Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen's Answers to Your DeCSS Questions
1) About the cops...
by ronfar
Did the arresting officers say or do anything that blatantly hinted that they were doing this because of pressure from the MPAA or the United States government? What kinds of questions did they ask during the interrogation? Were they looking for other
The MPAA filed charges and the police was forced to investigate. There was a debate program on TV [ Redaksjon 21 ] where judging from the district attorney's comments, she meant that there was no doubt that I was guilty [ and this was before they had actually started investigating ]. She also compared me with an old case where a guy had sold "pirate-cards" for decoding paytv channels, and had earned tens of thousands of dollars. Luckily the biggest inet/computer guru [ Gisle Hannemyhr ] was there too, and the district attorney and the MPAA's lawyer were left biting the dust. Just one thing: if the police actually had any competence, they wouldn't have brought charges against me, because they would have known that they're plain lies. During the interrogation they asked all kinds of questions. Every detail, no matter if it was important or not, was to be included. IMHO, the only reason they seised my computers was in order to try to track down the two other members of MoRE.
2) Support in Norway?
by cetan
Have you found any support from people (aside from family) in Norway? Has the public reaction to the arrest been favorable (i.e. in support of you) or negative?
The public reaction has been in support of me. Almost the entire norwegian press supports us. The norwegian computer community, "led" by Gisle Hannemyhr, also supports us. Several norwegian computer companies have sent their support [ and told horror stories about the police' computer competence ] and offered me jobs. Last Friday I accepted WAPFactory's offer. WAPFactory works with WAP and interactive/digital tv. They recently bought wap.com for 0,5 million USD
3)Question
by JamesSharman
Now you know about all the hassle that has resulted from your posting DeCSS, the arrest, the press attention etc.. If you could go back and change your mind about posting it, would you?
All the press attention has been quite a strain. There have been times where I disconnected my phone just to get some peace. I can't remember doing much homework last week. I do not regret posting DeCSS. It's very important that we stand up against these multibillion corporate interests who seek to dominate with their proprietary standards. It's in consumers interest to be able to make a free choice from whome or where to buy products. Last, but not least, I've never really "fought one" for Linux. I guess this is my way of getting back at Gates for those GPFs ;-)
4) Programming background
by jstepka
Where did your original programming experience
come from? I'm speaking in terms of your ability to reverse
engineer the encryption and apply the key in a
useful manner.
Well, first of all, the reverse engineering was done by our german member who wrote the decryption code. My programming days started when I was 11-12 years old. Started off with basic and then moved on to c, c++ and assembler. I've learnt a lot by working with others over the Internet. Greetings go out to all my friends in "you know which coding channels" ;-)
5)Why Windows?
by Kupek
I think that the charges you are facing is rather ridiculous, but I have to wonder: Why Windows? If the motive of you and the group you worked with was to have a DVD player for Linux, why release this program that works only under Windows?
While this was being worked on, Linux did not have UDF [ the filesystem used on dvds ] support. It was thus natural to implement it under Windows in order to test if it actually worked. [ Yes, I've used Windows, nobody's perfect
6) Is there a legal defense fund? Can I contribute?
by Anonymous Coward
It seems like the MPAA has just about unlimited amounts of cash, and I'm guessing you don't. Do you have somebody taking care of funding your defense (i.e., the EFF), or can I send some money to a legal defense fund for you?
The EFF is currently putting together a team of lawyers. It's hard (very hard) to get pro-bono lawyers in Norway, and whether they'll be picking up the bill themselves, or setting up a fund, has yet not been decided. Sorry for not being able to give any more specific info at this time. EFN [ Electronic Frontier Norway - "the norwegian EFF" ] have also been discussing whether or not they should set up a fund.
7)Public Reception
by Wah
In discussing this topic with "regualr people" (those folks who don't live and breath tech) I've found general support for the people and very little for the MPA(A).
What, IYHO, is the general reception you have felt about this issue? Have you been able to explain your position and have it understood? What are some of the stranger assumptions you have come up against?
It seems as if we've got strong support from the whole public, with a few exceptions. While many ordinary people do not understand the technical aspects of the case, they do understand that this is a "corporate interests vs. consumers"-fight. The biggest problem has been trying to explain non-tech people that encryption does not prevent copying.
8) A question of laws in your country.
by Vladinator
Are "Shrink wrap" agreements enforcable in your country, and are you as a 16 year old subject to contract law? In the us, 16 year olds cannot enter into a contract, I'm wondering if it's the same with you.
Shrink wrap agreements are enforcable only if they are in accordance with norwegian law. You have to be 18 years old to sign [ agree to ] a contract in Norway. Your right to reverse engineer can not be taken away by contract. License agreements during software installation, however, would not hold up in Norwegian court (AFAIK). Not like this is a problem anyway, just decompile the installation package and there you have the files.
9)What Should We Do?
by Syn.Terra
As is a (thankfully) usual reaction to such a blatant injustice, the Slashdot community (and many others) have been scrambling to figure out ways to help you and others prosecuted in the name of this whole DeCSS fiasco.
As one (if not the) most persecuted individual as a result of DeCSS, what do you think the rest of the supporting world should do to help you out? What should the people who want to help do, besides the obvious posting of the DeCSS source and the general badmouthing of the MPAA?
As many as possible should write their local newspapers [ + other media ] and inform them about this injustice. It's also important to get every computer professional to understand that this is a case of freedom of speech. If the MPAA wins this one, I think DeCSS will become the first computer program in the history to be declared illegal. Banning a combination of assembly instructions... Imagine that!
mvh/Regards,
Jon Johansen
jlj@linuxdvd.org
That has to be a record for lowest price paid for the purchase of a dot-com company in recent memory....
I gave to the EFF. Did you?
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Thanks for the informative answers.
What we shouldn't forget is that Jon is just one of the most highly visible scapegoats for the MPAA and their Police subdivision. We must help Jon with his fight, or it will be us, next.
If there's a fund set up for his defense, I will be one of the first to contribute.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I think /.ers should definatly give point 9 some carefull consideration.
We can never win a fight if our side of the story is never heard, don't forget these people are scared of hackers they can't tell whose a hacker, whose a cracker and who is a cival rights fighter with a pocket protector.
sparkes
*** www.linuxuk.co.uk relaunches 1 Mar 2000 ***
blog and junk
When you do, if you do, write something to your local paper to be published be sure to have it proofread by someone who is a nontechie. What we may all understand on here could very easily fly right over the head of the public we need to persuade to be on our side in this issue. Also if it sounds inflammatory or rash lots of little local papers, mine included, will not print it. If anyone has a great writing on this topic try getting it sent to one of the bigger papers. If we can explain the position on this issue to the public then the judges will start to come around. In conclusion good luck Jon and I wish you the best of luck with this legal junk.
I am 31337 or something.
This could have happend to any one of us. I'm glad the person it happend to is a smart, level headed, guy who can express himself effectivly and doesn't seem to be doing stuff "just for the attention".
I'm afraid to imagine what this whole DeCSS fight would be like if the one responsible for starting it was a 3133t cracker dude who's only goal is to fsck the system. Joe had the right motives, did it the right way, and we should all be thankfull that he is not buckling under the threat of punishment.
PS: I'm wearing my DeCSS source code shirt to work today, and if I have to explain it means one more time, I'm going to go nuts.
Finkployd
There was a debate program on TV [ Redaksjon 21 ] where judging from the district attorney's comments, she meant that there was no doubt that I was guilty [ and this was before they had actually started investigating ]
I wonder how much leverage he has as this whole thing eventually winds down. I would think he would have some recourse, either way the issue plays out.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Oh, I'm pretty sure you can consider things like the Internet Worm, some of the more malicious/virulent viruses, etcetera as illegal already.
Been people who've done time for writing and distributing them. That's purty close to being illegal, at any rate.
I got to thinking. If fiction is protected speech, and source code may not be, what if you combined the two. So here is a story about two intrepid programmers, Dick and Jane.
Feel free to distribute this or run it through any Perl scripts you have lying around.
--GnrcMan--
This whole argument does not stand up to critical thinking. Suppose they used an arbitrarily simple 'encryption' method, like putting an extra '1' in front of the binary to screw up the decoding process. If this was discovered, and someone put this info on the net, would they get arrested? I don't think so. So at what point does an encryption scheme become complex enough to be illegal to talk about?
Basically, encryption is no different than 'security through obscurity'. If someone has figured a way through your obscurity, than tough luck!!!
7th Post!
Here's my problem with the whole thing. Who gave the US the power so it can just go into Norway and have Jon arrested?
And why does Norway bend over and take it up the ass from the US?
It's time for countries to stand up for their citizens rights instead of kissing the ass of the MPAA and other corporate interest entities.
Thanks for your response Jon, best of luck.
I think one of the things that makes us (the tech community) look bad here is that the writers of the program won't stand up and say "I did it." It's great that John is standing up to everyone like this, but where are the other members of MoRE? If DeCSS isn't wrong, why are they hiding? I call for those two to stand up and say "I wrote it, I'm proud of it, and I have the write to keep writing software like it."
Do the obvious to e-mail me.
Personally, I think Jon's best bet (after the EFF's fiasco in the US), is to study law and fight this himself. (Treat it like a computer problem! The output doesn't have to make sense, just the logic.)
I'd give good odds that, if he did that, he'd win. His comments here, and elsewhere, show that he's got a sharp mind (as if DeCSS didn't prove it).
Personally, though, if I'd got the entire movie industry out for my blood, I'd be asking for Asterix and Obelix. They may be fictional, but so are the movie industry's arguments, so there shouldn't be a problem there.
Mind you, I don't think Jon Johansen would say no to some of that potion, if anyone has the recipe. :)
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)
PREACH IT LEONARD!!!!!!!
Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
...that people have chosen to make CSS pointless by doing things that are illegal. The laws--European and American--clearly state that the copyright holder has the right to dictate the means of playback. If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, it doesn't have to and you can't legally do anything about it.
Now, like most of you, I agree that it's a stupid law and that the MPAA is acting like pricks. Doesn't bear on the il/legality of what's being done, though.
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
But, no, instead, we have a bunch of ill-informed, self-righteous crackers who are not impressing the judges in any positive manner. At the rate things are going, MPAA will win and retain its right to tell you that you can't play back your DVD on unlicensed equipment.
Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be learned: maintain the high road.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I got to thinking. If fiction is protected speech, and source code may not be, what if you combined the two. So here is a story about two intrepid programmers, Dick and Jane.
Novel approach however what if I do something like this:
Once upon a time there was a little lizard and he crawled upon a piece of paper that said
"Dear GnrcMan
I will plan to attack torture, rape, and murder you on the 22nd on this month. Before that I will play subtle mind games with you until at such time you will fold and collapse from the strain. This is protected speech so there!"
As the lizard crossed the paper he started thinking about all the flies he would eat that day.
=========================================
Ok so it's a little extreme but it still is protected speech because it's totally fiction rigtht? Not that I don't think that your example is pretty much but you have to admit that it can eventually get problematic.
One final note; you probably should run that story through a word wrap or similar. This is something that will make it easier for people to "read" your story.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
First off, the response to the ninth question is the most threatening to our rights. If one computer program is declared illegal, it will set precendent for large corporations with more legal power than software writers to be able to sue the software writers and make the software "illegal." This is a pretty clear violation of the 1st. amendment, possibly the 4th. amendment (which in this century has been interpreted to support a right to private use of certain things). Furthermore, it will enable large companies to smash software that is a possible source of competition. There is a lot more at stake here than just being able to watch DVDs in any format you want.
Also, what happened to Jon is very bad. Non-american law enforcement fell under pressure of the Movie Industry of America and arrested him. He's not even within our borders, and these guys can influence his arrest. The kind of influence they weild is pretty intimidating, and they can afford the kind of lawyers that can trick non-technical judges (read: most judges) into believing whatever they tell them.
This is a bad thing. The rights of consumers are being violated, and most consumers don't even know it. I actually think most people in the US have been duped to be on the Movie Industry's side.
Basically, it doesn't look good, but we still need to stand up for what we know the truth to be. Tell your families, tell all the NON-TECH people you know about how the Recording Industry is trying to screw over their rights by blocking software that could take them out of the loop of every movie/player ever made.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The biggest problem has been trying to explain non-tech people that encryption does not prevent copying.
I find an analogy helpful: "Just because something's written in a foreign language you don't understand, doesn't mean you can't photocopy it."
I'd like to contribute to a defence fund too...
The good news is, it seems that at least somewhere in Scandinavia, there are places where the general populace won't let itself be taken by the mass hysteria regarding "hackers" and "piracy". However, I can't help but ask myself, considering the hegemony of the US in the global media, how long will it last - how much corporate effort will it take to make it so that all you know is what AOL-TimeWarner-EMI-WhoEverElse tells you - all over the world? If you ask me (and I know you didn't), this is a scary thought.
:) Seriously, government control is, in the end, no better than corporate control, democratically elected or not. The real question is, are there any other means to try and preserve our freedoms from a certain group, that do not involve giving more power to another group that - history has taught us - will eventually turn around to stab us on the back and push an even more opressive regime upon us? Or is it by definition impossible (Individualists unite! and all that)?
And please don't try to tell me that the answer is more government regulation. Any sentence with "more government" in it is automatically evil
(Yes, I am aware that Slashdot is hardly the right place for this kind of discussion. If I have interrupted your daydreaming about chipping Natalie Portman's underwear off, forgive me.)
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I'm glad the person it happend to is a smart, level headed, guy who can express himself effectivly and doesn't seem to be doing stuff "just for the attention".
We are very lucky
First, the MPAA lawyers forget to seal the exhibit that holds the code to DeCSS, so _everyone_ can link to it _legally_. I cracked myself laughin at that!
Second, they choose the wrong country (a country that actually cares about privacy, consumer rights and freedom of speech) and the wrong guy (a teenager that didn't even do the reverse engineering himself!) for their crusade.
Third, they try to sue the whole internet and try to make linking (basically telling somebody where he can find something) illegal.
The whole thing is bound to backfire. People is starting to pay attention to the legality of country codes and a protection squema that takes away legal "fair use" rights from the user.
On top of that, the business model holliwood companys base their operations (selling content as opposed to content serving) is been questioned.
Holliwood's stupidity is infinite!
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
This was rather interesting. A lot of people were making this youg man out to be some kind of hero/martyr, when he is only someone who got trampled under foot of the MPAA. He only helped to develope and post the code, he is not the great hacker that the MPAA wanted to demonize. What amazes me is that the MPAA had enough economic clout in Norway to have false charges filed and have the police arrest him. An American organiozation having a Norwegian citizen arrest!. Does anyone fear that kind of reach? Especially since Americains are notorious for trampling over other people's rights in the pursuit of their own agendas? That is the scariest issue of all in this scandal. Corpporations have always exagerrated the "losses or damages" wrought by computer crackers like Kevin Mitnick. The police in every major city has always looked like the Keystone cops when it comes to computer crimes. I have seen police carry off toasters, rotary phones, and even Music CD's in an effort to gather evidence. We all know how prompt the cops have been about returning these items too. The only way to keep the pressure up is to inform the average consumer that their rights are being trampled. Remember DIVX and how it was a proprietary format that would only allow a person to play a DIVX-DVD on one player at a time. It was tremendously diffucult to take your copy of Blade Runner over to your friends house and watch it if that person had a DIVX player. That person would have to pay for the movie as well. Heaven forbid that your friend only had a DVD player, then the formats were incompatible. That format died, but now thesame idea zoning DVD players has been taken on an international scale. A DVD bought in Australia won't play in the US because it has been zoned with an encryption for Australia. This is not like VHS where different tape speeds and hardware were developed in Europe and the US. All DVD players are the same. The MPAA only wants to restrict consumer choice in the name of profit since American movies release here are relased on DVD(and VHS) at the same time they debut in theatres overseas. Like most people are going to rush to order DVD movies from the US and pay expensive shipping charges? A few might, but most consumers won't. What surprises me is that the major retailers and small shops who rent and sell movies haven't said anything? They stand to lose if they wereunable to import movies on DVD like Ma Vie en Rose from france because they had to wait for the MPAA to license its release here form France. That is not freedom of choice. We consumers will only get hurt. I plan to petition my representatives, senators, govenor and local media distributors about this issue. The WTO treat made this kind of harrasment by the MPAA illegal and recognized reverse enginering as legal. This is not a piracy issue. Who wants to download 6.2 GB of info for a movie anyway? I would rahter buy the disk. The encryption does not prevent copying anyway. Look at it this way: If I had a jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa scatter as pieces and placed into a box, I could still copy each individual piece of puzzle and make multiple copies even if I did not have the key (i.e. the picture on the box) as a guide to its contents. A little patients and plug&chug would eventually get me the right results. It's the same with encryption on DVD's. I can copy the encryted info onto other blank DVD's without having to bother to try to read it. It would be like copying a Sanskrit text my hand. Painstaking but easy. Our consumer rights are being trampled in the name of big business. I for one plan not to buy DVD's until they can be played on any player, in any country, and on any OS. The young Norwegian lad is just someone who was lucky enough to be caught in the spotlight. Even he says thta he is not the one who cracked the DVD zoning Encryption.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Unix: Where
Nice troll. I submit it is you who are ignoring the facts. IP is not a license to step over people. IMO (and because IANAL that probably makes it more right) if I pay for content I should have the right to listen to it any damn way I want. You can keep your head up your ass all you want, enjoy the view, but at least for me and many people like me, this is not about IP, rather, this is about a large consortium of companies, as George Carlin says, "SERVICING *thrust* THE *thrust* ACCOUNT!"
Your rant has not moved me in the slightest.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Dunno about anyone else, but I'd sure like to hear what Stallman has to say about this whole debacle!
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
Well, start here:
As you find things which can come into play (other court cases which help our cause, loopholes or interpretations in the DCMA, etc.) correspond (politely) with the EFF attorneys who will be the point men in the fight. Equip them for the fight. This includes financial support, if you can come up with it.
fight to free the deCss code. Send it to local media outlets (all types: newspaper, tv stations, radio). Make noise, people!!
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Fight Spammers!
The last answer was the most interesting. Banning a specific combination of assembly code.
Very interesting. Since we all have the source code by now, what if we recompiled it? Binary would be different if say we added an extra print statement. Would this invalidate MPAA and cause them to have to charge people for the new PlayDVDnow programs?
Btw, Now one asked the simple question: How does your parents feel about this??
16 years old is still a minor.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
It worked, so hopefully the parent comment will get moderated down as redundant. it's real Weird though -- I haven't changed my settings in months, and this is the first time the post has gotten formatted weird. I'm guessing that some code got changed behind the scenes today, and I got caught by it.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Does anyone remember the CDA? It was tossed out because it was unconstitutional.
All we need is a friendly judge and POOF DMCA goes bye bye.
It is a perfectly valid response to a "bad" law.
In the US it was illegal to help slaves escape, good people willingly broke that bad law.
This is a BAD law. It doesn't protect copyright holders anymore than the "war on drugs" helps drug addicts. This is about MONEY, pure and simple. It's a law that gives a copany the ability to extort money from their customers with the US government acting as their hired gun in a legal shakedown.
It must be stopped, if we break this law enough and they haul us into court we will get a friendly judge who will throw the case out.
I'm not even going to get into jury nullification.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, it doesn't have to and you can't legally do anything about it.
True, they don't have to license it. But I don't think it's clear that it's illegal if you just do it without a license. That's what the case is all about, right?
Regarding L33T crackers and such, there are people out there who are not helping in the least. Look no further than "DVD-Copy.com," one of the defendants in the MPAA case. "Trade movies with your friends on the internet!"
Nice move, buddy. Thanks for taking us down with you.
----
Yes, but noone asked him when he's going to move to the US, join a startup, and sell out for the IPO ...
Will in Seattle
At least once, and you should do it. Agence France Press (3rd largest press agency) wrote a strangely biased news release on their "multimedia" wire, calling Jon a "pirate", etc ... I got an acknowledgement from AFP that they had sent my letter to the editor .. but no reply since then.
(I think I know why they are so one-sided on this issue: despite the fact that AFP is very liberal (I worked there), they are very supportive of IP "rights", as they think everybody is trying to rip them off. They don't seem to realize that their articles are worth their price mostly because of the news delivery SERVICE they provide, not so much because of the paranoid protection offered by violent IP laws and lawyers).
"PS: I'm wearing my DeCSS source code shirt to work today, and if I have to explain it means one more time, I'm going to go nuts." The REASON you should wear that shirt is so that people ask you about it. Every person that asks is a person you can make sympathetic to the whole issue. Just a thought... -funtax
Økokrim (the part of the norwegian police force that is responsible for investigating economic crime (and computer crime) has something like 10 persons responsible for investigating computer security related cases like industry espionage through computers and such.
Norway _is_ a small country (4 million souls or something) but just ten persons responsible for all the computer crime investigation in Norway is... hmm... too little. There are many computers in Norway.
Besides, an article in the norwegian tech magazine "Teknisk Ukeblad" stated that only one or two of those persons actually have computer/information technology related education, the rest of them are normal police or "legal people"... I'm wondering if they did at all understand what they were embarking on when they started investigating this case...
Anyway, I have to agree with Jon, the lady from Økokrim really made a fool of herself when she appeared in "Redaksjon 21"! I enjoyed it!
-- Anders Morken (I forgot my password and I don't want the hassle of retrieving it...)
amrkenatonlinedotnospampleasedotno - go figure...
Most people are aware that they can password protect their MS Money/Quicken files so no one else can read them. They are also aware they can copy those files and move them to other machines. I explain that the situation is the same (if a litte bit more complex) with DVDs. Namely, the fact that the stuff on the DVDs is encrypted does not prevent the stuff from being copied. It is like copying a Money file. The encryption simply prevents people without approved players from viewing. In other words, I can view a bootlegged DVD on my Sony DVD player, but I cannot play a DVD I legitimately bought on my Linux box. The reason: the Sony player has the password, without DeCSS, my Linux box does not.
You could, of course, avoid technology all together. The fact that I do not speak Norwegian does not prevent me from copying books written in Norwegian. It just prevents me from knowing what they actually say.
The way I see it (and IANAL), the issue before the court (i.e. the way the Court sees it) is one of providing a mechanism to circumvent methods to restrict "access" to material, and not whether such methods are stolen trade secrets, reverse engineered trade secrets, copyright or patent infringements. So far, the defence has been to argue that DeCSS was not designed with the primary goal of defeating copy protections. But, it appears that this defense isn't the one being questioned. (Rightly so, since it's so strong). Let's deal with the issue of "access" then, since that's one of the things the Court of fixated on. "Access" BY WHOM? and USING WHAT MEANS? Certainly, if the express purpose of DeCSS (and derivative code) was to enable those who had not licensed the data for personal use (i.e. bought the DVD) to be able to view the movie, this would be difficult to defend as legitimate, as it would grant access to non-licensees. However, it appears that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to grant legitmate licensees of the DVD contents access to what they ALREADY have a right to access: the unencrypted data on the disk -- such access necessary to make viewing possible. Do DVDs have a warning requireing the use of a licensed DVD player for viewing? I don't think so -- you buy a DVD, you have a right to view it. Certainly, once such access is obtained, one could use it to make unecrypted copies for illegal distribution. However, the one form of access does not imply the other: there are all sorts of legitimate reasons that come under the guise of fair use, like backups, etc. I am not convinced that DMCA renderes fair use illegal. Furthermore, there already exist means for such illicit copying: making a first generation digital copy of the unencrypted analog output from a DVD player, which can then be reproduced without further generational loss. Given the possibility of interpreting "access" in the sense of access by non-licensees, and so not conflicting with fair-use doctrines; and interpreting access in the sense of personal access and then contravening fair use doctrines, any sane Judge would have to use the former definition: it is consistent with existing law, and represents true potential for economic harm to DVD content providers. The latter does not. Finally, one has to look at DeCSS in all it's incarnations: a library to descramble DVD content, a player for Windows or [GNU/]Linux, or a ripper for either operating system. Under some circumstances, it may be clear that the primary application IS to provide content to non-licensees, and thus illegal (and rightly so) under the DMCA. - Rene S. Hollan, posting anon. (and wearing my Copyleft DeCSS shirt proudly at work today!) P.S. This issue got me so mad that I finally became a Pioneer ($100/year) member of the EFF, AND bought the shirt (netting them an additional $4).
The way I see it (and IANAL), the issue before the court (i.e. the way the Court sees it) is one of providing a mechanism to circumvent methods to restrict "access" to material, and not whether such methods are stolen trade secrets, reverse engineered trade secrets, copyright or patent infringements.
So far, the defence has been to argue that DeCSS was not designed with the primary goal of defeating copy protections. But, it appears that this defense isn't the one being questioned. (Rightly so, since it's so strong).
Let's deal with the issue of "access" then, since that's one of the things the Court of fixated on.
"Access" BY WHOM? and USING WHAT MEANS?
Certainly, if the express purpose of DeCSS (and derivative code) was to enable those who had not licensed the data for personal use (i.e. bought the DVD) to be able to view the movie, this would be difficult to defend as legitimate, as it would grant access to non-licensees.
However, it appears that the primary purpose of DeCSS is to grant legitmate licensees of the DVD contents access to what they ALREADY have a right to access: the unencrypted data on the disk -- such access necessary to make viewing possible. Do DVDs have a warning requireing the use of a licensed DVD player for viewing? I don't think so -- you buy a DVD, you have a right to view it.
Certainly, once such access is obtained, one could use it to make unecrypted copies for illegal distribution. However, the one form of access does not imply the other: there are all sorts of legitimate reasons that come under the guise of fair use, like backups, etc. I am not convinced that DMCA renderes fair use illegal.
Furthermore, there already exist means for such illicit copying: making a first generation digital copy of the unencrypted analog output from a DVD player, which can then be reproduced without further generational loss.
Given the possibility of interpreting "access" in the sense of access by non-licensees, and so not conflicting with fair-use doctrines; and interpreting access in the sense of personal access and then contravening fair use doctrines, any sane Judge would have to use the former definition: it is consistent with existing law, and represents true potential for economic harm to DVD content providers. The latter does not.
Finally, one has to look at DeCSS in all it's incarnations: a library to descramble DVD content, a player for Windows or [GNU/]Linux, or a ripper for either operating system. Under some circumstances, it may be clear that the primary application IS to provide content to non-licensees, and thus illegal (and rightly so) under the DMCA.
- Rene S. Hollan, posting anon.
(and wearing my Copyleft DeCSS shirt proudly at work today!)
P.S. This issue got me so mad that I finally became a Pioneer ($100/year) member of the EFF, AND bought the shirt (netting them an additional $4).
As much as I hate most of the politics of the AM radio crowd, they ARE highly receptive to hacker-ish issues. AND they have a MAJOR audience. A local newspaper may be able to target a small percentage of potentially interested people, but AM talk shows have a near-captive audience of people who are highly sympathetic to people that are getting stepped on by "the Man."
So if you have a chance, listen to people like Art Bell, Michael Medved (sp?), G. Gordon Liddy, Mike Gallegher, et al. and if an opportunity presents itself, try calling in. If enough of us try, even if we don't get on right away, it may push them to discuss the whole situation on the air.
One warning about G. Gordon Liddy, I tried to call about Mitnick one time and Liddy vetoed me, even though the program director wanted to put me on the air. I still don't know why. But he seems like he'd be willing to listen to this issue.
funtax
Thank you for that beautiful piece of work.
Not just fanciful, but a Good Idea. An .mp3 spoken-version seems to be the least machine-readable format while conveying all useful info. Reminds me of the Book People from Farenheit 451. It'll be a tongue-twister, but I say go for it.
The best way to help with legal funding at this time is to purchase a t-shirt from copyleft , 4 dollars US go to EFF for every shirt sold. You also get a copy of DeCSS on their letterhead. You could frame it and call it art.
Joining EFF is not that much money, about the price of lunch in the Baltimore/Washington area, $20 {student) or $35 {basic [regular folks]}. Well, lunch for two (2) maybe, and not at junk-food-R-us.
-d "not working for anyone -- my opinion is mind [sic] alone"
This "fight against multibillion dollar corporations" is impotent at best.
The bottom line is that just about everyone--and 100% of people with web access--want and enjoy what multibillion dollar corporations produce. Movies. CDs. CPUs. You can't make a stand against giant corporations unless you're willing to do without them. "Oh, yes, we hate the corporate interest that drives anti-piracy measures for DVDs! But we love the giant corporations that pour money into action movies and million-dollar-an-episode animated TV shows!"
In the end, this protest comes out looking dumb. We've shown that we're not willing to stand for measures that keep us from pirating movies, but we most certainly still want hundreds of million of dollars to be poured into movies so we can pirate them.
If you're really against multibillion dollar corporations, then you should be buying all your music CDs from local indie bands. You should be running Linux (though I have no idea on what CPU). And you shouldn't be watching Hollywood movies or TV *at all*.
You DO know the difference between having the plans and implementing them, yes?
Plans for nuclear weapons circulate the web quite regularly. And the physics textbooks you's need to suplament these are availiable at any (good) library. Except for obtaining the enriched uraniu or plutonium, a nuclear bomb could be built in just about any well equipped university!
And it's perfectly legal to tell people how. The actual implementation is the part that's illegal.
Or, take illegal drugs. The Anarchists Cookbook contains the recipe for making LSD. It sells in any well-stocked Barnes&Nobles. Certianly not illegal. I can buy the book, read the recipie, distribute if I want, and that's all protected by free speech. Only if I actually cooked up a batch of acid in a lab would I be in violation of the law.
Or pick locksmithing files, or phone phreaking howtos, or explosives howtos. All describe actions that would be illegal, but the description itself is protected free speech.
I can't see how the source code should be looked at any differently than the "how to make a nuke" or "how to make acid" files. These, and the source code, should all be protected. Only the actual nuclear bomb/LSD/compiled binary is an actual product that could potentially cause harm.
At least that's the only intrepetation that makes any sence to me.
Oh and Tom Clancy was never TOLD to change his books. You're probably thinking of two instances:
1)
In the preface to The Sum of All Fears, Clancy mentions that he has modified the nuclear bomb production process to be inaccurate. He did this of his own volition to satisfy his own conscience. The DoD did not force him to.
2)
After The Hunt for Red October was published, he was brought in to be debriefed by the navy. He had guessed so accurately in that book (on things like SOSUS and the operating patterns of fast attack subs chasing soviet boomers for example) that the DoD thought he might have had access to classified information. Clancy was able to demonstrate that he deduced his guesses from a wide variety of non-classified sources that had already been released to the public. Again, he did not edit his book to appease the DoD. In fact THFRO caught the DoD by suprise BIG TIME!
john
Imagine all the people...
I bet MoRE spent more manhours on reverse engineering and then writing their own expression of the algorithm, than Xing spent writing their expression of the algorithm. I don't think MoRE has treated their competitor, Xing, unfairly. If Xing spent additional money buying a CCA license instead of reverse-engineering it themselves, then that was just a bad business decision. Too bad.
And if DVD CCA spent millions of dollars developing this 40-bit encryption algorithm, then they were defrauded and should complain to their programmers. I could have come up with something just as good for far less money. Heck, I could have just repackaged 56-bit DES.
And keep in mind that whatever effort DVD CCA spent on developing this algorithm was effort expended in bad faith intended to hurt consumers. It is in direct conflict with fair use.
What DVD CCA did may even be illegal. Some people have pointed out that the region encoding is illegal in some parts of the world. And there's definately some anti-trust issues regarding product-tying involved here.
If I were to spend a lot of time and money developing The Perfect Scam, and someone were to expose me and ruin all my work, would you jump in to defend me, and accuse the person who exposed me of spreading socialist bullshit?
Take a good look at who the crooks are, and whose rights have been infringed.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
One of the comments I'd seen so far observed that Jon might mount a good defense by himself - by treating it as an engineering problem and figuring out the logic to convince the judge. I'm not advocating that - Jon needs the best lawyers WE can afford him (I joined the EFF - seems the best way to help).
However, that got me to thinking... Could the EFF use some help in reviewing old cases/decisions that MIGHT be relevant? Could a junior legal researcher just throw up a few hundred case names that all of us (the 1,000 eyes) could "read up on" and try to distill the points in the case and the decision to a few paragraphs? Then rate that information as to how useful we *think* it might be? Would that help the EFF lawyers to pinpoint the cases they need to look at while forming their strategy for the DeCSS cases?
I hope a lawyer out there is reading this and can advise us all on how pratical (or useful) such a thing might be. Free/Open Source software has always prided itself on the idea that 1,000s of eyes on the source makes for better code. Why don't we use that same idea to place 1,000s of eyes on our own legal system to make it better?
I for one would be willing to look at a few hundred pages of case records, devote a weekend or two (or 10) in directed law research, if it will help. The MPAA will spend millions (conceivably) on legal fees, so a hundred lawyers can spend a 1,000 hours each on preparing its cases.
We can do them one better - 10,000 technically astute hackers putting in 100 hours each. Even if we are only 1/10th as effective, we'd match their efforts.
Is is possible to Open Source the Defense of DeCSS? Most of us are frustrated that we can't do anything directly to help besides mirroring the code. If the EFF can use a few thousand hands I think most of us are willing and able to lend them.
Close. Boycott everything associated with the MPAA. That means:
With all that new free time: you should find plenty now free to write letters to editors, do a little clothes shopping, talk to your friends and colleagues about the situation, send a contribution to EFF, or maybe even join the Call to Action.
Personally, despite a number of titles being on my wish list, I have neither purchased nor rented a single DVD since this started. Nor have I purchased or rented any tapes. Nor have I gone to any movies.
I wonder: do you suppose slashdot defaults to "flat" mode these days to improve its hit count?
"DeCSS isn't wrong, why are they hiding?"
I'm a healthy single guy with a good job but still some time on my hands so I would probably take the flack. However I can't say the same about the others. If I had a family with kids and/or a big time consuming job taking the flack would not be such a simple decision. It wouldn't just impact me but others who depend on me as well. For all I know I'm in a country that could react quite negatively toward such actions. Also if there is no legal defense fund or not a big enough one, it could get quite expensive too. It's hard to say why they're hiding, but I can't blame them.
Businesses are ways for people to make money to live on, feed their children, and pursue a good life. Encrypting is a valid way for companies to protect their intelectual property and all the work they put into it. It is not fair for people to rip off their work and means of living and distribute it. It is not exploitation. People do not have a right to the product of other's effort, work, intelligence, and inspiration.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I was just thinking about steganography with images. But you can certainly do the same thing with a story.
;]
Find a very large and unrelated text. At random intervals introduce "typos" which are the correct character shifted by the ascii code of the desired character (or, where this makes unprintable characters restrict your destination alphabet to printable characters). Given a sufficiently large text, the typos should be pretty unnoticeable on the whole, but if you know what you are doing you can rediscover the hiddend text. Or run an intelligent program with the output text against a dictionary, or original document, looking for typo's.
Does anybody have a large manifesto in which to hide the code?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Lets face the facts:
Just because the DVD consortium spent millions in "R&D" doesn't mean that suddenly they're out all that money. They aren't. They get their money back by emptying the pockets of anyone who wants those specs for a DVD related product. But thanks for trying to turn the consumer in to the bad guy. (Sorry, won't work.)
One more thing: You can stop trying to make the big companies look like the bad guys here. Take a look at the cost of a VHS tape VS. a DVD disc. There is more work in producing a VHS tape than there is a DVD disc, but which generally costs more? Why? Because the tape goes bad after a while, so customers will have to buy another down the line. Same thing does with audio cd's vs. casette tapes.
Big companies constantly screw the little guy and that's fine with them. But step on their toes and suddenly it's a national crisis.
BAH!
DECSS IS NOT ABOUT PIRACY!!!
It never was! It Never will be!
If I wanted to pirate a DVD I could do it WITHOUT deCSS! I could do it before deCSS existed. I'll be able to do it if the MPAA somehow gets deCSS abolished from every computer in the world.
IF I wanted to pitate a DVD, I could just make a bit for bit copy onto blank media. And there's no encryption in the world that could stop me. But that's assuming I was willing to pay $50/per for blank media (that's 2x the price of a legitimate DVD!!!), and how many thousands it is for the DVD burner to wirte them.
What deCSS *IS* about is being able to WATCH DVDs WHICH YOU ALREADY OWN!!! That's all that it does! It doesn't make coping DVDs any easier. It just allows you to watch them under a non-microsoft OS. But the big corperate intrests are determined to kill Linux! They want you to buy DVDs. But thet DO NOT want you to be able to watch them under Linux.
Why?
Who has a vested intrest in killing Linux as a viable OS?
These questions I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Sorry to the rest of slashdot about so many caps, but I just don't see how these people can be so damn ignorant.... unless they're just astroturfing for the MPAA/MS/RIAA/whoever.
john
Imagine all the people...
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
From one 16 year old to another, Go Jon!
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
Once upon a time, there was a dwarf, who in a forrest, collected two branches and put them into a very minimal stack. After collecting the branches, he returned home, telling his friend to go to the forrest, and for each of the branches in the stack, create a new stack with one branch more than there where branches in the original stack, and then return and tell his friend to do the same, and so on, until all of the sitzens of the small village had done his or her duty.
The story above is _totally_ fiction, but describes correctly how to calculate the faculty of the number of dwarfs. This should be possible for all algorithms.
Is this protected speach, even for, say, a crypto alogrithm?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
They are also in my .sig, by the way.
Got HTML? Want LaTeX? Try html2latex
This is a fallacious argument. There are a lot more ways to pirate a movie than to burn it do a DVD. Now it's possible to rip a DVD to your HD and do the translation to VCD/MPEG1 from there (rather than doing the decoding via the original DVD which has some heat issues.) Look at the number of people running around with little hard-ons because they managed to DL the crappy Star Wars mpeg. Or those who were l33t and got a copy of the Matrix. Woo.
Can you ensure that no one (family, friends, etc.) is listening to the original CDs while you are listening to the MP3s or tapes? If not then it would probably be possible for the RIAA to put a legal "stop" to your use of tapes or MP3s for mobility purposes, if they cared to do so. It's just that you are a very little fish.
okay, mods need to moderate this up. i mean, come on, this was an intelligantly written opposing viewpoint, and while it may not align with the view of the vocal majority, it still has its points, and appears to be written in seriousness, instead of being written to draw flaim. THIS is what slashdot was about, education, debate. not "i'm moderating you down because you don't agree with me or i don't like your viewpoint. " While i think this poster is a bit uneducated or misinformed, he still deserves to have his (or her, sorry for the bias ;-} ) view at the level of at LEAST 1, so that the anti-toll people who read at a 1+ threshold can see the article.
I am realitivly new to the open source side of life. But one thing escapes me. If the MPAA was really thinking, they would have either
A: applaud an individual for making it possible for another OS other than Windows to view
DVD movies which were purchased legally.
(The cost of copying a DVD movie would be far more than just buying the silly thing in the first place)
B: Make a port so that individuals wish to use an alternative OS can and not be hindered.
I know it mainly boils down to the all mighty dollar but logic states to me. The more OS's that are capable of reading a type of media the better.
As far as I am concerned that is the reason for him decrypting it in the first place.
This case is not about pirating DVDs! This case is about whether the MPAA is allowed to control how we watch the movies that we BUY!
Your kind of ignorance is the kind of ignorance that drives this whole case! I can copy a DVD if I had the (hardware) means to do so; it is just copying the data on the DVD whether it is encrypted or not! This is about watching the DVDs on out computers..the same computers that the MPAA has decided not to offer DVD decoding support for. Tell me that decoding the DVD encryption so I can watch a DVD which I purchased, on a DVD player which I purchased, on a computer which I purchased, on an OS that is free is PIRATING!!!
I happen to think not!
When was the last time you saw a 'pirated' copy of a DVD??? The media costs about the same as a movie ($15-20), and the DVD-R costs around $800!
I don't know where you buy your movies, but where I get mine they cost about $20-$25 and are worth every penny that I give to the movie industry to make these movies.
You have been listening to the lies my friend, the lies...
The association of research libraries has a web page on DMCA. This is a little library-centric, but generally quite informative.
Be prepared not to like what you read.
It appears that DMCA make simply "gaining access" to copyrighted material you already own illegal if it involves defeating technological protection measures. Note that this says nothing about having to make illegitimate copies.
There is a "reverse engineering" exception which might apply. I don't know, but I suspect that was slipped in to allow reverse engineering of file formats (e.g. to be able to read ms word documents). It is not clear whether this applies in the case of DeCSS, which allows you to gain access to copyrighted program material (albeit mainly useful for purposes most people would consider legitimate).
With regards to how this effects Norway, the technological protection method (TPM) parts are apparently laid out in Title 1, which implements the World Intellectual Property Organization Performance and Phonograms Treaty of 1996. If Norway is a signatory to this treaty, then the same rules apply there.
Frankly, as a US citizen, I think these measures are an affront to the spirit of our constitution (although given how far the technical niceties of the law are from the spirit of the constitution, DMCA may be literally constitutional while at the same time trampling on the intent of the Constitution). Congress is given a limited right to establish copyright to incent creators. While it would be absurd to say that DMCA is not in the interest of the members of the MPAA, it's also absurd to suggest that the MPAA members don't have sufficient incentive to create without it. And DMCA restricts ordinary users from using copyrighted material that any reasonable person.
For example -- suppose in a few years DVD is overtaken by a different optical disk standard. You can't buy an optical disk player that understands Css, and there is no software DVD player for Windows 2010. According to this unjust law, you cannot play your DVDs, even if you have a DVD compatible drive, because it would require that you work around Css.
We really need to get a congressional letter writing campaign going against this terrible law.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
uhm wtf was the purpose of that horrid little ascii? what relevance does it bear on anything? you people ever fscking stop and think before you post something? sheesh.
why do people keep falling for this? i mean, jeez, this is a troll so blatantly obvious that the "leeto script kiddie" at the bottom isn't even remotely necessary, and people are still reading it straight.
and whassup with that, anyway? used ta be there was subtlety in the trolls. not anymore. is there a contest to see who can be the most blatant and still get the desired response?
personally, i give ya 6/10, with points off for incoherency and lack of subtlety. you get kudos for a certain genuine-seeming rabidness.
-k. ^-^ ^D
I hope you aren't going to BS the claim that "they should have made a better protection system if they didn't want people to crack/reverse engineer/lick it." The fact of the matter is is that once you allow software players to exist on PCs and their ilk, you have screwed yourself. No matter how technically competent your crypto engineers think they are, there is absolutely no way to prevent a skilled enough programmer from reverse engineering your algorithms. They did what was reasonable, the only mistake was in allowing the hype to convince them that software players were needed.
Probably the main purpose of the crypto was to provide a point of contention in the legal arena. The likelyhood that the DMCA was a surprise to the DVD-CCA is very low and they acted accordingly.
The US didn't force anything. Oh well, let's bash them anyway cause it's so fun.
Keep in mind that the EFF is just a front for the US Libertarian Party... To me, this seems a bit unfair. We need a non-partisan organization to help computer-related causes. I'd like to help this guy out, but I'm certainly not going to do it through the EFF.
have you been reading and comprehending what the issues are here? Nobody is trying to "cheat" people out of their money or ruin anyones way of life. The issues are plain and clear:
1)DVD piracy is not cost effective.
2)Not all copying is illegal.
3)If I *buy* a DVD I should be able to play it how I choose.
Notice, I am buying DVDs. Someone is making a living off of me. Actually, I should say someone was making a living off of me as I will no longer buy DVDs until the MPAA issues a public apology for this fiasco. Attacking your customers doesn't promote business very well and I won't tolerate it.
And before you or anyone else screams "groupthink!!" let me say I have no problem with someone having a different opinion...I do have a problem when it's an ill-informed opinion.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Or pick locksmithing files, or phone phreaking howtos, or explosives howtos. All describe actions that would be illegal, but the description itself is protected free speech.
This is Nyarly's moment of civil responsibility.
While I agree that these documents should be publically available, regardless of their accuracy, and I do agree that deCSS is similar in spirit (and in fact, would go so far as saying that actual piracy of copywritten material is the crime) I must urge all of /., especially the younger viewers, not to implement anything they read in an on line drug/bomb/nuke HOWTO. Without fail there are errors or omissions which could be fatal to an uninformed tinkerer. By all means, use them as a jumping off point for further research, but be sure you know exactly what you'll be doing before you sit down at the bench, if you do so at all.
Especially, I'd like to warn against the Anarchist's Cookbook, which is full of a number of terrible recipes. The chemists I know have all warned against the drug section (psychidellics being among the list of poisons-labeled-mind-alterants). The .mil friends of mind advise against the fighting and explosives sections.
Although, that reminds me. If you must read books on wrecking havoc, the US Military has published a number of books on the subject, typically written at the level of a US high-school graduate, and with an eye towards not blowing the self up.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
Thats what i'm wondering myself. He did not write the code yet is enjoying all the popularity and attention associated with it. I seriously don't see why anyone is wasting their time with him.
If a whole bunch of people wind up in court, and 99% of them wind up convicted, one person being acquitted will not help the rest. In a situation where there are multiple similar cases, casuistry, rather than precedent, becomes the controlling juducial force.
It's pretty dangerous to suggest that "all we need" is one win. It's true to an extent, but would be better worded as we need the RIGHT win. The only sort of win that can help in that case is one that trumps the others (i.e. a federal victory).
The resources for defense are slim as it is. The LAST thing we need is the meager funding available through EFF, etc. to be spread across the globe on a hundred different cases. The best thing to do is fight for public awareness.
For that exact reason (resources), I don't believe mirroring the files is a wise move. If we wind up with more plaintiffs that's BAD. I disagree somewhat with the "Official" 2600 position, for instance, that people should mirror the hell out of the source. They SHOULD mirror it, but do so anonymously. We need the information to be available, but we also need to prevent a glut of cases from mucking the works too much.
This post may not be the popular sentiment on slushdot, but it certainly isn't a troll and does actually include a valid point.
Is this a blatent troll, or just someone who doesn't read? 1) for the hundredth time, you don't need to crack the encryption in order to copy the disc. You only need to crack the encryption (or license a key) to build a player. The encryption is there for the primary purpose of price-fixing and a pathetic attempt to monopolize on the DVD player market. The attack on Jon under the guise of "piracy" is a deceitful attempt to protect this monopoly. 2) LinuxOne are being slated for trying to profit from our (the hacker community)'s hard work. This is akin to selling pirated merchandize (see above). Linux one isn't really effecting the hacker community anyway - the people who are being taken for a ride by these guys are potential investors who, non-understanding of linux one's ethics, even competence are standing to loose a lot of money. 3) Whilst I certainly wouldn't classify Jon as a script kiddie, many script kiddies grow into excellent hackers through this thing called experience.
The use of encryption to protect copyright, making the copyright protection scheme and trade secret and the DMCA making circumventing the protection illegal brings to mind a few disturbing problems.
any of the other people involved could jump right in if they felt Jon was getting such a great deal.
personally, I think you are insane.
Besides, if it was me going to court, I'd say "I didn't write any of that code" too.
And of course this is under the GPL, isn't it?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
`Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is--
`(4) dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article that embodies it;
What does that mean? What about this:
`(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.
There seems to be a fine line between use for interoperability and intent to circumvent encryption. Can someone enlighten me on this?
Yep, notied that too actually last night, right after all that porno started showing up in the DeCSS thread. I'm guessing there was some hole that ./ had that was exploited by someone who was able to link to images while posting using Extrans.
Extrans is also my default and used to work very nicely in accepting HTML tags but now the tags show up verbatim and I've started using HTML Formatted.
For the DeCSS distribution contest i was thinking that someone should make a (somewhat pleasant if possible) song using DeCSS for the lyrics.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I've heard a lot of people talking about a boycot of the studios behind the CD-CCA and MPAA, my question is, are there any studios that are not part of this aliance, and should either not be part of a boycot, or should in fact be supported for not getting involved in this unpleasentness?
(Dreamworks is the one that got me wondering, but I don't know what their connection might be to all this)
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
It has already been held up by the courts that it is legal to make tapes of your albums (or CD's). This was determined when the RIAA tried to stop cassette tapes from being allowed on many of these same grounds they oppose mp3's.
Your assertion that there is some standard of "ensuring that no one is listening to the original CD"s" is wrong.
And I let people know about it. If I'm watching TV and a movie preview comes on I'll say something like "there's another movie I won't watch." Or if I'm talking with coworkers and somebody is talking about a movie I'll remark "I haven't seen it, I'm boycotting the movie industry."
Give your money to the EFF, not the MPAA.
Not so, you are beyond lame.
(Sorry about the AC - left my password at home...) One thing I'm not too clear on is - is it possible to manufacture an original (i.e. non-pirated) DVD movie that does NOT have encryption, and still have that DVD playable on standard DVD Players? Specifically, Someone earlier had wondered about why video rental places weren't complaining about Region codes, which got me to thinking about "import" movies (from, say Japan), which are not produced in Hollywood at all. Can a Japanese film company (for example) produce original DVD's of their movie for export that will play on standard DVD players without encryption? This would, at least, give non-Hollywood film makers a little bit of an "edge" to compete with ("Playable on ALL DVD players, even on Linux!"). (If not - is the DVD-CCA stifling international competition? Yes, I know, that's probably a rhetorical question. Are there any trade agreements or treaties that cover this sort of thing?)
Actually, what the MPAA did in this case was a clever dirty trick. They ignored the original posting of the software and hand picked the people to sue for distributing DeCSS to maximize shock value. This allows them to make the case that DeCSS is "for piracy" even when the original intent had little to do with piracy and everything to do with the legitimate interoperability of DVD with Linux.
I think that "dvd-copy.com" probably doesn't represent the mainstream. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear to me that their website (unlike LiViD, et. al) is clearly advocating the stealing of MPAA copyrighted material.
This raises an interesting legal question. Is it possible that dvd-copy.com has violated the DMCA while other groups (eg 2600.com) that post DeCSS have not? Whose intent controls the granting of the reverse engineering exception: the author's or the poster's? If it is the poster's intent, shouldn't each defendent be sued separately?
I added a note to the beginning explicitly licencing the story under the GPL 2.
--GnrcMan--
I started thinking about writing a letter to my local newspaper, and then I thought that it would be an awful waste of time and effort if someone much better at such things had already done so. Has anyone out there written any kind of letter to the media yet? If so, why not post it here, and we can modify it a bit if necessary, and then ship it off to all our local newspapers. This would also give the appearance that we are an organized community supporting a common viewpoint. Maybe we can submit this letter to 60 minutes or Dateline and convince them to do a segment on it. It would reach more people that way. We can call it the Open Letter project.
Preliminary details can be found at http://www.andthehorseyourodeinon.com/stash
I'm about 10% done with a Java test implementation; I invite comments and participation by people who understand the issues better than I do.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
The 2600 group had called for worldwide leafletting campaign to educate the general public about this case. Public support and opinion helps!
Check out:
http://www.2600.com/ for more details as well as flyers to post.
I'm in Seattle, anyone have anything planned?
-=- SiKnight
I browse at a threshold of zero so I didn't even see your post, you dick-licking piece of raw sewage! Therefore your conspiracy to widen my screen was a failure, you tampon-eating illiterate toilet scrubber! What a waste of your time! Go eat a dick! Hahaha!
Hmmm. He's a troll. You however are just a hypocritical dick.
This coming from anonymous coward?
I would like to know how Im just a hyporcritical dick?
Please.. at least have the guts to sign a name to your post if you are going to insult people like that.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
I make no assertion that there is a standard that you have to meet. The courts found that for personal, private use you could make copies. Once you start letting your friends use your CDs at the same time you are using copies of your CDs you are in violation of that finding and are breaking copyright law. If the RIAA approached you with a team of lawyers and they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use, then they certainly could require you to demonstrate that you are, in fact, obeying copyright law.
Nope, my point was just that instead of taking "years and millions of dollars" to develop, the actual cost was probably more like "days and hundreds of dollars". And in exchange for that, they had a monopoly on players for several years. It sounds like it was a good investment, and it paid off handsomely. What are they so sore about?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This is a fallacious argument. There are a lot *more ways to pirate a movie than to burn it do a DVD. Now it's possible to rip a DVD to your HD and do the translation to VCD/MPEG1 from there (rather than doing the decoding via the original DVD which has some heat issues.) Look at the number of people running around with little hard-ons because they managed to DL the crappy Star Wars mpeg. Or those who were l33t and got a copy of the Matrix. Woo. *
Yes.. but I can do that without software of the kind they are discussing.. I can just throw it in my DVD player at home, and rip it to a VHS tape via vcr.. or pipe it into the BTTV card in my machine and encode the incoming stream as mpg.
The point of DVD's is not ONLY the digital media, its the fact that they put all those nifty little things in there with them (see The Wall DVD or The Matrix DVD) that you dont get with the VHS or the cheap little mpg copy. I suspect THAT is what the BIg Brothers companys are worried about, not about people ripping it to their harddrive.. WHICH, by the way, is STILL not illegal to do.. its just illegal to do with anything not produced by a very select few companies who are in bed with the MPAA.. the very same people who wont stand up to the ratings system and put out what we want to see.. they wont stand up to a review board of 10 nameless people who rate tapes on a medievel system, yet they will take on one guy in a foreign country who wrote some code.. curious.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
You need to educate yourselves on the story of Dr. Alexander 'Sasha' Shulgin, who he was, what he contributed to the world of pharmacological science and how he was dealt such an incredibly raw deal by the government. Rememeber that no good deed ever goes unpunished.
Seeing the flyer and the mixed message it sends just bugs me. The text takes a rational approach to explain the issue and I applaud that. It makes those on our side of the issue look sane, rational and law abiding. However, putting Mickey Mouse's face on it is just asking for disrespect on the issue. If your going to violate(clearly, there's not much room in the law for using Mickey's face) existing, established intellectual property laws in your flyer, why should someone believe you had other intentions in writing/using DSS. The info in the flyer is a good idea. But the entire presentation has to be just as rational as the text. Since someone will say, why don't you do better?, I'll work on something this afternoon that uses the text without the Mickey image.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
There are two letters of support for you, to be found there. None in opposition.
The LA Times is, of course, no small venue. I was shocked to see it there.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
someone ramp this one up!!
I think the real world answer is clearly not. The case of Jake Baker at the University of Michigan demonstrates this. Mr. Baker wrote a piece of sadistic "erotica" involving the eventual rape and murder of the woman in the story, and posted in in alt.sex.something-or-other. So far, protected speech, right? Wrong. The name of the "fictional" woman in the story just happened to be that of one of his classmates.
Somebody noted this, alerted Michigan authorities, and Mr. Baker was proscecuted for having issued a threat. Successfully too, IIRC.
Remember, even with the First Amendment free speech guarantee, free speech has never been held to be an absolute right in US law. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, slander and libel, obscenity, and death threats have never enjoyed protection.
I just thought of another analogy to explain using DSS for viewing rather than copying.
Say, for example, you don't speak Welsh (I know someone out there does, but I needed an example), I write a book in Welsh. You can easily copy the book by retyping, photocopying, scanning etc. as long as you can recreate any special characters needed. However, you, not understanding Welsh, would not have any actual access to the information in my book. In this case, knowledge of the Welsh language(the DeCSS key) is useful only when you want to read and understand what I wrote.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
This may be a little off-topic, since it relates to the injunction, not to the police action against Jon.
I noticed that the prosecution entered selected inflamatory Slashdot postings into evidence, to show the intent of the members of the software community was to flout the law, and the judge took notice of this.
ANYONE can post to Slashdot. The PROSECUTION can post to Slashdot, and create as many such inflamatory postings as they wish.
Seems to me that in the absense of any showing that the authors of the postings were bonifide members of the software community, rather than agents of the prosecution, and that their opinions were representative of the community as a whole, the judge should take no notice of them.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As far as I know, writing worms or virii is perfectly legal. Maliciously distributing them is not. I'm sure the good folks at McCaffee Associates have a huge collection of virii, some of which they've written themselves, which are used to test their anti-virus software. Can anybody seriously suggest that they be arrested?
It's just like lockpick tools - the tools are legal; you can order them through the mail. Using them to enter a building without permission is illegal. Also, if you get picked up wandering around at 3:00am with them in your possession, police will infer "intent", and you've got a lot of explaining to do.
This is all beside the point.
Nobody's talking about copying DVDs and then lending out the originals. It's about being able to interface with the hardware you buy in whatever way you want. You can copy DVDs without a decoder. The only thing the css stuff does is keep you from playing them with anything but an mpaa licenced and approved player, which is crap.
See opendvd.org
Jigglypuff and the 150 other pokemon should be eradicated.
Too bad the growing popularity of emulators will make that impossible.
Well, regardless of what he did, he's got a lot of legal bills ahead of him. Offering him a job seems like a nice way to help him out.
For example, a logical defense would be "I didn't shoot him", while a legal argument sounds more like "I didn't shoot him, but if you prove I did, it was in self defense, and anyway I don't own a gun, but if you do find my gun, it wasn't the one that was used to shoot him, and by the way I've got 3 people that will testify I wasn't there, and you've only got one person that says I was, and he's a pathological liar and a lawyer (I know, that's redundant) anyway!"
You still think logic will help?
First off, having the key to the lock does not give you the ability to copy the lock or the locked box. You can't touch the key to the locked box and *poof* get another locked box. That's just stupid. MasterLock, or anyone with the appropriate manufacturing device to create locked boxes, can produce copies of the lock even if they don't have a key, just as the MPAA's manufacturers, or someone with a DVD-writing device, can copy a CSS-encrypted DVD title. The key plays no part in the copying, it is irrelevant.
Now the person with the key doesn't have to care about copying, or whether there is one locked box or a million out there, he just wants to be able to open the lock that he bought, and that is the only functionality that the key provides. And there you have it.
Hopefully, this case will set some precedents as to what is and isn't valid reverse engineering. If the MoRE had really been expecting a legal battle, they should have documented a "clean room" environment, and come up with software that dynamically recreated the keys when installed (genetic algorithms, anyone?). Then the DVD CCA would have much weaker legal legs to stand on, and we would have a much better chance of setting a precedent which favors the open source development methodology!
You guys may not agree with this post, but it is NOT a troll or flamebait. Yes, I agree, he could be more logical in his argument, but this is an ON TOPIC OPINION and does not deserve to be moderated down because you don't like what he has to say.
Someone please give me some moderator points. Time for me to go do some MetaModeration.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
The whole css-auth tarball steganographically stored in a PNG file!
Yesterday at the LinuxWorldExpo, I bought one of those DVD shirts, you know, the ones with DVD CSS crossed out on the front and the acutal code on the back... copyleft sells them.
Anyway, today, I wore it to school and to the meeting of our political debate club. A bunch of people asked about it and I briefly explained the issue. Many thought the shirt was funny, but all of them roughly understood the issue. Of course, you can't wear it every day, but buy one and wear it as much as you can; explain to random people who ask about it what the issue is. Spread awareness in general. I found that most people, even people who are into technology and computers, don't know about this particular issue. So teach them. Wear the shirt!
Putting all other issues aside, the security for DVDs is cracked, you can't plug security holes through litigation. Regardless of the outcome of the case, DVDs are no longer 100% secure formats.
I don't own a DVD and I'm not a lawyer, but Its my understanding that tying of products is illegal in many nations and/or states. Now, all we would have to prove is that they are tying the licensed players to their DVD products. I could, and may be, wrong on this. If I am could someone please correct me on this.
I'm wondering whether or not there is a "mod chip" of sorts availiable for DVD players so that it is posible to purchase DVDs from anywhere in the world and play them on my machine? Product discrimination is bad. And that is exactly what all of "region encoding" is.
Again, if anyone knows about a mod chip, please respond. Thanks.
I always thought that was Bill Clinton's thingy...
:-)
BWAHHAHAHAHA!
No, I don't care if my Karma goes down.
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
And it's why anyone can decrypt a DVD that they have purchased if they wish.
It's not piracy unless they sell or give away those copies to others (or sell the originals while keeping copies for themselves). Copyright law does not give the copyright holder any right to dictate a thing about private use of copyrighted materials which have been legally purchased, so long as that private use remains within the bounds of Fair Use. And decrypting DVDs is unquestionably a legitimate Fair Use.
Next!
Electronic Frontier Norway
Of course, I'm not sure if they've set up the fund yet, but I plan to keep on checking back on their page to see how it is going, and I figured other people would be interested in the link too. (I think I can send an International Money Order, or something. I need to look into it.)
Oh, and thanks, Joh, for a thourough and informative answer to my questions.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
What DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) says
The DMCA allows copyrighted-content providers to encrypt their content to protect their property from unauthorized duplication. Notice that the law does NOT set any standards for the quality of the encryption, nor does it require it to be hardware or software. The DMCA makes it ILLEGAL to create anything that breaks this encryption for the purposes of copying. Again, no distinction is made between hardware or software.
My opinion on what MPAA's game plan was
It seems they had a four-pronged approach:
1.Some level of encryption to meet DMCA's definiton of encryption, and use of region codes to control DVD distribution.
2.Licensing of the decrypt-codes and region codes necessary to decode and play DVDs to DVD player makers.
3.Put the decrypt-codes and region codes on a specific track of authorized DVDs.
4.Getting all blank DVD makers to write all zeros to the track on the blank DVDs that would normally hold the decrypt-codes and region codes on authorized DVDs.
We all seem to be amazed at how relatively easy it was to crack the CSS. My opinion is that MPAA didn't care and probably expected it to be cracked eventually; their only concern is that it meet the definition of encryption in the DCMA. The use of region codes was just plain greed on the part of MPAA, and since it appears to be in violation of multiple international trade agreements, I expect they will go away at some point.
MPAA's MAJOR SCREW-UP
As we all know, you don't even need to decrypt the DVD to copy it, which is why MPAA didn't put much effort into the encryption scheme, IMHO. You can copy DVDs without decrypting them now, but since the decrypt-keys track is pre-written to zeros on all blank media, you can't play it on a DVD player. BUT, if you wrote the decrypt-code track to some pre-determined ALTERNATE track that wasn't written with zeros, and it was LEGAL to make players that looked for it on the alternate track, the whole scheme of pre-writing zeros on blank media would fail, without any violation of the DMCA, since the COPYING drive is not decrypting the source, and the PLAYING drive is not circumventing the encryption for the purposes of copying!! How did they plan to get around this? By licensing the DVD players, and as part of their license, prevent the DVD player makers from making players that look for the decrypt-codes on alternate tracks. And this is where MPAA's MAJOR SCREWUP comes in. They ASSUMED that anybody who would crack the CSS code would be motivated by profit, and would copyright their code and try to license it to player makers. Then, MPAA would go after the CSS crackers and stop them from licensing the cracked CSS code with the DMCA decryption laws. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM THAT SOMEBODY WOULD CRACK CSS AND PUT THE CODE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. With DeCSS in the public domain, there is nothing stopping DVD player makers from using the DeCSS code, and without the MPAA license, nothing to stop them from looking for the decrypt codes on an alternate track!! And nobody to stop from distributing the code.
So, in spite of MPAA's legal mumbo-jumbo, their real fear is that they will lose control of licensing DVD players, and therefor the ability to restrict DVD players from looking for de-crypt codes on an alternate track. So MPAA may have already lost the war. And this is why MPAA is now trying to put the Fear of God into anybody who has ever HEARD of DeCSS. The cat is out of the bag, they know it, and they are fighting for their very existence. If Jon had GPL'd the code, or any license that prevented commercial use (i.e.: DVD player makers), the only thing MPAA would probably be going after him for would be an agreement to NEVER sell or license the code or allow it's use in DVD players. I don't think the MPAA would scream much if Jon licensed his code, as long as it had the same provisions as the MPAA license. In fact, if Jon could still copyright his code, that might be his best bet for bringing this whole thing to an end.
Am I right?
Personally, I feel Jon is making a mistake if he takes a job with the companies. They would not be hiring him for technical merit, but for publicity. Jon, if you are listening, get your education. You'll be a more rounded, knowledgable person if you do. It will also empower you to get a job you LIKE based on work you WANT TO DO, instead of being some companies PR move.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
I browse at -1, but I've got you in my pocket, honey.
"How?" you ask?
1280 X 1024, small font.
Suck it, bitch.
The goal of my letter is to inform my Senators and Representative about the recent trial in New York. I wanted to let them know in as simple of terms as possible what my objections were to the MPAA and to the DMCA.
>>
February 4, 2000
The Honorable (Your Senator's Full Name)
U.S. Senate
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
To: Senator (Your Senator's Last Name):
I am deeply concerned with a recent ruling concerning the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The ruling was made by Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York. The case this ruling pertains to is Universal City Studios, Inc, et al. vs Shawn C Reimeredes, et al. In this case, Mr. Reimeredes, et al. are accused of violating the DMCA by providing the computer source code for a program called DeCSS, which provides the base for a program which allows the user of this program to play movie DVDs on their home computer. The plaintiffs claim that the program, DeCSS, violates the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA. This prohibits the unauthorized offering of products that circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. However, DeCSS was created by a a 15 year old Norwegian boy to provide a means for increasingly popular operating systems like Linux, which do not have commercial DVD player programs, to play DVDs. This is clearly allowed by the DMCA under the interoperability clause. It is also upheld by "fair use" copyright law.
Judge Kaplan, however, has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by saying that the DeCSS program only facilitates copyright infringement. This ruling is a terrible blow to consumer rights and shows that the DMCA is just a judicial tool for corporate conglomerates such as the the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to limit individual, private use of legally purchased copyrighted material. This ruling grants the MPAA a Federally enforced monopoly over the DVD format. This is contrary to what a copyright and copyright law is supposed to provide. Copyrights are around to protect the author of the copyrighted material and to encourage the spread of information and the arts. This ruling prevents users from playing DVDs unless they use a DVD player that is sanctioned by the MPAA and DVD consortium. This prevents users from watching a product, which they purchased, on their computer if it uses an operating system which does not have a commercial sanctioned DVD program. Furthermore, this ruling prevents independent film-makers and home users from creating DVDs which will be playable in legally purchased DVD players. It also prevents users from creating backup copies of the DVDs, which they legally purchased, something which was protected under "fair use" copyright laws.
I am asking that you investigate who the DMCA is really helping, the individual artists or the large corporate conglomerates' monopoly of media formats. I am also asking that if you feel in a similar way that I do on this issue that you tell your fellow congressmen and women about this. You could also sponsor or co-sponsor legislation which will reform the DMCA so that it protects the individual artists and the consumers and not corporate conglomerates. For further information on the subject please visit http://www.opendvd.org. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Your Name
>>
The Alternative heading for Representatives is
>>
February 4, 2000
The Honorable (Your Representative's Full Name)
U.S. House of Representatives
1516 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
To: Representative (Your Reps's Last Name):
>>
Feel free to modify this but please let me know what your changes are (besides your name and your reps names) so that I may update my own letter. Also make sure that you address your representative and Senators properly. You can find the mailing info on your Senators and Representative at http://congress.nw.dc.us/nra/index.pl. Feel free to tell me what you think of this letter. Good Luck and Thanks.
Republic
"I make no assertion that there is a standard that you have to meet. The courts found that for personal, private use you could make copies. Once you start letting your friends use your CDs at the same time you are using copies of your CDs you are in violation of that finding and are breaking copyright law. If the RIAA approached you with a team of lawyers and they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use, then they certainly could require you to demonstrate that you are, in fact, obeying copyright law."
The burden of proof would be on thier side. They would have to demonstrate the you were violating copyright law.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/24/20242 33&cid=338
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
AFAIK, in the U.S. a trial can only take place when someone has been accused of a crime. Doesn't the constitution prevent 'what if' inquiries to judges?
That is, it was within congressional authority to remove the right of fair use by statute.
It may be that the only way to get it fixed is to amend/repeal the DMCA. I am not at all sure we can expect the courts to fix the legislation on their own. We may have to figure out how to convince legislators that the DMCA had serious unintended consequences that need to be fixed. That will take positive engagement and, unfortunately, financial support.
Compare to the CDA, where there -were- clear first amendment issues that could be ruled unconstitutional. With DMCA, we don't have prior-restraint on the code -- all these suits are actions after the fact for torts.
Where the DMCA may run into constitutional difficulty is in turning publication into a criminal act, I think. That would seem to have first amendment problems.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
If the RIAA approached you with a team of lawyers and they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use, then they certainly could require you to demonstrate that you are, in fact, obeying copyright law.
If they think I'm doing something, then they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. I'm not required to prove myself innocent.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
While they can have the truth bent towards their way by badmouthing DeCSS, they just CANNOT do anything about hacks that make existing players region-free, because the idea of region code itself violates the law in a lot of countries (e.g. New Zealand)
May I propose that, in addition to DeCSS, we mirror DVDGenie as well, which is a freeware obtainable from
Number 1, i want a t-shirt that says "fsck the system" ;)
Number 2, theres a reason why this wasn't created by a 3l33t kiddie... 3l33t kiddies never create anything! They just beg and whine to real geeks until they get some scripts or something.
Number 3, keep explaining your shirt! Why the hell do you think you're wearing it? Why do you think people wear yellow ribbons for AIDS or wore blue ribbons for anti-CDA? NOT so they could identify others with the same interests (but this might be why you're wearing the shirt, either that or to set yourself apart).. the reason things like this are created around issues is to disseminate the information! The more people that ask you, the more the shirt is doing its job as long as you're explaining it...
Esperandi
Here is a copy of a letter to the editor that I submitted to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. If it passes muster here, I'd like some feedback, and I will put it in a "hardcopy" form and mail it to several newspapers.
8----- SNIP -----8
Dear Sir,
I have written to bring to your attention and the
attention of your readers the situation unfolding
within the DVD video disc industry. First, though,
a little history.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the movie industry
decried the entry into the market of video cassette
recorders as ruinous to their industry. They were
all too happy to let people rent video cassettes from
stores, but they absolutely did not want consumers to
be able to record their own videos. They failed in
that attempt to deny consumers choice. Fast forward to
the present, and you will find that the video cassette
industry has not at all hurt the movie industry. In
fact, many movies are either released straight to the
video market, or make more money in that market than
they made in theaters. This is hardly ruinous for the
motion picture industry.
The music industry was up in arms about FM radio.
Cries of "people will be able to hear high fidelity
music without purchasing it" were heard throughout
the land. Now, they use FM radio as a market for
advertising albums for sale by promoting selected
songs to be played over the air!
The music industry wanted to disallow the use of audio
cassette recorders for the same reasons. It was their
claim that such devices would promote copying of music
media to the extent that it would be impossible for
them to eak out even a meager existence. They failed
in their attempt to deny consumers choice. The market
for music cassettes, then, carried them for a long
while until the emergence of CDs. I would now point
you to the CD duplicators sold by Phillips as an
example of how consumers' ability to duplicate media
has hurt the music industry (hint: more CDs were
sold last year than the year before, even with the
introduction of this new equipment).
By contrast, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the
music industry was able to, in effect, make it utterly
infeasible for the general public to obtain DAT decks.
The market for music on that media format never took
off the way it could have, and the music industry was
never allowed to benefit from it. They swindled them-
selves out of a great deal of money by choking off a
potential market.
History lesson over.
The motion picture industry (the chief mover being
the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA),
along with the Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) Copy
Control Association (CCA), collectively referred to
hereafter as the DVD Consortium, are now using the
courts to limit consumer freedom in the market place.
Players and movie discs are region-coded, making it
impossible for consumers to, say, import a DVD from
Europe and display it on the DVD player equipment they
have purchased.
Imagine this scenario:
Your daughter went to France to attend college for a
year on a scholarship. While she was there, she
purchased a small library of films on DVD, and a
player upon which to display them. Her year in France
is over, and she comes home. Unfortunately, in the
process of moving her belongings home, her DVD player
is lost.
She goes out and buys another DVD player, pops up some
popcorn, tosses one of the discs in the player, and
plops down on the couch to watch a movie she brought
home. There is a problem, however. The movies she
purchased in France will not work in a player sold in
the United States. It's not a problem of television
scan format, like the problem experienced by video
tape recorders, but a problem with the region codes
placed on the disc and in the players. The DVD
Consortium has limited her freedom to play films (even
American films) she bought overseas!
A similar, but not hypothetical, scenario is faced by
computer users today.
You or your readers may have heard about the Linux
operating system. It is an upstart computer operating
system that is lately making its presence known in
some segments of the computer industry. Several other
such systems exist, some commercial and some not, and
they all face this dilemma.
The problem is that no DVD player software exists for
computers running these operating systems. Players
exist for Intel-compatible personal computers running
the Microsoft Windows operating system, and for Apple
Macintosh computers.
To solve this problem, a group of youngsters in Norway
reverse-engineered the protection scheme (called CSS)
used on the DVD discs. There are already a number of
packages sprouting up to fill the need for a DVD
player software in that segment of the computer
market. Consumers now have a choice: they can run an
alternative operating system on their computers (whose
benefits are such that it is important to THEM to use
that system), and they can play DVD movies that
they've purchased on their computers. The software
that they produced is called DeCSS, and it is at the
center of a growing international controversy.
Unfortunately, the DVD Consortium is abusing the U.S.
courts to stifle this action on false claims that the
software was intended to aid in movie piracy. They
have even gone so far as to pressure the police in
Norway to arrest one of the talented youngsters who
made this choice possible. The police have seized the
boy's computer hardware and his mobile phone, and have
raided his father's business. All at the behest of
the DVD Consortium. Not only are they abusing the
system we have in place to protect us in the United
States, but they are abusing the freedoms of people
overseas.
I would like to disseminate some facts about the DVD
matter, so that you and your readers are better
informed, and so that the truth about this travesty
may be brought to light and wrongs may be righted.
The DVD Consortium, led by the MPAA, have cited the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1999 as their legal
basis for conducting these abuses. In fact, that same
document GUARANTEES the right of people to reverse-
engineer technologies that would allow them to access
information that they have a legal right to access. In
other words, if I went out and bought a movie on DVD, I
have every right to watch that movie - no matter how I
accomplish that feat.
It is also a fact that Norway's laws are different
from those in the United States. There it is illegal
for a company to try to deprive you of your right to
see how something you bought works. It is also legal
for us in the United States to do so, though the DVD
Consortium would like to limit that right.
Would you buy a car that had its hood welded shut?
It is the position of the DVD Consortium that the
DeCSS program source code will enable people to make
illicit copies of DVD movies, which would violate the
copyrights they own. They contend that such technology
is illegal, and that the spread of this technology will
irreparably harm their ability to conduct business and
make money. This is the same argument the motion
picture industry had against video tapes, a segment of
the market that makes them money hand-over-fist today.
In fact, DeCSS cannot be used in this way. There are
commercially available DVD duplicators on the market
that can be used to make an EXACT DUPLICATE of a DVD
movie disc; a copy so precise that no DVD player on
Earth would be able to tell it apart from the original
disc.
If it is piracy that the DVD Consortium is alarmed
about, it should be very concerned indeed about such
products. Such systems have valid functions, though.
This cannot be denied, as doing so would be arguing
that video cassette recorders and audio cassette
recorders have no valid reasons for existing. As such,
the DVD consortium will not target the manufacturers
of such equipment. They conveniently ignore these
systems when bringing their complaints before the
courts.
How many times have you made an illicit copy of a
movie on video cassette?
If I had to take a guess, the average reader would say
that they had done so very few times. I would also
guess, correctly, that far more people have rented or
purchased a movie on video tape, and have abided by
the agreement to not copy and distribute the contents
of that movie than those who have willfully broken the
law. The fact that the motion picture industry turns
record profits from the distribution of video tapes
fully supports this theory. That people have abused
the capabilities of the machines they possess is an
unfortunate situation, and it cannot be morally put
aside, but in monetary terms the costs incurred by
the movie industry is infinitesimally small.
The DVD Consortium is concerned about DeCSS because
it would allow people to pirate movies over the
Internet. This may be a valid concern, but let us
take a closer look at reality.
The average DVD movie consumes about fifteen gigabytes
of data storage. That's roughly 1,500 megabytes of
data space. It is only recently that such space has
been available to consumers for storing data on their
home systems! Consider now that most people connect
to the Internet at an incredibly slow speed. This may
eventually change, but the days of slow internet access
are numbered long. It is highly unlikely that anyone
will be at all willing to download a fifteen gigabyte
movie file to their home computer over a modem. To do
so would take many, many days.
In effect, even if some did abuse the technology to
make pirated copies of DVD movies available to denizens
of the Internet, the monetary loss to the movie
industry would be negligible. The fact of the matter
is that DVD is a great format: it doesn't wear out,
possesses astounding picture quality and incredible
audio quality, usually carries with it highlights and
extras like interviews, and is in a very convenient
and elegant form factor. The costs associated with
making illicit copies of the movies available on the
internet make the benefits of doing so seem paltry,
and people are not going to waste their time doing so.
These are the facts of the case. There may be some
valid concerns, but the sheer weight of history and
of evidence would tend to minimalize these concerns.
What the DVD Consortium is doing, limiting the rights
of people to watch movies that they have purchased, is
wrong.
I would urge you and your readers to investigate this
attempt to curtail your freedoms. To wit, I offer the
web site of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, at
http://www.eff.org and the web site specifically for
the promotion of the open DVD software, at
http://www.opendvd.org.
Thank you,
Corey Brenner
(address omitted)
I may be reached for comment at my home phone number, which is (phone number omitted).
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I'm one of the few that pursue truth to the point of nitpicking ;) As the majority of the world is today, nothing is ever as good as the people who praise it says it is and nothing is as bad as the people who decry it claim. You are contributing to this.
You need to explain to this average person that yes, deCSS *IS* currently being used to pirate DVD movies on countless IRC channels around the world BUT the purpose of the program is to circumvent monopoly and is simply a way of exercising our rights to Fair Use.
When you say "deCSS isn't used for copying DVDs", that's all fine and good if they're ignorant and stay that way, but what happens if they meet one asshole copying DVDs with deCSS and inevitably wearing one of those shirts? _EVERYTHING_ you said gets completely thrown out the window by them and you've lost credibility because you either don't know what you're talking about or you're a liar.
Esperandi
Drop by some big IRC servers like Efnet or Undernet, drop by the "moviez" rooms if you don't believe me.
Why do we need groups to act? How about when someone threatens your freedom, you defend it?
When someone threatens mine, I defend it.
If someone chooses not to defend themselves, they do not deserve defense.
let them buy what the media feeds them, I hope it rots them from the inside out. How else do you expect them to learn?
Esperandi
If we take away enough of the consequences, maybe people will stop doing it! Wait...
"is it possible to surrender enough freedom to escape total annihilation from the current regime, but keep enough that it won't happen to whatever we put in place? "
The man who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security will lose both and deserves neither.
--- Thomas Jefferson
Esperandi
Excuse me, but if I said something like "all blacks are communists and don't belong in America", I'd me moderated down instantaneously. This is no different. It's one thing to make a valid point (which the poister does), but it's another thing to make blind and sweeping insults.
wierd.
no idea what exactly your art is, since the URLs don't work, so here's some stuff i made last month.
http://drowned.cx/decss/
There are a couple of GIFs at that URL. They were created by opening the decss code as raw rgb values and overlaying text on them.
The interesting thing is that they contain, inside their standard GIF comment block, the vertabrim source code to DeCSS. So this would mean that anyone who looks at these images has broken the law, because their web browser caches have become illegal mirrors of the DeCSS code.
Just some thought. read the page if you're bored.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Say, that use Word for writing your documents. You want to write an application do search and index word processor documents. Your application will index them and be able to retrieve them. But you can't because you are not allowed to access the word documents in their format. It's M$'s format. You are not allowed to access documents that are in their formats without using their products. What about writing a word processor yourself, but some sends you a document in word format, you have to buy Word so you can export it.
When you buy a DVD you want to be able to play it. DeCSS would allow that. You have a right to play it, since you bought it. The MPAA claim that DeCSS allows you to copy their product. To duplicate it, you don't need to decode it.
Fight Spammers!
just as a side note, he said that they choose to use windows because it had support for UDF. I found a great little kernal module for reading UDF the other day when I wanted access a DirectCD disc I had (also UDF).
http://trylinux.com/projects/udf/
Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!
YOU CAN COPY A DVD WITHOUT DECRYPTING IT!
For the hard of thinking, let me repeat that:
YOU CAN COPY A DVD WITHOUT DECRYPTING IT!
So software to decrypt and play DVDs is not going to help or hinder pirating one stinkin' little bit. You're right however that it affects the movie industry's business. It increases sales by opening up markets to their products that didn't exist before (Linux users). Now, you can argue that the Linux user market is too small to matter, but you cannot argue that DeCSS HURTS the industry when it actually increases the number of potential customers (no matter how slightly).
I, for one, am not buying any DVDs until such time as I can actually play them on my computer. This software, if it were allowed to continue being developed would have turned me into a DVD buyer. I guess the movie industry doesn't want me as a customer for some reason.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Without some form of copyright protection, the zillion-dollar corporations have no incentive to spend mega-$$$ generating the entertainment that people love.
CSS is not copyright protection! With expensive DVD-writing equipment (BTW, expensive recording equipment is the only copyright protection of any sort the industry ever had), anyone can copy a DVD without DeCSS! Pirates in Hong Kong have been doing this for years, without DeCSS!
This is not about protecting intellectual property, this is about an artificial, government-supported monopoly on devices that play DVDs (the government support is in the form of a stupid law called DMCA, which restricts reverse engineering of certain technologies, and thus creates a barrier to free market competition).
Take your Linux and 'DeCSS' and leave my Free Country, dammit! If Karma were a measure of idiocy, you would be a fucking guru. Because the MP3 format allows much easier transfers and storage of music, would you call the creators of it pirates? Perhaps the people behind lzw compression should be locked up since lots of leet pir8 warez are ziped? Cigarette companies make products that are addictive to the point of death, and they're getting away with it. Jon builds a DVD player for his prefered OS and he is the big bad guy? Wake the hell up, Jon made programs to build towards a Linux DVD player. If the stupid companies cared about their authentication/encryption system, their consumers, or even if they had a clue, they would have locked in down legally with patents and copyrights. No, but they did'nt, for fear that it would be used outside of what they can control. Well guess what, bad move fools, under estimating thousands of extremely talented techos which are all linked electronically spanning many .gov's is something you most definitely cannot beat. They have themselves to blame. I support his actions and point of view morally and financially. Moron.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
This could be what you were referring to.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
You assume that that fact has already been determined. You miss the point entirely. It isn't about whether or not he broke the law, but whether or not a corporation should have the power to screw with people's pursuit of happyness like this.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Fair Use is well-established in U.S., and I believe, other countries' legal precedent. Copyright holders cannot legally restrict Fair Use of copyrighted material.
New XFMail home page
That started out well, but the last word reflects a profound ignorance of copyright law. You don't BUY movies (unless you've got very big bucks). You buy CDs worth about a dollar and you pay the remainder for a license to use the movie under the terms of the license. This has always been true, even for books, where the license is implied (by copyright law) and even for your beloved GPL'd software. Even when you don't have to pay for the license (as with GPL'd software), your use of it is still controlled by law and license. All this stuff is PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, regardless of how much you paid for the information carrier. The argument before us is how copyright holders like Miramax, Sony, and the Free Software Foundation are going to be allowed to control their property and what penalties shall be impose on those who avoid legal controls or develop tools to help others avoid the controls. We're talking about the digital equivalents to padlocks (among other things). I world in which it is legal to break padlocks is a nasty place, even in a virtual world, where commerce and other transactions are less useful than they would be in a world where a reasonable level of security is established through law and punishment.
If you don't like the laws, get them changed. Trying the Ghandi method of breaking bad laws only works when you've got lots of people willing to do jail time. I'm sure that's not the case here.
The deCSS story
e ,0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,'" , 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,'?" a ,0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f,'" 8 ,0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,'?" c ,0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75,'. Got it? c ,0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95,'?" 8 ,0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,' or is it, '0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a ,0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f,'? That is not right. It could have been, '0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e ,0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,0xb3,0xf3 ,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe,0xb6,0xab ,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22 ,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a,0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a ,0x62,0x7f,'. No that is too many letters...." 8 ,0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,0x5d,0x1d ,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c,0x54,0x85 ,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,'. Well, either that or '0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc ,0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5,0x39,0x79 ,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78,0x30,0x21 ,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2 ,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa,0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa ,0xe2,0xff'" 8 ,0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,0x12,0x13 ,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a,0x19,0x18 ,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27 ,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c,0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28 ,0x2b,0x2a,0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33 ,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e,0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38 ,0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e ,0x40,0x41,0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47,0x5b,0x5a ,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53 ,0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55,0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e ,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65,0x66,0x67 ,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a ,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77,0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73 ,0x70,0x71,0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95 ,0x9b,0x9a,0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c ,0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88 ,0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,0xb6,0xb7 ,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe,0xbd,0xbc ,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7 ,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac,0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8 ,0xab,0xaa,0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde ,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3,0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5 ,0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce ,0xc0,0xc1,0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7,0xff,0xfe ,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7 ,0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee ,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5,0xe6,0xe7 ,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3'" 4 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,'" 4 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff ,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24 ,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d ,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6 ,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff '" 0 ,0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,0x08,0x88 ,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98,0x58,0xd8 ,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4 ,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94,0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4 ,0x74,0xf4,0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac ,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c,0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc ,0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2 ,0x12,0x92,0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2,0x0a,0x8a ,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a ,0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6 ,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96,0x56,0xd6 ,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae ,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e,0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe ,0x7e,0xfe,0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1 ,0x11,0x91,0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1 ,0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99 ,0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,0x05,0x85 ,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95,0x55,0xd5 ,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5,0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd ,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d,0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd ,0x7d,0xfd,0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3 ,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93,0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3 ,0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb ,0x1b,0x9b,0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb,0x07,0x87 ,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97 ,0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf ,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f,0x5f,0xdf ,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff'" ; lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;}'" His voice cresendoed as he reached the height of the epic s stab1[key[3]]^key[2];key[2]=k[2]^csstab1 [key[2]]^key[1];key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0] ;key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];key[ 4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];key[3]=k[3]^csstab1 [key[3]]^key[2];key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[ 2]]^key[1];key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];key[ 0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];}'" ; lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;}}' End
And because this is to incredibly wonderful not to go ahead and post:
NOTE: This story is licenced under the GPL version 2.
It is a dark and stormy night in a dark and stormy town. Tonight we find
ourselves looking apon Dick and Jane, two programmers bundled up by the fire
discussing current events:
"So, Jane, how was your day?" says Dick.
"Oh, fine. You know, I just heard about this interesting program that is
creating quite a fuss." says Jane, "It is called 'css_descramble.c'.".
"Wow," Dick enthused, "I have heard of it. My buddy kept talking about it.
He couldn't stop mentioning how it was...how did he put it? Ah yes, 'Released
under the version 2 of the GPL and Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus'".
Jane jumped with joy. "I am so glad you have heard of it. I happen to have
a copy. Here, look. The very first thing it does is '#include ' then
it has '#include '."
"You are right, but you forgot '#include "css-descramble.h"'" Dick
admonished.
Jane blushed, "Silly me. Well, we should have a look at the code. It
seems to start with 'typedef unsigned char byte;'. Then it moves right along
to an array. What is that? Oh, 'static byte csstab1[256]={'"
"I know!" Dick blurted, "lets play a number game! I will say a bunch of
numbers, then you can repeat the numbers. Ready? '0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7
"Hmmm...that is one long list of numbers...let me see. Was it, ' 0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
Dick frowned, "That is completely wrong! Well, let me try again, '0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1
Jane furrowed her brow, "I think I can do this one, '0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x9
"Wow!" dick exclamed, "You suck! Third time is the charm: '0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7
"I think so," Jane said, "Is it '0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9
Dick scowled, "No, no, no! It is, '0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x1
"I remember!" Jane interupted "It is '0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf
"Boy, that was harder than I thought." Dick sighed. Where were we in the
code? Ah yes, '};static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]={'".
"You skipped a bunch" said Jane, "Besides, I am still not ready to look at
that again. I feel like counting. In hex! '0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x0
When jane finished she looked exausted. As she collapsed, she uttered the
cryptic phrase, '};static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]={'.
Dick slapped Jane back to consciousness. "You counted wrong. You are
delerious. Repeat these numbers until you feel better, '0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x2
Jane smiled, "Numbers always make me feel better. I will repeat those
numbers, '0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x2
"'};static byte bit_reverse[256]={'," Dick swore. "That gave me a headache."
But Jane still continued to repeat the numbers, So Dick was forced to drown Jane out with his own numbers, "Two can play at that game, '0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x9
At this, Jane opened her eyes wide, she began shaking and speaking in
tounges. "Bloogle said, '};static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert){unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;byte k[5];int i;lfsr1_lo = im[0] | 0x100;lfsr1_hi = im[1];lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];'" Jane said as she rolled her eyes. "Lograth
told Jane, 'combined = 0;for (i = 0; i >1;lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
function, 'key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];key[3]=k[3]^c
Jane relaxed vissibly. At that point there was a knock at the door. Dick
got up to answer it.
"Oh dear," said Dick. Jane rushed to see the problem.
At the door was a a robot gone awry. "Illegal function." It said in monotone, 'int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey){byte test[5], pretkey[5];int i = 0;for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);' Illegal function,
'memcpy(test, dkey, 5);css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);break;}}if (!*pkey) {fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);return 0;}css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);return 1;}' violates rules. Illegal function."
"Illegal function. What do you suppose it means?" wondered Jane.
"Hmm..." said Dick. "Lets see if we can fix the robot with some new
instructions."
"Robot, enter command mode" Ordered Dick.
"By using this robot you agree not to reverse engineer, distribute, rent,
or use this robot for purposes not explicitly..."
"Whatever," Dick interupted as he pressed the glowing accept button on the
torso of the robot, "Robot, enter command mode."
"Ready for commands"
"Command: 'void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key){unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;unsigned char o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])'" Dick paused for a breath, "'lfsr1_lo = SALTED(0) | 0x100;lfsr1_hi = SALTED(1);lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];sec+=0x80;combined = 0;while (sec != end) {o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
command."
At this point the robot did something very frightening. It blew up. Dick
and Jane shielded thier eyes. When they were finally able to see again, they
were shocked by what lay before their eyes. When the robot exploded, it
released thousands of fliers. The fliers flew for miles around. On each flyer
the reader was greeted with the source code for a program. The program was
DeCSS.
A thousand monkeys indeed...that's exactly what we have, except in this case, it's more like a million monkeys... Totally amazing...it really does frighten you to the core when you see what the Corporations are actually trying to do...they want to control every facet of what comes in your direction...It frightens me, it really does. While I have absolutely no use for DeCSS ( I barely watch television, and catch a movie once every 2 months or so), I stand firmly behind the FREEDOM TO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE. What sort of moron is going to tell me how I can drink my coffee? No-one I warrant...
Also: RMS recently said the the GPL wasn't a SWL and someone else said the GPL wasn't even a contract. Aren't ALL licenses contracts? And how is the GPL (or any other license or even copyright "permission" statement) not a SWL? What defines a SWL? Surely not the plastic. I think it just means that you can't use the copyrighted material (because you have no right to use copyrighted material) unless you agree to the terms of the license and that your use of the material indicates your acceptance of the license. The lisensor's acceptance is implied by his publication of the material with its license.
(It seems to me that RMS is at it again. Claiming his stuff is free (it is not, except in limited ways) and non-proprietary (being copyrighted, of course it IS proprietary) and now that the GPL is not a SWL (which he didn't try to explain where I say his claim).)
I am going to completely agree here with this whole t-shirt thing. I wore mine to classes today... and once last week. I swear, I should just make up a flier with all the information on it. It would make thing so much easier. Heck, when I got the shirt, I had to double-check what CCA was :)
From the horses mouth
NIVRAM
Here's a thought: With CDA, there was a blue-ribbon campaign. These icons went up all over the web, and indicated support against CDA. Could we have something similar for DVD? Perhaps linking to http://www.opendvd.org/???
I have an idea that I do not have time to implement. Perhaps someone out there would care to assist?
Most humans do NOT grasp new ideas without some solid physical concrete analogy. Therefore, I would like to write a nice letter, explaining the evils of DVD encryption and the DeCSS situation. I would like to print it in BLUE ink. I would then like to overwrite this letter with a second letter written in RED ink. This second letter would be meaningless junk. BLUE b's would be overwritten with RED d's, and so forth, to obfuscate the original letter. I would then send this letter, along with a special flashlight, to the person I wished to enlighten. The flashlight would have its lens painted with RED nail polish, so it would only generate RED light. When this RED light is aimed at the letter in a darkened room, the RED ink will become invisible, and the BLUE ink will become readable.
The Letter would explain that DVD encryption is much like the encryption on this Letter. Both are childishly simple, and easily broken.
Neither prevents duplication. A color copier or color photograph will duplicate this letter. A bit-for-bit copy will duplicate a DVD.
The Letter's encryption is easily bypassed. A photograph can be taken while the Red light is on. Just as numerous analogous tools exist to copy information off DVD's as it is displayed on one's monitor.
The Letter's encryption can be removed with a Red filter, such as cellophane. This is the analog of DeCSS.
The QUESTION now remains: Do I have the right to force you to buy my special RED flashlights if you have legally acquired my letter? And, more importantly, do I have the right to force you to only read this letter with my special RED flashlights? And to inhibit the development of better systems? After all, Red cellophane would be an improvement as it could be used without the need for a darkened room....
Needless to say, the flashlight should be a small penlight, so one has to move it around to read the whole letter...
-Anonymous, Thankfully.
> It is NOT a troll or flamebait... it's an ON TOPIC OPINION
Please explain what "Free Country" has to do with Linux or DeCSS... keeping in mind that neither one really came from the US in the first place.
As for the tired old commie lines, myself, I prefer the commie socialist countries like Canada with a real (if tottery) healthcare system to the "go lie in the gutter and die you unproductive human unit you" system of the US...
--Josh
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
What do black people have to do with this thread? Why make such a lame comparison? comment only about your race. // The net is not safe for me and my kind
Things that just make one wonder, doesn't it?
I assume that the license holders with the encryption algorithm also prohibited unlicensed creation-/production of DVD not under their total control.(Eg. unrated, uncontrolled, free market DVD production (oh horror))
Considering that I can get nearly every single minute of post WWII television and movie history on VCD in the video stores around the corner (this is downtown Taipei) there must be plenty of enterprising individuals interested in planning to setup their own production lines without having to pay hefty DVD technology royalties?
Not necessarely a bad thing as that would only accelerate the acceptance of the DVD player; and more sales to the hardware manufacturers. Not to the DVD consortium, unless they get a percentage of every DVD player sold.
Read the whole subthread, maybe look into the whole DeCSS (the win32 program, yeah, the actual piece of code the jlj is in trouble for, not the piece of propaganda code that OpenDVD is trying to wave around like some geek flag.) Then look into what places on the net are using it for. You'll find that every site which mentions DeCSS.exe is explaining how to convert DVDs to VCDs/MPEGs. Then you'll note that the previous tools to do this conversion required that you baked your DVD and drive for 48-72 hours, which resulted in a number of DVD-ROM fatalities. Then come back and tell us that css only keeps you from playing them. It's a hurdle, not insurmountable, but was certainly enough to stop most people from swapping ripped DVDs on the net.
Reading comprehension problem? Did you miss the phrase "they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use"? Thus they would have something to demonstrate and you would therefore either have to defend yourself or bend over and take it like a man.
So then if my pursuit of happiness is to have sex with children younger than 6, then should a government be allowed to screw with people's pursuit of happiness? Should I be locked up for violating someone else's belongings?
Or, for the second case where the child agrees, and lets even say her parents and guardian(s), where's the harm? The people who 'own' this have allowed me access, just like WB selling the Matrix on DVD allow you access to watch the movie. WB never said you had to use Windows or a Mac. Where is a story where a Linux player was sought after legally and refused? Come on, you work within he damn system.
So since the music can't be stopped from being pirated across the net, and movies can't either, whether DVD/VHS or theator rips, the corperations shouldn't use scare tactics. But serial numbers don't work either. The point is to try to keep the majority of people to follow the law. I'd be happy if they'd follow their morals, and I don't find illegal copies of music, software, or movies very moral. I perfectly fine for playing DVD movies, legally.
Why not instead use the evidence that movies, music, and software will always be bootlegged to have show that they shouldn't charge fees to create players?
13" or 14" in fact.
(Yeah, I mean monitor size. Get yer mind otta the gutter).
Gimme 20" and 1280x1024 too...
I love it.
:-) Envy me troll bastard.
It may seem be illegal for me to get instructions on how to read this here DVD I bought...
This depresses me. Maybe I'll go download the (legally available) instructions for making a bomb...
-sig-
linuxvideo seems to be down.
Unfortunately, you are ignoring one major issue. The liscencing rules on the CSS packages specifically prohibeted you from reverse engineering. It is not possible to reverse-engineer, simply because you judge it to be right (actually it is possible, but then you have to face the consequences, such as being sued). Your possible defence is that the rules hurt costumers, but it will be a hard battle. You CAN NOT break agreements (and/or rules) and simply claim that they are silly (as some people have), without being ready for the consequences. I basically support DVD for Linux, however, think about your reaction if someone claimed that they copyrighted GPLed code because the GPL is silly or because it hurts costumers. I also think that the programers should have written it under a non-dislosure agreement, like Xanime. I think that as much as possible should have been GPLed, however the agreement of the company should have been recieved. As a side note, regarding piracy: It is possible, due to the behavior of the program, to decode (parts of) a movie and store it for your benifit. IMHO (as IANAL) taping a part of a VHS movie to use in your web site without permission would be illegal, same as the claim about decoding a DVD to MPEG format. (if it not used privately). You can not hide behind the fact that you did not intend it to be used for piracy - part of the injuction is based on the fact that it CAN be used this way. To sum it up: I think you should have asked permission and released it under NDA. If you didn't get permission you should have started a petition or something. If you did reverse-engineer it (violating the agreement) it was wrong. If you could have produced the code without reverse-engineering, that would have provided much better moral and legal grounds.
forgot to switch to html
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
..
I didn't say he was right. I completely disagree with his point, but that does not mean he should be moderated down because he has an opposing view.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
Absolutely not. Its none of their business, and personally, its none of mine either. If you try to have sex with my six year old child on the other hand, I will shoot your ass.
Or, for the second case where the child agrees, and lets even say her parents and guardian(s), where's the harm?
Who are you or I to decide what harm was done? Point is, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS! And its NONE of the governements business nor yours either! What makes me or you so special so that we can dictate OUR morals to others?
The people who 'own' this have allowed me access, just like WB selling the Matrix on DVD allow you access to watch the movie. WB never said you had to use Windows or a Mac.
Your right they didn't. If they are now willing to spend so much money on lawsuits against those hosting DeCSS, don't you think it would be much more economical to have spent the money to come up with a better encryption? If it really meant that much to them, they would have.
Where is a story where a Linux player was sought after legally and refused? Come on, you work within he damn system.
How do you know what system I work within? For all you know I might be the Royal Soveriegn of some alien planet or something! Is a Legal Linux player made by open-source/free software advocates really likely? C'mon. You KNOW that the MPAA is NOT going to give its keys away to OUR rebel band!
So since the music can't be stopped from being pirated across the net, and movies can't either, whether DVD/VHS or theator rips, the corperations shouldn't use scare tactics.
Course not. If they REALLY wanted to protect themselves, they should use better means. Harrasment and BULLYING by Gestapo is, in my opinion, a ursurption of Liberty.
But serial numbers don't work either. The point is to try to keep the majority of people to follow the law.
So now it doesn't seem to matter too much if the law is correct or not. I think that is the WHOLE POINT! Say theres a law against eating Ice Cream. It makes people fat they say. Are you going to not eat Ice Cream simply because of the law? Say you LOVE Ice Cream. What if it was Marijuana instead?
I'd be happy if they'd follow their morals, and I don't find illegal copies of music, software, or movies very moral. I perfectly fine for playing DVD movies, legally.
I don't find them very immoral at all. Who are you stealing from? THOSE WHO HAVE STOLEN FROM YOU! Forget 'turn the other cheek' this is Real Life People. Just like Hurd would be an awesome kernel if the entire world was a programmer, 'Turn the other Cheek' would be an awesome way of life if everyone was a Son of God.
Hey Idiot, your stupidity is showing. When are you and others like you going to realize that times are changing. Your "Mine, Mine, Mine" cartoon mentality can not last much longer. You kind of people really piss me off. First you want nothing to do with the internet or it's related technologies. People like the ones you are putting down built the internet. As more and more people were attracted to it, you assholes caught the smell of money and out of the wood work you crawled. Intellectual property rights, my ass. All that means is that you had more money to patent or copright your work than the other couple of hundred people whom had the same idea. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. No matter what security you devise, or how much you grease the politician's asses to present you with a title of ownership, these guys or others like them will break your codes, and more than likely improve on your product. So do me a favor, take your insults and your narrow view points and shove 'em up your ass. You don't like our cyber-world? that's easy. Take the fan off your processor and solve all of our problems for us. Oh, and by the way, don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.
"Reading comprehension problem? Did you miss the phrase "they had a reason to think that you were not adhering to the personal/private terms of fair use"? Thus they would have something to demonstrate and you would therefore either have to defend yourself or bend over and take it like a man."
Reason to think is quite a bit different then legal proof.