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.
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.
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.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
- 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.
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
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.
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.
----
They do, in effect. Every borrowing is tracked, and every author whose works are in a library are paid a fee per borrowing of their book.
That said, I agree. :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
----
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
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.
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
- 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.
Don't you think that's what the fight is really about?
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.)
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.
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 ;)