonetheless helpful, have reasoned that the only reason for
the First Amendment is the prior restraint doctrine. It is that important. It essentially allows courts, and certainly I would not
suggest that that would be the case for your Honor, but it allows courts to be make mistakes. It says, Well, we are going to
make a judgment about speech here. That's that we allow it to reach its intended audience first, we take our time, we look at
the information carefully, if it is wrong, then the plaintiffs have their remedy, which is--
THE COURT: Let's suppose, counsel, that your client had broken into the vault at Coca-Cola and stolen the formula that
they've protected for the last hundred years and somehow Coca-Cola discovered that they were going to publish it in the
Atlanta Constitution, tomorrow. Would you make the same argument about no preliminary injunction, we have to have a full
trial?
MR. LEVY: I likely would, because there, the danger that the court is simply wrong is much too great. If the information is
stolen--I'm assuming that we're assigning a property right. That is, if, as the case I believe is, for Coca-Cola, there is simply,
it's simply a trademark case, then my answer--I'm sorry, a trade secret issue, then my answer would be a resounding no. They
have an absolute right to publish that. Not only should there be a prior restraint, the case would likely go in favor of the Atlanta
press. But assuming that the information itself was somehow wrongful, that it was unprotected for some reason, then, yes, a
prior restraint would likely still be inappropriate because you must prove that the speech is wrongful before it can be restrained.
It has to be done with the utmost care, and a preliminary injunction is not the way in which that ought to be done.
Does that answer the Court's question?
THE COURT: It does.
MR. LEVY: Okay. Now, the other part of the free speech issue is that of those who are receiving speech.
Again, as we've discussed previously, there is a wide body of academic interest in this case completely separate from the
plaintiffs' economic desires. There are very high-level individuals who deal exclusively in cryptography who are fascinated by
this particular topic. And in order to allow their field to advance, they must have the ability to exchange information amongst
themselves, otherwise you arrive at a situation where you simply do not have the means in which to produce either good
encryption or good decryption, both of which, I submit to the Court, are very vital to this country.
Now, the importance of that fact--that is, whether or not they are able to get this information, certainly as has been cited in
papers--there is case law supporting that there is a First Amendment right to receive speech in addition to the First
Amendment right to publish speech. So here we have an issue where both interests are at stake. And, again, in the interest of
prudence, I would suggest that the Court must not issue the preliminary injunction, instead must weigh and look at this
information carefully, thoroughly, with affidavits before it, and weigh the information before restraining any free speech rights.
I would also point out to the Court, and this is beginning to move away from the free speech argument and simply into general
preliminary injunctions, and that is the issue of harm. Now, when looking at the relevant harm that might be caused by a
preliminary injunction, I would submit to the Court that not only does this harm not tip in favor of the plaintiffs, quite to the
contrary, it tips substantially in favor of the defendants. And I submit that to the Court on the following:
The plaintiffs themselves have, as has been briefly discussed previously, offered conjecture as to why there would be harm.
They have offered no testimony that DVD sales have dropped. They have offered no testimony that piracy has increased. They
have offered no testimony showing that that is actually what is going on here--that is, that this is a piracy tool--when, in fact, all
of information suggests the contrary. It is a Linux tool that was made by individuals who have no interest in piracy. Their
exclusive interest is in being able to play DVDs on their boxes.
Now, in addition to the lack of harm on their part--and I'm sorry, I should step back for just a moment because I recall that
the Court previously addressed the idea of harm, and so I will point out to the Court that this is not a situation where this code
was put out on the web yesterday. This is a code that has been out on the web since October, at least. That is, that's
information that we have.
Now, the information does not deal with--I'm sorry. Let me step back. The code has been out since October and between
October and now, if there was this immediate irreparable harm, certainly it would have already shown itself. Certainly over in
excess of four months, something would have happened if we have this immediate irreparable harm, this danger looming over
our heads. There is no information that there is something that they've made this more dangerous today. No. The preliminary
injunction seeks to restrain just these three people from continuing to disseminate the information. The plaintiff has failed to
show why there is a difference today from four months ago.
THE COURT: First of all, it was three months, counsel, and, second of all, the argument that I take from their papers--
MR. LEVY: I apologize, your Honor. I missed the first part of your statement.
THE COURT: First of all, it's three months, not even quite three months, since October 25. At least on my calendar, it is. And,
secondly, I take from the plaintiffs' papers the following: It's their submission, as I understand it, that initially the dissemination
on the web was fairly limited, that they protested to ISPs, and that in many, if not most, cases, the ISPs immediately pulled the
material. The lawsuit was then brought in California. That provoked an enormous backlash in the hacker community, led to
enormous numbers of postings and frenzied efforts to mirror and otherwise disseminate the program in what would appear to
be an attempt by your clients and others to get this so widely disseminated that the genie never could be put back into the bottle
and that, basically, that last part has happened in the last three to four weeks.
Now, that's essentially what I drew from the papers. If there's something wrong with that argument, I'm willing to listen to it.
But for you to tell me they haven't addressed the point or have offered nothing is the kind of hyperbole that doesn't advance
your case.
MR. LEVY: I thank your Honor for correcting me on that point.
I would point out a number of issues. Now, first, the concept of a limited exposure on the web, I would submit to the Court, is
unsupportable. The web by its nature is a forum that reaches millions, and I would draw the Court's attention to the extensive
discussion in ACLU v. Reno cited in defendants' papers. So I would reject the notion that a piece of text that is posted, if you
will, in the village square and is electronically replicated in every other village square has somehow been disseminated in a
limited manner.
As for the factual issue that it is three months instead of four months, I'm informed by counsel that the Court is correct. October
6 apparently is the first posting that we're currently aware of. There may have been ones before, but we do not have that
evidence before us. And I think the Court also flagging another related issue that although it may have been addressed since, as
I have informed the Court, I have not been able to carefully review all papers, I would offer this as an affirmative argument, and
that is the futility of enjoining three individuals from posting this information on their websites. Certainly the Court need not
undertake a futile task, and, by the plaintiffs' own papers, this information is posted in tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of
thousands, of other sites, not just throughout this country but throughout the world. There are serious questions of the reach of
this Court; that is, whether or not the preliminary injunction could be enforced. And I'm sure counsel will suggest ways in which
one could go into another court and request leave that the sister court in another country comply with your Honor's ruling, but I
would suggest to the Court that when one thinks of other countries such as Iran and Syria, I'm not convinced that that would
actually work and certainly I know of no precedent where it has worked.
And the futility argument is particularly important when one links it to the free speech issues for individuals. It goes to the
question of harm to the public and harm to these defendants, and I shall focus on the harm to the public because to me it is so
glaring. I've discussed briefly the importance of this information to other researchers, to other cryptographers, and I have
discussed it in sort of the microcosm of scholarly academia, but I have perhaps not addressed it on the public debate side.
THE COURT: Counsel, we're going to have to wrap this up sometime.
MR. LEVY: Very well.
THE COURT: And I'm going to give your side another six or seven minutes.
MR. LEVY: Very well. I will, in that case, do things a bit more speedily. I think that the preliminary injunction that has been
requested is, although it may appear to be limited when one looks at the order and when one looks at the individuals that have
sued, the types of rights that it attempts to curtail are of such importance that this Court ought not grant the relief that is
requested, that it ought not curtail the discourse that is currently taking place, and that instead, it allow this matter to proceed to
trial where the information is more fully briefed, where the individuals who are far more technically knowledgeable than, I would
submit, I am are able to educate the Court and the attorneys as to what the information actually does. We anticipate that that
would show that the DeCSS system was always intended to be a player, that neither of these individuals or others were sort of
seagoing pirates; they were simply individuals who wanted to play DVDs that they purchased on their Linux boxes. They could
not do that without DeCSS; they can do it with DeCSS.
As for the concept that it may be distributed over the web, a DVD holds 5.2 gigabytes of information. The ability to distribute
that type of information over the web is nonexistent, that is, in a usable manner. Certainly if one wants to take the 300 hours,
it's possible, though wouldn't one not then just go down to the store and spend $20.
The other point I would draw the Court's attention to is the existence of compact disk technology, meaning musical technology
is also digital technology. Currently, it is very simple to duplicate compact disk technology. However, there is not massive
widespread harm right now. The companies are continuing to function properly, and while certainly piracy is a problem in its
large-scale capacities, often in other countries, there are criminal laws that deal with that. And to put forward that this speech
that is being posted is what will cause a landslide or barrage of additional piracy issues is, I submit to the Court, simply
inaccurate, or, as the Court put it, hyperbole.
And with that, your Honor, I would turn it over to Mr. Katz if he has any additional points to make.
MR. KATZ: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gold, delay and futility is what you should address.
MR. GOLD: Your Honor, until several weeks ago, we did not believe that we needed to come to court in order to protect our
rights. One of the problems with doing that in the hacker community is that if you challenge them a little, you really turn them on,
and that was a major consideration for us. And things seemed to be going to the point where these DeCSS postings were
substantially diminishing. But after California, we have no option, and we formed the belief within a week after the publicity of
that decision on the TRO that we better come or we're going to lose our interest in this encryption device, and we're turning to
the last protection that we relied on to safeguard the value of our copyrighted material, and that is the Court's enforcement of
the existing statute.
People are violating it. They're madly going about trying to get people to mirror it so that the number of suits that we'll have to
bring to bring this under control will increase, in the hope that it will turn us off and destroy this system. But it won't turn us off
and we're going to pursue it in every place that it comes up because of our enormous investment in it and the investment of our
public in those players. We didn't think we had to do this and we didn't want to do it, but we've got to do it now after what
happened in California.
We believe that if the Court enforces this, it will substantially stop in the United States. People, most people, don't like to
violate the law, if they see the courts are taking it seriously and are going to enforce it. These are sophisticated people who are
doing this. And we honestly believe that we still, this week, have a viable protective device, and we don't think we're going to
have it very much longer if the courts won't enforce the law.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. LEVY: Your Honor, if we can address two points very briefly.
THE COURT: Very briefly.
MR. LEVY: Okay. I'll have Ms. Gross do the first point.
MS. GROSS: I just wanted to refer back to the DMCA and the code section that we're talking about. 1201(a)(2) and I
apologize for referring to the incorrect section before, but I've got the correct one in front of me now, but I think it's important
to note that (A), big letter (A), capital letter (A), of that particular code section says it needs to be "primarily designed or
produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure." And I would submit to the Court that if we had an
opportunity to develop the facts and to present the Court with an adequate record to make its determination, that the primary
purpose of this software is to play DVDs and not to copy--
THE COURT: Let's assume you're right about that.
MS. GROSS: Okay.
THE COURT: How does it get you home under (2)(A)?
MS. GROSS: Because it's not covered under (2)(A) then.
THE COURT: You said it, but I don't see why that follows at all.
MS. GROSS: Because it's not primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing the technological measure that controls--
THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted
DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it
without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure.
Isn't that true?
MS. GROSS: I think that you've exactly hit on the point here, but I think that I want to disagree with you in this broad
interpretation of the statute. I don't believe Congress intended to give copyright holders the right to decide which players would
be acceptable for playing their works. In fact, I don't think Congress has the power to give copyright holders that degree of
control on what machines their work can be played.
MR. LEVY: In essence, your Honor, that broader reading, which I understand how the Court was reading it, would mean that
licensed players run afoul of the DMCA, and certainly that's not Congress' intent. That is to say, if it really is the case that any
decryption is unlawful under DMCA, then licensed decryption is also impermissible and that, of course, one would hope, is not
Congress' intent.
MR. HART: Your Honor, may we--
MR. LEVY: Ms. Gross, do you have any other--
THE COURT: But the problem, of course, is that the phrase "circumvent a technological measure" is defined to mean any
decryption without the authority of the copyright owner. So the statute seems to say on its face precisely what you say
Congress can't have meant.
MS. GROSS: Congress has limitations in what it can do under the law, and I don't think that Congress intended to give
copyright holders the power to say your work can play on this device, that device, but not these other devices. I think that
really needs far more research and far more filling out the record on that.
Hello? Hello?
THE COURT: There's something wrong with your connection, counsel.
MS. GROSS: Hello?
THE COURT: All right. I think I need to give Carol a break here. She's been working very hard. We'll recess for ten minutes.
You, Mr. Katz, can try to reach your folks in California and get them plugged back in, and we'll reconvene at to five and I'm
going to give you a decision.
(Recess)
THE COURT: Are you back, Ms. Gross?
MS. GROSS: Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Levy?
MR. LEVY: Yes, this is Allonn Levy.
THE COURT: Fine. I am prepared to give you a decision now. Although given the nature of the case, I intend to file a written
opinion in due course, I am persuaded that it is important that I rule immediately in all the circumstances, so I am going to make
a summary statement of my reasoning, but I expect to elaborate on it as promptly as I can.
I should begin by clarifying the record that is before me and the manner in which we came to this point. The plaintiffs filed this
action, if memory serves, on January 14. Is that right? And I signed an order to show cause on that date bringing on this motion
for a preliminary injunction, initially for 11:00 this morning. The order required prompt service, which was made, and it required
the filing of any affidavits or other answering papers on behalf of the defendants earlier this week.
On Wednesday, if memory serves, I received an answering memorandum from the defendants but no affidavits. I also received
a request for an adjournment, which was opposed by the plaintiffs. I held a conference call on the record on Wednesday with
respect to the application for an adjournment.
The defendants' position was that they were not prepared to consent to any interim relief in exchange for the adjournment they
requested. The plaintiffs' position was that they were not prepared to grant the adjournment in view of what they conceived to
be the threatened harm to their clients, absent interim relief, and so I denied the adjournment except to the extent that I moved
the hearing until 2:30 this afternoon to accommodate the defendants' counsel.
On Wednesday, the defendants indicated to me also that they were in the process of preparing one or more affidavits and
stated that they intended to file them before the hearing. They did not do so. In consequence, the record before the Court
consists of plaintiffs' moving papers, the defendants' answering memorandum, but no evidentiary submission by the defendants
whatsoever, and reply papers submitted today by the plaintiffs.
During the course of the proceedings, both in the defendants' memorandum of law and in the course of assertions of counsel
this afternoon, a great many factual contentions and assertions have been advanced. They include such assertions as the
contention that Mr. Kazan is an Internet service provider and that Krackdown is a website run by a press organization, but
there are a great many others. None of those assertions is supported by any evidence whatsoever. The evidence before me is
that submitted by the plaintiffs, and it is on the basis of the evidence before me that I am obliged to rule.
Coming to the matter before me, the technology, at least at the level that it need be understood for this purpose, is pretty
simple. The plaintiffs record copyrighted motion pictures on DVDs, which is an acronym for, I think, digital versatile disks.
DVDs with these movies are data files that may be transformed into audio and video by appropriate computer equipment. In
order to prevent unauthorized copying, the plaintiffs employ something called Contents Scramble System, or CSS, which is an
encryption-based computer and authentication system that requires the use of appropriately configured hardware, such as a
DVD player or a computer DVD drive, to decrypt, unscramble, and play back motion pictures on DVDs without enabling the
user to make a digital copy of the DVD movie.
In late October of 1999, computer hackers apparently cracked the DVD encryption system used by the plaintiffs and began
offering on the Internet a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copyright protection system and
thereby not only play, but copy and distribute, digital copies of copyrighted DVD movies.
The plaintiffs initially responded by remonstrating Internet service providers on which sites engaged in this activity were located.
In some substantial number of cases, the offending materials were removed. As 1999 drew to a close, someone, not the
plaintiffs, brought a trade secret action relating to this technology in a state court in California and moved for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The state court judge denied the TRO, I gather without explanation. The
preliminary injunction motion, I am informed, was heard this week and has not been decided.
The commencement of the action in California, and particularly the denial of the TRO, led to a substantial increase in attempts
to disseminate DeCSS on the Internet. From some of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, it appears clear that there are
those in the hacker community and in the Internet community, more broadly, who took the litigation in California as a throwing
down of the gauntlet. There appears, although it is not necessary to my decision, to have been an obvious effort in at least some
quarters to disseminate DeCSS as broadly and as quickly as possible to make it difficult or impossible to put the genie back in
the bottle through legal means.
If there is such an effort, and there appears to be, the defendants appear to be part of it. According to plaintiffs' evidence, it
appears that Mr. Reimerdes is the author and proprietor of a website that is disseminating DeCSS. Mr. Kazan is listed as the
technical director for a second website which is so engaged, although plaintiffs inform me that he seems to have taken DeCSS
down off the website since the commencement of this action.
I note in that connection that that does not moot the claim against him. The W.T. Grant case in the Supreme Court makes clear
that the voluntary cessation of such conduct does not moot an application for an injunction.
The defendant Corley, under the pseudonym Emmanuel Goldstein, is listed as the administrative, billing, and technical contact of
the third such site.
The defendants argue that they are not the real parties in interest, but the argument is both misguided and beside the point. It is
misguided because Rule requires that actions be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. It does not speak to
defendants. It is beside the point because the issue here is not whether these three individuals are or are not real parties in
interest in the sense they use the term or whether they are the proprietors or the moving forces behind the websites in question.
Rather, it is whether the plaintiffs are likely to show that they are engaged in violating the Act. If they are, they may be subject
to injunction. If they are not, they, of course, would not be.
They all had the opportunity to submit affidavits indicating they had nothing to do with these activities or explaining the nature of
their conduct and why it is not covered. They elected not to do that. I draw the inference from the materials submitted by the
plaintiffs and from defendants' silence that they are engaged in the offending activities. That, of course, is a matter that they are
free to contest at trial. But for present purposes, that is my finding.
The objectives of the websites with which they are connected are reasonably clear. The site with which Mr. Reimerdes is
connected invites users to share their DVDs with the world by copying them and, as I mentioned during the course of argument,
it contains a notice reading, and I quote: "The DVD Copy Control Association are cocksuckers."
The site with which Mr. Kazan is connected makes it fairly clear from materials plaintiffs have submitted that it is engaged in
something approaching a vendetta against the plaintiffs in this case. It inveighs against the plaintiffs' efforts to prevent
unauthorized copying of their material and makes clear its belief that it has a right to decrypt the plaintiffs' products and
disseminate.
The standard that governs the availability of preliminary injunctions in this circuit is very well established. The movant has to
demonstrate a threat of irreparable injury and either a likelihood of success on the merits or the existence of serious questions
that are fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.
In this case, it is clear to me that there is a threat of irreparable injury. To begin with, it is very well established in intellectual
property cases that threatened infringement of copyright, trademark, or patent rights or violation of trade secret rights is
presumptively irreparable injury. I made the point forcefully with defendants' counsel that defendants are not here charged with
copyright infringement. That is true. As a technical matter, therefore, the presumption to the point that it has developed up to
now does not apply. Nonetheless, it is plain that the dissemination of software that would circumvent the copyright protection
on the plaintiffs' copyrighted works does involve a substantial and immediate threat of irreparable injury, and that requirement is
satisfied.
I have taken into account the line of cases in this circuit that has indicated that in some circumstances undue delay in seeking a
preliminary injunction may either defeat a presumption of irreparable injury or, at a minimum, undermine the plaintiffs' claim to
irreparable injury. The cases make clear, however, that undue delay exists where the delay in fact is unexplained and unjustified.
It does not exist where a party is unaware at the outset of the scope of the threat. It does not exist where the party pursues in a
reasonable fashion and with reasonable dispatch other means of attempting to remedy the problem without coming to court.
There are other circumstances that are relevant.
I find that there was no undue delay in this case. The plaintiffs acted reasonably in seeking to deal with this problem by first
approaching the ISPs. They met with some success. They were not aware then that the problem would be as widespread as it
has become. I accept that the problem has become much more widespread since late December and that their getting into court
by January was plenty fast enough.
That brings us to an evaluation of the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiffs are proceeding under Section
1201(a)(2) of the Copyright Act. In relevant part, it prohibits any person from offering to the public or providing any
technology, product, service, device, or component "that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" the Act, or that "has only limited
commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
work protected under" the Act.
"To circumvent a technological measure" is defined in the statute to mean descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an
encrypted work, "or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of
the copyright owner."
"A technological measure effectively controls access to a work," according to the definition in the Act, "if the measure, in the
ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the
copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
There is, in my view, not the slightest question that plaintiffs have an exceptionally high likelihood of prevailing on the merits of
the claim of violation of this Act by these defendants unless one of the statutory exceptions, which I will come to in a moment, is
satisfied, or there is a constitutional impediment to that conclusion. CSS effectively controls access to the copyrighted works
because, as the defendants conceded at pageof their memorandum, one cannot, in the ordinary course, gain access to the
copyrighted works on DVDs without applying information or a process inherent in the player key that permits the play back of
the DVD. Indeed, it appears also that one cannot copy the copyrighted works protected by CSS even with a player key.
It is undisputed that DeCSS decrypts encrypted works and otherwise avoids or bypasses CSS without the authority of the
copyright owners. It is also clear to me that plaintiffs are likely to establish that DeCSS is primarily designed or produced for
the purpose of circumventing CSS and, thus, falls within Section 1201(a)(2)(A), and also that it has only limited commercially
significant purpose or use other than to circumvent CSS and, thus, falls within 1201(a)(2)(B).
I'm not talking about the Jews are DVD at all. I was talking about people thinking before following orders. Unfortunately I'm pretty ignorant, so Nazi Germany is the only well-known incident I could think off the top of my head that showed that.
I've actually corresponded with a NYT journalist on the issue of their parroting the MPAA position. No satisfaction; not that the NYT has ever addressed points of view which were too uncomfortable to the rich'n'powerful.
There was a comment that several of the legal briefs filed by EFF acknowledged copying as one use of the software. (They talk about "copying and viewing".) Since that's all that the DVD CCA talks about, it comes across as one of the few "agreed-upon facts".
The "viewing" bit comes out, if at all, as an unfounded asserttion by the defense ... which by that time (in all articles I've read) has already been painted using the DVD CCA (or MPAA) brush, as "hackers". And we all know hackers are just evil punks, kids with no moral character, like that Norwegian kid they threw into the slammer for hacking the same stuff, right? After all, that's what these same media have been telling the world for several years.
I'm sure that comes across as a travesty to many of you, as it does to me.
I can't see much we can do ... except that those who really do talk about copying should just shut up, since you're ruining it for the rest of us. (You do exist, yes.) The community should try to talk about its issue as "viewing".
At some level every minority community, like "hackers" (in the best sense) gets to deal with the opression of the majority. It's not always just. In the US, there still isn't equal opportunity, though it seems to be improving.
The other general issue is that most large media outlets have gotten quite accustomed to accepting the spin that other folk put on stories, without any real journalism. Look at the whole "Drug Prohibition War" deal, and the recent stories about payola for propaganda in mainstream media.
Good journalism would be a fix for this, but it's becoming less and less possible in mass media. And media like 2600.com don't get respect, particularly when they're (sort of) enjoined as actors in the case.
* A noddy program which tries to reset all AGID's on the DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include<stdio.h>
#include<fcntl.h>
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include <sys/dvdio.h>
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include <linux/cdrom.h>
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include<sys/ioctl.h>
#include<errno.h>
static int fd;
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
char *device = DVD;
int i;
if (ac > 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd < 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof(ai));
ai.type = DVD_INVALIDATE_AGID;
ai.lsa.agid = i;
ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai);
}
return 0;
}
Perhaps it is because they have no compitition. If say "the Matrix" was available from different distribution networks that really competed against each other then it would be an open and fair market. Instead, it is a virtual monopoly just like Microsoft is. Break up of the media companies on both a vertical and horizontal basis with real competition would drive prices into a more natural mode instead of being the largest that the market can bear in a given region. (Region = region codes = evidence of monopoly)
The defendants made the argument here this afternoon that DeCSS was not primarily designed to circumvent CSS because it
was meant only to enable people in lawful possession of copyrighted disks to play them for their own use on Linux machines. A
Linux machine is a computer that is operating under the Linux operating system rather than under Windows, the much more
widely disseminated operating system. On the relative positions of the two, anyone interested might read the decision in the
Microsoft case. But the simple fact of it is that the argument fails for two reasons.
First of all, defendants have submitted no evidence whatsoever that the primary purpose of DeCSS was to enable people in
lawful possession of copyrighted DVDs to play them on Linux machines and not to copy them. Secondly, even if there were
proof to that effect, there is no doubt that DeCSS was primarily designed or produced for the purpose prohibited in
1201(a)(2)(A) because the definition of "circumvent a technological measure" in 1201(a)(3) makes clear that decrypting or
descrambling a copyrighted work without the authority of the copyright owner is the very definition of circumventing a
technological measure. Therefore, even if the primary purpose here were to enable lawful possessors of copyrighted DVDs
simply to play those DVDs on Linux machines, the primary purpose would have been within the statute. I need not ultimately
decide the case on that ground because there are ample alternative bases that I already have outlined.
In summary, on that point, absent a statutory exception or a constitutional impediment, there is here a crystal clear violation of
the statute.
The defendants have argued almost every conceivable exception found either in 1201 or in other parts of the Copyright Act,
and they are all arguments that I find unpersuasive. We start with Section 512© of the Copyright Act which provides limited
protection from liability for copyright infringement by certain service providers for information resident on a system or network
owned or controlled by them. I think that argument is made under 512(c) only with respect to Mr. Kazan. But it does not
matter because the grounds that require its rejection in his case require its rejection in the case of all of them.
First of all, there is no proof before the Court that any of the defendants is a service provider within the meaning of 512(c).
Second, even if they were all service providers, what 512(c) does is to provide liability protection from copyright infringement.
These defendants are sued under 1201(a)(2) and are sought to be held liable not for copyright infringement but for a separate
statutory violation. Section 512(c), whether or not they are service providers, is simply of no applicability to this case.
The next argument turns on the reverse engineering exception, Section 1201(f)(2), or, more broadly, 1201(f). 1201(f)(2)
provides that, notwithstanding Section 1201(a)(2), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer
program may develop technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or the protection afforded by that measure,
to identify and analyze the elements of the program, that is to say, the program which the individual in question has obtained the
right to use, necessary to achieve interoperability with an independently created computer program, or for the purpose of
enabling interoperability if those means are necessary to achieve interoperability but only to the extent that doing so does not
infringe copyright. 1201(a)(3) permits limited rights to make such information available.
The defendants argue that they fall within this exception because DeCSS is necessary to achieve inoperability between
computers running on the Linux system rather than Windows and DVDs. I reject the argument. First, there isn't any evidence in
the record to support the assertion. Second, DeCSS concededly runs under Windows, even assuming it runs under Linux.
And, third, as the plaintiffs have pointed out, the legislative history makes abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse
engineering only of computer programs. It does not authorize the circumvention of technological protection that controls access
to other works such as movies.
The next exemption or exception on which the defendants rely is Section 1201(g), which relates to encryption research. There
is no showing that the defendants are engaged in that research, but I need not rely on that point. In order to avail oneself of the
exemption under 1201(g), the defendant must demonstrate that he made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before
circumventing the technological means. There is no such showing here.
The next argument is that this was authorized or exempt security testing under Section 1201(j). That exemption is limited to the
good faith testing of computers, computer systems, or computer networks, with the authorization of the owner of the equipment
or the network. In this case, DeCSS has nothing to do with testing computers, computer systems, or networks, and what is
going on here certainly was not done with the authorization of the owners.
We next have the argument that the defendants are engaged in a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Section 107
of the Copyright Act affords a limited defense to liability for copyright infringement. For the same reasons that I pointed out
earlier--these defendants are not being sued for copyright infringement--the fair use defense has no application in the facts of
this case. Thus, no colorable defense under the Copyright Act has been advanced.
The defendants next argue that the First Amendment protects their activities. They argue that their dissemination of DeCSS is
protected by the First Amendment and that, moreover, injunctive relief here would run afoul of the prior restraint doctrine.
I have some question in my mind whether DeCSS, the only portion of which that is offensive to the plaintiffs consists of
executable instructions as distinguished from nonexecutable programmer comments, is protected speech under the First
Amendment. But for the purposes of this decision, I assume that it is. To say that it is, however, is only the beginning of the
analysis.
Professor Nimmer, in his famous treatise on copyright, points out that if one took the most extreme absolutist First Amendment
and statutory construction approach to the provisions of the Constitution relevant here, the law of copyright is unconstitutional in
its entirety. The reasoning would be that all expressions are speech.
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. The First Amendment
was adopted after Article I of the Constitution. Under normal precepts of statutory construction, a later amendment modifies an
earlier text. All copyright law impinges on freedom of expression because any time one plagiarizes a book or a play or a movie
or a copyrighted newspaper article, one is, after all, speaking and expressing oneself and, therefore, it would follow that the law
of copyright is unconstitutional and that no copyright protection would exist for anyone in anything.
I hasten to add that Professor Nimmer does not take the view that the law of copyright on which he and his son have both
spent their lives is unconstitutional. I am not sure that the Supreme Court has ever directly addressed that precise argument, but
the question was raised indirectly in the Gerald Ford memoirs case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539,
where the alleged infringer was charged with copyright infringement for printing the juiciest part of President Ford's copyrighted
memoirs, allegedly in violation of the publisher's copyright. The defense was, among other things, fair use, and the argument
was made that the fair use defense in that case had to be given a very expansive reading to take account of the First
Amendment interest in President Ford's memoirs, particularly, as I recall, his account of how President Nixon came to be
pardoned for Watergate.
The Supreme Court made clear that conventional fair use analysis would be applied and that it would not expand the
boundaries of the traditional fair use defense in light of the First Amendment argument advanced by the defendant. In the course
of doing so, it made it perfectly clear that copyright and the First Amendment coexist.
That is not to say there is never any tension. And it is not to say that there is any crystal clear reconciliation of whatever tension
there is. There are a number of possible approaches.
One that strikes me as quite relevant here, particularly in light of the Betamax case, which I will come to in a minute, is this: The
copyright clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, empowers Congress to secure, for limited times, to authors the
exclusive right to their writings. It, thus, empowers Congress to adopt the Copyright Act and to confer upon the owners of
copyrights the exclusive right to exploit those works for a limited period. Article I concludes by empowering Congress to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. In order to give authors the
exclusive right to exploit their copyrighted writings--and I should make clear that the word "writings" in this context is a generic
term that embraces all copyrighted works--Congress necessarily was given the power to prevent others from publishing those
writings as long as the copyright subsisted, even though doing so necessarily prevents some people from saying some things
some of the time; namely, things that are copyrighted by others.
In consequence, the First Amendment cannot be read as abrogating the copyright clause and the necessary and proper clause.
Congress quite plainly has the power to limit speech where doing so is appropriate to ensure that copyright owners enjoy the
exclusive right to exploit their works. Chief Justice Marshall, almost 200 years ago, said with respect to the necessary and
proper clause "let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,
which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are
constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316, 420, decided in 1819. That is the law today.
The Betamax case makes especially clear that in areas of rapid technological change, such as the one we are dealing with, the
judiciary is to give deference to Congress' judgment about the manner in which copyright is to be protected in a changing
technological climate. In that case, Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 decided in 1984, a case that had to do
with videotape recorders, the Supreme Court said this, and I do elide some material in this quote for brevity:
From its beginning, the law of copyright has developed in response to significant changes in technology. Indeed, it
was the invention of a new form of copying equipment--the printing press--that gave rise to the original need for
copyright protection. Repeatedly, as new developments have occurred in this country, it has been the Congress
that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary. The judiciary's reluctance to expand the
protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme. Sound policy, as
well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the
market for copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to
accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
technology.
That appears at pages 430 and 431 of 464 of the U.S. Reporter. Now, in that case, the court relied on this traditional
deference to Congress to conclude that, in the absence of legislation, it should not extend copyright protection. But the very
same reasoning counsels in this case that in the face of express guidance from Congress, unmistakably clear guidance from
Congress, I ought to be exceptionally reluctant to cut back on it. That is not to say that the courts are obliged to blind
themselves to constitutional violations. Quite the contrary. But this is a circumstance in which there is an obvious need for
accommodation between interests in free speech and interests in protection of copyright.
As Congress has chosen a means which is directly related to the protection of important copyright interests, I see no infirmity
viewing this from the perspective of the Constitution as a whole, that is, the First Amendment, the copyright laws, and the
necessary and proper clause. That is one possible approach to the First Amendment question in this case.
Another is a balancing approach in which there would be a balancing between the limitation on expression inherent in protecting
a copyright and the values served by protecting the copyright. In this case, I have no doubt about where that balance falls
either, assuming that were the appropriate test. The plaintiffs here have enormous investments in copyrighted material, the
commercial significance of which is a matter of broad and obvious public knowledge. The creation of media content is one of
the large industries in this country and one of our major exports today. The protection of intellectual property rights in materials
owned by Americans is an important feature of our foreign policy and our trade policy. You only have to read the newspapers
to know that.
On the other side here, we have the interest in expression. I do not for a moment demean that interest; it is an important one.
But we always have to ask ourselves what we are really talking about. The facts say a lot. Putting aside programmer comments,
nonexecutable programmer comments, which are not the focus of this application, we are dealing with a set or sets of computer
instructions. They are, I am prepared to assume, expressive to some degree. They are much closer to an electronic or a
mechanical device for performing an operation on a subject to produce a result. They are a set of instructions which cause a
computer to render intelligible a data file on a DVD. If I were to balance the interest in protection of copyrights against the
extent to which free dissemination of that set of machine-executable instructions serves the goals traditionally served by
protection of speech--an informed society, the ability to engage in self-government, the ability to realize social and intellectual
goals--the balance in my judgment falls on the side of copyright protection, even though I recognize that there is perhaps some
interest served on the defendants' side of the ledger.
I do not think I need, for present purposes, to come to a definitive theoretical view on this point. Under any of the approaches
that have been brought to my attention, or that I have found on my own, I find the legislation under which plaintiffs seek relief,
both on its face and as applied here, constitutional or at least highly likely ultimately to be held constitutional.
The final point that plaintiffs make is the argument that an injunction here would be an unlawful prior restraint. It is an argument
that is invoked almost as a talisman on the assumption that any and all prior restraints are unconstitutional, short of an immediate
and grave threat to national security or something approaching that. I suppose, for popular and even first-year law school
purposes, that is not a bad statement. But it is not really entirely accurate.
I took a look during our break at Tribe on Constitutional Law, certainly somebody who has had a few more First Amendment
cases than I have, and he makes the point that if you look at what the Supreme Court and the federal courts have done rather
than some of the rhetoric, the reality is sometimes hard to square with the rhetoric. He says, and I quote from the second
edition of his book, at page 1046, "but prior restraints have been approved in the seemingly less momentous areas of film
censorship, commercial advertising, and permit requirements to use public places for expressive activities. The relative
importance of the government's interests, therefore, cannot explain the cases." He then goes on to try to come to a doctrinally
satisfying reconciliation, which I will not bore you with.
He does point out, however, that in the Progressive magazine case, United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F.Supp. 990,
where a magazine attempted to publish an article on how to make a hydrogen bomb, the district court did issue a preliminary
injunction. It remained in effect for seven months, and the Supreme Court denied a motion to expedite the appeal. It illustrates
the point about the difference between the rhetoric and the reality.
Bearing in mind the very weighty interests on the plaintiffs' side of the equation here and the, to me, quite limited, although
probably not nonexistent, expressive interests in the machine-executable code, and the lack of time sensitivity of the latter, I
conclude that a preliminary injunction in this case is consistent with the prior restraint doctrine and, therefore, the motion is
granted. A preliminary injunction will issue.
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.
MR. LEVY: Your Honor, I'm having the problem with being in California. I cannot even speak with the clients to find out what
their schedule is like. Certainly I'm not available for trial on Tuesday. I'm not sure as to the other attorneys.
THE COURT: Then let's leave it this way. I will act promptly on any application by the plaintiffs to set this case for a trial just
as fast as I can reach it. And all you have to do is communicate with my chambers and you'll be on the fastest express train you
ever saw because I take this seriously. And you will get as prompt a trial as I can give you, and I think that's very prompt.
MR. LEVY: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, you mentioned the application of the plaintiff. Are you referring--
THE COURT: I misspoke. Application of the defendants.
MR. KATZ: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: I misspoke. I always assume when I see the Proskauer firm that it's here on behalf of some employer being
sued for some labor violation. So they're always here for defendants.
I have taken the order to show cause and translated it into a preliminary injunction. I have copies that you folks can take a look
at. And if there are any problems about the form of it, I'll hear them now. I realize you folks are in California and have a
problem with that, but, Mr. Katz will hold up your end.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, I've completed my reading of the document.
THE COURT: Okay. Do we have any issues about the form?
MR. GOLD: Your Honor, we got a little smarter in the extra time between the end of last week and the end of this and were
hoping that we could get an injunction against linking to DeCSS or posting or linking to any other circumvention device. Again,
the posting is you stay on this one website and you take down DeCSS. The link is that you click your mouse twice, you get to
another website, which has DeCSS on the page you're transferred to, and you get it. So the only difference is instead of
clicking twice, you have to click twice, wait a second, and click twice again. And that's the linking to another circumvention
device. One of the defendants is engaged in both.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, if I may be heard on that, the danger in doing so is linking to sites--let me restate that, not knowing
what's on the other end of a website. If you have a link that goes to a website and you're not necessarily posting that site and
you double click, you are at the mercy of whatever may be on the other side of that.
THE COURT: Suppose it were "knowingly linking."
MR. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, our application does not refer to linking to the site. It refers to linking to circumvention
devices. We're aware of the concern.
THE COURT: What about that?
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, my concern is, one, for all sites, but I'm concerned primarily about the media aspects of this in that
there may be reporting of the DeCSS, which certainly would be permitted under your ruling, but--
THE COURT: Don't let my silence reflect acquiescence. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'll hear you out.
MR. KATZ: Thank you. In that there may be a reference to a particular site that may or may not have the DeCSS on it. If there
is a direct link coming from the site, I think that needs to be distinguished from the actual posting of DeCSS.
MR. LEVY: Additionally, your Honor, I think that the linking issue involves a completely separate issue, a whole slew of other
problems, and there's been no notice to the defendants that this was what was going to be discussed. It's completely separate.
Simply drawing a quick suggestion, it would mean, as discussed in argument, that one cannot link to the San Pedro Mercury
News because it does have a link to DeCSS.
MS. GROSS: Additionally, I think it's important to note that, once you link to something, you have no control over what that
person puts in that file.
THE COURT: That's already been covered, Ms. Gross.
Mr. Baumgarten.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, I simply want to point out that the language in the statute and the language in the order
you prepared covers "providing," and Mr. Gold pointed out it's just four clicks instead of two and you're still getting the
material. This is not the copyright issue of whether linking is a performance or a display. This is the language of this statute.
THE COURT: If I understand what you're saying, at least one of the defendants has on his site a place where you double click
on an icon or a hypertext link and that does not of itself download the DeCSS to your computer; what it does is it puts you
onto another site.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: For that material.
THE COURT: Where you then have to double click again.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: Yes, your Honor.
MR. GOLD: Yes, it's a page with--
MR. BAUMGARTEN: But on that page, you don't have the page for the other site and scroll through. Our order is limited to
going directly to the offensive material. To us, it makes little difference whether you're providing it with the first set of clicks or
the second. You're still providing it and the language of the statute is "providing."
MR. LEVY: Your Honor, providing a whole host of other information on the site.
THE COURT: Mr. Levy, just hold on a minute. Is this hypothetical link page one on which, in your contemplation, the user
simply double clicks anywhere on the page and automatically does it download, or is it a link page on which there's a bunch of
stuff and if you click on the right hypertext link on that page you get the download because they're offering the download to
everybody?
MR. BAUMGARTEN: Your Honor, for the purposes of the preliminary injunction, I think we'd be satisfied to make it clear
that you're clicking on the icon or whatever is there or the word "DeCSS," as long as what you're downloading to the second
click is DeCSS. Anything else on the page is not within our contemplation. We view it essentially the same as posting the
DeCSS. We don't mean to expand it. If there was a newspaper article on the link to site the order would not enjoin linking to
the newspaper article.
THE COURT: I think that that issue is sufficiently different from what I've heard that I'm not prepared to rule on it now. I will
deal with this in the form, if you wish to press it, of an application to modify and we'll give the defendants an opportunity to
respond to it and we'll deal with it in a more measured way.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, with respect to that, however, by looking at the preliminary injunction order, 2(b), as your Honor
points out, we deal with the issue of posting, but I'm concerned about the language "or in any other way manufacturing
importing, or offering to the public," and it's the "importing," Judge, I'm concerned about in the language of what a link is.
THE COURT: That's the statutory language.
MR. KATZ: I understand that, your Honor. But it just runs counter to what counsel has just said in terms of what they're willing
to accept, posting versus linking.
THE COURT: Look, I don't see the problem about importing. And I do not now offer any view as to what the phrase "offering
to the public" means, or what the word "providing" means. I'm not going to give an advisory opinion on that. This is the
statutory language. Your people at the moment obviously are offering to the public and providing. If some close case gets
presented later on, I'll deal with it.
MR. BAUMGARTEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything else about the form of the order?
MR. GOLD: No, your Honor.
MR. KATZ: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The order is signed at 5:40 p.m. My law clerks will give each side one copy of it and we will docket
the order. I reserve the right just to edit for syntax this transcript. It probably won't be available to you until Monday, at best,
before trial.
MR. KATZ: Your Honor, if I may just point out for clarification, affidavits or declarations of the defendants had been submitted
to your Honor.
THE COURT: Where?
MR. KATZ: In the form of, if I'm not mistaken, in the reply brief. They had been sent over to counsel, and those are
contained--
THE COURT: The reply brief was filed by the plaintiffs.
MR. KATZ: By the plaintiff. I apologize, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. You didn't submit any.
MR. KATZ: I had been unable to obtain them and bring them down to court in time, and I sent them over to counsel and I
believe that they are included--I believe that they are included.
THE COURT: They're included where?
MR. KATZ: I believe I saw them in the facsimile that was sent over, the three affidavits.
THE COURT: Who are the affiants?
MR. KATZ: Roman Kazan--
MR. KAZAN: I have a copy of it.
MR. KATZ: -- Eric Corley and Shawn Reimerdes.
THE COURT: They were never sent to me, as far as I know. They were not filed with the Court, were they?
MR. KATZ: No, your Honor. We only received them this morning.
THE COURT: The deadline was a day or two ago anyway.
MR. KATZ: I understand that.
MR. HART: Your Honor, I called Mr. Katz to ask him about it, and by the time he tracked down the fax that was supposed to
have gotten to our office, we had already replied blindly and without the sworn testimony. I did indeed get a fax from him after
that and brought it on my way to court. But Mr. Gold has not even had a chance to see it.
MR. KATZ: And, your Honor, that was based on the transmission I had received from the individual defendants.
THE COURT: Look, obviously it's unfortunate that that happened. But, counsel, you all knew what the rules were. And
there's nothing unusual about a preliminary injunction being heard this way. It happens every day of the week. And it's been
going on the entire 30 years I've been in this business in New York and it's probably going to go on a lot longer after I'm gone.
I mean an affidavit is good only if you put it before the Court.
MR. KATZ: Understood, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. GOLD: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: I thank counsel. This was illuminating to say the least.
* tstdvd.c
*
* Example program showing usage of DVD CSS ioctls
*
* Copyright (C) 1999 Andrew T. Veliath <andrewtv@usa.net>
* See http://www.rpi.edu/~veliaa/linux-dvd for more info.
*/
/*
* If supplied with one parameter it gets the disk key and
* saves it to a file. If supplied with a second parameter
* (a LBA) then it gets the title key for the supplied LBA.
*
* When getting the disk key, only the first 10 bytes of it
* are printed. The whole key is written to the file.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <errno.h>
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include <sys/dvdio.h>
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include <linux/cdrom.h>
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include "css-auth.h"
byte Challenge[10];
struct block Key1;
struct block Key2;
struct block KeyCheck;
byte DiscKey[10];
int varient = -1;
void print_challenge(const byte *chal)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
printf(" %02X", chal[9-i] & 0xff);
}
void print_key(const byte *key)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
printf(" %02X", key[4-i] & 0xff);
}
void print_five(const byte *key)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
printf(" %02X", key[i] & 0xff);
}
int authenticate_drive(const byte *key)
{
int i;
for (i=0; i<5; i++)
Key1.b[i] = key[4-i];
for (i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
{
CryptKey1(i, Challenge, &KeyCheck);
if (memcmp(KeyCheck.b, Key1.b, 5)==0)
{
varient = i;
printf("Drive Authentic - using varient %d\n", i);
return 1;
}
}
if (varient == -1)
printf("Drive would not Authenticate\n");
return 0;
}
int GetDiscKey(int fd, int agid, char *key)
{
dvd_struct s;
int index, fdd;
s.type = DVD_STRUCT_DISCKEY;
s.disckey.agid = agid;
memset(s.disckey.value, 0, 2048);
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_READ_STRUCT, &s)<0)
{
printf("Could not read Disc Key\n");
return 0;
}
printf ("Received Disc Key:\t");
for (index=0; index<sizeof s.disckey.value; index++)
s.disckey.value[index] ^= key[4 - (index%5)];
for (index=0; index<10; index++) {
printf("%02X ", s.disckey.value[index]);
}
printf ("\n");
fdd = open("disk-key", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC|O_CREAT, 0644);
if (fdd < 0)
printf("Can't create \"disk-key\"\n");
else {
if (write(fdd, s.disckey.value, 2048) != 2048)
printf("Can't write \"disk-key\"\n");
close(fdd);
}
return 1;
}
int GetTitleKey(int fd, int agid, int lba, char *key)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
int i, fdd;
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_TITLE_KEY;
ai.lstk.agid = agid;
ai.lstk.lba = lba;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai)) {
printf("GetTitleKey failed\n");
return 0;
}
printf ("Received Title Key:\t");
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
ai.lstk.title_key[i] ^= key[4 - (i%5)];
printf("%02X ", ai.lstk.title_key[i]);
}
putchar('\n');
printf(" CPM=%d, CP_SEC=%d, CGMS=%d\n", ai.lstk.cpm, ai.lstk.cp_sec, ai.lstk.cgms);
fdd = open("title-key", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC|O_CREAT, 0644);
if (fdd < 0)
printf("Can't create \"title-key\"\n");
else {
if (write(fdd, ai.lstk.title_key, 5) != 5)
printf("Can't write \"title-key\"\n");
close(fdd);
}
return 1;
}
int GetASF(int fd)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_ASF;
ai.lsasf.agid = 0;
ai.lsasf.asf = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai)) {
printf("GetASF failed\n");
return 0;
}
printf("%sAuthenticated\n", (ai.lsasf.asf) ? "" : "not ");
return 1;
}
/* Simulation of a non-CSS compliant host (i.e. the authentication fails,
* but idea is here for a real CSS compliant authentication scheme). */
int
hostauth (dvd_authinfo *ai)
{
int i;
switch (ai->type) {
/* Host data receive (host changes state) */
case DVD_LU_SEND_AGID:
printf("AGID %d\n", ai->lsa.agid);
ai->type = DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE;
break;
case DVD_LU_SEND_KEY1:
printf("LU sent key1: "); print_key(ai->lsk.key); printf("\n");
if (!authenticate_drive(ai->lsk.key)) {
ai->type = DVD_AUTH_FAILURE;
return -EINVAL;
}
ai->type = DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE;
break;
case DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE:
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
Challenge[i] = ai->hsc.chal[9-i];
printf("LU sent challenge: "); print_challenge(Challenge); printf("\n");
CryptKey2(varient, Challenge, &Key2);
ai->type = DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2;
break;
/* Host data send */
/* Returning data, let LU change state */
case DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE:
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
ai->hsc.chal[9-i] = Challenge[i];
printf("Host sending challenge: "); print_challenge(Challenge); printf("\n");
break;
case DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2:
/* Returning data, let LU change state */
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
ai->hsk.key[4-i] = Key2.b[i];
printf("Host sending key 2: "); print_key(Key2.b); printf("\n");
break;
default:
printf("Got invalid state %d\n", ai->type);
return -EINVAL;
}
return 0;
}
int authenticate(int fd, int title, int lba)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
dvd_struct dvds;
int i, rv, tries, agid;
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof (ai));
memset(&dvds, 0, sizeof (dvds));
GetASF(fd);
/* Init sequence, request AGID */
for (tries = 1, rv = -1; rv == -1 && tries < 4; ++tries) {
printf("Request AGID [%d]...\t", tries);
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_AGID;
ai.lsa.agid = 0;
rv = ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai);
if (rv == -1) {
perror("N/A, invalidating");
ai.type = DVD_INVALIDATE_AGID;
ai.lsa.agid = 0;
ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai);
}
}
if (tries == 4) {
printf("Cannot get AGID\n");
return -1;
}
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
Challenge[i] = i;
/* Send AGID to host */
if (hostauth(&ai) < 0) {
printf("Send AGID to host failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Get challenge from host */
if (hostauth(&ai) < 0) {
printf("Get challenge from host failed\n");
return -1;
}
agid = ai.lsa.agid;
/* Send challenge to LU */
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai) < 0) {
printf("Send challenge to LU failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Get key1 from LU */
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai) < 0) {
printf("Get key1 from LU failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Send key1 to host */
if (hostauth(&ai) < 0) {
printf("Send key1 to host failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Get challenge from LU */
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai) < 0) {
printf("Get challenge from LU failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Send challenge to host */
if (hostauth(&ai) < 0) {
printf("Send challenge to host failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Get key2 from host */
if (hostauth(&ai) < 0) {
printf("Get key2 from host failed\n");
return -1;
}
/* Send key2 to LU */
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai) < 0) {
printf("Send key2 to LU failed (expected)\n");
return -1;
}
if (ai.type == DVD_AUTH_ESTABLISHED)
printf("DVD is authenticated\n");
else if (ai.type == DVD_AUTH_FAILURE)
printf("DVD authentication failed\n");
memcpy(Challenge, Key1.b, 5);
memcpy(Challenge+5, Key2.b, 5);
CryptBusKey(varient, Challenge, &KeyCheck);
printf("Received Session Key:\t");
for (i= 0; i< 5; i++)
{
printf("%02X ", KeyCheck.b[i]);
}
printf("\n");
GetASF(fd);
if (title)
GetTitleKey(fd, agid, lba, KeyCheck.b);
else
GetDiscKey(fd, agid, KeyCheck.b);
GetASF(fd);
return 0;
}
#ifndef FIBMAP
#define FIBMAP 1
#endif
int path_to_lba(char *p)
{
int fd, lba = 0;
if ((fd = open(p, O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("DVD vob file:");
return 0;
}
if (ioctl(fd, FIBMAP, &lba) != 0) {
perror("ioctl FIBMAP failed:");
close(fd);
return 0;
}
close(fd);
return lba;
}
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
char *device;
int fd, title = 0, lba = 0;
if (ac < 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "usage: tstdvd <device> [title_path]\n");
exit (1);
}
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd < 0) {
perror(device);
exit(1);
}
if (ac == 3) {
lba = path_to_lba(av[2]);
title = 1;
}
authenticate(fd, title, lba);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
Hey man! Hackers was a great movie. Ok, maybe not a great movie, but a good movie. I mean it has Penn of Penn & Teller, Angelina Jolie's naked breasts, and a good soundtrack.
How can you go wrong?
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Don't windows DVD decoders (or any legit decoder) have to pay a license fee or something to use whatever it is you need to decode DVDs?
That's the whole root of the problem. CSS doesn't do a thing to prevent copying, but is a scam to extort cash from hardware manufacturers (and therefore indirectly consumers). It's monopoly power over playback, pure and simple.
There is literally no excuse for this kind of setup in an age where technology ought to be enabling the seamless interchange of information through common standards. If anything, government action should be focused on breaking up this kind of damaging trade practise.
Could someone get a license to make a Linux decoder? Possibly. But the point is that they shouldn't have to. Running a competitive market economy requires that no single company or cartel has control over any sector. Proprietary content formats of the kind we are discussing here are a serious abuse of the free market and are likely to hinder the development of digital technology.
Pretty clear who the real criminals are in this case.
but whats the point of trying to stop a broken dam now? i'm pretty sure the first burners didn't scare the RIAA or MPAA, but they're shitting themselves now. The whole thing of DeCSS is playback really, unless you've got a terabyte hard drive, and an OC3 wired to your house DeCSS is only useful for watching movies.
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
Return-path: Received: from smtp12.bellglobal.com by l.pop50.bellglobal.com (PMDF V5.2-32 #41556) with ESMTP id for b1ixpd67@pop50.bellglobal.com (ORCPT rfc822;b1ixpd67@pop1.sympatico.ca) ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:48:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mpaabeexchange.mpaa.org (mpa-nat6.link.be.226.183.194.in-addr.arpa [194.183.226.150] (may be forged)) by smtp12.bellglobal.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA09129 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by MPAABEEXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:46:44 +0100 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:46:43 +0100 From: System Administrator Subject: Undeliverable: FW: MPAA Decision To:----------------- Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF6B84.A51D6D4C" X-MS-Embedded-Report:
Registrant: THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATIONOF AMERICA, INC. (MPAA-DOM) 15503 Ventura Boulevard
Encino, CA 91436 US
Domain Name: MPAA.ORG
Administrative Contact:
Egge, Paul (PE420) pegge@MPAA.ORG
818-995-6600 (FAX) 818-382-1795
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Pilot Network Services, Inc. (PILOT3) hostinfo@pilot.net
(510) 433-7890
Billing Contact:
Egge, Paul (PE420) pegge@MPAA.ORG
818-995-6600 (FAX) 818-382-1795
Record last updated on 02-Jun-1998. Record created on 22-Aug-1995.
Database last updated on 30-Jan-2000 16:01:15 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS3.PILOT.NET 205.139.40.10 NS4.PILOT.NET 205.243.174.10 NS5.PILOT.NET 206.98.230.10
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I motion that Rob, Hemos, and company try to get him available for an Interview of the Week.
Well, two things:
One, to figure out how too play DVDs, you have to discuss it and share info. So there is a First Amendment issue here insofar as it's protected speech to tell someone how to watch a movie.
Two, and what I wish the EFF lawyers would go into a little more deeply is that the DMCA language is really ridiculous. It basically says that "circumventing" a technological measue is illegal, where "circumventing" means "decrypting". Since this means that ALL DVD players are illegal, Judge Kaplan ruled that the statute is limited to decrypting without the consent of the copyright holder. Okay, but 2 problems: Didn't the copyright holder implicitly give permission to watch the movie when they sold the DVD, and if not, who gets to give consent? Suppose Disney decides not to allow their movies to be played on Sony players. Does that make sony players illegal? (this is the legal interpretation favored by the plantiffs) What if MGM says it's okay for people to watch their movies on a Sony player. Who wins? Disney or MGM? (suppose that the player views all movies equally well.)
There are two significant constitutional problems here: The copyright clause allows congress to grant "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The "player prohibition" does not have any time limit to it, and secondly, it's granting a right to someone who is not the author or inventor. The DeCSS stuff was not written by the MPAA, and thus they can't claim any rights to it.
Any comments on this from the lawyers?
You spelled millennium wrong.
Had the decryption code *always* been kept inside protected black-box ASICs, I'll wager that the scheme would still be uncracked today. But... the DVD team made it's bed and now it's time to lie in it.
While Valenti's article may not be actionable libel, some of the letters of demand his organisation has sent to ISPs almost certainly are.
In those letters, the MPAA falsely states that the targetted individual has exhorted others to, or has offered him/herself to pirate copyright works. These false statements have the effect of defaming the target.
The stated intent of the letters was to have internet access provided by the adressee ISPs to the targets removed, which would likely cause them some real assessable commercial damage.
So, in summary (and depending upon the jurisdiction), I would say Valenti's organisation will have some nice civil suits heading their way.
[ObAbuse: Libel? Libel? I'll give you libel, you regurgitated lab-rat choad!]
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
This entire issue also brings into light the control of the corporate world over the government, and not just the US government it seems. If I remember correctly, from the US Constitution, Rights are based on priority, those who have a higher priority take precedence. That order would be
Anyway, thats just my take on the issue, it doesn't make any sense to me. To me, something like that doesn't only seem illegal, its immoral. What happened? I thought we had to right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness? If I can't watch a DVD I purchased on my computer because of an immoral corporate entity, my right to Pursuit of Happyness has been repressed! Its no-one elses duty to make sure I'm happy, so you can't force them to 'make' a DVD player for Linux for example, but they should NOT be able to stop you.
My apologies for the bad spelling, I may be incorrect about the rights precedence thing, but it seems like a good idea if I'm wrong.
This is all from memory and not very detailed, but keep in mind that the MPAA was a load of crap from the beginning. It was formed in 1922 (the "Hays office") as a PR organization in response to some movie-related scandals (like the Fatty Arbuckle thing). It was headed by William Hays, who was a former lawyer, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and US Postmaster General. The MPAA's own words on their initial function: "The initial task assigned to the association was to stem the waves of criticism of American movies, then silent, while sometimes rambunctious and rowdy, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business."
In addition, they created a list of "Do's and Don'ts" on what could be done in movies, but they were unenforced (and therefore a worthless gentleman's agreement). Around 1930, the MPAA/Hay's Office created the Production Code, which was similar to the "Do's and Don'ts" list, except it was enforcable (one could be fined for violating it). Some aspects of the code were pretty damned ridiculous (people weren't supposed to be depicted as having slept in the same bed, you weren't supposed to directly depict violence, children and dogs couldn't be hurt much, etc.).
Valenti came into the picture in the 60's. He was previously an advisor to a president (Johnson?). Hollywood wasn't doing so well partially because of TV and partially because it was stupid (ie out-of-touch, bloated...). To compete with television, the MPAA relaxed all the restrictions allowing much more controversial (and hence, more money-making) material, in the form of our current ratings system, which isn't as stupid as the production code (but not exactly a good thing).
X ratings were supposed to be for adults, but not necessarily without artistic value. When X became synonymous with "porn", they introduced NC-17 which isn't so different. And the ratings board's opinions are biased and change constantly, it seems. There seems to be almost no rhyme or reason to what they give some movies (look at what the creators of the "South Park" movie claimed-- the MPAA would say "change this", so they'd make it longer and more obscene, and then the MPAA would let it through...).
So, in conclusion, the MPAA is stupid.
(And don't actually hold me to any of this, since aside from the South Park comment, I haven't even thought about this in a looong time... some stuff might be off...
. Can they really be afraid that we are going to pirate a disc of such immense filesize that it would fill our hard drives, or that we are going to re-create them on media that doesn't exist?
It's already happening. All those warez sites that people talk about, are now carrying movies which, from what I've seen run around 300 MB's to 600 MB's.
As broadband becomes more popular, and drives become larger in size, this is going to become a lot more popular.
Yes, but even that's not inherently illegal. Fair use provides for legal copying in a variety of situations. For example it's perfectly legal for me to copy my cds to tape so I can listen to them in the car.
valentij@mpaa.org WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it doesn't bounce back.. lets send him a message!!!!
According the Valenti, the law states it is illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."
Note "a right of a copyright owner." Copyright owners do not have the right to keep you from making backups/copies for personal use. So the new law does not protect that nonexistent right.
This law doesn't give copyright holders any new rights, it just stop people from violating existing rights.
Is the popular media giving the other side fair time, presenting their/our arguments too? Other than calling the developers "linux hackers," I mean.
-sig-
For 2 cents I'd go down tomorrow morning and file a Federal suit against Valenti and all the other idiots who scream about property theft when they KNOW better. They are fully aware that what DeCSS does is to allow players to work on other than Windows systems, but are using libel to try and turn public opinion against us.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the LIES by the MPAA and others, and I think it's high time to stop them - in court, if need be. Mike Godwin, where are you now that I need you?
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Will there be T-shirts at LinuxWorld Expo too?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...and I've also joined the ACLU, AND bought one of the shirts.
:-)
I've also downloaded a copy of the source code for both LiViD and DeCSS, copied it onto an encrypted filesystem, and stored it offsite. At least one copy will exist.
Anonymously posted, for obvious reasons.
letters@latimes.com
Mr. Valenti should really get his facts straight
by visiting
www.opendvd.org
1.) It was possible to illegally bit copy DVD's before the child-like encryption was cracked and the Software to do so was
made publicly available.
2.) The main purpose of the Software is NOT to copy the DVD, but to make it possible to view DVD's on an
operating system OTHER than Microsoft's Monopoly Windows (e.g. Linux or Solaris) and to view DVD's
imported from other countries (ignore the country codes).
Understandable though since www.mpaa.org runs a Microsoft Webserver.
I do know and totally understand the kinds like Mr. Valenti having a hard time with the concept of "Open Source".
I like that, it is our stamp of approval.
3.)The American Money Elite might have a hard time with the fact, that their almighty judges do not have as much power
as they would like to have, the genie is out of the bottle. You are not going to stuff it back in.
Another proof of people unclear of the concept called "internet".
Pretty scary stuff for the ones in power: A free medium, accessible with free Software, to obtain free knowledge.
4.) I do not think Mr. Valenti, as former pilot who dropped bombs on human beings,
is in the position to judge Hackers, their culture or their motives, for I sincerely doubt he has written a single piece of
Software himself, his article makes it obvious by the use of polemic wordplay (hackers / cyber-thiefs / narcotics).
Perhaps you missed Eric's article on Linux Today about the DVD CCA's lawsuit. I think Eric covers the situation quite well in that article, and I haven't seen anything that would require an update to that article.
Perhaps you've missed out on Eric's speaking engagements over the last month, but I know that he's been on the road, unpaid, for well over 50% of the time in the last several months, including the Eighth Annual Python Conference last week, and Linux World this coming week. What I want to know is this: where have you been? Where have your letters to the editor been published? Where are your articles on what's wrong posted?
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what the Linux Community can do for you, ask what you can do for the Linux Community". That means doing more than writing derisive posts on Slashdot that take cheap shots at people you don't like. Or, as in the words of my (and I'm sure everyone else's) mother: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
The other side is making the argument that this issue is about copyright protection. After thinking about it, I've thought of an example that would seem to prove them wrong, and that the issue is about WHO gets to view the videos, and not protecting intellectual property.
Prior to the 1980's, if a sufficiently talented electrical engineer wanted to build his own audio equipment (and many audiophiles DID do this) he was free to do so. In this case I am specifically talking about a turntable/record player. There was nothing prohibiting a talented electrical engineer from building his own record player which would allow him to play and LISTEN TO his record collection.
This example could be extended to reel-to-reel tape machines as well as cassette decks, and yes even music CD players, today. For that matter, someone out there is even capable of building a Sony 3348, 48-Track 24-bit, 96Khz pro studio multi-track recorder. And if these people have done their job right SOUND will actually come out of the speakers that the device is hooked to. I'll say it again:
Anyone sufficiently talented is capable of building a device which will render an intelligible playback for whatever media they have chosen to build a player, audio or video
UNTIL NOW.
Now, if I were inclined to do so, I could buy various components and build a DVD player, but without prior knowledge of the encryption algorithm used to encrypt the data on the discs, and a valid ecryption key, I would be unable to actually watch and listen to the DVD that I put into my machine.
What has suddenly changed, that no longer allows me to play a DVD that I purchased in a store and legally own? It would seem (to me) that this is the crux of the issue.
As I was composing this message, something else occurred to me that distills my point into a far more palatable and less wordy argument:
Over the length of my entire life, I have yet to purchase a book whose text was encrypted.
Ignore Alien Orders
It is possible to know certain laws without being a lawyer. I aced my HS law class without cracking a book. Not because I'm smart, but because both my parents are lawyers. I picked it up through 17 years of hanging around them.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Can anyone check if he lives in Washington, to make sure we dont email someone else?
Also, recall that the LA times has been under a lot of scrutiny because of some severe breaches in their journalistic integrity.
Perhaps, it might also be good to raise the question of the fairness of this article with a competing paper?
As an example, take following paragraph (the third one, although most paragraphs contain adequate nonsense for a rebuttle, I just don't have that much time):
"Every DVD is coded with encryption software. The protection of our creative product is even more critical in a digital world because the one-millionth copy of a digital film is as pristine and pure as the original. The program in question illegally breaks the encryption, leaving the valuable product unprotected."
from the article, it seem to indicate that the "hacker" software exists to copy CD's in their pristine form. However, this is contrary to several factual statements from the manufacturers of DVD equipment. For example, Toshiba offers a DVD writer that would allow "pristine" copies of DVDs without ever decrypting them. I would speculate that the production of innovative hardware that permits copying without ever decrypting the DVDs would be more dangerous than software that permits decrypting them. At least decrypting them has the logical use of allowing them to be viewed.
Why is software decoding not dangerous? Because every DVD player can play encrypted DVD's. It is irrelevant that you copy DVD's encrypted or not, and the ability exists to copy them as encrypted DVDs. One must then speculate, what is the real intent behind the DVD decrypting software? Mr. Valenti conveniently leaves out the fact that the DVD software allows users of the Linux Operating System to view the DVD movies that they own, something not available prior to this. If I own a DVD, am I not entitled to view it in whatever manner I wish?
I have a license to drive, which makes sense since driving can be deadly, and putting the wrong people on the road endangers us all. I see no justification to live in a world where I need a license to watch movies. But that is the implication of Mr. Valenti: If you do not possess licensed decoder from the DVD consortium, DVD's are an inaccessible technology to you. Is it really his place to dictate this? I believe it similar to dictating which cars I am allowed to drive, and allowing me to only drive the BMW, and "to hell with me" if I can't afford that or want choice.
The stark ignorance of Mr. Valenti is appalling. The "cyber-thieves" generally have better things to do than copy films. (most of them are rich, anyway) Indeed, it is the very benevolence of the entire community surrounding open source software that permits them to work together on a common project, by volunteering to create software that allows users of Linux and FreeBSD and BeOS and all the other free operating systems, to view DVD movies.
In all honesty, I can tell you that Mr. Valenti is one of the most ignorant people alive, or one of the most selfish and malevolent ones. The publication of this FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in your newspaper undermines your credibility; without a satisfactory rebuttle, my faith in your publications is compromised, indefinitely.
Please try and find one of the many well educated people to publish a sensible rebuttle to this deception. It is a shame to see a respectable newspaper used as a medium for nonsensical opinion. The web page www.opendvd.org has information for journalists, which should be of interest to you. It provides true statements in direct contradiction of Mr. Valenti's article, except the statements on opendvd.org can be validated as true. Mr. Valenti's are fictitious opinion.
I must implore you to research this issue, and take heed when Mr. Valenti attempts to abuse your publication like this. There are millions of people out there who have read this article. The innocent will be deceived. The wise will be skeptical. The knowledgeable will be insulted.
If you do not have the right to use what is yours, what rights do you have?
Golly that's disturbing. It's ok if he rears Natalie Portman (who wouldn't?), but if he does it to the daughters that's statutory rape and child abuse. So I doubt he'd do that. But you never know with them rich folks...
Theft? It's not about theft. I have a ***RIGHT*** granted by USC, Title 17 Sec. 117, to make not just 1, but as many backup copies of stuff I own as *I* please and not just of megnetic or other unstable media but of *any* media, durable or no. Shit happens so I demand my backup copy to be there when it does. And the law specifically forbids *you* from deciding otherwise. The law also allows me to make compilations of stuff I own or convert to other media as I decide it is necessary. I control. I decide. I bought the disc and can do anything I like with it. It's mine.
Does this mean that equipping Evil People (tm) with this code *might* encourage them to do something illegal? Well, *you* are are equipped to be a gay prostiture, but you're not, are you? Think about that. Can do != most will do.
Cryptanalysis of Contents Scrambling System,
Frank A. Stevenson ( frank@funcom.com )
Abstract: CSS is a scrambling system used in the distribution for movies on DVD ( Digital Versatile Disc ) a high capacity CD like storage system. Its main purpose is to prevent the unauthorized duplication of disc contents. This is achieved through encrypting the files, and storing keys in hardware. Here we will describe the system, and show that even if the keys can be securely stored in hardware, the data will not be protected from unauthorized copying. Severe weaknesses in the ciphers effectively voids the need for the hardware keys when decrypting the content.
8th November 1999
(updated 13th Nov.)
0 General disclaimer.
2 CSS streamcipher primitive: 3 CSS mangling step:1 System overview.
4 Attacking the hash of the disk key. 5 Conclusion 6 Further information
In case you haven't been keeping up with copyright law in the last 30 years or so, it is legal to disammble programs, even if this contrary to license agreements. Click through licenses do not give companies a right to overstep the bounds established by copyright law. Perhaps this is why the MPAA's lawyers are arguing under trade secrets and what not.
Of course with the DMCA (all of which isn't law yet) could change this.
Last I checked, breaking into another's computer was illegal.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
If you look at the preliminary ruling in NY the judge wouldn't let the defendents lawyers discuss copyrights. He said it was not a copyright issue but the stealing of a device "the dvd player software device". This was a very strange spin to say the least and makes it very clear that the issue is not copying DVDs but instead is about not paying license fees for an unpatented technology. As an engineer with patents I find this logic very weird. If I just claim that everything in the world violates my trade secrets forever and a crooked judge upholds my claims this is much better than any coverage I could ever get with a patent. IN FACT THIS IS TOTALLY BOGUS!!!!
That's precisely what I was getting at.
Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough. What I was trying to say was do I have the right to make archival copies of my software, music, etc., without loss of quality if it is in theory possible to do so? If they introduced something similar to CSS for audio CDs, would I have the right to decrypt the data and make a bit for bit copy of the decrypted audio stream? To do so, it would likely be necessary to circumvent their copy-protection scheme. Or is it sufficient that I can make an analog recording of the CD and too bad for me if I'm a stickler for sound quality?
Dave
- Subsolar http://th under.prohosting.com/~subsolar/articles/2000/20000 124-letter.png
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 law 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,
- signature withheld.
Ok let me deal with your arguments, I'll assume that you are in the U.S. because I'm most familiar with its laws, that's where the MPAA is based, and that's where the court cases are taking place.
But despite all that, it really does boil down to someone seeing what the MPAA did not want to be seen.
The fact is under U.S. copyright law I am allowed to do whatever I want with copyrighted material that I have legally acquired, so long as I do not ditribute it, or publically perform it. So for personal use only copying is completely legal. The MPAA can not take away my rights to view copyrighted material on any media I choose unless I sign away those rights in a negotiated contract.
If they didn't care about their monopoly or copyright protection they wouldn't have bothered to encrypt it.
They have copyright protection whether or not they encrypt, they can still go after people illegally distributing movies.
And while DVD copying makes no sense right now, use some common sense: DVD copiers and disc's will go down in price. They won't be this expensive forever. As for the monopoly, you don't fix a bad thing by doing another bad thing (although I know someone is going to argue cracking DSS isn't a bad thing).
This is true however see my above points.
Let the MPAA do what it wants to do with the things IT created. It owns the stuff, and all DeCSS does is steal the intellectual property of the MPAA.
Again copying is not stealing, it is what you do with the copies that is illegal. No one went to jail for creating a copy, just the distribution, or intent to do so.
I like Linux, socialism, and guns. Any questions?
FOR THE LUV OF GOD (who just might be a penquin! ;) how can linux be a warez os if everyhting is FREE ok? now warez from what i've heard/seen/yea you know involves getting stuff that costs $$$ for free.. right?! well if someone BUYS a dvd (becuase it would be jsut idiotic and ironic to burn one) AND a dvd player (like a vhs version of the movie and a VCR) then shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it.. and now i'm sorta off topic but you get my point [most likely and hopefully]
Sure you can download a binary that plays encrypted DVD's for Linux but who wants to run anything you can't compile yourself?
Um, maybe non-geeks?
No, but the laws do not state that the individual cannot make exact copies for archival purposes. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the copies are exact or not. Fortunately, it is rather basic to US law that what is not forbidden is allowed (a fact that evidently distresses the MPAA).
Imagine if the opposite were true - since the same rules apply to making archival copies of computer software in case the original media is damaged, those archival copies would be useless if even slight losses of information occurred in the backup process, probably resulting in completely inoperable software.
Sure, I really don't see any other option. In any case, reverse engineering is legal as is the copying for the purposes of fair use so what exactly did they do wrong?
Take what to court? What possible basis would there be for a suit?
... some folks consider owning guns to be a civil liberty, while the ACLU, for their part, doesn't want anyone except the government to own guns. See this link on their site, for example. Amusingly, you won't find "Gun Control" to be one of the topics on their front-page "The Issues" list.
I don't recall asking the ACLU for their opinion on gun control. Once they have conquered all of the threats to the First Amendment in our society, then, and only then, should they consider themselves free to use their members' contributions to denounce and distort the Second.
This is why I'm a member of the EFF, but not the ACLU.
-- jm
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
I spent $200 on DVD drives and disks just because there was a decryption module for it. A person with my education has to work 3 hours to pay for 1 DVD and 2 days to pay for a DVD drive. For that kind of effort we should be allowed to play the DVD. The kids who use my software refuse to use anything they can't compile from the source code themselves. That means a lot of people aren't buying into this format who would if the source code was just legal.
Yeah, I'd like to see a link to a website that tells you to pirate DVDs. And they think that WE have poor ehtics or something. I like how they said that they are on their way to victory with the court asking us to stop posting the code (until the case is over, we should). but they don't realize that the code can never be destroyed anymore. If the fed's break down everyone's door then I'll take the code and post it myself. Everyone should go and educate people, and tell them how CSS really works, if people see that we are right then we'll win!
"huhuhuhh, go away. we're like closed or something"
If the MPAA speaks for the manufacturers of these products then they were sold to me fradulently.
I agree with you. You bought the DVDs expecting that you were buying the right to watch them. The DMCA tries to limit your rights, by creating `authorised' means of access.
The DMCA speaks of copyright owners' authorizing means of access. As far as I can tell, that authority can be revoked ad lib. So what have you actually been sold? Absolutely nothing - certainly not the right to watch what you've bought.
You should check this out http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html and make your comments clearly heard.
The comment period closes in a couple of days, but with enough comments, DeCSS may be granted an exemption.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
Yes, they could. Unfortunately, the license fee for such an action would be huge, and no one in the Linux community is likely to pay it. There is even less chance of the player being free. Free software is the whole point of Linux. The Linux DVD decoder was the inciting incident, but it is now a much larger issue. There are fundamental copyright issues at stake here, and the MPAA will be going for a death grip.
Your open source propaganda is what would allow this to happen in the first place. You can yell free beer all you want, but I'll still buy my prefered brand.
The DMCA includes provisions which deal with technological copy protection schemes. Why? To prevent piracy. Do you think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux vs. Windows? Of course not. They get their cut either way. Their interest is to prevent piracy.
The DVD CCA, now...they care, because without license fees for CSS, they have no income, correct?
well, if a method of *exact* copying or backup doesn't exist, what the heck is the point of an archival copy? if i have a database, and i make a backup, i sure as hell want everything that was there at the time of backup to be copied *EXACTLY*. There is more to this issue than just being able to watch your favorite bad film on DVD. it's about rights, and their abridgement by greedheads.
Leave it up to the LA Times to print such opinionated, one-sided drivel. They're reputation for bending over to corporate interests continues. Look elsewhere for journalistic integrity...
+++
+++
NO CARRIER
Even under DMCA it is legal to reverse-engineer for reasons of interoperability.
(as per my understanding)
6. The MPAA is suing its customers for trying to watch DVDs they (the customers) purchased on equipment they (the customers) purchased.
I can think of better business plans.
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Mr. Valenti's argumentation, while certainly spit-shined by his PR suits, is exceedingly lacking in some crucial areas. His major pragmatic example/cross-application, the department store key example, ignores the fact that the creation and distribution of all those keys is not illegal. Perhaps using the key to steal the contents of the store is illegal, but the MPAA suit is not directed toward the use of the keys to which he refers. This is because the case on the defense side would then become a simple fair-use argument, which the MPAA simply cannot defeat. The current suit is nothing but smoke and mirrors designed to produce a ruling that could later be misused to defeat fair use. I must point to the examples of other slashdotters, including the airplane laptop movie example from Mr. Perens and the bit-for-bit copy proposition from 1010011010. These, in my opinion, are other areas in which the MPAA has some serious problems in terms of their argumentation. But that's for another post. John D. A. LaRose.
I have heard some outrageous statements in my day, but this takes the cake. Equating honest citizens with thieves because they didnt want to shell out a shitload of money for a DVD player so that they can watch thier legally purchased and owned DVD discs, and instead choose to view them on the Linux OS. It's the MPAAs(and thier ilk) that are at fault, for not supporting more platforms, and trying to control information in general.
If this guy had a heart attack in front of me, I would do absolutely nothing to help him...
...except maybe piss in his face.
Anyone who takes this guys argument seriously (that its about piracy) should have thier balls removed or thier tubes tied to slow down the spread of the idiocy gene.
If you coneheads had bothered to release a binary for linux users to use so they could watch DVD's under the same pretense as a Windows user, we would not be having this problem. Recognize your hang ups for what they are: short-sightedness
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
Someone also pointed out that over the past 12 months, CD sales supposedly dropped 30%. The music industry is quick to blame this on piracy. Certainly piracy accounts for some of it. But I don't think that's the real reason sales are dropping. Nor is it the fact that people are listening to more independent artists who have no deals with the record companies. I think the cause is far more simple: evolution. Technology evolves in a manner not unlike life does. When the CD came around, vinyl records died a slow and painful death; they're all but gone now, limited to a niche market(let's please not get into a vinyl vs. CD flamewar here).
It's happenning again, only this time digital music is abandoning its physical form, the CD. The record companies never saw this coming. They had their chance; if any of them had come up with a secure, open standard, put it out there for many platforms, and sold music using it at a reasonable price, it would have flown. But they ignored the "new music" and now they're paying the price as evolution leaves them in the dust. I doubt it's quite too late for them; if they can get a reasonable open standard going they can still recover. But they had better hurry, and they'd better do it right.
Digital video isn't going that way anytime soon, of course. It's still too big to transfer over most networks in a way that leaves the video quality intact while still making the transfers practical. But it will come eventually, and the entertainment industry had better be ready this time, or they're going to get trampled into the dust.
Come on, when they're doing this do you really think they'd change their minds and permit an Open Source player, just because we passed the hat and threw some money at them?
More specifically, ask him what he thinks of the $2.50 Hong Kong pirate DVDs which were in production long before DeCSS ever existed.
Or what he thinks of the bill of goods the MPAA and it's members were sold by the DVD Forum/DVD-CCA.
You are paying for the media- that's all the warranty covers. It's your good fortune if the media happens to contain content you can make use of, but you're simply SOL if it doesn't.
But would the MPAA putting CSS on DVD's imply it doesn't think you have the right to make copies? And so wouldn't the only crime the MPAA did was not making it very obvious that they didn't want you to make copies? Would that be legal, for DVD's not to allow you to make copies, even legal copies? What if by buying a DVD player, you basically gave up your rights to copy any DVD?
* css.h
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains declarations common to more than one CSS program#
*
*/
#ifndef CSS_H
#define CSS_H
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
Tables defined in csstable.c
*/
extern byte CSSvarients[32];
extern byte CSSsecret[5];
extern byte CSSmangle0[256], CSSmangle1[256], CSSmangle2[256];
extern byte reverse[256];
/*
Debug functions defined in cssdebug.c
*/
void print_tab( byte const * b, int len);
#endif
I totally agree with you: it's about rights. See my reply to 1010011010 above for a clarification of what I meant by "exact copy." Basically, I was wondering if quality has anything to do with my right to make a back-up. I think I should have the right to make a lossless (i.e. no quality degradation) copy of all my CDs (and DVDs, if I were ever to start buying them), but I'm curious what the law says.
Dave
* Copyright (C) 1999
* Derek Fawcus <derek@spider.com>
* Mark Roberts <maroberts@dial.pipex.com>
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include "css.h"
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
/*
* We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to
* generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams
* are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final
* sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that
* 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer.
*
* The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of:
* x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1
*
* The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of:
* x^15 + x^1 + 1
*
* I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus
* represent maximal-period LFSR's.
*
*
* Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in
* bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's
* are implemented in bit reversed order.
*
*/
static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, byte *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
int val;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
/* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the
* initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s[0] << 17) | (s[1] << 9) | ((s[2] & ~7) << 1) | 8 | (s[2] & 7);
/*
reverse lfsr0/1 to simplify calculation in loop
*/
lfsr0 = (reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<17) | (reverse[(lfsr0>>8)&0xff] << 9)
| (reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<1) |(lfsr0>>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[s[4]] << 9) | 0x100 | ( reverse[ s[3]] );
++output;
val = 0;
do {
/*
reversed verion of
o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 17) ^ (lfsr0 >> 14) ^ (lfsr0 >> 13) ^ (lfsr0 >> 5);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 << 8) ^ o_lfsr0
o_lfsr1 = lfsr1 & 7;
o_lfsr1 = (o_lfsr1 << 5) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 2) ^ (o_lfsr1 >> 1);
o_lfsr1 ^= (lfsr1 >> 9) ^ (lfsr1 >> 12) ^ (lfsr1 >> 15);
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 << 8) ^ o_lfsr1
*/
o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 << 3) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 6);
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 >> 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 9);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 << 17);
o_lfsr0 = ~o_lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ~o_lfsr1;
val += o_lfsr0 + o_lfsr1;
*--output = val & 0xFF;
val >>= 8;
#if (CSSDEBUG & 2)
fprintf(stderr, "lfsr0=%08x lfsr1=%08x\n", lfsr0, lfsr1);
#endif
} while (--len > 0);
}
/*---------------------------------------------- -------------------------* - ------------------------*/
If this was C++, these would be inline functions
*----------------------------------------------
#define MANGLE1(bs,ip,op) \
in = ip; out = op; bp = bs;&nb sp; \
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = in[i]) { \
index = bp[i] ^ in[i]; \
index = CSSmangle1[index] ^ cse; \
out[i] = CSSmangle2[index] ^ term; \
}
#define MANGLE2( bs, ip, op) \
in = ip; out = op; bp = bs;&nb sp;&nb sp; \
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = in[i]) { \
index = bp[i] ^ in[i]; \
index = CSSmangle1[index] ^ cse; \
index = CSSmangle2[index] ^ term; \
&n bsp; out[i] = CSSmangle0[index]; \
}
/*
* This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations
* one the same theme depending upon the choice in the
* varient parameter (0 - 31).
*
* The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into
* a 40 bit output.
* The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of
* the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed
* by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number
* generators.
*/
static void engine(int varient, const byte *input, byte *output)
{
byte cse, term, index;
byte temp1[5], temp2[5];
byte bits[30];
const byte *in;
byte *out;
byte *bp;
int i;
/* Feed the secret into the input values such that
* we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then
* generate the bits to play with.
*/
for (i = 5; --i >= 0; )
temp1[i] = input[5 + i] ^ CSSsecret[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1[0]);
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nBits: ");
print_tab( &bits[0], 30);
#endif
/* This term is used throughout the following to
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = CSSvarients[varient];
/* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
MANGLE1( &bits[25], input, &temp1[0]);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr"\nRound 1: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[20], &temp1[0], &temp2[0]);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 2: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE2( &bits[15], temp2, temp1);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf( stderr, "\nRound 3: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE2( &bits[10], temp1, temp2);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 4: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[5], temp2, temp1);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 5: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[0], temp1, output);
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 6: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
}
/*
* These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before
* calling engine() to do the main work.
*
* The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of
* the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to
* try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it
* actually adds anything to the security.
*
* The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied
* parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and
* the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised.
*
* The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first
* (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter.
*
* Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the
* code table driven in order to improve readability.
*
* Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even
* abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining
* the nature of the reordering it has to do.
*/
void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(varient, scratch, &key->b[0]);
}
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
*& nbsp; 4 -> !3
*& nbsp; 3 -> 4
* varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits
*& nbsp; 1 -> 2
*& nbsp; 0 -> !1
*/
void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d,
0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d,
0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05,
0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, &key->b[0]);
}
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
*& nbsp; 4 -> 0
*& nbsp; 3 -> !1
* varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits
*& nbsp; 1 -> 2
*& nbsp; 0 -> 3
*/
void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e,
0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c,
0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f,
0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, &key->b[0]);
}
If I were the EFF, I would start by submitting, and demonstrating, the software produced by the LiViD project for DVD playback. I would then ask the MPAA, under oath, if it would be possible to play back the DVD without the decryption knowledge - or if there is currently any other way to watch a DVD under Linux.
Then, I might try submitting a VCR tape of a movie, which was created by recording directly off a DVD.
Next, challenge the MPAA to do the same, only they must use DeCSS to produce a bootleg DVD which was created with tools and media which are readily available.
If DeCSS is such a boon to pirates, have them demonstrate, step by step, how it can be used. They can always seal the document.
Sure, they could show how you could downsample to a Video CD - at a significant loss in quality, analogous to a DVD -> VCR copy.
----
What causes the comparison is similarity of behavior. Merely because they act protectionary and monopolistic doesn't make them MS bedfellows. In fact, I doubt highly they act together or cooperate out of anything but necessity.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
If EFF or any other open source advocates get too vocal about this, their own cat will be out of the bag - that Linux is not worth the hype it has recieved over the last year and has some very serious compatability issues in the real world.
Valenti is some sort of fascist. Is that what happens to you when you get filthy rich? (I know, that's not polite. :P )
kabloie
Well, since you mentioned Google, I tried a search...
DeCSS: 724 hits
DeCSS and Linux: 257
DeCSS and Player: 210
DeCSS and Ripping: 65
DeCSS and Ripper: 67
Now google's index is about a month out of date, hence the low number of hits (compared to 70000 on dejanews) but the number of pages talking about DeCSS as a ripping tool seem to be a lot less than those talking about Linux players.
So would you care to back up your claim, or you just spewing crap for Valenti?
Picture book even. (Score -1:Astroturfer)
The problem is for a DVD decoder to really "exist" in the Linux world, it has to be compilable from the source code up, unlike the windows world where anything goes. Sure you can download a binary that plays encrypted DVD's for Linux but who wants to run anything you can't compile yourself?
Picture book even.
(Score -1:Astroturfer)
EFF are ripe sucks and crack whores.
On 01/30/100 you contributed $xxx to EFF for a one year membership with the organizatiation."
--
Jake
You sir, are an idiot.
What makes you an idiot is not your statements. It is not even your complete lack of understanding the situation. What makes you an idiot, sir, is your deliberate intent not to even attempt to understand the situation.
If you would simply take the time to research, or even look into what it is you are talking about, you might maintain some semblance of intellect.
Read the GPL, fucker.
In it, RMS clearly states that he is tired of being a criminal for sharing software with his friends. Thus, any GPL OS, including Linux is inherently just the opposite of what you proclaim. Linux is the OS for anti-warez users. This much would be apparent to you if you weren't such an idiot, as defined earlier.
Under such a licence, who would pay? The answer is: no-one. Why? Because no-one would be able to buy a lincence and then open-source or GPL the code without breaching the contract signed when purchasing the licence. Thus, only binaries could be released, making the software ineligible for the GPL. Sure, companies could make binaries for Linux and every architecture under the sun, but for free? This seems highly unlikely. This is not about being cheap assholes, asshole. This is about having software which is free, free as in air. Everybody uses it, everybody shares it.
So, in conclusion: It has been shown you are an ignorant idiot who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about because he chooses not to.
I'm sick and tired of fuckers like you making comments with a perspective about as wide as a dime at arms length, edge on. Look around you shithead, the world is deeper than what you immediately see. Take it in.
Usually I try to be helpful, in this case it is apparent the subject is beyond help and must be humbled.
Hopefully, by the time I submit this, pissface up there will have been correctly moderated. I have given this post exactly what it deserves; flames for flamebait.
You sir, are an idiot.
So who is the real criminal in the above example that Mr. Valenti mentioned? Is it the locksmith that made a key or the thief that used it? (Assuming, of course, that anything was actually stolen!)
The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets. Allright. Lets look at that for a moment; I purchased a copy of A Clockwork Orange on DVD, and I am unable to play it on my os of choice. Fine. So what do I do? I crack the Crypto and watch it. This man is exactly right, except for one thing: I own the department store, I am trying to break into.
Well... it's too late for them to increase the strength of the encryption with DVD, because they'd have to release a whole new set of DVD players to read the new, differently-encrypted disks, and people generally won't stand for that sort of thing.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
#define CSS_AUTH_H_
#include "css.h"
struct block {
byte b[5];
};
extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
#endif
The DMCA prohibits "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."
No, it doesn't. Read the damn thing, *please*, don't rely on Valenti's PR machine to give you the clue - they lie.
Again, it's absolutely not about piracy, as the judge said in the hearing transcript. The MPAA don't have to prove that the intent of DeCSS is to make illicit copies, they just have to prove that the intent of DeCSS is to read the DVDs.
Copyright owners do not have the right or protection claimed, except under the DMCA. It's a very bad law, and needs to be overturned.
You can apply for exemption for DeCSS, though, here: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
Btw, mpaa, what does this code do??
6 43034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\69b57175f82c787cf1 25a1a528fca8ac21fd999d10049094190d898d001480840913 d7d35246\d2d65743c7c34256c2c6475dd9dd504 4d0d4594dc9cd4054c0c449559195180c989c11058185\081c 888c011d797df0247074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f5 3135b86c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\3f3bba6e3a3ebf6be feb6abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7a322f6a 2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15d1d5584cd8 dc5145c1c5485cc8cc415bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcf cb4a5e\ace4f539793120692961703878302168286071b7f7b fa2e7a7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2)^( lf0>>16))b=((lf1\>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^ (lf1>>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];for(i=0;i=0;\i--)key[tb0[i+1]=k[tb0[i+1]]^F [ key[tb0[i+1]]]^key[tb0[i]];}void CSStitlekey2\(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[ i+1 ]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key\[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];char im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6; i++)im1[i]=dkey[i];CSStitlekey1(im1,im2 );CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);}
#include
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0
Well, that's more like it.
So basically it's an arguement that the DeCSS crackers are like Robin Hood, giving the common person their rights. I like that. But do you think that cracking it and then distributing it all over the net was the best way to accomplish that goal? Why not just take it to court, where the Linux guys would be the plaintiff? You wouldn't have to play defense then.
On the encryption, it was put in to discourage casual copying. Hence, it would probally help them a bit since they wouldn't have to go after or worry about all the little guys.
An email came this morning from the fedral police regarding (DeCSS)
they responded to my previous email within 2 days about "Copying DVDs"
they said that this is a concern to all dvd users out their, Authority will be recieved within days (maybe weeks)
from the registars office of the high court to raid any premises where reports of illegal DVD duplication and
VHS copies is concerned. If a DVD-VHS copy is found in the premises of the accused. They are fined $500 on
the spot plus (if the offence is multiple) be taken to the federal court of that state.
Also information placed any source on the web about DeCSS or disabling macrovision can be traced by IP to
the ISP and an Letter "not email" will be sent to the person who posted the email. The Federal Police now
have the power to force ISP's to hand over personal details of the customer if they are engaging in this activity.
Please Note this is nothing to do with Region Conversions or chipping dvd players. This is only about copying
DVDs or a "dvd code".
If you have a dvd code you have downloaded off a Warez Delete Now!..or risk getting caught.
This is a big victory for legitimate dvd collectors..Also in regards "to star wars" a dissappointment because
customs have put a huge red-line over DVD pirating "especially Star Wars" bootlegs. Now the word is if you
have a DVD Bootleg of any of the Star Wars Movies or any other "Big Movie" Bootleg i would seriously consider
hiding them because the feds have the power to raid your house if they have reason to believe the offender is
in possession of DVD Bootlegs. This is the first major crackdown on Piracy.
As I know for a fact this authority does not include PC Software or Console Software Copies (but what if this
will be the next step
notified ASAP like everyone else will be effected by this) this line was not included in the letter this is just my
own opinion.
This authority will be authorized by the High Court of Australia , when it comes into session next week. Youll
see news on TV and Radio, Newspapers this week or in the coming weeks.
All I have to do is hook up my DvD player to my TV Tuner card, and play the movie, I then start the Digital VCR, which came with the TV Tuner card, pause the movie about half way through and start a new file and 90 minutes later I have 2 MPEG files on my hard drive, then burn it to 2 regular CD's. I don't need DeCSS or $10K worth of equipment to pirate movies, nobody does. DeCSS doesn't even make it easier.
---------------------------------------------
Jesus died for somebodies sins, but not mine
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I beg of you - please don't flame, or the MPAA will win. Please read the Advocacy guide, and stay calm no matter how angry you might be.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
"Propoganda" is one way of putting it. "Blatant, outright lie" is another. How is it possible for someone to "steal the product" if they've already legally bought it?
I know it's not here yet, but it's supposed to be coming. What about the days when your DVD player just spits out a digital signal? What will stop me from put a box in between the two and recording?
Hell if we're using DVD-R for recording from TV by then, what'll stop me from doing that? Or, what stops me from intercepting the data stream coming out of a licensed Windows decoder?
My guess is just some black-box software/hardware and some reverse engineering time. And how would that be illegal? I'm not touching their encryption scheme. And under the fair use principle that data is mine to with as I see fit. I just can't redistribute it.
If you do a search on our boy Jack,
You will find an unapollagetic shill for the industry. This boy is a natural born whore, and is not to be reasoned with. (Sorry for the lack of balance, but if you just spent an hour reading words by/written for him, you wouldn't be too sympathetic either)
-s.p. Red
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
We don't need crap like this. Mr. Valenti may indeed be a scumbag, and he and his wife may engage in 'swingers' events, but unless you can prove it, I'd say keep it to yourself. The DVD CCA and the MPAA have shown a bad habit of taking everything they read on /. out of context; even if that comment were to have been read in the context of 'standard immature sex reference' it would inevitably show badly for us when the DVD CCA reads it off in front of a judge.
.sig: Now legally binding!
In other words, it was never ever ever designed to prevent large-scale commercial pirating (the type that could cost the industry many millions or billions of dollars). It was aimed at those people who had bought the product and who might have a fair-use reason to want to copy it (say, to VHS) or decrypt it (say, to play the DVD on Linux boxes).
Tell me again about how this supports the industry's claim that they were concerned about piracy. Looks to me like it undermines it.
This has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with control - control of how I watch a DVD, and what products I watch it on.
I still don't see how you can blame them for trying to supress CSS. Whether they are trying to keep people from copying their intellectual property or controlling how people view their intellectual property, it is still their right to do so. You don't have a right to view their intellectual propery.
Summarize it in 4 or 5 bullet points or shut the fuck up. What's a Natalie Portman?
It's the MPAA and/or DVD Cartel that the media and therefore the public hear. This story is utter **** or rubbish, but it's more likely the side the public will hear and who they will most likely side with. Well anyway email the LA Times Editorial Director (Leah Gentry) now at leah.gentry@latimes.com and inform of the truth and the facts (ie most importantly encryption makes it NO harder to copy!!) and voice your opinion on them publishing misinformed articles like this.
At the end of his article it said:-
... quite apt, really! :-)
Jack Valenti is President and Chief Executive of the Motion Picture Assn. of America
Oddly, I read the "Assn." as "Assasins"
Unfortunately this interpretation doesn't hold water, as assasins aren't likely to last long if they're as dumb as Valenti, inasmuch as he can't even get his facts straight about the role of encryption in DVDs.
On the other hand, perhaps this means that he won't last long, but that would be a pity. It's always much easier to fight the clueless.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I find it quite ironic that this website, which seems to be so intent on opening people's minds to alternate ways of doing things (operating systems being one of them), could be so closed minded about so many of the issues it brings to it's readers, this latest one being an example.
I'm sorry, but I've read Slashdot avidly for many months now and I continue to become more and more frustrated with the childish comments and irrational behavior of the readers and moderators of this site, who take up causes of which they have no understanding.
When I first came to this site, I thought I'd finally found the center of common sense on the internet, but now I know that all I've discovered is a bunch of spoiled kids who continue to think that the world revolves around them and that noone can have intelligent thoughts but themselves.
Okay, enough of my ranting. About this issue...
In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which expressly made it illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner."
Are you people telling me that what these websites are doing is not breaking the law? Right.
They're doing this so they can have DVD on their Linux machines? Right.
Okay, granted, I think the MPAA is overreacting a bit and it's okay to bash them for that, but give them a break. They're about to see their entire system destroyed in the next 10 years and they're trying to hold on to what they've got left.
Now, most definitely, they'll get a better encryption next time around, but was it right for the hacker community to run around and flaunt the fact that the encryption scheme was inferior? Was it really responsible of these websites to act like clowns throwing candy into the streets? Wouldn't it have been better to act professionally, go to the MPAA, show the crack to them, show the ability for people to get through their defenses, show the desires of people who want to watch DVDs on their Linux machines and work together to find a way for everyone to be happy - to find a win-win scenario?
But then again, who will be our spokesperson? Who will meet with the MPAA to discuss this issue? Problem here... And this is one of the reasons why the Open Source movement will eventually fail in the end(bigger picture here, obviously). It doesn't have a central body; it doesn't have a controlling force.
All it comes down to in the end is a bunch of kids, trying to make a change in this world, but failing miserably because they have no concept of reality, except for what their own fragile little minds tell them.
You all know what became of the sixties generation? I think you do, and that's all you'll ever get yourselves.
----
Lyell E. Haynes
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
"The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets." -- Jack Valenti.
:)
Actually, the code tells people *how* to break the encryption. Jack Valenti has just told us *how* to break into department stores, by making and distributing copies of the keys.
If telling people how to break encryption is illegal, then so should be telling them how to break into department stores.
I urge anyone with a store to sue Jack Valenti for inventing and distributing a method for illegal store entry. His words are a direct threat to your rights of possesion as a store owner. Sue the Times while you're at it for distribution as well.
Seriously though, Mr. Valenti, I have a feeling you are on the wrong end of a very serious battle. I will savor watching you fall.
Keys are only good for thieves now? I guess I'm a thief, because I use keys to open my locked doors every day. If I own the store and lose the keys, it would be legal for me to hire a locksmith and "crack" the lock. (IIRC, something like this was already used as a defense in court - a lock company claimed that locksmiths had illegally reverse-engineered thir locks, but the court found this "reverse-engineering" was legal.)
In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which expressly made it illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner." [emphasis added]
If their arguments are based on the DMCA, we just need to show that the protection is not effective. Some people have mentioned that huge DVD piracy operations were happening in China and Hong Kong long before DeCSS existed (using professional equipment), so this might be a good defense.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Don't forget, sir, that the MPAA action is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Now, where's my gumbo?
Dear Mr. Valenti:
I read your article in the L.A Times, and was conviced of my foolhardiness in trying to take your lawyers on. Therefore, I am returning my 900
copies of deCSS to your office, where I trust they will be disposed of in a proper manner. Please find attached 9.0 Megs of attachments.
Do we pay for mp3 decoders? do we pay a $100000 licence for mp3 decoders?
6 43034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\69b57175f82c787cf1 25a1a528fca8ac21fd999d10049094190d898d001480840913 d7d35246\d2d65743c7c34256c2c6475dd9dd504 4d0d4594dc9cd4054c0c449559195180c989c11058185\081c 888c011d797df0247074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f5 3135b86c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\3f3bba6e3a3ebf6be feb6abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7a322f6a 2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15d1d5584cd8 dc5145c1c5485cc8cc415bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcf cb4a5e\ace4f539793120692961703878302168286071b7f7b fa2e7a7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2)^( lf0>>16))b=((lf1\>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^ (lf1>>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];for(i=0;i=0;\i--)key[tb0[i+1]=k[tb0[i+1]]^F [ key[tb0[i+1]]]^key[tb0[i]];}void CSStitlekey2\(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[ i+1 ]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key\[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];char im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6; i++)im1[i]=dkey[i];CSStitlekey1(im1,im2 );CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);}
no.
So use the free decss code.
#include
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0
* css-cat.c
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus.
*
* Released under version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Decode selected sector types from a CSS encoded DVD to stdout. Use as a
* filter on the input to mpeg2player or ac3dec.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h> /* __linux__ */
#include <stdlib.h>
#if defined(__linux__)
# include <getopt.h>
#endif
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include "css-descramble.h"
static struct playkey pkey1a1 = {0x36b, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a1 = {0x762, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b1 = {0x36b, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a2 = {0x2f3, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a2 = {0x730, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b2 = {0x2f3, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a3 = {0x235, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey1b3 = {0x235, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey3a1 = {0x249, {0xb7,0x3f,0xd4,0xaa,0x14}}; /* DVD specific ? */ /* DVD specific ? */
static struct playkey pkey4a1 = {0x028, {0x53,0xd4,0xf7,0xd9,0x8f}};
static struct playkey *playkeys[] = {
&pkey1a1, &pkey2a1, &pkey1b1,
&pkey1a2, &pkey2a2, &pkey1b2,
&pkey1a3, &pkey1b3,
&pkey3a1, &pkey4a1,
NULL};
static unsigned char disk_key[2048];
static unsigned char title_key[5];
static unsigned char sector[2048];
unsigned long sectors = 0;
unsigned long crypted = 0;
unsigned long skipped = 0;
int do_all = 0;
int do_video = 0;
int do_ac3 = 0;
int do_mpg = 0;
int verbose = 0;
int keep_pack = 0;
int keep_pes = -1;
#define STCODE(p,a,b,c,d) ((p)[0] == a && (p)[1] == b && (p)[2] == c && (p)[3] == d)
static void un_css(int fdi, int fdo)
{
unsigned char *sp, *pes;
int writen, wr, peslen, hdrlen;
while (read(fdi, sector, 2048) == 2048) {
++sectors;
if (!STCODE(sector,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xba)) {
fputs("Not Pack start code\n", stderr);
++skipped; continue;
}
if (do_all)
goto write_it;
pes = sector + 14 + (sector[13] & 0x07);
if (STCODE(pes,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xbb)) {/* System Header Pack Layer */
peslen = (pes[0x04] << 8) + pes[0x05];
pes += peslen + 6;
}
if (pes[0x00] || pes[0x01] || pes[0x02] != 0x01 || pes[0x03] < 0xbc) { /* MPEG Audio */ /* AC3 Audio */
++skipped; continue;
}
peslen = (pes[0x04] << 8) + pes[0x05];
hdrlen = pes[0x08] + 6 + 3;
if ((pes[0x03] & 0xf0) == 0xe0) {
if (do_video)
goto write_it;
} else if (do_mpg && pes[0x03] == (0xc0 | (do_mpg - 1))) {
goto write_it;
} else if (pes[0x03] == 0xbd) {
if (do_ac3) {
int audiotrack = do_ac3 - 1;
if (pes[hdrlen] == (0x80|(audiotrack & 7))) {
hdrlen += 4;
goto write_it;
}
}
} else
++skipped;
continue;
write_it:
if (sector[20] & 0x30) {
++crypted;
css_descramble(sector, title_key);
sector[20] &= 0x8f;
}
writen = 0;
if (keep_pack)
sp = sector, peslen = 2048;
else if (keep_pes)
sp = pes, peslen = 2048 - (pes - sector);
else
sp = pes + hdrlen, peslen -= hdrlen - 6;
do {
wr = write(fdo, sp, peslen - writen);
sp += wr;
writen += wr;
} while (wr > 0 && writen < peslen);
}
}
static void usage_exit(void)
{
fputs("usage: css-cat [-t title-no] [-m mpeg-audio-no ] [-avPp12345678] vob_file\n", stderr);
exit(2);
}
static char *title = "1";
static int parse_args(int ac, char **av)
/* fall through */
{
int c;
opterr = 0;
while (1)
switch((c = getopt(ac, av, "at:Ppvm:01234567"))) {
case 'a':
do_all = 1;
case 'P':
keep_pack = 1;
break;
case 'p':
keep_pes = 1;
break;
case 't':
title = optarg;
break;
case 'v':
do_video = 1;
++keep_pes;
break;
case 'm':
if ((do_mpg = atoi(optarg)) < 1 || do_mpg > 32)
usage_exit();
++keep_pes;
break;
case '1': case '2': case '3': case '4':
case '5': case '6': case '7': case '8':
do_ac3 = c - '0';
++keep_pes;
break;
case EOF:
goto got_args;
default:
usage_exit();
break;
}
got_args:
keep_pes = (keep_pes > 0) ? 1 : 0;
return optind;
}
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
int ai, fd;
char titlef[12];
if ((fd = open("disk-key", O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open disk-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, disk_key, 2048) != 2048) {
perror("can't read disk-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if ((ai = parse_args(ac, av)) >= ac)
usage_exit();
strcpy(titlef, "title");
strcat(titlef, title);
strcat(titlef, "-key");
if ((fd = open(titlef, O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open title-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, title_key, 5) != 5) {
perror("can't read title-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if (strcmp(av[ai], "-") == 0)
fd = 0;
else if ((fd = open(av[ai], O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
fputs("can't open VOB file ", stderr);
fputs(av[ai], stderr);
perror("");
exit(1);
}
if (!css_decrypttitlekey(title_key, disk_key, playkeys)) {
close(fd);
return 3;
}
un_css(fd, 1);
fprintf(stderr, "Total %lu, skipped %lu, crvid %lu\n",
sectors, skipped, crypted);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
Once information is on the net, there isn't really any possiblity of supprising the distribution. Is the MPAA going to have people arrested in foriegn countries?
Its an interesting legal case, but a purely academic one at this point.
Sure you didn't mean "newklur" technology? :-)
And what is "distruction"? A combination of "destruction" and "distribution"?
Example sentence: "Microsoft's new distribution of Linux is meant to bring about the distruction of the open source community, sources say".
That's easy.
First of all, they have to give up on the ridiculous idea that copy protection will help. So take the money that they would have wasted on copy protection, and give it to their lawyers/investigators instead, so they can go after pirates. Have 'em drop by #warez now and then.
Maybe try to add watermarks too. This has a few problems (the current retail model of anonymously buying physcial media no longer works, and also transforming the content into other formats may damage the watermark) but it's better than nothing.
Spend some of that money (that they saved by avoiding copy protection) on propaganda. Get the message out that the MPAA will prosecute pirates, make people think that their own copy of the content has their personal key hidden in it, etc. For people whose ethics don't prevent them from pirating, appeal to their fear.
But the most important part was at the beginning: no copy protection! If they attempt anything that makes it hard to copy the content, then they will piss off legitimate users and the copy protection will be defeated, since copy protection is impossible if humans are capable of ever perceiving the media. And attempts to bribe lawmakers into implementing copy protection through legal means (instead of technological means) like the DMCA is just wasted money, as we are now seeing.
In short, handle it the way the software industry did.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If I had a credit card I would Bruce, however I did step up and Became a Doe. Just got mail today that they're past the break even mark and the shirts will probably be printed, I encourage others to buy a One of a Kind shirt also!
-- iCEBaLM, Doe #140
"You have committed slander or libel when you knowingly make a defamatory, false statement about someone. Publicly accusing someone of a crime s/he didn't commit -- and which you know s/he didn't commit -- is a perfect example. "
Bzzt, wrong. It's only slander or libel if a loss can be proved. This is usually monetary loss. This is only in the US, of course.
I mean, people call other people things all the time. I mean, I can call you a murderer, for example, but you have no recourse if it's true or no financial harm comes to you. If I ran in and screamed it at your boss and you got fired right away, then you might have a case.
Might, it's hard to prove intent, of course.
Dan
Valenti makes it seem so clear. Decryption==Theft. No longer is action required to result in criminal behavior, only tools.
Why is DeCSS so inflamitory?
Well, the only *real* implication is the loss of a closed, controlled channel of distribution. It has nothing to do with piracy.
o Counterfeit DVDs can be created without DeCSS. Any commercial player (with the correction regional code) can play a counterfeit disc.
o Low-bandwith copies of movies can be created without DeCSS. A MCI enabled windows software DVD player and just about any video editing software can produce a Real, ASF, or MPEG-1 version. If those tools are non available. A hardware player, a macrovision scrubber and video editing software can do the same, or make a copy to video tape.
o When super-high bandwith connections are common, the current CSS system will not interfere with piracy as the eqivalient of an ISO image will be passed around. DVD recorders will write a duplicate of the original DVD and the hardware players will not know the difference.
Can DeCSS be used to aid in these activities? Perhaps, but it will not result in a better quality illicit copy.
The only place where DeCSS can have an impact is in removing the regional coding, making the production of counterfeit DVDs playable anywhere in the world.
If you are the MPAA or a studio, that could be seen as a problem, but DVD players have always been available which can play all regions. These are not some backroom hack, but real commercial players available both online and in the real world.
DeCSS is an interesting hack, but the commercial implications are meaningless. Everybody knows the source of countefeit DVDs, and it isn't the basement of some 16-year old in Norway. It's further east.
Perhaps Valenti should be commenting on how the MPAA was able to employ a police squad in Norway to seize the boy and his father. Perhaps Norway should explain how that happened.
Its easy to copy without DECSS, just playback and record to vcr, or if you want 100% digital copy, then use Powerdvd with its screen snapshot with Videomatrix to make an avi of each frame.
Will you please read the DMCA and show me where it mentions copy? It does not. It certainly doesn't mention it within the part of the DMCA they're using to sue. The word used is `access' and not `copy'
It really has nothing to do with copying, it has only to do with accessing. You are not allowed, by the DMCA, to freely access DVDs.
Do you think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux vs. Windows? Of course not. They get their cut either way.
Yes, I really do think the MPAA really cares if you buy their products with the intention of watching them on Linux, because
Their interest is to extend the monopoly rights of copyright holders to prevent people being able to choose where they buy their DVDs, and what they choose to use to play them.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
* Copyright (C) 1999
* Derek Fawcus <derek@spider.com>
* Mark Roberts <maroberts@dial.pipex.com>
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include "css.h"
void print_tab( byte const * b, int len) ;len > 0; len--) fprintf(stderr, " 0x%02X", *b++);
{
for (
}
twy
i can put my own lock on YOUR door.. does that make it illegal for you to smash it to get into your own house? when you put the lock on your own door, the legal protection is from laws aimed to prevent someone going into your house and taking your things out of your house that do not belong to them. the only law against thieves breaking your lock is destruction of personal property.
the law is on the side of the lock-breakers in this case. the law says in the home recording act, that i may make as many copies i want of my media (movies, cd's, etc..) as long as they are for personal use. there is no law that prevents people from reverse engineering the encryption on something that you already have bought rights to. note, that you bought the rights to view the ORIGINAL UNENCRYPTED CONTENT.
when they go and encrypt what you've legally bought, they try and prevent you from making copies of the content that you already legally purchased!!
there havent been, and probably wont be (unless we end up with some kind of Orwellian society) a way to technically limit piracy. the only difference between now and then is that today we can do things digitally, where before there were physical limits to copying.
so YES, i CAN blame them. they are interfering with my legal rights! shame on them FUD they spread.
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include "css.h"
#include "css-descramble.h"
#define CSS_DEBUG 0x00
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=7 e,0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b, 9 e,0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b, 1 a,0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f, 9 8,0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91, 7 c,0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75, 9 c,0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, 1 8,0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11, 9 a,0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f, 1 e,0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b, f e,0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb, 7 a,0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f, f 8,0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1, 1 c,0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15, f c,0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5, 7 8,0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71, f a,0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0x
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0x
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0x
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0x
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
int i;
byte k[5];
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((im[4] << 17) | (im[3] << 9) | (im[2] << 1)) + 8 - (im[2] & 7);
lfsr0 = (reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<17) | (reverse[(lfsr0>>8)&0xff] << 9)
| (reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<1) |(lfsr0>>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[ im[0] ] << 9) | 0x100 | reverse[ im[1]];
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x01)
fprintf( stderr,"SEED lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x\n", lfsr0, lfsr1);
#endif
val = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 << 3) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 6);
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 >> 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 9);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 << 17);
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x01)
fprintf( stderr,"lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x o_lfsr0:0x%02x o_lfsr1:0x%02x\n",
lfsr0, lfsr1, o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1);
#endif
val += (o_lfsr0 ^ invert) + o_lfsr1;
k[i] = val & 0xff;
val >>= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) << 17) | (SALTED(3) << 9) | (SALTED(2) << 1)) + 8 - (SALTED(2)&7);
lfsr0 = (reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<17) | (reverse[(lfsr0>>8)&0xff] << 9)
| (reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<1) |(lfsr0>>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[SALTED(0)] << 9) | 0x100 | (reverse[SALTED(1)]);
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x10)
fprintf( stderr,"SEED lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x\n", lfsr0, lfsr1);
#endif
sec+=0x80;
val = 0;
while (sec != end) {
o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 << 3) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 6);
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 >> 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 << 9);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 >> 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 << 17);
val += o_lfsr0 + (byte)~o_lfsr1;
*sec++ = csstab1[*sec] ^ (val & 0xff);
val >>= 8;
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x10)
fprintf( stderr,"lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x o_lfsr0:0x%02x o_lfsr1:0x%02x\n",
lfsr0, lfsr1, o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1);
#endif
}
}
Ick. Score -1, Redundant. We know already; save your time and write letters to the editor of the LA Times concerning this travesty of civil litigation.
DVDs: Hackers are mass producing ways to view their own movies, and we don't like it
by GREEDO VALENTI
A case is currently before a federal court in New York that has to be of interest to anyone who believes in the right to trample consumers. The case involves the efforts of producers of films to stop three Web sites from distributing a program that allows computer users to view encrypted digital video discs they've bought.
Why should this concern corporations? The answer is simple: if you cannot use that which you own, you own nothing. If Web sites are allowed to pass along computer "keys" that disarm "protections" designed to shaft consumers, then all corporate blood money is put in jeopardy.
Every DVD is coded with encryption software to line the movie industry's pockets by keeping consumers from using their products as they wish. The protection of our image is even more critical in a digital world because the one-millionth copy of a digital film is as pristine and pure as the original, which has nothing to do with the software in question, but we're hoping you don't realize that. The program legally breaks the encryption, leaving the valuable product easy for the consumer to use and depriving us of licensing fees for other uses.
In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which expressly made it illegal to traffic in "any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner," which again has nothing to do with the primary purpose of the DeCSS software, but you're gullible enough to believe it, right? Wordy prose indeed, but what the Web sites named in our claim have done isn't exactly what the law forbids. They have circumvented copyright protection legally, but without our authorization, and we hate to see consumers get their money's worth. If one visits the sites in question, one will see enticements to "use your property in linux." Pretty blatant stuff.
[etc...you get the point]
Greedo Valenti is President and Chief Whore of the Biting the Hand that Feeds Us Assn. of America.
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles "Bending Over and Spreading Our Cheeks for Corporate America" Times
-Legion
According to the transcript, the DMCA *does* include a clause that re-asserts fair use protection, but that was not the clause under which the suit was filed and thus, according to Klein, not relevant to the matter at hand.
If you read the transcript, it is clear that the facts according to Klein were:
1) The suit was filed under the clause prohibiting circumventing copy protections.
2) The software does circumvent copy protection.
The other issues will be addressed in the trial.
Perhaps you, moron, should re-read the transcript. The judge specifically dismissed anything unrelated to the specific clause the suit was filed under. He made quite clear that the exceptions to the relevant clause introduced in subsequant clauses would need determination at trial. You can bet that they will be. Other commentators have posited that parts of the DMCA may be unconstitutional.
It's a bad law, and Sonny Bono deserved to die a stupid, humiliating death for introducing it.
If anyone should care to write to the L.A. Times about Valenti's piece, it is on page M5 of today's Opinion section in the dead-tree paper.
According to the Times, letters "must include valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used."
mailto:letters@latimes.com
Or, if you are inclined to communicate by forms other than email (Hah!):
Letters to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Or Fax to 213-237-7679
Purely a hypothetical question, of course, but has a fax machine ever been slasdotted?
This may be very obvious to some, but Jack's piece is clearly trying to sway the non-techno savvy into believing that deCSS is about piracy. Everyone here knows that, but the average joe doesn't. What they will see is that deCSS is naughty and evil. I'm expecting more misleading pieces such as this to hit the mainstream press in the comming week. It's about PR and public image, since the MPAA _knows_ that it maybe not be able to win from a technology stand point. Right now this is issue is only out in the tech savvy community, but by bringing it out to the general public, the MPAA can win the war through misinformation (slick PR). -b
i was really hoping someone would suggest this. after such a blatantly one-sided article, you'd hope they'd give the other the right to throw out some defense FUD.
The DCMA doesn't protect the consumer, it protects the corporation from the "evil" consumer's belief in the fair use doctrine. The DCMA while great for the corporations basically took the fair use doctrine and put it up against the wall soviet style. What's ironic is that these people don't realize that what is best for the consumer is ultimately best for them.
Spelling flames are usually the product of someone with nothing worthwhile to contribute. That was true here, too.
:-)
It was just the bold that got to me, man.
All these guys wanted to do was to make the code available to programmers so that they could make DVD software decription for Linux, BSD, etc. If the idiots out in hollywood would just make the source available to some people so they could get the job done, nobody would've had to get arrested and bad-mouthed by every news agency in existence. Give the guy a break MPAA. He was only trying to let more people watch yer stinking DVDs.
As a successful businessperson, I am galled by the practice of attacking your customers. It is pure stupidity to go after 16 year old children, hobbyists and other people who made the mistake of liking your product enough to want to watch it on their (usually small screen) monitors! Of course, CCA is confused: their stakeholders (the movie companies) are in an industry (mass storage) that they do not understand. CCAs incentive is to protect their intellectual property and trade secrets (which, are no longer secret). The movie industry's goal is to sell product. There is congnitave dissonance because these goals are fundamentally different. Hollywood would be wise to call their attack on their customers off and call their adventure in mass storage a loss. I think MPAA would be wise to explore why copy-protected software is passe. As some of you will recall, many packages in the 80's shipped with software copy protection. Users were outraged when their $400 copy of Lotus 1-2-3 was corrupted on the hard drive and they could only install it once from the original disks! As I recall Cenral Point came out with CopyIIPC, which defeated copy protection and allowed users the convenience of making fair-use copies. There were other products (books, software) dedicated to breaking copy protection as well. Trade press was brutal on vendors who used copy protection. To those of you with technical decision making power: you would be well advised to insist on open mass storage standards. Proprietary storage technologies are every bit as bad as closed source software and protocols. Proprietary technologies hold the price of storage up and slow down progress.
Of course his words are a bit inflammatory, but I can't say I'm completely surprised. There seems to be a lot of push to make things illegal because there's a potential for harm. "Do you always walk through the park late at night?" "No one needs to be having anal sex!" "Why would you buy a gun if you weren't planning to use it?" Just because you can't think of a good reason for doing something, doesn't mean no one else can :)
Only with an uneducated press, an uneducated public, and an uneducated judiaciary will this sort of drivel fly. Alas, I suspect that we have all the above.
Decoding the DVD allows me to play something I bought. I, for good and valid consideration, did obtain the rights to view this video. If I desire to do this on a hardware/software codec that I have also obtained, or written, or whatever, then it is within my rights to do so. In examination of the several dvd titles that I have purchased, there is nowhere the agreement that I have signed that says that I will play these only on their specific brand of player licensed by their consortium. What these folks are trying to do is to protect their oligopoly status in the player arena. In any event, it is simply un-necessary to decrypt these things to copy them. Indeed if your aim is to copy them for resale, it is anti-productive to do so, since the decrypted dvd wont play on the regular deck and will thus be to be sold.
What most amazes me though, is the total and absolute stupidity. If they had just shrugged their sholders and said: "Ok, if some Linux Geeks design a codec, then we will sell a few more DVDs. Otherwise, nothing much will happen.", it would have worked out like that. As it is, they have managed to parlay a minor problem into a major faux pas with all concerned.
Ideally the EFF would step in here and somehow (appealing to right of reply?) get a reasoned counter-argument in print in the same publication.
Just to point this out, some people might be interested in the techniques of the encryption.. For example I don't own a DVD, or DVD player, yet I'm curious how it works and am more interested in seeing a description of how it's done Secrets are a thing of the past AND don't blame the internet for that A magigian just revealed how all the magic tricks are done...
Here are the facts.
The entire livid-dev archive needs to be introduced into the record of every court proceeding touching this case. It's a clear record of a group of people collaborating - not to pirate or defraud the movie industry, but to develop some software to play DVDs that they'd legally purchased.
Some terrific quotes from the archive:
Jon Johansen on his reasons for DeCSS
The legal issues, months before anybody sued anybody
(Note: This is taken slightly out of context. The 'rippers' mentioned are framegrabbing, not CSS-decrypting (yet another feather in the cap for the argument that CSS is only about playback, not piracy.)A fairly clear statement of intent from a list member:
This is ludicrous. They sell us DVDs. We play them in our homes, and we can watch them when we want. We use their products to do this. The only reason that we use Thier products is because the information that is stored on our discs is encrypted in thier scheme. Can they really be afraid that we are going to pirate a disc of such immense filesize that it would fill our hard drives, or that we are going to re-create them on media that doesn't exist? OR, are they afraid that we will make players that they don't liscense? That they haven't recieved compensation for? They will get their money for the media, and they do deserve it, but by making it illegal for us to "Do it ourselves" they are no better than the pirates they are making us out to be.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
That said, I'm really just mentioning this as devil's advocate. It's the sort of reasoning the MPAA will use to argue that DeCSS was made to copy DVDs. I don't think the best way to combat that is to say that there are other ways to pirate DVDs or to claim that CSS is not a copy-protection scheme. We don't need a list of arguments. We need only one: "The primary purpose of DeCSS is to enable playback of DVDs on open-source DVD player software."
That gets right to the core of their argument. I'm no lawyer, but if the "primary purpose" of DeCSS is NOT the copying of DVDs, then the DMCA shouldn't apply, right?
This is definately the best way to fight back. Let the media who print articles liek this know that they have made a mistake. I have sent a number of emails to nes organizations after seeing a bad story on a tech issue and usually I get an email back that confirms my beleif that most reporters dont really have enough knowledge to report on these issues. Fight back, speak back. But, always remember that you are taken for more seriously if you refrain from those lovely four letter words. in the end, this is a public relations issue where the dvd industry is just embarassed that their por encryption key was broken so easily. The best way to win is to get the press on our side.
"I mean, All you can definately say about a fellow who thinks he's a poached egg, is; He's in the minority." James Burke
Only a complete idiot is going to go out and buy a $200 hard drive to store even 8-10 movies on when they can simply buy a convenient CD sized DVD of the same thing.
His comments about the Open Source community make me wonder what his ties to Microsoft are. And it can't be a coincidence that I can only get a player for Windows. I wonder how much money Microsoft has pumped into his association and exactly what the relationship is between them. It'd make an interesting research article...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>Currently, we have CDs with no copy protection whatsoever, and the recording industry has remained very rich despite that.
Uh, just to play devil's advocate here. The Music industry has been heavily affected in recent years by the widespread use of CDR burners and MP3. I've seen some estimates that in the last 12 months sales of audio CD's have dropped 30%.
Of course there is a good argument to make that the big 5 record companies have colluded on prices for years and CD's were overpriced. Of course the sensible answer for the music industry is to drop prices to the level where people would rather pay for the original product with nice packaging than copy it.
Of course that's not the course they intend to take: encrypted audio cd's here we come.
>(And then I touch her butt.)
Yep, u had me right until there. Very good, nice job. I'm starting to actually enjoy the naked and petrified posts more than the 'serious' discussions. Too bad I ain't got any points today or you would get them, my friend.
All this time I imagined that the N&P fetish was about having a hot chick in front of you so you could pleasure yourself without having to deal with her as a human bing, but as a mere object, now I see it goes much deeper than that. Thank you.
I thought for sure that with a headline like: MPAA Head Valenti on DVD "Hackers" that Valenti was going to join Ebert rating movies. We get to hear withat Valenti thinks of Johnny Lee Miller's performance in the semi-abysmal Hackers.
-FGP
I like the special light thing, but even that sounds somewhat techno-scary. Try this on for size:
A book publisher chooses to only publish books in a rare, obscure language that very few people can read. Due to this, after you purchase one of these books, you must take it to a special person who will translate it and read it to you, in english.
Some smart fellow figures out this language, so that he can read his book curled up by the fire, rather than taking it down to the translation center. He also tells other people how to read the language, so that they can do the same. After all, they bought the book, right?
Meanwhile, the evil copyright pirates are taking these books down to the local copy shop, and xeroxing them like crazy, to sell on the black market. The details of the language don't matter one bit to them - their copies are perfect, and they don't have to understand what it means, since the copies can still be taken to the translater - they are indistinguishable from the original books.
Now - who does the publishing industry sue - the guys curled up by the fire, reading their books, or the pirates in the copy center....? Yup, you got it. The fireside readers get hauled into court.
----
Now, I'm not saying that minority of losers promoting DeCSS for this purpose should cause the program itself -- or the ideas within -- to be illegal. I think the MPAA/DVD-CCA are overreacting to the extreme, and should be shot down in court..But in both cases, to completely ignore the fact that (DeCSS|MP3) these technologies ARE being used to promote piracy kind of weakens us as a group. Perhaps someone has ideas on how we could HELP combat the piracy sites as a means of legitimizing DeCSS?
The point of CSS is not to protect against piracy. It's so the DVD industry can milk as much money out of this product as they possibly can. To make sure that no one beside their chosen few can make players to play DVDs (read: those that pay the toll) they encrypt them, and only give the keys to those who pony up the dough. Now that someone has broken it, they can't come out and say that someone has found a way around their exclusivist scheme, so they just pin it on piracy. Which of course, no one likes.
There's no one to extor-ERR, pay the license fees for DVD capability on Linux, so they dont create players for Linux or bother with it. There is plenty of extortion potential in Windows companies.
End of story. Mr. Johansen (probably spelled wrong) killed their cash cow and now the MPAA will wipe its ass with the Constitution and any other basic human rights to protect its bottom line. Unfortunately its too late, the cat is already out of the bag.
Sorry Jack. Mirror DeCSS, even if you don't care about Linux DVD players. Let the MPAA play Whack The Mole. This isn't about piracy, its about protecting ourselves from corporate greed.
Thank you, I'm done now.
Can you blame them for what they're doing? They came up with CSS encryption to prevent people from ripping movies and pirating them, and someone broke their code. Of course they're going to use every means at their disposal to try to put the cat back in the bag and prevent their intellectual property from being devalued and stolen.
The point has been made that as they didn't patent CSS, they have no legal claim to keep it under wraps. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know whether this is true or not. But that's the point; I don't know and neither do most of you. Let the courts and the lawyers sort it out, and if the court says not to distribute deCSS until it's made up its mind, don't distribute deCSS.
Another thing: The MPAA and accessories have recieved a lot of criticism over their attempt to prevent piracy using proprietary encryption. I'm curious to know, what other options are available? Patenting doesn't seem like it would work, as then the complete record of how it works would be on file for all to see. So what should they have done and what should they do the next time they release a new standard and want to prevent piracy?
From XXXXXXXXXXXXX Sun Jan 30 20:13:31 2000 -0500
- -
Status:
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:13:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II
X-Sender: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply-To: Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix
To: valentij@mpaa.org
Subject: DVD and DeCSS
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Jack,
You've gone from helping LBJ to being a salesman? We all know that these
lawsuits are for keeping the DVD hardware market closed from competition.
Why do you inslut our intelligence with this non-sense?
I'm sure Houton is proud of it's 15 year old high school graduate, but
frankly from v-chip to DeCSS it seems like you want to play king of the
season. Lighten up Jack, let the kids have DeCSS. You'll get more
friends than boycotts that way.
cheers,
Terry
-------------------------------------------------
| BotShop http://www.planetquake.com/botshop |
| Personal http://www.westga.edu.com/~stu7440 |
| |
| Neo is running linux 2.2.14 |
#define __css_descramble_h_
struct playkey {
int offset;
unsigned char key[5];
};
extern int css_decrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey, unsigned char *dkey, struct playkey **pkey);
extern void css_descramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key);
#endif
But I don't think that they do even that. It's been said before that reverse-engineering for such purposes isn't illegal according to the Digital Millennium Act (I guess it must be so), and it also certainly isn't in some of the countries where the DeCSS mirrors are hosted.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
This is what the court decides; It is not over yet.
I think this speaks for itself; if at least he would get ideolegy right...
*sigh* - I want DVD video for linux
"When I die, bury me in Texas so I can remain politically active." An allusion to the notion that voting is so crooked there that the dead vote. He should know from his experiences with LBJ there.
But to better understand Valenti, look at the BetaMax suits, Sony vs. Universal. We only won the right to have record heads on our VCRs by a single vote in the Supreme Court!
Check out a very good history "Fast forward : Hollywood, the Japanese, and the onslaught of the VCR" by James Lardner from WW Norton in 1987. Valenti is a major character in that history and Bruce Leman, now of the Patent Office, is a minor one. The MPAA arguments and methods are very similar to those they are using this time out.
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW
I would not want to be a DVD player manufacturer. If the MPAA decided to black-ball a DVD player manufacturer, they could enforce this by removing that company from the keys list. Whoops, all the new movies released on DVDs won't play on your player.
If I were to pirate movies, I'd buy the DVD release and copy it to VHS from the video out. Double or triple the price of the blank tape and you'd make money in no time. The master (DVD) wouldn't wear out and you wouldn't need to pay for DVD-R disks.
Eventhough the MPAA is protecting their markets with all of these lawsuits and lobbying for copyright legislation, they are fast removing any choice from the consumer. I think the license that defines the consumers' rights after a movie (in any release format) is purchased need to be revisited.
One, the MPAA doesn't have any rights to CSS, Panasonic or whoever created it is letting them use it, for a fee.
Two, "someone seeing what the MPAA did not want to be seen" is ridiculous. The whole point of movies is to have people see them. Now of course the movie studios want to get paid, so they can afford the production costs, but if someone pays for a DVD it really doesn't matter what they use to watch it, so nobody is getting ripped off here.
If you want perfect copies of DVD, you buy an expensive DVD writer and expensive media and make bit-for-bit copies of the disk.
Sure, DeCSS allows people to copy the information (video output) itself (and transfer it to another video medium). But you can do that with some coaxial cable and a VHS recoder too. Properly set up, you can copy from a dedicated DVD player to your computer (to a digital medium).
DeCSS doesn't allow a person to do something that isn't already doable with other current technologies.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
byte CSSsecret[] = {
0xE2,0xA3,0x45,0x10,0xF4
};
byte CSSvarients[] = {2 1,0x24,0x25,0x30,0x31,0x34,0x35, A 1,0xA4,0xA5,0xB0,0xB1,0xB4,0xB5
0x00,0x01,0x04,0x05,0x10,0x11,0x14,0x15,0x20,0x
0x80,0x81,0x84,0x85,0x90,0x91,0x94,0x95,0xA0,0x
};
byte CSSmangle0[] = {8 D,0x0F,0x8E,0x0A,0x8B,0x09,0x88, 9 5,0x17,0x96,0x12,0x93,0x11,0x90, B D,0x3F,0xBE,0x3A,0xBB,0x39,0xB8, A 5,0x27,0xA6,0x22,0xA3,0x21,0xA0, E D,0x6F,0xEE,0x6A,0xEB,0x69,0xE8, F 5,0x77,0xF6,0x72,0xF3,0x71,0xF0, D D,0x5F,0xDE,0x5A,0xDB,0x59,0xD8, C 5,0x47,0xC6,0x42,0xC3,0x41,0xC0, 4 D,0xCF,0x4E,0xCA,0x4B,0xC9,0x48, 5 5,0xD7,0x56,0xD2,0x53,0xD1,0x50, 7 D,0xFF,0x7E,0xFA,0x7B,0xF9,0x78, 6 5,0xE7,0x66,0xE2,0x63,0xE1,0x60, 2 D,0xAF,0x2E,0xAA,0x2B,0xA9,0x28, 3 5,0xB7,0x36,0xB2,0x33,0xB1,0x30, 1 D,0x9F,0x1E,0x9A,0x1B,0x99,0x18, 0 5,0x87,0x06,0x82,0x03,0x81,0x00
0x00,0x81,0x03,0x82,0x06,0x87,0x05,0x84,0x0C,0x
0x18,0x99,0x1B,0x9A,0x1E,0x9F,0x1D,0x9C,0x14,0x
0x30,0xB1,0x33,0xB2,0x36,0xB7,0x35,0xB4,0x3C,0x
0x28,0xA9,0x2B,0xAA,0x2E,0xAF,0x2D,0xAC,0x24,0x
0x60,0xE1,0x63,0xE2,0x66,0xE7,0x65,0xE4,0x6C,0x
0x78,0xF9,0x7B,0xFA,0x7E,0xFF,0x7D,0xFC,0x74,0x
0x50,0xD1,0x53,0xD2,0x56,0xD7,0x55,0xD4,0x5C,0x
0x48,0xC9,0x4B,0xCA,0x4E,0xCF,0x4D,0xCC,0x44,0x
0xC0,0x41,0xC3,0x42,0xC6,0x47,0xC5,0x44,0xCC,0x
0xD8,0x59,0xDB,0x5A,0xDE,0x5F,0xDD,0x5C,0xD4,0x
0xF0,0x71,0xF3,0x72,0xF6,0x77,0xF5,0x74,0xFC,0x
0xE8,0x69,0xEB,0x6A,0xEE,0x6F,0xED,0x6C,0xE4,0x
0xA0,0x21,0xA3,0x22,0xA6,0x27,0xA5,0x24,0xAC,0x
0xB8,0x39,0xBB,0x3A,0xBE,0x3F,0xBD,0x3C,0xB4,0x
0x90,0x11,0x93,0x12,0x96,0x17,0x95,0x14,0x9C,0x
0x88,0x09,0x8B,0x0A,0x8E,0x0F,0x8D,0x0C,0x84,0x
};
byte CSSmangle1[] = {C 5,0xC6,0xC3,0xC0,0xC1,0xC2,0xC7, 1 5,0x16,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x12,0x17, 2 5,0x26,0x23,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x27, 3 5,0x36,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x32,0x37, 0 5,0x06,0x03,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x07, D 5,0xD6,0xD3,0xD0,0xD1,0xD2,0xD7, E 5,0xE6,0xE3,0xE0,0xE1,0xE2,0xE7, F 5,0xF6,0xF3,0xF0,0xF1,0xF2,0xF7, 4 5,0x46,0x43,0x40,0x41,0x42,0x47, 9 5,0x96,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x92,0x97, A 5,0xA6,0xA3,0xA0,0xA1,0xA2,0xA7, B 5,0xB6,0xB3,0xB0,0xB1,0xB2,0xB7, 8 5,0x86,0x83,0x80,0x81,0x82,0x87, 5 5,0x56,0x53,0x50,0x51,0x52,0x57, 6 5,0x66,0x63,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x67, 7 5,0x76,0x73,0x70,0x71,0x72,0x77
0xC4,0xCD,0xCE,0xCB,0xC8,0xC9,0xCA,0xCF,0xCC,0x
0x14,0x1D,0x1E,0x1B,0x18,0x19,0x1A,0x1F,0x1C,0x
0x24,0x2D,0x2E,0x2B,0x28,0x29,0x2A,0x2F,0x2C,0x
0x34,0x3D,0x3E,0x3B,0x38,0x39,0x3A,0x3F,0x3C,0x
0x04,0x0D,0x0E,0x0B,0x08,0x09,0x0A,0x0F,0x0C,0x
0xD4,0xDD,0xDE,0xDB,0xD8,0xD9,0xDA,0xDF,0xDC,0x
0xE4,0xED,0xEE,0xEB,0xE8,0xE9,0xEA,0xEF,0xEC,0x
0xF4,0xFD,0xFE,0xFB,0xF8,0xF9,0xFA,0xFF,0xFC,0x
0x44,0x4D,0x4E,0x4B,0x48,0x49,0x4A,0x4F,0x4C,0x
0x94,0x9D,0x9E,0x9B,0x98,0x99,0x9A,0x9F,0x9C,0x
0xA4,0xAD,0xAE,0xAB,0xA8,0xA9,0xAA,0xAF,0xAC,0x
0xB4,0xBD,0xBE,0xBB,0xB8,0xB9,0xBA,0xBF,0xBC,0x
0x84,0x8D,0x8E,0x8B,0x88,0x89,0x8A,0x8F,0x8C,0x
0x54,0x5D,0x5E,0x5B,0x58,0x59,0x5A,0x5F,0x5C,0x
0x64,0x6D,0x6E,0x6B,0x68,0x69,0x6A,0x6F,0x6C,0x
0x74,0x7D,0x7E,0x7B,0x78,0x79,0x7A,0x7F,0x7C,0x
};
byte CSSmangle2[] = {2 D,0x1D,0x3D,0xCB,0x2B,0x1B,0x3B, A D,0x9D,0xBD,0x4B,0xAB,0x9B,0xBB, E D,0xDD,0xFD,0x0B,0xEB,0xDB,0xFB, 6 D,0x5D,0x7D,0x8B,0x6B,0x5B,0x7B, 2 5,0x15,0x35,0xC3,0x23,0x13,0x33, A 5,0x95,0xB5,0x43,0xA3,0x93,0xB3, E 5,0xD5,0xF5,0x03,0xE3,0xD3,0xF3, 6 5,0x55,0x75,0x83,0x63,0x53,0x73, 2 9,0x19,0x39,0xCF,0x2F,0x1F,0x3F, A 9,0x99,0xB9,0x4F,0xAF,0x9F,0xBF, E 9,0xD9,0xF9,0x0F,0xEF,0xDF,0xFF, 6 9,0x59,0x79,0x8F,0x6F,0x5F,0x7F, 2 1,0x11,0x31,0xC7,0x27,0x17,0x37, A 1,0x91,0xB1,0x47,0xA7,0x97,0xB7, E 1,0xD1,0xF1,0x07,0xE7,0xD7,0xF7, 6 1,0x51,0x71,0x87,0x67,0x57,0x77
0xC4,0x24,0x14,0x34,0xCE,0x2E,0x1E,0x3E,0xCD,0x
0x44,0xA4,0x94,0xB4,0x4E,0xAE,0x9E,0xBE,0x4D,0x
0x04,0xE4,0xD4,0xF4,0x0E,0xEE,0xDE,0xFE,0x0D,0x
0x84,0x64,0x54,0x74,0x8E,0x6E,0x5E,0x7E,0x8D,0x
0xCC,0x2C,0x1C,0x3C,0xC6,0x26,0x16,0x36,0xC5,0x
0x4C,0xAC,0x9C,0xBC,0x46,0xA6,0x96,0xB6,0x45,0x
0x0C,0xEC,0xDC,0xFC,0x06,0xE6,0xD6,0xF6,0x05,0x
0x8C,0x6C,0x5C,0x7C,0x86,0x66,0x56,0x76,0x85,0x
0xC8,0x28,0x18,0x38,0xCA,0x2A,0x1A,0x3A,0xC9,0x
0x48,0xA8,0x98,0xB8,0x4A,0xAA,0x9A,0xBA,0x49,0x
0x08,0xE8,0xD8,0xF8,0x0A,0xEA,0xDA,0xFA,0x09,0x
0x88,0x68,0x58,0x78,0x8A,0x6A,0x5A,0x7A,0x89,0x
0xC0,0x20,0x10,0x30,0xC2,0x22,0x12,0x32,0xC1,0x
0x40,0xA0,0x90,0xB0,0x42,0xA2,0x92,0xB2,0x41,0x
0x00,0xE0,0xD0,0xF0,0x02,0xE2,0xD2,0xF2,0x01,0x
0x80,0x60,0x50,0x70,0x82,0x62,0x52,0x72,0x81,0x
};
byte reverse[] = {9 0,0x50,0xD0,0x30,0xB0,0x70,0xF0, 9 8,0x58,0xD8,0x38,0xB8,0x78,0xF8, 9 4,0x54,0xD4,0x34,0xB4,0x74,0xF4, 9 C,0x5C,0xDC,0x3C,0xBC,0x7C,0xFC, 9 2,0x52,0xD2,0x32,0xB2,0x72,0xF2, 9 A,0x5A,0xDA,0x3A,0xBA,0x7A,0xFA, 9 6,0x56,0xD6,0x36,0xB6,0x76,0xF6, 9 E,0x5E,0xDE,0x3E,0xBE,0x7E,0xFE, 9 1,0x51,0xD1,0x31,0xB1,0x71,0xF1, 9 9,0x59,0xD9,0x39,0xB9,0x79,0xF9, 9 5,0x55,0xD5,0x35,0xB5,0x75,0xF5, 9 D,0x5D,0xDD,0x3D,0xBD,0x7D,0xFD, 9 3,0x53,0xD3,0x33,0xB3,0x73,0xF3, 9 B,0x5B,0xDB,0x3B,0xBB,0x7B,0xFB, 9 7,0x57,0xD7,0x37,0xB7,0x77,0xF7, 9 F,0x5F,0xDF,0x3F,0xBF,0x7F,0xFF
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xC0,0x20,0xA0,0x60,0xE0,0x10,0x
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xC8,0x28,0xA8,0x68,0xE8,0x18,0x
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xC4,0x24,0xA4,0x64,0xE4,0x14,0x
0x0C,0x8C,0x4C,0xCC,0x2C,0xAC,0x6C,0xEC,0x1C,0x
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xC2,0x22,0xA2,0x62,0xE2,0x12,0x
0x0A,0x8A,0x4A,0xCA,0x2A,0xAA,0x6A,0xEA,0x1A,0x
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xC6,0x26,0xA6,0x66,0xE6,0x16,0x
0x0E,0x8E,0x4E,0xCE,0x2E,0xAE,0x6E,0xEE,0x1E,0x
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xC1,0x21,0xA1,0x61,0xE1,0x11,0x
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xC9,0x29,0xA9,0x69,0xE9,0x19,0x
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xC5,0x25,0xA5,0x65,0xE5,0x15,0x
0x0D,0x8D,0x4D,0xCD,0x2D,0xAD,0x6D,0xED,0x1D,0x
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xC3,0x23,0xA3,0x63,0xE3,0x13,0x
0x0B,0x8B,0x4B,0xCB,0x2B,0xAB,0x6B,0xEB,0x1B,0x
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xC7,0x27,0xA7,0x67,0xE7,0x17,0x
0x0F,0x8F,0x4F,0xCF,0x2F,0xAF,0x6F,0xEF,0x1F,0x
};
The DVD consortium will not write a player for all possible platforms, so the means of creating one (DeCSS) must be available to all so one can be written.
Exactly. All I'm saying is that from their point of view, the player is probably nearly as important as the player. I certainly don't agree with them!
===
-Ravagin
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Again, the complete inane stupidity of the system rears its ugly head.
If we're paying for the content on the media, we should only have to buy the DVD once. If we break it, or it gets lost, we should be able to purchase another for only the cost of the media. But can I go out and get another DVD if I break one for only the cost of the media! HAH
That will never happen in a million years. They only make it the content when it suits them. Therefore I say fuck the system, it can go to hell. I will continue to utterly ignore all copyright laws until the milk of hypocrisy stops flowing out of the mouths of these leeches of the common man.
Someday, we will be free from this oppression. The laws of the land will encourage the free exchange of ideas and the Open Source movement. And then, all of a sudden, those leeches the MPAA and RIAA will try to come up with some sort of an argument for there pathetic outdated system of patents and copyrights, and without the groping arm of the law to hide behind, they will discover that there is no moral basis to their hypocritical claims, and that they have always been opposing the cause of right!
----Morality cannot have its sole base in legality.
Shit don't go far, does it. Maybe since you are one of the gods you can explain your right to proprietary works instead of shrouding it in hype.
Aren't DVD's more like 5GB each? That's gotta be a REALLY crappy picture. Why not just buy cheap knock-off VHS copies from China and save yourself 24 hours of downloading some movie that probably is going to look shitty anyway? Or better yet, rent the DVD at Blockbuster and just COPY IT onto your VCR. It'll look a LOT better than a knock off VideoCD version would.
think the EFF should stop using the "source code is speech" argument in their defense.The Bernstein decision on which this was based was controversial in the first place, so I don't think this carries much legal weight.
Are you NUTS ?! The REASON FOR EXISTANCE of the EFF is to fight for and win protection for these fundamental RIGHTS when exercised in new technological arenas.
Bernstein was controversial because the court emphatically said that protecting the freedom of speach inherent in source code was so important that NOT EVEN claims of NATIONAL SECURITY interests could set it aside. Protecting DVD's is chickenshit in comparison to this. However, to say that a circuit court decision doesn't carry much weight is simply wrong. In fact, the two circuit judges that concurred affirmed a lower court ruling, and the one dissenting judge took pains to say that he dissented only because the opinion was so sweeping in its rejection of ANY regulation of source code. Bernstein is clearly a landmark case.
The relevance of Bernstein to the DVD cases is absolute. Contrary to what you hear, the source code for DeCSS does not decrypt DVD's. It also does not do DVD playback. In fact it doesn't DO anything.- it communicates HOW TO do these things in a precise language (called C). If you actually want to DO the things described, you must know how to use a compiler to create an executable binary. Even if the binary falls under the law, the source code does not. For example, the chemical synthesis of LSD and fertilizer bombs is readily availbable, unregulatable, protected speach. Instructions on how to make fair use of the DVD's you've already paid for will stand up just fine, as long as encryption source code is speach. Bernstein says PRECISELY THIS. Not to argue this VIGOROUSLY would be negligent.
For that matter, I didn't also see any click-through agreement on the software either. So, I guess that sums it up. I can make a copy for myself legaly.
--Ben
So by his analogy a locksmith is a thief? What a bunch of bull. All this to protect something that costs $20 a pop. I get more and more amazed at the lengths hollywood will go to to expand their fortune.
Wherever you are, there you are.
CALL TO ACTION
- --------------------------------
01/30/00
Thousands of copies of the flyer have already been distributed at movie theaters worldwide. Versions are also being made in different languages. The next step will involve a massive action this Friday, February 4, 2000.
We call on all 2600 meetings held around the world on that day to head to the local theaters and spread the word of this travesty of justice by handing out as many flyers as possible. Everyone is invited to show up and participate, bring your friends, bring your Linux User Group and join us in advocating justice. We find that once people are made aware of the facts of the case, they become as outraged as we have.
First, make sure you make the flyers distinctive by printing on colored paper if at all possible. The quickest way to do this is to go to a copy shop. Get several hundred at the very least - you WILL go through them quickly. Make sure you can print more if you need them.
Familiarize yourself with the facts of the case as presented on www.opendvd.org. It's important to be able to answer questions of people who are interested in learning more. Remember, this is NOT about DVD piracy - that is how the movie industry is trying to portray this case. The issue here is CONTROL of players - whether you have the right to play DVD's on the computer of your choice and whether you should be able to see DVD's from other countries. As well as our freedom to continue reporting on the events, developments and discoveries of the hacker community, in a full and accurate manner.
We find that people respond well to "Protect Your Rights" as a catch phrase to get them to take the flyer. Let us know if others work for you. Be courteous to the people passing by - don't block their path and, if they ignore you or even make a snide remark, don't heckle them. We find that the vast majority of people are polite and interested in what you have to say. You'll find that some will even come up to you asking for more flyers! Have a set of master copies (printed on white paper) for others to make copies of their own and hand out in other places.
If you are asked to leave by theater management, cooperate and ask them where they would like you to stand. They can't force you to leave the area, only the part that is their property. You can still successfully hand out material to everyone coming and going by positioning yourself in neighboring areas or even in the parking lot. If things become unpleasant, simply head to another theater in a different part of town. (If you run out of theaters, you can always fall back on video stores.) We find that 90% of such confrontations can be averted by befriending security guards and making it clear that you don't intend to be disruptive.
-----------------------------------------------
The MPAA's strategy is very clear.
Propagandize with their money far and wide to sway the public in their favor, link "hackers" with sexy words like "narcotics", and portray them as theives. This is how they expect to win the general populaces support, and right now its working.
Our problem is we have no voice ourside our own circles. The MPAA can write propaganda articles and get them published in the LA Times, but what about us? We have no mass market voice, and they know that and are trying to capitalize on it.
What we need is a stronger voice, one which can get out into major papers, out to the public, we need to tell people whats really going on. Unfortunately I don't really know how we can do this, maybe someone else has a good idea?
-- iCEBaLM
this has got to be one of the funniest things I have seen in a while.
For example, the lawyers tried to argue that the source code is protected by the 1st amendment because of the programmers' comments in it. The judge replied by asking several questions, such as:
And when the program was compiled, the programmer's notes would not be compiled into object code, right?
Alhough this isn't news to us, that a judge understands this much about programming is rare.
Bzzt...wrong.
Though Mr. Valenti made numerous false statements in his article, that was not one of them. His article quoted from subsection 1201(b) of the DMCA. What you call the "actual text" is from subsection 1201(a). His quote from the DMCA was perfectly accurate. Really, do you think anyone is stupid enough to think they could misquote a public law and not have anyone notice? I'm not saying that the MPAA's actions aren't stupid, but they're not that stupid.
That said, I like Valenti's section better anyway. After all, one could argue that since CSS protects against playback but not copying, and since controlling playback is not a right of copyright owners, that CSS isn't a technological measure that falls under that section of the Act. (I'm probably wrong, but it's an interesting thought.)
This is funny, but don't take it too seriously...
(RMS ranting about Natalie Portman, I don't think so...:)
The DVD decoder is your own private theater, which is far enough away that you have to drive to it. The DVD is a device in the car which sends a signal to the theater to start playing the movie as you drive up to the theater. Now, the DVD-CCA only lets Fords use this device. However, some rich IPO guy wants to drive his nice new Lambo to the theater, and moves the device from his Ford to his Lambo. Thus, he is not stealing anything at all, just using a different means to view something he already owns.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
- The straight encrypted disks can be copied by any 10K $ DVD burner.
- The blank media costs more than the real movies
- As the encryption does not stop copying, the encryption only serves as a blockage to playback.
- If they'd produced a viewer for Linux, even if it was "black hardware" decryption that used an opensource driver, they'd never have had this problem.
- If Xing had been smart about encryption, they would not have had this problem.
People want to be able to have fair use on the movies they buy. People are now wizing up to the DVD "playback protection," so expect to see more "damage control" by these DVD guys in the future. Be sure you are out there spreading the truth, and making sure they don't FUD some other poor guy in jail.---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Basically, this guy is a total dork and can't get any action. So he substitutes this perverted sexual shit (turning girls to stone) for real life in order to satisfy his desires.
All the little boys that worship him ain't getting any action, either.
I think the EFF should stop using the "source code is speech" argument in their defense. The Bernstein decision on which this was based was controversial in the first place, so I don't think this carries much legal weight. And the fact that something is speech doesn't necessarily give you the right to speak it e.g. when the information was obtained illegally, which is the case the MPAA is trying to make.
MPAA did not make CSS, sony/toshiba did, and was approved by DVDforum.
6 43034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\69b57175f82c787cf1 25a1a528fca8ac21fd999d10049094190d898d001480840913 d7d35246\d2d65743c7c34256c2c6475dd9dd504 4d0d4594dc9cd4054c0c449559195180c989c11058185\081c 888c011d797df0247074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f5 3135b86c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\3f3bba6e3a3ebf6be feb6abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7a322f6a 2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15d1d5584cd8 dc5145c1c5485cc8cc415bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcf cb4a5e\ace4f539793120692961703878302168286071b7f7b fa2e7a7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2)^( lf0>>16))b=((lf1\>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^ (lf1>>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];for(i=0;i=0;\i--)key[tb0[i+1]=k[tb0[i+1]]^F [ key[tb0[i+1]]]^key[tb0[i]];}void CSStitlekey2\(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[ i+1 ]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key\[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];char im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6; i++)im1[i]=dkey[i];CSStitlekey1(im1,im2 );CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);}
Secondly if its independatly engineered its not stealing the IP is it. It justhappens to be compatible with their encoding thats all.
Btw,
#include stdlib.h
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0
This is an inciteful post!
As far as point 4 goes, all you need is a Creative Labs DXR2 decoder board, and download their open source software from the site. There you go. DVD player in Linux. Their CSS key is encoded in the hardware safe and sound.
I don't get everybody talking about how there isn't one, since there is. There is no SOFTWARE ONLY solution, but there is indeed a solution.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
If one visits the sites in question, one will see enticements to "break encryption and copy a DVD onto your hard drive. Decrypt movies and let them be played off your hard drive or off DVD-R [recordable] if you have a burner [recording device]." Pretty blatant stuff. The intent of these Web sites is clear. Break the encryption. Steal the product.
What the hell is this? Just because someone is copying a DVD onto their hard drive or to a DVD-R (which we know, EVERYONE has lying around...) it's stealing it? Last time I checked, it was totally legal and allright to make copies of the stuff, so long as you don't distribute it...
Sounds like just more propoganda...
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Here's a hint for Mr. Valenti - it's not to pirate DVDs.
1. I want to play DVDs on Linux. I know that's semi-possible now with the css-auth code, but not on a K6II with no hardware decoding. I'm hoping that once the CSS cat is legally out of the bag we'll start to see the software that's already there blossom much faster than if further development is legally shackled.
2. I don't want to play DVDs on Windows or with a hardware DVD player. I don't like Windows, I don't use Windows, and I'm not about to change that. I don't have a standalone CD player, and never bought CDs until I had a CD-ROM. If I have to get a separate DVD player to hook straight to a TV, I'll just stick with VHS, thanks.
Oh, and I'm not too interested in closed source Linux players either. I buy closed source games for Linux, but something as basic as a video
decoder should be open source, for a number of reasons.
3. I want to archive movies someday. Analogy: I went through grades K-12 without buying a single audio CD (and just a couple tapes). After MP3s became popular, I started buying audio CDs, simply because it's infinitely more convenient to have my entire music collection ultra-accessible. I have an internet accessible (passworded) infinite
CD changer (of my own purchased music), in essence, and that's a very good thing. When hard drives get into the hundreds of GB, I want to
do the same thing with video.
4. I want to be able to play DVDs without a DVD player. Sounds oxymoronic, no? But in the not-too-distant future when Crusoe webpads are all the rage, I want to be able to upload a movie or two to my light notebook and watch them on the road. I shouldn't need more than an ethernet connection on said notebook to do this; I definitely shouldn't need an additional (and more expensive portable) DVD-ROM drive.
5. I don't think all software should be open source, but I do think all software should be possible to reimplement from scratch as open source, whenever people with the necessary skills gets up sufficient motivation. Microsoft gets enough flak for making obfuscated, poorly documented Office formats; what do you think the DoJ would do if all their file formats were *impossible* to read/write with other software because of some technically weak but legally bulwarked encryption scheme?
6. I want to be able to conveniently downsample, take still shots of, and edit DVD video. Yeah, yeah, you can do this pretty well with a Windows crack or piping the analog video to a capture card, but I want to do it on *my* system. Did nobody else get a kick out of the recent Matrix parody? Imagine more things like that, but add short dubbed clips, Gimpish effects, etc. Imagine taking a set of TV episode collections (I'm waiting for the Simpsons) on DVD and chopping out credits, bad episodes, etc. and putting just your favorites on a disk to lend to friends.
7. I want to be able to preserve my DVDs. The movie industry seems to be pining for the day when consumer video just wore out after a while, when technology made sure that people who paid for a piece of video didn't get that video forever. How many millions of dollars did media studios get from people who left a tape in the sun, who watched or listened to an analog tape too many times, etc. and wore down the quality but enjoyed the entertainment *they purchased* enough that
they bought a replacement? Even DVDs get scratched - and the horrid skips in a copy of Saving Private Ryan my friend rented demonstrated what happens then. I want to be able to make perfect copies of movies I buy, stick the originals in a closet, and just make a new perfect copy to watch if something happens to the first one.
8. I want to be able to move my DVDs to The Next Big Format. Sure, it's a nice coincidence that we're at just that moment in technological history when 1 movie of data == 1 disc of data, but does anyone really think we won't be able to fit a dozen movies on removable media in 10 years, or a hundred movies on a disc within our lifetime? If you can't make fair use copies of the movies you
purchased, and you want a library disc of your whole video collection, you're out of luck.
9. IT IS MY RIGHT. It was the DeCSS author's right to reverse-engineer software to make a compatible alternative. It is my right to make perfect copies of media I own a license for, for personal use. I made up this list because Mr. Valenti (and the judge in the court transcript I read) can't seem to understand that there might be normal reasons for normal people to want unfettered access to the media they purchased, but in reality I shouldn't need any excuse to legally exercise the rights that copyright law gives me.
I don't own a DVD player, and I don't plan on ever getting one if distributing this software is incomprehensibly ruled illegal. I would want to move this mirror offshore to somewhere it is legal, however.
I'd boycott them because I'll be sick of the DVD industry, not because I won't be able to use the software, mind you. I downloaded CSS source code from public court records, so I've got it legally; they can't retract that after the fact. I wouldn't be copying DVDs illegally, so they can't pick on me for that. Even if they rule that reverse engineering pitiful "encryption" is illegal, using a legally obtained product to exercise your license rights still won't be.
I've read quite a bit on the DeCSS stuff, and I'm inclined to agree with this guys article. Yes, the guys have a monopoly and the encryption sucks, and it's because of the greedy movie companies that there isn't a DVD player for Linux. But despite all that, it really does boil down to someone seeing what the MPAA did not want to be seen. If they didn't care about their monopoly or copyright protection they wouldn't have bothered to encrypt it. And while DVD copying makes no sense right now, use some common sense: DVD copiers and disc's will go down in price. They won't be this expensive forever. As for the monopoly, you don't fix a bad thing by doing another bad thing (although I know someone is going to argue cracking DSS isn't a bad thing). Let the MPAA do what it wants to do with the things IT created. It owns the stuff, and all DeCSS does is steal the intellectual property of the MPAA.
Somebody needs to ask him what his stand is on copying encrypted DVDs -- without breaking the encryption. In other words, what he thinks of raw bit-for-bit copies, and how his position on that differs from his position on breaking the encryption. Perhaps someone should put up a web page describing how to copy a DVD without touching the encryption, and see if the MPAA takes the bait. Looks like a job for GeoCities.
Of course, he is denying us our rights by disallowing private backup copies -- including copies to another media type -- which the courts have said is legal.
Blah blah blah. Sadly, I'm tired of hearing it, and making the sam arguments over and over again. But if we don't continue to respond, we lose.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Nahi bet you he fucked the editors wife and often have swingers parties
The question, of this posts moderation is an important one. Sure, its off topic for this thread, but not for slashdot in general. The "Naked and petrified" meme has been growing on slashdot for a long time. Since Crag McPherson first posted this to segfault, it has become something that binds slashdot together. In love or in hate. And I think that the knowledge of its creation is something that is important for all of us.
From the looks of it the judge is clearly on their side. And that is -BAD-. I don't expect the EFF to win this boys and girls. We are doomed. Read the court transcripts and you will see what i mean .....
Check out http://heroine.linuxbox.com/ and look for xmovie. The binary version plays encrypted dvd's, and actually works quite well on my machine...[good enough to watch movies].
I have that decoder card. it is not exactly a high-quality decoder card -- the difference between that and even the DxR3 is amazing. I don't even think that the DxR2 is readily available anymore -- it's been technologically surpassed long ago.
now let us mention that Creative, let alone the MPAA, was not precisely helpful in creating drivers, from what I've heard. as soon as I get my motherboard replaced, I'm going to try out those drivers, but last I checked, they were mighty unstable, and they weren't getting any help from Creative on that, even in the form of information. I hope this has changed.
so, yes, there is some sort of solution, but in many, many ways a unsatisfactory one.
Lea
Why was this article run? This piece had no publishable merits at all! I won't even get into the issue of the Times exibiting gross journalistic misconduct by publishing such fluff with no research into the truth of the material, from a paid corporate spokesman who has shown himself to lie whenever it suits him. It should have been labelled 'Advertisment'
The only conclusion I can draw is either Valenti's office paid a great sum of money to get this published, or Valenti made a threatening phone call to the media company that owns the L.A. Times, and threatened to have their balls cut off if they didn't play ball with his political grandstanding.
Mr. Valenti, you should be ashamed!
.sig: Now legally binding!
I sent this to letters@latimes.com I hope you do the same:
/ 20000130/t000009450.html
I have a problem with the article:
http://www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/movies
This article pertains to DVD's and the MPAA. One is nice, the other is not,
and in that order. I have to ask why you publish this? Is it for money? Is
it because the LA Times supports this? Why?
This "article" is blatant propaganda and slanderous at that. It uses the
term "Hacker" like it is a sin to be one. Hackers are not theives, they are
the people who brought you the internet way back in the 70's. Jack Valenti
(the author whos hands are dirty) writes as though he thinks that the "code"
he is referring to is akin to child pornography. This code does not even
work in its current form, I know this because I have it. It is just an
example of a singular implementation by Jon Johansson to demonstrate that it
is possible to play DVD's under the PC operating system Linux.
This "program that allows computer users to hack into encrypted digital
video discs" WAS intended for use in a DVD player application (something
that isn't going to be implemented on a free OS such as Linux unless someone
does it). Consumers have been able to playback and view entire movies on
their computers for quite some time now, this isn't a novel idea.
To play the movies, you must first de-encrypt them, and then view the 'data
stream' that is is produced through an mpeg compatible viewer. Jack is wrong
when he says that you need to remove the encryption to copy the disc to your
hard drive. You don't need to at all, only when you view the movie do you
need to. I personally have seen movies off of a persons hard drive like
this. Obviously, the intention is not to steal property or to make "pirate"
copies of movies but to watch movies off of ones legally purchased hardware
and DVD's.
So, unless you or you authors will stop the propaganda and the witch hunt
that has ruined Jon Johansson's calm 16 year old life. Don't publish blatant
lies and trash. I have been an "evil hacker" since the first day I had a
computer, or for that matter was mentally aware of my existance. You don't
have to play with computers to be a hacker, but it helps. You have offended
me, and about half a million faithful slashdot.org readers. Please stop.
Regards,
Jeremiah Stanley
miah@idcomm.com
A closed mouth gathers no foot...
Posting your thoughts, complaints etc here is a good way to share ideas, but in the end, IMHO is preaching to the converted.
I have written to newspapers here in Australia (remains to be seen if they get published). I urge you to do the same!
We have to get the message out to the masses who are only getting one side of the story.
Send these repsonses by snail mail, for some reason a letter on paper "speaks" louder than e-mail.
PoC
Did you read them? Good.
E-Mail John Forgetta, Editor of CalendarLive at john.forgetta@latimes.com
Remember, if you are being idiots, you are only hurting us, and not helping us one bit.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
This one I only learned recently, but I hadn't seen it on Slashdot before.
Yes, we all know that the price of DVD-ROM discs is higher than the price of a DVD movie. This presents a sort of pseudo-barrier to copying, right? Of course, that barrier will drop as the prices do.
But there's another barrier, and this one is real.
Apparently, DVD players don't work with unencrypted disks (DVD-ROM drives are another matter, but most of the DVD playing machines out there are the set-top boxes). Furthermore, the key is always stored at a very specific spot on each disk.
Now, on a DVD-ROM disk, that spot is pre-burned with zeroes. Making it physically impossible to burn a disk which will work in an ordinary DVD player.
Of course the DVD CCA wouldn't let this information out normally; if people know that DeCSS still didn't let you burn practical pirate DVD's, there would be no case.
Yet another reason DeCSS doesn't promote piracy; pirated disks won't even work. In other words, this guy's spouting DeCSS FUD. Not that he hasn't before, but this is just another bit of factual evidence to add to the pile.
Cryptome has something new everyday (transcripts, updates, etc.) Worth checking out if you're really into this case.
" ...is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets." Perhaps this assessment might be a little closer if the department store in question only sold pianos. At this point, (and for several years, if current trends continue) it is far cheaper to buy a second copy of a disk rather than throw it on a hard drive (let alone removable media). With the blue-laser DVDs (for High-Res/progressive scan eg HDTV) only a few years away, DVD's will be obsolete long before it is profitable to pirate. Mr Valenti's true colours are showing through. He may have the mass media (and the american people by extension), but we have... we'll think of something.
If Valenti resisted efforts for rating systems, maybe we can paint him as anti-consumer rights. Claiming fair use of products that we own, could we find a way to get the very outspoken Sen. Lieberman to champion our cause? After all, rating systems empower the buyer to make informed purchases, and DeCSS allows us to view products that we have bought. Am I on the right track, or am I way off-base, here?
"The enemy of my enemy..." (or, "... keep your enemies closer").
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
I'm sending an email to Bruce Perens and RMS about this. Here is what the mail says:
There is an article at http://www .calendarlive.com/calendarlive/movies/20000130/t00 0009450.html which was written by Jack Valenti, the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America. (you may have seen this on Slashdot already)
Like other people such as myself, this really ticks me off. Big business is able to get mouth time and is able to write articles for the LA Times, while the people in the open-source community have little or no say over these matters and are frequently considered a negative impact on society.
While I was chatting in IRC I figured that someone should do a mass protest at the courthouse where this is taking place, or even one of the several federal buildings in this country (making sure this doesn't turn violent and cause negative publicity) As citizens we have the right to protest peacefully. If we do not do so the government has every opportunity to bias themselves toward the MPAA and to consider us as "weak."
Another possibility would be to borrow a DVD recorder and a computer that can play DVD's and record a video about how encryption isn't even necessary in order to copy and redistribute DVD's. The video would be given to the defendents' lawyers as evidence or even to the MPAA itself.
Unfortunately I can't do any of these things because of school, but I will support you or anyone else if this does take place. Thank you for letting me be heard.
A letter similiar to this could be sent to open leaders of the Open-Source movement, allowing more people to get involved in this. This is the only possible way it seems to get any action done.
(Note: for people outside the USA, try protesting outside your nearest US Embassy :)
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
One point that I've only seen alluded to in this case is that the existence of DeCSS really will hurt the DVDCA and content producers, just not for the reasons they want everyone to believe.
Because DVDs are localized, they can be sold at different prices and released at different times in various parts of the world. With DeCSS, the localization is defeated along with the data being decrypted. This means that I can buy a DVD in the United States and mail it to a friend somewhere like the UK or France before it's supposed to be available there. The "official" players won't allow this DVD to be played on players sold there, but DeCSS will play it.
This also means there's a potential market for pre-release DVDs shipped over from consumers in another country. And because of different prices in different countries, I can see enterprising individuals and corporations buying DVDs in bulk in countries where they're cheap to sell at discounts (and $$$) someplace where they cost more. With a well-publicized web site, this could be big business.
It's been stated over and over that DeCSS doesn't make it easier to copy DVDs due to the high price of burners and media, but it does open up new avenues for DVDs to be transferred (which is legal) to citizens of other countries who would otherwise have to pay more money for them. I don't think a judge would be sympathetic to Mr. Valenti if he came into a courtroom and asked for DeCSS to be barred so he could set regional price points to maximize profits. Protecting copyrights is just the excuse for them to do this, though.
Let's be honest: DeCSS will cost the DVDCA, artists and other affiliated organizations money by defeating localization. It will do so by forcing consistent pricing and release dates across international boundaries. As far as I know, there's nothing illegal about this.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
David Brin is distrubingly naive. The loss of privacy, though perhaps ultimately inevitable should be vigorously opposed (unless you're of the ruling elite, which will buy you privacy).
:: Anonymity is survival ::
It is a complete fantasy of his that groups of independant "citizens" (who he ridiculously identifies as "good guys") will ever have free passage through the FBI much less the CIA or NSA.
If he were ever considered a real threat to the powers that be, instead of a pathetic lapdog, he would be blotted out without a thought with the light shining fully in his face. The rulers would commit genocide before making themselves accountable as a whole or bend over to be examined by the proctologist's light.
Brin had better think twice before trading in his freedom for security. The elite will always remain opaque (despite some bones like sex scandals to the brainless masses... he's a fool if he thinks thats transparency).
This whole story has become redundant. Every new case brings the same rhetoric and pontifications about the same issues. However, this shouldn't mean that we should stop responding. In particular, this article in the LA Times has some very serious problems:
Article:If one visits the sites in question, one will see enticements to "break encryption and copy a DVD onto your hard drive. Decrypt movies and let them be played off your hard drive or off DVD-R [recordable] if you have a burner [recording device].
Personally, I do not remember seeing this alledged quote (at least not in the manner in which it was used in the article). As stated by others earlier, most importantly by the U.S. Judicial system (sorry for those outside the U.S., but this is centering on U.S. law for the most part), the end user has the right to make copies for his own, personal, non profit use. Honestly, how many people are going to have a large store of copied DVDs on a HDD? With their size, it would be easiest and cheapest to just purchase a copy if the intent was piracy.
The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store.
To run with the initial metaphor, it is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store if you own the store and like to ensure that you will be able to access it (that and the store costs about $20 and the key costs about twice that).
The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets.
The key does not facillitate theft. Byte-by-byte copying is always possible, but not practical as mentioned above.
In the trial, the defendants no doubt can count on support from activist groups that have been seduced by the hackers' strange ideology, which equates copying and stealing software code with free speech.
Excuse me? The first comment is the one that I have the most trouble with in the entire article. I finded it troubling that someone could say that people "have been seduced by the hackers' strange ideology." Well chosed diction for his case, but heinously false. The predjudice in this statement is outrageous, to state that others have been seduced by a "strange ideology" while he has written this piece is preposterous. While he obviously meant strange to mean "extraordinary," (benifit of the doubt, right?) I think that he could have rephrased this passage. Finally, the ideology of which he speaks, I believe, generally advocates the open sharing of [source] code and giving credit where credit is due when copying it. It does not advocate the outright theft of code (software code == source code? or binary code?). I certainly do not want to speak for everybody when discussing their own ideology, but I believe this to be a good summary of the ideology of which he speaks.
Some even have dared to assert that since the encryption was hacked, it wasn't tough enough to begin with. This is no different from saying that breaking narcotics laws is OK because it can be done.
Flatley stated: it wasn't tough enough to serve their purpose. Moreover, forgetting to encrypt data at one point in the process of playing a DVD was the real reason (so I have been told, correct me if I'm wrong) that cracking the encryption was so easy. This was basically like giving someone a coded message and the uncoded message where a simple shift cipher was used.
Does this make it right? We must define 'it.' Does it make it right to break a law because it is easy to do? Without breaking out my copy of Walden or Civil Disobedience (Good ol' Henry David Thoreau) I will move on to: does this make it legal? No, of course it doesn't. But what laws have those involved in DeCSS broken? They have not made it easier to pirate anything nor have they broken any laws themselves. They only wanted to open up the DVD market to those who wish to use an alternate operating system.
The producers of artistic works did not labor over their creations for months and years simply to see a band of cyber-thieves gain applause for stealing their work. . . Those who passionately believe in freedom of expression and consumers who value creative storytelling have a lot on the line as the judge considers this matter.
Yes. Well said. We certainly do.
---------------------
On another note, how many peole actually own DVD-Rs? With all the problems (three main divisions in the market, resulting in DVD-RAM cartridges etc.), I don't think I actually know one personally. I'm curious as to whether they have caught on elsewhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Milton on Windows:
"And what the people but a herd confus'd,
A miscellaneous rabble, who extol
Never trust anyone over 90000.
You shouldn't have to legally defend encryption. If it gets broken, then you simply have to rely on legal action against anyone that subsequently steals or copies your product.
Otherwise I could use ROT-13 as encryption then prosecute anyone that decodes my message, simply because they "broke" the encryption.
..is that there doesn't seem to be anywhere to respond on the latimes page to the total bullshit that Valenti is spewing. Why is the head of an interested party given the soapbox and no Reply button to be seen? Hm I wonder.
Probably everyone's seen it already, but in case it makes the littlest bit of difference, go to Cryptome.org and click on the link DVDumb, which will take you what IMO seems to be the clearest, most right-on appraisal of the whole shitfit.
If we don't stop them here, a day will come when many web pages gray out your print button. Your web browser will read encrypted content, will refuse to save it to a file
Aside from the encrypted bit, I've actually seen Netscape do this. Of course, there's no way that this can be enforced (right now) for other browsers..
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Can't someone just license whatever they need and actually make a legit linux decoder? It would unfortunately be proprietary and closed source, but then you can't use the excuse of there being no DVD players for linux.
Jack Valenti, or at least a cartoon likeness thereof, narrated the Frakazoid 'creation' episode. If memory serves, the episode involved a geek being "sucked" into the internet and becoming a "Freakazoid" capable of amazing superhuman feats, due to the negligence of a mainstream computer(software or hardware, i don't remember) company, in not reporting a major bug in their product. Through proprietary systems and corporatism, a large company did damage to the public... I apologize for the incoherence of this comment, but I am tired and I felt I needed to share this with the community. see episodes #6&7
The whole argument by the MPAA seems to be that computer users want to pirate the content of their DVDs by using DeCSS. Umm. Excuse me? If I want to pirate a DVD it's going to cost me a whole lot more to go out, buy a DVD writer, buy a blank DVD, borrow the DVD from the video store and make a copy. Much easier just to wander down to K-Mart or (insert your local bulk store here) and buy a brand new DVD movie off the shelf with all the nice wrapping and free posters etc. and sleep with an easy conscience.
I can see how my argument may fail within a few years, when blank DVDs are being rolled out at $1 each and writers can be picked up for a couple of hundred. But by then this whole argument will be over anyway and there will be some new technology to squabble over.
The only argument for keeping CSS a secret appears to be to make sure that those companies who actually purchased a licence to decrypt CSS in their players aren't seen to have wasted their money. That seems to be a joke, anyway. If I want to go out and buy a reasonable quality DVD player for my home theatre it would set me back about $800 (I'm in Australia, BTW). Ok, so I realise I'm buying hardware and software there (including paying for the licence to have the CSS decryption software in the machine), but that seems fairly pricy for a glorified CD player that I wouldn't pay more than $150 for without the software component. I mean, the physical mechanism hasn't changed that much. CD shaped object still goes into the machine, gets spun up to speed and gets read by a laser on the end of a focussing arm. Big deal. So, let's be generous and say that the added technology above and beyond that of a normal CD player costs about $50 per unit to implement. That means I'm paying about $600 for the added software component that is inside the DVD player, as opposed to a regular CD. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?
On the other hand, if I want to go out and buy a DVD player for my computer, it only costs about $450 for a good quality unit, which usually comes bundled with a Windows DVD player. Ok, so a regular CD-ROM for my PC will set me back about $100 (I'm being generous there!). So, as in the home theatre player mentioned earlier, let's add in $50 towards the modified hardware within the unit, and that leaves me with $300 towards the software that I run on the computer to read the DVD. Err. That's $300 (50%) less than I'm paying for my home theatre DVD player software. Paying that much for software I'm never going to use (if I use an unsupported OS like Linux etc) seems a bit harsh - especially when I'm then told I can't write my own software to do the playing on my OS.
Even without the software issues, though, it's amazing that they have to wonder why people want to watch their DVDs on their computers? Heck, even if I go out and buy a TV out card and pipe the DVD from my PC into my big screen TV for home theatre, I'm still going to come out $200 ahead!
So, to sum up, it seems that the only reason for having CSS licences isn't to protect artistic content, but to protect those companies who are producing DVD players for the home theatre market.
It's interesting to note that the VHS copy protection scheme that is used these days (developed by Disney, I beleive - correct me if I'm wrong) is so insanely easy to bypass it's not funny. However, it never really becomes an issue because computer users aren't involved. I don't recall a big fuss being made about all the VHS copy protection breaker-box schematics that were thrown about when it came out. I even saw some of them in respectable electronics magazines.
Email me or not.
email me or not.
Ah! But it doesn't matter, does it? If you recall from point 1, you can already take these burners and copy the encrypted versions and play them back. As mentioned before, the encryption only prevents playback, not copying.
it should be
(on the off chance that someone will repeat this to him...)
It's not NECESSARY to crack the encryption to copy a DVD.
Let me repeat that, stated another way:
It was ALREADY quite feasible to illegally duplicate a copyrighted work, bit-for-bit, without cracking the encryption.
What DeCSS makes possible, is the development of DVD PLAYBACK software, and DVD players without the developers paying to join your shitty little cartel.
The upshot of this is, that DVD players can be cheaper, which will increase demand for DVD content.
What you should be trying to fight, is DUPLICATION of DVD's, not DECRYPTION of DVD's. DeCSS has Nothing to do with the former.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
More seriously, I find this article to be truly pathetic. Did they have a momentary lapse in judgement, or have they always lacked a sense of ethics? While it is okay to print this article, it isn't ethical without contacting the other party for their side of the story, and allowing them fair comment and criticsm. The implication of having only one side of an issue is that it is the official opinion of LA Times.
So now, we have the official views of a paper being written by the spokesman of a special-interest group. This has certainly happened before, though with a bit more subtlety. The fact that this is being done openly gives me the shivers.
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Send mail to letters@latimes.com
You must include your full name, street address, and daytime phone number.
Instructions page for how to write letters.
Remember, short letters that make one correct factual point each are most likely to get printed.
-- Real free software sites don't use GIFs.
Correct. You can make "fair use" if you do it without circumventing the copy protection. For example, if you play a DVD using a licensed player, freeze frame, and take a Polaroid of the television screen, then that might be fair use. It's also fairly useless. Most of the things you would want to do with a DVD you cannot do because they require circumventing CSS.
Other commentators have posited that parts of the DMCA may be unconstitutional.
Oh yeah! If you interpret the DMCA as saying that it's illegal even to tell someone how to defeat copy protection, even if you don't give them actual compiler-ready code, then that is probably unconstitutional, but will have to be tested at trial. As for code itself being protected speech, that's a trickier issue, and the judge at least thinks that the DMCA may place a new limit on acceptable speech, like existing limits based on copyrights, trademarks, etc. I hope the judge reverses his position on this, but given the MPAA's muscle, he probably won't. Plan on a lengthy appeals process.
Yes you are right about the the US Constitution
Unfortunately, today Corporations control the government who control the citizen.
Sad ain't it ?
Cheers
Sorry to pop the bubble, but there IS a DVD player for Linux.
Where, do you say? Check out:
http://opensource.creative.com
There you will find open source drivers for the Creative Labs DXR2 hardware DVD decoder board. So there you go, you can have your DVD player under Linux and not piss off the MPAA. Now only if they would support the more current DXR3 board...
The analogy that he uses is very weak. The only way that distributing the means to view the information on a DVD is akin to distributing the keys to a department store is if every customer was assigned a key to the store. Only if the customer has a key are they allowed to shop there. And you have to buy the key in the first place, because the store controls the production of the keys. And if you move to a different area, you have to purchase a new key to access the local store.
It seems to me that he left himself wide open to debate in court by using that weak analogy. DVDs are a transport for content. Is it right for a corp. to control the means of transport with such precision? To segment markets, introducing incompatibilities that make their products valueless for resale in a global marketplace?
People don't buy DVD players to tap into the product of a few elite corporations. They buy them because they want to own a device that allows them to use next generation content. Are we to allow ourselves to be so shortsighted as to accept the DVD medium as a conduit for the transfer of large amounts of money directly into the pockets of entrenched titans, while stripping the public of rights that they cherish? I understand the problem that they see, but their solution is weak and would have to trample on our established rights to keep alive.
what's a menance? As in "I'll just take a few menance to get this done."? Dumbass. You have been deluded by the hysterical, quasi-superstitious propaganda of the...ah, fsck, why bother........
>>
Even under DMCA it is legal to reverse-engineer for reasons of interoperability.
(as per my understanding)
>>
Fortunately, (or unfortunately, depending on what side of this issue you're on) even if the DMCA DOES disallow reverse engineering in this instance (considering that the bill was designed to "protect" IP for corporations, I'd personally say that if upheld as constitutional, reverse engineering CSS would be illegal under this act, but IANAL) it would STILL be a moot point. The DMCA des not apply outside of the US, and the actual reverse engineering was done in Norway, by someone who is not a US citizen.
Hmm. Which brings up an interesting point. In the past, the US has gone out of it's way to enforce laws on it's citizens even when they leave the country to do things which are not illegal in whatever jurisdiction they travel to.
If the reverse engineering of a piece of software was done, that was directly illegal under the DCMA, abroad, by a US citizen, would the fruits of that labor be legal unusable in the US?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Below are the comments from the people of the Internet:
"Get the constitution written. I am interested in what the government will do with such a document. If enough U.S. citizens will sign the Internet Constitution, the government will have no choice but to hear the voices of the people. "
"The information age is about freedom of the mind and of sharing what we have learned. This concept has made the internet what it is today, DeCSS is just one more product from that."
"Your democracy is deterorating under the weight of the corprate structures. Fight back and reclaim your consitutional rights, and then for gods sake use them."
"this is a clear violation of human rights. the web is for the people and they are the ones who should decide what should be censored"
"All creative efforts and products are affected by histories which are greater in scope than the history of any individual or corporate body; thus, a creator is but a single contributer to the history of a particular creation. All restrictions upon information, through institutions based on the notion of individual ownership are hereby invalid. Creation is a collective cultural cooperation; it is not an isolated, ownable achievement. "
"I cant belive any compeny would do this! I mean we are people trying to entertain ourselves. I was thinking of passing a petition throughout linuxworld expo."
"I am concerned at the harmful attempts of powerful media organizations to restrict reasonable access to digital technology by individuals. I support your efforts to gather grass roots support for personal freedom on the Internet."
"I really appreciate the support. Keep up the good work! -jlj "
"It has always troubled when judges who had no grasp of the matter and failed to realize their own incompetence in the field came to dubious verdicts innocent of any understanding of what its consequences might be. I think now in the new millenium, as computertechnology in general and the internet in particular have become a part of daily life for normal people and have acquired enormous economic and social influence, there can be less and less understanding for such incompetence. The idea that decisions that may have the potential to change our future world are made by such people rooted in the past and inclined to listen to whoever has more status and financial and political power is deeply worring to me. The judicial systems in many western countries should take more care that such trials are dealt with by people who have a clue what they're deciding about, unless we all have to live with the results of their ignorance."
"I believe that the government was wrong in entering the house of Jon Johansen. I believe in the rights of free speech on the internet, and hope that with the support of it's constituents, this country can make the right choice and allow the DeCSS code to be distributed for the purpose of creating a Linux based DVD player. It is only with the combined effort of all of the worlds greatest minds working together on open source projects that we can ever truly reach our potential as an electronic society. i encourage all those who have similair feelings to express come forward and show their support. without quantity we will never be heard. "
"Not everything is intellectual property, if ingenuity is not allowed to flourish we as a society of freethinkers will perish."
"This trial is a ridicule of the justice system and also (should be) a great embarassment to those suing this 16 year old boy. Not only for their laughable excuse of an case, but also for trying to incriminate a boy who cracked their obviously simple code."
"It's time that we demand changes to the terribly out-dated copyright and patent laws that have allowed the MPAA and so many others to deny the average citizen the right to use their mind. It's time that people realized you can't patent or copyright common sense. An inventor is entitled to some credit, but the actions of the MPAA and its allies (the US and Norwegian governments) have crossed the line between protecting intellectual property rights and discouraging intellectual progress. Not only should we demand justice in the DeCSS proceedings, but we should demand that the existing laws be thoroughly examined to determine the extent of their inadequacy in a digital age and hopefully, correct their shortcomings."
"We need an Internet constitution right away! "
"Dumbing down the world's population is insanely dangerous. Did the inventors of the microwave start suing and arresting people for understanding that technology. I think not. We all have a right, a responsibility, to understand the world around us. Big corporations want to prevent that because it prevents them from having to think smart."
"When the framers of the Constitution of America set out to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they took intellectual freedom for granted." Prob'ly irrelevant 'cause it's the US Constitution and this is Norway, but oh well "
"What is frightening to me is that a program can draw such incredible heat simply because it has the *potential* to be misused. It does not even require proof of *intent* -- merely the *potential*. "
"A judge who can't pronounce "Linux" correctly is makeing mockery of justice. Source code is simply speech, it does not take one penny away from the MPAA. "
"Dumbing down the world's population is insanely dangerous. Did the inventors of the microwave start suing and arresting people for understanding that technology. I think not. We all have a right, a responsibility, to understand the world around us. Big corporations want to prevent that because it prevents them from having to think smart. "
"It is an unfortunate fact that I have been losing my faith in our judicial system for quite some time now. The recent rulings against the open source community and the abuse incurred by Jon Johnsansen and those who have posted his code have only strengthened my belief that the people who we have placed our trust in are corruptible beyond measure and do not deserve their positions. The two most recent rulings regarding the DeCSS source code are prime examples of the injustices to which I refer:
1) Judge Louis A. Kaplan of New York not only misunderstood the material over which he was presiding, but made it obvious that he had no interest in having the material explained to him. His biased views were evident in the quote that he is now infamous for. It doesn't take a "moron" to realize his decision was made before the trial even took place. Now tell me that is fair.
2) Then Judge William Elfving changed his mind and went back on his earlier ruling that the injunction was unbiased in California. Obviously, something outside of the realm of a fair trial influenced him after the trial took place. Gee, I wonder how that happened. Seems like an awful lot is going on outside the courtroom.
I find it sorely disappointing that these rulings have shown that in today's world money and power still have strongholds over justice in our justice system. "Might over right" has again failed the people of the United States and the "power of the people" has again been rewritten as "power to the people with the money."
Fair is fair, and this is not fair. This is not a case in which simply disagree with a ruling. This is a case where I will go to my grave knowing that freedoms have truely been violated. "
"The misinformation that is being spread by the plaintiffs in this case discusts me. The idea that the de-css software is required to pirate movies is so flawed, I'm amazed people haven't jumped all over it. This suit isn't about piracy, it is about control of how we play our licensed software. We could bytestrip dvd's until the next millenium w/out ever decoding them. de-css is about allowing software players to exist -- that these players are beyond the control of the motion picture industry is the bee in their bonet. The raid on Jon's home is a misappropriation of justice -- the mpaa should be tried for perjury. "
"DVD encryption was always a crime against the free market. It is dumb to fight the new intellectual realities of the interent with a copyright system that belongs in another era."
"Something must be done to stop the plunder of our individual rights and the corruption of our democratic system by large, greedy, multi-national corporations!"
"I believe that the law is being twisted in an unconstitional way. The way the judges are acting, and the way the plaintiffs are responding is childlike, uncalled for, and their suit has no legal standing. "
"Copying DVDs are not cost effective. I would rather buy originals for the quality of picture and sound. But I also have a Linux box and do not appreciate the DIVX-like pressure to use "corporate sanctioned products" to view my DVD. Untill the MPAA get into the game and start writing software/players for all platforms, the open source community will continue to do what it does for the best of the community, legally. Not all of us are hackers. But 98% of us like using Linux and are tired of being treated as second class cyber citizens. This lawsuit and the harrasment of Jon Johansen only raises the fact of a high powered, rich yet greedy corporation trying to protect their "monopoly" over technology. I would rather live in peace and harmony with all parties but if you start pushing hard like this, the entire community can provide one hell of a backlash. Pity you guys don't have one stock we can focus on.. remember what happened to E-Toys' stock after the E-Toy fiasco. Treat us as customers instead of as criminals. There is only so much that you (the MPAA) or Microsoft can do in restricting our freedoms."
"The ability to learn , interperet and pro-actively contribute to the creation of a new format of distributing information and knowledge , should never be prosecuted , but only encouraged.Those who forge ahead into this realm are the ones who inspire great thinking.Those who condemn it , have slave-holder mentalities. "
"Who do you guys think you work for?? We want our freedom, and are willing to fight for it, especially if that means knocking you out of office! "
"Keep fighting.. "
"I'm thinking it isn't right to charge someone for information they obtain, and how they decide to spread it! "
"This case confuses the need for personal privacy (deserving of security) with the need to lock out non-Microsoft consumers (greed and monopolism). I personally do not give a crap about DVDs, but I do care very much about state-supported monopoly power. Had the creators of this system made it available to all operating systems, it is likely that no one would have found the subject so intriguing. "
"This is capitalism at it's very worse. It's a very sad state of affairs when a conglomerate of corporations can gather and influence the law and state of numerous countries to comply with their will. Jon Johansen was merely investigating and trying to learn and educate, this is an outrage. "
"Free the code! "
"If Linux users have no right to play DVD, then suit the MPAA. Its the totally race-discrimination. Fight them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
"Eat the MPAA! "
"DVD on Linux!!! Make it real!!! "
"viva la internet"
"Jon Johansen is innocent! "
"Everyone has the right to play the DVDs that they legally bought on whichever platform they want. What Jon Johansen did was reverse engineering, which is legal in both the USA and Norway. And his motivation for doing this WAS NOT piracy, but a wish to play his DVDs on his Linux box. "
"If Jon Johansen can reserve engineer the code to open DVD, why is he being sued? Can we say "GREED"? "
"B smart... "
"If the same thing was done in the computer field, where would PCs be today??? "
"I have a DVD I can't play without buying a hideously expensive external unit or a cheap linux box... Duh! "
"This attack on our freedom as American citizens can not go unopposed. I will fight this with non-violent protests, and literature until a reasonable solution is reached. "
"This is total bullshit... I stand behind this site !!! "
"wake up, stand up , stand up for your rights, dont give up the fight"
"We cant just let this sort of thing happen...what will be next? "
"The government cannot control the natural will of humankind, it cannot contol the natural will that cries for freedom. Humanity will not and never will stand for any sort of injustice that limits the rights of the people of the world. Let freedom of information be the core of the internet, not the tyranny of government watch dogs."
"It is absolutely unfair that someone who has exposed a flaw should be punished or degraded in such a manner. I hope he sues down and out here there is a lot of support for him. And what about the people or company which messed up in encryting their key? "
"Vote to support intellectual freedom and Open Source. "
"The internet belongs to the world.
"This is wrong, as I've been told this is definately not illegal in Norway and probably not in the US either. Intellectual freedom. That's it. "
"IF they couldn't do the crypto better than this they shouldn't make a deal of. It was better that the group (netherlands, germany and norway)decrypted the DVD now than befor it had grown to BIG. "
"This is absurd! "
"I think this is very very important "
"open source, open minds, open future NOTHING else "
Its all easy for us to boycott, but prehaps a more persuasive way can be found. The vast majority of us are not geeks ( I am an engineering/physics geek). This fight means very little to the vast majority who have no idea about what is at stake hear. Consumers can and should vote with their pocketbooks. We should spread the word, notify the WTO, tell an congressman, write our representatives, inform the media, tell the store owners where they should stand on this. Store owners should be on our side since this limits their markets over the Web. I mean who would not want to be able to sell Phantom menace in 30 languages to places like Kenya, South Africa, India and China and do it from the US! Profits for them versus freedom of choice for us. I say that I should be allowed ot buy a film directly from Berlin, Tokyo. or Calcutta and be able to play it. Open Source and open standards benefit us all. Vote with you pocketbooks but also inform those who you would first boycott. Media Play and Blockbuster are not the enemy. The MPAA is.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
I've been building a public list of people who hold copies of deCSS and aren't afraid to announce this fact. The list serves two purposes:
The list is growing steadily, but slowly. So far, 10 US states and 5 countries are represented.
But I've made a truly gloomy discovery. I've received numerous comments to the effect, "This is a horrible idea-- now the MPAA will know just who to go after!" I could weep. These comments indicate that with almost no effort, the MPAA has intimidated a great many people into believing that exercising their rights is a bad idea. Freedoms that will exist on the net for decades are being determined now; this is not a good time to scurry off into the shadows whenever some corporation emits a spate of nasty lawyer-letters.
Now this is a list of deCSS holders, not distributors, and to date no one has been threatened for merely possessing deCSS. Still, taking on even minimal risk of a lawsuit-- even a baseless one-- could be unwise for some. This said, I hope that more people will, after considering the pros and cons, sign up .
(Since someone will ask: no, I'm not an MPAA secret agent; here's me, if you want to check.)
So we should buy another card- or playback device and that solves the problem? Sorry Mac, this is the real world. Customers should demand usability of what they have already bought, not be dictated by a rich industry feeding off their purses and naivity.
The DVD-format will likely change in the future (yet again) so everyone must upgrade anyways. If there's no upgrade available for your device, you're out of luck (as usual). How many cards out there do you think can be upgraded easily?
It doesn't matter if the upgrade is free or not, as this is the "free market". Prices will go up a little just to pay for this paranoia of the movie industry.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
what an ass!! The article doesn't explain any background. Any regular consumer will be convinced that the MPAA is the last line of defence against "hackers" from attacking and stealing their precious DVDs. I sure would like to meet him personally and give him my 2 cents.
But, deCSS and utils based upon it are available for windows, which provide no other purpose but copying.
Wrong.
DeCSS was written for Windows...so that it could be used to play DVD's under Linux.
Or rather, so that it could be used to play DVD's under WINE under Linux. According to Jon Johansen (the 16-year old member of MoRE who was arrested in Norway for writing deCSS--although he probably didn't), this was a necessary first step because at the time, Linux didn't offer support for the file format used on DVD's. (Can't remember the acronym right now, and can't find the article in which he was quoted as saying this. It was one of the "Jon Johansen gets arrested" articles referenced by a poster in an earlier DeCSS thread...) Thus, at the time, DeCSS on WINE was the only way for those who will only allow free software on their computers--and there are many of them--to play a DVD.
Then, once support for that format was available for Linux (again, this is what Jon was quoted as saying), a program that ran DVD on Linux the right way--CSS-auth--could be written. But DeCSS was a legitimate first step towards that goal; for a short time, DeCSS on WINE was the only way to view DVD's on Linux.
Or, of course, you could have just had one of your Windows using friends rip any DVD to MPEG using one of the many many *many* available rippers that allowed the CSS key already included in any Windows DVD software to break the encryption before capturing the file. This page lists no less than 19 of them. IIRC, only one of those listed (DeCSS) actually breaks CSS itself. That is, there were (I believe) no less than 18 DVD rippers already available before CSS was reverse-engineered.
As for your argument that these rippers were "less perfect" than a DeCSSed copy, I can't say, since I've never seen the output of any of them. However, I do know that CD-to-mp3 rippers are of greatly varying quality, and are always improving; unless there's some technical obstacle I don't know of (and I highly doubt it), there's no good reason why these tools wouldn't become perfect very very soon--especially because what they do is not, as I understand it, any different from the job a CD ripper does.
This whole fiasco and the whole millenium copyright act are the products of what happens when people who are ignorant of something try to regulate it. Congressmen do not understand this technology, a recent report showing that some of them don't even have working e-mail accounts proves this. Big companies don't understand technology either, or else they would realize that people being able to decode and play their movies on currently unsupported platforms increases the number of people who can use, and thus buy their product.
--Hephaestus_Lee
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
I have no idea Bruce, you'll have to ask copyleft about that. Would be a good idea tho.
-- iCEBaLM
Yes! I know that it is a difficult task, but if it is fun, as you say it is, then there will be people who will do it for free (or near free). And if you use CGI animation, you don't need a studio. In not so long, CGI animation will look real. And that is when people will start making free feature-legth movies.
Also, the idea of making movies using 3D games is one I like alot. I was quite impressed by some of the Quake1 movies done by the Rangers back in the day. I imagine that people have created far more impressive stuff with newer engines. As a matter of fact, I happen to be writing a GPL 3D game engine which should have no problem doing this sort of thing.
As I see it, in the not-so-distant future, we will have so much infrastructure built up that no one will have to do anything that they don't want to do, and everything will be free, thus allowing everyone to spend their time working on art or whatever it is that they like to do. I will be coding. Others will be making movies far better than anything we've ever seen, for free. Utopia?
------
-Everything has a cause
-Nothing can cause itself
-You cannot have an infinite string of causes
This article is wrong on so many levels. First of all he asserts that CSS was broken only to pirate movies. Breaking CSS happened for 2 reasons: 1, to allow DVD's to be played under linux. 2, to prove how weak CSS was. He also mentions that DeCSS allows distribution of copyrighted DVD's by way DVD-r's. I dunno about you but copying a $20 movie to a $30 5.2 GB DVD-R dosent make sense to me. Sure in 5 years it might cost $5 for a 5.2 GB DVD-R, but the MPAA HAD to know CSS would be broken by then. 40-bit encryption is not hard to break, especially with the computing power that will be available 5 years from now, when copyng a DVD is economically feasable.
I see his point that a digital copy of a dig copy is a good as the original, that goes with the territory. But there is no way to have a digital format without being able to (eventually) copy it.
The idea is to think of pirates(ARRRRRRR!) as competitors, and just offer the product at a price that is reasonable compared to the hassle of d/l'ing or copying a movie.
Their best bet is to take cues from what the RIAA is doing right now, and do the opposite. Regardless of the legality of DeCSS, the cat is out of the bag now, just like mp3.
PS: Call me crazy but I think the object of a movie (as a form of art) is to reach as many people as possible, not to make money.
Does anybody have the original weblog that was on the DeCSS site? It's gone, I can't even find a cached copy at this point. I'm not sure if this is fuzzy recollection or not, but on the weblog I remember something about trying to purify the sources and I assumed (or read) that it was because somebody originally leaked the encryption code. Was anything leaked to produce this code?
Have any of the companies which recently have decided to support Linux (Creative or Diamond etc) made any commitment to produce a DVD driver under Linux?
Where is the EFF? I've yet to see them actually practice free speech about anything, somebody needs to release a statement to the press about how DeCSS was derived, that most people won't pirate DVD data and that there are no existing commecial DVD solutions under Linux. They're good at litigating but they are lousy at trying to communicate with the public.
I for one don't actually care whether Linux, Windows, MacOS or any other OS can play DVD's, I'd rather watch them on a nice large TV but it would be in everybodies best interest if the capability were available.
So if I wanted to put the videos of my wedding on a DVD for my family to watch on their DVD players, I couldn't do this? Or, if I made an independent film I couldn't distribute it on DVD without licensing an encryption key?
Is that for real? Please tell me I'm mistaken.
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, California 90053
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to Jack Valenti's diatribe in the January 30th edition of the L.A. Times. It would be a mild disservice to any reader with the wit to operate a DVD player to allow his assertions to go unchallenged, so I've taken a moment to reply.
First, readers should know that the movies on DVD discs are encrypted scrambled so that no-one can watch them without a special player. Consumer-electronics DVD players can unscramble the movies, as can various computer software programs. The scrambling is a little harder to decode than the cryptograms that used to appear with the comics, but, well, let's just say that the CIA won't be using the DVD secret code any time soon.
Without unscrambling the code, it's impossible to watch a DVD movie. One can do a lot of other things with a DVD: copy it, burn thousands of discs in a third world country, and flood the market with cheap knock-offs, but one cannot watch it. The "hackers" Mr. Valenti rails against have not stolen copyrighted materials (nor have they been so charged); neither is it possible to take a decrypted movie and produce a new disc that can be played in someone else's DVD machine. In fact, all they've done is make it possible to play DVDs on a few more computers than could play them before. They'll tell you how to do it too, if you're interested. You still have to buy your own DVDs.
Valenti's bluster about "circumventing copyright protection," "stealing software code," and "breaking narcotics laws" (!) obfuscates the real issue, which is that a weak encryption system has been misrepresented as being able to solve the motion picture industry's piracy woes. Encryption cannot prevent piracy any more than aspirin can prevent pregnancy; and weak encryption cannot even prevent hackers from watching their DVDs without shelling out a couple hundred bucks for a player. I wouldn't care to suggest alternate targets for the Motion Picture Association's well-funded ire, but the kids currently being harassed in court are clearly not the bad guys in this picture.
[etc]Takedown
While it's a very valid point, that DVD decryption will allow open access to dvd media (ie, free and open dvd players) I think that a lot of us are attempting to ignore the more dubious side of things. Many of us do want DVD players for linux, but so do many people want more perfect copying of DVD discs. If the purpose of decss was to help produce free dvd players, the main audience of those players would have been linux, since windows already has players (usually bundled with drives). But, deCSS and utils based upon it are available for windows, which provide no other purpose but copying. Before deCSS, copies werent 'perfect' and the advantage of digital perfect copies that dvd would give you disappears - deCSS lets you copy things more perfectly. Maybe the MPAA fears large scale pirates who repackage and sell copies of DVD discs more than they do the little warez kiddie. I think that this is more likely. The situation is akin to the publishing of security exploits before they've been patched. They can help find vulnerabilities to fix, but they can also be an open door for the people who wana do damage. While the linux app idea is good and needed, the fear of the app used to make high quality piracies of discs is a real and valid one. I think that the MPAA is going to have to find a more effective way of securing the media against large scale pirates - or else they're going to have to figure out some way to eliminate the negative effects of piracy. (maybe like make them free to watch after they've been out for a year or somethin? I duno :)
deCSS does make low-tech piracy possible. Once the encryption is removed and the data on the DVD is available, it's possible to pull out just the basic video track and put it on a Video CD. There wouldn't be all the bells and whistles of a DVD, but it would be transferrable across the net (look at Hotline, every other site has VCDs) and doesn't need a $10K burner to produce; and I know quite a few people who would take a $5 VCD over a $25 DVD. Just my $0.02...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
(Unable to resist a blatant, albeit tasteless, self promotion opportunity, Jim Ray steps up to the plate, fully clothed head-to-toe in Nomex.)
:) There are lots of other good causes with e-gold accounts who actually have implemented our shopping cart on their pages, for one thing, and I keep offering to click a spot of FREE e-gold to members of the /. community who simply ask me for some. So far, no takers...Oh well.
Create an e-gold account (you won't quite be a Doe, but we'll never sell or give away information on customers like credit card companies do). Do an InExchange to buy some of the e-metal of your choice. Do a spend to account number 102948. Wish they had an e-gold option on their page. (Wait, no, that's my department, sorry.) Tell EFF you spent to their account, and that they can either use their e-gold or go do an OutExchange and get a check.
Feel good about yourself. Find other ways to have fun with our currency.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
He does have a point. The encryption is there to ensure a profit for liscensed DVD player manufacturers. By busting it, someone can potentially create their own, unliscensed player, taking profit from the manufacturer.
My response to this, however, is that anyone who cares enough can go out, buy all the parts, and build their own VHS player. It seems to me that distributing DeCSS is akin to distributing the plans and circuitry diagrams to a basic VHS player: It tells you how to make a player, if you want to make the effort.
===
-Ravagin
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Beat me to the punch! It's kinda interesting; if the judge goes by the letter of the law, it seems inevitable that DeCSS will go the way of marijuana--illegal but highly trafficked. The real problem here, it seems, is the fact that the U.S. government seems to be well in the pockets of the media industry. Congress continues to extend copyright protection well beyond any human lifespan, so why not endorse the newest scheme the industry has for abusing copyright in pursuit of the bottom line?
It seems to me quite probable that DVD playing will become, like strong encryption and Playstation mod chips, a lucrative cottage industry off U.S. shores. If only Congress could learn to abandon their dependence on corporate money (and people wonder why I support campaign finance reform).
Anyway, you're absolutely correct. According to the law, this battle has been long won by Goliath (which is why the preliminary injunction was granted in the first place). The war still rages on.
Aren't you dead?
If there is some information, like comments on movies, or DVD's or perhaps source code you would
like to discuss with the public you can do so
at one of the bulletin boards at Warner Brother's (a principle member of the MPAA) website:
http://wbboards.warnerbros.com/
Note that you have to register and that the site is subject to censorship (surprise surprise)
CNN Entertainment
" If you cannot protect that which you own, you own nothing." I guess I don't own any DVD's then ;)
Well, I wrote a rather extended description of the issue with several links where he could learn more to Michael Moore, film-maker and anti-corporate activist. For those who aren't aware, Mike made the award winning film Roger And Me, and the award winning TV shows TV Nation, and his current effort on Bravo called The Awful Truth.
Despite the fact that Mike is in the "film industry" I expect him to be our side. First, he is known for making documentaries which expose stuff like this, and second, he truly does like to show corporate america for the hypocrites that they are.
I haven't heard back from him yet, and might not since he started filming his new season of The Awful Truth very recently, but he would be a good ally to have. He's even become Politically Incorrect's presidential campaign correspondent.
Hopefully he can at least put one of his segment producers on it to to do some research.
Ignore Alien Orders
It is the gist, the point why this reporting exists at all. Let's do something. Moderate this guy up to let more people hear the voice.
One thing that's faking you out is this- the job is so much harder than you could possibly imagine. But that's OK too- sometimes it's good to have people around who are enthusiastic and don't realise a thing is impossible. And making movies is not strictly impossible- it's just very very involved and tedious.
I know I've been forming an 'open source recording studio': it's mostly because I want to 'push' acceptance of MP3s badly enough that I will record people for free if they are willing to release everything they do with me as MP3s unrestrictedly and look for other ways to earn actual money (like selling CDs or shirts or by gigging or whatever). However, you've got no idea how complicated, how involved it is to build a worldclass project studio- even if you're a hardwarehacker who can build his own gear half the time, and modify stock gear the other half. Everything from effects to the very cables themselves have to be made to demanding standards. You have to cast a wide net for certain key elements- for instance, I just arranged to get a Yamaha FM synth module, because certain types of tones (especially synthetic basses) need this type of synthesizer in order to get that sound. I'm about 1/3 of the way through replacing all the studio's patchcords with a special multistrand air-insulated variety I invented (the 8-channel snake is already built from this type of cable). Meanwhile, the studio's centerpiece, a 20-bit ADAT, is in Massachusetts being repaired, because when UPS drops such a thing in transit it goes 'smash'. This is all part of the day-to-day grind of building such a studio.
Now imagine your movie studio. There's no reason to limit yourself to webcams and basically produce a film that sucks- and the people are out there to give you access to equipment and skills- but again, the amount of work involved is not small. Who's your scriptwriter? Who knows how to direct- for that matter, who will you have that knows how to take a basic screenplay, work out all the locations, camera angles, different shots, and make a shooting script? When you have that, who gets the job of continuity and pays attention to the scene, shot over three days on a porch, only one of the days is 20% more overcast than the others- or keeps notes of who wears what costume when, and which props are in use or (like a glass of water) being altered over the course of shooting? Did he fire six bullets or only five? ;)
But the crazy thing is- this stuff is _fun_. It's fascinating. Even something so much smaller, like my recording studio, can be great fun- it's like the musical or film equivalent to having a great compiler and all the source to everything >;) it's positively liberating.
This is, perhaps, why I sometimes freak out colorfully in the pages of Slashdot.org against the threat of media being taken away from independent artists. Art is _glorious_. It can be a stunning, joyous outburst of human expression- and that doesn't necessarily mean 'nice'- to me, the last scene in Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' is a joyous outburst of directorial brilliance and panache, because it fscks with your head so brutally and giftedly ;) by way of another tangent, in another Gilliam film, "Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas", the sound engineering hits some fantastic peaks with the remastering of classic 60's songs into the film- this is yet another little detail work feature, but the resulting music is _so_ powerful and alive that it helps the film immensely.
You're right, Temporal- things _will_ be going this way soon enough. They already are- you have people trying to make films out of scripting the Quake engine, you have people working with 3dsMax, you have a whole passel of firewire-packin' iMac users with those new graphite machines that came with video editing software geared to consumers- it's happening, but it's happening in so many places at once that it's too big to spot at first. How many people have just a little piece of the picture, or a few pieces? I know I can write, I can put together shooting scripts, and I can come up with the sound engineering. There are so many people out there who have things they can do for such a project!
But the thing is, writing the software gets you only half the way there- but you do that half over and over and over again, it doesn't end. Once you have software you find people to use it, and their skills are not yours- they use it and the next thing you know, they need some changes and new behaviors or abilities and you go back and code some more and they run with that and then get back to you with some more ideas... that's how the film EFX industry works, though it's mostly broken into little camps, people working on proprietary technologies and accomplishing amazing things.
Now imagine what it would be like if the open source community got a critical mass of these types of technologies- and got all these different people working together on projects, new media projects. That could truly change the world.
I hope we still have a way to show our creations when we finally get around to creating them.
/* * css_descramble.c * * Released under the version 2 of the GPL. * * This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content * */ /* * Still in progress: Remove the use of the bit_reverse[] table by recoding * the generation of LFSR1. Finish combining this with * the css authentication code. * */ #include #include #include #include "css.h" #include "css_keys.h" #include "css_tbl.h" /** * this function is only used internally when decrypting title key */ static inline void _CSSKeyGenerate (u_char *key, u_char *in, u_char invert) { u_char reorder[] = { 0x05,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03, 0x04,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03, }; int i; u_char tmp1, tmp2, k[5]; u_int tmp3, tmp4, tmp5, tmp6; tmp3 = in[0] | 0x100; tmp4 = in[1]; tmp5 = ( (in[4] > 8)&0xff] >16)&0xff] >24)&0xff]); tmp6 = 0; for (i=0; i>1; tmp3 = ((tmp3&1)>8)^tmp5)>>1)^tmp5)>>3)^tmp5)>>7); tmp5 = (tmp5>>8)|(tmp1>= 8; } for (i=9; i>=0; i--) key[i%5] = k[i%5]^table0[key[i%5]]^key[reorder[i]]; } /** * this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key * * key_title: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey) * key_disk: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey) * 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below) * pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets * * * use the result returned in key_title with css_descramble */ int CSSDecryptTitleKey (char *key_title, char *key_disk) { static u_char tmp1[6], tmp3[6]; int i; for (i=0; playerkeys[i].offset!=-1; ++i) { memcpy (tmp1, key_disk + playerkeys[i].offset, 5); _CSSKeyGenerate (tmp1, playerkeys[i].key, 0); memcpy (tmp3, key_disk, 5); _CSSKeyGenerate (tmp3, tmp1, 0); if (memcmp (tmp3, tmp1, 5) == 0) { fprintf (stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1); goto found_key; } } fprintf (stderr, "No suitable Key found.\n"); return -1; found_key: memcpy (tmp3, key_title, 5); _CSSKeyGenerate (tmp3, tmp1, 0xff); memcpy (key_title, tmp3, 5); return 0; } /** * this function does the actual descrambling * * buf_sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes) * key: decrypted title key obtained from CSSDecryptTitleKey */ void CSSDescramble (u_char *buf_sec, char *key) { u_char *buf_end = buf_sec + 2048; u_long tmp1, tmp2, tmp3, tmp4, tmp5, tmp6; if (!(buf_sec[20] & 0x30)) return; tmp2 = 0x00; tmp4 = (*((u_long *)(key + 0x02))) ^ (*((u_long *)(buf_sec + 0x56))); tmp3 = tmp4 & 7; tmp4 = tmp4 * 2 + 8 - tmp3; tmp5 = key[1] ^ buf_sec[0x55]; tmp6 = key[0] ^ buf_sec[0x54] | 0x100; buf_sec += 0x80; while(buf_sec > 1; tmp6 = ((tmp6 & 0x01) > 3) ^ tmp4) >> 1) ^ tmp4) >> 8) ^ tmp4) >> 5) & 255; tmp4 = (tmp4 >= 8; } buf_end[-2048+20] &= 0x8f; }
On top of all that, both their legal and their public arguments are completely bogus. As anyone who reads /. should know by now, CSS does not protect against piracy in the first place.
How long does anyone believe it will be before someone sells DVDs with encryption already burned in and the rest of the disk ready to strore information???
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Thank you mr moderator. Please continue to subtract points from my Karma.
I cant beleive all this whining from Hollywood since they dont encrypt all discs.
Can the US citizens start a class action lawsuit against the MPAA? Buy a DVD, show gthat it doesn't play on Linux, and demand compensation as drivers. Let the MPAA make drivers for all the Linux ports, the BSD ports...
Or else let them agree to end the DeCSS lawsuit and release open source drivers and specs for DVD.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
There's an important point that is being lost in all this. It has to do with why the DMCA was put in place to begin with.
Read this article from Tape/Disc Magazine, October 1996. It discusses the issues surrounding the forthcoming DVD format and the technology used to protect it - what would later be known as CSS.
We all know that the reason weak encryption was put into place was to comply with U.S. export restrictions. But what you might not know it that the DVD industry knew full well that the encryption would be cracked. They knew it three years before it happened.
Read the quote yourself:
'While the second proposal may not pass the test of import/export regulation concerning encryption technology, Matsushita's documentation says "It is extremely difficult to gain access to the data scramble/key encryption algorithm." However, a member of the CPTWG says "The Matsushita method would be easy to break. Legislation and licensing would be necessary to enforce the inclusion of copy protection and to criminalize the manufacture of circumvention devices."'
There's a bigger issue here, folks - it's about whether we want to allow corporations to pass legislation. The DMCA was passed for one reason and one reason only - to give the DVD industry a legal safety net when the CSS encryption was inevitably broken.
In short, Title 17 of the U.S. Code was rewritten in order to rush DVD's to market. The DVD industry couldn't wait until export restrictions loosened, and they refused to consider other protection methods. They chose instead to lobby Congress to rewrite the laws to suit short term financial priorities.
It's a war now, and we need to be out in the streets. Print flyers and distribute them. Write letters to editors. Talk to people. Set the facts straight. Let the people know that we're not a bunch of teenage thieves doing this for the thrill of it. Show them that most of us are IT professionals.
We're not going to win this by going up against Valenti directly, and frankly, we're not going to win this in court if the DMCA holds. The MPAA helped design this bat - they know how to swing it, and they've been practicing for over three years. We need to create such public discussion over the constitutionality of the DMCA that the focus of the debate is shifted.
Repeal the DMCA. Tattoo it on your forehead - Repeal the DMCA. Mutter it in your sleep - REPEAL THE DMCA. Scream it from the rooftops - REPEAL THE DMCA.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVa lley/Port/3224
I have sent letters to companies, and gotten replies. My guess is that they reply on as many letters they manage, because this is what serves them best. Any good company _want_ feedback so they can get better. If they don't heed their customers, this will generate bad PR and is not good. Noone likes arrogant people, and you can publish corespondence with them anywhere you like.
Just too bad S3 decided to stop support of my newly bought ViRGE/MX+ card (1 1/2 year ago). Needless to say I won't buy from them anymore.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Those who passionately believe in freedom of expression and consumers who value creative storytelling have a lot on the line as the judge considers this matter.
Ain't that the truth.
Hey! You're right!!!
The guy was William Tyndale, and his work was a model for later translations, especially the King James version. But he had to do his translation on the run in the Netherlands, and the English government actually banned the import and publication of the thing for years.
If anything positive comes out of the dvd cases, I'd hope that it's a surge of needed income for our freedom-protecting groups. I'd find it interesting how much of a bump the sounder of decss and related cases have improved their financing. Motivated me to get off my ass and donate to the EFF, ACLU, and NRA (I figure they complement each other--who says you can't appeal a supreme court decision? :)) Credz to those who guilted me into putting up some cash.
I hardly see how I "misrepresented" anything, but it appears I was wrong about the Internet2 being for general public use. Thank you for correcting me. Internet2 will eventually spread to general use, of course, as the current Net evolves to match and absorb it, but this isn't going to be a quick process.
In any case, your point only reinforces mine. Barring a truly major breakthrough in consumer-level (and even low- to midrenge corporate-level) connection technology, DVD-quality full-length movies simply aren't going to be practical to transfer ofer the Net for a long time.
I understand the need to have this case decided favorably (for the DeCSS crowd) for many reasons. What I don't like are many of the ones being bandied about as arguments.
Point 5 - that Xing had been smart about encryption, this wouldn't be an issue is a bad rationalization. It doesn't matter if Xing had been competent or not with their security. Opening a closed door that isn't your house can be breaking and entering.
Point 4 - If they'd produce a viewer from Linux, this might not have been a problem so quickly, but it still would of been a problem. There are many determined to break encryption and steal stuff. Just look at the warez sites to see if linux is needed for this.
Point 3 - Mostly true at the present time. Copying is happening, though in an altered form. Just check out alt.binaries.movies and watch how many dvd rips get posted there over time. These have been rerun into MPG1 files, but the source was a ripped DVD. So DeCSS *DOES* enable copying right now.
Point 2 - As has been noted many times, this will change.
Point 1 - True, but not necessarily pertinent to this case.
The true case here is how DeCSS was made. If it was made for the purpose of viewing under linux (which is the claim) and properly reverse engineered, then by all the rules, it should be legal to use in legal settings (like for a Linux DVD program). If it is found that the program was made for pirating purposes, then it is illegal by the Millenium Copyright act. Same can be said for the method of reverse engineering.
As far as the linking goes, this is a much more dangerous area of the case. There is first amendment issues here, and how they integrate with the other part of the case will be critical for our future.
Having said all this, I believe that DeCSS was created for legitimate purposes, and in a legitimate way. That being the case, it should fall under the exemptions to the copyright law.
... that's all there is to it.
The fact is, people will see this headline about the DVD issue, and they'll buy the paper to read it. "Everyone has heard about this DVD issue, it's been gossipped about widely, now I'll read a bit more about it from the MPAA guys..."
Journalistic integrity has *nothing* to do with it. The L.A. Times has been a bastion of controversial whoring for years.
I'm just glad that some of us geeks are starting to see this - we see it now with the DVD issue, will our eyes be opened enough to be able to recognize the L.A. Times pimping itself out on future, non-technology related stories too?
I would hope so.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I just mailed this to John Forgetta, editor Angeles Times:
s /20000130/t000009450.html),
/ITK
Dear Editor
When I read Jack Valentri's article
(http://www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/movie
I was horrified. He clearly tries to misslead your readers, when he tries
to link DVD playback from a computer hard drive with piracy. It is legal
to copy DVD's for personal use, even when they are protected agains it.
(Ref, DMCA, Copyright Office Summary, December 1998, Page 4 :
[...to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair
use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of
circumvent-ing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast,
since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining
unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological
measure in order to gain access is prohibited.]
In the quoted text uses the terms "fair use" and "unauthorized access".
Reading and playing a DVD movie I've payed for, can' be described as
"unauthorized access".
The main feature of the DeCSS program he describes i to enable playing of
DVD movies on PC's not using Windows or MacOS.
In fact, it is just as easy to copy a DVD without the "criminal hacker"
made. The only way DeCSS could be used for piracy, is if you want to
convert the DVD to a medium with lower density, and quality (like a video
CD). So his statement about "perfect copies" is obviously wrong. He also
talks about using DVD-R to pirate DVD's, that has absoulutly nothing to to
with the DeCSS program, as these copies will not be readable in any
stationary DVD player. Furthermore, even with access to a DVD stamper,
the DeCSS program would not be of any use. No DVD player will read a
decrypted DVD. The "easiest" way to copy a DVD is buying a DVD stamper
($100.000+). You don't need to know what the DVD contains, if you want to
make a "presine and pure" copy. Just read the raw encrypted data, and copy
it.
This case is about a norwegian boy, aged 16. Who live on a farm, with his
famely. And the way MPAA tries to controll the way we watch our movies.
This is the real thing, if it doesn't stop here. Where will it end? If a
US court of law can clain juristiction in this case (websites outside the
US, and a non US "hacker"), what is to stop, let's say China, from
prosecuting "criminals", who hosts websites with "illegal" information
(like Amnesty etc.)?
Stian
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought.
---- Sig. gone.
Thank you.
Yeah.. I can't wait till a DVD media costs less, because then all the DVD movies will cost less, and the companies will be able to maintain the same margin of profit.. oh.. wait.. or will they? I guess they can stick with their historical view of - well, if the media costs less, then we simply make more money.. you see, that sort of thinking will bring them down this time.. so, now, the question really is, are they fighting us now because it means that they will make more money in the future? Think about it.. it's probably more about that than it is about them caring about a few pirates now making copies.. it's about them being able to make $25 for each copy that only costs them $.20 to produce..
EXCITING!
In one episode of Freakazoid, a cute female was TRANSFORMED INTO A STATUE!
It was SO 1337.
I have an mpeg clip of it. Whenever a cute girl gets turned to stone on TV, somebody gets a vidcap of it, encodes it, and then spreads it around the statuephile websites and we say "OOOOh, 1337!"
That's what happened with that episode of Freakazoid.
I've never seen the show, just that one clip, but that's enough to convince me that it's a GREAT SHOW!
do it NOW
A link to a summary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
. pdf
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca
Copyright Law of the U.S.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
Your point is worthwhile, but
their
Bold + misspelled makes it twice as painful to read.
Someone should explain to this guy that when talking about encryption technology, the term "key" is a metaphor. It's not really a key. It's an item of data. Someone coined the term "ecnryption key" because it was a colorful way of abstracting the complexity behind this kind of data.
... um... envelope. (See the danger of thinking in metaphors only?)
And a computer "file" isn't really a file like you'd find in someone's office cabinet.
And Microsoft "Office" isn't really an office. And StarOffice isn't really an office suite.
And email isn't really mail. It's just data and a handful of protocols. In the old days, it was just a file on disk. I expect my mail to be private. No one seriously expects their email to be private.
Unless of course you encrypt your email and someone hasn't stolen the key to your
Internet2, which you mentioned in your post, is not for the general public. Taking a look at http://www.internet2.edu will explain that Internet2 is only for academic, medical, or scientific purposes.
Please think twice before misrepresenting projects and efforts. A clear distinction should be made between the IPv4 network that we exist on now, and what IPv6(ipv4 allowed) transitional phase we shal become in the years ahead. Internet2 is not "a new internet" designed to replace the corporate dominated world we connect and live in today.
The invention of nuclear technology is the "key" to world's distruction.
amen.
Fight this menance!
www.newyen.com/dvd
www.opendvd.org
www.eff.org
www.gilc.org
If they are smarter than they sound, they are protecting their DVD licensing with hardware vendors. All of this "copying is new and illegal" and possible fear of broadband mass distribution, ripping thousands of DVS is a smokescreen.
If the hardware player manufacturers don't have to kick-back anymore -- using DeCSS algos and citing this precedent -- then who loses most?
If I don't have the key to the DVD I just purchased, I don't really own it, do I?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Think: When is the last time you heard of a law changed cause everyone broke it?
Segregation in the southern U.S.? Prohibition? British occupation of India?
Take a trip to your local library and look up "civil disobedience" while you're at it.
Dear Jack,
the analogy is not a matter of stealing keys and breaking into the department store. It's more like this: the department store is the only one in the neighbourhood, and they're not letting penguins in. So the penguin disguises himself as a pig (like the owners) and sneaks in, during daytime. Inside he can buy the Herring Magazine (sold exclusively in that store).
The penguin knows that if the pigs catch him they will give him a beating, because the pigs who own the store are big and vicious. But nevertheless, the penguin does it because he think he has the right to buy and read his Herring Magazine.
If the pigs catch him and beat him up, he can either try to fight back alone, call a million of his penguin friends to join him in the fight or he can educate the other animals (pigs, dogs and cats) about how stupid and mean the shop-owning pigs are and let them decide for themselves whether they want to do business with those pigs ever again.
When a department store's keys are distributed publicly a smart store manager would change the locks. Presumably to something much less vulnerable from key theft or copying in the first place.
Alternatively if adequate physical security is prohibitively expensive, hire more staff, ditch the locks and stay open 24 hours.
so the LA times sold this dweeb a space to put his corperate doublespeak advertising in a "large" paper. Buying space to print propaganda isnt new, all newspapers will print a story for money and not mark it as "paid advertising" or "This person's opinion" they mudge it in with the rest of the news so it looks legit and then get's the fake news that was paid for inserted as "real news"
Everyone that has a brain knows that the media is NOT a source for the truth. The bummer is that the Sheep we have as voters/masses here in the USA believe what they read/hear.
Keep the public under control and you canhave your way with them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Came the time to invest in an LG 8080B DVD and I realised that it was firmware region-locked. No problem, DeCSS doesn't care about those, right? Well it seems to. Try as I may, I can't seem to authenticate a disc under Linux using the LivID tools if the disc is the wrong region. Luckily this Web site fixed my region problems for me, but I've tried several times to read "wrong" region discs in my drive with no success under Linux.
I've had a quick squiz at tstdvd.c but it doesn't give much help - the real reason is probably buried in the ioctls patch.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
IIRC Jon Johansen said that even if the Xing player hadn't kept the decryption code unencrypted in memory, it would have only slowed them down, not prevented them from hacking through CSS. So, Xing was only a catalyst, not the cause, for DeCSS.
The rest of your points are valid, of course, and the real cause for DeCSS' existence.
"The Internet, of course, is more than just a place to find pictures of people having sex with dogs." - Time Magazine
Propagandize with their money far and wide to sway the public in their favor, link "hackers" with sexy words like "narcotics", and portray them as theives. This is how they expect to win the general populaces support, and right now its working.
Which is why I think you guys need to find a good lawyer who is willing to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of all LiViD users. This class action suit should be against the MPAA for slander, based on the public statements of their president while representing the organization.
The users of LiViD as a class are being accused of being criminals with substantial proof to the contrary. Counter-sue the MPAA to let them know that failing at The Big Lie is going to have a big price. Not being a US citizen, there's not much I can do about it, but it sounds like one of the rare cases where you US citizens are NOT being sufficiently sue-crazy. Heck, isn't this also prejudicial to the trial and damaging their own case?
Is there some legal reason why this hasn't already been done to show that the situation is NOT as clear cut as the MPAA would like to have the public believe? IANAL and would really like to get some feedback on this approach from someone more familiar with applicable US law.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
What a stupid comparison! A lock to a door does not cost thousands of dollars, a key to CSS (legal) costs thousands of dollars. And i do not beleive that CSS code is copyrighted...
What Mr. Valenti has done here is what our lawyer friends know as "slander" (when it is spoken aloud in public) or "libel" (when it is published in print).
You have committed slander or libel when you knowingly make a defamatory, false statement about someone. Publicly accusing someone of a crime s/he didn't commit -- and which you know s/he didn't commit -- is a perfect example.
Now, it's possible Valenti is so deluded, so caught up in his own little world, that he is not aware that his victims committed no crime. This would mean that he didn't knowingly make false statements -- because he didn't believe them to be false. But for some reason I doubt this. I suspect he's not an ignorant demagogue, but rather a cynical one: one who knows that he's lying for his own advantage, and revels in it.
(Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
Copyright (C) 19yy
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) 19yy name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.
I am so tired of the clueless morons flaming away here who have not bothered to learn anything about the real issues. Go read the New York hearing transcript at Cryptome before posting another word.
If you read it, you will see that the basic argument the MPAA is making, and Judge Kaplan is apparently buying, is that the DMCA nullifies just about everything you ever knew about copyright. No more fair use, no more right to make archival copies, no more right to view content you've already paid for in a different format than the manufacturer intended. All those rights you have enjoyed with respect to books, CDs, and videotapes are GONE under the DMCA, with respect to DVDs.
The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent an access protection mechanism. Period. There are no fair use exemptions.
Basicallly, the MPAA argues that because it has placed an access protection mechanism on DVDs, it has the right to completely control how you view them, and who gets to make players. (Any player that isn't authorized by DVD CCA is automatically "circumventing" the access control mechanism, and hence illegal under the DCMA.)
Can you all please get this through your heads and stop gibbering about fair use? There is no more fair use. Congress took it away when it passed the DMCA. That is why the DMCA sucks so bad. But it's the law. Unless we can get it overturned on constitutional grounds, we are all screwed.
One more thing: the next guy who says that player licenses costs a fortune should have a box full of DVDs dropped on his head. Player licenses are FREE. But if you want a license, you have to agree to play by MPAA's rules, including keeping your code secret, and not defeating their region code mechanism or allowing your player to enable consumers to make "fair use" of the content. (There is no more fair use, remember?) If you don't play ball, MPAA will pull your license and you will be unable to sell players (or even give them away for free) without violating the DMCA. This is why there can never be an open source DVD player.
Fair use is dead. The DMCA killed it. And don't think that music is going to stay unprotected for much longer either. Sony is already developing new products with new encryption mechanisms; you can read about it in the press releases on Sony's web site.
The entertainment issue has an attitude towards approaching marketing and legal issues with overwhelming force. However the MPAA is not the first marketing machine that Linux has taken on. Think, for instance, of the Microsoft juggernaught. Yet Linux advocates took that on, and have done a lot more than just leave a dent.
So every time you see an article like this, take the time out to write a polite and informative letter of explanation to the reporter and to the editors of the paper. The key is to be polite and informative.
And remember this. It takes a stroke of inspired idiocy to position yourself in the teeth of a movement like Linux. To start your lawsuits with Chris DiBona, a central figure in the most successful IPO in history. To attempt to, as the Fool put it, sue the entire Internet. Sure, the MPAA machine can be frightening. But that does not mean that they have not bitten off a lot more than they can chew...
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The encryption was only 40 bit strong. So it would be possible to break whitout the master key (from Xing).
Ost99
---- Sig. gone.
Before it was a game. Now this is a fight.
/*
* css.h
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains declarations common to more than one CSS program#
*
*/
#ifndef CSS_H
#define CSS_H
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
Tables defined in csstable.c
*/
extern byte CSSvarients[32];
extern byte CSSsecret[5];
extern byte CSSmangle0[256], CSSmangle1[256], CSSmangle2[256];
extern byte reverse[256];
/*
Debug functions defined in cssdebug.c
*/
void print_tab( byte const * b, int len);
#endif
/*
/* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the
- -------------------------* - ----------------------*/
/* Feed the secret into the input values such that
/* This term is used throughout the following to
/* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each
* Copyright (C) 1999
* Derek Fawcus
* Mark Roberts
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
#include
#include "css.h"
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
/*
* We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to
* generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams
* are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final
* sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that
* 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer.
*
* The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of:
* x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1
*
* The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of:
* x^15 + x^1 + 1
*
* I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus
* represent maximal-period LFSR's.
*
*
* Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in
* bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's
* are implemented in bit reversed order.
*
*/
static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, byte *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
int val;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
* initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s[0] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[s[4]] > 17) ^ (lfsr0 >> 14) ^ (lfsr0 >> 13) ^ (lfsr0 >> 5);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 > 1);
o_lfsr1 ^= (lfsr1 >> 9) ^ (lfsr1 >> 12) ^ (lfsr1 >> 15);
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
#if (CSSDEBUG & 2)
fprintf(stderr, "lfsr0=%08x lfsr1=%08x\n", lfsr0, lfsr1);
#endif
} while (--len > 0);
}
/*---------------------------------------------
If this was C++, these would be inline functions
*------------------------------------------------
#define MANGLE1(bs,ip,op) \
in = ip; out = op; bp = bs; \
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = in[i]) { \
index = bp[i] ^ in[i]; \
index = CSSmangle1[index] ^ cse; \
out[i] = CSSmangle2[index] ^ term; \
}
#define MANGLE2( bs, ip, op) \
in = ip; out = op; bp = bs; \
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = in[i]) { \
index = bp[i] ^ in[i]; \
index = CSSmangle1[index] ^ cse; \
index = CSSmangle2[index] ^ term; \
out[i] = CSSmangle0[index]; \
}
/*
* This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations
* one the same theme depending upon the choice in the
* varient parameter (0 - 31).
*
* The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into
* a 40 bit output.
* The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of
* the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed
* by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number
* generators.
*/
static void engine(int varient, const byte *input, byte *output)
{
byte cse, term, index;
byte temp1[5], temp2[5];
byte bits[30];
const byte *in;
byte *out;
byte *bp;
int i;
* we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then
* generate the bits to play with.
*/
for (i = 5; --i >= 0; )
temp1[i] = input[5 + i] ^ CSSsecret[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1[0]);
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nBits: ");
print_tab( &bits[0], 30);
#endif
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = CSSvarients[varient];
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
MANGLE1( &bits[25], input, &temp1[0]);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr"\nRound 1: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[20], &temp1[0], &temp2[0]);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 2: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE2( &bits[15], temp2, temp1);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf( stderr, "\nRound 3: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE2( &bits[10], temp1, temp2);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 4: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[5], temp2, temp1);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 5: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[0], temp1, output);
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 6: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
}
/*
* These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before
* calling engine() to do the main work.
*
* The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of
* the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to
* try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it
* actually adds anything to the security.
*
* The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied
* parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and
* the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised.
*
* The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first
* (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter.
*
* Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the
* code table driven in order to improve readability.
*
* Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even
* abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining
* the nature of the reordering it has to do.
*/
void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(varient, scratch, &key->b[0]);
}
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
* 4 -> !3
* 3 -> 4
* varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> !1
*/
void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d,
0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d,
0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05,
0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, &key->b[0]);
}
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
* 4 -> 0
* 3 -> !1
* varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> 3
*/
void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e,
0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c,
0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f,
0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, &key->b[0]);
}
"The producers of artistic works did not labor over their creations for months and years simply to see a band of cyber-thieves gain applause for stealing their work." No, they have the mass media conglomerates to thank for that, bloody leeches.
perhaps I got a bad one, but I haven't had that experience -- my dad's computer looks much better, as does my boyfriend's... and this is of concern to me, since I don't have a TV, or a recliner. and no where to put them.
student life don't have so many perks...
Lea
Hey, I'm the chick in Detroit getting ready to put on a protest. Look, I'm a very personal kinda human, and I believe in stating my side TO the "other side" at least once. But I canNOT find Mr. Jack Valenti's email address. Yeah, yeah, I'll be civil, but I also want HIM SPECIFICALLY to know what I'm doing and why. Call it a warped form of courtesy.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW JACK VALENTI'S EMAIL ADDY???
Thanks, Pksc
THAT WHICH DOES NOT KILL ME POSTPONES THE INEVITABLE.
Hey, I'm the chick in Detroit getting ready to put on a protest. Look, I'm a very personal kinda human, and I believe in stating my side TO the "other side" at least once. But I canNOT find Mr. Jack Valenti's email address. Yeah, yeah, I'll be civil, but I also want HIM SPECIFICALLY to know what I'm doing and why. Call it a warped form of courtesy.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW JACK VALENTI'S EMAIL ADDY???
I will love you forever if you send it to me at paraksc@hotmail.com.
Thanks, Pksc
THAT WHICH DOES NOT KILL ME POSTPONES THE INEVITABLE.
made a good point in this DeCSS corporate clusterfuck. The big deal here isn't millions of people pirating DVDs robbing the poor MPAA of their precious money. The big deal is the MPAA can no longer rape DVD decoder manufacturers on licensing fees. A handful of kids in a dorm pirating movies on their T3 isn't nearly as damaging as a handful of kids in a dorm room building a DVD player that costs 100$ and the MPAA not seeing a dime of that 100. Besides that all the companies that paid the insane licencing fees for decrypt keys are wasting their money, they can now build boxes with no MPAA royalties if they so chose. This is the same thing with the RIAA, piracy is their media facade but their real interest is getting royalties off CD sales. The RIAA doesn't care about current CDs being pirated, they want to get rid of MP3 because it means CDs could end up going the way of the cassette. This is a battle of corporations who are using a facade of piracy to blame some quite innocent programmers for their woes.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Of course, plenty of non-Communist leftists (like union organizers) got blacklisted, mainly because Hollywood wanted to break things like the Screenwriters Guild, "Writers have power in the film industry? Outrageous!" which undermined the powers of studio bosses. The government helped them out with a handy paranoia about communism (yes, the Soviet Union was bad, but so was the paranoia about communist insurgents), which they could then use to tar anyone they didn't like. "You'll never work in this town again."
Of course, fear of communism is passé, but the government has shown itself to be extremely paranoid about "the hacker menace." Things like the Kevin Mitnick case were very useful to the government in playing up this threat, and of course the film industry did it's part too, with movies like Wargames. (Matthew Broderick's character was supposed to be sympathetic, but the movie still suggested computer hackers could start WWIII. Besides, it was an irritating movie anyway.)
So, now we have Jack Valenti, sounding-like circa 1950, talking about people "seduced by a strange ideology." Just replace the word communist with the work hacker, and you've brought it into the last year of the 20th century. "Oh Brave New World that has such people in it," time for me to go pray to Our Ford... and take my Soma, I guess.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
#ifndef CSS_AUTH_H_
#define CSS_AUTH_H_
#include "css.h"
struct block {
byte b[5];
};
extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
#endif
I think this guy fails to see the entire point of why this piece of software was written in the first place and why it doesn't promote the illegal copying of DVDs. 1. Every DVD player already has the keys. So effectively it doesn't matter weither or not the DVD content has been decrypted because the DVD player will decrypt it anyhow. 2. The simple fact that encrypting a file can't stop the process of actually copying it.
2.The blank media costs more
That may be true now but it won't be true in a few years. When cd-burners first came out they were very expensive. They aren't now.
OTOH You are right in that the encrypted disks can easilly be copied already. This is *playback* protection, not copy protection.
I am yet to find a department store which requires you to have keys to enter and do some shopping.
At the end of the day, this is all that it ammounts to:
They are locking their customers out of their shop (as well as alienating them)
All this community ever wanted from this was a useable DVD codec for their operating systems.
Instead the industry now decides that it doesn't like a bit of perfectly legal innovation and decides to try to *bend* and even *break* the law to make its own ends.
The outcome so far is obviously that the number of people in the OSS community who will go out and buy a DVD, I can count all on one hand!
My message to the MPAA is this:
DON'T COME RUNNING TO US IF YOU CUT OFF BOTH YOUR LEGS!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I like my analogy better:
The posting of the "hacking" (DeCSS) code is akin to mass-producing and distributing keys that allow one to get into one's own home.
The inherent problem with the situation (in the analogy, not the analogy itself) that the MPAA would have is that this also allows people to get into some other peoples homes. What they forget is that all their citizens, before this imaginary key was distributed, where living in the streets.
...
May it do some good. If you also comment, you really should keep it polite.
To: letters@latimes.com
Subject: Misleading Misstatement in your paper.
Dear Editor,
In the article http://www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/movies/20 000130/t000009450.html, Jack Valenti misleadingly misquotes the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, falsely implying that it says something which in fact it does not.
The actual text is `technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.', and not `technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner.'
This distinction is crucial, because Mr Valenti seeks much more than the rights of a copyright owner: total control over the means by which a copyright work is read, even when the act of reading is itself fair use, even when the reader (your readers!) have paid for the right to access the work.
As the effect of this misstatement is to mislead your readers, I recommend you (and they) carefully check Mr Valenti's words against the publically available facts, starting with the Act in question.
Mr Valenti's misinterpretations owe more to the private interests he represents than to any desire to inform your readership of the real issues. I hope you agree that your readers are owed better than this.
Yours Faithfully,
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
/*
/* __linux__ */
/* DVD specific ? */ /* DVD specific ? */
* css-cat.c
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus.
*
* Released under version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Decode selected sector types from a CSS encoded DVD to stdout. Use as a
* filter on the input to mpeg2player or ac3dec.
*
*/
#include
#include
#if defined(__linux__)
# include
#endif
#include
#include
#include
#include "css-descramble.h"
static struct playkey pkey1a1 = {0x36b, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a1 = {0x762, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b1 = {0x36b, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a2 = {0x2f3, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a2 = {0x730, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b2 = {0x2f3, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a3 = {0x235, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey1b3 = {0x235, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey3a1 = {0x249, {0xb7,0x3f,0xd4,0xaa,0x14}};
static struct playkey pkey4a1 = {0x028, {0x53,0xd4,0xf7,0xd9,0x8f}};
static struct playkey *playkeys[] = {
&pkey1a1, &pkey2a1, &pkey1b1,
&pkey1a2, &pkey2a2, &pkey1b2,
&pkey1a3, &pkey1b3,
&pkey3a1, &pkey4a1,
NULL};
static unsigned char disk_key[2048];
static unsigned char title_key[5];
static unsigned char sector[2048];
unsigned long sectors = 0;
unsigned long crypted = 0;
unsigned long skipped = 0;
int do_all = 0;
int do_video = 0;
int do_ac3 = 0;
int do_mpg = 0;
int verbose = 0;
int keep_pack = 0;
int keep_pes = -1;
#define STCODE(p,a,b,c,d) ((p)[0] == a && (p)[1] == b && (p)[2] == c && (p)[3] == d)
static void un_css(int fdi, int fdo)
{
unsigned char *sp, *pes;
int writen, wr, peslen, hdrlen;
while (read(fdi, sector, 2048) == 2048) {
++sectors;
if (!STCODE(sector,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xba)) {
fputs("Not Pack start code\n", stderr);
++skipped; continue;
}
if (do_all)
goto write_it;
pes = sector + 14 + (sector[13] & 0x07);
if (STCODE(pes,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xbb)) {/* System Header Pack Layer */
peslen = (pes[0x04] 0 && writen 32)
usage_exit();
++keep_pes;
break;
case '1': case '2': case '3': case '4':
case '5': case '6': case '7': case '8':
do_ac3 = c - '0';
++keep_pes;
break;
case EOF:
goto got_args;
default:
usage_exit();
break;
}
got_args:
keep_pes = (keep_pes > 0) ? 1 : 0;
return optind;
}
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
int ai, fd;
char titlef[12];
if ((fd = open("disk-key", O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open disk-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, disk_key, 2048) != 2048) {
perror("can't read disk-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if ((ai = parse_args(ac, av)) >= ac)
usage_exit();
strcpy(titlef, "title");
strcat(titlef, title);
strcat(titlef, "-key");
if ((fd = open(titlef, O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open title-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, title_key, 5) != 5) {
perror("can't read title-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if (strcmp(av[ai], "-") == 0)
fd = 0;
else if ((fd = open(av[ai], O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
fputs("can't open VOB file ", stderr);
fputs(av[ai], stderr);
perror("");
exit(1);
}
if (!css_decrypttitlekey(title_key, disk_key, playkeys)) {
close(fd);
return 3;
}
un_css(fd, 1);
fprintf(stderr, "Total %lu, skipped %lu, crvid %lu\n",
sectors, skipped, crypted);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
If you look at the case up close, you can see that we are not the ones to blame for taking a look at the key, or seeing if it works. It's there own falt for leaving the damn key under the mat for the neighboor kid to pick up! My Mirror - http://www.agybby.com/dvd
We have videotape with the very poorest of copy protection, and the film industry has remained rich despite that.
We have legitimate reasons to copy music and video. For example, I don't want to take a DVD drive along on the plane. I want to copy my movie to the hard disk of my small laptop, and play from there. I've paid for the movie, why can't I do that?
If we don't stop them here, a day will come when many web pages gray out your print button. Your web browser will read encrypted content, will refuse to save it to a file, and the format of encryption won't be available for use in Open Source web browsers.
We've really got to put our foot down regarding Intellectual Property Protection Systems, now. This will take a well-financed PR effort with some of the companies that have made big bucks from free software behind it. If you work for Red Hat, VA, or any of the others, ask your boss what they are doing about this. I hope you get a good answer.
I think EFF and John Gilmore are the right people to rally around for this issue.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't think people are realizing exactly what the MPAA is suing about. What they are suing about (and saying is illegal, which I personally DO NOT think should be illegal, but is true) is using ANY program or method (i.e. DeCSS) to circumvent the encryption method (CSS) to get at copyrighted material (DVD movie). Read the text of the preliminary injunction from 2600's discussion of it. This is (I think) the most important part:
THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure. Isn't that true?
Go to this address http://www.infospace.com/_1_4I5TUM603KTVJBI__info. jeeves/email/sendmail.htm?r_recno=358273 7%3Aemail&showname=Jack+Valenti to send him email. I'm still working on the actual address. Anyone, everyone, please explain to this idiot what is really happening and the difficulties of copying a DVD.
/*
;len > 0; len--) fprintf(stderr, " 0x%02X", *b++);
* Copyright (C) 1999
* Derek Fawcus
* Mark Roberts
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
#include
#include "css.h"
void print_tab( byte const * b, int len)
{
for (
}
The movie business is not really afraid of bitwise copying of encrypted DVD. (That's ignorance or strategy.)
Their real fear is that everybody can access raw video data from DVDs and manipulate it without anyone being able to detect frauds.
--
Børge
Neither the US Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights attempts to place rights in any kind of a hierarchy. Rights-based legal constructs are founded on the idea that rights are non-conflicting. That is, it is unnecessary for some rights to "trump" others because rights themselves are never in conflict.
That order would be
God
There is no mention of God or any specific religious entity in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The Citizen.
Citizens (or more accurately, individuals) are the only entities recognized to have rights as such.
The government
Governments do not have rights. They have powers. The idea is that, in a democratic republic, the government derives its powers from the consent and rights of its citizens. That is, the government is supposed to act as a proxy for the exercise of the rights of individuals. (Note: it does *NOT* work this way in practice!)
Only the federal government is strictly governed by the Constitution. State and local governments are prohibited by Supreme Court precedent from enacting laws which restrict an individuals federal rights as defined by the Constitution, but other than that and some light stuff about interstate tarriffs, the Constitution doesn't apply to state or local governmental issues. Your state has its own Constitution.
Corporations.
Corporations are not mentioned in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The concept of a corporation is that it is a short-form method to describe the exact contractual rights of a group of individuals. If no movie studio in Hollywood were a corporation, they'd still make as much of a stink. The MPAA's legal ground is the copyright protection of the individual artists, writers and performers who participated in DVD production. You may not like that, but it isn't about the fact that its a corporation. It's about the fact that copyright exists at all.
How is it that a 'person(s)' in control of a corporate entity can use its weight for their own vendettas?
Because corporate managers can act as consumers as well.
But really, is he? Valenti is a buffoon, yes, but *he* believes he is acting in the best investment interests of the MPAA members. He believes that the issue *is* piracy, and it is the testimony of technology experts that must convince the court that the claim is mistaken.
Anyway, thats just my take on the issue, it doesn't make any sense to me. To me, something like that doesn't only seem illegal, its immoral.
Well, childish and ignorant, at least. Nevertheless, even stupid evil villans have rights.
What happened? I thought we had to right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness? If I can't watch a DVD I purchased on my computer because of an immoral corporate entity, my right to Pursuit of Happyness has been repressed!
You have a right to *pursuit* of happiness. That does not mean that anyone else must provide it for you.
Its no-one elses duty to make sure I'm happy, so you can't force them to 'make' a DVD player for Linux for example, but they should NOT be able to stop you.
They aren't stopping anyone from making a DVD player. They want to stop some people from making a *useful* DVD player, in the sense that they want to prevent buyers from being able to access the encrypted information. But, from their perspective, this is simply protection of their own intellectual property. They sell it under the expectation that access to the information will be restricted to authorized methods.
Here's the rub: the crypto will be considered a trade secret by the court. A trade secret must be safeguarded by reasonable measures. However, as the developers of deCSS know all too well, the safeguard was not reasonable for its purpose. In fact, it was totally ridiculous for its purpose! It accomplished nothing to prevent the mass reproduction of DVDs.
So, the court must decide whether the *accomplished* purpose of the crypto is within the legitimate intellectual property controls interests of the copyright holders. If the technical community presents the case effectively, (and I think the EFF can do that) then the court should rule against the MPAA.
You know... the funny part is the "boycott Hollywood" response. What for? The artists and copyright holders don't understand the issue, so they'll just feel alienated. It's no different than deciding not to listen to music because ASCAP is enforcing copyright laws regarding MP3s.
DVD *IS* the superior format for viewing movies today. If you *want* to see Terminator 2, there's no point in relegating yourself to watching the commericial-ridden hack on TNT because you think Valenti is a jerk.
The feature you refer to which prevents playback though a VCR is known as Macrovision. Your DVD player can probably be modified to remove this feature, depending on the model.
See: http://www.dvdutils.com and many other sites for more infoDonte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I sent my HE out to CompUSA to buy two DVD-RAMs, and found they had all been "pulled" because of the DeCSS fiasco. I wonder if I can sue the MPAA for delaying my project that has *nothing* to do with DVD cracking!
{Deth Onastick}
On a related note, what's the cite for the claim that CD sales are down 30%? What does Billboard magazine say?
During the inquisition, non-clergy who owned and could read a bible were burnt for heresy
The guy who translated it to English (name escapes me) was killed for it (though later, the King John Bible was based almost entirely on his translation)
This is the *real* analogy. Should we nickname this guy "The Torquemada of the Third Millennium"*?
Rich
*Although of course, this is still the second millennium ;)
During the inquisition, non-clergy who owned and could read a bible were burnt for heresy
The guy who translated it to English (name escapes me) was killed for it (though later, the King John Bible was based almost entirely on his translation)
This is the *real* analogy. Should we nickname this guy "The Torquemada of the Third Millennium"*?
Rich
*Although of course, this is still the second millennium ;)
Don't lawyers have to be licenced by the state to practice in that state? How is it that New York lawyers file a lawsuit in California? I was curious how this all works.
/*
, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b, , 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b, , 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f, , 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91, , 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75, , 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, , 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11, , 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f, , 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b, , 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb, , 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f, , 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1, , 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15, , 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5, , 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71, , 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css.h"
#include "css-descramble.h"
#define CSS_DEBUG 0x00
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
int i;
byte k[5];
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[ im[0] ] > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[SALTED(0)] > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x10)
fprintf( stderr,"lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x o_lfsr0:0x%02x o_lfsr1:0x%02x\n",
lfsr0, lfsr1, o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1);
#endif
}
}
yes i have episode1 on VCD right now, eat a dick
Anyone else notice that he didn't actually link to the sites in question? Perhaps it is because his quotes from them seem to be propoganda by selective quotation? Or maybe he just doesn't want anyone getting any ideas...
===
-Ravagin
Karma: T-rexcellent.
#ifndef __css_descramble_h_
#define __css_descramble_h_
struct playkey {
int offset;
unsigned char key[5];
};
extern int css_decrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey, unsigned char *dkey, struct playkey **pkey);
extern void css_descramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key);
#endif
#include "css.h"
2 1,0x24,0x25,0x30,0x31,0x34,0x35, A 1,0xA4,0xA5,0xB0,0xB1,0xB4,0xB5
8 D,0x0F,0x8E,0x0A,0x8B,0x09,0x88, 9 5,0x17,0x96,0x12,0x93,0x11,0x90, B D,0x3F,0xBE,0x3A,0xBB,0x39,0xB8, A 5,0x27,0xA6,0x22,0xA3,0x21,0xA0, E D,0x6F,0xEE,0x6A,0xEB,0x69,0xE8, F 5,0x77,0xF6,0x72,0xF3,0x71,0xF0, D D,0x5F,0xDE,0x5A,0xDB,0x59,0xD8, C 5,0x47,0xC6,0x42,0xC3,0x41,0xC0, 4 D,0xCF,0x4E,0xCA,0x4B,0xC9,0x48, 5 5,0xD7,0x56,0xD2,0x53,0xD1,0x50, 7 D,0xFF,0x7E,0xFA,0x7B,0xF9,0x78, 6 5,0xE7,0x66,0xE2,0x63,0xE1,0x60, 2 D,0xAF,0x2E,0xAA,0x2B,0xA9,0x28, 3 5,0xB7,0x36,0xB2,0x33,0xB1,0x30, 1 D,0x9F,0x1E,0x9A,0x1B,0x99,0x18, 0 5,0x87,0x06,0x82,0x03,0x81,0x00
C 5,0xC6,0xC3,0xC0,0xC1,0xC2,0xC7, 1 5,0x16,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x12,0x17, 2 5,0x26,0x23,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x27, 3 5,0x36,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x32,0x37, 0 5,0x06,0x03,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x07, D 5,0xD6,0xD3,0xD0,0xD1,0xD2,0xD7, E 5,0xE6,0xE3,0xE0,0xE1,0xE2,0xE7, F 5,0xF6,0xF3,0xF0,0xF1,0xF2,0xF7, 4 5,0x46,0x43,0x40,0x41,0x42,0x47, 9 5,0x96,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x92,0x97, A 5,0xA6,0xA3,0xA0,0xA1,0xA2,0xA7, B 5,0xB6,0xB3,0xB0,0xB1,0xB2,0xB7, 8 5,0x86,0x83,0x80,0x81,0x82,0x87, 5 5,0x56,0x53,0x50,0x51,0x52,0x57, 6 5,0x66,0x63,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x67, 7 5,0x76,0x73,0x70,0x71,0x72,0x77
2 D,0x1D,0x3D,0xCB,0x2B,0x1B,0x3B, A D,0x9D,0xBD,0x4B,0xAB,0x9B,0xBB, E D,0xDD,0xFD,0x0B,0xEB,0xDB,0xFB, 6 D,0x5D,0x7D,0x8B,0x6B,0x5B,0x7B, 2 5,0x15,0x35,0xC3,0x23,0x13,0x33, A 5,0x95,0xB5,0x43,0xA3,0x93,0xB3, E 5,0xD5,0xF5,0x03,0xE3,0xD3,0xF3, 6 5,0x55,0x75,0x83,0x63,0x53,0x73, 2 9,0x19,0x39,0xCF,0x2F,0x1F,0x3F, A 9,0x99,0xB9,0x4F,0xAF,0x9F,0xBF, E 9,0xD9,0xF9,0x0F,0xEF,0xDF,0xFF, 6 9,0x59,0x79,0x8F,0x6F,0x5F,0x7F, 2 1,0x11,0x31,0xC7,0x27,0x17,0x37, A 1,0x91,0xB1,0x47,0xA7,0x97,0xB7, E 1,0xD1,0xF1,0x07,0xE7,0xD7,0xF7, 6 1,0x51,0x71,0x87,0x67,0x57,0x77
9 0,0x50,0xD0,0x30,0xB0,0x70,0xF0, 9 8,0x58,0xD8,0x38,0xB8,0x78,0xF8, 9 4,0x54,0xD4,0x34,0xB4,0x74,0xF4, 9 C,0x5C,0xDC,0x3C,0xBC,0x7C,0xFC, 9 2,0x52,0xD2,0x32,0xB2,0x72,0xF2, 9 A,0x5A,0xDA,0x3A,0xBA,0x7A,0xFA, 9 6,0x56,0xD6,0x36,0xB6,0x76,0xF6, 9 E,0x5E,0xDE,0x3E,0xBE,0x7E,0xFE, 9 1,0x51,0xD1,0x31,0xB1,0x71,0xF1, 9 9,0x59,0xD9,0x39,0xB9,0x79,0xF9, 9 5,0x55,0xD5,0x35,0xB5,0x75,0xF5, 9 D,0x5D,0xDD,0x3D,0xBD,0x7D,0xFD, 9 3,0x53,0xD3,0x33,0xB3,0x73,0xF3, 9 B,0x5B,0xDB,0x3B,0xBB,0x7B,0xFB, 9 7,0x57,0xD7,0x37,0xB7,0x77,0xF7, 9 F,0x5F,0xDF,0x3F,0xBF,0x7F,0xFF
byte CSSsecret[] = {
0xE2,0xA3,0x45,0x10,0xF4
};
byte CSSvarients[] = {
0x00,0x01,0x04,0x05,0x10,0x11,0x14,0x15,0x20,0x
0x80,0x81,0x84,0x85,0x90,0x91,0x94,0x95,0xA0,0x
};
byte CSSmangle0[] = {
0x00,0x81,0x03,0x82,0x06,0x87,0x05,0x84,0x0C,0x
0x18,0x99,0x1B,0x9A,0x1E,0x9F,0x1D,0x9C,0x14,0x
0x30,0xB1,0x33,0xB2,0x36,0xB7,0x35,0xB4,0x3C,0x
0x28,0xA9,0x2B,0xAA,0x2E,0xAF,0x2D,0xAC,0x24,0x
0x60,0xE1,0x63,0xE2,0x66,0xE7,0x65,0xE4,0x6C,0x
0x78,0xF9,0x7B,0xFA,0x7E,0xFF,0x7D,0xFC,0x74,0x
0x50,0xD1,0x53,0xD2,0x56,0xD7,0x55,0xD4,0x5C,0x
0x48,0xC9,0x4B,0xCA,0x4E,0xCF,0x4D,0xCC,0x44,0x
0xC0,0x41,0xC3,0x42,0xC6,0x47,0xC5,0x44,0xCC,0x
0xD8,0x59,0xDB,0x5A,0xDE,0x5F,0xDD,0x5C,0xD4,0x
0xF0,0x71,0xF3,0x72,0xF6,0x77,0xF5,0x74,0xFC,0x
0xE8,0x69,0xEB,0x6A,0xEE,0x6F,0xED,0x6C,0xE4,0x
0xA0,0x21,0xA3,0x22,0xA6,0x27,0xA5,0x24,0xAC,0x
0xB8,0x39,0xBB,0x3A,0xBE,0x3F,0xBD,0x3C,0xB4,0x
0x90,0x11,0x93,0x12,0x96,0x17,0x95,0x14,0x9C,0x
0x88,0x09,0x8B,0x0A,0x8E,0x0F,0x8D,0x0C,0x84,0x
};
byte CSSmangle1[] = {
0xC4,0xCD,0xCE,0xCB,0xC8,0xC9,0xCA,0xCF,0xCC,0x
0x14,0x1D,0x1E,0x1B,0x18,0x19,0x1A,0x1F,0x1C,0x
0x24,0x2D,0x2E,0x2B,0x28,0x29,0x2A,0x2F,0x2C,0x
0x34,0x3D,0x3E,0x3B,0x38,0x39,0x3A,0x3F,0x3C,0x
0x04,0x0D,0x0E,0x0B,0x08,0x09,0x0A,0x0F,0x0C,0x
0xD4,0xDD,0xDE,0xDB,0xD8,0xD9,0xDA,0xDF,0xDC,0x
0xE4,0xED,0xEE,0xEB,0xE8,0xE9,0xEA,0xEF,0xEC,0x
0xF4,0xFD,0xFE,0xFB,0xF8,0xF9,0xFA,0xFF,0xFC,0x
0x44,0x4D,0x4E,0x4B,0x48,0x49,0x4A,0x4F,0x4C,0x
0x94,0x9D,0x9E,0x9B,0x98,0x99,0x9A,0x9F,0x9C,0x
0xA4,0xAD,0xAE,0xAB,0xA8,0xA9,0xAA,0xAF,0xAC,0x
0xB4,0xBD,0xBE,0xBB,0xB8,0xB9,0xBA,0xBF,0xBC,0x
0x84,0x8D,0x8E,0x8B,0x88,0x89,0x8A,0x8F,0x8C,0x
0x54,0x5D,0x5E,0x5B,0x58,0x59,0x5A,0x5F,0x5C,0x
0x64,0x6D,0x6E,0x6B,0x68,0x69,0x6A,0x6F,0x6C,0x
0x74,0x7D,0x7E,0x7B,0x78,0x79,0x7A,0x7F,0x7C,0x
};
byte CSSmangle2[] = {
0xC4,0x24,0x14,0x34,0xCE,0x2E,0x1E,0x3E,0xCD,0x
0x44,0xA4,0x94,0xB4,0x4E,0xAE,0x9E,0xBE,0x4D,0x
0x04,0xE4,0xD4,0xF4,0x0E,0xEE,0xDE,0xFE,0x0D,0x
0x84,0x64,0x54,0x74,0x8E,0x6E,0x5E,0x7E,0x8D,0x
0xCC,0x2C,0x1C,0x3C,0xC6,0x26,0x16,0x36,0xC5,0x
0x4C,0xAC,0x9C,0xBC,0x46,0xA6,0x96,0xB6,0x45,0x
0x0C,0xEC,0xDC,0xFC,0x06,0xE6,0xD6,0xF6,0x05,0x
0x8C,0x6C,0x5C,0x7C,0x86,0x66,0x56,0x76,0x85,0x
0xC8,0x28,0x18,0x38,0xCA,0x2A,0x1A,0x3A,0xC9,0x
0x48,0xA8,0x98,0xB8,0x4A,0xAA,0x9A,0xBA,0x49,0x
0x08,0xE8,0xD8,0xF8,0x0A,0xEA,0xDA,0xFA,0x09,0x
0x88,0x68,0x58,0x78,0x8A,0x6A,0x5A,0x7A,0x89,0x
0xC0,0x20,0x10,0x30,0xC2,0x22,0x12,0x32,0xC1,0x
0x40,0xA0,0x90,0xB0,0x42,0xA2,0x92,0xB2,0x41,0x
0x00,0xE0,0xD0,0xF0,0x02,0xE2,0xD2,0xF2,0x01,0x
0x80,0x60,0x50,0x70,0x82,0x62,0x52,0x72,0x81,0x
};
byte reverse[] = {
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xC0,0x20,0xA0,0x60,0xE0,0x10,0x
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xC8,0x28,0xA8,0x68,0xE8,0x18,0x
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xC4,0x24,0xA4,0x64,0xE4,0x14,0x
0x0C,0x8C,0x4C,0xCC,0x2C,0xAC,0x6C,0xEC,0x1C,0x
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xC2,0x22,0xA2,0x62,0xE2,0x12,0x
0x0A,0x8A,0x4A,0xCA,0x2A,0xAA,0x6A,0xEA,0x1A,0x
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xC6,0x26,0xA6,0x66,0xE6,0x16,0x
0x0E,0x8E,0x4E,0xCE,0x2E,0xAE,0x6E,0xEE,0x1E,0x
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xC1,0x21,0xA1,0x61,0xE1,0x11,0x
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xC9,0x29,0xA9,0x69,0xE9,0x19,0x
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xC5,0x25,0xA5,0x65,0xE5,0x15,0x
0x0D,0x8D,0x4D,0xCD,0x2D,0xAD,0x6D,0xED,0x1D,0x
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xC3,0x23,0xA3,0x63,0xE3,0x13,0x
0x0B,0x8B,0x4B,0xCB,0x2B,0xAB,0x6B,0xEB,0x1B,0x
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xC7,0x27,0xA7,0x67,0xE7,0x17,0x
0x0F,0x8F,0x4F,0xCF,0x2F,0xAF,0x6F,0xEF,0x1F,0x
};
It is clear that the RIAA does not want us using their products. I am not volunteering to do this, because I do not have a good understanding of the legalese, but if someone were to find a way to stop the companies involved from using the Internet, and computer related technology in general, to distribute and promote their products, perhaps we could make them see how petty they are being. Hell, they are bullying our people, we could bully them back, it would not have to be legal, but I was trying to suggest a civil response. If you have any ideas, go for it.
If I make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD to my hard drive, could i watch it with a Win32 DVD player?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Personally, I think the movie industry is still pissed that they couldn't co-opt us back in the early 1990's with all that "digital convergence" rubbish, so now they're trying to sue us into submission.
Anyway, here's a counter-editorial I've banged out. If anyone knows the address of the LA Times editor, I'd appreciate it.
Schwab
__________________________
Mr. Valenti's editorial on 30 January does raise one valid point: There is an assault on consumers. But it is not, as Valenti would have us believe, coming from so-called "hackers." It is coming from media conglomerates.
Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) is the latest way to obtain and enjoy movies in your home. By using computers to encode the movies digitally, the resulting picture and sound far surpass the quality of VHS tapes, at a mere fraction of the manufacturing costs. Because digital copies are always perfect, the movie industry believes that it must take steps prevent copying, lest corporate profits vanish entirely. To that end, they have designed CSS -- Contents Scrambling System -- an encryption system which prevents an owner from using their DVD disc unless they also own a player which can descramble the data.
Working with other computer experts, a 15-year-old gentleman in Norway, Jon Johansen, managed to figure out the CSS technology by analyzing a working player, and helped to create DeCSS, a program that would descramble a DVD on any computer. As reward for his efforts, he was arrested and his home invaded by Norwegian police, acting at the behest of the motion picture industry.
Mr. Valenti asserts that the sole purpose for DeCSS is to make unsanctioned copies of movies (which he describes using the colorful term, "piracy"). If Mr. Valenti truly believes this is DeCSS's only possible purpose, he should develop more imagination. Despite Microsoft's best efforts, they do not control 100% of the computer market; the primary motivation for DeCSS's development, therefore, was to allow DVD owners to play their discs on non-Microsoft operating systems.
However, by applying just a little imagination, other applications for DeCSS become apparent. One obvious application would be a "screen saver" which would take whatever DVD was in the computer, wrap the movie on to a 3D sphere, and bounce it around. Mr. Valenti could not reasonably argue such use of a DVD was illegal, or even unethical. Yet, without DeCSS (or its equivalent), DVD owners would find it impossible to do such things.
But because DeCSS could be used to copy movies, Mr. Valenti argues that DeCSS is a menace to film artists worldwide, who will no longer be able to profitably make movies. It is curious to note, however, that no actual artists (directors, actors, musicians, etc.) have come out against DeCSS; only wealthy executives.
Indeed, Mr. Valenti proceeds from a false premise; namely, that digital works must be copy-protected. If he'd studied history, he would see the software industry was seized with the same misconception 20 years ago. Copy protection was widespread. It was also ineffective. Moreover, it was highly fragile and unreliable, as legitimate owners frequently found their software refusing to run. Eventually, bowing to public pressure, the software industry largely eliminated copy protection, and has found sales and profits continuing to rise unabated.
Valenti likens DeCSS to a set of keys to a department store, allowing "thieves" [sic] to steal the inventory. There is not enough space to enumerate all the enormous flaws in this analogy, and so must confine ourselves to pointing out that Valenti's "thieves" would not take the inventory, but make copies of it, leaving the originals in place, intact (a fact which has profound implications, to be sure, but left unaddressed by the industry). His analogy to illicit drug use is particularly amusing, given Hollywood's own disreputable history with narcotics.
Mr. Valenti dismissively refers to "activist groups that have been seduced by the hackers' [sic] strange ideology." The organizations Valenti repudiates are, in large part, responsible for his ability to do business today. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU were instrumental in leading the US Supreme Court to unanimously strike down the Communications Decency Act as flagrantly unconstitutional. Had the CDA been allowed to stand, Mr. Valenti and the MPAA's members would have found it quite difficult to do business of any kind over the Internet.
While Mr. Valenti's article is visceral and entertaining, it is, like most of the products published by the MPAA's members, of little concrete substance, and requires suspension of disbelief. In short, Valenti's editorial belies a grave misunderstanding of digital media and, frankly, we think he's been sold a bill of goods by someone looking to make a quick buck off a weak and misguided copy protection scheme.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Email 'em. Go ahead.
And BTW, they *ADMIT* that it's not about copying, it's about "licensed players".
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
/*
* A noddy program for getting and printing some info from the
* DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include
#include
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include
#include
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int GetASF(int fd)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_ASF;
ai.lsasf.agid = 0;
ai.lsasf.asf = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai)) {
printf("GetASF failed\n");
return 0;
}
printf("%sAuthenticated\n", (ai.lsasf.asf) ? "" : "not ");
return 1;
}
int GetPhysical(int fd)
{
dvd_struct d;
int layer = 0, layers = 4;
d.physical.type = DVD_STRUCT_PHYSICAL;
while (layer 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
GetASF(fd);
GetPhysical(fd);
GetCopyright(fd);
return 0;
}
Well, I guess what we need to do is form some "Open Source movie making groups". Really, if we can make the best OS in existance (whether you consider it to be Linux or a BSD), why can't we make movies? Sure, there is a cost, but Blair Witch was pretty cheap, and CGI movies could be created on a budget just about equal to an average open source program (virtually free, other than time). Certainly we could do better than, say, Godzilla. :)
Wouldn't the big movie companies (which now include... AOL!) be suprised to find that we refuse to be exploited? Kinda the same way Microsoft is?
I realize that this is not as easy as it sounds, but I do think things will be going this way soon enough. What we need is some good open source video editing and 3D animation software. Anyone working on this yet? If not, any takers?
------
-Everything has a cause
-Nothing can cause itself
-You cannot have an infinite string of causes
You think maybe they forgot?
Read it all!
headers = css-auth.h css.h
..;tar cvf css-auth.tar $(dist-files) )
tstdvd_objs = tstdvd.o css-auth.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
validate_objs = validate.o css-auth.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
cat_objs = css-cat.o css-descramble.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
all: tstdvd reset dvdinfo css-cat
tstdvd: $(tstdvd_objs) $(headers)
gcc $(tstdvd_objs) -o $@
css-cat: $(cat_objs) css-descramble.h css.h
gcc $(cat_objs) -o $@
validate: $(validate_objs) $(headers)
gcc $(validate_objs) -o $@
clean:
-rm -f *.o css-cat tstdvd validate reset dvdinfo
dist-files = css-auth/COPYING css-auth/README css-auth/Makefile \
css-auth/css-auth.c \
css-auth/tstdvd.c css-auth/dvdinfo.c css-auth/reset.c \
css-auth/css-cat.c css-auth/css-descramble.c \
css-auth/csstable.c css-auth/cssdebug.c \
css-auth/css.h css-auth/css-auth.h css-auth/css-descramble.h
dist:
(cd
I hope to enlighten you 'NON-TECHNICAL PEOPLE' on the situation at hand. We may be a little angry, but surely you must sympathize....
I know you can use the analogy that if I left my door open at night, it doesn't give anyone the right to walk in and steal stuff, but in this day and age, i'd be STUPID AND DUMB to leave my door open and leave my house wide OPEN to be raped by some perp!
This type of situation is VERY COMMON in the IT Industry. People who think they know everything about computers or people who CHEAP OUT on getting their network setup, run into problems afterwards because they didn't HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
NUFF SAID!!! I mean, why is MPAA just admit they screwed up and make the encryption STRONGER. If some 16 year old can crack it, then obviously there are many others in the world that can probably DO THE SAME.
If a 16 year old 'COMPUTER ENTHUSIAST' can "figure out/crack" DVD Encryption, I think a little more WORK needs to be done to safe guard the copyright protection of DVDs. HELLO!
How can a 16 year old computer enthusiast's 'ideas/creation' be a THREAT to companies like CNN, Time Warner etc. They are weaker then I thought!!!!
Do you know why it was created? This is why.......
Until a while ago, DVD playback was only possible on Microsoft Windows and Mac systems. As usual, the Linux people (this goes for people using other ``alternative'' systems too) were not too happy about this.
The DVD industry has refused (and still refuses) to support Linux, probably because they think the market share is too small or because they think Linux people don't really care.
More info: http://www.opendvd.org/journalists.html
If he didn't figure it out, it was going to be someone else sooner or later. And it would have probably been for malicious purposes.
So wake the hell up... and do a better job. Don't blame others for mistakes they didn't make.
Why didn't the MPAA/DVD-CCA hire ENCRYPTION EXPERTS like RSA, Phil Zimmerman or the NSA to help with the encryption?
Don't do something that you don't understand! ex. DVD Encryption You can't fight what you don't know what you are up against!
The case has blown up in the MPAA's faces!!! Now that everyone knows, the more the source code will spread.
You can't stop it anymore. The MPAA/DVDCAA is responsible for that, and no one else.
SPECTATE OR MAKE A MOVE, HESITATE OR REGULATE ITS ON YOU
FIGHT THE POWER
<sarcasm>
The only purpose of guns is to kill people, too.
</sarcasm>
It's the same flawed logic. Yes, something could be used in the commission of a crime. Just because I can drive my car up onto a sidewalk and mow down a bunch of innocent bystanders, though, does that mean cars should be outlawed? (BTW, a woman is on Nevada's death row for having done just that several years back in Reno.)
If I have the disk space to throw some movies and some music on a file server at home and would rather do that than have to shuffle through a bunch of CDs and DVDs, why shouldn't I be able to do that? How is crunching a DVD down to fit on a couple of CDs that can be viewed on a computer with just a CD-ROM drive any different than copying music off a CD onto tape so I can listen to it in my car?
It seems that what Mr. Valenti and his ilk are seeking is a form of prior restraint, which (IIRC, IANAL) goes completely against our nation's legal traditions.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I'm sure we'll see hundreds of comments rehashing the same arguments about how we paid for the DVDs and we only want to view them using our OS of choice, and how copying DVDs is inpractical.
What I'm sure will be lost in the noise is the fact that some of the sites the MPAA is going after are, in fact, for crackers who only want to pirate DVDs. I've seen these sites..."dudez, get your moviez here...". Of course going after DeCSS is the wrong approach, but there are two sides to the story, and some people will just try to pirate movies.
Now I'm sure I'll get flamed for being a corporate lackey. That's not the case. However, we'd do well to remember that the MPAA has a right and a duty to attempt to prevent pirating. We need to educate them that just because we have a copy of DeCSS doesn't mean we're going pirates, no more than having a sthethoscope means that we're safecrackers.
They are covering all legal fees, so he should be fine.
--
Tarald - The Lord of Smeg
Tarald - The Lord of Smeg
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on
Well, I just read Mr. Valenti's article in the LA Times, and I am so disgusted its not even funny. I am so mad at the moment, I haven't even read the comments here, so I hope most of what I have to say isn't already stated here elsewhere. Dear Mr. Valenti, Your words sicken me. If you are going to take the time and make a public statement, at least take the time to research your statements. When not done, it does nothing but weaken your argument. Part of me wants to scream out and say, "Because of your stupidity, let us now promote DeCSS for piracy, just so we can see you loose a few bucks." However, I am mature, educated, and will use my tools to promote to the world and press the truth about this cause. And it is actions like yours that is turning this into a cause. You titled your article "If You Can't Protect What's Yours, You Own Nothing". How ironic. That is all supporters of DeCSS are trying to do. Support what is ours. You have NO concept of the passion behind the Linux OS movement. We believe that we have created a superior, idealistic operating system. Recently, now that many of the core Linux features have become stable, we as an organization have been able to focus on the more entertainment oriented features in developing Linux. Hence, supporting DVD on Linux. I own my Linux OS computer. I own my DVD-ROM drive. I own my DVD movie. If I own all three of the above, why do I not have the right to watch the DVD movie on a Linux based operating system??? To move Linux more into the forefront arena as a desktop OS, we have to have the same features that Microsoft and Apple offers in their OS's. If we don't, we fail. If we don't, we have nothing. If I can't protect what's mine, I have nothing. Your words Mr. Valenti. What is this good ole boys club that only allows Microsoft and Apple to support DVD movies??? Doesn't Linux have the same right??? Or does our Open Source concept not fit into you greedy buisiness model??? Are we too socialistic for your tastes??? I am confused Mr. Valenti, because the nature of DeCSS is to support watching movies in Linux. The more players available for watching DVD's means the more DVD's you sell. That equals more money. And please quit distorting the facts about the nature of the key system for DVD encryption. It doesn't prevent a bit by bit copying of a DVD movie. That could always be done. All it did was provide a way so that ONLY a certified few DVD readers could be authorized to _PLAY_ DVD movies, _NOT_ prevent copying. Copying could be done before DeCSS. You continue to promote that this only enables "hackers" (Mr. Valenti, do you even know what a hacker is??? Or did you just watch the movie "Hackers" one too many times???) to copy the DVD movie to their hard drive or burn a copy on their DVD-RW. And then later this will be used,of course, to transmitt for free movies all across the internet. Ummmm, Mr. Valenti, are you even remotely aware of the size of a DVD movie file??? Are you aware that the blank, recordable DVD-ROM's are almost twice the price of most DVD's themselves??? Are you aware that at the moment there is _NO_ consumer DVD burner that will allow the recording of a DVD disk that can be played in a straight forward DVD movie only player??? Mr. Valenti, I live in Chicago proper. My neighborhood does not yet have high bandwidth internet connectivity. Supprising for a metropolis area, I know, but I live in a Puerto Rican part of town, and the cable company appears to draw rasict lines in their implementation of cable modems for their customers. So, at the moment I only have a 56k internet connection speed. Are you aware how long it would take to down/upload a complete DVD movie in its full DVD perfect quality. Furthermore Mr. Valenti, are you aware that DeCSS will not copy any of the DVD authoring??? The main market of DVD buyers is the feature set of DVD's; the quality of sound, the quality of picture, and the features in the authoring system (subtitles, mutli-languages, extra scenes, different camera angles, etc.). Why would a consumer of these marketed features be willing to loose them in order to get an illegal DVD movie copy that has to be recorded on a medium that is almost twice the price of the original DVD movie itself, and can not be played in home DVD-players??? Why, Mr. Valenti, why??? You akin distributing DeCSS to the handling out of keys to department stores. Well, I always thought we lived in a free capitolistic market where anybody could open a department store if they wanted to. This is not the case with DVD players. It is more like the keys were handed out to the elite, private country clubs where only the few could be players. And finally, the very example you cite as reason why DeCSS is illegal, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is ironically the same example as to why we claim DeCSS _IS_ legal!!! The Digital Millennium Copyright Act specifically allows for reverse engineering to enable compatability with other platforms. Linux is another platform. There were no players for DVD movies on Linux. We wanted compatibility. We reverse engineered it. Plain and simple, it is legal. Go to the source, the three members of MoRE who accompolished DeCSS for the truth if you have to. Mr. Valenti, these are the facts. Swallow them. Don't continue your muckraking, yellow journalism anymore. Learn the facts. And finally, all of DeCSS was accomplished because of the neglect of Xing Technologies to encrypt their key. We are you not going after their incompetence??? I feel sure they had an obligation in some for to protect the DVD encryption scheme, yet they dropped the ball. Mr. Valenti, you disgust me. -Christian Caperton ccaper.nospam@hotmail.com (remove the spam for email) A passionate /.'er who this one time refuses to remain anonymous, but doesn't have a /. account
That's the chairman of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences... [usually an older dude]
Many members of the acadamy really _dislike_ Valenti for the MPAA's horrid history in censoring horror flicks and the like, plus the incompetence displayed with the handling of the NC-17 rating. (Eyes Wide Shut is a prime example of an art movie that was censored because of the MPAA's shortsightedness)
-Stu
"The enclosed DVD is an illegal copy of a DVD movie produced without the help of any decryption (DeCSS or otherwise). Please refrain from spreading disinformation. DeCSS was created for the simple purpose of watching legally purchased DVDs on computer systems which the industry has not opted to support (i.e. Linux, BeOS, Amiga, etc.)."
I continue to be suprised that all the bright people still don't get it.
No one is trying to prevent you from viewing DVD under linux!
Let me repeat: You CAN have a DVD player for Linux legally and with the full blessings of everyone in hollywood, at every studio and the MPAA and every attorney they could name.
The beef is: someone has to pay the license fee, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE USING EVERY OTHER OS ON THE PLANET!
That's it folks. It's as simple as that. If some IPO rich Linux developer(company) would just spend some of their money on the community instead of pocketing it and paid the license fee (like xing did, like everyone else did) then Linux too could have a fully legal DVD player too. Said developer(company) could give it away free too, nothing stopping that either.
So - really - get back to the basics. That's what it's really about.
Now - if you don't *like* that then you need to petition and yell and scream ABOUT it - but what you do NOT do is make things worse by screaming: we don't like it so we're gonna keep breaking the law until they change it!
Think about it, why would anyone want to prevent viewing DVDs under Linux? A larger audience for the product=more sale$ - these studios DO want you to view DVDs under ANY OS you'd like, (last repeat) they just want you to do so playing by the same rules EVERYONE ELSE does. Linux programmers & users are not exceptions to the law (whether you like a particular law or not).
Remember, protest, petition, boycott, make them change the law/rules you don't like. That is your responsibility and constitutionally confirmed right. But, you have NO rights if you choose to break the laws as they exist today.
Think: When is the last time you heard of a law changed cause everyone broke it? Linvocates are doing more harm than good when they call the judge and attorneys in these cases vile names on websites you KNOW will be admited as evidence. They are hurting all parties involved when they spam the source code on sites named in the very suit they are angry about.
my $.02
I also have the card, and will admit I have not compared it to any other computer hardware decoder. There is a reason for this. That reason is that I feel it is a high quality decoder card. I have no reason whatsoever to change to a newer card, as it does everything I need and playback looks awesome through it. When it was first brought out most people touted it as having an equal, if not better image than dedicated stand alone units, and from experience I can confirm that. I see many people still talking about it on the newsgroups. Yeah, there are newer and probably better cards out there but I really can't fathom how the difference can be that great seeing how good the output of it is to begin with.
Anyway, I don't even know why I'm talking about it to begin with, because since I purchased a standalone dvd player, I have had no desire WHATSOEVER to torture myself by watching a dvd sitting at my computer. It is just so much nicer to kick back in the recliner and crank it up on the home theater. Watching while traveling is quite a different thing, but since I don't travel it doesn't affect me.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
(I hate replies to my own stuff, but...)
Fascinating. I was moderated down -- "troll" for trying to:
1. Help EFF.
2. GIVE AWAY currency -- which could then be spent, for example, to EFF's account. "I swear I am not making any of this up."
Anyway, one person took me up on the offer, so I feel *somewhat* vindicated. Sheesh. I think I'll leave the +1 bonus off this one, too, as it's not that important/insightful to say that some moderators aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree...
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
PS.
I'm using a new top-of-the-line key. I was told it's very secure.
|.....-------\
|.....-------/
\----/
Union Yes! Member of Technical Workers' Local 101010
I Like my version better.
When VCRs and tape rentals became popular in the early 80's the very same Jack Valenti testified before Congress that rentals would kill the motion picture industry and they must be stopped. This was when a single tape cost between $70 and $100 to buy!
Look what happened instead. The industry makes a tidy profit selling movies for $10-15 after just six months out of the theater, and the rental business helps to drive demand for their product.
The same is likely to happen with DVDs. Price the product reasonably, and rake in the money on volume.
It should be +5