Slashdot Mirror
Intervideo LinDVD 'To Be Released'
A lot of people have e-mailed and submitted about the folks at Intervideo and their LinDVD project. This press release was issued by the company, stating that they will "release it soon." It is, of course, a binary software-DVD player for Linux. The company is a CSS license, so it's legal by the MPAA. Still, the product has not yet been shipped, despite much hoopla over the last six months. We'll see what happens.
I will say it again. Marketing cannot rescue a bad product. The customer is not stupid. Many games designers are math geniuses with years and years of comp-sci education behind them. Do you think they would PAY for DirectX if it was not any good ?
While I do agree that Microsofts marketing is in a class by itself, 95% of the success of Microsoft is that its technology is FIT FOR THE PURPOSE, and GOOD ENOUGH. This means their products are never late to market because of some ivory-tower feature that some inexperienced idealist insists must be there.
Just wait for DirectX8 which includes VOXEL rendering. Then you will all realise how useless openGL is. Even John Carmack admits this is the way forward.
thank you
dmg
This is absolutely not true. Consider that libraries may lend books that they have purchased.
DVD-CCA is trying to block consumers' fair use (and other) rights through technology. They are not acting in the spirit of the law.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
The deCSS source is out there. The current court arguments is it is primarly a pirate tool. Write your own program to read DVDs, with dvd as an integral part, and your tool is not a pirate tool it is a viewer. Courts are more likely to look at your program and say "WEll, reverse engineering is legal (THe PS emulator helps this case), and your program is obviously for viewing DVDs and doesn't provide a save function so it much be legal.
Good luck, but you have a better leg to stand on.
It seems to me that he did address your point of view. He wrote this:
Now, it is possible (probable) that some recent Linux converts don't care about Free Software, Copyleft, or any of the things that made Linux possible. They just see Linux as a cool OS and they want it to grow. So for these people there is really no difference between Linux and say OS/2 on a philisophical level.
Of course, for people who don't mind the idea of their movie collection existing under Draconian new copyright laws designed to screw them out of their rights under pre-DMCA copyright laws, I suppose it isn't a problem.
You see Linux/OSS as a product(s), whereas he and many others see it as a philosophy that has helped to produce some great software in a way that gives people more freedom rather than seeking to take away people's rights. Coming from that point of view, it's morally indefensible to take a course of action that reinforces the control of an industry group that seeks to take away the rights that OSS/free software propronents seeks to protect. Since you don't seem to hold those same beliefs, it's not a moral issue for you since, as you said, you just want to see more software out there for Linux.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I didn't say anything about free software. I said "Copyright is the only reason the GPL works." There's a difference, as you apparently noticed, since free software != GPL.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, without copyright laws there would be no proprietary software.
Sure there would. It just wouldn't have legal protection. Companies would use other means, probably including obfuscation (like NVidia's source release) and encryption. Sure, the stuff could eventually be reverse-engineered or otherwise cracked, but it would be a never-ending game of catchup, kind of like the Wine team's predicament.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Thanks for telling me what I think and believe.
I guess I should have said "You seem to see Linux/OSS as a product(s)," my mistake. My point stands though. I don't see any way that having a binary DVD player available under the MPAA's rules is a step towards free open source DVD players. It seems to me that accepting such a player and the MPAA's terms for it's licensing and use is actually a setback rather than an advance. It helps to legitimize the MPAA's position on the matter. Would you care to explain why you see it as step towards a free, open source DVD player?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have to agree with you on this. Copyright is the only reason the GPL works. Without copyright laws, anyone could take any code out there and use it in their own proprietary software and never give anything back (BSD-ish?). The real problem is that the MPAA is trying to take away rights that people have had under copyright law since its inception. They are trying to seriously constrain fair use and reverse engineering in ways that they couldn't do before. They are going about it differently this time though. They aren't attempting to change copyright law directly, they are getting new laws passed that enforce their technological methods of removing your rights (ie. they're making it illegal for you to circumvent their technology, even though you're doing something that would normally be considered fair use).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So, if this product came out and was relatively inexpensive I might buy a DVD player....spurring on to supporting the Open Source DVD software..because it should be free.
Maybe you aren't aware that the MPAA is trying to make sure there IS NO open source dvd software. They have decided that people shouldn't be allowed to view dvds that they've purchased on any software that they aren't making money off of and can't control. If we accept their position and approved software instead of defending our rights to do what we want with the dvds we buy (without breaking traditional copyright law), then we'll end up legitimizing their attempt to take even more control over copyrighted works. Then it will be a simple matter for them to prosecute anyone attempting to make open source dvd software.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The LinDVD product will at least show the world that DVDs are playable in Linux. Unless they use the existing publicity of a Windows version, a new software product for Linux usually won't get discovered and it'll be like Linux never supported the format. Linux is pretty well known for office suites and window managers because they all try to clone Microsoft. Linux isn't known for DVD players because none of the Linux DVD players clone an existing Microsoft product yet it supports the format just fine. With LinDVD being marketed as a clone of WinDVD we at least show Linux as capable of playing DVDs.
It has nothing to do with time zones. I can change the region encoding on my Creative DVD player to play DVD's from the UK if I want (I'm in the Eastern TZ). However, it limits me to five changes of region for the whole lifetime of the product.
There is a reasonably standard API under Windows. Take look around on Microsoft's web site. Implement your own player (if you use Windows that is). The problem was, Microsoft's API wasn't ready when DVD-ROMs first started shipping, hence the use of vendor specific API's and libraries in some places. As I understand it, most of the new ones support both API's now.
Technically, decrypting and playing a DVD involves copying it (temporarily) to memory, which may be covered by copyright.
Then why don't you write your own? Do something about it.
Because if you did so, you would not be able to legally release it, as the DeCSS case has shown. DeCSS has been ruled illegal (though is going up for appeal), and even if the ruling is overturned, not many people are willing to be crucified by Hollywood's lawyers.
I've actually seen it running side by side with LinDVD 2000 on the CeBit computer fair in March. The speed was satisfying and the same for both Windows and Linux.
A demo copy was not available.
MPAA has shown with things like the PS2 recall it is all about region control. Ask yourself why should it be illegal to play a movie from another region? If the MPAA can get the Japanise Government to agree to such a stupid thing. Then think about who is really in control of the world Governments. With this LinDVD is really a non product Why should I go spend my money on something that I can get for free??? Remember it is all about who controls what nothing more and nothing less.
http://theotherside.com/dvd/
Analog with nasty little markings on the film rather than digital?
Try projecting a DVD on a 35 foot high screen! Film barely shows any grain when projected from 35mm film to a 35 foot screen. I've never dragged my DVD player into the theater to test this, but if the pixelation in a DVD is visible on a 17in computer monitor, it would be intolerable on such a huge screen. A movie projector is an analog image decoder; it takes a compressed image input (35mm x 35 mm film frames) and outputs a 35 ft x 70 ft screen image. It can do this as fast as you run the motor, without slowdowns or dropped frames for fast-moving objects (like software MPEG players sometimes do) Digital is not always better than analog.
0 1 - just my two bits
While I'm as big a fan of Linux as the next
Explain why it has been illegal? The only violation of the law is to have access control in the first place. The US law allows for fair use copying of material that you have purchased, fair use includes allowing you to play back for example media in anyway that you see fit.
CSS violates your rights under fair use and infact is reinforcing a monopoly situation with implimentation of access control, for example region encoding. Copying of DVD's has been a problem long before the CSS encryption code was broken so therefore CSS does not prevent copying of content.
The DeCSS fiasco should never have happened in the first place
I am 100% behind you there, if the CSS did not violate fair use rights then there would not be a need for DeCSS and it's contribution towards playing DVD movie streams on any OS / Hardware platform.
if something is illegal then it is obviously wrong, and attempting to break the law is stupid, plain and simple.
I guess it depends on what country you are in doesn't it. There has been a lot of cases where US law is attepting to extend it's reach to the rest of the world. Now I wonder if th door can swing both ways. Europe has some extensive laws regarding competetiveness, I wonder if legal action can be brought against any of the abusers of consumer rights. DeCSS is part of an effort to allow DVD films to play on non CSS licenced OS's, it is reverse engineering and is not illegal.
Anyway, this is a great step forward, since I can now watch my small by growing collection of DVDs on my Linux box.
That is of course if your Linux box happens to run on x86 architechture. If you happen to run another OS (non Windows) that runs on x86 architechture or you happen to run Linux on a non x86 architechture then you are out of luck. Why is it that I can buy a DVD, DVD Drive, x86 PC and depending on what OS I use it is deemed illegal for me to try and get it to play or not? Same hardware just different 1's and 0's in the machines RAM.
Hardware support is getting better, as soon as more hardware people work out it is more cost effective to be a hardware company than try and be a software developer as well and that opening up your drivers increases your market and is hence a better move for the shareholders then the situation will be a wholelot better.
It would be nice to see this out, but until you can watch a DVD movie through x86 Linux it is vapour.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
It doesn't make any sense because it's propaganda. It's an industry-promoted lie.
Region coding has nothing to do with copyright. It is 100% about market control.
Just like copy protection has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, yet the industry calls it "copyright protection" in an effort to confuse the two in the public mind.
And of particular interest, I think, to the Linux community is the last paragraph of that article:
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
It's discussed, somewhat, in the Linux newsgroup on their NNTP server.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Both of you make good points, supporting LinDVD is helping the MPAA, and at the same time helping Linux. I was fired up about buying this software until I read this thread
I really want DVDs on Linux, so I might just buy it
First off, its closed source. If we find bugs, we have to report them to the company, which in turn needs to fix them, release a fix (after a looong while), and so on. It won't be good enough.
:-)
Secondly, the company is saying "we're doing it the legal way, use us!". eh? They are saying DeCSS is illegal? They are indirectly saying that reverseengineering should be illegal? Excuse me, I don't want to buy ANYTHING from such a company.
What we need is a fully opensourced DVD player for Linux. With "all keys" included. If it violates a couple of copyrights - then who cares? Who is going to stop it?
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Not really I'm afraid. The zone is stored in the DVD drive, you buy a different DVD drive in japan that you do in america.
would find a way to tweak the thing so it plays regionally encoded DVDs.
Hmmm. How exactly does the disk indicate where it's encoded for? Maybe this could be hacked at the device driver level.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Every time I see this kind of thread, I try to tell people something, but no one seems to listen. So let's try this again:
THERE IS AN OPEN SOURCE DVD PLAYER THAT IT LEGAL TO USE
Look a little closer:
"Due to the DVD standards being foolishly secret, this is not a full featured DVD player: you will not get any of the fancy interactive features, but you will be able to play the movies back."
Let me tell you why nobody listens (besides the fact that it is for dxr2 only). We want a DVD player that is Free in every sense of the word. I can already play DVDs in Windows.
Not free as in beer.
There are some things in life that will never be free. For all other things use Free Software.
The point is to make more software free. A DVD player is not an extremely complex project. Compiler, kernel, httpd server, desktop environment, the list goes on and on.
The point is that it is not the technical hurdles and manpower we are missing, but it is the red tape and the typical overtly-protective stance of the movie industry. Think what happened with VHS at the time they came out. The MPAA cried foul.
Now they make billions off VHS every year.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
I am not a lawyer either, but I do know enough about US copyright law to know that copyright rights are based on controlling distribution, not use. That means...
>1) The copyright holder is allowed to specify
>where you can view their copyrighted material.
This is not true. When you buy a book, the law holds that you own the book, and therefore can do anything with the book itself. Copyright only comes into play when you try to distribute copies of the copyrighted contents of the book.
The same is true of recording, plays, film, etc.
Libraries rely on this to allow them to lend books to anyone -- since no one is making a copy, no copyright violation is occurring.
Distribution, BTW, includes public performance. So renting a tape from the library is OK. Projecting the tape onto a wall for your local block party is not.
# 2) The copyright holder is not obligated by
# law to allow you to make backup copies of
# thier copyrighted material.
This is not the case. The copyright holder has no right to -prevent- you from making backup copies of their copyrighted material that you own. They can prevent you from giving your backups to others, but not from making the backups in the first place.
Many audiophiles in the days of vinyl records would copy their most precious records from vinyl to tape, so that the original would not get damaged from repeated play. This was considered "Personal use". The courts have upheld the right of individuals to make "mix tapes" for their own personal use. The courts have similarly upheld the right of individuals to tape shows off of broadcast TV signals for viewing at thier convenience. All of this is personal use.
And finally...
# 3) You do not have the right to change
# someone elses copyrighted material without
# their permission.
You actually do have that right. There is no prohibition against -making- what are known as "derivative works", just a prohibition against -distributing- derivative works without permission. Doing what you want with the work you own without distributing it is known as "personal use", and is very much recognised in copyright legislation and case law.
The RIAA and MPAA are both scared of digital media because they see it as allowing easy copying. Unfortunately, their technological remedies are too broad, infringing on the right of "personal use" on my part to try to defend their right of distribution control. And they can get away with it in part because people don't know what their rights are. Your enumeration of the rights you "don't" have plays right into the interests of the RIAA and MPAA. By believing that they have the right to restrict what their technological methods actually restrict, you allow them to restrict your own rights.
Worse, their technological methods don't even protect their rights. As an example, MacroVision prevents me from making an "Indiana Jones Trilogy" VHS tape from my DVD copies of those three films. That violates my rights to personal use. It does not, however, prevent me from popping those three DVDs into my DVD player and showing the movies at a local SF convention (a violation of their "public performance" rights).
The Librarian of Congress is currently accepting comments on which classes of "works" should be excempt from DMCA protection. This will either work in favor or against the RIAA and MPAA, because the only two anwers are "all works" or "no works", because "works" is the -wrong- -domain- of protection. Various "rights" are protected, not "works". I'm interested in seeing what the Librarian says.
I think it's possible in Europe.. legally.. but I'm not sure. I'm not very fluent in english legalese, but I found the European Software directive, and article 6 on decompilation seems to indicate this possibility.h tm
If anyone would care to clarify, please do.. the directive can be found at http://www.army.cz/vtciacr/secupage/orig/sw_prot.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
The making of backups (at least in europe) is protected. Directly from the european directive of software:
the making of a backup copy by a person having a right to use a computer program may not be prevented by contract insofar as it is necessary for that use. (article 5, sub 2)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
As a seasoned Marketing professional
:-)
Why is it that that marketing people think that they know more about technical issues than the experts?
95% of the success of Microsoft is that its technology is FIT FOR THE PURPOSE, and GOOD ENOUGH.
I (as an experienced computer professional) do not consider NT Server to be either 'good enough' or 'fit for purpose'. A major factor in the success of Microsoft is due to it's elemination of the competition by using anti-competitive practices (e.g DR-DOS, Netscape). Look no further than Judge Jackson's Findings Of Fact for evidence.
Many games designers are math geniuses with years and years of comp-sci education behind them. Do you think they would PAY for DirectX if it was not any good ?
They're probably using it because they're forced to by the idiots in marketing
their [Microsoft's] products are never late to market because of some ivory-tower feature that some inexperienced idealist insists must be there.
So, what is it then? And what about that bloody paperclip?
Just wait for DirectX8 which includes VOXEL rendering. Then you will all realise how useless openGL is. Even John Carmack admits this is the way forward.
I haven't seen JC's comments (or have forgotten if I have) but Voxel rendering is not necessarily 'the way forward'. It is only useful in certain situations and has many disadvantages. Whilst it's very useful for (say) medical imaging, I have my doubts about its general usefulness for 3D games. Of course, I'd welcome sound technical arguments to the contrary.
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
A closed-source DVD player does not give you more choice.
At the moment, I can only play DVDs in Windows. A closed source Linux DVD player gives me more choice as it allows me to play DVDs under the OS of my choice.
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
One could pack the DVD CSS decoding part into a binary module. The module could be linked into the player at runtime, or at compile time. All other parts of the player could be open sourced.
I think this is simply a licensing problem. So we would get a player all could hack at. And the binary modules would be so small the could be made bullet proof by a few core developers.
Any sugestions what license to use?
thomas
If you want to distribute a player for a market that currently doesn't have a player, yes, cough up the dough. That's the way it is. Take it or leave it.
If you want to distribute a program created from GPLed code, cough up the source. That's the way it is. Take it or leave it.
Just thought you should know: ANY license limits choice.
I, too, want a DVD player for Linux. I am not content with playing VHS through my capture-board. If/when LinDVD materializes I'll buy it so that I can play the DVDs I have already bought.
I would choose to not support a non-free DVD player for Linux. Why?
Because the whole DeCSS issue is not merely about Linux. The issue is about freedom. I'm a Linux user (and in fact, I use Linux exclusively). However, for me, Linux is not the end of everything. I support Linux not because it's fashionable to do so; I support it because I believe the ideal that software should be free (in the open source sense). The DeCSS issue is not just about the availability of DVD players under Linux -- the issue is the availability of a Linux DVD player which is open source and not controlled by some commercial entity.
If you're merely for selling Linux (i.e. if you only care that everything is supported under Linux, whether free or proprietary), you've missed the point, IMHO. Linux is not about making itself popular and taking over the desktop market (or whatever other market). Linux is about producing commercial-quality products using open source methods. And the fact that we must use a proprietary DVD player on Linux is what bugs me. If you want proprietary, why not go back to Windows? After all, there is better vendor support, application availability, new-hardware compatibility, blah blah blah, under Windows (sarcasm).
The whole reason I use only Linux now is because I believe that it should be possible to produce, using free software methods, the same (or even better) quality of products that are produced by commercial vendors.
I know there is this whole argument that if we don't provide what the "public" asks for (like a DVD player for Linux) then Linux will never grow. But my take on this is, so what if you convinced everybody to switch to Linux? It's merely switching from OS #1 to OS #2. It's no different from convincing someone to switch to a Mac or to anything else. All you'd produce is a generation of users who knows nuts about free software. And who knows, when that happens, you will have a user base who would be oblivious when one day some big company somewhere decided to produce a proprietary version of Linux. As long as the proprietary version is more attractive than the GPL'd version, they would go for the proprietary version. Then all our efforts would be vain -- if the end of Linux, and the whole open source movement is such, we might as well stop using and developing Linux now and go back to producing proprietary software systems.
There is a difference between Linux zealotry and being part of the open source movement. As other slashdotters often point out, Linux != open source movement. I don't treat Linux in a religious way. If a better open-source OS comes out, I'd happily use that instead of Linux. But at the moment, Linux best represents what the open source movement is capable of. And that's why I'm supporting it now. If you promote Linux just because Linux happens to be your choice, you're no different from the guy who insists on Windows just because he likes it.
The banning of DeCSS is an infringement of our right to produce, via open-source methods, software with equivalent quality and functionality as proprietary solutions. That is why I will not support a proprietary Linux DVD player. The whole point is that I don't want to be controlled by some commercial entity. That is why I support the open source movement in the first place.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
I would love to have the source to all the software on my machine, but sometimes that is just not possible. Without the drivers from Lucent the winmodem in my laptop would be useless, I know that eventully an open source replacment will come (or lucent open theirs) but at the moment I need the closed source drivers. Lets not bash ppl for closing the source at least we now have DVD and Winmodem support.
blog and junk
You have it right and wrong as I see it. On the one hand supporting this is supporting the MPAA. On the other hand supporting this is supporting Linux. A DVD player is much needed in the community for Linux to gain more momentum. If you don't support it you don't support something in the linux community and people (the dumb bandwagon stock market people) start to wonder why a unique product like a Linux DVD player fails...and then boom you have them pulling money out of many Linux products. How does that work to the Linux community's advantage.
So choose your battles:
If you are trying to win a OS battle then support LinDVD.
If you are trying to win the MPAA battle, which is much smaller in comparison, then you choose not to support it.
What I am going to do? Support LinDVD but also support OpenDVD and those trying to bring it free. My concern is bringing more open source to the public first...and a DVD player is a good step.
--just my $.02
My situation:
I am a contractor who traveling around Europe. When I run out of money I stop, get a job for a while, write some code and then move on. Basically I live in hotels and can still fit everything I own into a backpack, a small suit bag and a laptop case.
I like DVDs, I rent them sometimes. The only thing I can watch them on is my laptop as most hotels don't provide DVD players and it's not really an option to carry one around with you. At the moment this is about the only thing I use w98 on my machine for (I don't feel bad though as I bought w98 for £10 in Estonia).
When this DVD player comes out I will buy it and then remove w98 of my machine. Why? Well I need the HD space. Laptops still arn't the best things for large harddrives and I'm not trying to save up for better hardware at the moment.
That's why this player is a good thing. Besides you can never have too much choice.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
Do you think they would PAY for DirectX if it was not any good?
Yep, if that's where the market for games software is. It's either pay or have a product with poor performance compared with the competition.
Just wait for DirectX8 which includes VOXEL rendering.
Why? Since my last hard disk crash, I don't actually run any Microsoft Operating Systems anymore. Why should I even care?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Yeah, let's just reformat our root partitions and install Microsoft Operating Systems. Everyone else does. Why should be all be freaks who use an OS that requires a pocket protector to install?
OpenGL support is improving. The support for DirectX has always been a front burner issue for HW manufacturers, but I don't know that I'd say that most buggy implications are necessarially *better*.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
What we need is those of us from outside the US to write an open source, Linux DVD player, and host it in the EU. If we find a site that understands the legal issues, and won't be scared off by a letter from a US lawyer, then we can watch DVDs on an open source player. Our US friends can break DMCA if they want by downloading it and using it (much like we can break US export laws when we downloaded PGP until a few months back).
For a first release, take DeCss and an open source MPEG player, splice them together and roll. We can add in the extra functionality later.
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
- watch DVDs from any region?
- make back up copies of my DVDs?
- manipulate the video as I see fit?
If not, then it does not serve my interests, as it still allows DVD-CCA to violate my rights, which include all of the above.There is lawbreaking going on surrounding the DeCSS issue, and it's all being done by the corporate goons that make up DVD-CCA.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Linux Ware are already beginning to crop up slowly but surely. Run a quick search on "VMWare" and "serialz" in google, and you probably won't have much trouble finding registered license generators for VMWare. Whenever a program, such as this software DVD player, is found to be useful, closed source, and there is no comparable "free" alternative (beer or speech, doesn't matter), two things will begin to occur: the "right" open source approach, with rampant piracy in the interim. The "right" approach of course will be for a few dedicated hackers to go about replacing the software by writing a free (as in speech) version (such as plex86 replacing VMWare). However, until a free version becomes available, I would expect to see a great deal of pirating of the proprietary software.
This may not seem like a major issue to the legitimate-use-only hacker community, but what happens when we begin to see more software that cannot, often for legal reasons be replaced by "open" alternatives? DeCSS was never able to be developed into a full-fledged Open Source player (at least not so far) due to legal action by the MPAA, but that's only part of the picture. Many people in the community are pushing to have as many computer games as possible ported to linux. Most computer games can not be replaced by OSS versions, even if the game engines could be replaced by OSS, the actual art and music is still held in copyright.
I'm not attempting to say that programs such as LinDVD or video games should be boycotted, nor am I suggesting that they are even bad for the community. What I am suggesting is that the face of the linux scene is bound to change in the coming years as more users are drawn into the linux fold. Many of these new users will not give a second thought to pirating copies of their favorite "appz" and "gamez" because outside of the corporate arena, this is the norm for many individuals. The GPL does not require that one subscribes to the notion of free software in order for a user to be permitted access to GPL'd software (an how interesting things would be if it did!), and I think that it's important for the current community to realize that it may not be a very long time before geocities and angelfire are populated by sites with porn banners and links to the latest 'leet linux warez...
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
So while the situation seems to be improving, we're still a long way from home. I would hope that Sony's action of recalling the PS2 because it ignores region codes is too late: The Genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in. It seems that many/most DVD players will allow you to circumvent the region codes, so I sincerely hope that the powers that be are fighting a loosing battle. Given their resources though, it will be a long war. The best we can probably do, is to alert our friends to the situation in the hope that they end up buying a player which lets them get around the region coding, thus basically voting with their wallets; the only form of voting big business actually cares about. If enough people state that they simply will not buy a device where the region coding limitation is active, business will (eventually) listen. You own your freedom: don't surrender it easily; fight for it (with your wallet).
Wether an unapproved player is also illegal is for the courts to decide. If you use an unapproved player, you assume either that it will not be deemed illegal, or that it doesn't matter.
A fully OS:ed approved DVD player is not going to happen. Not for Linux, not for Windows, not for anyone. Not as long as the DVD consortium believes in security (and profit) through obscurity.
This at least gives you the choise btw (free and unapproved) and (closed and approved)
Stop whining!
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I think they will laugh at you, for being closed-minded enough to encrypt your creative efforts, using such weak encryption, and believing that it can profited from.
Or BeOS, or H(IRD)URD, or possibly BSD. And it certainly won't work on PPC linux, or Alpha Linux, or ARM Linux. We still have to write out own
And why shouldn't there be an open source DVD player for Windows even? That would be like banning the port of the Gimp because you can get Photoshop.
My suggestion would be to modify the DeCSS source code so that it only plays straight from DVD, and make sure it also supports the Macrovision flag, and any of the other features that could be said to be about piracy. Suddenly the argument that it can be used for piracy disappears, because that would require rewriting, and with sufficient effort, "hello world" could be rewritten to an advanced codebreaking algorithm.
Porting a software-only DVD player to Linux sounds like a minefield. On one hand, the company is no doubt sworn to protect DVD keys as if they were nuclear launch codes; on the other hand, this is impossible to do. They can trap breakpoints and grab ptrace, but an enterprising hacker can code up a debugging kernel that bypasses any software protections.
My guess is that the binary would have to run as root, and would use NMIs or somesuch to enforce unhackability. Or else that the DVD CCA are clueless about technical things (not necessarily a bad thing).
"...lots of complaints from the 'open-source nazis' that LinDVD is closed source. I don't fscking care! As a dedicated Linux user what I want is CHOICE."
Then you should be aware that the licensing scheme to which the LinDVD project is a party limits choice. Specifically, it limits choice to a set of products authored by people or groups who can pay the license to the MPAA. Whether these people can -- or even want to -- put out a DVD player that gives you the exact choice you want is a complete question mark.
This is the precedent the MPAA is setting -- if you know how to make a DVD player, you better be paying the MPAA money. So the set of developers is restricted. Hence, your choice of players is restricted.
Further, the system restricts choice of development model. Open Source can be used to develop a licensed DVD player if and only if someone ponies up and pays the MPAA (and this is not a token charge -- this privilege is marketed to major multinationals with more money than, say, me and, probably, you). This is unlikely -- not because people are skinflints in the Free Software world, but because the investment of a few million dollars is more than most people can afford. (I don't know the actual fee, but I'm sure it's big -- if it's not a million initially, the residuals/royalties the MPAA surely insists on will drive it up there.) Economic barriers are just as real -- usually more so -- than legal barriers.
This means a likely absence of DVD players that are Free Software. So if your favorite DVD player maker wants to pull the product, you suck it up. You (or someone like you) can't continue the project.
I sincerely hope there is a serious choice for DVD players, for Linux and other platforms. But if the system which LinDVD implicitly endorses is allowed to succeed, you very well may find yourself with a few DVD players that all have some things you utterly loathe about them -- and no choice but to live with it.
Just thought you should know.
phil
Keep in mind, that if anyone, ever creates a DVD with CSS protection, and does not sign a contract with DVD-CCA to assign DVD-CCA the responsibility for licensing who is authorized to circumvent the protection, then every single DVD player will become a DMCA violator.
I know that's a twisted and long sentence, I'm sorry about that. The essense is this: under DMCA, nobody except the copyright owner -- of the content (e.g. the movie), not the defacto owner of the CSS algorithm -- can "authorize" CSS circumvention (except for the exemptions provided for reverse engineering, security research, etc). If I ever get a DVD burner and somehow get ahold of even a single blank DVD-ROM that does not have the keys track preburned with zeros, then LinDVD will suddenly have the exact same legal status as LiViD. It will not be an authorized player, because they'll only have DVD-CCA's permission to circumvent the protection on MPAA movies, but it will not have authorization to circumvent the protection on my movie. Since it will be able to circumvent my protection without my authorization, it will violate DMCA.
Keep that in mind, before you buy this LinDVD product or any stock in the company that is going to sell it. Keep that in mind before you buy any stock in any of the other companies that make DVD players (even consumer models) too.
DMCA makes the whole DVD industry ripe for IP "terrorism" and given MPAA's actions over the last few months, I see no reason why anyone should restrain themselves from dropping the bomb. The only thing that stands between licensed and unlicensed players, is the industry's committment to never letting a completely unburned DVD blank get out. If even one disk slips through that will allow keys to be written to it, the whole thing will be over. Some day, DMCA is going to bite DVD-CCA in the ass!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If they're going to be releasing a binary player, then why not release the library files to allow enterprising coders to wrap their own applications around it?
The trouble with most computer DVD players is that their user interfaces are too clunky as they try to simulate remote control handsets and stuff. (And normally ignore key bindings so you've GOT to use the mouse to operate it.) Ideally, all I want is a simple window that I can manipulate to my own nefarious needs, such as coding up my own IR remote, etc.
You know, something useful!
I think it's very important that (people like) the MPAA not be supported, but are we really going to do a favor to the Linux community by rejecting every closed source program that comes along?
I mean, as a fairly nascent-to-the-general-public OS, we need applications and no level of idealism is going to make every application open source at this time. An inroad has to be made into the business world to prove that Linux (or any other OS OS) is actually the better alternative. In the end, prominent companies like Creative will lead other `into the light.'
I don't think that the buying of a closed-source DVD player is an admission of guilt about DeCSS -- it's an expression of desire for a product.
I'm still not certain I would buy LinDVD, but I also don't think it's an issue that can be immediately seen to have a right way and a wrong way to view it.
This is not a troll, it's a rant from a supporter of open-source software.
<rant>
I see here exactly what I expected when I read this press release. That is lots of complaints from the 'open-source nazis' that LinDVD is closed source. I don't fscking care! As a dedicated Linux user what I want is CHOICE. I want the choice to choose Linux over Windows. I also want the freedom to choose the applications that I run on Linux, whether they are open or closed source. I don't want to be told This is bad because it's not open-source. Ideally I'd like to have a choice of several (open and closed source) DVD players (& accounts packages, image editors, office packages etc.) If I want to pay money to a company for a product, that's my choice too.
I don't want anyone to stop supporting DeCCS once this is released, because preventing open-source DVD limits my choices (& our freedom) too. I think that CCS & region encoding suck as much as the next rabid geek.
I will probably buy this software once it's released as the more apps (open & closed source) for Linux, the better.
</rant>
HH (feeling better for that)
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
This gives the Linux community a chance to prove their dedication to Free Software, the basis of their systems.
If Linux users buy this software so that they can contribute money to support the people that filed a lawsuit against DeCSS for reverse engineering, than the Linux community will show that their dedication to Free Software is meaningless.
This is not a situation where a free version is not available. This is a situation where an organization used the courts to prevent a free version's creation overseas. The decision to use a commercial, non-free, version because of convenience to me demonstrates than the hoopla about free software in the Linux community is bogus.
I'm not a hardcore Linux user. NT4 and now Windows 2000 are my primary systems. However, I refuse to buy a DVD player or DVD-ROM. Why? Because I feel that the MPAA is taking a morally unjustifiable position, and the purchase of a DVD player and DVD titles will reinforce the position of a technology whose goal is to take away my rights as a user.
I'm not one who refuses to use proprietary software and will only use free software, I'm a user who won't contribute to morally unjustifiable organizations. I will be amazed at people that are supposedly dedicated to free software would even consider a situation like this.
Alex
OOG AGREE THAT LINUX NEED DVD PLAYER, BUT OOG NO CONTENT WITH LINDVD PROJECT. OOG NOTICE THAT PROJECT BILLED AS CLOSED SOURCE, AND THAT VIOLATE PRINCPLE OF WHOLE LINUX/OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY, DISAPPOINTING OOG MUCH!!! OOG NO WANT SIMPLY BINARIES, OOG WANT BETTER WITH SOURCE CODE!!!
OOG ALSO SEE HUGE IMPLICATIONS WITH MPAA LEGAL ISSUES!!! PLAYER ADVERTISES SELF AS FIRST LEGAL LINUX DVD, IN OTHER WORDS DEFAMING CURRENT EFFORTS FOR LINUX DVD (I.E. LIVID AND DECSS)!!! WITH THIS PLAYER OUT, MPAA COULD EASILY WIN DECSS CASE BY USING LINDVD AS EVIDENCE!!! THIS ANOTHER BAD THING FOR OPEN SOURCE!!! SEEMS LIKE MAYBE INTERDVD AND MPAA HAVE SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON (BAD FISHY, NOT GOOD FISHY LIKE YUMMY FISH HEADS) TOGETHER!!! INTERDVD GETS ENDORSEMENT FROM MPAA AND LOTS OF MONEY THROUGH SALES, WHILE MPAA GAINS BIG EVIDENCE IN THEIR CASE TO SQUELCH DECSS AND OPEN SOURCE DVD!!! FURTHERMORE, REGION CODES STILL THERE!!! REGION CODES HORRIBLE THING THAT SCREW CONSUMERS AND FIX PRICES!!! OOG NO TOLERATE REGION CODES!!!
IN CONCLUSION, OOG NO LIKE LINVID!!! LINDVD VIOLATE PRINCIPLE OF LINUX/OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT AND TRY TO USE LINUX HYPE TO MAKE MONEY!!! NOT TO MENTION INTERVIDEO PROBABLY IN BED WITH MPAA TO CRUSH DECSS CASE AND MAKE MONEY!!! OOG BREAK INTERVIDEO HEAD!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!