Slashdot Mirror
CSS: About Piracy, or About Content Regulation?
Linux Today is running an
opinion piece which
gives an alternative interpretation to the DeCSS saga: CSS is not so much about
preventing piracy or enforcing region codes as it is about protecting the
current content providers from any new competition (thereby also controlling
what you get to know).
Just think: CSS and players which use CSS decryption (all DVD players) are protected by criminal law. Not license, trade secret, patent or copyright, but by the copyright on some content which may be "protected" by CSS. Someone reverse-engineers CSS by lawful means? Doesn't matter--still protected! CCA patents CSS and the patent expires? Doesn't matter! Someone independently develops a software player that plays DVDs? Doesn't matter! $500,000 fine and possible jail time!
It's time to end this bastardization of IP law. From now on, anyone can simply include encryption as part of an new media standard and no one can develop a competing player! This has less to do with content protection and everything to do with an instant monopoly on DVD players.
I eat organic foods :-)
:-(
Visit your local natural foods market. Some of them have food from companies that avoid genetically engineered organisms.
Unfortunately these companies are so old-school that they don't have a web site I can give you
(I also eat normal food. It's just that the only store within walking distance is a natural foods place)
AC
Idiot.
They don't care about control. All they care about is making money. If they could they would say that only you allowed to watch a movie, and if your friends did not buy the movie, they are not allowed to watch it, unless they have purchased a copy. The can have sort of people detection mechanism in DVDs and not play the.... etc.etc...
Anyhow, power is only derivative. Doesn't matter though. Sony makes DVDs, Sony prints DVDs, sony won't make plainDVD player, neither would others.That would jeopardise the 'business' relationship with Sony. Sony will wisper to MPAA and they will revoke culprits licence. End of story. However, there are MP3 discmans are being made. I there's enough market for plain DVDs,
someone is sure to start production. Earlier articles pointed out flat fee content provision,
all you can eat with digital cable, served on demand. With phiber and gigabit ethernet around the corner, I don't see how would that pose a problem.
Can you use good old backup tapes and put an MPEG stream on it? after all, movie playback is sequential anyway.
Or is the transfer rate too low/tapes too small?
AC
You can find similar arguments from a recent Reason article. Recent corporate extensions of copyright laws border on the ridiculous. Legislators could justifiably be accused of collusion.
No sir ! The DMCA doesn't grant any right under any circumstances for this kind of purpose. The DMCA IS about content control and not piracy. That's where geeks and suits are not speaking the same language at all.
The average geek (or any normal human being, by the way) considers the purchase of a copyrighted content as a license to use this content and do whatever he wants as long it's for his own private usage or for so-called fair use. That's the way anyone in the IT industry uses (or rather used) to understand licensing and copyright. That's why no one pay any attention to shrink-wrapped licenses and this kind of legalistic BS.
The average suit from Hollywood (whose affiliation to humanity is highly questionable) understands copyright as the fact that "This is mine, mine, mine ! And I do whatever I want with it ! And if you want to have the ineffable chance of enjoying my incomparable creations, you have first to abide joyfully to whatever condition I may set to grant you mere mortal such an unmerited privilege." Those guys are just control-freaks because they don't want to move. They just want to keep doing business the way it used to be. Each time something new appears, they go against it, however beneficial it proves to be on the long term for their own business. Speaking movies, color movies, VCR, etc, etc, etc.
Don't try to find anything rationnal or efficient about that. It's just the way they are. Yep, that's sad.
You mean like laws of passing that no operating systems can compete? And WTF does CSS or DCSS mean, quit giving initaials of products and use true meanings! No wonder nerds are like that.
I agree.
The whole problem is that we (computer users) are operating technology that was developed by greedy media companies.
Think about it...media companies invent the CD for audio playback (redbook?). The CD-ROM format (whitebook?) is created around the same time, but it is really just a tacky kludge on the existing format. I mean, it was ten years before we got CD-RW and UDF "packet-based" (instead of track-based) formatting.
Now the media companies have invented DVD and put in a whole pile of technical restrictions. DVD-RAM is out now, but half the capacity, a different media type, and has a caddy around it. When DVD-ROM comes out, it will be preburned as a "will never be played in a DVD player" code. God only knows what technical hurdles will exist when recordable DVDs come out.
If the computer industry would instead push forward the next breakthrough in storage technology, it could be an open, unencrypted, free format. If you can store 100's of GB of data on a single disk...don't worry about having to compete with CD and DVD...you will create your own market just by existing. Audio, video, data...it's all just ones and zeros.
AC powers the world!
gg ackmed, you queer.
jiggy jiggy jiggy smalls is da illest
eh?
I lifted this from linuxpower.org but it was posted to the mailing list apperently.
Livid
by Matthew R. Pavlovich
Jeremy Katz suggested that I polish this up for posting. The following is a response to a post on the LiViD development mailing list regarding a thread about the DVD CCA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the legal proceedings in general. I found myself explaining a good portion of the following over and over at the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City last week, and thought I would organize my ideas in some manner.
Posting--
> No one is gonna rewrite our copyright system over this little case that no
> one has even heard of.
If no one hears of this case, then it is our own fault. Instead of trying to cut down those formulating a plan, how about some constructive ideas on how to combat the forces against us?
You seem to take enough interest in Linux development to follow the LiViD mailing list, but you are ready to quit at a moments notice. You know what? I think I am gonna quit as well. I mean really, what do we have to gain here? Yeah, we gave it a good shot. Had a few laughs here and there. By the way, New York City is pretty cool. Would not have gone there had it not been for this project. But, that is all over now. What should we do now? I have always wondered what it would be like to paint murals on the side of expressways.
Do not bother replying to this message, the shows over. LiViD is disbanding. In fact, everyone else in the community definitely sees this as the best time to jump ship. I sent a letter to Larry, he agrees and everyone at VA is gonna be let go, because we cannot win. ESR has signed up for a creative writing course at the local community college. Alan has taken up water polo at the local club, and Linus has opened an Irish pub in San Jose. Slashdot has converted to an internet tabloid, and is now accepting photos and articles about celebrities and/or three eyed ragamuffins. Bob Young decided tap dancing was his calling, and the entire Xfree86 team has started an online bridge league. Oh, I almost forgot about our friends at the Gnome project.. they are going to be featured on a Lifetime original about these twelve people that live in a box car for three months.
I think too many people associate Linux as another product, a new toy for people to try out and tinker with. Its the next "thing", just a fad. A few people made some bucks on Wall Street, wasn't that nice? Whoop-di-do. La-di-frick-n-da. There will be something out next fall, along with the new Backstreet boys album.
To these people, I offer a challenge for them to open their eyes and see what is really going on. Linux _is_ a product. But it is a product of a new way of thinking, designing and operating technology and industry. It is the child of the open source movement. It could have been called anything, started by anyone, but it was *bound* to happen.
The last quarter of a century has been spent exploring new ways of developing technology, and designing systems. All previous methods and means of business have, or will fail. Linux is not about replacing what is available (well, kind of), it is a new way of thinking about how to extend technology. The open source development model is the result of all the previous ideas not being the best way to work. We have proved this to be the superior model, and care enough about it to challenge those that see other wise.
Say what you will about what the other side "will", or "will not" do in regards to the laws and regulations. Less likely people have succeeded in far greater feats. We have resources. We have intelligence, and more importantly, we have a desire that extends beyond national boundaries and throughout the technology industry. Our primary asset is the ability to rapidly communicate with large numbers of people in a short amount of time. We need to spread the *real* message to those involved in industry, and equally important is informing to those who are not.
> We are gonna lose this one.
This, we will not do.
Matthew R. Pavlovich
mpav@debian.org
Linux Video and DVD
http://linuxvideo.org
I would like to ejaculate all over MPAA.
Mmm..
first!!
first post for christina ricci
And yes, this is the biggest threat of the DMCA. It creates a whole new protection for IP which goes against the entire jurisprudence foundation of IP law.
Can you say Star Wars Episode 1? I thought you could. It will be released world wide on VHS ONLY. Likewise the DVD will likely be released the same way.
I would prefer that we have something stronger than a 'perhaps' to act as the motivations behind our lws.
twi
GNULIX IZ THA OS OF CHOICE PHOR LOTSO PEOPLES WHO R EVEL!! TAKE SADAM WHOSANE PHOR EXAMPLE: HE UZEZ RED HAT!!!! ANOTHER LAME DOOD WHO UZEZ LINSUX IZ THA PREZIDENT OF THA RIAA!! THAT IZ RIGHT: THA RIAA USEZ LINUX!!! OK, LET ME DO SOM LOGIK HERE:
1) RIAA=SUCK
2) LINUX=RIAA
3) LINUX=SUCK!!!!!!
LINUX IZ A CRIMINALZ OS!!! IF U UZE LINUX U KOOD BE THROWN IN JAYL!!!! SO DONT!!! C, IT IS JUST NOT WORTH THA RISK!!! DONT THROW YO LIFE AWAY ON A DUMB OS LIEK LINSUX!!!
LATROZ DATROZ
"U KAN NOT STOP THA LATROZ DATROZ"
I'll be jerking off, thinking abou her...
She was born on Feb 12, 1980. What was I doing on that day? I wish I was fucking her mother...
Maybe I will begin with a tale about my friend Spankey's pet monkey, Enrique. No, no, no, that wouldn't be right. Maybe I'll spin a yarn about how my friend Spankey still uses a Commodore 64 with Geos. Nope, not this time. I don't know what "My friend Spankey" story to tell. Maybe I will just punish Jon Katz and Nell Carter by not telling any "My friend Spankey" story at all. That'll showm 'em. -A Friend of Spankey
Introducing the DDVP (Digital Disc Video Player)! It's 100% DVD compatible!
And since such a company didn't have to pay the licensing fees, they can sell their player for cheaper. Also, not having signed the DVD Consortium's agreement, they can add in region selecting, and macrovision disabling features.
The DVD goons would have no basis on which to sue such a vendor. It would be just like when Compaq RE'd the IBM bios and built PCs that incorporated a compatible BIOS Is that not sufficient legal precedent. Hell, the Judge himself probably has an "IBM Compatible" PC at his bench!
slashdotters never take real action outside of sending flame email and bringing down websites with tons of http requests.
nobody in congress is gonna lose sleep over what these monkeys say.
Not really different. But encrypted !
You have rigth to reverse engineer the file format, bo it ever you try to find the secret MS ecryption key, you do into problems.
And you can see that MS office is simply the best of all office suits, becouse it's the only one able to support MS office file format...
I just got a DVD taht is not encrypted, its called TheCurve, by TRIMARK, just cp it to HD and away it is!!
If a small studio can do it why are big ones such fuckers???
You are clueless, ALL PORN is not encryped, ALL COMMERCIAL movies not owned by the big 8 are NEVER ENCRYTPED, all DVDS that are not movies are NOT ECRYPTED most of thje time, that includes all the SaturdayNightLive dvds, so CSS is NOT NEEDED but is alway soptional
CLUELESS idiot #3234
GEt a clue you moron,
many dvds on amazon.COM are not encrypted!!!!!
Ie, small studios dont bother encrypting.
Stop polutting us with false info.
tsk tsk, any one can make a DVD file and master it to CDR that is NOT encrypted and NOT region coded.
REgions+CSS is optional, but the big 8 movie studios ADD IT ALWAYS
All DVD players can play DVDs that are NOT ENCRYPTED moron, theres lots of DVDs on amazon.com that have no CSS, TheCURVE being one of those small house movies
I tried to make this same point on the Linux Today comment section: No DVD maker is required to include either region coding or encryption in their DVD. If they don't, the DVD will *still play fine*, on every player. This makes it impossible for the MPAA to subject anyone to content control via the CSS license.
It is still possible for the MPAA to control the makers of players, though, since a player must be able to play *both* encrypted and nonencrypted disks. That seems to be their real motive. They can lean on the player makers and force them to:
- put region coding in the players
- require that the player makers not allow digital image capturing
- require that the player makers make it impossible to fast-forward past some parts of the DVD, such as the FBI/copyright warning--and this *can* be used to put advertisements on a DVD that you cannot fast-forward past
But notice that all of this is to force the players to do something with the MPAA's own disks. Content control of other people's disks isn't possible.This BS about companies "losing" (read: not making) money because people pirate their software/movies is absurd. Most of the pirated software/movies are things that those people would have never paid for anyways. If they couldn't have gotten a pirated copy, they still wouldn't have purchased it, but instead would have just lived without it altogether.
So don't give us this crap about piracy being a major factor in a corporation's well-being, we don't buy it.
Knowledge, freedom, information flow, and competition are their mortal enemies; apathy is their friend.
Ultimately, trying to encrypt DVDs is stupid, counterproductive, and an annoyance to legal DVD owners, not the DVD pirates.
I, here in the US (Region 1), buy legitimate, non-bootlegged DVDs from Japan (Region 2). These were legally purchased and fully paid for. Copyright holders got their fair cut of the jib. I am not the criminal here. Why should it, in any way, be "illegal" for me to (1) modify my player to be regionless, (2) for stores to sell the parts necessary to modify my player, (3) to have a store offer to modify my player for me for a fee or (4) to buy a player pre-modified by a retailer? Does not the "interoperability" clause in the DMCA grant me the right to make the DVDs I fairly paid for "interoperate" with my player hardware?
They are mostly afraid of Piracy. The think they can prevent it with encryption etc... They cant since it will soon be DVD burners for a overcomlible price
9 February 2000:
See responses to letter: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-ccd2.htm
7 February 2000
From: "mpaa.23" <mpaa.23@gateway.net>
To: <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 12:51:43 -0800
[No message]
[Attachment] cryptome.org
[attachment cryptome.org; original in .doc format]
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
UNITED STATES PHONE: (818) 728-8127
Email: MPAA.23@Gateway.net
Anti-Piracy Operations
Cryptome
John Young
251 West 89th Street
New York, NY 10024
jya@pipeline.com
Date: February 4, 2000
RE: Illegal Provision of DeCSS/Circumvention Device
Site/URL: cryptome.org
Dear John Young: The Motion Picture Association of America is authorized to act on behalf of the following copyright owners: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
TriStar Pictures, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
United Artists Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corporation
Universal City Studios, Inc.
Warner Bros., a Division of
Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have knowledge that the above-referenced Internet site is providing a circumvention device commonly known as DeCSS. DeCSS is a software utility that decrypts or unscrambles the contents of DVDs (consisting of copyrighted motion pictures) or otherwise circumvents the protection afforded by the Contents Scramble System (CSS) and permits the copying of the DVD contents and/or any portion thereof. As such, DeCSS is an unlawful circumvention device within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2),(3). Providing or offering DeCSS to the public on your system or network violates the provisions of 1201(a)(2) which prohibits the "manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking" in an unlawful circumvention device.
On January 20, 2000, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Internet posting or other provision of DeCSS, having found that DeCSS was a prohibited circumvention device within the meaning of 1201(a)(2) and that the offering, providing or trafficking of DeCSS on the Internet violated 1201(a)(2). That court thus enjoined:
The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.
If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court sanctions for contempt.
We hereby demand that you:
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your immediate response is requested.
The information in this notification is accurate, and we declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Motion Picture Association of America is authorized to act on behalf of the owner[s] of exclusive rights described above.
Should you have any questions, please contact us at the above listed address.
Respectfully,
The Motion Picture Association of America
Well, since you have exclusive right to the idea, product, or process, it is by default a class of property. The incentive is in the "exclusive" part, i.e., you get all the $$ if it's a success.
If you have evidence that "copyrights" and "patents" were never intended to grant exclusive rights for a period of years, I'd like to see it. The internet has shown that patents (e.g., the Amazon model) are alive as ever. And history has shown that copyrights and patents can trigger rapid and massively successful industrialization, innovation, and improvement to the human condition. The alleged abuses of a few corporations here and there, now and then, are hardly a substantive argument against granting copyrights and patents. By this logic, we would have to outlaw the position of President and congressman, since they sometimes cause problems, too.
Monopolies cannot thrive without the aid of the government. Getting rid of copyrights might be a good idea. Unfortunately, since the companies own the gov't, they will continue to grant themselves copyrights. Can we get around this by widely distributing things like DeCSS, PGP, etc? Can the internet really make copyrights irrelevant? Is it justifiable to infringe on the profits of large (or small, or any) corporation by duplicating their efforts.
Blanket statements are easy. We need detailed, critical analysis of intellectual property and its future before things like the DeCSS case will be extinct.
The MPAA likes to argue that if tools like DeCSS get out there and eventually bandwidth is great enough people will start getting all their movies off of the internet for free, and there goes the movie industry. But what about the software industry? It's always had this problem. In fact, I have lots of pirated software. But I hardly think the software industry is going belly up. In fact, it's doing better than the movie industry. Jack Valenti needs to give up on this insane crusade to keep DVD/digital information controlled the way it was in the past. For those who don't remember, Jack Valenti was behind the efforts to ban VCRs back in the early '80s. (If I'm not mistaken, it was MPAA vs Sony.) May he be as successful in this endevour as well!
Isn't it legal to distribute copies of some content if you've been given permission by the owner? So if *any* one person has been given permission to distribute copies of an encrypted DVD by the rightful copyright owner, they are allowed to possess and use a device which copies the content - so someone must surely be allowed to create and distribute such a device? And you must be allowed to possess one in anticipation of being granted permission to distribute copies.
Not to mention that the DMCA relies on CSS being copy-protection. CSS encoded file contain all information necessary to decode (not decrypt - just decode) content along with the appropriate algorithm.
As with any data which has no copy-protection, all you do is decode it. This is important - a plaintext file has a sequence of bits to which an algorithm must be applied to decode the textual content - all information necessary is contained in the combination of algorithm and data file yet neither 'cat' nor 'cp' nor the basic software used for both of them are devices intended for circumventing copy-protection. So too with DeCSS, the combination of known, standard algorithm and data file is enough to decode the audio-video content, DeCSS, dvdcat, dvdplay, and the basic software used for them are like 'cat' and 'cp' and simply copy or format-convert the original files.
Why is 'cat' legal? Because it has a legitimate use? - that of converting or copying when it is legal to do so. Then what of DeCSS? It can convert when it is legal to do so, so it must surely be legal.
--
Tristan Wibberley
Thank Goodness we have MSNBC :D
Recent discussion on Slashdot has been really disappointing when it comes to the DeCSS case. As the Linux Today article points out, there are two sides to the argument: reverse engineering is sacrosanct, vs. our format is our property. It is easy to set this up as a David/Goliath scenario, and this is probably the source of the romanticism in the discussion circles here.
/. Instead of lamenting how the corporate suits will institute mind control using DVD, we should be busy formulating the next generation of intellectual property theory. The case needs a shrewd policy argument, not rhetoric.
I think a key viewpoint is missing. Namely, I think the "content control" argument against the MPAA is a straw man, erected by individuals too scared or ignorant to confront the intellectual property issue head on. My argument is as follows:
DeCSS allows a proprietary (someone owns the rights) standard to be read, sans permission of the owner. The defendants should argue that standards cannot be proprietary. No one can own Morse code, the meter, English, and so on. You can patent the code/process for creating it, perhaps, or charge royalties for the distribution of users' manuals, but ownership of a format for conveying/hiding information is what is at issue.
This argument is independent of free speech. Ownership of the format does not, and cannot, hinder free speech. The question is, if I have exclusive right to, say, cellular phone encryption, can I prevent your using an identical algorithm? i.e., do all decoders (using the algorithm I created) belong to me?
It is tempting to smuggle arguments about thought and content control into this arena. It is a temptation we must avoid. If we grant exclusive right to a format to a person, we allow them to do whatever they will (including control content). But the MPAA is not arguing _for_ content control, they are arguing for ownership.
I would have thought that intellectual property rights would have generated more than a knee-jerk reaction here on
Remember, if the programmers don't take control of the products, the corporations will. The DeCSS case is what we get when we don't keep laws and property rights up to date with the technology to which it applies.
So, how could we change copyrights and patents to allow things like DeCSS, without stripping the rights of product creators?
me toooooooooooooooo!!!
Nope. We should ALL boycott Cascading Style Sheets!
just by accident (wrong place, wrong time)
I'm protesting by wearing a DeCSS sourcecode tshirt from http://www.copyleft.com, part of the purchase price goes to OpenDVD plus it's just plain cool. Got mine in the mail today. Think they'll try to take the shirt off my back?
As much as I disagree vehemently with the actions of the RIAA with respect to DeCSS, I recommend that people do not seek any type of First Amendment protection for any computer source code, DeCSS or otherwise, even though a compelling argument can be made to that end. Doing so will only provide a platform to deny and encroach upon the freedom to speak and express oneself in the future.
Those who have followed various cases with regard to the EAR (formerly ITAR), such as Junger v. DOS, Bernstein v. DOJ, and Reno v. ACLU, know how difficult it has been to apply First Amendment case precedent to the issue of computer source code, or for that matter, the web in general. Is a computer program speech or an actual object? Is a web site more analogous to a device or a book? In source code form, a program is plain text and almost certainly deserving of the same protection constitutionally afforded to printed materials. In another, theoretically separated by a single keystroke, it performs a specific function, and is harder to apply to a speech scenario.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not use the word "expression", but people often understand the First Amendment to protect "freedom of expression". This has happened because the Supreme Court has widened the definition of speech to include numerous different types of expression, ranging from flag burning to picketing, often for the purpose of protecting people who have approached the courts with grievances.
In the cases mentioned above, the government has regrettably used the argument that computer source code inherently refers to a function of a device and that most real people (read: not nerds and programmers) appreciate computer programs for their functional rather than for their expressive elements. In my opinion, if the Supreme Court hadn't extended "freedom of speech" to cover "freedom of expression", it simply would not be possible to deny source code First Amendment protection. When trying to deny protection, they are using the First Amendment defined as "freedom of expression", a computer program (rather than source code) defined as expression (which it isn't and therefore exempts it from First Amendment protection) instead of source code in the context of freedom of speech. However, you simply cannot separate a program from either its speech or its expression because a program is most specifically and exactly defined in its source form. What was originally used to secure freedom is now being used to deny it. As Alexander Bickel once said, "The more you need to define freedom, the less freedom you have."
Instead of seeking First Amendment protection, people should address the root cause of this problem. Big companies and powerful individuals are enacting borders and boundaries on individual behavior only because they want to profit from these boundaries. Why shouldn't the rest of the world be able to read Microsoft Word documents without Microsoft's permission? Why shouldn't people be allowed to listen to music without the permission of the record industry? It has proven more profitable and beneficial for Microsoft and the RIAA to have it that way, while making the lives of others worse. Corporations and the individuals acting on their behalf should not have the ability to place controls around the world that serve no purpose other than to increase their own control, power, and wealth. Control is necessary in some instances for security, freedom, and safety, but the kinds of controls imparted by the RIAA, Microsoft, and other companies have no other functional intention than to benefit themselves at the cost of others. As the companies wave the banner for artists' intellectual property, they end up owning the property themselves. This becomes evident when artists who want to distribute content on a public medium without restrictions are not able to do so. This should at least always be an option, and we can thank the GPL for elucidating this point.
At the end of the day, this issue has little to do with free speech, and we shouldn't allow either the issue or free speech to become confounded further by allowing it into First Amendment territory. The kind of attention this issue deserves is a new amendment to the United States Constitution that will not only defend access to source code, but also decree it.
Correct link
--
Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
Expect at least some of the key CSS players to protest at some of the documents, claiming commercial secrets (a-la Microsoft).
Expect those media under the influence of drugs, alchohol or Hollywood (assuming you can tell the difference) to be favourable to the pro-CSS group and to lobby for the concealment of evidence.
Expect a major Hollywood blockbuster to come out, shortly before the trial (especially if it's by jury, I don't know if it will be) in which Jon Johanson is played by a 7' thug who can bend a 2' thick titanium bar with his nostrils, armed to the teeth with enough armament to take out a small continent, and equipt with enough DVD recorders to fill a five-story warehouse.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How interesting ... sounds like unix vs. windows. As in "We'll tell you what you need to know and give you the tools to do things the way we think you should."
--
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
You misunderstand his argument. He's pointing out that the MPAA is saying that with online piracy, they'll go belly up, while the software industry has online piracy and has not gone belly up. It's still not OK to pirate, but it's going to happen, and if the software industry can deal with it, so can the movie industry. It may not be right, but it's going to happen some day anyway.
Isn't that what microsoft did. In fact isn't Reverse Engineering what a ton of software companies have been doing for years. Or is it going to be that if your a company that will sell the technology and keep properitary than that's okay. But GOD forbid that some hacker is going give the source away. Now it becomes lost revenue and everyone knows that in a time where the goverment is just waiting for more control we'll have the companies just hand it over to them.
Obiviously, I'm reading more into this whole thing. But it seems very plausible that if you reverse engineer and don't release the source code but build a better product than that's competition and if you just give away the source code it's now lost revenue.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
The article consistently says "DeCSS" where I think it probably means "CSS". Anyone else notice that?
Pancakes is the better part of valor.
Who is this Q*bert guy and why am I seconding his nomination for Mayor?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Now *that* comment should be moderated up as insightful. But I only get moderator when I don't want it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Where do you come off with this analysis? In the OSS arena there is the Livid project which is quite alive and kicking. Taking a more commercial route there is LSDVD (which I'm involved with). I know that you know about the Livid project. You post to their mailing list and have produced Xmovie and LibMPEG2 which, from my understanding, are composed largely of Livid source code. Where do you come off claiming that there is no one creating a practical DVD player for linux?
And in answer to your question: Yes we should be able to "rip" DVDs. This is necessary for fair use rights to be exercised since the word "rip" in this context is synonomous with copy (a necessary step for backups or media/time shifting). One just hopes that people have enough respect for the content, and those who produced it, not to illegally distribute the copied information.
Paul Volcko
LSDVD
Eric Raymond, Bob Young, all of you, pay attention!
I've been reading and reading here, and I just thought of something.
If Hollywood was a revolt against the strangulation caused by Thomas Edison's "movie industry" in New York, and if the MPAA and their Content Scrambling System are maybe holding back Linux markets, I have one question:
What are you wealthy people, who got where you were because of the initiative and resourcefulness of people like the DVD hackers, going to do about this?
Hollywood and its other media brothers and sisters may have the upper hand now, but you have a platform at stake here--a platform that a lot of very dedicated people essentially dropped in your lap, many without a single penny of compensation (including me; I've contributed code to at least 2 Linux-related programs, pretty much anonymously.)
Well, you've got your money. So help us on this one.
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
Let's see: we've got a consortium of media giants who control both ends of the distribution pipe. We've got enormous barriers to entry for any newcomer. We've even got the consortium bullying politicians, arresting people for no obvious reason and doing their best to drag hundreds of unrelated people into court.
Besides - who'd want to copy a DVD anyway? Those same evil people who photocopy paperbacks, I suppose.
I find myself agreeing with the article (and the one prior still on 32Bits) but a big why is surfacing in my head. Not why are they doing this... That much is obvious if you actually care to read the articles like the one above and you're not nuts enough to think that it sounds too conspiratorial. But my why involves the fact that this sort of thing has happened elsewhere, and that this is the first time it's been made into a federal case. Why didn't Sony ever go after the mod chip business? is an example of what I'm trying to get at. This attack seems like a big corporation or association attempting to protect the region blocks in place. (PAL/NTSC should always be in everyone's mind) So what makes a hardware piece less legitimate for the type of lawsuit they're bringing? The mod chip lets you play games designed for use only in Japan or burned copies. There exists PAL/NTSC converters. What's really different about this piece of software? Why go after someone who reverse engineers in software rather than hardware? That's what's bugging me.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Sure it's off topic, but I'll go with it. Of course, you're right about the danger of decreasing biodiversity. For example, at one point, the total number of cheetahs in the world was 7, and now the species is suffering heavily from the lack of genetic variation.
But another problem, even ignoring the biodiversity problem, is that the change with artificial GM happens much more quickly than with breeding. With breeding, the surrounding environment (including other plants and animals)
has time to react to change. With GM, though, it's a shock, and the various dependent species don't know what to do. Therefore, the equilibrium can be very easily upset. The same phenomenon can be observed when alien species are introduced into a new environment, like kudzu in Florida, f'rinstance. The other species are overwhelmed.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Also, dogs and rabbits in Australia, goats in a lot of places, and pigs on Catalina Island, California (near Los Angeles).
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
To play the devil for a second...
If you're planning "wide" distribution of your movies, paying a small licensing/royalty for the priveledge shouldn't break the bank. It all comes down to who's put out the money to develop DVD and push it out into the mainstream as quickly as it has come.
CD-R's took ages to approach affordability, with DVD's, it happened quite rapidly.
In the long term, I'd much rather own a disk rathern than rely on digital streams to get content from distributors to me. For one, you can pay one time to watch a DVD as many times as you like. I don't know if that will be an option with streaming video in the future. And even if it is, one hard drive crash will cause a lot of difficulties, as you try to resurrect movie's you'd downloaded, or recreate certificates that state you own the right to watch such and such whenever you'd like.
Regardless. The industry has learned it's lesson. Don't be suprised if and when they do switch to completely online distribution. Of course, that will probably lock out the whole linux market again, but they'll be able to point to what happened with DVD's as a reason to not allow online distribution to any but a few "supported" operating systems. And they won't leave unencrypted keys laying around next time.
1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting
creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
This'll be short. (I'm a man of few words, but that's not really a compliment, considering I'm also a man of few thoughts).
I'm amazed this topic has yet to appear on what I read of the threads, but I have a question:
Isn't the definition of "crime" all about motive? Intent? You know, all that good stuff? Isn't that what separates Murder 1 from Manslaughter, or Manslaughter from Reckless driving (or whatever?)
The point is, the code was not invented with Piracy in mind ("motive"). It was invented with a perfectly legal use of the DVD in question in mind. He paid money for his player, his computer, his DVD... I don't understand how, having acutally followed all the rules and jumped through all the hoops, that any court could even entertain the idea of this guy being a criminal. (And this is all not even bringing up the oft-mentioned idea that DeCSS really doesn't make piracy any easier then it was before.)
So, I conclude by the fact that the courts are taking the MPAA seriously that my previous understanding of "crime" was flawed, and that I'm really missing something here. And I just would like a clue as to what.
--WorLord (include.beer in [responce])
I realize that DVD is already somewhat
established in the market.
But are there alternatives? The presence of
an alternative that's not a pain for consumers
could make a difference.
This is especially true as we get into audio. While movie studios will have control over the format that popular video content is distributed in, the costs of creating popular audio content
are much smaller. Much fewer barriers to entry.
This is why you see tons of small record labels, but not as many small film studios (though they do exist, and maybe there'll be more as technology improves)...
Anyway, if there were a DVD competitor, that'd be one way of attacking the problem.
Tweet, tweet.
Players today may be able to play unencrypted DVDs, but as more and more pirates shift from cloning encrypted DVDs to making unencrypted ones, which is certainly easier to do now, then surely the consortium will be pressuring its manufacturer members to block the playing of unencrypted DVDs in future models. We need to consider that, even though players may not do so today, they could tomorrow not be able to play unencrypted DVDs.
If they do make such a move, it does put them further into the darker side of the gray areas of anti-trust violations, as long as there exists some kind of legitimate business in unencrypted DVDs, which I believe there will be.
One thing I would like to find out is just what technology licenses I need to be able to make a player, to make a recorder, and to manufacture blank and recorded media, in DVD without any encryption (e.g. without using CSS). If some businesses do get into this market, will pirates make illegal copies of unencrypted DVDs for this market? If it's big enough, I'm certain they will. if it happens I'm sure there will be yet another big stink over the whole issue.
Computers in general are a thorn in the side of the audio/video entertainment industry. Computer media itself is beyond the control (so far) of the entertainment industry. US laws that do place restrictions on consumer playback devices with regard to copy protections and copy generation limits do not apply to computer devices. And in much the same way that the Internet will be diffusing the difference between data, radio, TV, and telephone, computers, as they get smaller in size, larger in capacity, and faster in capability, will be diffusing the difference between a data device, and a media device.
It used to be impractical for the average person to build their own playback device that could defeat region codes and other mechanisms of megacorporate monopoly. Computers are changing that landscape since the making process is now just a matter of someone coding software, and someone else downloading it.
In the end, which may be as little as 10 years away, we will either have open art that anyone can utilize on the honor system (or by contract), or we will lose the ability control the software that runs in the very computers we buy, build, and own. Be wary of the piracy scare coming into computers. Next we might have CPUs that require decryption keys just to run programs, and that could mean we can't even program our own computers. Both the entertainment industry as well as the software industry would love that.
It's hard to tell exactly where this is all headed, and evey they may not know. We need to keep our eyes open to every possibility and pay particularly close attention to future laws and computer technology.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It's optional until the major content producers start pressuring the manufacturers to stop playing back unencrypted media. They will use the fact that pirated content is coming out unencrypted as the excuse for this. The producers can do this even without the consortium being involved by threatening to not include the key for players made by non-cooperating manufacturers in their future releases. As soon as a few manufacturers go along, then the threat would no longer be a bluff, and most of the rest of the manufacturers would step in line.
That would certainly break the ability to play unencrypted material. That could be exactly what the producers want, and it would cover not only the piracy, but the up-starts as well. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. CSS gives them a tremendous amount of power. They either have not figured out how to use it, yet, or, more likely, are carefully treading the legal waters to find out just how far they really can go, and to allow their campaign of whining about piracy and reverse engineering to develop public, and legislative, sympathy.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What [CSS] lets the consortium do is determine who will make players, and on what terms, and who will provide content. If you can neither encrypt or decrypt the bit stream, you are locked out of both markets. [snip] Want to produce content - well, you need a license to produce the encrypted bitstream that will go on a disk, or you'll have to deal with someone who does.
This is not quite correct. Although CSS lets the DVD consortium control who can make players, it doesn't necessarily control who can produce DVD content, because the use of CSS encryption on a DVD video is optional. There are apparently several 'non-Hollywood' DVD titles in existence that are not encrypted. (I've been told, for example, that "Earthwatch" is one such title, although I haven't yet checked this myself.)
Of course, I imagine that any content producers that belong to the MPAA will be under pressure (covert or overt) to encrypt all their content using CSS...
I am not an expert, but from my understanding of the subject, the vast majority (all?) of DVD players will not play an unencrypted DVD.
Which means that unencrypted DVDs aren't going to be acceptable mediums for people who want wide distribution of the content.
Perhaps this is yet another reason why completely digitial distribution (i.e., on-line) is a better long-term solution than anything physical: it's simply harder to control bits than it is to control molecules.
Yup, another excellent reason to be cautious about this stuff. Funny that neither of us is the simplistic caricature the previous poster constructed. There's also the rainbow/brown trout problem in Uk/Ireland with fish-farms, the zebra-muscle, rhododendrons in the UK ( a major pain in the ass for foresters - not literally), cane toads in Australia. All these were rapid introductions of novel species.
He's dead wrong about not having a TV affecting your career, you get more time to work and play without it and you get superior news content from NPR.
Sorry, that would be mussel!
Crush
Then, if it is disgraceful in the philosopher to be unable, when a doctor speaks about the sick, either to follow his remarks or to contribute anything of his own to what is being said or done, and to be in the same case when any other of the craftsmen speaks, is it not disgraceful that he should be unable, when it is a judge or a king or some other of the persons whom we have just instanced, either to follow their words or contribute anything to their business?It must indeed be disgraceful, Socrates, to have nothing to contribute to subjects of such great importance!
Plato Lovers - Loeb tr.
In the next place our business transactions one with another will require proper regulation. The following will serve for a comprehensive rule:--as far as possible, no one shall touch my goods nor move them in the slightest degree, if he has in no wise at all got my consent; and I must act in like manner regarding the goods of all other men
Plato Laws - Loeb tr.
Well this is pretty off topic, but here goes anyway.
As a molecular evolutionist I am aware of the point that you make. All you are doing however is picking out the literal meaning of the phrase Genetically Modified and ignoring the fact that it is used in a very specific context now by those both pro and anti the idea of changing the genome of organisms by methods other than selective breeding.
Personally I am opposed to the idea of GM (in it's common non-pedantic usage) foods, but not for the reason that you posit
.the breeding is just as likely to cause harmful characteristics as the engineering.
Rather for the reason that many anti-GM proponents have expressed - namely that it allows a more controlled, uniform, patentable life. This is of course sweet music to the ears of large corporations who would love to have uniform yields and drug-responses and control over the leasing and licensing of these life-forms. Personally, I'd rather see things been done on a more ad-hoc basis as they are now with repositories of genetic information being built up and controlled by governmental institutions whose mandate is to preserve them for all humans (like the FAO). Add to this that uniformity is inherently a dangerous thing as it will remove flexibility of a species to respond to new environmental challenges, be they viral, bacterial or ecological and the fact that the practice of monoculture goes hand in hand with intensive farming which usually means environmental destruction. So, don't assume that all anti-GM people are arguing the simplistic line that you are attacking!
Way off. Have a look at the livid project, http://www.livid.org IIRC.
Hmmm, www.linuxvideo.org actually.
It won't just be music and movies. Check out this white paper posted at Adobe's site. Adobe and others are working on standardizing content encryption schemes for PDF and other popular document distribution formats. According to the paper, they are working with IOMEGA and others to provide hardware that enforces the access restrictions. The emphasis here, as in CSS, is on access control as much as it is on copy protection.
There seem to be a large number of companies that will master and press DVDs. All you have to do is supply the content and non-trivial pile of money. The CSS encoding involves licensing fees, but it isn't restricted to the big movie studios. The DVD FAQ has a section on DVD production.
It is a cheap little player (I got mine for $169), and so the build quality isn't quite what you'd demand from a Sony (or whatever). The UI is minimal (that's being nice) at best. It has also been noted that while it supports playback of MP3's, it's treatment of long filenames is a bit wierd.
Is it worth it? Yes! Oddly enough, the picture quality is very good, and it actually has component outputs (!!) for the video, and digital (coax only) outputs for AC3 and DTS. Strange. Oh, and the picture quality seemed to improve (very slightly) when I turned off the Macrovision encoding.
Very feature-packed for a sub-$200 player, and it's pretty sweet to be able to watch whatever DVD's I want (regardless of where they come from).
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
And check your time configuration in your Slashdot User Settings.
You can see the Connectix summary which also has a link to the 25 page finding.
This raises some good issues. In a time where now a local band (even a band made up of poor working class punkrockers) can put together a recording and afford to produce CD's and sell them through the internet and by mail order, it is harder for media companies to retain their monopoly on content.
If they win this one we'll go back to the dark ages of analog bootlegs and censorship. I think that big government is no longer a threat, because big business has long ago taken the power, and is now carrying the torch of repression and control, but with even more sinister goals. Big government wants self-preservation. Big business wants your money, all of it. We'll all be shopping at the "company store" soon.
I agree that we should be more worried about content control than anything else...
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
I'm just wondering: I've been reading the available literature online, asking questions, and I haven't been able to come up with a concrete answer:
:)
If I buy a DVD-ROM drive, is it physically possible for me to watch normal encrypted DVDs with linux, in a window in X?
I'm very tempted to by a drive, and I don't mind spending ages fiddling to make it work, or if the quality is awful - I'd just like to know if this is actually physically possible right now?
I just don't really have any other use for a DVD drive right now, so I'm trying to decide if I should buy one
Thanks,
/james.
Well said; 'nuff said.
Hmmm...
.vob files to burn onto your own personal DVD. Voila... your have a nice DVD with no pesky CSS.
Note that the content they are fighting about is not necessarily endemic to DVDs. You could produce a new format (or even use something not so well suited, like CD) and put CSS encrypted content on there, and you'd have the same legal battle.
So the key is to start using the enormous storing power of DVDs without encryption.
Imagine if someone out there produced an online movie store that was like mp3.com.... you go there, buy a DVD, and immediately download the *unencrypted*
Oxryly
Only if the same prints are shipped around the world. Which is kind of tricky when subtitling or dubbing is needed
If the movie is out later in theatres because of the time it takes to do a translation, who is gonna buy the english version on DVD before it is done the theatre run?
If enough people speak english to make this a real problem, maybe the translation wasn't worth doing after all...
--
Will Dyson
Will Dyson
"We can't stop here
Face it, everyone's just blowing off steam, but none of the posters are proposing we do anything about it.
...
/. were to email their congressmember and their senators and the VP and Pres (and equivalents in the rest of the Free World (TM)), this would change now.
It's time to stop whining and start winning
So, if every
Don't yell at them, do give your name and address and phone number (or the filtering software will block it as spam), and ask, politely, that they promote free trade for US musicians and people who need to have DVD for Linux systems, in other words, the real engines of the economy who are creating the real jobs in the US and the rest of the world. Tell them to ask that illegal monopolistic practices of this trade association controlled mostly by Japanese and other Asian corporations are harming your ability to donate money to their political campaigns when you IPO.
That will get their attention.
Will in Seattle
If reverse engineering were not legal , then IBM would own the PC market to this day. The clean room reverse engineering of the BIOS is one of the factors that led to the explosion of the PC market. There were specific procedures anyone reverse engineering a BIOS needed to observe to prevent a lawsuit, but I don't see Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc. having a problem.
If this case is found in favor of the plantiffs (MPAA), we are just postponing another monoply trial. MPAA: we control the movies being made, we control the movie releases, we control the media movies are released on, we control the players for the movies. The first time the MPAA or the DVD-CCA locks a DVD player manufacturer out will cause a revisitation to the issues contained within this case.
There are some unencrypted DVDs out there. The ones I've seen are porn movies but they say on the case that it isn't encrypted. They play fine.
When Lucas finally gets around to releasing Star Wars on DVD how long will it be before some enterprising person starts selling a 'fixed' version of it. How many of us would prefer to buy a version of the disk in which Gredo doesn't shoot first, and you can't see that Obiwan's lightsaber is just a plastic rod throughout half his fight with Darth? We can get rid of that totally redundant "see what we can do with CGI" scene between Han and Jaba that just repeats the conversation he had with Gredo. We can get all this on a disk with no loss of image or sound quality.
Lucas isn't going to want that to happen, and a lot of other film makers aren't going to want people doing other less noble things with their films. And they have a point. People shouldn't be allowed to change a film maker's work around to match their own preferences. But doing through encryption is futile. It may slow people down, but it won't stop them.
We don't have problems with people selling pirated copies of books, or with them taking some author's work and rewriting a few paragraphs here and there to better suit their own preferences, and then reselling the revised versions even though the technology exists, and has existed to do it for as long as people have been printing books. That was the whole point for the creation of copyright law in the first place, and those laws work pretty well. Why should they be applied differently to various electronic media?
Yeah but can you play them on dvd players, rather than on computers?
Thay appologised for the mistake (the article) and say that new atrticle is being rewriten
Part of the frenzy of DeCSS is due to the fact that for every liscensed DVD player sold, the DVD consortium collects a 20$ fee. This is one of the reasons why the Playstation 2 won't be able to debut under the 299$ price point, and which is why Nintendo's next system (which is capable of playing mpeg 2 FMV but not DVD video) will. DeCSS seems to pose a direct threat to the profits of the MPAA as well as the indirect and unsubstantiated nonsense they have been clamoring about (allows pirating, etc).
He doesnt seem to understand that DeCSS is not the thing that the industry uses to encrypt content - its the thing that the hackers wrote. He should be saying CSS where he's saying DeCSS...
Does "What DeCSS lets the consortium do is determine who will make players, and on what terms, and who will provide content. If you can neither encrypt or decrypt the bit stream, you are locked out of both markets. If you purchase..." make sense to you? heheh
It makes me wonder whether this guy has actually been following the issue or if he's just restating stuff that he's heard somewhere else?
Not to mention what the above poster mentioned about the MPAA deciding who can and cannot produce large scale movies, what about not-so-wide distribution? What if I want to make home movies of my daughter's first steps, put them on DVD, and send them to her Grand- and Great-Grandparents who are flung about the country, some of whom may not own a VCR? Am I going to pay the damn licensing fee? I should think not. This is extortion.
At the very least, consumer decks should play non-encrypted DVDs. Does anyone have a definitive source on whether they do or not?
Suppose the MPAA made the DVD encryption weak on purpose?
Think about it. Suppose the MPAA, perhaps in conjunction with other companies, wants to achieve a state of oligopoly through formatting. Not just in DVD, but in all kinds of media. To do this, they would have to create a legal precedent that makes reverse engineering illegal. So they make an easy-to-decrypt format, DVD, and then when people crack it, they litigate their collective ass off in the name of stopping piracy, hoping that the judge can rule reverse engineering in general illegal.
Now here is the question I want answered: Is HDTV encrypted?
If it is, this could get real big, real nasty, and real profitable for the MPAA real fast. The scenario goes like this. The MPAA wins, reverse engineering of media encryption is banned internationally. Afterwards, HDTV sets drop in price, so that people besides the ultra-rich will actually buy them. Soon all the tv stations go HD, and HD-DVD's enter the market. Suddenly, to do ANYTHING with the new standard, high definition television: broadcast it, record it, produce movies for it, anything, you have to get a license, just like you do now to make a legitimate DVD player.
Yikes. Someone tell me I'm wrong, please.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
I wonder if DMCA would pass the constitutionality test. The parts othe DMCA contradicts itself and the first amendment rights of free speech. I believe EFF should directly target the DMCA and try to get it removed.
... as I see it. Obviously there needs to be some common sense constraints on what you can do with a DVD (or CD, etc) once you purchased it. Whether or not people would go out and start up their own little movie theatres or start broadcasting the latest releases is irrelevant. But the industry granting itself complete control over what you can do with a DVD you've just purchased is ludicrous. This goes well beyond fair-use. Look at the situation we're in, they've managed to control the media and the use of the media. This directly/indirectly affects EVERYONE who comes into any type of contact with that media. Everyone from the production of the media, to the consumers wanting to use it.
These licenses are so opposite to common sense and fair-use that it's no longer even remotely funny. The last thing we need is for them to be legally enforcable.
But thats the idea, if they aren't legally enforcable, they'll make sure they can enforce them via control of the market. That's why DeCSS scares them, much more so than someone commercially pirating DVDs. It's the first attack on their control, and they're gonna fight this one tooth and nail.
Thanks for clearing it up for me!
Sig goes here
I'd much rather focus on the new generation of CD that is being developed by that one company. You know...the kind that use flourescent ink and can store like 180GB on a single disk?
= -=-=-=-=-=-
If these come to market, I'll make my own digital video discs and give DVDs the trashcan home they so richly deserve.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
After reading the ninth court ruling related to the SONY V. CONNECTIX case, /. article.)
it seems to be that reverse engineering a product to determine how it operates is
considered 'fair use'.
So why wouldn't this include the encryption used in the DeCSS case?
It included Sony's BIOS. Here is the ruling.
(For those of you who didn't read the
After all, what good is having the decrypted data, if you can't make a playable disk with it?
The point is not to produce playable disks, but to produce free (as in freedom) DVD appliances - recording and playback, audio and digital. This is what the consortium fears, not the ability to make an unencrypted disk. If they lose absolute control over the hardware, they lose absolute control over the content, and that is what Hollywood has always been interested in, controlling content.
Your concerns are not to be taken lightly. They are very real dangers.
I write from Canada, so I am simply an interested observer, but political events in the U.S. have a serious impact on Canada and the rest of the world so I am very interested...
If you want to work toward a solution, I suggest you pay close attention in the upcoming presidential election. The only candidate (with a hope in hell of winning) that I have heard disavow the power of corporate lobbyists, and stand up for the independence of government from corporate interference and self-interest, is Senator John McCain of Arizona.
That is not to say he is necessarily a desirable candidate on other issues. And I am by no means a political conservative (if I was American I doubt I would vote Republican very often). However, no one else seems to even have the guts to discuss the issue for fear of losing campaign financing. Look at the size of George W. Bush's corporate-funded campaign war chest! If he is elected, say goodbye to government by and for the people and hello to government by and for the corporations.
Use your power as free citizens and rid the Whitehouse of undue corporate influence. For your own good and the good of the rest of the world.
The media giants involved in the DeCSS suit are not interested in preventing piracy, but in maintaining control over the distribution of content. To this end, they wish to maintain control over the mass market appliance for content playback and production, the DVD hardware. This way they can control content absolutely, restrict releases to the media types they desire, require artists to pay premiums in order to release works on the 'new standard medium'...
The issue is not piracy but content control and manipulation of the spending of the public. The favoured corporate tool for increasing profit today is the courts, not creativity and innovation.
A company devoted to regulating content is Intertrust who have been developing a file format (DRM) that purports to be able to contgrol how many times a given file is read(!!!). It seems to me that this is impossible to implement without rewriting your OS and locking your computer inside a safe. (I guess that means it's good for embedded systems like personal mp3 players but not for PCs.) Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Or is it just a scam to raise investment money from scared content providers?
-- SIGFPE
Sure, not all politicians are corrupt money hungry people but even that small minority of good politicians, doesn't have the technical knowledge to know what reverse engineering is.
Why aren't geeks interested in politics? We all want to change the world but none of us are being represented by our peers. It would be nice to have a few representatives that really represent the open source community. I wonder what state has a large enough concentration of computer people to get a guy into office. California maybe.
The only good thing that I can see is that college age students are more and more getting into the open source movement. Maybe in a few years when they graduate and become the industry and country leaders we'll see some changes.
I don't vote most of the time because it's a choice of bad or worse. I want a representative that knows about technology, that's for privacy, free speech,personal responsability and law reform. I'm sick of politicians getting paid to lie to the public. I think that political parties are ruining are government.
I love america but I hate our government. I feel like I'm in east Berlin before the wall came down.
Some people here on slashdot like to blame the corparations. Sure they're large greedy and evil but in a capitalistic society they are supposed to be greedy since we are all working in enlightened selfinterest. It's the fault of the government. Governments only job is to protect it's population.
Only tyranies fear their subjects. Whenever I here about the government wanting more cops or more laws to allow them to track individuals it makes me sick. A good government especially a republic should have nothing to fear from it's citizens.
The death penalty should be reserved for people who commit murder and polaticians that sell out there country for money or power.
I started this post intending to make a short funny remark to post anonymously but the more I wrote the more strongly I felt. I know it's a little offtopic but it's how I feel.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
Right now, a relatively limited group of companies make console DVD players. The licensing market-entry barrier is just too high for most smaller electronics manufacturers. But, remove the CSS licensing fees (I've seen anywhere from $10,000 to $1,000,000+ written here), and suddenly we have a Rio-like DVD implementation that can play movies from ALL regions, as the manufacturer would have signed no agreement to prevent it from doing so.
This brings up another point I haven't seen yet. How difficult would it be to compile DeCSS and burn it in a PROM; combined with an MPEG decoder card, a (region free) DVD drive, and a little bit of software, this box could be taken into the courtroom and used to prove that DeCSS is about WATCHING movies, not copying them. "Go ahead, lawyer boy -- copy the disk that is playing in that playback-only box."
I got every one I've owed by dumpster diving. Is pizza genetically modified? I don't know, am I "one of those strange folks" the article talks about?
japanese anime dvd's
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Mickey,
We got the public where we want them now. If they want to buy a movie we can make sure they can't get them at some cheap blackmarket price or early when they come out in the US. We can keep them from making low budget movies, they have to pay us 90% of their budget to get our encryption scheme. This will work great. We won't even have to do anything we can just sit here and prevent everyone from making movies if they dont pay us.
Now about this Decss thing. We need to make sure everyone of our TV stations has this covered about what a scourge to society that kid was. In fact we need to get a movie going with the antichrist reverse engineering. That way we can get the moral majority and all those lobbyists fighting to ban RE. Once everyone thinks that reverse engineering is the devils work we can shut this stuff down and noone will touch us again.
Now we just need to start casting for an evil antichrist reverse engineering linux user.
well keep the little man down
gotta go
Mr Sony
PS We got Circuit City to yank that awful APEX off their shelves. Now how can we recall all the ones that were sold?
I am 31337 or something.
It seems to me that there is a significant chance that the MPAA will win this case. This is unfortunate, but I don't think it's catastrophic. Although it is likely that they will keep control of the DVD standard, and therefore DVD devices as well, something will come along sooner or later which makes DVDs obsolete. I think that if there is a standard open format out there waiting for it, they won't have an opportunity to pull the shenanigans they've pulled with DVDs. Engaging the MPAA directly directly is not likely to succeed, but take a look at Linux and Microsoft. Linux isn't succeeding by bringing lawsuits against Microsoft. Linux succeeds by ignoring Microsoft, doing it's own thing, and doing it well. If people can do that in this arena, it is likely to be successful.
OMG i wan't one of those so bad but is it really worth the investment?
I don't even know where i can buy foreign dvd's (am i looking in the wrong places?)
Can anyone help me out?
Appolodrus
Plato
Symposium
You can't handle the truth.
Everything is money when it comes to encryption. These DVD guys and all the entertainment industry are soley after one thing and that is money. Of course the cite the Artist's protection and other semi-worthy causes as their reasons for encryption and cracking down on illegal distributions of media. But when you really look at it who's making all the money? It sure isn't the artists, even though they get their fair share. Its the middle men, these agencies that rake in the DOE and for what? Basically doing nothing, they are scamming the artists and ripping off the public with outrageous prices. I'm overjoyed with the recent developments in the cracking of the encryption schemes for DVDs. In fact, I'm celebrating. Maybe now these corporate giants will get a clue and stop milking society for all its worth.
Of course they'll probably never get it, and we can expect a gruesome fight to ensue I'm sure.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Looking at 3 different clocks it appears to be 3:38 PM(EST) and this article wasn't here 10 minutes ago so how was this posted at 4:17 PM? Even taking different timezones into account I don't see how it's possible because the article should be off by an even number of hours.
This is what I said a week ago.
I don't really mind, but a little credit would be nice. (sigh)
They did expand a lot on what I said. I'm not sure I agree with them about controlling who can PUBLISH DVD content. And I DEFINATELY don't agree with them about intending to intimidate ISPs. Intimidating ISPs was only a feeble legal maneuver the MPAA came up with AFTER DeCSS was in the Public Domain, which I still believe the MPAA never thought would happen.
And they are just plain WRONG about DVDs being only slightly better than VHS tape. Get a new television!! Obviously, they've never seen a DVD played on a full-blown HDTV system.
I am a little 'bothered' by the 'sensationalist' tone of the article. Yes it's an important topic that's worth getting excited about. But I think if you get enough facts wrong, and stretch things a little past credibility, you will turn a 'neutral' reader off.
Content production is becoming easier all the time. It also does not have to be expensive.
The key to financial success in any mass market product category is, and always has been, control of the channels of distribution. Once you have that, you don't have to compete on product quality. You don't have to compete on price. You don't have to compete at all, because the 'competition' can't be heard.
That's what this has been about. That's the only thing this has been about.
The reason the internet is so significant is not because it's "cool", but rather because it offers a new channel, bypassing the ones already in place. That is it's revolutionary aspect.
As I see it there is one primary problem in how many have chosen to deal with DeCSS. Whether it's constitutional or not the DMCA has provisions reading (this is from the judge's ruling):
"No person shall . . . offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology . . . that---
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act];
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act]; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].''10
Portion C of this is most important. Most of the activities of the open source community thus far have been to disseminate the code as widely as possible, this is only hurting the case. By publicly flaunting the law--printing the code on t-shirts etc--many persons have made it look like the original intent of DeCSS was to pirate. No matter what the defendants might say now it is almost impossible to prove to a judge that the true motives behind spreading the code were to play DVDs in Linux. In fact I personally don't believe that was the motive of most of the people posting the code, they were just trying to flaunt the system; all fine and dandy until the system catches up.
If the community had chosen to deal with DeCSS as it was origninally intended I have to think we would have a much better chance of winning the case.
Checkout taccom my worl war II simulator
I think we're all missing the *real* problem here: sengan is not, as many of has hoped, gone. Or he's returned. Either way it's bad news. I look forward to many more random, inappropriate and incoherent article postings, accompanied by bizarre interpretations of the law and nonsequitor comments. As Pokey would say, HOORAY!
I think this is about companies who want to control the consumption of their products. They are bypassing natural laws of consumption by creating dams which can slow or even halt the distibution of a product. Regional coding is a perfect example of this.
Since I'm not in the business, I don't know why this is a good thing for companies (apart from the very fact they are in control). Perhaps by slowing the distibution of their product and extending it over a longer time period, the product remains in the spotlight for a longer time, creating more attention around it.
Since I'm done postulating nonsense and making horrible spellink errors, I'll stop now.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
I get the feeling that by backing DVD in the DVD vs. DIVX wars, that it's the equivalent of having sent tons of military aid to Iraq when they were fighting with Iran?
While I hate to admit owning pornograpy, the few titles I do own are both unencrypted and without region encoding. At least one segment of the "entertainment" industry treats it consumers with reverance (b/c we support them) rather than with disdain. "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you something to cry about"
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you somethin' to cry about!"
Please. Piracy is where you board a ship, beat the shit out of people, kill them, and take their stuff. This has nothing to do with copying. Please - repeat after me: it's called COPYING! OK. BTW, now that that's out of the air, this has nothing to do with what people can copy - it has to do with who controls the mainstream distribution channels.
contrary to popular belief, they are not (nor ever intended to be) a property right - but rather a short term incentice to bring works of knowledge and art into the open. Frankly, with the internet - we don't need such an incentive, and time has proven that copyrights have contributed more to Time/Warner, MS, and MPAA horading monopolies that to bringing artistic works out into the open. Basically what's happening here is that the upholding of copyrights is conflicting with honoring the bill-of-rights. Since the former was never intended to be a right, the latter must prevail.
In some other countries (e.g. France) movies are almost always dubbed, because a lot of people don't want english movies either, but it doesn't take any more time or work than for the North America because in North America their is a country called Canada with a region called Quebec (you know "Vive le Quebec libre") with people speaking French (well, writing, because when they speak French people can't understand them
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Did you know that there is a part of copyright laws called Fair Use that gives me exactly the right to do that? Forbiding me to do this is an infringement to my right of fair use, they can do it if they want but I still have every right to bypass it as long as I don't redistribute the copies I made.
and will respect the region encoding system.
you know what, companies are wanting what is called globalisation, that is remove most (all?) barriers to exportation/inportation, me I think this can be a good idea if done properly (which isn't the case today, but this is another subject) but i also believe that it should work both way.
If the world remove custom barriers for companies so they can choose the best price anywhere I must also be able to choose the best price anywhere in the world, that is i must be able to buy a US DVD and play it on my French player, otherwise this is mondialisation only to the benefit of the companies, not of the customers (that have other names: citizens and humans, and their rights are ultimately more important than thos of companies however big they are).
Without region encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the movie is done in all parts of the world before releasing the DVD.
Like other people pointed out, I don't understand why they so much are afraid that i will buy a Charlie Chaplin movie instead of watching it in theaters that they need to encrypt it, this seem like a lot of paranoia to me.
And if they do it so they can sell it to me for more bucks because I am a poor French student but wealthy compared to an extremely poor (compared to me) Indian then I don't give a fuck, if they want mondialisation and the possibility to fabric things at the cheaper price I also want the right to buy it at the cheaper price I can find.
However, the CSS encryption allows the studios to choose to protect their assets.
No, it allows the studios to screw me, they have the right to try but I have the right not to be screwed (i.e. DeCSS).
You don't have the right to unencrypted content
Oh yeah, and I don't have right either to my VHS (unencrypted), audio-CD's (unencrypted), books (unencrypted), webpages (unencrypted),... The truth is once they sold the DVD to me I have the right to the decrypted version, what I don't have the right to is to re-distribute the encrypted version, or if I do sell a copy I must include ANY copy I have and the original too, otherwise this is copyright infringement, but I still have the right to the movie, encrypted or not.
and DeCSS would basically grant you that right.
You know what, VCR grant me the right to copy movies, CR-R the right to copy audio CD's, crowbars the right to open this fucking drawer on my desk for which I lost the key but have my report in it which I must give back yesterday morning and in which I put three months of work, and all these tools are perfectly legals, so why should DeCSS be illegal? Would you then agree that VCR, CD-burners and crowbars to be outlawed?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
A permanent boycott has already been declared. The home page of this boycott is at 46's DVD News. Make you stand today; it doesn't matter if you don't live in the United States. If you are a potential customer of the MPAA, your voice is just as loud as any other.
I also can't stress enough how important it is that we GET AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD AND GET OUT INTO THE STREETS, particularly in the United States. We need to make some noise about this. Get flyers printed and distributed!
Let me know at findcss@usa.net if you plan a flyer drop or other public demonstration in the near future. I'm making a list of demonstrations and flyer drops. Please let me know - every voice counts right now.
46
findcss@usa.net
46's DVD News
The MPAA likes to argue that if tools like DeCSS get out there and eventually bandwidth is great enough people will start getting all their movies off of the internet for free, and there goes the movie industry.
But what about the software industry? It's always had this problem. In fact, I have lots of pirated software. But I hardly think the software industry is going belly up. In fact, it's doing better than the movie industry. Jack Valenti needs to give up on this insane crusade to keep DVD/digital information controlled the way it was in the past.
sfc
standing on the shoulders of giants,leaves me cold
sfc
standing on the shoulders of giants,leaves me cold
Go to
DVD is only the media.
What is important here is the content.
The Hollywood studios that support DVD are concerned about piracy and distribution control, and these are the reasons of these injuctions.
But, sincerly, if a DVD can be copied bit by bit with some soon common equipment making the crypto anti copy protection useless, why so much hype about DeCSS?
The reason cannot be piracy, it has to be control.
They want to control how they sell their products, they want to be able to launch first a movie in America, then in Europe, then Asia..., in an scheduled way. This is how cinema distribution works; here in Europe we see some films after months of beeing released in the USA. And let me say I think this is legitimate, given some limits.
DVD seemed fine to the studios because they could use zone codes to control the distribution in a growing global market with virtually no commerce frontiers.
All the commercial DVD players since now are fully compliant to zone codes, and since now all the players had to be, because the DVD consortium had to give the decryption keys and scheme to those players manufacturers, and no one that was to bypass zone control would receive the decryption scheme.
Now, with DeCSS everyone will be able to realease players that will play any zone thus making possible parallel distribution of DVD movies not controlled directly by the studios.
They have lost control.
It's like for MP3s: they don't really hurt the artist as much as the record companies. An artist might get a buck or two for an album, they usually make their money by touring. A huge record company will lose a lot of money, since they usually profit from CD sales and not tours. So the artist might be the winner in a more open distribution scheme. But of course, those who got the money controls the law, so we might be screwed up afther all.
I just hope they'll put up a reverse engineering class in computer sciences at my university ;)
give me all your garmonbozia
ok stupid myself. But I forgot to put my theory on how the trial should go. A jury, you need to get a jury one made up of people that have a decent grasp of computers, but do not support the argument either way. Than you need a passionate lawyer who can explain the Decss, and convince them to vote anybody who is brought up on charges that they are doing something patriotic by striking down this hanas copy right mess. There
Theres one problem with reflecting your reality, sometimes your reality starts to reflect you.
Ok, I have listened to both sides of the argument, which any decent researcher would do, and I have to say from the bottom of my heart is the Decss should be leagal. But because of the dumb ass millemun copy right treaty it is preety much illegal and I just hate that
Theres one problem with reflecting your reality, sometimes your reality starts to reflect you.
They don't care about control. All they care about is making money. If they could they would say that only you allowed to watch a movie, and if your friends did not buy the movie, they are not allowed to watch it, unless they have purchased a copy. The can have sort of people detection mechanism in DVDs and not play the.... etc.etc...
I'm sure you're one of the few here then that doesnt see the connection.
If (control == MORE_MONEY) {
control++;
allmine += GetConsumersLastCoin();
}
When they have the control to make you buy a movie, and the disc goes bad after a week... do you think they'll suddenly change their minds and go "oh no we'll go and publish it all online so they can all just download it and view it at any time!"
No... if they win this, it'll go on and on. Of course, plain DVDs will exist... Megaslaughter by LittleWannaBeProducers. Inc hasn't got any encryption. Who cares that it could as well had been on an audio tape cause the cameraman forgot to take the lense protection off?
As long as the general public wants the movies only they have, they can gain control. And they want control, because it brings them more money. Let's face it... there is no possibility whatsoever of someone coming along and starting a new big movie studio. If the MPAA wins this, we'll either have to accept their DVDs, or buy shit movies (maybe this doesnt bother those who only watch xxx but it bothers me..), in order to stay on the right side of the law.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
Don't be too sure of that... I've seen news about there being a time limited version of DVDs on the way. The laser activates the material on the disc that starts going away, or something like that... until the disc is unusable.
Regardless of whether or not you actually buy the disc or not, what the MPAA and its pals want is for you to not be able to view/listen to/use the material you bought, regardless of whether or not you bought it on a disc or on the net.
That is what makes all of this so important.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
I've done a little unofficial survey of the people I know, and the majority of them, 71% say that reverse engineering should be outlawed except for national security. I am pretty sure that my results don't show the real public opinion, but we must make sure that our right to reverse engineer is not taken away by people like that. How should we protect ourselves? any ideas?
This whole issue concerning CSS and the recent furor over DeCSS brings to mind something that I've been saying about the entertainment industry for years.
The entertainment industry: People who speak like socialists and act like the worst kind of robber-baron capitalist.
Who among us has not been nauseated by the incessant ribbon campaigns, emotional appeals for more regulations and taxes, and other soft-hearted whacko socialisim promoted by the Big Names in entertainment? How often do we listen to said Names scream about "censorship" whenever anyone dares to criticize the material they produce? Who are the biggest contributors to the ACLU, ostensibly the (self-appointed) Defenders of Free Speech? I think it fair to say that the American entertainment industry is almost uniformily leftist, and I also think it fair to say that the majority of people in this industry tend to support increased government spending (of taxpayers money) on a long laundry list of "causes".
Interesting, that. Hollywood Big Names are willing and eager to promote social/political positions that deprive the public of their economic and (in some cases) political freedoms, but they sure get damn sensitive when it's THEIR bottom line at stake! When it comes to matters of "intellectual property" and "free" expression (of politically correct material) the same people change their tune pretty fast. All of a sudden their true colors are revealed - they are just as greedy and selfish as the "cruel, heartless, bigoted, sexist and homophobic" masses.
Y'know, the fact that most of Hollywood is socialist really does not bother me that much. I disagree with most of these people's stated political posistions, but, as one who is (little-l) libertarian minded, I'd be the first one to defend their right to express these opinions. What burns me is the rank hypocrisy of these people - demanding "free expression" from one corner of their mouth while devising a system (CSS) expressly designed to CURTAIL the freedom of the consumer.
If region coding was only about preventing viewing of films before they get to theaters, I wouldn't mind it so much. But if that was the reason, they wouldn't region lock 95+% of all old films on DVD. It's about being able to charge different prices in different parts of the world, or at least that's my guess. That (and the fact that non-region 1 DVDs are often worse quality than region 1 DVDs) is why people remove the region lock. It allows you to buy movies either cheaper, or that just aren't available in the region they are in.
Enabling earlier releases in some parts of the world is just a convenient excuse that happens to hold a grain of truth.
Pray tell, why is it not possible then?
It is my understanding that normal cd players
need more reflectivity than a CD-RW provides.
Thats pretty close to not having enough contrast IMHO.
I'd really like to know if there is another reason.
It seems to me that it was originally about preventing piracy, but now it's about CYA...
Now that the major manufacturers know that the "protection scheme" is completely useless, and only impedes the legitimate users of their products, (the other ones have other, better ways to copy / rip DVD's) they have two options.
1) Rail against the MPAA, admit their wrongdoing, and create a new, open spec.
2) Trust the MPAA to protect their interests, and not make them all look like fools.
Which one do you think they'll pick?
If this came to court, and the issue was presented correctly, I'm sure the MPAA would lose, as a free-speech and reverse engineering issue. But when "dangerous hackers" are concerned, the US Legal System turns into a kangaroo court.
I've believed this ever since RTM was unfairly convicted, and I'll believe it until I hear clueful presentation of the issues without that "dangerous hacker" crap tossed around.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I don't see why they should have the right to use technological protections to overstep the protections that copyright law gives them. By using the DMCA, they've managed to secure the right to use technological means, not only to protect the rights that copyright law gives them, but to extend those rights as well.
We've all been hoodwinked by the MPAA lawyers and others who supported the DMCA. Between that and UCITA, we're gonna get screwed good and hard. I, personally, don't give a damn what rights the MPAA thinks it should have. If they want to extend their legitimate rights through technology, then I plan to use technology to take my own rights back.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What's the point of having the right to reverse engineer something for compatibility purposes if you aren't allowed to bypass some trivial encryption scheme in order to do it? Sounds like the MPAA is trying to make themselves a nice big loophole in the law to get rid of all that pesky fair use stuff.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It looks like hackers finally asked themselves what they wanted to do with DVDs and the answer was nothing. No-one's breaking down the walls for Linux DVD players. A few students made a hobby in learning how to decode the frames and audio in DVD streams but work on creating a practical DVD player ended a long time ago. The issue is now should we be able to rip DVDs.
"they can't copy it onto DVD and send it to their friends. Or if they can, only within the domestic US, cause its region coded. "
What about Canada? They're region 1 too. Okay, perhaps I'm being nit-picky. The article is just trying to be sensational: saying "domestic" US makes it sound even more restrictive.
Personally I think that regional encoding is ridiculous. From what I understand, DVD's cost more in say the UK, but often come with fewer features (e.g. The Matrix). Without the regional encoding, Brits could order their DVD's from the US. Talk about protectionism and monopolies!
I don't see what the fuss is with Hollywood's desire to control content. I think the more interesting point is that their trying to control the method of distribution (Want to make a DVD player? Buy a license.) but that's another issue altogether. I think people who distribute copyrighted works should have the right to control how that work is distributed. If I write a piece of software, I want to have the right to say, "No, you can't use it unless you give me money." Conversely, I also want the right to say, "You can have it for free." But I should be able to make money off of it, and you shouldn't be able to simply give my product away if I don't want you to.
I realize there are other issues with the whole CSS debacle, but I know if I were Hollywood, I would definitely want some way to prevent people from easily copying and distributing my product. If I don't have this, I don't have a business, and there's no incentive for me to make the product. As a capitalist society (I'm in America), this is how things work, and frankly, I don't see the problem with it.
I find this comment seriously offensive. How do you watch a DVD if you have no right to view unencrypted content?
Are you going to try to lock down my brain, and prevent me from telling all my friends about the new movie I just saw, because the memory of the movie in my brain is unencrypted and can be passed to anyone?
The fundamental problem with content encryption, which you don't seem to realize, is that if it can be sensed with our eyes and ears, then it can not be protected unless you impose thought control upon the citizens. I have a sinking feeling that Orwellian thought control is what you really want to bring about in this country. It may be legal, but it sure isn't right.
What about a player that can decode CSS, does verify the key, but can also play un-encrypted DVD content?
What DeCSS lets the consortium do is determine who will make players, and on what terms, and who will provide content. If you can neither encrypt or decrypt the bit stream, you are locked out of both markets.
I'm 99% sure you don't need to use CSS to create content - just make an unencrypted DVD. Pretty sure they exist...
----
-jwb
A point came out of the article that I haven't come across before. The article implied that you cannot master a DVD without access to the encryption keys.
The article said:
Want to produce content - well, you need a license to produce the encrypted bitstream that will go on a disk, or you'll have to deal with someone who does.
I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that it was possible to master a DVD with no encryption, i.e. a key of "zero", and that a DVD player has the ability to recognize and play back such a DVD.
Is this true, or is encryption mandatory?
If encryption is mandatory, DeCSS is of NO use in creating "pirated" copies of DVDs, and it should be argued that way in court.
After all, what good is having the decrypted data, if you can't make a playable disk with it?
Or did the opinion piece author get it wrong?
- John
When the law is contradictory to judicial opinion and another law, a judge must decide which is valid.
We've got the stick, not we just need the right judge to beat the MPAA and DVDCA over the head with it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The problem is, this doesn't address the DeCSS issue.
The main issue in the DeCSS trial is whether or not the DeCSS program/utility circumvents a technological method for restricting access to a copyrighted work - not whether the CSS access control is copyrighted.
In other words, the DeCSS trial isn't about whether DeCSS illegally copied how CSS decrypts DVDs. It's about whether DeCSS illegally decrypts DVDs itself. The judge has continually referred to the matter as not being a copyright issue, but rather a circumvention issue.
As a result, this ruling isn't nearly as applicable. The CCA is suing under the provisions of the DMCA that make circumvention of access barriers a crime.
"The problem is, frankly, that the corporations behind DVD are subverting governments in order to enforce their will on consumers. It ought to frighten people, it frightens me. Because if they win this based on the might and power of their money and organizations, then what new battles can they win in the future. I mean, think in terms of Soylent Green the big corporate types got the good food and the average Joe got Soylent Green or starved."
Yes, you're paranoid. Take a few steps back and reread what you just wrote. I've heard similar rants at John Birch conventsions! These sort of baseless, screwball and wacked-out aspersions have become all too common since the DeCSS affair.
No, we don't want multi-nationals making our laws for us! Sheesh! What you fail to realize, is that they CANNOT make laws for us! They have to get someone else, namely the government, to do it for them.
Tell you a story. Two corner newsstands in New York circa 1930. One of them believes in fair competition based on quality service and selection. The other wants to be the only newstand for blocks around. So the evil newstand hires the mafia to send Guido over to break the kneecaps of the good newstand's owner. A cub reporter finds out and writes an expose. People get indigant and go picket the evil newsstand, and eventually a court throws the evil owner in jail and it is out of business. Everybody happy, right? Wrong! The mafia and Guido are still out there. Nothing has been done about them. They're still breaking kneecaps and mugging boy scouts for pocket change. Soon, some other shady businessman will hire them to knock off his rivals, and so on, and so on, and so on. Nothing will ever change if you keep going after the crooked businessmen and ignore the mob.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Region Codes: The MPAA wants a borderless economy for itself, but not for its customers.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
*sigh* Yes. Unfortunately we do.
If the prosecution were claiming that the decryption method itself was protected by copyright, and basing their suit on that, you would have a very good point.
Unfortunately, they are suing under the DMCA, which tries to outlaw Mechanisms/Devices/Methods of circumventing a technical copy protection mechanism.
Honestly, the one thing that these companies understand is money.....
A massive boycott is about the *only* thing that will sway thier opinion.
We had a cable company here, several years ago, that started doing some questionable marketing tactics.. people complained, but the company said 'we're allowed to do this, so beat it'.
Translation: If you still pay your bill, what do we care if you like us or not?
One week of organized cable revolt (thousands of people calling up and cancelling in a very short period of time)... and the company *IMMEDIATELY* changed it's tune.
From the article..
<i>And CD-RW?. Well, you know, the disks can't be played in a normal CD player. Not enough contrast in the media. Funny how that little technical problem couldn't be solved, eh?. Ah, yes, this is the world the studio execs want!. </i>
If they guy who wrote this is too ignorent to know why this is not possible, why should I belive the rest of the tripe in this article? Maybe they'll pull this one like the Windows / Linux DDoS article.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
(For non-USA readers: before trial, both lawyers have time to "discover" relevant evidence. This includes both lawyers sharing relevant information, search warrants of relevant locations, copies of all police reports...all the evidence is supposed to be found and known by both sides before trial. There should be no surprises during the trial, although Hollywood prefers surprises in their stories.)
It's about controlling the players and not the content. A "vaild" player has to implement css. They get money, and can choose who assembles/ programs players.
They control the creation, distribution and playing.
Thats all they want, but this is what every monopoly wants, isn't it?
Css is *no* copy protection, because you can copy a dvd without removing css.
I've recently written an article to the editorial board of my local newspaper which they are going to print in the opinion section. I was limited to 175 words so it was hard to explain every facet of the case, merely to get the beef across.
I would suggest more people write to their newspaper to help spread the word. Here's the article I wrote if you would like something concise that conveys the point:
Recently, the Motion Picture Association of America as well as the
DVD Content Control Association filed lawsuits in New York and
California claiming that a computer program named DeCSS allows
people to steal DVDs. This claim is misleading because DVDs can be
copied without the use of DeCSS. What DeCSS does is allows you
to watch DVDs on systems not supported by DVD player
manufacturers. All the 16 year old author of DeCSS wanted
was a means to watch a DVD on his computer rather than a TV. He
was arrested for it. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows any
content producing company to dictate where and how you can use
the information you purchased. It would be like buying a newspaper
that you can only read in your kitchen but not in your living room.
What ever happened to the idea of fair use? If you value your
freedoms, write to your legislators and boycott the major film
companies to let them know that your freedom is more important
than their greed.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Oh, this is going to be most amusing....
because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world.
Are you seriously attempting to tell us that Hollywood is concerned about losing revenue because people in Kuala Lampur are going to order DVDs from the US rather than going to their local theater?
Time to administer the coup de grace to your argument. If it were correct, then no movies and TV shows released on DVD after their original run is complete would have region coding. This is not the case in reality. QED.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
> Region encoding benefits the average person because
> movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in
> theaters in other parts of the world. Without region
> encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the
> movie is done in all parts of the world before
> releasing the DVD.
This argument is based upon a fallacy. There's no good reason why films should be released later in some regions than others. Obviously, it's worth doing trial runs of a film in a few cinemas in the US, to find out how marketable the film is. But once the film is released across the US, you have a very good idea of how it will do internationally. In the old days, the reason for this staggered release practise was that it took a lot of time to copy the film reels. But in today's world that excuse just doesn't hold water. It's now a method of getting more money out of non-US viewers (by lengthening the marketing cycle in those countries). Enforcing staggered releases (and dual-pricing) using DVD regional encoding is an anticompetitive practise which is against the spirit of international trade law. I see no benefit to anyone not employed by the media industry.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
The truth is, if the CCA had used really good, uncrackable encryption, this whole issue wouldn't have come up for years. We'd have been stuck with the DVDs as is with no way to make our own DVD players. I wouldn't have really opposed this, because after all if another movie format took off and it was unecrypted (think MP3s) it wouldn't matter in the long run.
The problem is, frankly, that the corporations behind DVD are subverting governments in order to enforce their will on consumers. It ought to frighten people, it frightens me. Because if they win this based on the might and power of their money and organizations, then what new battles can they win in the future. I mean, think in terms of Soylent Green the big corporate types got the good food and the average Joe got Soylent Green or starved.
I know, my hysterical, paranoid and "out there" view of a little fight over how we can use our own property for entertainment is going to make most people dismiss me as a wacko. My question is, do we really want the multi-nationals making our laws for us?
So, to put it in extremist terms, does what happens in the end in the DVD fight signal the death of the US Republic (and many other forms of popularly elected government, worldwide), or not? If not, then does it at least signify a significant change in the quality of life for people without stock in Sony or Time/Warner/AOL (c'mon, you have to admit that company name sounds like something out of a Cyberpunk novel!)?
I say fight on, fight through the courts, fight through protests, fight through the ballot box and fight through boycotts. Don't let them win.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Here's some links that are especially useful for researching the legislative history of the DMCA. I believe these strongly contradict judge Kaplan's interpretations in his preliminary injunction opinio.
... As the hearing record demonstrates, I and many of my colleagues are deeply troubled by the prospect that this legislation could be used to create a `pay-per-use' society. We rejected the Administration's original proposed legislation in large part because of our concern that it would have established a legal framework for copyright owners to exploit at the expense of ordinary information consumers. By insisting on a meaningful role for the Assistant Secretary and by ensuring that a court would have an opportunity to assess a full record, we believe we have established an appropriate environment in which the fair use interests of society at large can be properly addressed.
Summary page for Legislative History of DMCA.
The following is most revealing: DMCA Comments of Commerce Chairman Bliley. Here's a few choice comments:
The Committee considered it particularly important to ensure that the concept of fair use remain firmly established in the law and that consumer electronics, telecommunications, computer, and other legitimate device manufacturers have the freedom to design new products without being subjected to the threat of litigation for making design decisions.
Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in so-called `black boxes'--devices with no substantial non-infringing uses that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of technological measures for purposes of gaining access to or making a copy of a work. These provisions are not aimed at widely used staple articles of commerce, such as the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products--including videocassette recorders, telecommunications switches, personal computers, and servers--used by businesses and consumers everyday for perfectly legitimate purposes.
Under section 1201(a)(1)(C), the Librarian of Congress must make certain determinations based on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who must consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information before making any such recommendations, which must be made on the record. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I felt very strongly about ensuring that the Assistant Secretary would have a substantial and meaningful role in making fair use and related decisions, and that his or her views would be made a part of the record.
Get involved with protests being organized by 2600. Better yet, organize your own protest!
/.)
That is exactly what some of us here in Michigan (the home state of
We'll be handing out flyers and demonstrating a working Linux DVD setup in Ann Arbor tomorrow night. It's only a 1/2 hour drive from Detroit or Flint, and under an hour from Toledo, Ohio.
It will be followed up by a Quake LAN party.
Want details?
jim_tuck@newcourt.com
.sig: Now legally binding!
Isn't it nice the the MPAA that they can lock everyone else out of their market? Shouldn't the DoJ be looking into this? I think the barrier to entry into the record business is much higher than the barrier of entry to the software business.
As long as the industry can keep the price of blank DVDs more than that of the original (through their "preemptive piracy tax" or pressure on manufacturers), I don't think they'll worry too much about runaway copying between friends. The DVD-factories in the China area are going to be much more of a pain than that.
I definitely think it's a desire by the industry to have strong influence in every aspect of the entertainment process, from production to viewing.
If they don't win, they'll have lost control of their "Trade Secret." If that happens, any hardware manufacturer who comes along will be able to make a player that can play DVD's without talking to the MPAA for licensing, right? They'll throw a billion dollars at this case if that's what it takes, and employ the Chewbacca Offense. There's now way we're gonna win this one. They'll freaking lobby Congress with their billions to change the constitution, if that's what it takes.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yes we should get OUR SIDE of the story out, simply because we have the truth on our side, but ultimately this is a legal issue.
In the 1950's public opinion said that black people weren't allowed to go to white schools. When this was challenged it LOST.
In matters of rights, public opinion doesn't matter. It might take time for this to come to the surface, but it will.
Ignore Alien Orders
the police will want to see the decryption algorythms. Otherwise, they'll throw anyone owning a DVD player, who distributes DVDs, etc. into jail for breaking the encryption laws that Parlement is thinking about now.
I see a perfect way to kill the DeCSS lawsuit.
It comes to us via the Sony Vs Connectix battle. In the most recent ruling the judge's opinion includes the following...
17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a product that must be compatible with a copyrighted product frequently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46 (1994).
What more do we need as ammunition?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This article hits it right on the nose. The movie industry is leveraging CSS to create anti-competitive control and to inflate prices.
.S. V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES. Especially the first part and part (5) about block licencing.
This all happened before. Everyone should take a moment and read U
In this case the Supreme Count found that the motion picture industry was engaing in anti-competitive business practices in violation of the Sherman Act. They overruled the claim that copyright protection justify their business practices. The practices were:
Then:
A) Price Fixing - Using copyright licencing with strings attached to force theaters to raise prices
B) Tying - Using copyright licencing to sell one product (movie A) contingent on another (movie B)
Now:
A) Price Fixing - Using copyright licencing to inflate the price of DVD's using regional licencing
B) Tying - Using copyright licencing to sell one product (movie A) contingent on another (licenced player).
Well, here comes my typical rant. You've been warned.
The article didn't say much that I haven't already heard but the author was correct in saying that we aren't going to win this case. The cards are stacked heavily in the plaintiff's favor.
Or, I should say, we can't win at this level. We have to go down a few levels, to where the plaintiff's power comes from.
I've always beleived that the average person has all the power there is if we act together, and that the average person is reasonable. However, people don't support us for a few reasons:
1) In school you are not taught to think for yourself, you are taught to submit to authority, not to ask questions, and not to try and change "the way things are" which leads to #2:
2) Most information channels are controlled by the same type of people who are the plaintiffs, they have the same agenda. With the assumption that the media is a factual source of knowledge, people aren't going to ask questions. Our community is discredited with one word, hackers. This is a very powerful ability. So even though we have all the power, we've already lost because of public opinion.
So what do we do? Organize, protest, and educate. This needs to include a lot more people that are in this community as well, because all facets of society contribute to the problems we have. Our gains might be small but at least we can get the spiral of society to move upward rather than downward. I'm not talking about organizing, portesting, and educating only on the level of this specific issue either. I mean society in general. As long as we have corporations, a government who supports them, and an apathetic population, (ALL 3, simply removing the government solves nothing) these kind of problems will never be solved without having to fight tooth and nail every time with little chance of success.
Fortunatly information channels have opened up a bit, I think the internet was a good part of the reason that DIVX failed, but I think it would have failed anyway. At any rate, it can be a big help, which is why this particular community needs to fight as hard as we can on all these issues.
We won't win the fight now, but the more we can educate, the more press we can get to hear our side, the better chances of succes we have in the future.
DVD players can already play discs without DeCSS encryption. Most porn movies aren't DeCSS encrypted and they can be played in all DVD players, and also there are already numerous programs on all platforms that can play DVD's that aren't DeCSS encrypted. It CSS encrypted media, that freeware players can't play.
You're missing the point of CSS and why it is so valuable to the movie industry. The entertainment industry wants to ensure that only licensed players can play encrypted DVD's so that they can ensure players won't have a, "Save as unencrypted..." or even a "Save as..." option, and will respect the region encoding system. Without control over the players, the region encoding and CSS encryption would be useless since not all players would support it, and people will move to players that don't abide by the restrictions licensed players must adhere to. Region encoding benefits the average person because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world. Without region encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the movie is done in all parts of the world before releasing the DVD.
So, before you get into a hissy fit about the monopoly the DVD consortium has, understand content makers are free to release their content without any restrictions on it, and anyone can make a player that plays this content. However, the CSS encryption allows the studios to choose to protect their assets. If you don't support CSS encrypted content, simply buy the VHS tape, or don't buy the content. You don't have the right to unencrypted content, and DeCSS would basically grant you that right.
Sig goes here
This article raises a very good point: the MPAA and its allies are very good at manipulating public opinion. In fact, not only are they very good at it, but they have all the tools to do it. The companies represented by MPAA include Warner (CNN and Time), Fox (news and newspapers), Disney (ABC), Paramount (any number of news shows), &c. You'd be a fool to assume that any of these sources is going to be unbiased about this case. Unfortunately, most people still believe that these media outlets are motivated by the search for truth, rather than corporate policy (read as: greed.)
This is why protests are important right now. The only way we are going to get our side heard is to go out and tell people what's happening. Slashdot helps a lot, but it reaches a very specialized audience. The people whose minds we need to change aren't typical Slashdot readers; they're average joes and janes, who, for the most part, have other things to worry about and don't have time to investigate these things themselves. Either we tell them what's going on, or the MPAA does through its many voices. Which would you prefer?
How to get involved:
Post other suggestions here!
Finding God in a Dog
I'm glad to see that someone is starting to "get it" - what this is all about. Unfortunately, they are just a little bit shy of the whole picture.
DeCSS is not about piracy, but about compatability - we all know that by now. You can make the bit-wise copies by other means. The real thrust is controlling the medium - who can make and sell DVD movies.
We are talking about a <b>Motion Picure</b> consortium here. That's the big clue - they could give a $#@# whether we can watch DVDs on our Linux boxes. But to get there we needed to 1) decrypt the DVD movies, 2) store them locally, 3) work on the playback software to the point that the picture and sound look good , 4) put on-the-fly decryption in the player. 5) Done. DVD on Linux.
Step 4 is what has caused the witchhunt. If the OSS folks build a DVD player - do you seriously think they will make it play ONLY encrypted DVDs? Heck NO! It will play unencrypted movies and sound also.
And THAT's the "it". After DeCSS, it is trivial to make a player that will play encrypted and UNENCRYPTED DVDs. They are scared to death of having a DVD player S/W that plays both encrypted and unencrypted DVDs. Ever made a copy of a VHS movie for a friend? Not legal to do so, but hard to stop. If you wanted to do the same with your new spiffy DVD-R (fast forwarding a year) would you try to encrypt it? Heck NO!
Once there is an OSS DVD player application that plays both encrypted and unencrypted DVDs, the jig is up. Independent artists can make DVDs and distribute them without CSS encryption. Your DVD player won't play it? Here's the link - download the freeware player that does.
That Japanese DVD won't let you play it? The freeware DVD player will play ANY DVD, no matter where it came from.
Then we start hacking the "upgradable" console DVD players - so they can play unencrypted DVDs and break the region locking.
Follow the reprocussions to their logical conclusion and it's easy to see why the MPAA will throw everything including the kitchen sink into this fight. They have a whole new medium to lose (not to mention the $$ they spent designing it in the first place, plus the $$ spent on getting the DMCA legislated.)
Check out the Apex AD-600A DVD, VCD and MP3 player.
There are instructions at nerd-out.com for changing the Region ID, as well as the Macrovision options and, ahem, other things, via the secret menu.
LOL. The player costs $199 at Circuit City. People are buying it en masse. I ordered mine already.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!