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.
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]
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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?
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
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.
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.
>>> 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
One, to figure out how too play DVDs, you have to discuss it and share info.
Yes, so we should argue that this is about the right to reverse engineer, and the right to play DVDs that we own on any player or any operating system we like.
Whether or not this is speech doesn't carry much weight. If I stole a dozen credit card numbers, and published the numbers on the web, I can't claim a right to do so based on the right to free speech. Yes, we're not stealing anything here, but so this is what our defence should be about; the right to speech doesn't aid our argument -- it sounds too much as though we're saying: we have the right to speech, so we can say anything we damn well like, even if the information is obtained illegally.
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
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?
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
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?
send it to: valentij@mpaa.org
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.
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.
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.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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
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!
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
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?
On 01/30/100 you contributed $xxx to EFF for a one year membership with the organizatiation."
--
Jake
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!)
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.
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
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!
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.
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
"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.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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
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 |
>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.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. This is the reason why open source WILL succeed. It opens the doors to inovation and forces those who wish to make money from it a reason to put out a quality product. I think we all know what happens when something isn't "open", we get shoddy products Windows. -b
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
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.
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!!!
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.
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
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.)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
Fuck that shit, Pabst Blue Ribbon.
huh huh huh fooball rules pass the coors lite, now thats an american beer none of that import nasty commie shit.
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.
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.
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!
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.
(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.
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.
>>
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?
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
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]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
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)
" 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.
At least they take a rational stand regarding guns. And what would that be? I hope you aren't blaming the gun. The gun is just a tool. Criminals will always have guns and only a tyrant or tyrant sympathizer would support a government monopoly on deadly force.
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.
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.
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.
See the link in my reply to Bruce. It's odd how the ACLU takes such a strong (albeit relatively secret) stand on an issue unrelated to the charter most of their members signed up for.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
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.
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.
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.
This is far bigger than just watching DVDs on linux. If the CSS hack is found to be legal, then DVD player manufacturers don't have to line the pockets of the DVD association with licencing fees (read: cheaper players), but more importantly, don't have to sign an agreement with the DVD association.
At the moment, the DVD association can demand anything it wants for the license - take it or shove off. Once that's gone, we get cheap players that can do more. You guys for instance will be able to buy multi-region players (we already have them 'cause it's supposedly illegal in NZ to pull that zoned scam). You could get players that allow you to duplicate their output on VHS etc.
Finding DeCSS legal will bust a monopoly that is moving directly against consumer interests.
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.)
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.
I'm getting really sick of this.
...
In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
... Right so far
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."
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. WRONG.
No, it didn't. Those words aren't in the fucking act. Go and read the damn thing, don't quote the MPAA's bullshit version.
Here's the Library of Congress' Copyright Office's copy:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyrigh t/legislation/hr2281.pdf Please go and read it.
Congress' intent appears to have been actually much *much* worse than merely protecting copyright.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
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)
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.
Sorry about that! :) I noticed it AFTER I posted it. It hurt my eyes too. My bad.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
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
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?
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
f 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.
----
I'm pretty sure this has said been said before, but I think it needs to be repeated. A lot of the statements that are made here on Slashdot, are being used by the MPAA against us. I think we have a worthwhile and important fight on our hands. Most of us here are Adults and need to start acting a little more responsibly. Name calling is not the way to get our message across.
What we do need to do is get our message out to as many people/places as we can. We need to get some of the Linux friendly corporations to help in this fight. How we do that, I don't know, but it needs to happen. Send in letters to your local papers Opinion Columns. We need to be more pro-active in our defense. Ranting and raving how about how unfair this is, won't do anything except make yourself feel better.
Together we stand, divided we Fall!
Nothing exists exept atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
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 ;)
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.
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/
You are an agent of the MPAA or one of its members. You are trying to create posts to cite in the court cases against people. If you will not acknowledge the fact that you are an agent of the MPAA, will you please leave?
I like Linux, socialism, and guns. Any questions?
Now this is Funny. Someone modded up the request to mod up the parent? Don't mod me or this parent up, but DO mod the parent^2 up please.
Very good point.
I am out of modpoints so someone who has points left please BUMP this up!!!
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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!
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
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
Lack of school funding is "key" to the world's "distruction". Next time get the dictionary out.
--Mojojojo
If I stole a dozen credit card numbers, and published the numbers on the web, I can't claim a right to do so based on the right to free speech.
I'm not implying you should go do this, but actually this is speech. This is what we're ultimately fighting here - the inalienable rights of free-thinking entities in the universe, versus the financial interests of our social system. I personally don't believe in "imaginary" money, such as credit cards, etc. I personally choose not to use them. Telling someone your credit card number, or someone elses, is an act of speech, just like any other kind of speech. However, the act of stealing them in the first place is not. In other words, you could be punished for the act of stealing them, but giving them out after you stole them is not illegal, because it is an act of speech.
What we are dealing with here is a company trying to vanquish the speech of others for its own financial interests. I can understand why they're doing this - if they lose the ability to charge license fees for playing, duplicating, and producing content for DVD's, they will lose millions of dollars. However, that doesn't mean they are right.
The part I am the most upset about is the inability to produce independent content on DVD without getting a license. This makes it impractical for independent movie studios and recording studios to produce DVD's. I own part of a small recording studio. If I wanted to do music videos on DVD, for example, I would either have to pay astronomical fees to a licensed duplicator, or fill out mountains of paperwork and sign away my free speech on this issue. The first I don't have the resources to do, and the second I refuse to do.
If the DVD-CCA wins this case, the same conditions will apply to playback. To get a license to produce a player, you have to sign away your rights to free speech on this issue, which is against everything I believe in.
However, even if we lose based on the Xing License Agreement issue, we can start over with a cleanroom implementation. We can write a program to do a distributed brute force, much like the RSA/DSA distributed.net project. If they argue about HOW we did it, all we have to do is do it again with different people and clean reverse engineering. Then when they sue us again, we can go back and fight for our rights some more.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
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
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.