Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS Injunction Ruling
Anonymous Coward writes "This morning, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York issued his memorandum opinion explaining his decision to grant an injunction against people publishing the DeCSS source code. His ruling specifically finds that the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which prohibits the publication
of computer programs designed to circumvent copy protection) is
constitutional, and does not infringe on the defendants' free
speech rights. He also suggests that computer source code is not ordinarily a form of expression, and that, even if it were, Congress could regulate it in order to serve other interests, such as the economic interest of copyright holders. See 2600.com for
news on the protest tomorrow night against the plaintiffs. "
No matter what the judge says, this suit is still uncool. I guess it's OK to fix the DVD player market so that I can't play DVD's on my computer. I spent alot of money on my DVDs, my computer and my DVD player. Now all I want to do is play them. Is that so hard to understand judge?
The ruling is not enforceable outside the USA, so this will not stop DeCSS. However, it is a *very* disturbing precedent, and shows how clueless judges are when it comes to technology (and/or how easy to influence by large, powerful corporations).
I wonder what this corrupt bastard will do with his newfound wealth?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Before I begin, I have to say that I want to strangle that judge for his sillyness. But there are beleivable reasons for what he says. /mechanical devices/ reverse engineering is possible. Thus, the DMCA, assisted by imbecile judges like this one, gives two kinds of protection to Evil Software and Media Companies (TM). The patent protection of mechanical and electronic devices with the copyright and reverse engineering control of written material.
Software can be considered speech, but it can also be considered an invention of some sort. If one accepts that a peice of software is basically the same as a mechanical or electronic device, then all our nightmares come true.
Not only does the DMCA quite logical then, but so are a lot of other things. Software patents and a number of other things become quite reasonable.
However, even with
It is indeed a dark day.
It's not for copying, it's for playing. Judges are still looking at the false facts in these cases. When the legal system pays more attention to overpaid megacorporate lia^H^Hawyers, we no longer have justice.
Suppose from this source code someone makes two distinct programs. One that plays the files, and one that copies the files, then which one should the injunction be applied to?
The boycott goes on!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
this is insanity, next he's going to say
outlawing dual-casette recorders, and preventing
one VCR's output to be routed into another's
input is constitutional..
where's my ice-pick? someone needs a lobotomy.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
According to the OReilly Apache Book Canada does not allow software patents. I have looked into the issue, and it seems that Unisys was given a LZW patent here. Does anyone know more about this? If Canada really does have a policy against software patents then it might make a haven for the DVD source code.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
Every time a case like this starts up, people discuss a utility to convert back and forth from C to something comprising full English sentences. At this point I wonder if one's already been written.
Unfortunately, the judge is correct. DeCSS is not, however much we might like it to be, free speech. Sure, the comments inside the code might be, but the algorithm itself is not.
The fundamental problem here is that the DMCA is corrupt. It makes illegal things that we think should not be. However, it is not this judge's position to decide if the law is moral, only if this action violates it. And it does.
The real question is, how did we end up with elected officials that passed a law such as the DMCA? Keep this issue in mind when you vote this November, and encourage others to as well.
So does this mean I can be arrested for wearing my DeCSS tshirt?
That would be an interesting experience.
no
Ermm, thats why that kid overseas got arrested.
You would be surprised how far a companies reach is, even if the US courts cannot get you, the company can
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
IANAL, but it seems to me that in one fell swoop this judge has just said that there is no such thing as fair use. Are there any lawyers out there who can say for certain if I am correct in this assumption?
"DeCSS is NOT for COPYING, it's for DECODING (and thus playing)". I can't understand how that simple fact could not have penetrated the skull of Kaplan by now, but I suspect if it hasn't yet it never will. (sigh)
I live just outside our nation's capitol and I work in IT, I was discussing the DeCSS flap with a mixture of Techie and Non-techie friends. I said "What do you guys think of this DeCSS (I pronounced it Dee-see ess ess) stuff?" A non-techie friend responded "What is that? The new capitol Gestapo?"
Um, isn't the whole basis of the defense that merely cracking the CSS does not circumvent copy protection, because there /is no/ copy protection, unless of course you consider regional coding "protection", which itself is illegal by international law???
Hummm?? Anybody??
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
How is that the simple fact that DeCSS has nothing to with copying, that you can copy a DVD bit for bit without any sort of decryption, continues to evade the judges attention? That alone would seem to avoid any violation of the DMCA. Sigh... ...and i realize you CAN copy with it, but it's not required to do so, and thus circumvents nothing.
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
this is only "fair" (in the judge's mind) because of the crap that is the DMCA, which basically ignores all new media technology and keeps us wired to 19th century property laws. Here's to corporations screwing people mightily, and the dumbasses that support them! Sharing is bad people, if your friends didn't pay like you did, they should never have access to interesting things. Sharing is EVIL!
(note: I mixed some sarcasm in there, see if you can spot it)
+&x
What would happen if someone wrote a short document on how to decrypt the DVDs? It wouldn't be source code and it wouldn't be software.
It could still be considered publishing a trade secret, but given the lawyers left the source code in the open for two weeks likely means that it's no longer a trade secret.
It could also still be considered circumventing the copy protection, but what do I care? I'm in Canada.
It would also have the benefit of not being derived from another player where there is a license to agree to.
Any takers?
This ruling is absolute nonsense. DC 2600 will be in our usual place (see http://www.dc2600.com for details) quietly having the flyer available near the Sony movie theater in Pentagon City Mall. If we are asked to stop by the mall guards, we will stop. Caution: do not make a scene at our meeting (check our meeting history for what happened to the last bunch of feds that tried that).
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
okay, if i'm a physicist, i can publish drawings and descriptions of a nuclear weapon in a book or on a web page. the actual implementation of the weapon is a crime. but i can't publish algorithms that point out deficiencies in copy protection schemes? that's illegal? shouldn't the USE and IMPLEMENTATION of the the hack TO MAKE PROFIT PIRATING be the crime? what country is this anyway? pathetic!
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Easy to argue. The difficulty seems to be making you aware of the fact that this program does nothing to promote the ability to copy a DVD. The DVD related industry is just pissed off that this code is exposing their monopoly control scheme whereby they will be able to prevent upstart competition in both movie/music production, as well as in player manufacturing. They don't like DeCSS, but the reason they don't like it isn't because of the asserted copy features, but rather, because they no longer can control who gets to view their bought and paid for DVDs, and who doesn't.
The argument that computer code is an expression of free speech, however, is an old and tired one. It should not have been used. The proper argument should be that this is a tool to play DVDs, not to copy them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Part of the ruling says that the judge doesn't believe the defendants proved that cracking CSS could help play DVDs under Linux. Why? Because you can already play DVDs under Windows, and there are a lot more Windows machines than Linux boxen.
What? That's exactly why it was necessary! Evidently no one wanted to spend the money to by into the CSS scheme to provide a player for Linux. Why? Perhaps it has something to do with the perceived size of the market?
Perhaps for his next trick, the judge could explain why PBS (public broadcasting in the US) shouldn't need to beg for money every year to stay on the air because it has less viewers (and very few commercials).
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
By this logic, publishing a CarHotwiring-HOWTO is illegal.
Cheers,
Slak
Why don't we write a new encryption system for files that uses the same scheme and keys as CSS? Then we all it's just an unfortuante side effect that it also happens to be able to decrypt DVDs.... After all the judge mentioned that there was no use for DeCSS expect for decrypting DVDs. Why not give it other uses?
Where have I heard that before. It is every individual's responsibility at all times in all situations to decide whether his or her actions are moral. (OK, I know we can't honestly expect judges to stop enforcing laws only because they're wrong - a person has to be amoral to get a job as a judge in the first place. Consider this a rant.)
For some reason the link did not take when I posted a moment ago. Here is the URL for the flyer: http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0130-flyer/
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
If you ask me, the party to blame for this godsdamned mess isn't the judge, MPAA, or 2600. It's Congress. We are in a position where we need to prove that our product was developed for the *sole purpose* of running DVD's on Linux (if this were true, it wouldn't run on BSD, HURD, or Windows). Congress should have written the law so that the plaintiff has the burden of proof that the product is written for the purpose of copyright infringement.
We also need to lobby Congress for a "free software" exception -- that copyright infringement technologies can be reverse-engineered for the purpose of writing "free (open source) software", which constitutes an important part of our public infrastructure.
Let me be honest here...I'm about ready to give up writing software entirely if this bullshit continues. What's going on here could kill the Linux dream, and I don't want to go back to a world where computing isn't fun.
Finding God in a Dog
In the official ruling, it was thus stated:
Facts
DVDs are five-inch wide discs that, in this application, hold full-length motion pictures. They are the latest technology for private home viewing of recorded motion pictures. This technology drastically improves the clarity and overall quality of a motion picture shown on a television or computer screen.
Now, I don't know about y'all, but I don't own any dvd's larger than 4.75 inches. Does that mean that they aren't covered by this ruling? Anyone know?
Rev Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
In this judge's opinion, it is illegal to publish or even point to the code for DeCSS, yet the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right to publish such other materials, as how to convert your semi-automatic rifle to full-auto. You can publish how to do it, sell parts to do it, but not do it! Why is one illegal and the other protect free speech? This is a case the *WILL* end up before the Supreme Court before it's over.
I must agree with this AC. I think the point here is if you enjoy figuring out codes and breaking them do it and keep it to yourself and no one will come after you. Publish the codes and you are asking for trouble. I understand this is not about copying DVD's but playing using Linux. Well Linux is not yet mainstream enough for some people to realize it's potential. The way to get them to release a Linux DVD player is to lobby the company. If they see enough interset they will do it because it means profit. Publishing keys and organizing boycotts will only piss them off.
What cracks me up is that the judge seems to think the DCMA R/E clause doesn't apply.. He says later in the document (I'm paraphrasing) that even if DeCSS were to have the sole capability of permitting playback on Linux boxes, that it would still violate the DCMA because one would have to circumvent CSS with an unlicensed key to play it back. One, the moron thinks CSS is a copyright protection scheme, and two, that the clause pertaining to interoperability is null and void.
Is a lead-filled 4x4 severe enough for this guy? I'll have to do a gross amount of trauma to his skull to kill him, as it has become glaringly apparent he has no brain.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Would it be illegal now to link to somewhere outside of the US that is publishing the code on their page?
BilldaCat
Hard to argue with this ruling.
You've *got* to be kidding.
In his initial granting of the injunction, I thought he'd made a reasonable decision, that if he didn't grant the injunction, he would effectively be deciding the case in advance.
But his logic is inane. The assertion that viewing the files under Linux is not a relevant issue because Windows is more popular? That's truly moronic. The reverse engineering exception says nothing about popularity, nor should it, nor should the size of the market be relevant to whether the reverse engineering is acceptable.
Furthermore, " the record clearly
demonstrates that the chief focus of those promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works." What record? That's a sham! Slashdot quotes should not be admissible in a court of law, hasn't this judge ever heard of hearsay?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Hmmm, hard to tell if you're trolling or just ignorant. If the former, may I suggest that next time you include some verbage to make your intentions more clear to the moderators so that they can moderate you off the face of the Earth. I recommend mentioning Natalie Portman, earlobes and petrification, and that should clear things up nicely.
If, however, it is the latter, I highly suggest you do a bit of research such as finding some of the other stories on this subject and maybe actually chase a link or two to get a grasp of the issues involved. If you do that you will learn (if you pay close attention) that the DeCSS algorithm is for playing DVDs, not copying them.
You're welcome.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Is there any reason why Red Hat or VA can't ante up for a license from the evil bastards at MPA? It's got to be in their interest to have a proper DVD player util for their systems, no?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
This is so frustrating. What can average joe's due to help? I've bought the OpenDVD t-shirt, but what next?
Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think that writing letters/emails to the MPAA and all the major studios will do any good. They probabaly just toss them right in the trash.
Looking for ideas.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Anyone else see this? I still maintain that the injunction is unfounded, HOWEVER... what the heck happened? Did no one show up for the injunction hearing? If not, is anyone really surprised that this injunction was granted? That would be standard procedure: no objections from the defendants = injunction granted.
I have not found any articles describing the court cases with the MPAA in detail, so I have no way of knowing whether people didn't show or whether the injunction was requested in such a way that the defendants didn't find out about it in time. Does anyone know what the deal was?
Leilah
~ Leilah
Now it goes to the appeals court, and thence to the Supreme Court. I imagine the appeals court will pass it along, and the Supreme Court will finally say "The DMCA is unconstitutional."
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
If the DVD Copy Control Assosciation can sue us then why can we not sue them for infringing on our right to use personal property? Seems to me any person who owns a DVD and not a "certified" DVD player (I am one of these persons) has had his/her personal freedom infringed upon. They have taken away my right to use my property. I cannot view the images on my DVD now.
I may just be a bit touchy right now but a class action lawsuit seems to be what could cure this mess. I may be wrong but it's worth trying.
Once again, I feel as if deCSS should have been named something like "playdvd" or "wathdvd". Yes, the same case probably would have come to be, but there's a lot in a name.
I know the judge commented with a few remarks towards watching DVDs and deCSS, but really, everyone (including the judge) still thinks this case is about piracy.
If the app were named different, I have a feeling the case would be about something much different.
What I (and a good number of people, I'd guess) want to know is, why didn't the counsel for the defense make these sorts of piracy arguments? I am somewhat confused as to why the plaintiffs got away with the classification of CSS as "a technological system that controls access to other copyrighted works" -- although here you get into the ambiguity I just described. Kaplan ends up ruling that CSS protects content -- but it really only ends up protecting playback, since anyone with some equipment can copy but only people with "legit" DVD technology can play it back. As far as I can tell from the various hearings/rulings that have been posted, this distinction is never made clear by the defense! There's a lot of exemptions they try to invoke, but Kaplan's reasons for rejecting them do not seem out of line. In fact, he appears to do a pretty decent job of assessing what has been presented to him. Did the defense throw it all away by ignoring its best argument? The recent LinuxWorld interview with Jon J. had the same complaint; i'm just echoing it here.
But some stuff this judge wrote... I seriously wonder what he was smoking. For example:
Even assuming that some would use DeCSS only to view copyrighted motion pictures which they lawfully possessed, and thus arguably not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights, the record clearly demonstrates that the chief focus of those promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works,
Uh... I don't remember seeing anything anywhere saying stuff like "Grab this source code, build your own DVD copier!" or anything in a similar vein. Yes, the possibility for something along that lines is inherent, but we just wanted to make our own DVD player fer crying out loud.
Also, don't have the time to go find the actual quote, but I believe there was a line that said "Well yes, it's usable with Linux, but it's also useable with Windows, and they already have their own system." Your Honor, duh, it's source code. With a little wrangling, we can get it to run on whatever we want.
I think if this is the judge who is going to sit on a trial about this, I'm seriously worried, unless we either starts reading up on some facts, or else we make dang sure to educate everyone during the defense.
I'm not much of a programmer, but I'd offer this advice to those who are and who have access to the DeCSS: treat this decision like a great big bug report. The judge has said "Here's all these problems in your product; here's all these problems in your process." All you have to do is correct the problems and we will have a much more robust (legally speaking) product.
Y'know, I was reading through the ruling, and peppered throughout was the phrase "the defendants offered no evidence to back up this claim" (or words to that effect). That suggests to me that the lawyers for the defendants are doing a poor job. Here they're saying that DeCSS's purpose was to provide DVD playback on Linux boxes, and they don't even prove it! That's the whole idea behind providing evidence: you can't say something and then not provide evidence to back it up.
It's almost as if a store accuses you of shoplifting a book, and then doesn't provide proof that you've got that book in your bag.
In any basic argumentative case such as this, you have to back up your claims, else your argument gets thrown out. It's pretty simple, actually.
What he is saying is that copyright holders can eliminate Fair Use through technological measures. This makes *no* sense whatsoever; it suggests that the law only applies to the technologically challenged.
If legal precedent means anything, it is common sense that technological impediments to Fair Use:
- may legally be circumvented
- are probably illegal prima facie (ooh, Latin)
- could be construed to represent contempt of court
I'm fairly certain that this judge's idiotic decision will be promptly overturned.New XFMail home page
Title says it all.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Even if this does set a precedent about the Digital Millenium copyright act extending to programs designed to thwart copy protection, it's not really a death blow for the defense. Why do I say that? Well, I'm not a laywer, but considering that DeCSS in no way aids in COPYING of data, I would have to say it doesn't fall under the category of programs of breaking copy protection. Remember, DeCSS merely unencrypts data, you can copy the data just as easily while encrypted and still make pirated copies with or without DeCSS.
Anyone got a link to the DMCA? IANAL, but I have some spare time and would like to see just what the exceptions are. Note how the judge contradicts himself. He says (in footnote 14) that even though DeCSS may fall under an exception to the DMCA, it uses methods prevented by the DMCA, thus is in violation of the DMCA. Chicken or the egg, folks. Just because the chicken came out of the egg doesn't mean that the chicken came first. There's my 2 cents. Where's my change?
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
-- Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"
The judge argues that code is not a normal form of personal expression. Works of art like books and scuplures are synthized in the same maner: an idea in the mind of a person modivates them to create. Even things like building furnature, baking cakes, etc are forms of personal expression.
Does Judge Lewis Kaplan think that some agency has rights to dictate what code a well minded individual can write? If he does, then said agency can also dictate how one can write books, make sculptures, build furnature, and bake cakes.
The law was never mind to do this. I certainly hope that another judge see this error and reverses this decision.
I've been following this story with interest. Why can't you guys just build a "real Text" to C converter. You know, turn it into real sentences (just substitute words for command/functions/whatever the hell C uses, spell out numbers etc).
It would seem to me this would clearly bring about the distinction you want. Any restrictions on it would be the same as restricting speech.
Worst case? They hold the "decryptor" is a "cracking tool that exists soley to 'steal' copyrighted material" under those absurd new laws. Fine, put the decryptor on a site in a country that doesn't do patents/copyrights and you're in business.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I'd be willing to concede all of the judge's legal points (after all, IANAL) and most of his factual points, except:
Even assuming that some would use DeCSS only to view copyrighted motion pictures which they lawfully possessed, and thus arguably not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights, the record clearly demonstrates that the chief focus of those promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works
Overwhelmingly people are interested in DeCSS to allow them to view legitimate copies that they own. I haven't even heard of anybody who is promoting DeCSS for piracy purposes (although I suppose they exist). As far as piracy goes, there's no doubt something like DeCSS might be useful if you had swiped a supply of blanks and had plenty of time on your hands to knock off one or two copies, but DeCSS as far as I can see is neither technically necessary nor sufficient for DVD copying. (A question for you DVD hackers -- can an unmodified DVD driver return the secret key data on the DVD to the OS? Does DeCSS make any difference in this regard?)
In any case, the quoted paragraph is, I think, a key point in the judge's reasoning and one that is so incredibly misguided from a technical standpoint I can only conclude he may have taken a little mental vacation at some point in the proceedings.
I think the motion picture industry is mainly interested in regional segmentation of their markets. Historically, a copyright owner loses control over the copy once sold, and people can resell their copies as they please, including at a profit back into a different in competition with the copyright holder.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
nt=no text
Keep in mind that Computer Science is, indeed, a science, and as such if someone says something can be done, they must provide proof, that may be reproduced by the scientific community. This is the way in which science advances. Yes, there is some art to Computer Science, as in medicine, but the results are the same. Advancement of knowledge is done solely through this fashion. It is a matter of deciding, do we want to allow the courts to stop the advancement of knowledge.
As I'm reading through this memo, I've been finding various pieces that show how non-technical this judge really is. This one astounds me. Under the passage regarding Section 1201(f), where the defendants claim that DeCSS is needed "to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs," the judge shoots them down with this one...
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
You write a piece of software that has a "sole purpose." Someone, maybe even you, takes that code and ports it to another platform. Does that change the sole purpose for which the code was developed in the first place?
Seems to be confusing the initial development with a porting process. Also, isn't it the slightest bit possible that the code is actually trivial to port, and in reality will compile and run on many different systems already?how much is that judge in the window,
the one with the waggley tail?
how much is that judge in the window?
I DO hope that judge is for sale . . .
</singing>
ah, shit. Too late. Already sold.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
1. We "the hacker community" have just been granted class status by a federal judge. This could mean that, in this one district, the "hacker community" has a basis on which to claim class status (e.g., this is the "class" as in "class action")
2. We have perhaps unwittingly become a pawn in the game of strengthening the DMCA. If this is not the first precedent based on the DMCA, it is certainly the most widely read.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Okay, this might be a stupid question, since I'm not a layer, and have never even read this type of document before, but in the section at the top entitled "Facts," is that where the judge is supposed to write the underlying facts of the case?
I ask because this:
strikes me as highly non-factual. Doesn't a DVD player + a DVD burner or a DVD player + hard drive enable users to make digital copies of DVD movies?And doesn't the post office or the internet enable users to distribute digital copies of DVD movies?
You don't need DeCSS to do that.
It seems to me that if he starts on this incorrect premise, that DeCSS actually allows copying of otherwise uncopyable, copyrighted material, he is bound to reach an incorrect conclusion.
Unless the material is only copyrighted in its decrypted form? Then, byte-for-byte copying of DVD's is legal?
I don't think this is the case, but reading the "facts," I can't see any other possibilities.
What we need to do is hit them with a class action lawsuit on the grounds that region codes are artificially (and perhaps illegally) inflating the prices.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Is there a way to show (As in DEMONSTRATE TO THE JUDGE) that DVD's can be copied without DeCSS using previously released software (predating the CSS encryption)?? If this can be shown and demonstrated, it would effectively KILL the argument that DeCSS is used to copy the DVD. In this case, you would still need DeCSS to view a DVD on any system that does not have the copyrighted software ported to it. This would help show an infringment upon the rights of the individuals to view DVD's. The argument that Windows already has the software should not matter. If they are not porting the copyrighted software to other OS's, it is "forcing" people to use Windows instead of the system of choice for the user. (This is purely my opinion, My arguments may not work in court....common sense seems to get left outside the door of the courtroom many times.....)
2600 has posted and excellent flyer that really spells out the issue for people who don't already know. Let's circulate this as much as possible and try to get the MPAA to see that the movie-going public doesn't appreciate their strong-arm tactics.
Win or loose, this case will be subject to appeal by both sides. If the judge makes too may obvious mistakes (and IMHO he has), the possibility of his ruling being reversed on appeal are just that much greater! Mark my words, this is a fight that will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court before it's over!
If you want a clear evidence that this judge simply doesn't understand the law, even the DMCA, read footnote 14:
"even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
The DMCA, however states:
1201(c)(1) - Nothing in this section effect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringment, INCLUDING FAIR USE, under this title.
The judge in this case never considers the fact that being able to *play* on Linux would very possible be considered a "fair use".
Fair Use is the public's balance against the bundle of rights given to copyright holders. Deny the existence of fair use and you violate the Constitution's prescription of grants of *limited* rights to intellectual property holders.
This judge really doesn't get it and its clear the guy has been bought (not literally, but metaphorically) by the big IP holders like the music and movie industries.
What a tool!
This should be about the fair use of legally reverse engineered software used for interoperability under linux or other OS'es.
And in that vein:
http://cubicmetercrystal.com/decss/
Dont let the bad judgement of one man under the sway of the MPAA set a damaging precedent.
My interpretation is that.. The judge is enforcing a law that should be enforced.. No matter how STUPID and wrong :-( This sucks how hard is it going to be to have this act destroyed? Anything we can start doing? Snail mailing those congressmen etc??
Since the Millennium is NEXT year we are ok to distribute DeCSS :)?
Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute! Give no quarter!!
But lets take a look at what the ruling says:
In October 1999, an individual or group, believed to be in Europe, managed to "hack'' CSS2 and began offering, via the Internet, a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies.
I don't think it's been "proven" that this is only to copy DVD's!! We know this isn't the only reason, therefore the use of the word "hence" really makes me uneasy. We can't even make copies for playback right now with a DVD-RAM, and you don't even need to break the encryption if you have a stamp machine. I can't beleive this was in the opinion, it sounds more like something the corporations would say.
The requirement of immediate and irreparable injury is satisfied in this case. Copyright infringement is presumed to give rise to such harm. In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants have infringed their copyrights, but rather that defendants offer technology that circumvents their copyright protection system and thus facilitates infringement. For purposes of the irreparable injury inquiry, this is a distinction
without a difference. If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing directly. Moreover, just as in the case of direct copyright infringement, the extent of the harm plaintiffs will suffer as a result of defendants' alleged activities cannot readily be measured, suggesting that the injury
truly would be irreparable.
So, if I read this right, just the fact that it makes circumventing it possible, this is exactly what is being done. This absurd statement makes me want to grab a bat and start breaking things. The last statement is incredible as well, equating "umeasureable activities" with "irreparable injury"? Am i missing something here? Someone tell me PLEASE....
One of his arguments for not accepting the reverse engineering argument bothers me as well:
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply.
So is he saying the copyright software/system is not a copyrighted piece of software? Is he saying the situation is different for hardware? Doesn't that seem to be a contradicion? Anyone care to expand on this?
I haven't even read the rest of the opinion, because his opinion is plainly clear. His idea of a "level playing field" is this:
Corporations have all the rights and tell you what to do, and you can't do anything about it.
I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but the fact that he doesn't support reverse engineering takes things one step worse: without the ability to compete, we've gone from capitalism to a sort of corporate-totalitarianism.
This lack of respect for people's rights is unacceptable. Furtunatly, they can't do anything about it, short of throwing me in jail. When I pay my 20 bucks for a DVD, I'll do what I want with it short of redistribution.
Lets face it, in 3-5 years we WILL be able to copy DVD's, most likely for playback in DVD players (hopefully).
There might be no recourse for Hollywood, the cat is out of the bag, as many have said. Trying to stop technology that people like with artificial controls is tough, just look at the mp3s. Copyright holders will have to find a real, technology based way to prevent this, which might be impossible in today's world. I sure hope it is.
Not true. Algorithms have been held up, in US federal court, as speech. Look at some of the cryptography cases and you'll see what I mean. Equally, the entire professional of mathematics would be enjoined from free speech protections if algorithms were not treated as speech. I think you misunderstand what speech is. Speech is not just words or text. Its not even just audio, video or anything else you can fit into a nice tidy list. Speech refers to expression in all its forms. Its a vague concept, on purpose!. This prevents tyrannants of all types from trying to squeeze speech into a nice tidy little bundle they can lock away.
So freedom of speech is not something relegated to text, but to all forms of communication. Be it a painting, a scuplture, dance, spoken words, written words, e-mail, scientific documents, mathematical formulas and even source code, which is a form of expression.
So, this judge is wrong, and hopefully he will either see the error of his ways, or a higher court will overturn his ruling. The bottom line is that this judge is but the first round, and there are plenty of appeals from here to courts which have seen thru this sort of hogwash before and made the right ruling.
Common sense will tell you that code is speech. How else would you express the idea?
You're right about one thing: The DMCA is corrupt. Its the biggest attack on the first amendment ever, and this case proves it. Its far more insidious than the CDA ever was (that was so patently unconstitutional that everyone knew it was going to get overturned), the DMCA on the other hand requires a thorough understanding of the issues (which most judges sorely lack) and hence makes it easy for someone to argue one thing, while getting someones freedom of speech rights enjoined. Its all nice and tidy. On the surface the case looks simple. Its too complex to explain to laypeople, and it lends itself to an emotional argument in favor of restricting speech rights. So the DMCA makes it really easy to control expression, without alerting the masses to the fact that they just got sold down the river.
The DMCA is corrupt alright, and we should work to get it ruled unconstitutional by any means necessary.
--
Python
Python
Aren't these already guaranteed rights by law?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
That the data scrambling feature of DVDs is NOT useful for copyright protection. It is only useful for controlling playback of the video. Just because the plaintiffs say that "it is" does not mean that it really is. So...if the encryption that has been cracked is not used for protecting against copyright violations but only for control of playback, how is the DeCSS code in violation of the law? There is nothing in the DMCA that says anything about engineering, reverse or otherwise, of compatible players illegal. In fact, it actually says that it IS LEGAL to reverse engineer a product in order to make another that is compatible!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
This is the part that hurts:
Even assuming that some would use DeCSS only to view copyrighted motion pictures which they lawfully possessed, and thus arguably not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights, the record clearly demonstrates that the chief focus of those promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.
To me, it sounds like he doesn't care what DeCSS was designed to do, but what he perceives its popular use is. Does DeCSS even perform the copying operation? Or do you need additional code? Others suggested that there are other products that can copy a DVD (fully encrypted) or rip one into VCD files. Don't there pose a more serious threat than a piece of code that breaks the encryption?
Interesting though: it sounds to me like he claims that it is legal to play a DVD that you legally acquired using DeCSS. But since you cannot be trusted not to copy it, DeCSS is now illegal.
-tim
Hard to argue with this ruling. You obviously cannot allow people to circumvent copyright protections and publish the ways to get around the protection
With that logic photocopiers and VCRs should be illegal.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How much is that Congressman in the window?
The one that likes to chase tail?
How much is that DMCA-passing-Congressman in the window?
I DO know that Congressmans's for sale!
Everybody!
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
From what I can tell, the defense doesn't stand a chance if it keeps on the fair use, free speech line of reasoning because both of those are overuled by the DMCA. The "code is speech" argument is still too vague to win.
From what I can tell, the DMCA doesn't strictly prevent fair use. You can take excepts from a VHS is you have the player. You can copy parts of a CD if you have the player. You can view certain parts of a DVD if you have the player. It's just that now, the players are tightly controlled. Rights to fair use aren't being infringed upon.
Now the right to making archival copies, there's an approach. To argue that circumvention of DVD protections is necessary in order to make perfect archival copies might fly a lot better than free speech.
It's also worth pointing out that the argument about a player requiring a CSS key to read a DVD is bogus. A player doesn't need to know the key, it can just take a few seconds to brute force a key when it starts playing the DVD. In effect, CSS is really just a file format where a little bit of pre-computing is needed before the file can be read. In my mind, it's no different from endian conversions in TIFF. Since the player key requirement seems to imply that CSS is an encryption algorithm, perhaps someone can whip up a version of css-cat that doesn't take any keys in the input?
Another approach that one might take is to rename DeCSS to EnCSS. CSS works both ways, right? In order to burn a DVD, you need CSS. If someone was to build a piece of hardware that did DVD burning, one could use EnCSS to write their own copyrighted products to a DVD. I imagine you could take a shot at saying that preventing the distribution of EnCSS is prior restraint on free speech. Or will the MPAA claim that Linux users have to right to "protect" copyrighted works on DVD?
c.
Log in or piss off.
As it stands right now, the only way for DeCSS to be used legally within the United States is if the MPAA changes its mind and allows it to be used. The only way that will occur is if it is in their best financial interest to do so ...
So, for those of you that have Intel-based DVD drives, does the documentation of any of them fail to state that they can only be used with Microsoft(tm) Windows or WindowsNT (tm)? You may be able to file a class-action lawsuit against those manufacturers to get your money (plus damages?) back.
Me, I'm just not going to purchase a DVD player or any DVD movies until I can legally play the @#$! things without supporting a company that has been found to be a monopoly.
Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley
Without debating whether or not source = speech..
the judge saying
"Even if it was considered speech, congress could regulate it to protect copyright holders'.
Nice system.
"Congress shall make no law...".... is supposed to mean that NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE BEG AND SCREAM, a law *CANNOT* be made to violate these principles. Freedom of religion, speech, etc.... It doestn' mean they shouldn't, or aren't supposed to, it means they DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER TO DO SO.
I'd like to address these issues.
It is undisputed also that DeCSS defeats CSS and decrypts copyrighted works without the authority of the copyright owners. I am not sure that this is "undisputed". Correct me if I'm wrong: A requirement for use of DeCSS is a DVD player. Such players are granted "keys" by the MPAA or one of its authorized agents. Thus, we can reasonably assume that a DeCSS user is decrypting the copyrighted work legally.
As there is no evidence of any commercially significant purpose of DeCSS other than circumvention of CSS. Isn't DVD piracy a "commercially significant purpose"? Doesn't this undermine the entire argument? While DeCSS cannot determine if the DVD it is accessing was legally purchased or not, neither can a legit device (in the case of a bit-for-bit DVD copy).
First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions [Ed. DeCSS's primary use is for lawful viewing of legal DVDs]. WTF? Does EFF need to show the judge a Linux box playing a legal DVD?
Second, even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key" would "circumvent a technological measure" that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case. The CSS "player key" resides on the DVD player and the Disk itself. How many rogue DVD players are out there? DeCSS's primary intent is not violating copyright, but rather interoperability.
One last point: Are all DVDs copyrighted? If so, won't they fall into public domain after a nearly infinite period of time (thanks Sony Bono Copyright Perpetuity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HExtention Act!)?
Cheers,
Slak
From the ruling:
----------
They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this
exception therefore is satisfied.
This contention fails for three reasons.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating
system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability
between Linux and DVDs.
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of
copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other
copyrighted works, such as movies.
In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply.
----------------
This is really strange.
* No one offered any evidence that DeCSS is required to run under Linux? That should be taken care of, and *fast*.
* This was for technical reasons, and can quickly be taken care of. Fine, concede on the Windows software (sort of -- the source will not be hard to port no matter what). This still doesn't take care of the Linux versions of the software.
* I can't speak to the third contention.
Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
No matter what the judge says, this suit is still uncool. I guess it's OK to fix the DVD player market so that I can't play DVD's on my computer. I spent alot of money on my DVDs, my computer and my DVD player. Now all I
want to do is play them. Is that so hard to understand judge?
People want to control things. I can also understand about possible control issues. I guess people can't totally be blaimed about things that they do to make a profit and then people think that they are a really good idea. I must say that I feel that I can't think that people will eventually come up with something better. I remember when VCR+ was around. The makers of VCR+ wanted to create a system whereby you could simply imput a 4 digit code and have a movie recorded on a particular channel and at a particular time. They defended this also.
I doubt that anyone will be swayed by being called "uncool" or anything like that. Eventually something better than DVDs will come along. I don't really have any of this technology and have never been obcessed about movies in general. I never stockpiled VHS tapes and can't see why people are taking so many risks.
Tell me why bother to make sure you do something questionable and then put your name on it! Why do something so stupid. Why shoot yourself in the foot. People created cracking programs in the past and usually never associated their actual Name/Address match on them. People only have their vanity to loose. I shure would release the code to the program under slashdot-terminal sooner than my actual name if it meant the world to people like you.
All people have done is draw attention to an actual person/people/group to do things.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Of particular interest is the fact that he has found that Roman Kazan, the ISP sued by the movie companies for one of his customers' web sites, is liable.
The judge's reasoning is that the law says ISPs are not liable for copyright infringement by their customers, but this limitation of liability does not apply to "cirvumvention".
This means that any ISP can now be destroyed by posting a program like DeCSS to a member web page.
According to the judge, the ISP gets full liability for any "circumvention program" on a site that it provides hosting for.
Goodbye world wide web... it's time the for copyright owners to sue all the ISPs out of existence...
The second half of Footnote #14 is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole ruling. It says: >...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, >and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a >licensed CSS "player key" would "circumvent a technological measure" >that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the >statute in any case.
That's interesting because it addresses an angle that most of ``our side'' has not covered. There have certainly been enough arguments that DeCSS is not an effective form of copy protection; but it is an effective form of control. Judge Kaplan' statement implies that, regardless of the original coders' intent, DeCSS is a way of maintaining access control (for the movie studios) at the read-and-display level -- and that this is indeed its primary function.
This small side note, if legally correct, changes the whole playing field. If CSS is not to be considered copy protection but rather access control, then DeCSS is illegal simply because it avoids the need to pay license fees for a reader, notwithstanding any argument about potential redistribution of the original material.
It is as though books came with diary-style locks, and duplicating the keys were illegal. Ludicrous in the non-digital case; but a matter of law in the digital case.
Stand up for your beliefs -- don't be afraid of what's gonna happen
What the fuck is a 'copyright protection'?
The only protection copyright grants is THE LAW that makes it ILLEGAL to do certain things with copyrighted material (like copy them for various reasons).
This whole thing about copyright law protecting the technological protection mechanisms is bullshit.
They are COPY protection mechanisms, not copyright protection mechanisms.
These are two decisions (Calif. State District Court, and S.D.N.Y Federal court) that, should they be finalized in a verdict that upholds the Bad Guys' positions, will (thankfully) be able to be reversed on appeal. Hopefully even if the Good Guys lose in the trial court, some more clued-in appellate judges will be able to see through the industry arguments. Maybe even invalidate the DMCA as unconstitutional (probably wishful thinking though, especially with the markedly anti-consumer makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court these days). However, not to impugn the caliber of attorneys representing the Good Guys, but I'm sure they could use more help (especially if it does go up on appeal). I think now would be a good time for the IPO millionaires and the Linux commercial enterprises to weigh in on the defendants' side in both cases - if for no other reason then because Linus said so at LWE in his keynote (read: good publicity, plus a truly free/libre DVD player will drive greater Linux adoption).
;-)
Just my $200/hr. worth (I wish).
Disclaimer: IAAIL - I Am An Inactive Lawyer (State Bar of Texas Inactive Status as of 8/99) so, effectively, IANAL. Get your own attorney. Ingest with large crystal of NaCl.
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
IANAL, but:
Judge Kaplan wrote:
"They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this exception
therefore is satisfied.20 This contention fails for three reasons.
____________________
20 Def. Mem. at 8-9.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It
therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 Inconsequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply."
As far as I can see this point could successfully be defeated if
a) one shows DeCSS running under Linux
b) one shows current work in progress to playback of DVDs under Linux
c) as far as the act goes, one does not have to show the sole purpose, just the primary purpose, and demonstrating that CSS operation under WINE is a necessary first step until the kernel supported DVD ioctl calls would defeat this.
d) CSS as implemented in Xing _is_ a computer program and not a technolocal system; on this point alone we are home free as far as I can see.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
"As there is no evidence of any commercially significant purpose of DeCSS other than circumvention of CSS, defendants' actions likely violated Section 1201(a)(2)(B). Moreover, although defendants contended at oral argument that
DeCSS was not designed primarily to circumvent CSS, that argument is exceptionally unpersuasive.14 <b>In consequence, plaintiffs have an extremely high likelihood of prevailing on the merits unless defendants' activities come within one of the exceptions in the DMCA or unless there is a constitutional impediment to this conclusion. </b>"
"...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
This demonstrates that the DMCA ignores fair use allowances. Unfortunately, fair use seems lower on the totem pole than DMCA.
"...even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving
interoperability between Linux and DVDs. "
A point, a point. WHY was DeCSS released as Win32 source, anyway? D'oh!
"Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of
copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply. "
Problem - distinction between computer programs and and technological systems is vague.
"Surely there is no suggestion that any of them made a good faith effort to obtain authorization from the copyright owners. "
Another good point.
"If Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."
"If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing [copyrights] directly."
I create a Content Scrambling System, you break it - is it or is it not the logical assumption that you want to infringe my copyrights?
with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to those works...
ok - so this is saying that the mere purchase of a dvd isn't enough to grant us the right to view it. we must also have express permission from the dvdca to view the disc.
obviously the judge has been swayed by the monetary interest of Big Business - yet again. sigh... the little guy has no rights anymore ;-(
I really wish the judges would be able to understand the important diff between viewing and copying. the key is meant to control the ability to VIEW the disc and that, in itself, is a harmful and dangerous precident. its just plain wrong. its like buying milk at the supermarket and needed special permission to open and use it, even after you paid for it.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Read the other documents on cryptome - the lawyers had no time to prepare, and had to attend the trial via teleconference. They asked for an extension, were denied, and then were chided by the judge for being unprepared. :/
:/
Ok, with that out of the way, I think there are some serious problems with the defense.
1) DeCSS runs under WINDOWS, not Linux. Linux code was derived from it (or vice versa...) but this NEEDS TO BE CLEARED UP, because the argument that a Windows program helps play DVDs under Linux will never be substantiated. I probably WOULD argue that the (Windows) DeCSS code has no legitimate use - you can currently play DVDs under Windows, and there's no pressing need for a program like DeCSS.
2) So now, DeCSS and all similar programs (including Linux version) are under fire, because as the judge says, there is no evidence presented that shows anything about interoperability. The EFF *MUST* bring in the LiViD software to demonstrate in court, and then prove that it would NOT be possible without knowing how CSS works. The judge says that there is " no evidence of any commercially significant purpose" - but he needs to be taught about Free Software - if "commerically significant" is the key, then that sounds pretty strange. Reverse engineering is only legal if you profit from it...?!
Ok well I have to go back to work. Enough rambling.
----
The defense failed to raise another argument about the validity and applicability of DMCA: restrictions on interoperability can have antitrust implications when the restrictions favor a monopoly. Thus DMCA is in conflict with antitrust law or must be limited wrt measures taken to ensure interoperability.
This is especially nifty given Jackson's finding of monopoly status for Microsoft.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
and you will see that what they did is perfectly legal:
(f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
LRJ
It seems like almost no one here understands what the DCMA says (which the judge is ruling on). Based on the law the judgement is perfectly logical!! Only by changing the DCMA can deCSS become legal in the USA (and I doubt the DCMA is unconstitutional either).
I know this isn't a popular view, hopefully if a big enough stink is made some necessary changes will be made (I think it is ridiculous that in the US it is will be illegal to view digital copyright material without a licensed player).
Ermm, thats why that kid overseas got arrested.
:)
You would be surprised how far a companies reach is, even if the US courts cannot get you, the company can
Ohhhh the big bad ol' company's going to get me!!
I don't know what I'll do if they get me!
They are so strong and intelligent and all knowing; and they can have their private little police beat me up!
You see I live in a time when police power is not given to any group who has a bunch of money. Just because I have a great deal of money (Microsoft, IBM, Lexus Nexus, British Telecom, etc) dosn't mean that I can just call out my goombahas and do whatever I want to anyone. So big deal the company's goons can try to illegally attack me. I can also just drive a van full of TNT into their little building. See no more problem!
Maybe just suppose that their little 'representatives' get into a little 'accident' when they try to get me? Oh well
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
This contention fails for three reasons.
____________________
20 Def. Mem. at 8-9.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under
Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used
operating system---as well.
It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed
"for the sole purpose'' of achieving
interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
I write vi for UNIX and some one ports it to DOS then itcan not reasonably be said that ...
I wrote vi to have a text editor under UNIX because there are allot mor DOS boxes
Wonder what he's gonna do with all that dough :^)
I remember hearing that ABC WorldNews Tonight was gonna be interviewing Jon Johansen...does anyone know of any information confirming this and/or an airing date?
Another question is does anyone know the stance some of the presidential candidates are taking on the DMCA and this DeCSS issue? I am sure this whole fiasco will be going on in Nov. (In one way or another.)
Lastly, the DMCA is lame. I hope it gets looked over before the new millenium begins! (Only 10 months to go!)
Unless I am reading this wrong the judge has contradicted or at the least invalidated his own opinion:
<i>...requires the use of appropriately configured hardware such as a DVD player or a <b>computer DVD drive</b> to decrypt, unscramble and play back, but not copy, motion pictures on DVDs</i>
From the DMCA:
<i>Section 1201(a)(2) of the Copyright Act, part of the DMCA, provides that:
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that---
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];</i>
According to this DVD drives violate the DMCS because he states that the drives are what are used to read information from the drives.
It can't be this obvious can it? He makes no mention anywhere of the xing player from which the key was obtained. Is he really this shortsighted? I cannot for the life of me reconsile his argument in my mind. I completely understood why he allowed the initial injunction but this just seems completly ridiculous. Do the drive manufacturers pay for the license or the software? If the drive manufacturers are not responsible for any CSS licensing, then aren't they in of fact considered in violation of the act?
I can't be so dense as to miss the obvious, can I?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
You missed the point.
The judge was by no means stating that the use of the DeCSS to run under Linux was illogical or silly because Windows is "a far more widely used operating system". What he was saying is that if it was intended purely for the being able to play DVD's on Linux, then why was it orginally written in VB for the windows platform?
While some might state the "Linux couldn't read the format yet" issue, it still raises a legitamite question, and potential confusion for the judge. If the preception that it runs on 98% of the computers while only providing the intended service for 1% of those computers, how can the "sole purpose" not be in question? That is what the judge is saying.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm probably preaching to the choir. But here goes anyway:
Someone needs to point out to Congress and the appeals courts where this will surely end up that DMCA allows extreme monopolistic/oligopolistic behaviors unless enforced with extreme care, i.e. not as in this case. It allows monopolists to piggy-back their anti-competitive schemes on the pretext of copyright protection, invoking the law's protection for their monopoly! Here's how:
Let's start with the pure digital content. Wrap around it a weak "scrambling" scheme. This will be our excuse. Mix with it, in a way that can't be separately addressed technically (this is the key point), our monopolistic permissioning scheme. Sound familiar?
Now, everyone who tries to reverse engineer the permissioning scheme (promoting competition) is bound, because of how the system was set up by its monopolistic designers, to defeat the, albeit weak, encryption, triggering a DMCA-based lawsuit.
If the copyright owners want to protect their work in the digital domain, the burden should be on them to separate the copyright protection functionality from any other business rule enforcing functionality.
This law is (should be) there to protect the authors' copyright from pirates, not their business deals with their distribution channel partners from competition. It should force them to make this a technical distinction, by reducing protection when they don't.
In other words, the key point: <B>If you <UL>poison</UL> your copyright protection system with anything that limits competition your copy protection device loses DMCA protection</B>
If you decide to educate any of your representatives on this issue, please consider the above. Thanks for reading.
This type of statement represents a problem that is far larger than the DeCSS issue as a whole. Judges and politicians simply don't understand technology. Since consumer electronics are something that is relatively "new" in the world, most people can't be expected to understand the underlying issues, be it that CSS does not prevent DVD piracy, that "one click shopping" should not be a patentable "technology," etc. I'm afraid we're going to see more and more ignorant expressions of opinion like this one until technology is so engrained in people's lives that they regularly understand how it works. Alas, I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.
while this is going on, consumer electronics manufacturers will continue to exploit the ignorance of the general public and the media in order to attain a tighter and tighter hold on the electronics market. Through this case, the members of the DVDCCA have managed to protect their collective monopolistic interest in the DVD player market. How do we convince a media brainwashed public and a buzzword brainwashed judicial system that this sort of anticapitalist behavior is really going on? The most frustrating part, it seems to me, is that this is plainly obvious to most of us, but not so for the rest of the world. It's a feeling that reinforces the minority nature of geek culture in my mind.
How do we stop multinational corporations from unethically twisting the facts and lying to the media? How do we prevent DvDCCA members from leveraging monopoly control over the means to access their media? We can't. Not right now. DeCSS mirrors won't do it. Petitions and flyers won't do it. But as we, who represent the forefront of the beginning technological revolution, can do something about it, eventually.
As more and more people who understant the issues as well as the technology enter into the technology market, there will be more room for such confrontations on a larger, corporate scale. We, the nerd culture, can be responsible for changing the way technology is marketed. But that means we have to act. Is it possible that nerds and hackers will be the driving force to stimulate the stagnant and apathetic nature that is American politics today? I think we will be, and I think that is the answer. We have the knowledge and the power to change what it is going on though our work, through our expression. We must leverage that power to fight for what's right converning our medium, The Allmighty Bit.
You're correct. The case that jumps to my mind is Bernstein v. US DOJ. A college professor was prohibited from posting to the WWW the source code to programs in his class.
US Judge Marilyn Patel ruled that source code is speech, and that not allowing it to be posted to the internet is unconstitutional prior restraint of speech.
The_Morlock
So you say life sucks? Well, life is what you make of it.
so if your life sucks, YOU suck.
-----BR
How does a class action suit work? I hear the term ALL the time, but I've never gotten a good explaination as to what/when/where/how of them...
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply.
If this doesn't worry you I don't know what will. The guy is saying that it is illigal to view your DVD unless it is specifically authorized through the key from the DVDCCA. I guess I am going to have to move to a different country. America isn't supposed to be like this.
Jonathan
There must have been briefs filed bu both sides before this judge filed this. I would like to read the FSF's brief.
The judge NO WHERE says you canNOT play DVDs under Linux some day. He is saying that you cannot bypass the established way which is to pay for the license for a decryption key from the CSS JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS TO! That is the point to hammer home. Linux, like any other OS, can have a legal DVD player - someone just has to pay for the license. It's really that simple. The judge is NOT making playing DVDs you own illegal - just that you have to do it the legal way. That's it.
http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-tr ans.html
The judge is BLATANTLY hostile to the lawyers, and extraordinarily dismissive of any argument he allows them to bring. No opposition? Hrm. Opposition must mean something totally different in a legal sense. Can't they get a change of venue or something due to outrageous bias?
Leilah
~ Leilah
Well, I know what I want, but I can't speak for everyone. I'd like some respectable person who could organize something like this to set up a list of demands. I will, however, give my own suggestions:
1. An end to regional coding.
2. An affirmation of the right to fair use.
3. An end to product tying.
4. The repeal of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
5. The break up of the DVD CCA and future administration of the CSS to go to a non-profit entity which will administer it in the best interests of the consumer.
6. For all defendants in this case to have their legal bills paid by the MPAA, plus any damages that resulted from the MPAA's actions.
I'll admit, some may think we don't need all these demands to be met, and some may think other demands need to be added. I just think we have to have demands so that people involved in the boycott can see we are aiming for a definite goal.
I hope that we will beat this either through legal means, like the courts or legislature, or through economic pressure. If not, the future will be bleak indeed.
I urge everyone to boycott, remember, your rights are more important than whatever entertainment you would be buying. The MPAA and DVD CCA must be beaten on this one.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Boy, was I wrong:
I went back and reread the DMCA excerpt. It's obvious to me now that the DMCA doesn't just ban the circumvention of copy protection schemes for illegal copying, but for any purpose, including watching DVDs you own legally.--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Folks, we're preaching to the choir here. We need to be getting the word out, not kvetching about the judges stupidity on /., let's learn a few lessons from the 60's. We need to organize peaceful protests outside the courthouse, distribute leaflets, and snailmailbomb every civil rights/free speech organization in the U.S. If we can get in to the U.S. media about this, we have won half the war, because they don't worry about us, it's the mass public who they are worrying about, they are currently winning the only war that counts, the war of public opinion, well, the public thinks we are a bunch of teenage "hacker's" out to "Hack the Planet", if we can't change this, we're screwed, because if public opinion says one thing, the politicians will not violate that, unless they've got a damn good incentive(corporate donations anyone?).
This is a weird area in other copyrighted media. When I was in the campus film series, we would get 16mm movies shipped to us by a distribution company. The rental of the film included renting the right to show it to a mass audience and charge. One time there was a shipping problem that prevented the film from being delivered, and apparently, the company just faxed us a copy of our rental agreement and told us to rent the video like we would to view it privately and just do a mass showing of it (the company also rented videos, and we had access to a room with an overhead video projecter, so it worked.) Point is that even though the physical tape we had rented had copyright protection warnings all over it, we were legally allowed to mass view that copy because we had legal permission to mass veiw "a" copy of that film. Weird.
...will work for Chick tracts...
14 Defendants contended that DeCSS was intended only to permit persons in lawful possession of copyrighted disks to play them for their own use on computers running under the Linux operating system rather than Windows. Tr.
Indeed, they suggested that this is the only possible use of DeCSS and that DeCSS does not permit the user to copy DVDs.
But the arguments are unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions.
Second, even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case.
=============
Fair use does NOT give you the right to circumvent the access controls the copyright owner puts in place - the copyright owner OWNS the work, NOT YOU. You own the physical DVD disk but the copyright owner owns the data on it (movie, audio, whatever). The copyright owner can decide how you are permitted to access this data - it's the copyright owners right to do this. If an author decides you can only have it in hardcover then you are not allowed to reprint it in softcover just cause you want it that way - it's not yours to do with as you please.
Folks - no one is trying to take DVD playback away from Linux, they are just dictating the terms, they have that right. And you have the right to say "screw that" but you do not then have the right to break the law to circumvent them. That's it, that's all. It's not us vs. them. Windows has a DVD player ONLY because someone paid for the right - Linux could too if someone (think IPO million$) would pay for one too.
which could lead to all sorts of new and interesting moderation categories and a lot more bandwidth consumption due to the heavy increase of surfing at -1.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I have a bit of a serious question: is it legal to distribute the file in a form considered to be art?
t ml
:)
I converted the css code to an html file that represents the OpenDVD logo. Take a look and see what you think. I'm not trying to violate the DMCA or anything, I'm just trying to express thoughts through what I consider to be art.
Here it is:
http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/~mastracc/opendvd.h
Thoughts?
æeee!
"...against people publishing the DeCSS source code. His ruling specifically finds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which prohibits the publication of computer programs designed to circumvent copy protection)..."
Key words being "source code" and "computer programs". All the sites that have been hit with the injunction should put up...ahem...something that is not "source code" or a "computer program". It shouldn't be that hard to create a non-source code, non-computer program version of decss! Why hasn't someone done this yet? C'mon, the Linux/OpenSource/Tech culture is smarter than this! Do it!
Lets see...
"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind..."
Somehow I don't think we'll "overcome" this one before we start marching and chain ourselves to the tree^H^H^H^Htanks
Hopefully this is not too Off-Topic, but I'm one of those who immediately put up a mirror for DeCSS and CSS-auth upon learning of the attempts to ban it - without ever thinking about the (il)legal situation... I'm a German, my webhost is in the UK, the servers itself are located in Canada (or the other way round - I keep forgetting). Yesterday I got an e-mail with an attached Word document from egallagher@sargoy.com representing Sargoy, Stein, Rosen & Shapiro. Since IANAL, nor do I have one, I simply took down the mirror since I can't risk to get into trouble because of this (I need my site for other stuff and even if they can't touch myself, I have to make sure my domain and server keep working, wouldn't want police to raid my host or myself). So now that the mirror is down, I hopefully am safe, but was it the right thing to do? Sure, their silly attempts to remove DeCSS will fail, you can always get it from an illegal warez site, but that doesn't matter! What matters is the very fact that I had to remove it, I can't keep a useful utility on my website, it's illegal - so they claim... it shouldn't be, but they say it is, and outside of our knowledgable community nobody gives a damn or understands the issues at stake.
I'm not going to rant about how corporations will control all of our legally purchased properties by encrypting them and controlling access, the real problem I have is that I don't know how to deal with that lawyer letter, and that's probably why they do it: Send it to lots of people and most will act accordingly because they 1) don't understand the complicated legal situation 2) can't risk trouble with authorities 3) will better be safe than sorry - so their plan is apparently working... Unless people are educated about it! Does anyone have advice or links to information that explains this very problem so we can deal with it properly?
Slashdot is a very powerful forum to talk about these things, our greatest strength is information, so we have to spread it (the information) and educate ourselves and others about it!!
-- Eavy (: Linux Is Not UniX
What he is saying is that the current legal DVD players do not allow you to copy DVD's. Did nobody tell him that you can do a bit for bit copy without the DeCSS?
CSS has facilitated enormous growth in the use of DVDs for the distribution of copyrighted movies to consumers.
What he really means is that when they were selling the DVD format to the picture companies, they lied to them and said that CSS would prevent copying. Therefore, armed with CSS the MPAA started producing millions of DVDs. But what about VHS? Don't need a decryption program to watch those, so let's forget about them.
The Motion Picture Association of America ("MPAA'') almost immediately acted under the provisions of the DMCA by demanding that Internet service providers remove DeCSS from their servers and, where the identities of the individuals responsible were known, that those individuals stop posting DeCSS. These efforts succeeded in removing a considerable share of the known postings of DeCSS.
So now ISP's are content providers?
They contend that plaintiffs' posting of DeCSS violates Section 1201(a)(2) of the statute, which prohibits unauthorized offering of products that circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works.
IANAL, however wouldn't purchasing a DVD give you the right to gain access to the DVD?
"[C]ircumvent a technological measure'' is defined to mean descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work, or "otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.''11 The statute explains further that "a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to a work.''12
Again, how is it that purchasing a DVD is not considered the consent of the copyright holder to allow you to view the copyrighted material?
They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this exception therefore is satisfied.20 This contention fails for three reasons.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
If this is true, then the lawyers for the defense really dropped the ball here. Would it really have been that difficult to show DeCSS running on Linux?
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
Is the Judge speaking for those who developed it? How the hell does he know exactly why they developed DeCSS? Because that's what the MPAA said? They didn't develop it, so how could they know? And why didn't the defendants explain why it was developed on Windows first?
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.21 In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply.What about for system interoperability? Doesn't the lack of a DVD player for Linux proove this point?
The dissemination and use of circumvention technologies such as DeCSS would permit anyone to make flawless copies of DVDs at little expense.52 Without effective limits on these technologies, copyright protection in the contents of DVDs would become meaningless and the continued marketing of DVDs impractical. This obviously would discourage artistic progress and undermine the goals of copyright.
The Defense didn't show that copying a DVD using DeCSS would be 1)expensive, 2)DeCSS is not necessary for copying a DVD, 3)and making ONE personal copy for backup purposes is still legal.
I hope that when this goes to trial the Judge and Jury have at least SOME common sense.
I don't read Chinese or understand Cyrillic. That doesn't mean that something written in Mandarin or Russian that I can't understand, is not a protected form of expression or speech!
Now (actually before) is the time to act. We have to take this thing to the Suprime Court just to at least know if it's time for the cyberpunk age, or do we have a little time.
coyo
--------------------------------------------------
It seems the judge's decision is based on the premise that the CSS that was reverse-engineered is a form of copy protection.
I can copy an encrypted ZIP file, a PGP'ed piece of e-mail, an ROT13 usenet message, or anything other encrypted content I want. The encryption does not prevent me copying. The encryption prevents me from VIEWING it.
If CSS were copy protection, I would agree. But CSS is simply NOT COPYPROTECTION.
Someone please inform the media of this.
Greeeeeetings All, I'm organizing a protest for the Pittsburgh/Westmoreland Area. This Friday 6:15pm we will be at the Westmoreland Mall Movie Theater. There will be press, expect articles on Saturday or Sunday. ANyOnE Interested please contact me as soon as possible at 800-580-5078. Thanks and I hope everyone that can will be out this weekend protecting our rights!!!!
while in theory - this wasn't a copyright issue, it was mande into one anyhow. As long as we have 'intellectual property' - problems like this are always going to happen. rulings like this are just 'intellectual property' rights brought to their logical conclusion.
Aside from the number of people in the world surnamed "Lee", there is no larger group around than Slashdotters that own the "Matrix" DVD, right? Let us all write letters asking for RMA numbers to allow us to return it in protest. Write to Warner Home Video, I suppose. CC: your Congresscritter.
Not that we'll get one, but the Slashdot effect over snail mail regarding one of the most popular DVD releases should get some attention.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
I have a concern about this case - I think it's a little more serious than the possibility that the judge is biased or un-knowledgable about the technical issues here - and that is that despite all the enthusiasm and EFF support, the defendants just aren't making a good enough case.
:) From the statement I get the impression that more often than not, the defendants, <b>right or not</b>, are defending their positions poorly - both from a legal standpoint and a purely argumentative one. The judge's statement mentions repeatedly that the defendants failed to support various assertions in their positions - assertions many of us have probably made ourselves, particular, I expect, to a particular segment of computer-enthusiasts - if we agree with the defendants' position, the jusge and plaintiffs seem foolish - after all, how can they not understand that DeCSS is an interoperability tool? But the judge works in terms of law. If the defendants aren't prepared to state their position with a solid legal basis, they'll fail to convince the judge that there's a legal justification for their position, and may fail to convince the judge that the defendants' position is justifiable in any sense at all.
Think about it - the plaintiffs have a lot of money. You know they have five-star lawyers, and they may have even had a certain (limited) amount of sway over the court itself. Needless to say, anyone from the industry who was expecting to speak at any of the hearings has been thoroughly briefed by the legal team - ensuring that everyone on the plaintiff's side tells the same story in the same way, relying on the same legal precedents and avoiding contradiction altogether.
Now, I have no way of knowing if the defendants are really disorganized or poorly represented - but my impressions on this are based on the judge's statements and have gradually built into fears about this case.
Sadly, it's not the judge's responsibility to relate to every subculture's ideas of right and wrong - it wouldn't be practical anyway, and we're a bit egocentric to think that a judge is un-knowledgable about the subject of computers if he/she doesn't agree with us. I'm concerned the defendants just aren't making a good enough case at this point. I really, really hope the defense is gonna wise up, if this is really the problem for them (and us) that I think it is.
It seems as though the defendants need to demonstrate that this <b>is</b> an interoperability issue, <b>why</b> DMCA is a bad thing... support their positions...
I don't relish the idea of losing this one.
---GEC
(If DeCSS is outlawed, only outlaws will have DeCSS)
Bow-ties are cool.
Nerds of the world unite! As long as we allow the lawyers (aristocrats) of the world to exploit us, they will continue to rape us for every penny they can. However, the time has come for every Nerd of the world to go on strike. Just think how long it will take for the entire infratructer to fail? It won't take long for the masses to rally and demand action if they can't get email, check their porn, buy gas, use electricity, make phone calls, or any of the other 1000 mundane tasks they take for granted but would seize to function without our work. It shouldn't take more than two weeks for them to come crawling on their knees and give into any demand if the striking population is large enough.
Now, we can only dream of a world without DMCAs and shrink wrap EULs. But tomorrow it could be a reality.
Quack
The means now in use, Content Scramble System or CSS, is an encryption-based security and authentication system that requires the use of appropriately configured hardware such as a DVD player or a computer DVD drive to decrypt, unscramble and play back, but not copy, motion pictures on DVDs. (emphesis mine)
note: here he seems to understand that CSS decryption is required to play back but not to make copies.
footnote 14:
"Second, even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying,..." note: now he's parrotting the studio lawyers in claiming that DeCSS is being used to make copies.
%DCL-E-OPENIN, error openingDISK$3:[Sjev]LIFE;
-RMS-E-LNF, life not found
From the "Facts" section.
CSS has facilitated enormous growth in the use of DVDs for the distribution of copyrighted movies to consumers
I would like for Judge Kaplan to explain how this opinion can be construed to be a fact. Simply put, consumer demand drives growth, and consumers don't demand a format because of its restrictions. Any statement that the presence of a copy protection scheme "facilitates...growth" is conjecture (and,IMO, completely false).
One more note: In addition to Congress for passing the DMCA, consider the President, who appoints judges that make/overturn/support decisions on these issues.
The DMCA makes certain things illegal, such as circumventing copy protection.
Isn't there some sort of Home Recording Act that allows consumer's to make up to 5 copies or so of whatever media they buy -- so long as they make it for their own use?
I'm no legal expert, Assuming such an act does exist, it would seem that the DMCA steps on the toes of this act. Preventing copying where copying is illegal.
If they don't want it copied for illegal reason, fine. Give us ways to copy it in legal manners for use on systems such as linux and BeOS.
We've all read the discussions of the various points made in the Judge's findings. We've all offered counter arguments to these points. A fair number of us have criticised the EFF lawyers for not defending against those points effectively.
Would it be possible for us to have a SlashDot question session with a lawyer who could speculate on these issues and provide feedback on our defense? Maybe something useful could come from it.
Rob/Hemos, what do you think?
--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
It appears that the ultimate problem here is that the DMCA is inconsistent in its goals. A very relevant portion of the ruling states that:
IOW, the DMCA says that conventional fair use is perfectly acceptable, but that it's illegal to circumvent technological means that prevent fair use. That is not simply inconsistent but positively schizophrenic. Protection of fair use is clearly not worth the paper it's printed on if the copyright owner can legally prevent it through technological means.
This is clearly something that the courts will eventually have to settle, provided that Congress doesn't amend the law first. Unfortunately for the defendants in this case, a District Judge is unlikely to be willing to make a ruling on this matter. This is going to have to be sorted out in the appeals process, and will probably wind up in the Supreme Court eventually (whether in this case or another).
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Just out of curiosity, what would happen if someone took the information used to create DeCSS, and used it in the creation of an unlicensed hardware decoder, and then presented that to the judge? Wouldn't he at that point be faced with the issue of granting the DVD-CCA an explicit, government-sanctioned monopoly on the creation of DVD players (insofar as only those who payed the CSS tax would be allowed to build them)? Why not try and cast things in that light?
I think it's importent to remember that a judge is just a lawyer who wears a robe. A jugde is an elected official, but rarely do people know enough to make a qualified decision about which judge to vote for.
I think all the cards have been played now in this case as far as legal grand standing and media attention. A look at the latest zdnet.com comentery on Linus's remarks about the DVD flap shows that the media either going to a) Sell out or b) report on something that is actually new.
If this is going to work I think a couple things need to happen. First, this needs to be kept in the public light. Tell your friends, organize, let public opinion know that the man is trying to stick it to us. And for christ sake, if you're script kiddie, go home, lock yourself in your room, don't come out until 2001. It's YOUR comments slashdot and 2600 that gave the man the ability to get the injuction.
Second, play the game like the man, don't get played by the man. Don't refer to DeCSS as a "crack", "hack", or any other k001 terms. DeCSS is source code that was created by reverse engineering CSS in order to allow non-supported OS to play DVD's. If I wear to say "IBM reverse Engineered CSS and produced DeCSS to allow AIX systems to play DVD's" there would never be an injunction granted on those merits. Credibility is created by how things are phrased.
Third, there are other channels you can go to. Enough written letters to congressmen asking for oversight on this issue feeds the media and betters the cause. Let them know that your freedom of speech is being steped on and (in the words of Microsoft *snicker*) "The Freedom to Inovate" is being smashed!
And how many times do you want to ignore the Judge pointing out that CSS is an access control system and that access control is protected under the DMCA? The case brought was that under the DMCA, the tool circumvented the access control mechanism. It does. The Judge was also plaing that he understands that bitwise copies may be made but that this is no defence against the access control circumvention charge.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
I actually read through much of the court transcripts trying to figure out how the defense didn't manage to prove any of their points. After reading the transcipts, I see why. The defense was often mis-quoting the statutes that they were trying to invoke, did not realize that they were being sued on something that was not defendable under the fair use act, and were late in filing some of their evidence.
Now I know that the movie industry is spending a lot of money on this whole thing vs. a community that has very little money, but can't with all these new linux ipo companies with all this money burning holes in their pockets, I would think they would try to back the DeCSS folks. RedHat is not taking over the desktop if they can't play DVD.
There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than zombies or vampires anyway.
How about this: instead of passively reporting, joking and complaining come election time, Slashdot could actually get involved in politics. I'm not trying to insert a tone of sarcasm here.
The reality is that to change things, you have to go through the systems. Why don't WE try to become one of those entrenched lobbying groups that at least get the attention of lawmakers? Slashdot could officially endorse candidates running for the US senate and presidency, the same way a newspaper would. We could have an extra section called "politics" or something. Heck, if there's enough IPO money from Andover and cash from that VA merger, it could make campaign contributions.
Anyways, what do you all think?
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
let's examine these plaintiff-supplied "facts" and conclusions. [All <blockquote>s are from Kaplan's memorandum opinion]
This is not a fact, this is an advertisement.
This is not a straight fact this is a distorted fact. DeCSS enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to watch movies on DVDs. CSS is not a disc-copy protection system. It is a disc-use restriction system. This is the prime lie in all this which must be made clear.
And probably successful. Also, what hacker community? Slashdot? 2600 magazine?
The plaintiffs must show that irrepairable harm was done. If they can supply an accurate and valid account of how many DVD discs were permenantly unsold (ie, a condition analagous to stolen) then maybe I'll believe their case.
right
Guilty until proven innocent! Oh, wait, no of course not, that's not what we meant, ... umm...
Unfortunately, the judge here does not seem to be at all sympathetic to the defendents. He seems to have had his mind made up for him by the DVD folks and their shiny new grand imperial status quo.
I that the DMCA must be challenged explicitly, and this case is the right oppurtunity. The DMCA does back up the DVD cartel, wrongly and without sufficient balances to artistic and personal freedom.
My uncle is a copyright lawyer in L.A. We've had many a long, heated conversation late at night over issues like this (and let me tell you, it's fsckin HARD to argue with a lawyer!) Free software people; hip hop, (some) techno, dj/remix music, and other sampled music people; people who are used to free information (software, mp3's, for examplee) are not convinced fully of the necesity and benefit of copyright law. Copyright law rarely protects artists, it usually protects distributors, owners, managers, (the MPAA), and now, makers of hardware. This is something wich is and must be challenged and reconsidered. This is one of the more radical threads of the cyber (permit me) explosion; this is our revolution.
enough soapboxing. stop reading this. go back to work. pull your share of capitalism. because we said so. do it!
VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org
Quote from the ruling:
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that--- "(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; "(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or "(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10Now, it occurs to me that if the promoters of DeCSS had emphasized their intent *only* to permit DVD play on Linux, and had posted disclaimers that the software should not be used for the purpose of violating copyright, they would have a pretty good case.
But that's not what happened. Instead they all bragged about beating the system. As a result of that, they have no case.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Perhaps this has been covered in another thread somewhere, but with little doubt, the DVD CCA is attempting to hold a monopoly on content distribution on DVDs. Wouldn't it be possible to file a lawsuit against the DVD CCA to this affect given that enforcement of a monopoly is illegal regardless of what the DMCA states?
Titanic, a huge movie which made lots of money, used Linux as a platform to generate it's special effects. Does anyone here have connections with anyone involved in that? Disney uses SGI, and SGI is Linux friendly. There are people making movies who know what Linux is.
Can anyone with connections with people inside movie studios find a sympathetic ear, someone who would be willing to champion the idea that we want to be able to play legally purchased DVD movies under Linux? Put any rhetoric on the shelf for a couple of minutes and just make the point to them that we want to have free software to play the movies. We want to be their customers.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
- Judge Kaplan concludes that the fact that DeCSS runs under Windows means that DeCSS was not primarily developed for use under Linux. This is clearly untrue, and showing Judge Kaplan that it's untrue could win the case for the good guys by itself.
- Judge Kaplan repeatedly, and incorrectly, assumes that DeCSS is about copying DVDs (this is crucial to his "balance" argument). As we all know, this is false both because DeCSS is intended for playing DVDs rather than for copying them, and because, in any event, you can copy DVDs with or without DeCSS for the same reason that you can copy a Chinese book even if you don't know the language.
These are independent of any First Amendment arguments (such as the effective abrogation of fair use) that have been considered by other posters. Reading through the decision carefully, I think it's clear that Judge Kaplan is not an idiot. But he is mistaken about some vital aspects of this case, and I hope he'll discover that for himself before issuing his verdict.It's also easy to see that the plaintiffs' tactic of rushing the defense helped the plaintiffs tremendously; the defendants obviously had little time to marshal evidence or to prepare their arguments. But at least Judge Kaplan seems to remain open to later proof, which should give us some hope.
Finally, it's clear from reading his ruling that our behavior affects some of Judge Kaplan's opinions in this case, such as his opinion of whether DeCSS is mainly intended to facilitate illegal copying. This is understandable -- but unfortunately, it means that the minority of jerks who crow about copying DVDs are helping to ruin things for the majority of us, who only want to give the plaintiffs money in exchange for a DVD we can play on our Linux boxes.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
Firstly, it most certainly is not the only way to pirate DVDs, but, as at least one pirate admitted, it certainly is the easiest. However, the judge's wording implies that this is DeCSS's only purpose. He further states that no evidence to the contrary (that DeCSS is used for linux-interoperability) has been presented. I'd like to know why not. Did the defense really think the judge would take their word for it? Where was the laptop running linux that couldn't play DVDs until software based on DeCSS was installed?
This makes it painfully obvious that the judge has no understanding of the Open Source movement. Of course there is no commercially signigicant purpose; who's going to pay for OSS when it is freely (speech AND beer) available? Besides, the primary intent of DeCSS (unless you believe the judge) is to allow viewing DVDs that have already been bought under linux.
But wait, the judge doesn't buy the whole linux argument in the first place:
[A]ssuming that DeCSS runs under Linux...??? Where has this guy been??? Oh, wait, I bet he doesn't read SlashDot, does he? Anyway, if the defense had done its job, there would be no assuming this or that about DeCSS and Linux. Secondly, he completely misses the point about programs "running" under operating systems. It's computer code. Download it, compile it, and *poof* it runs on your computer. (The complete lack of proprietary MicroSoft foundation classes, libraries and 'extensions' of standards might be a clue that it was developed in a *nix environment!) Finally, where does he get off deciding what was going through the head of the anonymous German hacker who actually wrote the program? How does he know the intent with which the program was developed? Sure, some people may use the program for illegal gains, but that isn't what the judge is apparently concerned about here. Apparently, I can claim that I developed something with one purpose in mind, but if someone else finds a malicious use for it, that is somehow my fault. I think not! Otherwise, gun and/or bullet manufacturers would be held accountable for every firearms-related homicide.
Finally, I think the judge misses the point in the paragraph in which he quotes the following from the DMCA:
This statement specifically refers to reverse engineering computer codes that have been legally obtained. The point of the matter is that it is not clear whether it was an encryption algorithm that was reverse engineered or if the algorithm was discovered by "hacking" the Xing encoder. Maybe this point wasn't made clear enough in the hearing. (I won't even go into the argument about the legal status of click-through licenses. Suffice it to say that I've never read through one... I'll just make this point: how does paragraph reconcile with licenses explicitly forbidding reverse engineering? Which right trumps the other?)
Overall, from the judge's repudiation of the defendants' claims, it is clear that 1) the judge knows little about technology and 2) the defense did little in the courtroom to back up their assertions. Since this was merely the issuance of preliminary injunction, there will be further opportunities to back up the claims of the defense. I just hope they are more prepared then than they were last month.
Of course, having more than one weekend notice might help matters a bit...
Eric
Now, from an engineer's point of view this is the first step toward creating a viewing program, but from the POV of the MPA it's a copy program. It's hard for a lot of people to see it any other way, since that's exactly what it's doing.
While I cannot agree with the judge that this makes copying DVDs inexpensive (it costs a lot more for storage for the copy than it does to buy an original), all of the other points seem pretty well founded in fact and/or in law. DeCSS looks to be precisely the kind of thing that CDMA is designed to prevent.
This does not, however, mean that it's necessarily illegal to produce a DVD viewer for Linux without the permission of the MPA et al. Rather, it means that you need to produce software that does not have an data output function and can therefore not be seen to have any intent to circumvent copy protection (i.e. it cannot copy the work).
Splicing the decryption code of DeCSS into an MPEG viewer, and providing no option to emit decrypted data, would effectively circumvent the argument that it has any intent to defeat copyright protection. Furthermore, the application should clearly fall under fair use doctrine.
All told, the plaintiffs have a really strong case that DeCSS violates CDMA. I'd be astounded if they lost, although it will be something of a hollow victory since the program is already widely disseminated and they cannot control dissemination worldwide.
But this is neither here nor there, because DeCSS doesn't really give me the ability to watch DVDs under Linux. It's just the first baby step. So why don't we focus our energies on producing a real viewer rather than disseminating DeCSS?
jim frost
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0121-tra ns.txt The defense is unfortunately quite weak, and comes off as quite disorganized.
Let us ignore, for the purpose of this discussion, the unseemly haste in which this judge rushed the issue through his court before the defense lawyers could prepare a rebuttal, so reminiscent of one a them old-time Surn judges gettin that n----r boy convicted n hanged afore them damn Yankee NAACP basterds can even make it to town. Let us also ignore the judge's amazing, deliberate ignorance of the simplest technical facts about the issue, and his parroting of recording industry complaints that are based on pure naked fiction (specifically I am referring to his assertion, apparantly copied verbatim from the plaintiff's brief, that the primary purpose of DeCSS "clearly" is illegal copying, rather than playback). Let's just discuss your statement:
> You own the physical DVD disk but the copyright owner owns the data
> on it (movie, audio, whatever). The copyright owner can decide how you
> are permitted to access this data - it's the copyright owners right to do this.
By that logic a record company can make it illegal for me to take one of my music CDs and from it make a tape recording to play in my car. But there are firm precedents that interpret this action as "fair use." So if this judge's novel interpretation of copyright law and the concept of "fair use" is correct, then all the established precedents go out the window.
I would like to argue that these established precedents concerning the scope of "fair use" should not be overthrown as abruptly and arbitrarily as that.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
>This small side note, if legally correct,
>changes the whole playing field. If CSS is not
>to be considered copy protection but rather
>access control, then DeCSS is illegal simply
>because it avoids the need to pay license fees
>for a reader, notwithstanding any argument about
>potential redistribution of the original
>material.
Actually the DMCA is very clear on this. Cracking for the purpose of interoperability is fine. No Linux player, it was cracked to create a player on Linux. I would love the see the DVD CCA try this legal argument.
Les Weinmunson
Hmm.. I like it. (-;
Ok, what if we took the source, and encoded it with a scheme SIMILAR to CSS. THEN distributed it widely witout keys, making sure that it's true nature (the source) is well known.
The source is intellectual property. If the MPAA's hired goons want to prove that the source is contained withing this stream of encrypted characters, they would have to violate the DMCA in order to get inside.
What do we think?
This is probably posted too late to get moderated up, but hopefully someone with some insight will see it way down here. (-;
If the MPAA has states and proved to a judge that the CSS system is designed for access control, rather than antipiracy, we need to inform people of this.
Together, we've managed to kill DIVX. DIVX, though, was just a more obvious evil compared to CSS and player licencing. Should you pay to watch a movie? Should the money you spend on a player go towards licencing fees?
I don't think it should. If you buy a copy of something that can be duplicated inexpensively and perfectly, it does not mean you have to start licencing it. Just make it against the law to copy it for purposes other than fair use. Indeed, the law supports this.
So why would the MPAA want player control? Why is it neccessary?
It is neccessary because it is just another step towards marginalising the fair usage of things you paid for. DIVX was an offshoot of this, and so is CSS. Show your disgust by NOT buying DVDs or their players. If enough of us stand up for our rights, we'll be able to keep them.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Read the judge's briefing. The supreme court has made it clear _many_ times that copyright infringement is not protected speech - and that includes creating a program who's sole purpose is technology circumvention.
WHAT may be challengable:
- The part of the DCMA not yet enacted: it makes it a felony to circumvent protection schemes, with exception for research purposes (subject to review by the Library of Congress). It could be seen that this is too much of a limit on freedom. Realistically, I have my doubts - what good comes of circumvention? Yes, Linux DVD players, but that brings me to my second point:
- The Reverse Engineering exception of the DCMA is only relevant to software.. Well, it's quite a fine line to distinguish between software & encryption schemes. I think DeCSS *should* fall under this section of the law.
-Stu
Source code isn't a valid form of speech that needs to be protected, sure some of us can read it (although the code I've seen to DeCSS sucked ass, have those people ever heard of indentation?). But others cannot.
So free speech should only apply to material which is of universal interest and accessible to everyone?
It's always been framed as an 'us vs. them' situation
I think it goes both ways -- that the corporations have adopted at least as much of an confrontational "us vs. them" attitude as anyone. I think that point got hammered home pretty dramatically when police raided Jon Johanson's home.
The judge in this ruling may well be correct in maintaining that DeCSS is in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. To me, though, there's a larger issue; that the industry is becoming dangerously greedy and irresponsible in its actions. Just because they have been successful in convincing the US (and other) governments to do their dirty work does not make their actions moral or correct.
How can we consider ourselves the most advanced country if we allow stuff like this to happen? It would seem to me that having the source out there we would better be able to come up with new faster. Because of the limitations of the FCC we aren't allowed all the cool gizmos Japan gets.
The requirement of immediate and irreparable injury is satisfied in this case. Copyright infringement is presumed to give rise to such harm. In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants have infringed their copyrights, but rather that defendants offer technology that circumvents their copyright protection system and thus facilitates infringement. For purposes of the irreparable injury inquiry, this is a distinction
without a difference. If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing directly. Moreover, just as in the case of direct copyright infringement, the extent of the harm plaintiffs will suffer as a result of defendants' alleged activities cannot readily be measured, suggesting that the injury
truly would be irreparable. </I>
Just because I own a gun, does this mean I shot someone?
Come on, judge...
Of course, this changes nothing. You can't turn back the clock, you can't rebuild the dam once it crumbles. People still offer the files up, and that's all there is to it.
Now, I want to see someone build a Linux DVD player, and let the MPAA try to nail them over THAT. Admittedly, the injunction states in one of the footnotes that it wouldn't matter, but still, I'd like to see them try. So where the fully functional Linux DVD player? Use the DeCSS code, it won't matter.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this exception therefore is satisfied. This contention fails for three reasons.
...
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose" of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
huh?
So, since DeCSS runs on windows, it doesn't allow interoperability between DVD and Linux, even if DeCSS runs under Linux? I don't get it.
Does the judge know that DeCSS is a portable, cross-platform tool, and not a Windows app?
See that "Preview" button?
Small mistake there because of the requirement that CSS be an effective means of access control to copyrighted works. It could be argued that CSS is totally ineffective since there are numerous ways for copies to be made without the authors permission that have been discussed here by various parties.
Now the judges ruling was likely fair and sane because of the poor arguments of the EFF lawyers. They needed a much more detailed argument for the reverse engineering exception. They also needed a much more detailed argument for the fact that CSS is not an effective means of access control. This should come about during the trial phase.
Dastardly
by Justin Osborn
To the tune of: Back in the USSR by the Beatles
Reverse engineering that DVD
Hacking out the code last night
The cops came in and arrested me
Said I didn't have the right
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boy
Sued by the MPAA
Posted the source on my web page
They told me to cease and desist
The Slashdotters are so enraged
They won't stop 'til this case is dismissed
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boy
Sued by the MPAA
Well the MP double A is slow no doubt.
They're obviously out of their minds.
And John Valenti makes me pull my hair out
He's technologically blind
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boys
Sued by the MPAA
You can't get no DVD on your Linux box
It's ludicrous can't you see
They want you to pay them the big bucks
I deenctrypted for free
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boys
Sued by the MPAA
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
My problem with this is, in this particular instance, the motion picture industry is exerting pressures on the largely unrelated computer industry by attempting to dictate where their DVD technology can be effectively applied. Linux and others are being effectively snubbed over Windows, etc., not because of technical merit, but because of an attempt to maximize monetary gain on the part of the DCAA.
A plan worthy of the best strategist at M$!
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Code most certainly IS a form of expression, as evidenced by both the existance of perl poetry and the infamous Obfuscated C Code Contest! If it's not a form of expression, then why are people expressing their artistic (or simple masochstics) sides using it? Not to mention the terms in use like 'elegant' code...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Is it possible to do the same with the source code?
Granted I'm not a programmer - I haven't a clue if the code is 4 lines or a million, but can it be done?
Malk-a-mite
You make a number of errors in your assertions:
Yes, the constitution does refer to economic interest in Section 8, Clause 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; "
That basically means 'limit freedom of copy for economic incentive, for the good of society'.
Furthermore: Yes, the DCMA has been finalized into law, except for a couple of portions. Namely, it is NOT yet a felony to actually circumvent technology, but it IS a felony to create a product whose sole purpose is circumvention.
- DeCSS can be used to pirate disks. There are MANY players available for Windows and (and to a lesser extent) Macintosh that allow the playing of unencrypted movies. Hint: buy any low-budget porn DVD, and I guarantee you it's not encrypted.
- DeCSS is not competition because it was released seperately from a "DVD player", and was also ported to platforms that already had plenty of players. Sorry, the authors goofed when they ported it to Windows.
This is all not to say that the DCMA sucks & trumps "fair use" law, but it is to say that, unless portions of the DCMA are modified, our DeCSS friends are screwed.
-Stu
I charge someone, anyone, who can do it to submit to the next obfuscated c code contest (www.ioccc.org) a rewrite of the software in the shape of a nice pretty picture. Then it could be protected under our stupid copyright laws. Course, that would be a supreme bitch to maintain!!
VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org
Of course you know this and of course you don't give a fuck, but agent X can't provide you with a license for item Y if item Y isn't the property of agent X.
The defense needs to prove, with evidence, that DeCSS does not facilitate piracy of DVDs. This should be pretty easy to do.
First, set up a computer with a DVD burner and DeCSS. Also provide a DVD player in a sealed box.
Use DeCSS to decrypt the movie of your choice, I suggest Inherit the Wind.
Make a DVD from the resulting files.
Insert the copied DVD into the player, which will refuse to recognize it.
Now, for the clincher. Hook up a second PC, connected to the first by a serial cable. Set the speed to 56k (a typical connection speed).
Copy the files to the machine. Be sure to put up a progress bar, preferably with a reasonably accurate "time remaining" counter.
This little demonstration would prove that DeCSS does not promote piracy either in the form of bootleg DVDs or electronic copying over the Internet, effectively refuting large parts of the plaintiff's case.
The remaining issue is more difficult. The defense must prove that CSS does not prevent illegal copying. I would suggest getting a real pirated DVD (someone once mentioned that they are available in Hong Kong?), and prove that it was not made by decrypting the contents of a legitimate DVD. I would suggest getting clearance from the court before trying to obtain the contraband DVD.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
I'm fairly certain that this judge's idiotic decision will be promptly overturned.
There's absolutely no basis to challange this decision on appeal. This is just a preliminary ruling. One based on no evidence from the defense. The defense will have an opportunity to present a case with evidence and withnesses.
Furthermore, the EFF has been given a big whack with the cluestick on where to take this case. In reading the judgement, there is definately room to convince this judge of the merits of our case.
A friend of mine who works for the Federal Court system tells me that Judge Kaplan is one of the technically savvy judges in the district. Furthermore, he also tends toward the little guy.
Don't get me wrong, but there is enough wiggle room in this decision for the EFF to put up a good defense and get it past this Judge. If necessary, there is time later to discuss these same issues again in appeal.
This case will be heard.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Isn't it amazing how precisely the actions of the DVD CCA match the will of Windows-pushing Microsoft?
What the judge seems to be saying about the DMCA is this:
If a device is created for unauthorized *copying*, that's okay as long as there is ANY other legitimate use for it. (This, I believe, is how the Rio case was won.)
BUT...
If a device is created for unauthorized *access*, that's not okay EVEN IF there are other legitimate uses for it!
It seems like those who (thankfully) inserted the reverse-engineering, fair use, and interoperability exceptions into DMCA didn't cover all the bases.
Of course, I (or the judge) could be wrong about what DMCA says.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Given how suprisingly clueless the courts are, couldn't someone
simply implement the algoritm from scratch again? It'd do the same thing,
but it "wouldn't be DeCSS". It would be a shame to have to
descend down to the mentality of these illiterate morons, but
apparently this is the game we have to play. Despite how it seems,
we're THE PUBLIC. When we're doing something that is THE RIGHT THING,
and our court system fails...something has to give. What ever happened to people
being in control of their country? THE PEOPLE. We're in the right on this!
This shit pisses me off. This case PROVES the courts are incapable of dealing with
modern technology (i.e. anything after 1970, apparently). Something has to be done...
-- www.bteg.com | bleh.n3.net | hac47.dhs.org
The real trouble is that the DMCA sets down rules concerning intellectual property -- a field in which the threshold of "theft" is low because ideas and words can be so easy to appropriate -- but is drafted with the mindset of physical property law -- in which people are allowed to set very particular conditions ("no reverse engineering!" "home use only!") on the sale of an item.
So, yes, the violation of intellectual property traditions is pretty blatant, but there is plenty of precedent in other branches of law for what just happened.
The real place that this fight should be taking place is in the legislatures and at the law-making courts (not the law-interpreting ones that have to go according to established precedent), where we need to make the case that yes, we feel very strongly that intellectual property traditions are the ones that should be used in the new media world, not the contract law traditions that are bound up with physical objects and literal interpretations.
Actually to make a differentiation on this... DeCSS, if you look at it in its distributed binary format, is NOT in effect a "program" which even allows viewing of DVDs. Its compiliation under Windows does not render object file for user execution, rather it renders DLL files.
Yes, that's right. Library files. Though they can be used in Windows, let's see them "double-click" and execute them without aid from an external program.
But,I digress.
Parting shot: the whole discussion here has proved that Kaplan is either incompetent or on the take. There are no other explanations.
----------------
Overheard: "Aww, why'd you go and install Windows on a perfectly good machine?"
It's clear that this judge believes that unauthorized DVD players are illegal under the DMCA, period.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
The scene you describe is from Ferris Bueller's Day Off (the password was "pencil", IIRC) and not from Wargames. Both starred Matthew Broderick and both are great films, but let's not confuse them.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
What about a day where everyone goes to the federal courthouse and files a lawsuit? That would get some attention...
I would also recommend boycotting the MPAA in whatever capacity you can. As an avid Movie buff, my boycott will result in some significant amount of money that will stay in my pocket rather than lining those of the MPAA. As this battle wears on, I pledge to contribute half of that saved money to those on the front lines of the fight.
No rest until the DMCA is overturned!!!
XML causes global warming.
What's wrong with the use of "hack" in that sentence? Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see in that phrase. It's also interesting that nobody has pointed out the dod speed ripper that seems to have been somewhat simultaneous with the release of MoRE DeCSS. I wonder which one came first. I'm pretty sure I saw dodsrip out there before Oct 99, but I may not be recalling correctly.
Would someone mind mirroring 2600 or at least the news piece please? My f/w gestapo doesn't seem to like me going there....
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
IANAL, but as I see it, the argument is not whether DeCSS is speech or not. It's not whether the DMCA is unconstitutional or not. It's whether DeCSS is circumventing copy protection.
DeCSS is not really copy protection as anyone can still copy a DVD without the use of DeCSS. This wont be hard to prove in court for some good lawyers. DeCSS (in this case) is PLAY protection, designed to prevent you from playing a DVD, not from copying it.
The counter-argument to this, (as I see it) is that DeCSS can be used to obtain the video streams of a DVD, and then those streams can be republished, this is copyright infringement, and in this case CSS is being used as copy protection so DeCSS is defeating it. In this case CSS is being used as THEFT protection, and DeCSS is defeating the protection.
What needs to be made clear is that protecting against unlawful copying (illegal, but DeCSS has nothing to do with it), protecting against theft (illegal, CSS protects against theft so DeCSS defeats it) and protecting legal copying (fair use, a legal use of DeCSS), are three separate issues that need to be addressed. The DMCA is unequipped to address this as the same software used to secure fair use is the software used to conduct theft.
-Rich
Just because you can't see the zebra in this painting doesn't mean it's there. And if you think obfuscated code is linenoise, you should listen to Michael Gordon or some of his comrades in arms (which isn't to say I don't like Michael Gordon).
Once you let the government distinguish between types of speech based on content, there's no going back.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
You made my point better than I could make it.
If I were a defendent, I'd demand that the plaintiffs perform a demonstration of how DeCSS makes piracy possible.
It might not help me legally though.
Reading the opinion, I kind of get the feeling that the piracy is more of a PR smokescreen than anything else. Oh, there's the usual throwing of legal gunk against the wall to see what will stick. But the key question is whether, under DMCA, creating a program that defeats a technical copy protection scheme and/or redistributing such a program is illegal even if defeating the technical copy protection measures is useless for making infringing copies.
If the plaintiffs win, it will establish the legal principle that you can infringe on the rights of copyright holders without making any unauthorized copies of protected materials or doing anything which helps anybody else to make unauthorized copies.
I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but some legal points are so peculiar, it is an affront to justice to expect people to understand them. It is especially unjust, because this is an abuse of a law on the part of the plaintiffs. The DMCA at last purportedl is supposed to provide strong protections against copyright infringement, but the plaintiffs are using it not to prevent illegal copying, but to segment the international market and to charge higher prices to some segments for the exact same product.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1) "Concerned about this risk [of lossless copying], motion picture companies, including plaintiffs, insisted upon the development of an access control and copy prevention system to inhibit the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of motion pictures before they released films in the DVD format."
Here he gets it wrong. CSS does NOT inhibit the unauthorised reproduction of motion pictures.
2) "The means now in use, Content Scramble System or CSS, is an encryption-based security and authentication system that requires the use of appropriately configured hardware such as a DVD player or a computer DVD drive to decrypt, unscramble and play back, but not copy, motion pictures on DVDs." (emphasis mine)
And here he gets this part correct. Weird.
3) "CSS has facilitated enormous growth in the use of DVDs for the distribution of copyrighted movies to consumers."
This is just silly.
4) "...an individual or group, ... managed to "hack'' CSS and began offering, via the Internet, a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies."
Once again, this is plain wrong. Calling CSS a copy protection system is incorrect.
5) A phrase that's used repeatedly in the DMCA, "...that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]"
and later on...
"even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
This is scary, because it means that controlling playback (part of 'access to') is a legal right of copyright holders. Based on this, the judgement will be hard to overturn.
6) "First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions."
OK, the judge sounds like an asshole but he has a fair point. Did the defendants expect to win over the judge by explaining things to him? Did they not have real lawyers there to present real evidence? (eg. the complete list of licensed DVD players)
Finally, the biggie:
7) "They contend that DeCSS is necessary to achieve interoperability between computers running on the Linux system and DVDs and that this exception therefore is satisfied. This contention fails for three reasons.
First, defendants have offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Second, even assuming that DeCSS runs under Linux, it concededly runs under Windows---a far more widely used operating system---as well. It therefore cannot reasonably be said that DeCSS was developed "for the sole purpose'' of achieving interoperability between Linux and DVDs.
Finally, and most important, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies. In consequence, the reverse engineering exception does not apply."
First of all, if we're going to court over this, let's do it right--PREPARE YOUR EVIDENCE!
The second point is hogwash. DeCSS is portable code! Of COURSE it compiles under Windows! This fact does not dilute or negate the intent (to watch movies under Linux), no matter what the Judge says.
Finally, what the hell does he think these, "technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works" are? THEY'RE COMPUTER PROGRAMS!!!
OK, back to the list...
8) "There is no evidence that any of them is engaged in encryption research, let alone good faith encryption research. It appears that DeCSS is being distributed in a manner specifically intended to facilitate copyright infringement."
Right on the first point, and wrong on the second. DeCSS does not substantially facilitate copyright infringement. Nor will it, even when DVD-RAM blanks (and burners) get to be dirt cheap. It's simply not the point of the code.
The rest seems to be longish summary sorts of stuff. Still, the judge seems to be far enough out to lunch that this will DEFINITELY go to appeals.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Exactly how is DeCSS an "interoperablity tool"? This isn't a matter of disassmbling MS Word so StarOffice can read/write Office 2000 files.
When will people realize law is not about right and wrong, or good and bad. It's simply the law. This isn't about copyright violation(s); it's a matter of violating the terms of the DMCA by facilitating copyright violations.
I can't be the only one who, when a few minutes ago tried to read this page at -1 flat mode, got immediately forwarded to http://randall.8k.com/oldindex.html, as the counter said 304 people hit it when I last visited.
:(
Someone abusing the comments by inserting script code?
Anonymous Cowards are killing Slashdot. Seriously.. even the incredible # of moderators aren't enough to keep up now. Ban Anonymous Cowards, but give users the ability to still post anon as long as they login.
BilldaCat
If copywrite law says that we are allowed to make backup copies, and they (MPAA, DMCA) are saying that we are not allowed to make copies at all. Seems contradictory to me.
This isn't even about piracy though, and the judge knows it, even if no one else here at slashdot does.
http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-mo.htm
When the plaintiff lawyers are arguing, they are not singling out piracy as the problem. They simple state that DeCSS allows access to the disc. They then go on to say that this means that one could play the movie or trade it/copy it with friends. Piracy isn't even the first use suggested by the plaintiff's lawyer. The argument is simply that DeCSS allows access to the underlying data, which it does.
My impression, and it is only an impression, is that the defense lawyers suck/are unprepared.
A group of us has been considering either lobbying various small/poor countries to set us up as a non-profit body that controls bandwidth issues as well as intellectual property issues for the country with total control over all such issues. For allowing us to make their country into a data haven they would get a percentage of the profits from us leasing the bandwidth to various organizations for net servers etc as well as the fact they'd be pushed into the information economy. For anyone who has watched small or 3rd world countries the past few years there has been a trend where they are trying to jump right over industrial into information. Singapore and Malaysia would be good examples. Look at all the countries who just let any shmuck company control their tld's! We get what we want which is freedom and they get what they want which is power and prosperity. If that couldn't be arranged we've considered the possibility of a floating data haven if we could buy an old aircraft carrier or something like that and set it up as a huge network serving platform out in international waters. By creating such a data haven we'd 1. make it so we were sure to have access to the data and 2. apply pressure to various governments around the world to lossen their laws. Look at how the U.S. is finally starting to allow encryption export, largely because so many foreign firms already had that freedom and American firms were suffering.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I think Dr. Zowie has hit the nail on the head. From what I can tell from the ruling, the issue with DMCA has nothing to do with copyright, it's about access.
Apparently when I purchase a DVD, I'm not purchasing a license to view the movie on the DVD. I've purchased the right to view the movie by playing the DVD _on a player licensed by the DVD CCA_.
So if I don't happen to own a licensed player (e.g. because there isn't one for Linux or BeOS or DOS or whatever) I'm out of luck, I shouldn't have bought the disc.
Hmm, Isn't DeCSS just a win32 binary, with no source?
If so, they can go right ahead and attempt to "ban" it because we still have the CSS-auth source, which is the important part, as well as the work that's going into LiVid.
Maybe we should let the whole DeCSS thing fall, then get rid of it, and just mirror the css-auth code? Since that's whats going to be used to make a Linux DVD player, right?
Thoughts?
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Why should someone be able to produce a product and not pay the licensing fee, when other companies (Xing, etc) have paid the fee? That is what this is all about. Circumventing the system to get what people want without paying for it.
The judge should most definitely have granted an extension. This looks a lot like a set of SLAPP lawsuits. The MPAA/DVDCCA are trying to push this through so fast that the judge won't even consider the consequences. Hell, they can't even wait for the damn DMCA to be finalized!
The DeCSS program is designed for DECRYPTION. Not copying, and somehow the lawyers for the EFF need to get that through to the judge.
The fact that DeCSS is intended to be used in Windows seems to have thrown the judge. It looks like this is want convinced him that the program was for copying purposes. If the program only ran under Linux, he'd have been more likely to see it our way. As it is, I get the impression that the judge thinks that the Linux community is a bunch of pirates trying to pull a fast one.
This is for the judges benefit (like he'll be reading Slashdot:):
Hopefully, our side will be given a chance to be heard, and this case will be tossed on the trash heap where it belongs. If not, I guess we'll have to look to China to protect our freedom - I doubt they'll knuckle under to American interests. A dark thought indeed ...
As a closing comment, I think I've developed an opinion on software as speech vs software as product. In my opinion, software source code (and therefore opensource software) are examples of speech, and should have copyright protections. Binary software is, in my opinion, a product. It should therefore have the same protections as any machine - including no protection from reverse engineering.
See, I can be logical and an Open Source Bigot at the same time :)
In my opinion, the discussion currently going on in the LiVid mailing list at the moment has the more practical solution to the Linux DVD-playing problem: Linux Mpeg-2 players can still be developed (there is nothing illegal about them) - and DeCSS can be distributed as a binary-only plugin to these players.
Using this method, the developers of Linux DVD players are not putting themselves at risk - and furthermore the DeCSS plugins can be developed off-shore (not a very hard task, DeCSS didn't come from the US anyways).
As for the actual use of the DeCSS program in any form being illegal soon, everyone who has never jay-walked - raise their hands.
"It is obvious that book covers are there to protect its content from being read without a licence," commented Judge Corp. "
<sarcasm on>
Come on, you have to understand the judge's perspective: that because books have now been hacked, anybody can just lift the cover and are then free to COPY THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK AT WILL!!! This is totally unacceptable!
Of course, you'd still need a pen or a copy machine to copy the book once the cover has been flipped but that's irrelevent! Whomever came up with that flipping hack certainly deserves to be arrested --and the authorities should confiscate his cellphone too, just for the heck of it--.
</sarcasm>
I just spent 40 minutes reading the court document in question. What I am seeing is the failure of the defense to effectively come up with a compelling argument. From what I can see here the Defense has submited little or no evidence to support their argument.
They better come up with something good when the actual trial starts or they will lose. It's been pointed out more that once that the Denfense is going about defending this case all wrong. I tend to agree.
Someone get those guys better lawyers!!
Now free speech arguements *could* be used if cryptome.org is ever required to remove its copy of DeCSS (which is there because of more stupidity by movie lawyers) because it is the free sharing of a legal document obtained thru the Freedom of Infomation act. (Not the source code to a program.)
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
And I don't think I've ever seen a remark as utterly clueless about the nature of software as this one:
Somehow the meaning of "interoperable" and "portable" never got into Kaplan's grasp. Maybe the words have, but the meaning eludes him. Until he is educated, he's going to be extremely dangerous to people who are doing nothing more than trying to use what they've paid for.--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The Current Situation
The judge is not clueless, and the lawyers from DVD CAA are not liars -- In this case we (the open source community) simply blew it by not figuring out how to deploy the resources to defend ourselves.
Brief credentials statement: I Am Not A Lawyer, Nor Do I Play One On Television; but I was a courts/copshop reporter for several years in the 1980's and have the general knowledge of copyright/IP that a journalist and a programmer picks up.
Read the transcript of the hearing, then the decision. The defendants and their lawyers were given nearly a week's notice of the hearing and arrived badly organized and with little if any evidence. As Judge Levin noted (by my count) eight different times in his decision, defendants presented no evidence to back up their arguments, while the plaintiffs (DVD CAA) had lots, including, IIRC, the transcripts of discussions here on Slashdot. The defense was just not ready to do the job. Two thirds of the legal staff there was from EFF in one form or another, but from the transcript it looks like they had not been able to spend a lot of time on the specific case ahead of time -- Judge Levin found (for good reason in some cases) a number of their arguments irrelevant to what he had to decide.
In reaching the decision, Judge Levin pointed out real weak points in the defence case. The core problem is the "reverse engineering" argument that gets used around here a lot. Here's the relevant portion of the opinion:
Pretty devastating, legally. They really didn't present any evidence to support their arguments, but the defendants lawyers did apparently admit that DeCSS worked on Windows as well (is this true?) so is not exclusive to Linux (so much for it being just for playing DVDs on Linux), and the reverse engineering exemption is explicitly not applicable here.
Our Goals
Do we want to get a Linux DVD player, or do we want to get rid of or modify the new copyright law? These are two different goals, with two different sets of actions to carry them out. As others have pointed out, if all we want is Linux DVD, then it is probably only a matter of money -- sombody call Larry at VALinux.
Action
If you want to change the law, learn and use the tools that are needed to do the job.
Groups of people get the law changed all the time -- but it takes attention to detail, advanced social skills, persistence, and some money. We can do it if we really want to.
When will people realize law is not about right and wrong, or good and bad. It's simply the law.
You know what? This is the sort of thinking that is leading us all down the path to George Orwell's 1984. Just because a bunch of corrupt suits got a slight majority of drooling idiots to vote for him/her does NOT make them right. There are many laws that I disagree with, and you know what? Its not right to just shrug and say "The law is the law" - if something is wrong, we have the right and obligation as CITIZENS of this nation to make it right.
In the USA, most such source code is written in the English language, not the C language. Would the judge say that English text is not free speech either? Because someone might invent a tool that translates C source code to English text...
In fact, such tools already exist. They could stand some improvement (if you're a programmer, consider this an invitation!).
One tool that converts C code to English text (and back) is described here. And this is an example text document corresponding to source code for a real program.
P.S. Some people have posted things like "stupid judge". I don't think that he is particularly stupid; he wrote lots of nice long words into his opinion. I think he was merely reading verbatim the script the plaintiffs gave him.
The Autonomous Cow. Moo.
What is the EFF doing? They are representing defendants in the DVD-CCA case in California and are involved in a similar case in New York. They are making relevant information accessible and available on the internet. This is nothing new. The EFF has a history of protecting online civil liberties in the United States since 1990.
On a personal note, I don't own a single DVD title. However, I'll defend with my EFF membership dues your "fair use" to do with your property as you please. Our readers outside the USA may be asking themselves what any of this means to them. Answer: The U.S. government's legal stance on electronic civil liberties translates into the building blocks and infrastructure of the technology and products you buy today, and what you will buy tomorrow. -Regardless of whether you are buying a product manufactured in America and sold in Japan, or something manufactured in Botswana and sold in the USA.
There are some parties who believe that free speech is less important than poorly designed "protection" schemes which are geared more towards a tight coupling of product and means of utilizing it, than protecting the consumers ability to make "fair use" of the copyrighted materials they've purchased. Indeed one could venture to guess that circumventing the "fair use" of copyrighted materials is the very right they hold more dear than free speech.
If you do decide to join the EFF, when you do so, send a note stating why you joined to membership@eff.org to let them know why you joined.
[Disclaimer: I don't work for, represent, or receive any compensation from the EFF. -they represent me!]
Life is like an egg better scrambled than fried. -- Ken Sawatari
Well, what is free speech and what is breaking the law? /* at the beginning?
If comments inside the code are free speech, would the whole shebang qualify as free speech if we added a little
Maybe not, but it's an idea.
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
Of course, this will require some arguing on the part of the defense lawyers, but, imo, DVD's are a computer program -- look at all the "extras", such as games, etc! That requires a program on some level!
Read 1201(f)(1):
--------------------
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular potion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independantly created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been redily available to the person engaging in the circumvention to the extent any such acts do not constitute infrigement under this title.
--------------------
This is an exception! Exploit it!
IMO, it applies because (a) we can establish that the contents of DVD's are a program, (b) the program (DeCSS) can be used to acheive interoperability between an independantly developed computer program (linux) and the program we have been authorized to use (by buying the DVD).
The only real thorn is the "particular portion" part.
Does such not contribute to a monopoly? In certain cases, this may be true -- sad :(
"that CSS is an access control system and that access control is protected under the DMCA"
ah, but that access control system is, in and of itself, a piece of copyrighted software and can thereby be reverse engineered and is governed under fair use.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
hack was motivated by the intent to duplicate work, which by the DMCA
is bound to be a violation.
So it looks quite possible that this case would be lost. *But* it
would be quite possible to do a *new* hack, a Nu-DeCSS whose intent is
solely intended to play CSS discs on a linux box, and whose authors
refuse to cooperate with anyone they know to be promoting the
technology for the purposes of duplication. Since the intent is
different, the law is different.
The clause of the DMCA cited in the judges injunction provides the
following intent test:
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
or "(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with
that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
protected under [the Copyright Act]."
Clearly such a modified Nu-DeCSS would fail all three clauses and so
be legal.
Maybe, the judge should have been told writing clean portable code is a good thing, not a bad thing. Or maybe, the judge has taken to the Microsoft view of portability to other platforms is bad.
Fight Spammers!
The EFF just got the money I had been thinking about spending on a DVD player. BTW - didn't some of the earlier articles mention that certain key clauses of the DMCA don't even start applying until October of this year?
The judges blockheadedness with regard to 1201(f) Reverse Engineering is extremely frustrating. He seems to be ignoring the plain text of the law, especially:
... Section 1201(f) permits reverse engineering of copyrighted computer programs only and does not authorize circumvention of technological systems that control access to other copyrighted works, such as movies.
... [OR] for the purpose of enabling interoperability ..."
1201(f)(2) (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification
and analysis under paragraph [1201(f)](1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program
with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
We're going to need to counter all three of his objections:
1. [No evidence for Linux Interoperability] We need to get testimony from Linus, Eric Raymond, Lots of LiViD members, and Johansen into evidence. Selected portions of the LiViD mailing list should also support this. I think a petition of Linux users expressing the desire to have DeCSS solely to allow playback under Linux would be appropriate evidence as well. No evidence was presented because of the judge's failure to give adequate time to the defense. We should ask for a new judge on the grounds that this shows clear bias.
2. [DeCSS runs under NT]
A) It is ANSI standard C, so of course it compiles and runs on windows. The task that DeCSS alone performs is not operating system specific. The judge has invented some test other than the one in 1201(f)(2). Read the part about "if such means are necessary". This is the proper test.
B) Johansen has stated that the reason it runs under windows is that in Linux, WINE emulation of windows mpeg2 players work. This is a reasonable intermediate step in a development effort and clearly shows a Linux motiviation even though it might appear otherwise at first glance.
C) What we're really after is open source software interoperability, which does not preclude it from running on windows, since one could write GPL code for windows. Linux is the predominate open source software platform, but by design interoperating with Linux would not preclude interoperation with other platforms, including windows.
D) DeCSS is not a complete thought. It is (only) a part of LiViD. To establish intent you must look at the whole production. It is absolutely clear from his regular posts to the LiViD mailing list that Johansen released DeCSS to advance LiViD.
(E) This is a "red herring" argument. Nothing in the statute precludes incidental interoperability with other specific programs.
3. [Reverse Rngineering exception not applicable] I really don't understand what the judge is saying. This seems like absolute nonsense to me. I really would like to just say "what are you talking about you Moron". I'll try a less insulting arguement. The judge wrote:
A) CSS is what was reverse engineered - it IS a computer program and we meet this misreading of the criteria
B) The "computer programs only" part is confied to 1201(f)(1) which grants exceptions to the access prohibitions of 1201(a)(1). This is not the applicable part of 1201(f), and 1201(a)(1) is not effective until October of 2000, so no exception to it is needed.
C) Indeed 1201(f)(2) does grant circumvention to access control for movies and anything else. Read the word "OR" just after the reference to (f)(1), which expands the exception beyond the judge's reading of scope. Taking the applicable parts of the sentence we are left with:
"...a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure,
D) The most pertinent part of "legislative history" is the plain text of the statute. 1201(f)(2) contains no language to support the asserted limits on the exception.
Truely that would really help....
What if public libraries never yet existed. What if someone just now, for the first time ever, suggested creating a collection of publically funded buildings which would buy large quantities of copyrighted material (books, video, music, software, etc.) and then made them freely available to the public? The person suggesting this would be accused of "advocating piracy", "ruining business", "intellectual property theft", etc. Thank God poor Ben Franklin isn't around today to see what goes on today. The man would be locked away in prison, his house ransacked by police, his possessions siezed, all to protect corporate intrests an IP holders from his "dangerous" behaviour.
Other Ways To Fuck With These Assholes:
- Convert the source code into English. It's not source code, it's free speech!
- Anonymously E-mail copies of the source to every e-mail address at mpaa.org, fox.com, paramount.com, disney.com, etc., then sue them for possessing it. (Hey, if linking to it is illegal, then having it must be!)
- Make our own DVD player, except instead of including the CSS system, encrypt DeCSS with our own encryption and include that instead. If the CCA reverse-engineers our software, sue them under the DMCA. If they try to sue us for not having a license, countersue against their monopoly and antitrust practices.
- If they're going to accuse us of piracy, then, well, I'll be damned if I'm going to be accused of something I'm not doing. Therefore we must flood the world with cheap ripoffs of every DVD that's ever released.
Of course, this is assuming we have no other recourse. Hey, doesn't the DMCA say that I can now be legally shot to death by Jack Valenti personally for saying this?"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
How many people who've posted in this thread have actually looked at one of the sites in question, dvd-copy.com.
Can anyone really claim that a site with headlines like:
How to find/trade FREE DVD Movies online
and
What you need to trade Moviez online
is only interested in playback under linux? This is a site about pirating!
I'm all for DeCSS distribution, but this site isn't helping our cause. Championing this case is like the NRA championing a murderer as an example of responsible gun ownership.
I imagine there are many politicians doing political favors for large corporations and businesses .. the chief goal is $$$$ ( money )
The political system of government the founding fathers of the USA has worked to create a system of government that would work for them -- and it has worked great! Apparently it's not working for us! Corporations and Big Businesses are seizing control of our great government -- no thanks to the many corrupt politicians that have flooded our governmental bodies.
//Express this
enum ERights{rtFreedom,rtReligion,rtGuns,rtDeCSS};
int main()
{
CCountry *USA=new CCountry();
USA->AddCorporation(new CMPAA());
if(!USA->IsLegal(rtDeCSS))
{
CCorporation *corp=USA->FirstCorp();
while(corp)
{
if(!corp->AgreesWith(rtDeCSS))
{
cout<<"fuck the "<<corp->GetName()<<endl;
USA->RemoveCorporation(corp);
delete corp;
corp=USA->FirstCorp();
}
else
corp=USA->NextCorp(corp);
}
}
return 0;
}
Obviously they've figured out how to do this after getting access to the source code which Rob and co. so generously released.
Rob, I'm sorry this happened and you must be tearing your hair at the moment, but on the other hand this may be good - no security through obscurity after all. (Easy for me to say as I'm not the one being targetted like this).
Two issues.
First, there is a lot of confusion here between the notions of COPY protection, and COPYRIGHT protection. This is no accident. One of the tactics of the MPAA is to attempt to equate the two in people's minds. To say, in effect, "We must have copy protection, otherwise our copyrights are unprotected." This is COMPLETELY untrue. Their copyrights are every bit as protected now as they were before DeCSS was written. If you make an unauthorized copy of a DVD, their legal standing to sue you is unchanged by the existance of DeCSS.
COPYRIGHT protection is a monopoly, granted by the government, giving you the exclusive legal right to duplicate a work.
COPY protection is a technological measure used to prevent third parties from duplicating a work.
You can have copy protection on something that is not copyrighted, and vice versa. This does NOT equate the two concepts, as the MPAA would like you to believe. Please do not play into their hands by accepting their distortion and melding of the two, completely independant concepts of copyright and copy protection.
Second, the DVD consortium had two options in the design of CSS. They could have either based their copy protection system on a patent, and disclosed the patent. This would have prevented third parties from legally creating their own DVD players. Instead they chose to rely on keeping their copy protection a trade secret. Unfortunately, they were not successful in maintaining their trade secret. Now they are arguing that they should receive patent-like protection for their broken trade secret.
They should not receive this protection because they did not disclose their invention. This is the entire purpose of a patent. You have a choice whether to publish, and receive a government monopoly, or maintain the secret, and take your chances that someone will reverse-engineer your trade secrets. The fact that the DVD consortium has based their entire copy protection on a poorly-kept trade secret should not change the legal status of that trade secret. It was broken, and the reverse-engineered DVD specification has entered the public domain.
If this interpretation of the DMCA is allowed to stand, it will in fact eliminate the entire concept of fair use. Given that traditional media will be eventually replaced by digital media, all of which will be presumably copy-protection enabled, under this interpretation it will become ILLEGAL to attempt to save a web page, capture a video or audio stream, or even videotape a broadcast, so long as the content provider has made even the most basic, ineffective effort to hinder you from doing so.
The DCMA has a lot of bad language. One of the worst bits is the notion of a device "effectively" controlling access to a copyrighted work. What does it mean to "effectively" control access? CSS "effectively" controlled access until DeCSS was invented. Now CSS is an ineffective protection scheme. The mere fact that a television broadcast was transmitted and received in real time "effectively" prevented duplication of television programs, until the VCR was invented. Should the VCR have been made illegal because it overrode an "effective" copy-protection method? Should the photocopier have been outlawed because it overrode the "effective" copy-protection method of a book being printed on paper? How much poorer our culture would have been.
This is the real threat posed by this court case. It is VERY important. It is the most important case I have seen in years. The rulings on this case will determine the very meaning of fair use in the digital age. It will determine whether or not the DCMA has eliminated the concept of fair use, as the MPAA is claiming, or not.
I can't help but think how easily ALL of this could have been avoided if the appropriate people had just released players for a multitude of OS's other than just Windows and MAC. It is just mind boggling that they'll put these kinds of resources behind shutting this down, but they won't just release a damn player.
At least with their players in the market, they could say "the only reason for this program is to copy the DVD's".
Before everyone realizes that they, too, are illegal!
Part of the reason why CD's were used for music in the first place was because nobody had the means to copy them i.e. they were unpiratable. Now we have CD burners, a technology that allows people to circumvent that copyright protection system. So they are illegal on the same grounds that DeCSS is illegal.
Other things to get rid of:
Barcode readers
Photocopiers
Camcorders
VirtualPC
WINE
Crusoe microprocessors
Join the EEF, it's only $20 if you're a lowly student like I am. You can contribute more, if you have the scratch.
..., $1000 membership packages, and even better donate time or do pro bono work for the EFF. We need to support the people that protect us in the courts.
If you don't trust html these days:
https://www.eff.org/join/join_eff.html
If you like to click:
Join
You can get $20, $35, $65,
Talk to you faculty and friends and inform them about the DeCSS issues. Help spread the word about what this case is really about!
One of the great things about slashdot is it's simplicity, text only and limited tags.. I sure hope this 31337 crap ends soon.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I have only given the opinion a brief review, but I see at once an obvious failure of reason.
The opinion inconsistently found BOTH that: (1) DMCA anti-circumvention is constitutional because the Copyright Act has been found to be constitutional; and (2) Fair Use does not apply because DMCA anti-circumvention provision does not incorporate the Copyright Act provisions for a fair use defense.
It is certainly the case that the Courts have been kind to Copyright laws when defendants have raised First Amendment-based defenses, and in particular, that the Courts have found that the LIMITED monopoly granted by the Copyright Act does not fall afoul of the First Amendment (particularly given the force of Article I, Section 8 -- the Copyright Clause).
However, most judicial discussions of First Amendment constitutionality of the Copyright Act make reference to two specific facts: (i) that Copyright protects particular expressions, and does not protect ideas; and (ii) that the scope of a Copyright monopoly is limited to the extent a fair use defense is offered.
If the Court wishes to rely on this authority, it must then consider whether the DMCA protections offer both protections for Society. In fact, it fails in each case:
DMCA UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTS FOR AN UNLIMITED TERM IN PATENT-LIKE FASHION AN APPARATUS THAT MIGHT NOT ITSELF BE PATENTABLE
Let's be real, DMCA anti-circumvention protects the mechanism for protecting a work, not the work itself. DeCSS attacks the mechanism, not the work. This mechanism might be routine, un-novel and wholly obvious (hence unpatentable), yet DMCA would nevertheless protect it. And, so long as the underlying content is within its term, DMCA protects the mechanism FOREVER. (A patent would be limited to at most 20 years).
Thus, DMCA actually gives IDEA protection for the decoding apparatus for a security scheme, for an unlimited term, and (as noted below) without adequate protection for fair use. Indeed, I think an even stronger argument of unconstitutionality would be one based upon Article I, Section 8 -- this bill grants de facto super-patent rights (which also may not protect ideas) to an apparatus without any term limit, and thus violates the requirements of the Constitution that the grant be for a limited time.
(N.B.: I am not advising anybody to do so, I am only wishing those were the facts of this case -- it might very well be illegal to do so as this law seems to be developing in the Courts).
IF DMCA DOES NOT HAVE FAIR USE READ INTO IT BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, THEN IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE FAIR USE LIMITATIONS.
The Fair use provisions of Section 107 were not originally made by the Congress. The Courts read them into the 1909 Copyright Act out of equitable fairness (and because of the First Amendment issues arising from suing a critic for quoting an article). Section 107 expressly stated that it did not replace, but merely codified the existing case law. If the Court decides not to read those cases into the DMCA, it can not AT THE SAME TIME, ignore the Constitutional implications on the ground that the DMCA is "just like copyright."
Again, we needn't investigate whether the DMCA is unconstitutional for these reasons -- its just that if the Court is going to rely on the similarity and Constitutional status of the Copyright Act itself under existing case law -- it must ask if DMCA satisfies those parameters.
None of the preceding is well-researched, or even carefully considered. But the inconsistency (and unfairness) of this reasoning struck even me between the eyeballs. (And you guys know what a hard-assed pro-IP guy I am.)
I wouldn't worry too much. In the end, the customer is always right, and an industry that tried to make money by suing people whose only crime was they wanted to buy and use their product, will end up being the laughing stock of history.
You can't reverse engineer to circumvent, you can to interoperate. DeCSS circumvents.
Just because others have circumvented the mechanism (and there aren't that many because you're confusing access and copying) isn't a license to circumvent.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
BUT, notice what they say about program comments: If I read this right, we can give out comments, but not executable code.....so how about pseudocode??? Then everyone with a brain and a C compiler can crank out their own DeCSS and everyone's happy!! (Although I'm sure the MPAA will bitch and moan about this one too.)
Accurate language to inaccurate language (and back) translator c2txt2c
http://personal.sip.fi/~lm/c2txt2c/
Created for precisely these reasons, actually. To demonstrate that source code is speech.
OK, I see how to do it. You can look at the posts by changing the threshold in the location bar to a low number and then view source.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
"One day, you'll be able to see the movie you want to see- _when_ you want to see it" - AT&T ad
Turns out that day's already here, for music, and everything will have to change to accomodate this new reality.
The irony is that, now, today, I can already tell a non-geek friend about, say, the MPAA arranging to have police arrest a 15-year-old, and my friend will be shocked and surprised. As these horrible attacks on civil liberties and 'the underground' continue, there's one very obvious result- it will _make_ an underground, where there wasn't one before. Force people to take sides and you might not be able to always control which side they pick. The more horrible the news, the more heinous the abuses, the more well-established and well-equipped the underground will be.
I personally am happy to be a musician and sound engineer- it means I have the opportunity to align myself with this new underground without specifically getting heavy into pirating and ripping other people's work. I may think that the whole paradigm change makes their desire to control said work kind of antiquated (read: doomed), but the happy truth is that I personally can remain unpunishable, 'legal' even w.r.t stupid and inequitable law, and still noisily side with those who are totally 'illegal'.
All this has opened my eyes, frankly. I've got a friend who's basically an obsessive warezpuppy. I'm not, and I always used to act a bit superior about it. Well, what's with that? Maybe my friend is just living out the fluidity of the Net more than I do. I see the temptation, and tend to play it boring and safe and not try to get away with anything, but exactly what am I supposed to be respecting here? The system that is gearing up to tromp me into the ground and take away the promised wonders of the 21st century, to lock me into a strictly 80s model for how the world, commerce, media work?
People should look at that aspect. Because we _will_ have the 21st century. We _will_ have the worldwide connectivity, the effortless exchange of information and media, and that _will_ change the way the world works.
The only question is, will this be in harmony with business and government, fought by business and helped by government, strictly underground for only those smart enough to know the ropes, or an outright civil war of some sort with police kicking in geek doors over and over throughout the first years of the 21st century?
The DMCA passed the Senate unanimously in May 1998 (see here) so you can blame every senator in office at that time.
It passed the House by a "voice vote" which means no record was made of how individuals voted (so just blame them all).
It was signed into law by "President" Clinton in September 1998 (see here).
All of this was done to "prepare" America for conformance with WIPO and WTO.
Things are getting scary when Pat Buchanon starts making sense!
People here should also know of the Digital Future Coalition.
-- OpenSourcerers
But at least the judge ponted out weaknesses that can be used next time. Keep in mind that he didn't need to do that.
If you don't like what the law says, check your suit, call your congress critter and make an appointment to talk to them.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Read a bit about this one - the motion was filed at the last minute, before a 3 day weekend, (if I remember correctly.) I am fairly certain that the defense team was not even able to attend the hearing, but did it by teleconference (hence, no chance to show LiViD or anything). They requested a delay to prepare, and the judge denied it, telling the Suits that if they wanted a "runaway train on this one" he would give it to them.
I don't fault the EFF - they did the best they could in a seemingly hostile court.
----
Nothing exists exept atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
The question I have is whether or not, by the simple act of selling us a DVD, the copyright owner has implicitly given us permission to view a DVD. Since the only way to watch the movie is to decrypt it, and the only use for a DVD is to watch it, doesn't that imply that we've been given permission to decrypt this DVD for the purpose of watching it? The judge doesn't seem to think so.
Since, IANAL, I would appreciate some help here from someone who is.
The way this case is progressing, the US court system is forcing many of us to do a global civil disobedience campaign.
No matter what them people think, the code is out, and people _are_ playing and studying the code. The more injunctions the US court system place upon us, the more they are forcing us to employ creative means to counter their latest moves.
My only hope is that one of the big guys from the open-source community will stand up and lead this global-wide civil disobedient campaign. All we need now is a leader who is willing to lead us.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
neither of which is illegal! I have the right to make copies of copyrighted works that I own, and I have the right to convert it to other formats if I wish (mp3). Only if I distribute would it be illegal.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
It seems the law is pretty clear that, given DMCA, DeCSS is illegal (remember law != justice).
It seems difficult to unlikely that we will succeed in getting the DMCA revoked.
People will not boycott DVDs if there is no alternative.
We need a format that competes with DVD that is open and technically at least as capable. We then need to encourage independent content providers to support the open format.
We also need to educate consumers to prefer the open format.
-- OpenSourcerers
An interesting guy. His talk show "Savage Love Live" was better than I think he thought it was, but he stopped doing it anyway. Which reminds me, there's a new edition of The Stranger out today.
Computer programing is not a special skill, it is accessable to everyone with the time and some not uncommon abilities, just like being a mechanic or amateur radio operator.
Correct.
Is the right for an individual to build radio receivers and monster trucks not a freedom of expression?
You may be able to build them, but in many cases you certainly do not have the right to sell them. For example, in the case of radio receivers, it is illegal to sell ones which receive cell phone frequencies, and even if you do legally receive the signals, there are various restrictions on what you can do with them. There are certainly very restrictive laws on the operation of radio transmitters (which, while you didn't mention, certainly are comparable to projects fo free expression which people can build). There are certainly laws on automibiles you can operate, at least on public roads.
Note that the DeCSS case is not about building the tool, but distributing it.
I know I will get flamed and moderated down for this, but I think there should be serious restriction on technology creation. You can do substantially more real damage with a C compiler then you can with a gun, yet anybody is free to operate a C compiler, although you need a permit to operate/own a gun. As you said, programming is not technically difficult, but it does require responsibility. While perhaps everybody should have the right to code on their own machines for their own purposes, there should be serious government regulation on who is allowed to produce code which is given away. I fully expect there to be in the future, and for programmers to have much more responsibility than they do now.
There are ample examples of obfuscated literature, mostly from the 20th century, with James Joyce being one of the better known practitioners.
I think programmers, hackers and techies in general who believe in freedom of information need to establish a lobby group/SIG now before all our rights are obliterated by the legislation promulgated by corporate lobbies and the absurd things going on at the US patent office now. The longer we wait, the worse it will get.
Perhaps it should be pointed out that saving a document in Word format is a technological measure to restrict access to (possibly copyrighted) material. Importing that document into another system not using Word would then be EQUALLY in breach of the law.
My guess is that the courts themselves do this on a regular basis, as a laymans interpretation of the DMCA I interpreted the restriction of acces to copyright material to apply to broadcast information, where if not protected anyone could listen in. Why restrict access to something that is sold specifically to be accessed?
Surely only something you have not paid for should be restricted.
Hopefully some things will come out of this.
cya, Andrew...
This is my sig, exciting huh!
I wonder....
What happens if you just shift all the characters in the file left one character, or up by a value of 0x10. Would the source still be under copyright?
You have modified the bit string of the source to represent something that is not usable to a human.
Thus, it is no longer reconizable as the orginal source code without applying an algorithm to it to return it to it's original form.
Could you distribute the bit shifted file then or would this represent a derivative work?
If it did represent a derivative work, then the argument could be made that all programs are just derived code from other programs, since there exists an algorithm to convert one bitstream to any other bitstream.
This is the problem with digital representations. The same bitstream could represent an infinite number of different copyrighted works. Which of these copyrights are valid?
So does the act of interpreting a bitstream into a human readable form cause the condition of copyright to come about? What constitutes human readable form? If I can read the bitstream of an MP3 of copyrighted song, am I violating copyright? If I had an equally valid interpretation of the bitstream that represents a song in MP3 format, am I still violating copyright?
I personally think the whole idea of digital copyright is null and void. Welcome to the freedom of bits.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
Does anyone know what is involved in producing (not reading) an encrypted DVD?
I recall someone mentioning in an earlier discussion about some pr0n DVDs that implemented some little-used DVD features, and I would expect (perhaps mistakenly) that most pr0n DVDs are made by rather small companies (i.e. not Disney).
If it's not too expensive to publish a DVD, then I have an idea that maybe could be useful in hurting the plaintiff's case. They made a big fuss that DeCSS was only used to remove access control to a copyrighted work. What if someone donated one DVD's contents (e.g. "Sloppy vs the Beer Bottle From Outer Space" starring yours truly in an epic 60 second tale of vanquishing an extraterresial threat disguised as a Sam Adams) to the public domain? Then DeCSS would be an important tool in defeating the access control on a non-copyrighted work. DCMA would not apply.
As an extension to this idea, there's another: let's start using CSS for everything. Let's start publishing documents that need to be DeCSS'ed to be read, along with notices that everyone is allowed to read them, if they can only figure out how. Let's make CSS a (useless) defacto standard so that everyone has to have a DeCSS-like tool, just to do everyday things.
Just an idea. And I would love to star in the movie. I'll work for beer. Nudity will cost you extra, though, since I was hoping to show off my fashionable wardrobe, which includes a Copyleft anti-DVDCCA shirt.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Well, your analogy isn't really complete. AFAIK, the DVD people aren't claiming that the DeCSS is illegal in and of itself, but that it's illegal because it:
1) contains a trade secret
2) was reverse-enginnered illegally (by violating the Xing license agreement)
By contrast, the rifle-modification information was (presumably) not obtained illegally.
As for the Supreme Court hearing this case, I'd consider that unlikely...they hear around 75 to 100 cases per year out of around 6000 that are appealed to them. Your chances of having an appeal heard are exceptionally bad.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If a program can run on linux, it can be made to run on Windows. If the judge's interpretation is correct then the exception in the Digital Millenium act is worthless. Surely he can't argue that.
So what if it runs on Windows? Maybe I want to write a Windows DVD player with a nicer user interface and better features. JUST BECAUSE I RUN IT ON WINDOWS DOESN'T MEAN I'M CIRCUMVENTING COPYRIGHT!
Another primary purpose it to circumvent the playing region stuff. Isn't this somehow illegal under international free trade treaties?
The DeCSS code is not patented or copyright. Does that mean I can distribute it as a general purpose encryption algorithm, so that I can say, encrypt my emails? If so can I put it into a Linux libcryptxxx.a. Can it really be the case that I can stop people using an algorithm? What if I take another algorithm and create my own DVD standard. Can I now start sueing people right and left for using the same algorithm. THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT AN ALGORITM IS PATENTS (even then it is a maybe).
Is the algorithm expressed in pseudo-English legal? What then if I write a pseudo-English compiler? Can English not be free speech?
The judge seemed to confuse the issues of copyrighted material excluded from free speech, and software which is not copyrighted (but allows circumvention of copyright) from being free speech. No-one can claim that DeCSS is copyrighted and can't be used. This seemed confused in the judgement.
There is no such thing as software that can only be used for one purpose. So is the Digital Millenium exclusion worthless because anything can be used for evil as well as good? The point is the only USEFUL purpose of DeCSS is playback, not copy. Copy can be done without DeCSS,therefore copy can't be a primary (or even any?) use for DeCSS. PEOPLE WHO PIRATE DVDs WILL NOT, AND NEVER WILL USE DeCSS. They will always copy bit for bit. I don't even know that an de-crypted DVD would even play in a regular DVD player. Therefore the only use for DeCSS effectively is playback. Maybe in the future it could be used for other things but the future is not here now.
The DMCA says that it is not intended to prevent fair use. DeCSS is the only way users can get fair use! See 1201(c)(1) " Nothing in this section effect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringment, INCLUDING FAIR USE, under this title."
How can it be significant whether DeCSS is "commercially significant"? Irrelevant Mr Judge!
The DMCA says that reverse engineering for interoperability is ok. Well if the judge doesn't think that THIS DeCSS was reverse engineered for the right reasons, lets get a ruling about EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT CONDITIONS might be. Once we have this ruling, we'll do ANOTHER clean room crack of DeCSS AGAIN, and this time with all the right reasons and motivations, and get a favourable ruling.
DeCSS by itself does not circumvent anything. It's not compiled, so it doesn't function and even if it was it's not a complete program. Therefore all it is is an (unpatented) algorithm. Much more would need to be added before it could circumvent anything. It's not the full story any more than a one line program could be expanded and added to into something useful. Even then it needs hardware etc etc.
If we believe the judge, Microsoft could stop people interoperating with MS-Word. Is this the level of anti-competition that the act implies?
Demonstrate copying of a DVD WITHOUT DeCSS, and then playing a DVD on Linux WITH DeCSS. That would prove that DeCSS does nothing to stop copying, but everything to allow playback (which must surely be fair use).
If DeCSS is prevented, it gives an illegal monopoly to the DVD association preventing others from entering the market. The only way to enter the market without going through the illegal monopoly is to crack CSS for interoperability.
Ok, let's say it's illegal to distribute DeCSS to circumvent this measure. Can we distribute it as part of a player that does NOT circumvent this measure? If not, why not?
Let me make an analogy, if I may (those who've seen my other post where I make a similar point, feel free to skip this).
In The Begining...(TM)... there were no compilers that ran on the PalmPilot. But people wanted to write programs that ran on the Palm. So PC compilers were written which generated files (in this case machine code) which worked on the Palm. The compilers themselves ran on a PC, but their sole purpose was to allow them to achive interoperability with their PalmPilot.
Fast forward to DeCSS. In The Begining, Linux couldn't read the UDF filesystem. Therefore, a program which worked under Windows (which could), which would generate a file which worked in Linux could have as its sole purpose achieving interoperability with Linux, without DeCSS itself ever running on Linux.
That may or may not have been its original intent, but the fact that it was originally Windows-only at a time when such a program couldn't be written under Linux is irrelevant to that.
[TMB]
You know, the joy of it is that DVD CCA doesn't own CSS. They use it, but apparently didn't patent it (since that would have shed the light of day on it). So we can all use CSS for our own purposes, maybe make it so that you can't read Slashdot without a DeCSS plugin. Whatever.
That'll kill their case right there, since DMCA won't apply.
But are you thinking what I'm thinking? Why stop at winning? Why not drive the bastards before us, ruthlessly pound them into oblivion, rape their women, burn their houses, and salt their farmland? Let's have Vengeance!
My idea is this: What if I use CSS encryption to protect my own copyrighted work? But instead of donating it to the public domain, I will, under the DMCA, sue anyone who makes a device that defeats the access control to my copyrighted work. You Linux guys are all too slippery to whack like moles, but I think I know someone who is mass producing hardware and software that has a primary purpose which is to circumvent the copy protection on my copyrighted materials. I refer to every single DVD player manufacturer, of course. Has DVD CCA illegally distributed DeCSS-like code to them? What?! They're actually commercially selling products for cracking SloppyWare? I am shocked and outraged.
Oh well, then I guess I'll include them in the suite too. Sure, they're authorized to break the protection on MPAA's DVDs, but I sure don't remember authorizing them to break the protection on my stuff.
That's it. I just killed it. Because, you see, in order to comply with the DMCA, licensing CSS from DVD CCA isn't enough. You have to license it from everyone who decides to use CSS to control access to their work. And since CSS encryption isn't patented, everyone can use it, whether they invented CSS or not. That means no one, not even DVD CCA & MPAA, is authorized to use DeCSS-like tools.
I apologize to everyone for making the cost of consumer DVD players rise to 5 trillion dollars per unit. Oh well, maybe another standard will come by.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
OK, Guys, the next time you are in court do the following:
Bring a short DVD Movie with you, bring a computer with a DVD player and a good expensive DVD burner, bring a few blank DVD Disks, the DVD copying software should be preinstalled and TESTED at home, you will have to do this under Windows, so learn how to use it before-hand, I think you start by pushing some "Start" button...
Put the blank into DVD Burner, put the movie into DVD player, make a complete copy of the movie onto the blank DVD.
Play DVD Movie from both disks on a normal DVD player (you will have to bring a home theater type DVD player and a TV with you too.)
Show judge both disks. You will need to do alot of stuff like this, use EVIDENCE!!!
You can't handle the truth.
This comment may not make sense to most people. Comment #287 is a rlevant post by an AC, who asks "is it speech or code?" then posts Frank A. Stephenson's paper about the CSS encryption system.
I only noticed this because I normally browse at -1 and notice that there were comments "below my current threshold". If you manually set your threshold to -5 or lower, you will see this along with a few other -5 comments. What happended?
In order to successfully reverse engineer a product, you have to have two steps. The first is to study the current product, to understand how it works. The second is to develope a new product that works the same way, without duplicating the specific methods of the current product.
As far as I remember, Jon Johansen explained why the original development of DeCSS was on the Windows platform - because it was the only platform that could run the current product!
Once the developers were satisfied that their code performed the same way as the current product, on the same platform, without duplicating code, they then could port their code to the intended platform - Linux.
This is perfectly sensible, and it's unfortunate that the EFF lawyers present in court could not find a way to explain and demonstrate this to the judge.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Yes, pure genius! let's d00 it! I agree with chad all the way. Cause who can possibly lose with 100,000+ defendants? Oh, I forget, you need to be a huge company with billions of dollars to actually get anywhere in court. He who has the money, gets his way... We have obviously seen this to be true right here... Now what am I gonna do, now that I can't watch DVDs on my puter? I spent all this money for what? nothing... MORE DEFENDANTS!!!! "chad" for president!!!
CmdrTaco for President!
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
In fact, the Library of Congress suggests that bypassing protection to copy is protected under the DCMA, but bypassing protection to view is illegal:d f
-----------------------------
The Library of Congress interpretation of the DCMA
From http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.p
Emphasis changed for this audience.
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention itself, the provision prohibits circumvention in the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
This distinction was employed 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 circumvention of a technological measure that prevents copying . By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized acess to a work, the act of circumventing of a technological measure to gain access is prohibited.
-----------------------------
Later on, seven exceptions to the circumvent-to-view are mentioned -- the right of the Library of Congress to make exceptions through rule-making; for library, archive, and educational nonprofits to decide if they want to buy the work; reverse engineering of computer programs for compatibility purposes; encryption research; protection of minors; personal privacy; and secruity testing.
Frankly, if my interpretation of the LoC's interpretation of the DMCA is correct, our best argument is that css-auth/DeCSS has as its primary purpose the creation of backup copies, not the playing of DVDs.
Steven E. Ehrbar
We would be in much better shape if all the 12 year old h4X0r wanna-be's would lay off the ignorant inflamatory comments. How often has "the SlashDot crowd" been portraid in certain media circles based upon the flame-bait rants rather than the informative, though-provoking comments posted?
The Children(tm) need to get a clue!
I AM, therefore I THINK!
The DMCA prohibits working around copy protection. What the Encryption is is *play* protection -- so you can only play it in authorized players in authorized locations. This is not covered by the DMCA. Furthermore, reverse engineering for the purpose of providing compatibility is specifically allowed under the DMCA, so either way, the judge is ignorant of Federal law.
If we can't sit around and discuss the ethics of laws that will greatly affect our careers (think for a second how this affects software companies, independent programmers, and so forth), then what is the point of free speech? These discussions are exactly what are needed to figure out what the hell to do. It was these so-called "amatuer lawyers" that pointed out in the court room that the DeCSS code was meant for playing DVD's under Linux rather than for illegal copying. The EFF lawyers didn't even catch that one. So much for the professionals.
And exactly who the hell are you to decide what is worth serious discussion or not? Some anonymous coward replying to your message agreed with you, calling this discussion a "circle jerk"... oooo effective argument there. Without this discussion the MPAA lawyers would have a field day and make our lives miserable just because it suits their bottom line. The online community (and the Slashdot community specificly) have shown amazing coordination and organization considering the circumstances in fighting this and publicizing the ramifications of the new law going to effect soon.
Well, ok maybe you're right. Let's just sit back and let Congress legislate whatever it wants according to the convenience to the large few. I mean, what right do we have to sit around and actually talk about serious issues that seriously affect the future development of technology? We've got no imperative to do so, because if we do, it's tantamount to a great big circle jerk. Let's go home folks... nothing important going on here. We're just annoying the important folks and making their lives hard by questioning their reasoning.
i think it's about time all the amateur lawyers on sloth stop trying to tell us how the legal system works, and marking each other up a zillion points.
I don't see you doing anything constructive. All you've contributed is the putting down of those who are trying to do something constructive, namely discussing the legality of a blanket restriction that may put a number of us in the poorhouse (unless of course we want to work for giant media conglomerates, but hey doesn't everyone want to do so, deep down in their hearts of hearts?).
if the judge thought the DMCA is corrupt and unconstitutional (which it is) it is the duty of his position to kill it.
Glad to see you seem to think so. However these sort of things don't happen on their own. It takes effort on the part of the defendants here to prove a law is unconstitutional. A judge has to do nothing if no one thinks he must do otherwise. Law is law, but the reality is a lot murkier, with human nature and all that.
I'd rather be the fool fighting for something I believe in rather than be the fool telling me I'm a fool for doing so.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
The big bad company won't arrest you. The will make sure laws get passed on the basis of which the police will arest you. So in qthe end it's the same thing. Don't be so naive.
Hmm, how can there be 6 posts beneath my threshold when I'm at -1?
Erhm, this has already been done. css-auth is the rewritten DVD decoder. But the problem is that it still uses the key from DeCSS, so the DVD-CCA still has the trade secret argument.
Besides this, however, there is the issue of the DMCA. The DMCA certainly applies to DeCSS; but whether or not it would apply to css-auth is slightly more arguable. According to the judge here, it would still apply.
What really needs to be done is to get the DMCA thrown out. It was voted in uninamously by the senate, so write your senators and make sure they know that this is an issue for their constituants!
Our hopes (I'm not full of hops!) now rest with getting the ruling, then getting the judge overturned. I flat gar-en-tee that he will rule for the MPAA, and this will have to go another round.
First, join EFF.
Our next step is to make this case to John Q Public. We do that by telling our friends, neighbors, bosses, strangers, and the drunk in the gutter. In short, everyone.
Next, we write our newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and our elected officials. (As a note, you might let the local officials know you will help with their databases come next election. It is amazing how much talant they need and they don't even know it!)
Starting Friday, Feb. 4. 2K, we stand in front of the movie theater with our signs and the flyer from 2600. We need to have some effect, we have to be noticed, we can't go gently into that good night.
See ya on the picket line!
---
"If brains were radium, the MPAA wouldn't have enough to make a watch dial glow."
Me.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
After all we did for them...
RECALL ALL THOSE TITANIC CPU CYCLES!
Donald knuth was the creator of "literate programming", it's purpose being specifically to explain code in a concise easily understood manner. For example, use output from TEX then to go to noweb converter - usable C code. May I suggest the book "A Retargatble C Compiler: design and implementation" by Christopher Fraser for a good example. As the author says "This book not only describes the implementation of [the compiler], it _is_ the implementation." So once DECSS is a book, What is the Judge going to do?????
The judge can talk all he wants, but this isn't justice (and frankly, I wonder how much DVD-CCA paid him for that decision). This one can go to the Supreme Court, and I hope it does.
And even if it doesn't, there are other completely legal ways to fight this...
Excellent way of putting it. You just made "circumventing technological protection measures to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted works" not apply, since you are, in fact, authorized for Fair Use. So there is nothing "unauthorized" about circumventing the access control at all.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A VOB player can play a DVD movie by using DeCSS's output as its input.
This is like disassembling MS Word so that you can write a translator that reads an MS Office document and outputs a StarOffice document. That's still an interoperability tool.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I am not a lawyer, but if the Linux community had the permission of even one DVD producer to use DeCSS, then DeCSS is no longer "circumventing" an access control. I don't know if this would require licensing CSS from DVD CCA, but I bet not, since they're about to lose their trade-secret protection (w.h.p.)
I was just going to ask whether you could copy an encrypted DVD image right off the disk, and burn that back onto another disk. You say that it's possible, and I imagine it is. Is anybody pointing this out to the judge or company lawyers? If not, then somebody needs to!
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Yup, I can just see the next hit single for the Spice Girls - If you wanna read my DVD, you've gotta DeCSS. :-)=
Seriously, though, if I sat down tonight and made a recording of myself reading off the css-auth source code to a d-n-b backbeat and then posted that as an MP3, that would be legal, right?
Sounds like it's time to for me to get busy. :-)=
[TMB]
The judge said that he was uncertain code should be considered free speech since it is mostly utilitarian instead of expressive. But, he said, for the purposes of the injunction, he assumed that it was covered by free speech, and made his ruling with that in mind.
He argues that even if it is free speech, congress is still allowed to regulate it as they do other protected speech for economic reasons, as in copyright law.
I disagree with him that prohibiting programs which mainly let users exercise their fair use rights has anything to do with even indirectly promoting the useful arts and science. However, the judge is still open to criticizing the law for its constitutionality, though he cites the precedent that the courts should give leeway to congress in matters of applying laws to new technologies.
According to this ruling, you can encrypt whatever anarchic material you have with an algorithm you invented.
Then you copyright the material. If anyone decrypts it (for example, FBI) you can sue them for DMCA violation.
Act now. We win no matter what the final ruling may be.
I haven't heard anything from the ACLU about this case. A cursory search of their website turns up nothing. It seems to me that this is exactly the type of issue that they frequently deal with. Their resources are MUCH larger than the EFF's, and they have a lot more political clout.
Does anyone know if the ACLU has a position on this matter? If not, how do we alert them to the tangible threats to civil liberties inherent in this ruling and all it foreshadows?
At that point, the case will be appealed, and he will be overturned.
Congress and its masters (MPAA) have really made a mess of things with DMCA.
New XFMail home page
IntellectualCapital has on of the most even-handed accounts of the DeCSS controversy and the DMCA that I've seen in the mainstream media. The author concludes, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act "effectively gave [copyright] owners the power to write their own intellectual-property statutes."
That is what this is all boils down to, the efforts of the industry to rewrite copyright law outside the halls of Congress. The Judge's opinion, unfortunately, affirms the ridiculous MPAA legal argument against fair use.
Finally, defendants claim that they are engaged in a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.27 They are mistaken.
Section 107 of the Act provides in critical part that certain uses of copyrighted works that otherwise would be wrongful are "not . . . infringement[s] of copyright.''28 Defendants, however, are not here sued for copyright infringement.
In other words, since the defendants are being sued for violating the DMCA not for infrigning copyrights, fair use does not exist!
If you purchase a DVD (ownership can have several connotations here), are you obligated to view it only as the manufacturer and distributor intended? Never having purchased or rented a movie on DVD myself - did anybody who bought/rented a DVD movie engage in a contract to use only approved equipment to view the content contained on the media? DVD's are marketed as movies and consumers buy a movie in order to view it for entertainment purposes. They are not marketed as software and consumers do not purchase them for that role. Hacking your own movie should not be a crime.
Can I re-encrypt or scramble a CSS-encoded movie so that nobody could use it?
Back to the locked book analogy - can the manufacturer legally bind (no pun intended) you to only open the book with the combination provided? If I find out that I can open any book with the code 99L-99R-99L and publish this am I in violation of the DMCA? (Trick question - I'm Canadian). Just because the lock technology improves the copyright can become more restrictive? At what technological stage of advance will I become liable?
Can I publish a paper document that is only visible with my own super-duper-spy-decoder glasses and get the same protection under the DMCA if someone else figures out how to view the pages without my proprietary eyewear?
Jon Johansen discovered how to decrypt the CSS. Is this an invention or copyright-able idea?
Did Jon Johansen break the law by discussing how to decrypt CSS encoded DVD's?
If the only technology available to me is a 16mm film projector and I want to see a movie that is stored on a VHS format tape, then to me the content of the tape is scrambled (It is only machine readable). As the owner of of that VHS tape am I allowed to find a way to view it on my 16mm film projector?one better than mcleodeight
So, since this is both a highly controversial law and its brand spanking new, its very likely we can get it overturned. This law is VERY open to interreptation, since the higher courts have not reviewed it yet - and the supreme court certainly has certainly not had its finaly say on this.
The down side is that the issues are really hard to explain to lay persons (which include the judges), I have less faith in the highest court this time than I did with the CDA. The CDA was an easy call: it was unconstitutionally vague. This is far more insidious, its a subtle attack on the first amendment cloaked as an IP law (written to "protect property", which makes it even harder to get a a judge to see the REAL issue at stake here - this judge in the MPAA case thinks this a property case!). So its more likey to confuse the judges and get through thru in favor of the MPAA and those in favor of this law.
Be not confused by the rhetoric of those preaching the virtues of this law, this is a First Amendment Case. This law strikes at the very core of your right to freely express yourself, which is why it must be ruled unconstitutional, or we are all doomed.
Your very rights are on the line here. This is not some Open Source case, or something about DVD players - this is about your right to speak your mind, figure things out and build. Without those things, there can be no innovation, no free discourse and no freedom.
Don't sit by and let this happen. Join the EFF and help win this fight! The price of Freedom is Eternal vigiliance.
--
Python
Python
Of course is failed in the market place because we (the market customers) killed it. At no point did I say that I, personally, went out and destroyed the monster known as DIVX. If I did do anything, it was by NOT buying DIVX or related things (like a lot of people).
;-)
Really, I expect better of people, even an AC such as yourself. Well, free clue in return, although this was bordering on ClueBat(tm)
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Rip DVD, rewrite on writable DVD.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Let the development of DVCSS continue, they can't arrest all of us.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Why did anyone here post DeCSS? Was it to pirate films? I doubt it -- pirates would want to keep a low profile. Was it to see DVDs on Linux? Maybe, but I don't have Linux on my computer, nor do I have any DVDs to play on it. Even those of you who do, though, didn't need to post the software. But you did, didn't you? Or maybe you just linked to it, or downloaded it from one of the sites, like the gzipped files that are lurking on my hard drive somewhere, still unopened.
So, what does that leave? Only one thing.
It was an act of protest. Wasn't it?
It was for me. I'm complaining about the DVD-CCA, which practiced security-through-obscurity, and now want the government to protect their trade secrets. I'm objecting to the MPAA, which is using its influence to arrest Norwegian teenagers. And I'm protesting the DMCA, which allows these companies to tell me exactly when and how I can use the bits I bought from them. And I think the record shows that is the case for the vast majority of the people who have an opinion here.
The right to free speech is the right to protest, and that's what 99.9% of the people here are doing. And that's the freedom of expression we should be focusing on in these cases.
The only objection that I can see to this is that our actions are causing harm to others -- "fire" in a moviehouse, etc. I don't accept that -- the code's been out and about for months, plenty long enough for anyone to get it. I'm not causing any additional harm, except to the extent that I may cause the plaintiffs to stop their current practices.
(I'm sure there are holes in this argument. Feel free to point them out.)
In closing, I read the transcript and the memorandum, and I don't think this judge is an imbecile. He had strong evidence to support the plaintiff's claims, minimal evidence from the defendants, and a law that seems to say that they're wrong. He made short work of the defence offered because it was poorly supported. He's just interpreting the law as he sees it, and doesn't understand the average /. poster's views on the subject. But I think he could be educated, with the right arguments and the right evidence. (In the transcript, didja notice the point where he called the defendants the plaintiffs? He's used to seeing the big companies on the the other side of the suit.) Here's hoping.
Patrick A. Bowman
Everything on the 2600.com flyer seems fairly calm, collected, non-inflammatory but pursuasive. Great argument for giving out the flyers.
but...Infringing on the Disney Company's visual trademarks and copyrights is not a good way to stay financially secure.
The 2600 flyer has a very legible, very distinct, very simple graphic of Mickey Mouse's face, pasted onto the War Bonds Uncle Sam's body.
In the 80s, during the Iran Hostage crisis, some very crude people expressed their frustrations with very similar images of Mickey Mouse flipping his middle finger at the Ayatollah. "Fuck you, Iran!" read the caption.
Due to *that* infringement then, the Disney Corporation began adding the (C) and/or TM to every instance of their artwork. They *vigorously* protect their corporate image by prosecuting just about every case they find. I mean, every case.
This is similar to my thoughts on the mirror-site issue. If you are going to show that a law stinks, and get support for your cause on a *level-headed*, reasoned approach, then doing *more* things that are in known or potential violation of the existing statutes is very risky. Not only to your own assets, but to the very cause you're trying to support.
[
It is possible, but not with any off-the-shelf DVD ROMS. They have the part of the disc that stores the keys written over with zeros. You couldn't duplicate a DVD onto one of those. I don't think consumer-grade DVD burner software will let you write to those portions of the disc either (although someone could probably write one that does let you do that). Real DVD pirates use commercial-grade equipment and ROMS to copy DVDs. The DMCA has no real effect on them since what they're doing was illegal before the DMCA anyway.
As near as I can tell, the reason they're freaking out is because they think we're all going to start downloading 2GB+ files from each other and watching them on our puters. I think that that is pretty farfetched at this point in time. The number of people who can actually do that is rather insignificant right now. It will certainly become possible at some point in time in the future, but I certainly don't think it can be considered to be the primary use for DeCSS, which is one reason why I think the plaintiffs have a bogus case.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If it's contract law, that's fine, but only if there is a contract. A customer should have to read and understand a contract in order to purchase a DVD with extreme penalties for non-compliance with the terms. No shrink wrap licences either.
The point I'm trying to make is that in the absence of a binding agreement it is eminently reasonable that I may use a legally obtained copyrighted work for any private means I choose and that I may sell that work if I give up my entire ability to view the original or any significant derivatives. Because this is eminently reasonable and indeed legal, any restrictions on the technology which enables me to exercise my freedom should be viewed with extreme scepticism.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
DeCSS? Well, it runs on Windows, and most of the sites I saw carrying it also contained instructions on how to convert DVDs to VCD format and burn them on CDr. In my book, that's not interoperability....
On the other hand, it would appear that that IS covered by "fair use".
Talking about the legal team, though, my impression is that the defence here has been very haphazard - raising points but not proving them, trying to apply inappropriate laws and precedents...
Ideally, what is needed is for Congress to clarify the DMCA - put in explicit exemptions for tools intended to permit fair use. Better still, prohibit the sale of systems which impede fair use - as well as systems allowing regional market divisions (already illegal, I am told!)
At first this discussion ammused me. The first mentions of the legal action on Slashdot struck me as silly. How could the industry claim that decrypting data in-place, that was easy to copy in the first place equated to copyright violation? Isn't the copyright violation the distribution of encrypted or unencrypted coppies?
Then I started to get mad. People are taking these crackpots seriously, and trying to enshrine their dirty tricks as a reasonable business model.
Now I'm just confused. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. We're practically begging to be allowed to spend money. If they simply give in an produce source code for a Linux kernel module that decrypts DVDs, they'd see a short-term spike in sales and then it'd be business as usual. What are they afraid of?
I have about 20 DVDs. If I could view them under Linux I'd probably have about 60. I don't want pirated movies, and let's face it, the people who do, aren't their customers. Sure, I know people who would take a pirated copy of Shakes the Clown for free if someone handed it to them, but that doesn't mean that the industry just lost a Shakes sale. I also know dozens of people who pre-ordered The Matrix DVD, knowing full well that they could have gotten it "through channels" from Asia for less money. I want the real deal. I want to be able to return it if the "White Rabbit scenes" are broken. I want my A/V fix. Don't they realize they've won? All they can do now is alienate customers.
Perhaps someone should write the compliment of DeCSS. We should come up with DVD content authoring tools that allow artists to cut their own DVDs. Isn't this what the opposition wants? Don't they want to protect the interests of these poor artists? That's what they keep claiming in court, and we know they wouldn't lie.
Take a look at what kind of laws the EU is constructing, remember that there has been, and is, widespread corruption in Bruxselles...a group with power, say MPAA, could easily bribe the whole group to make some small changes.
The Speedy Viking
I wonder, was the injunction for DeCSS, specifically, or also for code derived from the algorithm presented in the source of DeCSS? I mean the css-auth package by the LiVID developers...
The second half of Footnote #14 is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole ruling. It says: >...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, >and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a >licensed CSS "player key" would "circumvent a technological measure" >that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the >statute in any case.
Would circumventing and illegal access control be illegal?
We all know that the only reson for this access control is so that they can sell the DVD's in America for one price and in other parts of the world for another. Perhaps we need to file a class action lawsuit against them for this, beings the courts have already ruled that this is illegal.
I'm one of the 20% of computer users on earth which doesn't like and doesn't use Windows.
Even at work i'm using Linux.
To run some software I have VMware to run Winsux NT.
Many of those who are commenting on the decision are saying the judge was wrong when he said DeCSS is "only" for piracy. But he didn't say that (any more than a vast majority of the mirror sites said it was for piracy, as claimed by Jack Valente in his dishonest piece in the L.A. Times).
Look at what he ruled and address that:
"In October 1999, an individual or group, believed to be in Europe, managed to 'hack' CSS2 and began offering, via the Internet, a software utility called DeCSS that enables users to break the CSS copy protection system and hence to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies."
That isn't true. And we can prove it. Take a Linux box to court with a DVD player on it. Demonstrate that DeCSS allows the judge to play a legally purchased DVD (note that this step is not needed to prove the judge's statement is false). Then ask any expert witness the MPAA brings in to use it to copy a DVD. They will not be able to do so.
This is all that is needed to show Kaplan's statement is false. We do not need to add the word "only" to the ruling. And we should be careful not to do so because some will assume we need to do so in order to make our point.
We do not.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Evan Reynolds evan@evan.org
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Two peanuts crossed the street. One was assaulted.
These days, a lot of graphics cards come with software DVD players that contain valid decryption keys. If DeCSS allowed us to use these keys instead of the key that was cracked in Norway then there would be a ready legal avenue for use of the code.
We've purchased the right to use these keys when we purchased our graphics cards, and I can't see how the judge could claim that said keys can be used only with their original players, given that there is no such restriction mentioned in the shrink-wrapped licenses accompanying the cards so the keys are under no specific additional protection.
Note that copying keys within a given computer has to be legal otherwise the software DVDs wouldn't be able to access them for decrypting the DVD content. In the absence of restrictions to the contrary tying the keys to the software-DVD players, DeCSS could use these keys in exactly the same way for playing our legally purchased movies, as long as the keys stay on the owner's machinery.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Much though I disagree with the MPAA / DVD-CCA, and joined the EFF last month on the back of the recent cases, I disagree that source code is always free speech. The law provides exceptions to freedom of speech for such areas as trade secrets and national security.
It seems odd that the law in this area is moving in a direction that is going to make it impossible for people to obey it in the normal course of their lives, if they wish to play their legally purchased DVDs on their Linux or *BSD systems.
In effect, by creating rules that do not follow commonsense, they are making the law appear out of touch with reality and hence irrelevant.
There's an analogy in the motorway speed limit legislation in the UK, where the law ends up being seen as irrelevant to people's needs. (The average free cruising speed on the southern motorways is 85-90mph, but the legal limit is 70; barely 5-10% of drivers drive that slow.)
At the end of the day, the law requires consensus to operate, so stupid laws become unenforceable. So be it.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If you were to put up a site that had the DeCSS source code but was missing one line (which made it unable to compile), would this still be illegal? Essentially what you are then distributing would have no effect and would not by itself be able to decrypt DVDs. The missing one line could be placed on a different server owned by a different person... From a legal standpoint, would this circumvent anything that the MPAA can claim about your site hosting DeCSS (or part of it)?
Like the above poster pointed out, fair use still exists, but now for digital medai , the DMCA makes unlawful all the means to achieve it, so you now have a right that you can't achieve.
This should make any american citizen feel very concerned because if it holds up in court they could theoretically do it to Free Speech too, you would still have the right to free speech, but all the ways to exerce this right made illegal, therefore making it impossible to exerce free speech legally, while respecting the constitution.
I'm happy not to be American and to live in a free country.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
In the article is a link to the transcript of the hearing. I read it, and by the time I finished it I was annoyed with the defendants as well. Or more appropriately, with the attorneys for the defense as well. Consider -
This is not to say they didn't make good points. And the court clarified it's reasoning on some issues, which will be of benefit when the trial occurs - assuming the attorneys pay attention to those points. However, it appears to me that a critical element for next time is to focus on brevity. That said, IANAL and there may be very good reasons for the apparent bobbles and irritation of the court.
As an interesting aside, were this to be upheld and reverse engineering effectively eliminated, wouldn't it be possible to bring a suit against any company which didn't release drivers and support for operating systems other than Windows on the grounds of collusion to maintain a monopoly? While I am personally against most anti-trust legislation, it does strike me as a means to turn the situation around.
I like the idea of creating non-MPAA owned media encrypted with CSS. I see no barrier to doing this. Then we can distribute our own "player" and key management system.
As long as we don't actually use the same key as DVD's use it should be fine with DMCA. Of course, our key management will allow importation of a generic key. In fact, with some healthy generalization (allowing longer key's etc...) this might actually be usefull encryption in some cases.
The DVD keys can then be communicated separately, by others. Since the key alone is not functional, I don't think it could be called access circumvention technology. After all, it's just a number. It contains no computer instructions. If it is ruled a violation, people could distribute pieces of the key.
This just goes to show how stupid the DMCA is regarding prior restraint of speach. It would be very difficult to define exactly what is and isn't permissible under it.
YESSSS!!!!
And if that ain't enough for you--if you want to learn about the World's First Industrial Church, go visit:
The Website Of "Bob!"
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
The friend that I mentioned also said that the EFF attorney's made a big mistake in trying to introduce expert testimony in the TRO hearing. These things are supposed to be brief and they are not a mini trial.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Why can't we let two fucked up systems fight out our battles for us?
Why doesn't someone patent the CSS method? It's not currently patented, beause they didn't want to give out the information. Now why doesn't someone (other than the DVD-CCA) go ahead and patent it?
If the patent went through (which knowing those bozos at the patent office it probably would), wouldn't the DVD-CCA have to present evidence of prior art (read: source code) showing they created it first?
Wouldn't the prior art become part of the public domain after being introduced at a hearing? Regardless, while the patent would be being appealed it would be part of the public domain.
Anyone see any serious flaws with this plan?
Ahh, but I don't recall ever seeing an encyclopedia for linux on DVD. And what's the point in getting MSDN on DVD if I dont use windows? I'm not making windows apps for linux you know.
:)
I think thats the whole problem here. Since we use an alternative operating system, we can't use the software we want unless we do it ourselves, which is OK, unless people (mpaa) get in the way of us doing so. And until that's taken care of, we're not really gonna get anywhere.
Alot of software companies are starting to port their products to linux, which I think is great, but I also like the idea of being able to have some control over what the software does, or add a feature to a product that I see would help me get things done, or whatever I'm doing. That's why opensource is so important. If the end user is helping to develop the software, they can implement what they would use, not what the company thinks is "cool" (like the M$ Office paperclip, for example). It's better for the product if its opensource.
Alot of people could care less about something being opensource. Most of the sourcecode for apps are never even looked at. Alot of people just download it and compile it- never even touch the code. But if a user finds a problem, they have the power to fix it, instead of waiting 3 months for a servicepack that's 50MB big.
Now that I'm off topic from the reason I even replied to this...
Just to summarize my endless babbling:
1) Linux needs opensource
2) Users need opensource
3) Thats about it.
-Brandon
>No, he doesn't understand that CSS isn't copy protection, it's region
>protection and viewer control, as well as control over hardware companies.
Its ALL those things. In order to play a DVD scrambled by CSS, you have to have a special DVD, with the codes on it, and copy all the scrambled data onto it. Then the DVD is playable by the "approved" DVD players. If you don't have the ability to descramble the data, it is much more difficult to copy the data. Instead of trying to play "whack-a-mole" with the data the way the music industry is with MP3's, they can simply control the flow of recordable DVD's.
With the data in unscrambled format, it can be compressed, stored to a hard drive and played on ANY computer system; it's only a matter of time before technology catches up to the format, to allow transmission/real-time-decompression of DVD video.
At this point I would like to point out that I agree with the freedom of information movement. I think that companies will simply have to change the way they do business, or become extinct.
And the fact that CSS can be used for all these other things (area-specific DVDs, compulsory ads) is REALLY scary. This is the sort of power which is not good in corporate hands, as they have a tendency to take everything to the limit.
>>>>>> Kvort the Duck, Lord High Peanut of Krondor
-Don't mind me, I'm personality-deficient and mentally-impaired.
We need LiViD to produce a simple DVD player with a graphical interface which is open source and written specifically for Linux. It doesn't initially need any more than a play and a stop button and most importantly does not rely on or have the option to produce any unencrypted video files on the disc. This would be exactly what CSS was hacked for. A program to play DVDs on Linux which even the judge can understand how to use. We then remove DeCSS from all of the mirror sites and replace it with the new player. I think that our case would then be much stronger.
In response to other points raised by cmuncey; getting VA to buy the right to produce a DVD player is not going to solve the problem. VA are an i386 only shop (at least last time I checked). At present, Linux runs on 9 (count them in linux/arch) platforms. Would VA provide player software for all of them (or at least all the ones to which the hardware can be connected)? An open source player runs on all platforms. If an i386 binary only player appears we are going to need some non-i386 machines available to demonstrate in court that the problem still exists.
Finally, I endorse the call to join EFF. I joined last week, and let me tell you that the feeling of having done something more productive than just whining on /. is worth every penny.
I agree.....in fact i'd like to know if this case can be appealed by the end of it......i'm not a lawyer....but doesn't the MPAA need evidence? if the ability to copy DVDs has always been there, then what evidence is there that DeCSS is written for the purpose of copying DVDs?
according to the judge, the issue isn't COPYING DVDs, its not piracy of the information being protected, people, its the encryption keys....the defendant's case is being built against the WRONG charge.....it seems that the defendants need to build a case that they are in fact protected by the DMCA interoperability clause and then they need to prove to the judge that interoperability is more important than copyright protection in this case......i think some precedents would be nice too....i have seen little of that while following this battle......
the judge's attitude does not seem to be impartial.....EVERY argument for the defendant was deemed either irrelevant or did not have sufficient evidence....if it wasn't one of the two than the judge simply said that he disagreed with the constitutionality of the laws that DID protect the defendant.....if its law, then its law, right....i know he's the one to interpret the law, but does he really have the power to disregard laws because he doesn't LIKE them??
i dunno....there's a strong defense here.....a more impartial judge would be nice......but a strong defense would be even nicer
Given how effective the defense attorneys were in this case, perhaps it's time for a new defense team...
:b
presenting, SLASHDOT! Yes, we hook slashdot up to a text-to-speech program and have it present our arguments.
I can see it now! "First Post, your honor."
The preliminary injunction was granted on Jan. 20 because it is probable that the plaintiffs will win, even though the supposed violation (Chapter 17, Section 1201(a) doesn't take effect until Jan. 27, 2000 (2 years from the date of passage). Hmmmm...
Here it is, you can read it for yourself.
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
I'm Canadian, so my rights aren't actually on trial... :) But, i do get concerned when our large neighbour dances on dangerous territory.
As for your reply, yes, I do think this can wind up as a 1st ammendment case, but I'm just skeptical about it because the supreme court may view tampering as copyright infringement & not protected speech (as they've done before, though the untested part this time is the notion of "tampering"...)
-Stu