Slashdot Mirror
Linux Journal on the DMCA
phantomlord writes "Linux Journal has a very good summary of how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act came about and how it relates to DeCSS. " Well, how it came about was simple: the copyright industries just paid a lot of money to the right Congressmen. How to get rid of it is the more interesting question.
I want to shove my tongue in your loose faggot ass!!!!
MOO FUCKAZ
> and probably thinks that the GPL's control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material is ok.
The GPL doesn't place any restrictions on the use of GPL software. Why don't you take some time and read it?
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they
are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted"
This is the precise difference between the GPL and the DMCA, the GPL like traditional copyright laws only specifies the terms under which you may copy, the DMCA makes it possible to also control _use_.
> "This disc is compatible with all players displaying these symbols." > > And the region and DVD Video symbols are next to this statement. This implies that you have no > rights to view this disc on anything that doesn't display these two symbols. That's bullshit. I can't see how a few symbols on a piece of plastic somehow determine my RIGHTS. All that ever means is that you can't try to send the disc back for a refund if it didn't work on your player. (the manufacturer stated what it awas "compatible" with, after all) But somehow that is supposed to make me a criminal for playing it on a player that doesn't have those symbols etched into it? Give me a break. I didn't sign a contract when I bought the DVD. > You can try to do so if you want, but there is no promise or garentee that you can. As such > you're only rights to view the disc are on licensed players for the region depiced on the > disc case and compatible with DVD Video standards. That's the point. There's no promise, but how does that give them the ability to dictate what I can or cannot do with the damn piece of plastic? If I "view" the disc by staring at it with my eyes and seeing the pretty diffraction rainbows, will they sue me for not using a licensed player? :)
The purpose of this letter is to outline a plan to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Here's a quick review: Mr. Anonymous Coward has never inscribed his name on the Parthenon of human excellence, either mental or moral. He should try being a little more open-minded. Mr. Coward assigns blame to everyone but himself. Individually, his personal attacks waffle on all the issues. But linked together, his vituperations could easily replace our natural soul with an artificial one. We must draw the line somewhere. We are on a slippery slope towards economic strife, social turmoil, cultural chaos, and demonic ruffianism.
Let me back up a little: Nugatory blusterers are receptive to Mr. Coward's disagreeable messages and fool easily. Think about it. Mr. Coward once used his notoriety, name recognition, and national fund-raising base to create anomie.
Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. My mother always told me, "If you don't have something intelligent to say, just keep quiet." Apparently, Mr. Coward's mother never told him that. Is Mr. Coward's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that in the coming days, Mr. Coward's lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread? Mr. Coward even condones the surly effusions that will prosecute, sentence, and label people as pretentious hooligans without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just address a number of important issues. His criticisms are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most blasphemous kinds of unilateralism you'll ever see. The more I think about raucous mountebanks, the more troubled I become by Mr. Coward's excuses. While reading this letter, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: Mr. Anonymous Coward can't be trusted.
when the day is over it'll be you who will be gargling my sperm...
MOO FUCKAZ
You make me hard with your excellent grammar...
You make me har with your excellent grammar...
tell me that you want to suck my cock?
> "This disc is compatible with all players displaying these symbols."
:)
>
> And the region and DVD Video symbols are next to this statement. This implies that you have no
> rights to view this disc on anything that doesn't display these two symbols.
That's bullshit. I can't see how a few symbols on a piece of plastic somehow determine my RIGHTS. All that ever means is that you can't try to send the disc back for a refund if it didn't work on your player. (the manufacturer stated what it was "compatible" with, after all)
But somehow that is supposed to make me a criminal for playing it on a player that doesn't have those symbols etched into it? Give me a break. I didn't sign a contract when I bought the DVD.
> You can try to do so if you want, but there is no promise or garentee that you can. As such
> you're only rights to view the disc are on licensed players for the region depiced on the
> disc case and compatible with DVD Video standards.
That's the point. There's no promise, but how does that give them the ability to dictate what I can or cannot do with the damn piece of plastic? If I "view" the disc by staring at it with my eyes and seeing the pretty diffraction rainbows, will they sue me for not using a licensed player?
> When given the software to play DVDs, users tend to ask themselves "Now that we can play DVDs what
> now?" and rapidly shift from deCSS as a playback option to deCSS as a ripping tool.
But what good is ripping anyway? You can't afford to buy blank DVD media, and you don't have the bandwidth to send it over the Internet.
So what's the point?
I'm working on it. Watch my web site in the next few days for a list.
The hard part is trying to figure out who are really independent studios. Miramax bills itself as an independent, but it's in bed with Disney. Castle Rock Entertainment does the same, but it's owned by Time/Warner.
So far Artisan, New Line, October, Republic Pictures, Lions Gate and Stratosphere all look MPAA-free. If anyone knows for sure and can provide links to the effect, please email me at findcss@usa.net. I want to get this list up as soon as possible.
Defendent #46
The comment above me reminds me of the User Friendly in last month's LJ
Let's all go down to Hollywood with a few dozen dump trucks full of hot grits and pour them on the MPAA's front door. That'll teach em'.
TNP:
Trolls for No-Content postings
that's hilarious, keep up the good work.
Say hello to preliminary injunction, my friend. It seems like you'll have to stop distributing this `tr' hack. And you're lucky if the judge will let you link to it.
More details will follow soon. Watch for a letter from Cheetham, Cheetham, Moore, and Robham law firm.
MOO FUCKAZ
Once again, I am writing in response to Mr. Anonymous Coward's tricks, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Mr. Coward has no concern for the common good. Permit me this forum to rant. He is unable to support his assertions with documentation of any sort. And what of it? I leave open the question of the extent to which this discussion could be applied to recalcitrant conspiracy theorists. I recommend that we strike at the heart of Mr. Coward's efforts to biologically or psychologically engineer illogical swaggerers to make them even more lawless than they already are. Let's understand one fundamental fact: It would be a crying shame to let batty contumelious vermin bamboozle people into believing that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius.
Does Mr. Coward have trouble living with himself, knowing that before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Mr. Coward's mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his cronies or the nature of his claims? Consider the issue of mendacious animalism. Everyone agrees that I'm sure he seriously believes that all literature which opposes cannibalism was forged by unenlightened loquacious Philistines, seeing how his selective memory works, but there are still some snotty bums out there who doubt that one of history's clearest lessons is that all he wants is to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. To them I say: Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still maintain that for some strange reason, he is worried he'll be disenfranchised and shunned by intrusive troglodytes, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to challenge the present and enrich the future. We have an obligation to give peace a chance. And we have an obligation to do something good for others.
If the past is any indication of the future, he will once again attempt to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. Mr. Coward's obiter dicta appeal to people who are fearful about the world's political and economic situation and long for simple solutions to complex problems. Hey, it's not my fault that Mr. Coward has never been able to assimilate and accept the humane ideals, civilized aims, and social aspirations of his peers. He is unwilling to stand up for what is true and right if there is no personal advantage to him in doing so. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: His slurs are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of benighted stereotypes. And they promote the mistaken idea that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Those of you who thought that Mr. Coward was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise, because Mr. Coward recently announced his plans to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. Okay, there's no reason for me to be reckless, so I'll leave you with this concept: Only the most misguided astrologers you'll ever see are capable of imagining that Mr. Anonymous Coward's antics can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality.
Ah, but don't you see: In the current cases, the DVD CCA is essentially saying that you cannot try to play a DVD on any player but a 'licensed' one. And that's certainly the claim that Dj is trying to make.
GRANDMA'S OLD PICTURES
I was going to school close to my Grandmother's house, and I used to stop in
and say hello. One day, after I had sat with her and had a glass of tea, we
were talking about various things, and there was a talk show on TV. We could
hear it from the kitchen, and it was about nudism.
Grandma laughed. I had no idea why.
"What's so funny?" I asked.
"Nudism, like it's a big deal. There's been nudist camps since I was a kid,
way back a long time ago."
"Really?"
"Oh, yeah, the thing started in Germany in about 1830, I think, when some
guy thought that it was the natural, pure way to live."
"I didn't know that," I said.
"I used to go to a lot of parks," she said. "Just about every nudist camp on
the East Coast, and quite a few of the remote beaches, too."
"You went to nudist camps?"
She nodded. "Hell, I think that my pictures have graced the covers of all
the nudist magazines," she said.
"Really?" I could feel my cock move a little in my pants at the thought of
my grandmother posing in the nude for magazines.
She nodded. "I still have some of those old issues," she said. "I think
there are a few upstairs, in the attic, in the old steamer trunks your
grandfather had." She got up and moved toward the stairway. "Come on," she
said with a hint of a smile, "I'll show you."
I followed her up the stairs, watching her ass tighten with every step. My
cock was beginning to grow in my pants with the anticipation of seeing nude
pictures of my grandmother. I wondered what she looked like, years ago.
She turned on the dim light in the musty attic room and pointed at a couple
of trunks. "They're in those," she said. "There should be a couple of dozen
of them."
I opened one of the steamer trunks. Under some old clothes, I found a number
of glossy magazines. The young woman on the cover could have been my
grandmother, years ago. I held it up to her. She smiled and nodded, "That's
me."
I looked at her carefully. She had nice, round tits, and her pubic bush was
a light brown, looking like it might have been neatly trimmed. I could feel
my cock harden now, looking at pictures of my nude grandmother.
I flipped through the magazine. There were shots of her everywhere ---
playing volleyball, laying in the sun, things like that. There was one in
which her legs appeared to be slightly spread. It wasn't exactly a porn
shot, but it was close.
I squirmed, trying to find a better position to make room for my hard on.
Grandma noticed.
"Do those turn you on?"
Red-faced, I looked at her. I nodded and smiled, laughing at myself. "You
look pretty good to me, Grandma," I said.
She nodded slowly. "That was a long time ago."
"I bet you look just as good now," I said.
She raised her eyebrows dubiously. Then, she smiled and took off her blouse.
Her enormous bra followed that, and I feasted my eyes on her giant, round
tits. As she undid the snaps to her pants, I reached down and straightened
out my cock. Soon, she stood in the dim attic, naked, posing for me. I
couldn't believe how good she looked. I put down the magazine and sat on the
floor, looking at her. "You really do look good enough to eat," I said.
"Hmph," she laughed. "I doubt that."
I moved over to her, her hairy bush in my face. I leaned forward and kissed
her thigh. "Good enough to eat, just like I said," and then, I moved my
tongue to her pussy. I licked her labia, noting that her pussy was getting
wet, watching as her inner lips got a little pinker, more moist. I reached
up with my fingers and pulled her lips apart, finding her clit. I flicked my
tongue across it several times, and a little moan escaped her lips.
She moved away and picked up her clothes. I was afraid that I had insulted
or offended her, but she said, "Let's continue this downstairs!"
I followed eagerly as I watched her bare buttocks tighten as she led the way
down the stairs. She continued on into her bedroom and lay on the bed. "Take
off your clothes, Jeremy," she said.
I pulled off my shirt and then my shorts, letting my cock jump up and touch
my tummy. She looked at it, her eyes wide. "Nice," she said, reaching out
and wrapping her hands around it. I stood at the head of the bed, my cock in
her face.
"Lay on top of me, this way," she said.
I got on the bed, my dick in her face, my face in her muff. She spread her
legs, and I licked her pussy, moving my tongue over her hairy pussy lips
slowly, as she took my throbbing dick into her mouth. I could feel the air
from her nostrils stirring the hair on my balls, and that feeling turned me
on almost beyond reason. I stuck my tongue deep into her cunt, and judging
by the spasms shaking her body and her loud moans, she came again and again.
I could feel a rising sensation in the pit of my stomach, and I came, my
cock jerking time after time, filling her mouth with my jism.
She swallowed it all, not missing a drop. I spun around, pressing my cock
against her pussy, my mouth on her tits. I thrust forward, and my pulsing
cock slid into her all the way, my balls pressing against her ass hole.
It only took me a few thrusts, and she came again, followed by my cock
spewing cum almost right afterward. I was really, really turned on by my hot
grandmother.
We fucked several more times that afternoon, and then we rested to take a
shower.
"I never told you about when I was a stripper, did I?" she asked.
I shook my head.
"That's for tomorrow then," she said with a smile. "I have a few photos in
the other trunk."
from http://www.amateursxxxsex.net
You missed an obvious point. The industry used the government to enact these laws. They are involved, that's the nature of law making. How can these laws be repealed without government re-involvment?
This column is meant to be accessible to anyone, not just the geek community. You may find it interesting to read, but I'd also like to ask that you forward the URL to your friends or link to it from your web pages.
Today's column in Today's Comments is Modern Technology and the Death of Copyright
Comments and suggest links for future articles are most welcome
Regards, Mike Crawford
GoingWare - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com
crawford@goingware.com
I think there should be a simple, clear-cut DMCA
test case so I have encrypted the following
message to prevent access.
If any of you hacker pirates crack my algorithm
and post the source code you will be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law.
V guvax gurer fubhyq or n fvzcyr, pyrne-phg QZPN
grfg pnfr fb V unir rapelcgrq gur sbyybjvat
zrffntr gb cerirag npprff.
Vs nal bs lbh unpxre cvengrf penpx zl nytbevguz
naq cbfg gur fbhepr pbqr lbh jvyy or cebfrphgrq
gb gur shyy rkgrag bs gur ynj.
I haven't seen any article on the pending DeCSS litigation that gets right why the publishing industry, i.e. MPAA, etc., fear DeCSS. If CSS had not been broken, the only way you could make a digital copy of say a DVD movie you'd bought and give that copy to a friend would be if you had broken your user license agreement and hacked into your DVD player / your DVD player's drivers. WITH DeCSS, you can make copies and access the unencrypted data for the movie and do whatever you like ... stream-broadcast it across the internet, write the data to a regular CDROM and give THAT to a friend, etc. This is made clear in the transcript of the federal hearing for the injunction (which is posted on 2600.com). NOW do you understand why DeCSS effectively allows people to make and distribute digital copies of DVD movies in an economical way in which they couldnt before ? I think the online technical journals / news media need to be more balanced in their reporting.
Another angle might be that cracking CSS might enable you to make your own CSS "protected" DVDs.
Using it for this purpose would not violate these clauses:
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
You make an extremely good point with the substitutions re: MS IE.
In this case, there's one big difference, as it's not a single company but a group of companies, working together, in order to control a monopoly; restrictions and collusion on international free trade (ie. region codes); restrictions, by a group controlling the majority product, in requiring licensed machines to play DVD after legally purchasing a DVD (which indicates the product is copyrighted, as someone previously said, says nothing about 'player' requirements and restrictions).
Can any of the legal types here give a rundown on RICO, the ever-widening use of foefeiture laws at the federal level, and what, under the aforementioned statutes, constitues racketeering? (non-legal type disclaimer here, just some interesting parallels with they way it seems these statutes have been used in the past regarding groups conspiring together to restrict product, pricing, and trade.) I wouldn't have made this comparison had it only been the CCA filing suits. But once the MPAA and studios collectively get in on the player, consumer electronics side of things, it causes one to pause. Is it not interesting that the MPAA has filed suits individually and not attempted to join or at least file any briefs in the CCA suit? (And I have seen no indication that they have done so.) Maybe the DOJ and all those states attorneys general who sued M$ need something to do once that has been resolved.
Well, sure. But while all of this is true, what's your point? Do you mean that there IS a way to fill the abyss of my meaningless life? Can I do it and still have time to layer mounds of Scott's Turf Builder on my front yard? I mean, a real life sounds tantalizing, but what would the neighbors think of crabgrass?
This is a brilliant piece of writing. From the first time i layed eyes on it i knew that it woudl be something to reemmber. one of those posts where i just sit in the bathroom looking out of the cold frosted over window in the middle of winter time when its so early in the morning that i can still see my breath, i sit down on the nice big white porcelain pot to lose my gut-distending foecal matter to the sewage network (the original internet, tcp/shit-pee, all connected together..) and i just sit and ponder and think about this post i think about the good sides, the bad sides, the parts i loved, the parts i hated, the characters, the effeminity of the male-cross dresser protagonist, yes truly it is a work to grab bits of and tell to your children, depending of course upon their age and sexual orientation.
I'm always amused at the libertarian community on the Internet, which has been up in arms recently over the MPAA and the DMCA. Many, such as Nate here, want the government to step in and lay the smack down on these grasping monopolists in order to protect our rights, personal privacy, virtue of our daughters, etc. etc.
However, these same people - the libertarians, that is - are the first to grumble about Big Government(tm) when the pols start musing aloud about gun control and higher taxes.
I'm not saying that the government shouldn't get involved here, just that you have to be careful what you wish for...
begin 644 E-GUVEGRRA.gz9 \=QP(D?22`) 1 TD8F@(.I85- Y ][S$L<"E6[2 ] 7_M`@CB4P!J " \F]6=$1Y:+& S &U.)F)?N9_J : [6E?&\%?3N_ 1 5:T$_SE+-=8 O Z86$6^B.8"X E W+OX;/H.X3S . :1G8D_K(T9T Q M+1E&$Z=#*1 [ XU4W,@/XM-@ % &2M&R).LM9U ; ,C,Z$,),YN, 9 \-K9-Q&<QIH ( ^VM3;RW$K3P I @LLMYC^&8<_ G 6A/[-A-LGWO # 5VT9U%`5@!M N 142ORN1IYOI T I$SS_'>CO'< ` \+JMB-7!;]E 3 TE<\_3+DGXH B >O>>>,=X>_] _ N.P.+>A]L%_ \ *!BWRC\'#>5 X I>+!3>W=BK6 - O+'79'9]F*0 0 J?0FQV=D^/6 , $9XK@7F0TY\ ] =NO06OAA-5G 4 -P#T'\!>1>0 T &U?@JW!E;"Z ! ]=1/%6T::CM S 88H!D?I*SQ@ \ D5^R!^U0W]1 . ,^3]$ZICVCG ^ @TF?OTJMY83 ; ,E_[G=!_P6C $ =#/?A_4N3ST 1 ?78(:JSSWD. M 93$5L!]TV90 = 8#".VI'?]*/ > 5[;CLR>X][> D ;&'3S3<4;\H Y @7'S.<@/!(U F S'S>LY(<JMR R GLK"W=7''!R S \)W6A9RX6ZV R KLC5)1B6?^= 9 A?B[/T01%%V M ]"CO#9E<EV+ " CW260N+=W:< H ;3#DCL6I*?<
M'XL(",MPF3@"`T5"1TY'5D)!+4=55D5'4E)!`.T:;6Q3U_6\
M'ZW#;`AK8]*.JJRR1I*V"*9.1"V;IC75BYV\..[\53^'A8J-
M8@/$J#K-0G2CI97:-5I1EDEKUXE5:B6F6.I&^V_\Z*1H0GL[
M]L='NO>\\W'/N?>\^_'L<_<_^MAV155@`53P8JUHL*P/\1:`
MH0-6P4KD>TBF<<'G$A<W%Q>::-:X(+V2"\F4+'D!I4OC@CR+
M!8E6+HY]:C^K<<%GD&5!+@B-2]E3#>`PI%P#39&E3.XAO'G4
MP;"9"=_GA$<)2&PC[+?#^P@C>5-X40HW5(H>AM#3!5\(W%Z)
M9$(#-X6N1@/U&HU%`\]:Q,NPU\<0+^=!^MA4/559#EY6Q&9H
MO@+Q)L2-B.L0-R%>@SC$\A"_NPWD)RO\"KR1<0?[=U',D>[T
M#OL]*]^-0O:"&GA)CB'Q?HAX%;:S$'^9^W7OTL@HRH,S[QX)
MQE@>PHET(@]Z:C`SFD:LF_EH+@_&&#&-])Y$+I.&5#211E$N
M",F>7'P/HH1L@6)D8PO=3,2'LX94&(3PD!$;C>N)]'#&><Z.
M-ISG:"Z:CB^*AG.HN""+Q7(&N1PU]9R9'R&'V-^A1(:ZD8E1
M?J_H!'*RHX(SG#1CH\/TD$C2P^+L->.)^\)=--XAH*(;0]%\
M(SDL`F#D0!\6/%GKPT);UOIPS#1!5+J>S67B.`QNI>>CL21U
M#AHI`V,OH9OF4=F+HWFR1BP:.><\G[-4[JZ@[Y+[@0#7'2XW
MGP-8"_\9U,K]Y7.!ULFZ\J7/N*.,1VMT51D=X/7:@,7/ZXC6
M/DGP)2RK^;D=R_K;](?6YX8['&.<#PG;!3;%W&3^$:8/\I!T
MPO0O67Z9:3YW7*U(*W([K*<]C6GE!TY'FER"?D!;2L?Y/'+H
M4AI62G^*KU'2]1HL[Z?X2UK9C/X/E[7OJ*!WR?-#T'0F?6LI
MU\H:C0\0UF^LH-=7T"T5='\%'5M*PU4.QQ6>V/,<[YM,O^',
M]17RO_#[KF/Z;RR_QO;^SG(?T^LPGK2&BDSO0GHKK6VF[\'X
M1_Z8WH;QFEJ,%PP@?::,ONUZ5F2M*!5\GY+1Q7KO.-`D:'7B
MVS]$RZON&4$_4/Q,XAKQ'>$ZO3$H\&]>%_/3]]&?)H0\)?4\
MN47(DRSO=_#+9R5?XH;O[<H+_I/,]_0_(O!WF8:DI(W?GY-R
MS=<)U_[B\GZI-_"XZ-]3_@8A_\YTC="_TB;UKYZ^+NW\48RK
MB7XLNW!%X"<.7V<LX^.!^L)/+,U5&@NY`O-U6UK%O@(5O*`3
M\^!VG?TTN/$M^X:K-!#"%RA>360MJ,&7P!T_-6%%<,=TG2YU
M?&CR$VL`?MO5/OD);FXE<$>H5<3;.=EN#11QEQ(TW`@1+X*[
M95+7*N+H"E^U]MEGP$M]%+Y1GW21GR_G1=R2'Z&(G0ITHGPL
M.%SKZIP\;UF3,];`Y#CZ/(_ZV'YR1K:'[D"([68=N[27;'P+
M(BJH&).+]IO@#?:.6_8K:&M]J;UPS/KV4=REM0`LMR]"H#!E
MOPT=*@1"ZO1\G3H]&[)_!1KN,@USR">]HWCJ'76#.SAHV\%Q
M1S:FQO%C$=N`I87(7K#1MK7'H8?Z3;;M7T-7X;@U9%^&'?:K
M<-(:03_+-C2#YIZ&W@L>]H,^R#;9)9MH:Q/9@N-:^U0O?LQM
M>ACW]`%8$SQD_P$^H/,HH*EGE,_01H]6@GKLNZ9:'2&UA&,K
M?QR<L>WR<6M@B_T'Y<TT5ARCAF-M"<Y@?Y"'\AMGKF`,#ME%
MBM<<CG$.QSB'8YS#<<_A>YC#>,^](KZD0W,8ISF,&;TW?']]
M(^H?\G8+'O8->6_3V(E'L73X%'?BH_PL^;W=QB7F1Q6J\'\"
M7\.33[O-E[6_^$R'_]PSN_VOMG[JO_3^C_V7WIOW7WKIL+_X
MZ#__HS_3N4]G/9WO?*97H0I5J$(5JE"%*E2A"E6H0A6J4(7_
MH(&WAG``6GP3UG/UH*I?\XU;!^LYOR;_(^APG5\-8.V;H#H_
MN`[4'"!;2@""KD*;U7>YS1KY(>*?UAQLLY(3;=;N0U@FZ._5
MNNNZ[Z[M<?K6+/Z`X`2-;YU6V\W_2<A*)FHXFWTGMAYSD@V^
M.TD+;-?;T-=SJK'W6/.C4[[>$PV]-=W+'GE>Z_4V>E=ANYW(
MDVK/B^Z>%SS/>IN\S=Z5WA;4V''<^X+G1?=)%76^CJVD9)60
MJYTW<ED(?V-GWQ/A3#:?R*1-".>,.">B]Z:CJ<0@A).)6#)A
M1R2U-\7-\0G5()PJ8^5'8^:2#'HXGL&*,KY2P]ACI/,FRP0G
M+<GYKS+EG!Q?FC<?S*1$:EDZ$S$9C@Y2(W,$1YN/QK[P<J"B
MM73_H=XK];I@\0Z+`\Y_NBU9F<]6Y3V6A;LLY?9:0>9W'3VZ
MN4G>C2$]NBLA[DLTLY[">D3?#S(7KLJ[(%3$'9#*<3P$,F>M
M^S2T\I9+/;I30D6=8K]UK$/+<D=6CD6ENQL@BLCU>]F/$]]O
MW&*\3[*^1^9M1>[VWHIQ4(F7Z>%V(7/(97H:ZZ46]2BO+'/+
M]X-@WRW\CG$_73+/JY%.L,(>P??14?OB'_TT#)&_KR^;=P2%
M^)VKT.ND[:U"C^"?J'=7F=Y>RKU7S'<Q5+KOLZC7_GK%NN#W
-4WF*_AO2`ILF5"8``'=7
`
end
By the way this runs on mips-irix-6.4 only. If you want to port it to some other system, please apply in writing to:
E-GUVEGRRA consortium
666 Our Way
Hell, Norway
The E-GUVEGRRA consortium will then consider granting you a licence in exchange for an NDA, $1000000, and your soul. Or it will not.
Fair use for copying small amounts is a well known right. But fair use also covers pretty much any right to use you might want except for a few rights explicitly reserved for the copyright holder. This was originally the way copyright law was written: you can do anything you damn well please except for a few things that are reserved for the copyright holder. These reserved rights include copying and public performance, but not all that much else. Resale, viewing (under any OS), reading, and (IMO, although it's still being tested in the courts) reverse engineering. Personally I thought the latest judge's ruling on DeCSS sounded like a reasonably clear interpretation of the current law (i.e. DMCA). But I detest the way copyright law is being rewritten. Earlier versions of copyright law looked better to me; I don't want to give up my fair use rights.
i must concur. nary a mention of natalie portman either. linux journal should hire some real writers.
Jesus just nailed me to a cross and poured hot teen action down my pants.
Remember that French dude plus smartcards - I see many similarities and not. High tech obscurity is no trade secret, nor some half baked propriety protocol. Secret numbers, aka are not secrets, if found out. The reasonable approach is not to say 'you were not supposed to do that, or find that out'. To defraud is another matter. Playing a honestly owned ligit DVD does not constitute fraud. If I were the judge, I would allow de-css, providing it had no reference to DVD, which impinges on their logo/standard, or claimed to play DVD's, just like the dolby trademark. You can produce a cassette player, with noise reduction, but dont nemtion that trademark. Oddly enough, I don't see this valid point being played
Distribution is a right that is traditionally reserved for the copyright holder under the law. What isn't forbidden is allowed and the user has the right to use IP in any way that isn't expressly forbidden by law. A lot of us think this was a sensible arrangement: the copyright holder gets a few rights to control his/her work and the rest of us get access to the work with the obvious explicit and enumerated limitations implied by the reserved rights of the copyright holder. I think what people are railing against is the recent legislative narrowing of the allowable usage of copyrighted works.
The GPL argument is a red herring. Distribution is a right that has been reserved to the copyright holder for a long time. Most people here probably don't contest that it should be so. The GPL merely extends the right of distribution to others under very modest and generous conditions.
first of all you are a bunch of rich white suburban whiners who are pissed because you can't watch "The matrix" etc etc. joe schmoe on the street has a shit ass job and guess what you are probably his sysadmin and he probably hates you because 1. you make 5 times his salary even though hes worked there 20 years 2. you think that is his fault because he is lazy and stupid 3. you are an asshole and help the boss run surveillence on what the employees are looking at (fired for porn etc) ......... and now you want to blabber about 'your rights', as if you were arrested in jail along with Johansen... well you werent, and when this all blows over you will go right back to buying your 3,000$ video game computer and making excuses why you need it for work, watching 200$ of movies every year, and trying to fill the gaping hole that is your spiritless existence.
They want much more than that... They want to to be THE ONLY ONES that can mess up with your mind. They want complete control over your mind. No more, no less. Don't be fouled by talk about money. They have more than enough for their existance. They want much more... Think...
Good words!
I haven't been nailed in weeks
MOO FUCKAZ
that makes every single U.S. citizen required to smear RAISINS on his or her chest on a daily basis... those who fail to perform adequate raisin-smearing shall be punished by being anally raped by jonkatz and his 24" rainbow dildo!
The following message is encrypted with my proprietary technology, called E-GUVEGRRA, and if you DARE to decrypt it or reverse-engineer the technology, I'll sue you under DMCA.
-------- BEGIN E-GUVEGRRA ENCRYPTED MESSAGE
Cbhevat ubg tevgf qbja bcra-fbhepr npgerff'f cnagf naq znxvat
n Orbjhys pyhfgre bhg bs vg cebgrpgf sebz Xnezn Jubevat.
-------- END E-GUVEGRRA ENCRYPTED MESSAGE
Please refrain from posting messages such as this in the future.
Some of our most important political figures were Anonymous Cowards.
[This reply is to a thread that will probably have been moderated down to -1, to it's rightful place, soon enough]
:P
I'm guessing you've already heard that slash has already been released publically (http://www.slashcode.com), but I'm guessing that the early hours of the morning give you time to reflect on memories of the past when you were locked away in a cage, and the only thing you were able to complain about was how a major news website was part of an anti-christ movement only because their engine was not fully open-sourced. Do you happen to post similar contributions on abcnews.com about the news anchors because their web site administrators haven't felt like it?
As for the issue at hand, evil evil evil corporate America. I can't stress anything more then not losing focus of the realities that face us. Support the open-source movement whenever you can, and as strongly as you can. We may very well be defeated in the battle we are already losing, without commitment from the existing supportees, and new.. erm.. participants. Yes.
... I'll stop here, before it gets moderated down as redundant, or having made no sense at all
*sleep*
And licensee's thereof? Oh, right, so that's "Everyone's a monopoly"...
Microsoft is a *single corporate entity*. That's what makes it a monopoly.
Correct. The MPAA is, of course, a cartel.
Since the DMCA is already a law in the U.S., I think the only thing we could do is to chellenge it all the way to the Supreme Court of U.S. Until the Court declares DMCA unconstitutional (against free speech?), we will always under the threat from the big corporations.
Not the only thing at all, you can also :
1. Lobby and encourage others to lobby for the Act to be repealed.
2. Just ignore it anyway (if it's unconstitutional you're not bound by it anyway).
3. Emigrate.
how about the folks at Pixar? They seem to have a close relationship with Disney. They're definately crawling with clued geeks.
Blah Blah Blah DMCA is bad
/dev/null.
e -list/1999-October/0081.shtml) and probably thinks that the GPL's control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material is ok.
Blah Blah Blah Vague accusations of corruption
Blah Blah Blah free speech
Blah Blah Blah Zzzzzzzzzzzz.........
And the sin of omission award goes to... the "not mentioning that DeCSS runs on Windows".
And the paranoid creativity award goes to... "the MPAA want to track your every move, control where and when you can view materials, and prevent you from sharing your knowledge with others."... If anyone knows where this tracking functionality is in CSS, write to
And while we're here...
'I opened this column with a quote from Jack Valenti: "If we have to file a thousand lawsuits a day, we'll do it. It's less expensive
than losing control of your creative works." As you can see, this was a bit of a slip. He's not talking about copyright infringement.
He's talking about control--specifically, control over the uses made of lawfully obtained, copyrighted material.'
This is a classic. Condemning the control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material... This'll be the same Bryan Pfaffenberger who advocates the GPL, (http://www.gnome.org/mailing-lists/archives/gnom
But then this kind of confusion can be expected when you look at his bibliography.....
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Now, can you prove a monopoly?
You will need to show that a group, wanting to produce a Linux DVD player, formally approached the DVDCCA for a license and were refused.
Or did no one even think of asking?
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Why do you need a new format? Just don't encrypt the stream. The firmware change is simply then "If no valid key, assume an unencrypted stream and try and play it". Minor firmware change.
Now then, where you going to find your content? And what's the point of buying a player which in "ethically pure" mode plays nothing?
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
So you aren't even going to license the decryption to anyone who does want to read it? You aren't controlling access, you are preventing access.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Except that would only have teeth if you accepted UCITA.... B)
:)
When you're in a hole... stop digging.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
And licensee's thereof? Oh, right, so that's "Everyone's a monopoly"...
Microsoft is a *single corporate entity*. That's what makes it a monopoly.
No code is required to be licensed AFAIR for the DVDCCA; you license a key and the license includes a set of responsibilities to implement to comply with the specs.
You'll be telling me that the ISO is an evil monopoly of standards next.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
And so nobody thought of presenting this as evidence in court....
Was is a startup, or was it a shell?
Details please!
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
No, the firmware change requires an a disk with no CSS scrambling done to it initially and a player which accepts an unscrambled disk and plays it.
:)
Now, while you are splashing in the swamp...
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
There isn't such a thing as an unlicensed DVD player. It doesn't limit their sales. See that
DVD logo on your player, thats the license.
If you choose not to buy region 2 disks, your loss. I buy whichever region has the best version at the best price, and there are titles where R2 has the better versions in the same way that R1 has advantages for other titles. But I wouldn't say that out loud too much.
"Warning: For sale or rental for private home viewing in the USA and Canada only".
If you want to do something about it... start your own movie industry.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
The MPAA says that companies are lossing millions of dollars of revenue. Don't they mean they are lossing a chance to make millions of dollars of revenue by controlling all information?
Precisely. I am losing few billions of dollars per year because I am not the owner of all oil industry in some Middle East country. Can I sue them?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Excellent!
I'd be tempted to license your E-GUVEGRRA technology just because it has such a cool name.
And I'd love to cite prior art, since I've seen a program with similar output, which can be implemented as "tr A-MN-Za-mn-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m"
(don't use it! I bet that data string is copyrighted too, I saw it on a website once!)
But since I can't even figure out the name of your technology, I'm afraid I couldn't get that much information to sue you.
And your header format is completely original, I'm very impressed! Maybe we could rkpunatr fbzr qngn? (You can't profit from my data without my permission! This warning message constitutes a good-faith effort on my part to dissuade you from doing so! If you disregard this message, I will sue you under the DMCA!!!)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Oh man... I guess you'd better find those darn hackers who made that 'tr' program. (I didn't write it, the hackers you want are much older than I am, I didn't even know that much about optimizing character replacement back then, I swear!)
They knew they'd get in trouble one day, for letting people see encrypted text on USENET, when they *knew* that the corporate interests were against it, since it is secretly used as the fast algorithm instead of the 128-bit encryption versions of most popular web browsers.
That 128-bit thing and the random gibberish they send in the occasional block is just to throw off the hackers. In reality, they just stream compressed E-GUVEGRRA encoded text.
Wait... did I just violate another trade secret? I'm going to shut up now, and consult with my lawyers.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, copyright is government granting you a monopoly on your creations in the first place (other than your ownership of the raw property - but a mass produced DVD is going to be peanuts then)
And I disagree with your statement that there would be very few movies to copy otherwise. Copyrights are pretty new things, and while there's certainly *more* pieces of art or scientific advances than there used to be, most serious artists and scientists are motivated by other concerns and have been for thousands of years.
Anyone could copy Michelangelo's "David" if they wanted to, and no one would likely care. But it didn't stop Michelangeo, or his backers, and it certainly wouldn't've diminished the value of the original. But try getting away with that now....
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
If it has to be explicitly granted by government, it's not a right, it's a privilege. A right is something you have whether there's a government or not. Of course, having a right and being able to exercise that right without a government around to help you defend that right aren't necessarily the same.
Copyright is government's way of helping you protect your ownership of what you create. Without it there would be very few movies around to copy, legally or otherwise.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Well, it doesn't say it in so many words. But if you look on the back of the dvd cases, you will find something similar to this wording:
"This disc is compatible with all players displaying these symbols."
And the region and DVD Video symbols are next to this statement. This implies that you have no rights to view this disc on anything that doesn't display these two symbols. You can try to do so if you want, but there is no promise or garentee that you can. As such you're only rights to view the disc are on licensed players for the region depiced on the disc case and compatible with DVD Video standards. It's very subtle and sneaky, but I'm afraid that it would hold up in court.
This doesn't have any bearing on the NY/CT or CA cases, though, since the issue in CA is trade secret violation and the NY case is DMCA clauses regarding reverse engineering and copyright protection.
Paul Volcko
LSDVD
The US DMCA is, for the time being, the only law in the world that would prevent you from accessing your own property. Other countries will be under fierce pressure from the MPAA to harmonize with the US; as probably the most important thing that DeCSS protects (besides the people who license players) is the inability to play disks from all regions.
It will be hard for us in the US to beat back the DMCA, but I think that it would be substantially easier to prevent similar laws from being enacted.
Call it sovereignty, call it fair, call it a way for the little people to fight back -- call it anything that works in your country -- but keep similar laws off the books.
If that is done, and free players are available throughout the world, then the good guys will have won most of the battle. And, as the internet is without boundaries; then no doubt some of those players will make it back into the US.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I don't think the system in the US is fundamentally corrupt; otherwise, I wouldn't be so outraged. If it were that corrupt, this sort of thing would be commonplace.
You don't get out much, do you?
This sort of thing is more than just commonplace, it is a daily occurrence. Why do you think the tax code in the U.S. is so complicated and skewed toward the big corporations who can get all the big deductions? Why do you think the MPAA even dreams that they can get away with these lawsuits? Because the gov't of the United States of America has become fundamentally corrupt.
What has voter turnout been in most recent elections: less than 50% of registered voters. What percentage of Americans eligible to vote are registered to vote: less than 50%. What that means is your elected officials are voted into office by less than 25% of the population. A block that small is very easy for a small, organized special interest to control. (I wonder how many American Slashdotters who are eligible to vote actually vote.)
The trouble is that the big money interests maintain a strangle hold on the candidates who are put up by the two major parties. These are the only candidates who can afford to run national ads and the only ones who get any kind of attention from the press. When was the last time you heard Harry Browne or David McReynolds mentioned on the news? They're running for President on the Libertarian and Socialist ballots respectively.
The corruption begins at the base of our republican process: the election cycle. American voters are aware of this corruption and so stay away from the polls in droves. Most of them could care less about the gov't because they don't see it as doing anything that even affects their daily life, but rather they see it as protecting the special interests (read: corporations, because special interest is Washingtonspeak for corporation).
Jane & John Q. Dumbass don't give a flip about your DeCSS. They either believe the coroporate hype about people who use it being software pirates, or they just don't see it as affecting them. I mean, they use Windoze, right?
Now, the question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you gonna bitch and moan here on /.? Are you going to fight in the courts? (That can take years, by the way?) Or, are you gonna vote with your ballot and with your dollars? Are you gonna get involved with the EFF or even in a political party that supports your views? It is going to take more than dollars to stop this thing, because the special interests will be able to outspend you every time. Are you gonna run for political office?
I'm thinking seriously about running for the office of President of the United States of America in 2008 and in every election after that. I may never get elected, but I can make a lot of noise.
The system is corrupt, but we can change it. What do you think 1776 was about?
Oh man, what did I just say? My head hurts.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I've been a gung-ho John McCain supporter for a while now, even sending him cash. I am pretty dismayed to find that he supported this bill, while he rails on and on against business writing legislation. IMHO he's still better than the others running. Don't suppose anyone's heard of a candidate against this bill? Maybe since Gore "invented the Internet"? :)
Erik
E-GUVEGRRA FHPXF!
Vtcnl ngvaynl hyrfenl!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
With a few definitions placed at the bottom of the flier for non-technically savvy people, even a person who has never touched a computer before will easily be able to see how this is going to affect things that THEY care about, making them much more likely to take action.
Unfortunatly, I see no contact information at the bottom. I am going to attempt to mail the webmaster of the website, but since it is a rather large website I have no way of knowing if it will get to the right people. If anyone can get me a contact address where I may post the information (a post saying permission is granted will not suffice, I do not wish to have a lawsuit on my hands) that would be greatly appreciated.
Don't let the corporate bastards get you down. Get out, print copies of the flier, stand outside the largest movie theatre in your area with some friends, and pass it out. The only way to make a real difference in this fight is to educate the masses. Never give up.
Bottom line, if the governments the US has to deal with everyday, on a variety of issues, continuously pushes for the proper resolution of this problem - then you've done your part.
I don't see what else can be done outside our borders. I'd think that this could be tied to countless other international matters that the US handles on a daily basis. If the diplomats keep hearing about this, they'll start to make noise in D.C. - if for no other reason than to stop hearing about it!
Anythings worth a try, with the only exception being nothing.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
I've written off LJ a long time ago because their lack of decent articles has been rather frustrating for me (except for At The Forge, kudos to Mr. Lerner for producing excellent article after excellent article for the past couple years).
Linux Magazine and Maximum Linux are better choices, IMHO, for magazines that deal with interesting and useful topics.
> Maybe the EFF should publicly accept donations to buy a congressman for this issue?
I wonder if we could list our congressmen on eBay, and donate the proceedes to the EFF legal fund?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One thing I've not seen highlighted is the fact that if the DMCA continues on it's present course, it gives those who decide which Operating Systems to support, the ability to create monopolies beyond Micronsoft's wildest dreams.
After all, Microsoft had to do a lot of work to create it's monopoly! It had to buy or crush its competitors, abuse it's relationships with it's "partners", etc.
The DMCA gives the MPAA the power to create monopolies simply by refusing to license the "copyright protection mechanism" needed to view DVD's on computers and operating systems they don't like.
Legal precedents for the world of the future are being set NOW.
... in which case it's not the legal system that matters, it's the clout corporations have. Which in the US is proving that the individual really does have no rights - Real or Virtual. This *could* spread through the rest of the world, don't you think? (poor CSS guy, he doesn't stand a chance ...)
I'm sorry, I really fail to see how the US legal system now becomes the world legal system - though the international conglomerate now probably is much stronger than nation states
"I sold my soul to the company store."
.my 2p
If this were in India, we would have started a protest starting with a procession and hungerstrike in front of the offending organization (MPAA, court house or the parliament). This might not achieve the goal but will at least take the message to the common public. But I guess these kind of protests wouldn't be feasible in US.
uuh..no you dumb shit. AFAIK some linux coders *did* go out and ask for a license which they were not granted. in fact the DVDCCA didnt grant licenses to *any* software player until recently when they opened it up for windows.
[[[ I posted this on another article a few days ago, but it applies here too. ]]]
Last thursday 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!
I encourage the gov't to act in my favor and speak out against it when it doesn't. What's wrong with that? The gov't does do good things from time to time, but when it gets too big it starts creating laws just for the sake of creating them. It's the same sort of problem you get when bored cops start hassling kids because there's no real crime around*.
Ryan Salsbury
* Fuck you, badge #51
RE: DMCA
Once again, indivuals that don't understand are making policy. Sad
RE: DeCSS
I have 3 computers in my home. Two run linux at least 50% of the time. Now I know someone will say, " use windows if you want view DVDs", well I can make it simpler. Thats 3 DVD drives that I will not be buying. And I had put aside money for 2 DVD drives when I begin upgrading my home machines next month. Unless I need one I won't be buying one.
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
NO! They cannot use whatever protection scheme they want!
If they have the right to take whatever technical action they want despite the law, then we as users must have the same right.
If we the users are to be restircted by the law despite what technical access we may have, then they (The MPAA) must also be restricted by the law.
We should never say that they have a right that is different than our rights. Let them pick a battle ground, then KEEP THEM ON IT! They picked the law, so use the law to ruin them.
If they had picked technology, then we'd have beat them already and they know it.
Don't let them change the scenery in the middle of the fight just because it might benefit them later.
The law says that we have the right to fair use.
They are using technology to circumvent the law, and they know it. Don't tell them they can cheet when we can't!
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
You're right that it's not 'corruption.' It's an inevitable consequence of representative democracy. That doesn't make it any better. In fact, it probably makes it worse.
The purpose of Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress is to avoid exactly this situation. The key discovery on Buchanan and Tullock's part is that the process of takings by special interests is not simply unfortunate -- it is inevitable by the nature of legislative processes.
"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
-- P. J. O'Rourke
Go to the copy shop. Make some high quality bound copies of the DeCSS source, with the copyright-GPL statement opposite the title page. Make it look good.
If you're able, write some exposition and commentary. Add your name as the author of a derivative work to the copyright page.
Donate them to every school and public library you can find.
Zax
-- We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.
"If we have to file a thousand lawsuits a day, we'll do it. It's less expensive than losing control of your creative works." --Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America (emphasis mine) I think that we are already doing this aren't we. If the people as a population speak loud enough then somebody is bound to listen. The /. population, while small in numbers has proven to be a rather vocal group in the past. I think that MPAA will need a few more laywers before they can fesibly accomplish this. If you are an unemployed lawyer, contact the MPAA...they need a few good men.-
-------------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Why'd you post as an AC? This has to be one of the single best posts I've ever read. I'm following what you say now. Are there any model letters to congressmen I can find? I'd post mine up for proofreading and other people's use, but it's pretty specific (I play on the fact that I'm a minor).
See where this kind of commercial strategies has lead to for software.
Quite a lot of people don't want a piece of software, unless it's licensed under the GPL. If there are strings attached, the software may be better, easier to use, even free, it doesn't matter, we don't want it anyway, we'll use the free-speech alternative instead. The number of people aware of the strings attached when the software is not GPL, is increasing dramatically; and with the increasing success of Linux, this number will further increase.
What's even more important, is the fact that the GPL is draining the public domain from contributions to be plundered and brought under proprietary control. The GPL is, in fact, the new public domain, but this time protected from plundering.
The more often the copyright lords make forays into the public domain to steal from the public, the more people will become aware of the theft, and will refuse to use their so-called IP.
Hmm, that reminds me of when I was a kid, and eveyone at school was copying computer games tapes. The games companies were forever complaining avout how many millions they were losing. The usual flaw in their argument was that they assumed if we didn't copy a game, we'd have bought it instead. Yeah, right - being kids, we were naturally swimming in cash.
In fact, we usually bought as much as we could afford, and copied the rest. If anything, the copied games benefitted the publishers, as they acted as free advertising. If a game was good, we'd be more likely to buy a game from the same software house in the future.
Can somebody clear something up for me? I'm sure I read somewhere that it wasn't that easy to copy a DVD, since recordable DVD's had the place where the keys go pre-burned with zeros.
Another question while I'm thinking about it - how do independent DVD producers get their DVD's encrypted, since they don't have the keys either? Or is that a members-only priviledge?
This column is meant to be accessible to anyone, not just the geek community. You may find it interesting to read, but I'd also like to ask that you forward the URL to your friends or link to it from your web pages.
Today's column in Today's Comments"> is Modern Technology and the Death of Copyright
Comments and suggest links for future articles are most welcome
Regards, Mike Crawford
GoingWare - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com
crawford@goingware.com
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
I think that, to some extent, we need to consider this possibility. For example, the DVD-CCA suit is pointing to this as a trade secret issue. If DeCSS was not legally reverse-engineered, then it may be the equivalent of breaking into the vault where the secret recipe is kept. While this wouldn't keep DeCSS away from any individual who wanted to use it, it would be sufficient to prevent Be, Red Hat, Mandrake et al from including it in their distributions.
In that case, it may be necessary to say "Doh! You're right! This contains illegally obtained trade secrets! We're sorry!(*)"
And then say "Here's DVDOpenPlayer. It was reverse-engineered in a clean-room manner, by a team with nothing but a list of specifications that were determined to be necessary to play a DVD. Have a nice day."
If the specifications are already open, though, it may just be a matter of reverse-engineering the keys. But what does that mean? I can't very well write a specification for, say, the Xing key, can I? Or is it okay to say, in the spec, "At this point, one of the following key sequences must be XORed with the data stream."?
I do agree that it's not important whether DeCSS is legal. What's important is that the MPAA not be able to eliminate fair use through careful lobbying, and that the DVD-CCA not be able to hide incompetence behind trade-secret law. And that acts of protest be allowed, regardless
*This does not constitute an apology for posting or linking to the DeCSS code, which was a legal and acceptable protest to a bad law (DMCA) and the actions of DVD-CCA and the MPAA.
An interesting idea occurred to me recently when I went out to find the DeCSS source...I flipped to altavista, and found plenty of sites with it. Now, the DVD-CCA can do the same. What I was thinking of doing was creating a same-sized, same-named file with a whatever miscellaneous .c and such files one might want to include.
:-) Any thoughts?
The effect would be to muddy the waters a lot, and stymy (sp?!) any efforts to make another 500-people-long list of defendants.
The downside is that it might make us (Those that disagree with the DMCA and the DVD-CCA's actions) look weaker.
Probably too late to get this moderated up to be seen, but who knows.
-Rob Ewaschuk
I've been looking for anyone who supports GWBush, so I can ask why he supports Bush. I've found no one who supports him! Who are the pollsters asking, to get such favorable opinions on Bush??? I wonder...
Did Netscape try asking Microsoft to bundle Netscape with Windows instead of IE? Did Digital Research try asking Microsoft not to put code in Windows 3.0 to stop it working on DR DOS? Did they NEED to do so for Microsoft's actions to be unlawful? No.
This is precisely the same issue. Buying a DVD movie should not prevent me from playing that DVD on ANY player I wish - any more than buying a copy of Windows should prevent me from using WordPerfect Office, or Lotus SmartSuite.
In essence, the whole point is that licenses from the MPAA/DVDCCA must not be required in order to play DVDs - this would be like Microsoft forcing application vendors to license and use Office code if they want their software to work with Windows. That is illegal (under anti-trust laws) - so, IMO, are the MPAA/DVDCCA's actions here.
Cool.
Some things though.
I do plan do boycott movies released on DVD encrypted with CSS. CSS is an awful idea, and it deserves to die, and there's no fucking way I'm going to buy a movie released under that system.
If I try to watch a movie in a country they don't want me to, or if I try to make a copy for my personal use, or if I want to write my own player for the heck of it, I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time about it, wondering if I'm going to be mentioned in the next 500 people the MPAA decides to randomly take to court.
No fucking way. It's not really a boycott due to the lawsuits, or even the principle. I just don't believe it's worth it 'buying' a movie that I'm not really buying. I'm not going to waste my money on it.
And seeing as VHS tapes are seriously dated in terms of technology, degrade and are generally crap, I'm not buying any of them either anymore.
Rant over. Question.
What's the association between the DVD CCA and the MPAA? AFAIK, the DVD CCA control the CSS. They were responsible for implementing it. The MPAA are just using it to encode their movies. However, the MPAA appear to be going after people who reverse engineered CSS. Which they don't even own. I could imagine the DVD CCA hassling people who cracked their system (even if it was legal), but surely the only recourse the MPAA has is against people who have directly caused *them* damages. i.e. illegally copied content to which they own copyright.
So what's the deal between the MPAA and the DVD CCA? Is one a wholly owned subsidiary of the other? Are they separate companies, one of whom is happy to finance the other's legal battles to 'protect it's own interests'?
I'm putting together a site to explain all this in clear English, and it's certainly bringing up gaps in my knowledge of the whole situation.
Any help greatly appreciated.
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Isn't that firmware change you describe more or less equivalent to what everyone wanted to do with DVD on their computers and can't now?
...Isn't that an awfully precise description of a Linux machine?
Where to find the content? Same place I find mp3s: on official, legal entertainment-industry websites of companies that might someday, in some fantasy-future that will never happen, have some sort of clue.
Maybe a better use of my vague and uninformed logic (which I like to think helps me to better see the big picture, step back from an issue, until I fall down backwards into some kind of mushy swampy area full of gooey green sludge and everyone has a good laugh and all the townspeople line up to taunt and utterly humiliate me) would be to bring up the idea that consumer computing devices like the Playstation 2 are going to be competing with or replacing things like VCRs, DVD players, etc. A device like that can play any format in the world if you put the codec software on the DVD with it. What if I become a big so-called "indie"-movie producer and don't WANT to put my film out on a regular DVD? Is the MPAA going to do something about those formats, too?
Finally, you ask, "And what's the point of buying a player which in 'ethically pure' mode plays nothing?"
---The Vicar---
So, you could write your own unencrypted DVD, right? How would that work with the reading software that's set up for encrypted data? It's an interesting spinoff.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
I've looked around, and all I seem to find is the usual "Encryption is good--Protect your Intellectual Property" stuff.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
No, not on your website. I mean, around the Movie Industry sites. Sorry for the confusion.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
would a modified license change this - maybe one that forced non-disclosure of source code to anyone who wouldn't then accept that license? If that would be acceptable then problem is solved, since everyone wanting source would just accept the license.
Isn't that similar to the way most non-disclosure agreements work?
or is it just knickers in a knot because it was done and they thought they were being too clever?
Viva la revolution!
*gulp* I'll miss Woody Allen
Since the DMCA is already a law in the U.S., I think the only thing we could do is to chellenge it all the way to the Supreme Court of U.S. Until the Court declares DMCA unconstitutional (against free speech?), we will always under the threat from the big corporations.
Maybe George Lucas was right in not releasing The Phantom Menace on DVD?
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
I have no real details for you.
But, I think that the DVD CCA alluded to it themselves when they said that there were sufficiently large companies in the Linux market that would be acceptable sponsors for such an effort. The DVD CCA wants to make sure that they have some deep pockets to go after in the event that the NDA is breached. The $1 million dollar fine is just the start of the liability that they contemplate.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
It should come as no suprise that laws that create monopolies or special priviledges do so always with "benefits to society" being the primary "goal" of the legislation. [Those quotes are sarcasm, folks. But its also true. ]
Now, it would appear that Red Hat, VA Linux and other companies that have just become billion dollar concerns would have plenty of money to hire a few lobbyists and play the game. Linux doesn't have to be the underdog when RedHat can simply sell a few million shares at $95 a share.
There were plenty of congressmen quite willing to have their sound bite about a certain company's monopoli$tic bu$$ine$$ practice$. Its time for the rich linux folks to do some hunting and figure out who their allies are, and then start shoveling over the money. Chances are, these same congressmen could get some amendments into the DMCA or whatever protecting efforts at creating compatible drivers for open-source software.
Come on, its not 'corruption'. Its the American way. Really.
Whew! Someone had the guts to say it, moderate this man up or we'll look very hypocritical.
---
What exactly are the commercial possiblilities of Ovine Aviation?
I think a lot of us have been wondering what the judge is thinking when he considers CSS to be effective. I'm still not totally sure, but I post for consideration, from the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997 itself, their
DEFINITION OF EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURE- As used in this section, the term `effective technological measure' means information included with or an attribute applied to a transmission or a copy of a work in a digital format, or a portion thereof, so as to protect the rights of a copyright owner of such work or portion thereof under chapter one of this title and which--
`(1) encrypts or scrambles the work or a portion thereof in the absence of access information supplied by the copyright owner; or
`(2) includes attributes regarding access to or recording of the work that cannot be removed without degrading the work or a portion thereof.
I must be out of it. I thought effective ment scrambling that would RESIST attempts to crack it!
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Let there be no doubt about it. The MPAA is willing to escilate to the point of violence. They are nothing less then copy-nazis. To see what can happen when one believes he has a property right, and another believes it's not. We don't half to go back much further than the US civil-war. Not that slavery (as a property right) and copyrights have anything to do with each other, just that they are both cases where people think that they have property rights where there are none.
Hey, suppose I run deCSS on all my DVD's. For each movie, I scrunch the video down to smaller size and splice together my own trailer. This trailer could illustrate points I make in an accompanying text review. (I could pull out some stills, too.) Then I post all my reviews + trailers on the web.
Is this legal? Can't I distribute short excerpts from a copyrighted work for review purposes? It think that would make a cool site. Would this make the MPAA throw a fit, ya think?
Are there in the production kernel? No, so they don't count.
b) All DVD-Videos I've seen are in "bridged" UDF/ISO-9660 format where they'll mount fine as either format.
Yup, but there still is the scientific reason: if i try to reproduce a phenomena, I try to minimise the differences in the two experimentations, an OS is quite a big variable you know.
There was a problem where ISO-9660 in Linux couldn't go past 4 gigs (it'd crap out in the middle of Titanic, right before the good part ;-), but that's since been resolved.
When was it included in the produciton kernel?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I was just reading this article and despite that fact that it is written in a bias against the MPAA, it seems to me that the MPAA has a right to levy whatever protection schemes they care to. They have the right to do that.
If you want to lay an analogy to VHS & BETA tapes, BETA died. Not because it wasn't the better of the two products, but because they (Sony) wouldn't let anyone else manufactur/sell the Players. Isn't this what MPAA is doing with CSS? Seems so. I think that in a few years all these DVD players will become like the ancient Beta's and 8-Tracks that you find in garage salees.
Here's Why:
Here's my personal take on the whole DVD, encripted data thing: If there is someone who comes out with some hot new product that utilizes this encrypted data schema, then do the following:
You couldn't get Microsoft to release the code of it's software. But with enough constant noise, constant product improvement, advocacy, and media coverage - a lot of damage has been inflicted not only into the Microsoft Machine, but into the entire philosophy of having proprietary software.
It is likely that this will become one of the most significant 'grass-roots' events in the 20th-21st centuries. The Corporate/Capitolist animal has been hit square between the eyes and it knows that it must stop and reaxamine it's adversary.
If the mechanisms and behaviour to break down the walls to proprietary software worked there, then why can't these same mechanisms and behaviours be employed against the MPAA and all the Media Content Restriction efforts out there? Same battle - different battlefield.
I don't know anyone who was successful in decompiling/reverse-engineering the Microsoft Code. So why should DeCSS be any more successful in it's efforts? I don't think it will. But I think we have all been shooting in the wrong direction.
Proprietary software was beaten by consistently better products that came with the restriction of GPL. Eventually the proprietary options became so restrictive in use (cost, reliability, etc.) that people looked to alternatives and here we are.
Is there any reason why the same story line _won't_ happen with CSS & MPAA? Eventually they will tighten the noose around data using cost and accessability that people will start looking for alternatives. They key is to have someone/something to answer that call when the time comes. And if it can be demonstrated that you can make a marketable product using an Open Source technology that replaces current-DVD, then maybe the $$$-holders will take a look.
Maybe we need to reconsider where we are putting our efforts. What we do is now is valuable, but this is only a fight for a short term problem. There is a longer term problem that we are not attacking. Replacement of DVD is not a If, but a When. We (OSS) needs to be there when the time comes.
You can flame me @ tallison@mediaone.net if you want to.
The first thing I would like to state is that we should be looking to the law for guidance or policy but for strategy. This may seem like a strange thing to say, but a lot of discussion has revolved around whether DeCSS is legal or not as though we should, if DeCSS turned out to be illegal, throw up our arms and go "Doh! My Bad!". The legalities are important in terms of making sure Jon Johansen is OK (a goal I heartily approve of) but should not be our concern in terms of what we are trying to achieve, but instead, how we achieve them.
Why do I say this? Look at the MPAA and the DVD-CCA. Are they really concerned about us pirating DVDs? Since we've already established it would cost more to do so than to buy legitimate ones, we can guess probably not. No, they have other concerns -- control, indirect profit through licensing, and so forth. But they are using the threat of piracy (amongst other things) as a tool .
We are in a situation where laws are in existance, primarily the DMCA (in this case), which we consider morally wrong.
In this legal climate, we should therefore not be concerning ourselves with the law first; we should be concerning ourselves with what we believe to be the morally correct (or as close as we can get...) course of action. Then we should look into how to use the law as a tool in order to bring that course of action about.
This is what the MPAA are doing (only, they are not trying to bring about the course of action they consider morally correct, but the one they consider most profitable), and what the DVD-CCA are doing, and what we must do in order to fight them.
Digital information, whether it be films, music, text or 'other', is far too important to human civilisation to allow it to be locked down and controlled by a small collection of men in suits with lawyers.
This is only my personal moral outlook -- but it is one, I believe, though cannot prove, is shared by the majority of slashdotters, EFF members (I joined; have you? If not, go do it now!) and, in fact, most people outside of the Motion Picture Industry that have looked into the issues at all.
Artists have a right to be reimbursed for the use of their work. People who have bought copies of their work should be free to use those copies in any noncommercial, non-piracy manner they wish -- such as making backups, or watching it under Linux, or converting it to AVI to watch on the laptop on the plane, or whatever.
As well as using the law, there is also public pressure, and this is a battle in which the MPAA has already fired several salvoes at us: Accusations of being pirates, of seeking to defraud the artists... these things are designed to turn that majority portion of the public which is not aware of the deeper issues, against us.
Thus far, I have been pretty vague about things: Taking a generic overview rather than dealing with individual issues. I aim to rectify this now.
So... two main actions are being brought us: One under Trade Secret law and one under the DMCA.
The Trade Secret action is (I hope) going to fail as being purely rediculous. Allow me to introduce The Cola Analogy, which I hope will serve the Public Relations issue and may even (IANAL but you probably guessed that) serve some use in looking at the applicable law:
"They" (I forget who; Jack Valenti perhaps, or maybe just one of the lawyers for the CCA) keeps pointing out that if you broke into Coca Cola's labs and stole their Secret Formula, you would be in violation of Trade Secret law. They claim that this is directly equivilent to what has happened here. I disagree.
Imagine if you went into your local supermarket and bought a can of coke. You take it to the checkout, hand over some coins for it, and take it outside to drink.
Under Trade Law (as I understand it; remember, IANAL) it is perfectly legal to then take this can to a testing lab and determine its contents.
Imagine if, as you go to tug the ring-pull, and the light glints off the shiny metallic surface of the top of the can, you notice some tiny etched writing: "By tugging this ring-pull, you indicate that you have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions of Use printed upon the side and base of this can."
Flipping the can over in your hand, you read the small text:
I could go on, but I wont, as I can see a few people yawning at the back and rubbing their eyes. The point is that this "license agreement" -- putting The Man back into Manufacturer -- is absurd and would under no circumstances be tolerated!So firstly, on a moral front, this is objectionable; on a legal front, it's shaky, and finally on a devious "lets use the law as a tool" front, at no point does the "agreement" prevent you from jabbing a fork into the side of the can and syphoning off the liquid inside; if you do not pull the ring pull or drink the product, you have not agreed to the license, and thus are not bound by it, and go off and reverse engineer it (uh... I mean... chemically analyse it), publish the results, and do whatever else you like.
The equivilent to this is, of course, just manually extracting the data from the installation package, without running the installer, potentially never even seeing the license agreement, let alone agreeing to it, and taking the resultant code and reverse engineering it.
This is a fact that must be gotten across; I think the "fork in the can" analogy works fairly well here as being something nice and physical for non-technical people to deal with.
Overall, I feel fairly confident about the Trade Secrets case. So let's move on to the other side, the darkly ominous side that is the DMCA case.
The problem with the DMCA is the way it deals with access control mechanisms. This is my Big Beef with it; it could be our downfall, or our point of leverage, depending on how we approach this.
My feelings (remembering that IANAL) on the matter are that DeCSS probably does fall foul of the DMCA. However, my feelings are also that DMCA is unconstitutional. In fact it may even be (to use some legal jargon that has been useful when dealing with Bad Law before) unconstitutionally vague, if "access" is not adequately defined; perhaps a Real Lawyer could look into this.
Why? Because "access" is such a broad, all-encompassing term. That one word is probably one on which the case will hang. Let's look at why.
The DMCA deals with (I'm going to paraphrase here rather than repeatedly cut and paste bits) "devices" which "circumvent technological measures" designed to do two things: prevent piracy, and control access.
DeCSS is almost certainly a "device" as defined by DMCA. It definately "circumvents" a "technological measure". But that measure does not prevent piracy -- by their own admission, in several articles.
No, what "prevents piracy" (we all know there are ways around these things, but those ways around are precisely the "circumventions" made illegal by the DMCA) is the zeroing out of the key sector on blank recordable DVDs. Decrypting a DVD offers no advantage in making a new disk that can be read in a commercial player (the only set of circumstances in which CSS has any effect on potential pirates -- since high level pirates can already stamp out identical duplicates, still encrypted, and have them work; and low level pirates can simply dub out to VHS).
DeCSS does, however, circumvent the "access control" mechanism that is CSS. So it all comes down to whether the "access control" clauses of the DMCA are constitutional or not.
If they are, then that word is the one we will be hung on.
Hmm.
The potential problem with "access" as far as constitutionality, I believe, is that of "barriers to entry" -- a key phrase in the Microsoft trial.
We're looking at a situation where digital video is as easy to manipulate as any other software on a computer, and I think we agree deserves the same protections in terms of innovation. Maybe this is how we can use the law to our advantage -- citing the example mentioned earlier of the Linux startup that wanted to make a Linux DVD player -- to demonstrate that CCA seeks to exert monopoly control. Their argument -- that VA or IBM or whoever could stump up the cash for a license -- is irrelevant because Joe Schmoe on the street could not and is thus locked out of a format which will, as likely as not, become the dominant format for video in the 21st century, stifling innovation. Maybe someone wants to make a better bit of DVD playback software -- say, better optimised for CPU usage, or able to perform more useful features (eg, my hardware DVD player cannot play backwards; perhaps a nifty software one could, with some clever buffering tricks). This right to innovate is what must be protected and furthermore this right to innovation should not be reserved for people with Big Money -- this is where those Barriers to Entry come in. The reason we have so much good Free Software is because anyone can just jump in and get their feet wet with it -- without needing to obtain a grant, License, or anything else from Big Money.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: They opted to use Trade Secret protection instead of filing for a Patent, so they have no legal ownership or protection of the CSS algorithms; they are trying to stifle innovation based on them anyway by (ab)using the DMCA and claiming that their illegal monopoly on CSS is the only thing 'protecting' the materials on the DVDs. Dodgy ground.
Wow, I've gone on for quite a while. I'd like to round off with one final statement: From a PR point of view it's desperately important that we get as much support as possible from content creators. MPAA like to claim they are "protecting the rights of the artist" -- let the artist speak out. If famous film directors, actors, scriptwriters, and so forth, were to be made aware of the issues, and speak up -- assuming they didn't simply toe the Company line -- I suspect we need to talk to some of the more 'maverick', less popcorn-orientated artists -- then we would have a powerful voice to educate the public.
Look at Public Enemy, Prince and others who have fought the record companies; we need Motion Picture equivilents to raise public awareness.
Phew. There. I've said my piece. I feel better now. I'm going to have some coffee.
Maybe the EFF should publicly accept donations to buy a congressman for this issue? :)
:)
I don't think the system in the US is fundamentally corrupt; otherwise, I wouldn't be so outraged. If it were that corrupt, this sort of thing would be commonplace.
As it is, I know what information is, and I like to collect it. It's mine, that's what it is. If I buy it, I can do whatever I want with it, because I paid for it. If I buy a book, I can read it or save it. If I buy a DVD, I should be able to watch it or trust it not to expire.
The information in that book or movie is now not the property of the people who produced it, because they sold it to me. If they don't like what I do with it, tough, I will laugh at them.
I didn't buy a license to read a book or watch a movie. I bought the physical book, or the movie. If they sue me for redistributing and selling it, that's understandable. But what do they lose if I watch it, or look at all the pretty bits, or use it as a source of data for a musical composition? Did they lose anything because of it? Am I hurting anyone?
They're just so scared of piracy, and someone "causing us to lose $XXX Billion dollars worth of revenue" that they don't mind tromping all over their customers basic rights as consumers. I don't think showing such a lack of respect for the customer is a good way to prevent piracy, or even to stay in business.
Of course, from this broad interpretation, it sounds like I could now take my classified papers and whatnot, encrypt them, and put a note on this that says, "This file contains my credit card numbers, and other classified information. If you decrypt this, I'll sue you under the DMCA". Maybe this could help Mitnick?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well there are two camps of users in the DVD business just as there are two camps of users in the user interface business. Some want everything commandline and some want everything graphical. Some just want to rip DVDs and some just want to play DVDs. Right now the numbers seem about even. We have just as many students wanting to rip DVDs as those who want to play them. It looks like most just want the individual freedom of being able to rip a DVD even if they can't afford the DVD creation hardware.
When given the software to play DVDs, users tend to ask themselves "Now that we can play DVDs what now?" and rapidly shift from deCSS as a playback option to deCSS as a ripping tool. On the other hand, when they see the complexity involved in writing an actual playback program, they're more than happy to focus on DVD ripping instead of writing a player.
Well... copyright is not an inalienable right, it is not a natural right. In fact, the ability to incorporate is not an inalienable or natural right either.
;)
So if the govt. were to step out of those two issues altogether, the DVD CCA would no longer exist (not to mention that none of the movie studios would either), and anyone who wanted to copy a movie would have no prohibition from doing so.
It's a bit extreme, but I could live with it.
(Seriously, when you're talking about rights explicitly granted by the government there's no reason *not* to look to the government for recourse.)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm feeling kind of left out in all this talk about writing your congressman. The laws we talk about here on Slashdot are usually US ones, but even though I don't live in the US, these laws have a big impact on my on-line existence because much of it is spent consuming information from the US--from people bound by these laws. What am I supposed to do apart from joining the EFF?
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
You are licensed to watch the DVD, on a licensed player. That's the missing element.
There is no such restriction declared on any of my DVDs, neither on the packing nor inside.
If such a restriction were visible on a DVD at the point of sale, I would not buy it, in the same way as I choose not to buy any Region 2 disks despite living in Region 2 (I regard the implied censorship and time and price fixing unacceptable). But there is no restriction of the type you mention declared on the DVDs on sale, and I'm not surprised, as it would limit their sales.
In all of this, there appears to be something missing: it is *WE* that keep the studios in profit, yet *our* viewing requirements never get a say. It's time we did something about it.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Pretty cool ideas! One point, though:
Enter DVD and CSS. The industry gets to pick how you read and write your own DVD's. Make the cost of recording software prohibitively expensive. Don't release recording software for Irix.
You don't have to use CSS to record a DVD if you don't want to... however, I don't know if the other pieces of recording software are similarly encumbered. Can you master your own DVD without infringing on patents?
----
Yup, there are already many on the market - or so I've heard...
----
The UDF argument isn't quite right because a) UDF pre-patches were already available (CD-RWs are UDF format, so there was no shortage of test discs) and b) All DVD-Videos I've seen are in "bridged" UDF/ISO-9660 format where they'll mount fine as either format. There was a problem where ISO-9660 in Linux couldn't go past 4 gigs (it'd crap out in the middle of Titanic, right before the good part ;-), but that's since been resolved.
:)
In any case, there's also css-auth, css-cat, and a few other Linux programs which appeared literally days after DeCSS, but it's unlikely a journalist will mention them since "DeCSS" is more 'photogenic'. "css-cat" makes sense only to Unix wizards, let's admit it
But your original argument could be reworded to say, "Just because the EFF doesn't have infinite resources the entire open-source community deserves to suffer within the EFF's loss".
<br><br>
Eh? Could it hell. My original comment simply stated that if the EFF are incompetent then <i>they</i> deserve to lose. That statement made *no* reference to what the <i>open-source community</i>might deserve. See the difference?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Maybe 97% of the Slashdot posts on copyright/DeCSS/DMCA/UCITA subjects are lame or repetitious, but the other 3% is a vital source of new ideas and intelligent debate that I don't believe for a minute they could get for free anywhere else. If the EFF aren't already keeping a close eye on Slashdot then they don't even deserve to win.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Sorry, but I completely disagree. I'm not being reactionary, just pragmatic. The EFF aren't blind; they know where we are and they (surely) know we're discussing the subject continually. They also ought to know that if they need extra pairs of hands there are plenty of us here willing to help. The only two things that could stop them from using Slashdot as a source of ideas and information are incompetence and "not-invented-here" syndrome. If they're guilty of either of those (which I doubt) then we're fscked anyway.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
But anger does nothing unless it is converted to action.
We must defeat the MPAA on this issue or we will be forced to live in a world without important, basic rights.
We must make an example of the MPAA so that the other hungry corporate wolves will not try to do as the MPAA has done.
This is just the first of many battles we will fight to defend our freedom. Someday the GPL will be chalenged and we must be ready. All the work we have done is at risk.
There are many of us. Together we have considerable power and resources. Look at all we have done. We can prevail in this fight. We must.
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Howard Roark, Architect
I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
So, do you wanna do it or do you want me to? (it was your idea after all so you should have the credit for it if you wanna tackle it)
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Yes, TPTB bought an enormous amount of clout with the DMCA. Many academics and attorneys, myself included, argued that anti-circumvention provisions were capable of great abuse -- in particular, that the grant of patent-like rights of indefinite term for non-patentable methods for accessing information will be abused.
Congress was told what they wanted to hear: that these claims are speculative at best, and a Congressional Study by the LOC through the Copyright Office can determine whether DMCA is a good experiment or a grave evil.
The worse MPAA gets in handling these matters, the better it will be in the long run when it is time to have Congress revisit this question. This time, however, be sure to be there, and get loud. Focus on the strongest issues, step away from those that the Washington insiders will never get.
Ironically, I am optimistic that the present losses in preliminary injunction hearings may ultimately be the best basis for junking anti-circumvention laws entirely.
I was contemplating the actions the MPAA is taking when I came upon something that seems to make sense:
If free software exists that can encrypt and decrypt DVD's, the Motion Picture industry no longer has a monopoly on MAKING DVD's
Think about it. Right now, anyone with a $150 CD burner and some studio equipment can make a CD (of their own music) that's just as good as what you buy in the store, if they're good. The result? Sites like mp3.com where independent artists can completely bypass record companies. Artists are no longer at the mercy of the head honchos, they don't have to send their demo tapes to everyone in hopes that someone will like it. They can do it on their own.
I think we're seeing the MPAA trying to keep the same thing from ever happening to DVDs.
Even more importantly: has anyone thought of doing a really good job of informing the mid-sized movie houses about how they'd save tons of money on DVD creation if they didn't use the CSS encryption enabled DVD creation software?
Yes, a lot of movies come out of the "big guys'" movie houses (think Disney and WB), but there are a lot where they might not be as concerned about foreign-market viewing control. If we can get through to those companies to back us, that is, to not use CSS at all in their DVDs, we'd be laughing!
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
What did you do, follow my homepage link hoping for a link related to my post?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Sony is a member of the MPAA.
Sony Playstation discs are printed on plain cd's. They can thus be read by cd-roms, and copied by cdrs.
Sony, Inc. hates the makers of bleem! and various mod chips, which allow in various ways people to avoid buying Playstation consoles and games from Sony.
Sony is about to release the Playstation 2, possibly the most anticipated console gaming system ever.
Sony's Playstation 2 games use DVD media.
There's a lot of things we can draw from this....
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
Call me crazy but I left Michael Moore a lengthy email about this with a few good links for him to do more research.
With his anti-corporate policy and very liberal (almost left-wing) attitude he would very likely be on our side.
The good news is that I've emailed him before and he actually read it and replied.
The bad news is that he just started filming his new season of THE AWFUL TRUTH and is also POLITICALLY INCORRECT'S politcal correspondent and might be too busy to be reading his email right now.
But if he does read it, it might be just the kind of thing he'd feature on his show.
Ignore Alien Orders
Why doesn't someone forward this to the EFF's legal staff? This might be the kind of precedent for which they're looking.
Just because they're the experts we shouldn't assume that they have the resources to have found every relevent precedent.
Ignore Alien Orders
And this MIGHT be the reason they can not real all of slashdot.
Well, that's all very cute and reactionary, but hardly a good point.
We have no idea how large their staff is, and I think are doing the open-source community a great disservice to display attitudes like that.
Ignore Alien Orders
This is a completely different argument from your original post. Yes, the EFF probably knows that they should look to Slashdot and the open-source community in general for ideas and inspiration.
But your original argument could be reworded to say, "Just because the EFF doesn't have infinite resources the entire open-source community deserves to suffer within the EFF's loss".
I tend to agree more with your latter more reasonable point, not the former.
Ignore Alien Orders
Well, we quite simply need to do what we've been doing.
Attacking it aggressively at the grassroots level by contributing to the EFF, writing our politicians (I have my senator's and congresman's email addresses in my addressbook, as should you), and writing editorials to any and all publications you can find time for (it goes without saying that these should be to the point and intelligently written).
Naturally, assembling the best legal team that we possibly can is also a must.
But frankly, what else is there TO do? They have HUGE loads of cash, and we have less. We need VA or Red Hat to jump in on the legal defense end, and the rest of us need to work our asses off getting the word out.
Ignore Alien Orders
In the meantime, is there an alternative -- ie some other format that would allow playback in Linux of MPEG2 (or some other codec of comparable quality, M-JPEG2000 maybe?) content stored on DVDs, whether or not it could play on existing standalone players? It seems like even if a new format had a small customer base, depending on what it was there might be little (technical) challenge for companies to update their hardware/firmware to support it. I suppose the MPAA would try to prevent them from doing this but then again we're already seeing DVD players that support many different formats including mp3 audio.
I realize that it's a long shot to expect any motion picture companies to ever use some weird format that could explicitly facilitate copying, but who knows -- it would make people think they were cool, and if it existed there would be a lot of people who would refuse to buy anything else.
It would be nice to see something like this happen -- kind of like a rematch of Beta vs. VHS where this time Beta could actually win (so much for 'to-the-point and intelligently written').
---The Vicar---
The MPAA says that companies are lossing millions of dollars of revenue. Don't they mean they are lossing a chance to make millions of dollars of revenue by controlling all information?
I won't quote the Constitution for you, since that's about the easiest thing to look up on the internet. But 1. one of the things guaranteed to every American is the RIGHT to a trial by jury over any criminal proceedings, and more importantly to us, any dispute involving a sum of 20$ or more. (IANAL, so don't quote me, just read it yourself, thats what it says.) 2. That's not just any jury. Its a jury of peers. In other words, In a case like this DeCSS fiasco, a jury of folks who know how to at least code. Otherwise they could not be considered peers in context, now, could they?(And lets face it, if the least of the defendants' knowledge of information technology were equated to one of the Great Lakes, the judge's knowledge would have to equate to a thimbleful. So WHO SHOULD"VE DEMANDED A TRIAL BY JURY? Prejudiced/Paid For judges are the very reason juries exist. Just my humble opinion. (sorry, Flame Off.) 3. Any juror has the RIGHT and DUTY to vote "Not Guilty" if for any reason they feel that the defendant is not guilty, reguardless of any law on the books. What this means is that if there is a law in Turkeypoot, Arkansas that says you will be fined 20$ for spitting on the sidewalk and George spits on the sidewalk, if you are on the jury and you don't think george is guilty of a crime even if he did spit on the sidewalk, you are obligated to vote "Not Guilty". Doing so, George gets out of the fine, but more importantly, a major blow has been struck against the stupid blue law that prevents people from spitting on the sidewalk. Our Founding Fathers believed (rightly,) that it is better for a criminal to walk free than for an inocent man to be punished. Next time, it probably wouldn't even make it to court, because it will result in no fine again. Eventually the law gets striken dead. This is the forgotten beauty of the Justice System. It is the check that keeps judges and lawyers and bureaucrats in place. Now that you know, don't blame anyone but yourself if you don't stand up for your American Rights. This is a govornment of the people, for the people, BY THE PEOPLE! Do your part. Only the people (us) can shut these big corps down. To learn more about your duty as an American Citizen, read The Citizen's Rulebook and Jury Handbook. I am sure that you will enjoy the read, and it is right on topic. Don't worry about it being a geocity page, there's no popups. Fight the Good fight.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
We are limiting our response to the MPAA in far too narrow of a spectrum. Most of the complaints are here on Slashdot. There has been limited press coverage to suppliment the efforts of the EFF. A choice few have mentioned writing congressman (which, unrealistically, many people feel will be ineffective since all politicians are in on this. My guess is congress is just clueless ATPIT).
In order for the message to reach the common viewer, we need to convince hollywood's own employees, the acters and actresses. Generally speaking, this is a very diversified group of people. We are far more likely to find well known, well spoken individuals here who are willing to speak out against this both inside their industry and, more importantly, to the outside world where the common man will listen.
I wish I had a list of celebrity emails or addresses. However, I'm guessing that such information IS available, and if used judiciously, stands a good chance of getting non-techno representatives to defeat these ridiculus, restrictive agreements.
I'm getting pictures of Sandra Bullock speaking to E! and telling them how the Net is becoming a reality....
What's the real purpose of the overly broad access circumvention language in the DMCA? It's simply this: The MPAA wants to control those who have lawfully paid for and obtained the material. The MPAA wants to track your every move, control where and when you can view materials, and prevent you from sharing your knowledge with others. They want to control their markets and gouge you for the maximum possible amount of money they can extract from your pocket, and they don't give a rat's posterior if the laws they've pushed make a mockery of free speech rights and set off thousands of strike suits, in which unscrupulous copyright holders take advantage of the DMCA's unconstitutional provisions to attack their competitors.
In short this is another conspiracy, if you want to call it that, in which big corporations want to play the role of "big brother". Is it about power? Maybe. But I'm more of the opinion its about money. Take a look at the recent statements by Doubleclick and their scheme to track the web habits of everyone in America. This information is highly valuable to large businesses and advertisers and some will stop at nothing to obtain it, whether it violates the fundamental rights of the constitution or not.
I think it is time for the government to step in and actually protect the population like they are supposed to. They need to crack down on these "big brother" tactics and thereby preserve our venerable constitution.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
some excerpts from:
U.S. Supreme Court
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. , 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
243 U.S. 502
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
UNIVERSAL FILM MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.
No. 715.
Argued January 12 and 15, 1917.
Decided April 9, 1917
It is sufficient description of the patent to say that it covers a part of the mechanism used in motion picture exhibiting machines for feeding a film through the machine with a regular, uniform, and accurate movement, and so as not to expose the film to excessive strain or wear.
To paraphrase, a way to access the film media in a useful way.
The defendants, in a joint answer, do not dispute the title [243 U.S. 502, 506] of the plaintiff to the patent, but they deny the validity of it, deny infringement, and claim an implied license to use the patented machine.
i.e. I thought I could use it because I bought it.
The defendants agreed to some type of EULA that stated:
This agreement contains a covenant on the part of the grantee that every machine sold by it, except those for export, shall be sold 'under the restriction and condition that such exhibiting or projecting machine shall be used solely for exhibiting or projecting motion pictures containing the inventions of reissued letters patent No. 12,192, leased by a licensee of the licensor while it owns said patents and upon other terms to be fixed by the licensor and complied with by the user while the said machine is in use and while the licensor owns said patents (which other terms shall only be the payment of a royalty or rental to the licensor while in use).'
And you need it to view movies...
It was admitted at the bar that 40,000 of the plaintiff's machines are now in use in this country, and that the mechanism covered by the patent in suit is the only one with which motion picture films can be used successfully.
And the Questions...
This state of facts presents two questions for decision:
First: May a patentee or his assignee license another to manufacture and sell a patented machine, and by a mere notice attached to it limit its use by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee, to films which are no part of the patented machine, and which are not patented?
which I think means "Can you make a machine based on accessing patented tech and distribute it with a notice (license agreement) to use it only for specific media?"
Second. May the assignee of a patent, which has licensed another to make and sell the machine covered by it, by a mere notice attached to such machine, limit the [243 U.S. 502, 509] use of it by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee to terms not stated in the notice, but which are to be fixed, after sale, by such assignee, in its discretion?
i.e. can you do DIVX, SDMI. And control access by later changing agreed upon rules.
some judge's musings (opps, uh "Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: )
This construction gives to the inventor the exclusive use of just what his inventive genius has discovered. (the patent system)
now an interesting bit
If his discovery is an important one, his reward under such a construction of the law will be large, as experience has abundantly proved; and if it be unimportant, he should not be permitted by legal devices to impose an unjust charge upon the public in return for the use of it.
wow, eh? If something is proven to be useless a patent holder shouldn't use the law to try and profit.
It would serve no good purpose to amplify by argument or illustration this plain meaning of the statute. It is so plain that to argue it would obscure it.
and a really long sentence
The statutory authority to grant the exclusive right to 'use' a patented machine is not greater, indeed, it is precisely the same, as the authority to grant the exclusive right to 'vend,' and, looking to that authority, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we are convinced that the exclusive right granted in every patent must be limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that it is not competent for the owner of a patent, by notice attached to its machine, to, in effect, extend the scope of its patent monopoly by restricting the use of it to materials necessary in its operation, but which are no part of the patented invention, or to send its machines forth into the channels of trade of the country subject to conditions as to use or royalty to be paid, to be imposed thereafter at the discretion of such patent owner.
You can't extend patent protection. i.e. "You need this peice to go with that piece and we control both. Pay up."
The patent law furnishes no warrant for such a practice, and the cost, inconvenience, and annoyance to the public which the opposite conclusion would occasion forbid it.
Man, if I we use "inconvenience, and annoyance to the public."...
I think this next part is called "damning as hell" (hehe)
It is argued as a merit of this system of sale under a [243 U.S. 502, 517] license notice that the public is benefited by the sale of the machine at what is practically its cost, and by the fact that the owner of the patent makes its entire profit from the sale of the supplies with which it is operated. This fact, if it be a fact, instead of commending, is the clearest possible condemnation of, the practice adopted, for it proves that, under color of its patent, the owner intends to and does derive its profit, not from the invention on which the law gives it a monopoly, but from the unpatented supplies with which it is used, and which are wholly without the scope of the patent monopoly, thus in effect extending the power to the owner of the patent to fix the price to the public of the unpatented supplies as effectively as he may fix the price on the patented machine.
Use control over the hardware to leverage a higher price for the content, which you also control.
And in conclusion
This notice first provides that the machine, which was sold to and paid for by the Amusement Company, may be used only with moving picture films containing the invention of reissued patent No. 12,192, so long as the plaintiff continues to own this reissued patent.
Such a restriction is invalid because such a film is obviously not any part of the invention of the patent in suit; because it is an attempt, without statutory warrant, to continue the patent monopoly in this particular character of film after it has expired, and because to enforce it would be to create a monopoly in the manufacture and use of moving picture films, wholly outside of the patent in suit and of the patent law as we have interpreted it.
and in black and white
A restriction which would give to the plaintiff such a potential power for evil over an industry which must be recognized as an important element in the amusement life of the nation, under the conclusions we have stated in this opinion, is plainly void, because wholly without the scope and purpose of our patent laws, and because, if sustained, it would be gravely injurious to that public interest, which we have seen is more a favorite of the law than is the promotion of private fortunes.
Both questions as stated must be answered in the negative, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Mr. Justice McReynolds concurs in the result.
There you have it. If we can somehow make this a case of a useless technology (the Decoder/player card) being forced on customers/licensees (useless because it can easily be replaced with simple software) then perhaps there is an arguement. This all seems to be patent law and that's a big proglem (I would assume, since, IANAL, and now I know why, that's some mindbending grammar)
Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting:
I suppose that a patentee has no less property in his patented machine than any other owner, and that, in addition to keeping the machine to himself, the patent gives him the further right to forbid the rest of the world from making others like it. In short, for whatever motive, he may keep his device wholly out of use.
i.e. He thinks it's o.k. to say "It's my ball so you follow my rules (even though I can't play alone) or you can't play. And they're my rules, so don't be thinking you can start your own game either."
Read it yourself for your own interpretation.
+&x
IntellectualCapital has on of the most even-handed accounts of the DeCSS controversy and the DMCA that I've seen in the mainstream media: http://ic.voxcap.com/issues/issue34 3/item8106.asp
The author concludes, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act "effectively gave [copyright] owners the power to write their own intellectual-property statutes." This is exactly what the MPAA is trying to do. The DMCA effectively removes fair use by making it a crime to circumvent access control even if you would normally have a legal fair use right to access the material.
Defating this will not be easy. In the MPAA suit in New York, Judge Kaplan has already decided in his Memorandum Opinion that fair use isn't even an issue the court will address:
Finally, defendants claim that they are engaged in a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.27 They are mistaken.
Section 107 of the Act provides in critical part that certain uses of copyrighted works that otherwise would be wrongful are "not . . . infringement[s] of copyright.''28 Defendants, however, are not here sued for copyright infringement.
Very frightening stuff - let the media and your representatives know what this debate is about!
Perhaps the same will occurr with the MPAA. In seeking such a congressional stranglehold on their product, it can only help the small film, independant, and tiny label businesses. They can begin to release their items under "fair use" provisions that allow people the rights they can not get from the MPAA.
This could be a real boon for them. Music and movies could be delivered free for small producers trying to make a name for themselves by a dotcom similar to NoNags. Another dotcom, similar to Broadband Download Center could give away free snippets (the first minute of a song, like Voltaire does) and sell full versions.
The MPAA in creating these regulations encourages the small creator to avoid the MPAA in order to increase their share of the marketplace. In addition the MPAA has distanced itself from it's clients and encouraged it's clients to find a new source of entertainment. I say we do just that.
-----
No Zen is good zen
I'm sorry you smashed your VCR, and before you hammer your cassette deck, know that they're both legal. The MPAA gets a royalty for every blank video cassette sold, and the RIAA gets its dues for every blank cassette and DAT sold. The law operates under the assumption that the criminal class (us) wouldn't respect the copyrights of Hollywood, so you pay every time you buy a BLANK tape. The fight over the royalty for each new recording technology is time consuming -- which explains why these technologies are on the street in Japan and Europe generally a year or two in advance of the U.S. What's interesting to me is that DVDs aren't about recording and copyright violations -- just general exercise of political muscle. Any wonder why Hollywood is such a great source of campaign funds? Any question why we need campaign funding reform? Or why we'll have to get off our collective rumps and start voting for it?
Legal precedents for the world of the future are being set NOW.
The ramifications of decisions made during this period in our history will resonate for years-- and probably decades-- to come. The Internet started as a wild, free place, but our freedoms are being chipped away in huge chunks.
Once gone, we're not gonna get 'em back.
The MPAA is really making me sick. The film industry prides itself for liberal, cutting-edge values and ideals. They're so apologetic for their actions during the McCarthy period (remember the Elia Kazan debacle during the Oscars?)
This is the Hollywood blacklist all over again.
They're doing the wrong thing for America and the world. Corporate paranoia is once again choking individual freedoms and rights to free expression and thought.
I wonder if it woudl be a good idea to appeal to prominent filmmakers as well as the movie-going public (as 2600 is doing).
Maybe go through the special effects/CGI departments (where the nerds are) for support-- then pass the word up through the ranks.
Who is powerful in the entertainment industry who might "get" this issue?
And anyone got any good contacts?
Well, I had to smash my VCR this evening. After all, it was a technology that was obviously created to bypass a copyright. Damn the politicians, damn the DMCA, Damn the MPAA, the DVDCCA and the RIAA.
The right congressmen? Try _all_ the congressmen. This voting record shows that the bill was passed uninamously, with the exception of one congressman from New Hampshire abstaining.
The bill was passed in the house by a voice vote; that means there is no record of how each Representative voted.
But really, can you blame them? This is a non-issue to the public at large, and corporate interests were at stake. The only time they'll defy the corporations is over a large public issue, e.g. campaign finance reform.
Does this sound familiar, in any way? Substitute "Operating Systems" for "content", and "WWW browsers" or "applications" for "DVD players", and we have a rerun of Microsoft's actions over IE...
When Microsoft did it, the court held that it was illegal, and stopped Microsoft doing it (albeit too late, really...) - hopefully, the same will happen over DVD and all the restrictive trade practices associated with it (region coding, to enforce discriminatory pricing regimes, which I am told is illegal; preventing the use of competitor's products in conjunction with lawfully obtained material, almost certainly a violation of anti-trust laws...)
There have been a lot of people here who have asked the same question: "What can I do?" There's a lot we can do, but only if we do it now. If you wait even a few weeks, the entire ballgame may have changed.
- Post the code. Don't just link to it - get another copy of it out there. If you really believe in this, put yourself on the line; post the code and make a stand.
- Write up flyers and distribute them. Get actions organized with others to go out and get them distributed. We need to get the message out to the "mainstream" public.
- Refuse to see another movie made by any of the movie studios affilliated with the MPAA, ever . If you want to see the new Star Wars or Star Trek movie, you're just going to have to decide which means more to you - the next installment or your rights. If these studios want us to go back into their theaters, all they have to do is withdraw from the MPAA and demonstrate that they give a damn about their customers. Until then, to hell with them.
- Support any motion picture studio that is not a member of the MPAA. Learn to appreciate the joys of independent film.
- If you're currently arguing for a boycott of DVD, stop. It's not the technology's fault, and by doing this you hurt independent movie studios who wish to release in digital format. DVD is broken - let's keep it broken. All a boycott will do is destabilize the industry, allow the MPAA to say "see, we were right, DeCSS destroyed DVD" and give them an excuse to put even worse laws and "protections" into place. Don't boycott DVD - support it wholeheartedly.
- Write your Congressman and make your displeasure clear. It may fall on deaf ears, but even a deaf man knows when a million people want his head.
- Write letters to the editor, guest editorials, flyers, websites, everything. In the presidential election of 1992, when this administration came into office, James Carville had a very simple strategy - don't let any action go unresponded to for more than a news cycle. React fast, adapt faster, attack even faster. We're the antibodies of the Internet and this is an infection that will kill the body. Let's kill it first.
- Get informed. Read everything on this issue you can get your hands on. Don't gloss over where our case is weak - admit to it. Admit that we're weak under the DMCA - attack the DMCA itself. People will respect it more than if you fudge the facts to get a convert.
I worked in the election of 1992. In order to respond to local action faster - say, the other side was planning a local demonstration and we wanted to be present - we organized a "phone tree". Every person in this tree had a list of ten phone numbers. The person on the top of the tree would call their ten people, and each of the ten would call ten more. In under an hour, hundreds of people were in their cars and moving.We may need to organize something like this - by both email and phone. We need to be in front of television cameras, we need to be talking to reporters with notepads. Contact your local Linux users group and find out what they're doing about this. If they're doing nothing, or you have no Linux group in your area, get something organized yourself.
If you see an online poll, or a newspaper phone poll, that asks "Should hackers be prosecuted?" or anything similar, FLOOD IT . Get as close to 99% for our side as you can. Am I recommending polling fraud? You're damned right I am. It's standard practice in any U.S. political campaign.
Us Linux people have a tendency of believing that the best outcome is inevitable, because deep down we tend to believe in people. If we take the attitude that it's all going to work out because we're in the right, we are in severe trouble, because the other side is doing the same thing with a lot more resources.
We need to start dealing with this like a major political campaign against a popular and long-seated incumbent, who has vast resources and rooted connections. We need to start acting like a guerilla force against a standing army, and stop screwing around.
They want a fight? Let's give them a fight.
Rob Warren
www.iag.net/~aleris
The funny thing about this whole debate over access control for copyrights is - it all happened long ago around the turn of the century. Actually, it was a bit different the last time. The last time, it was an attempt by patent holders to expand their rights through outrageous "Licenses" and the Motion Picture Industry was fighting for freedom!
Read the Supreme Court decision in MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. , 243 U.S. 502 (1917) for some amusemt. Edison and the New York patent holders attempted to do all the evil things the MPAA and DVDCCA are now doing. Hopefully the Court will uphold the doctrine of "first sale" and allow thos who purchase DVDs to use them as any other piece of property that they own.
Oh, and even before motion pictures, book publishers attempted to use licenses printed inside book covers to prevent customers from selling used books after they finished reading them. History does repeat and greedy corporations don't seem to change.
I have a theory about DVD-CSS that I want to try out. I encourage debate on this, since I think it's an angle that nobody has looked at yet.
It's the idea that you can't record (not copy) your own DVD without the "official" software.
It doesn't make sense to me that you would control the use of a player for whatever system you have. It's the theory of standardization. The more you sell, the more you sell because you have become the defacto standard for that technology. That's why we use VHS instead of Beta, and why MS kicked booty on Apple. So, it's to your advantage to freely distribute your player ala IE or Acrobat Viewer or Shockwave Plugins.
The film industry is a weird thing. Hollywood was built by accountants. All movies do not make money. How? Everything is taken off of the top, what we call gross points. There is also what we call net points, where you get a percentage of what's left after expenses. Everything gets taken out of gross points, so a studio almost always fails to make a hefty profit. Of course, everyone makes money, but for tax purposes, every movie is a flop.
Now, here come the independent filmmakers. These guys make a movie for less that $50,000, so if a movie makes it big, it makes it BIG! What's even better, these guys make better movies, more suited to thinking intellectuals than the usual mass-marketed pulp.
So, the big studios see these "yahoos" coming in and taking out some slices of the pie, which are needed for the industry system to function, and need a way to up the "profit" margin.
Enter DVD and CSS. The industry gets to pick how you read and write your own DVD's. Make the cost of recording software prohibitively expensive. Don't release recording software for Irix.
The reason that these independents are making movies so cheaply is that they use computer graphics to fix up the footage during editing. That means that they can spend less time shooting on location, which is prohibitively expensive. Once you buy a good CG system, you are limited only by time.
The potential from DVD for independent filmmakers is enormous. I offer the following scenarios:
A) You're an independent filmmaker trying to get a deal to sell your film to a chain of theaters. It's very expensive to get your film transfered to celluloid (film that goes in a projector). That's what the deal guys use to preview movies. So, you burn a DVD from your CG machine (the whole movie's on your hd, remember?) and get a laptop with a DVD player. You have a very portable instant-presentation device. Oh, here, wait a minute, I have it on my laptop, I can show you right now. If you have a couple of these setups, you can take them to show at Sundance or wherever.
B) Several independents get together and form a distributed distribution organization. They use a DVD repository, and manufacturing facilities all over the world. A filmmaker makes his film, loads it on the server, and presses all over the world start distributing this DVD. Sure, it's 8Gigs, but it only gets sent out a couple of times. Big studios are all about distribution--they are the kings of it. What the independent needs is a way to get his product out there in the market. It's a major problem for independents.
C) An independent filmmaker wants to make a film with a message and is not concerned about making any profit. He puts the whole damn thing on the net and lets anybody download it free. My wife, who has a degree in theater, says that it would just make the studios go ballistic that somebody would have a good movie (better that their waste of film) and be giving it away for free.
I just don't know why anybody has thought of this. Maybe we need to start telling the independents about these capabilities that they are missing out on.
For more information about independent films, check out ifc's web page www.ifctv.com or IF magazine www.ifmagazine.com
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.