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.
>If it violates a couple of copyrights - then who cares? Who is going to stop it? :-)
Not good enough. Recall that copyright is the basis for ALL licensing, including the GPL. You can't just violate the copyrights that happen to annoy you.
Closed source is annoying, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Copyright is a VERY important part of what makes Open Source work.
--
- 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
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.
Yes, I'm sure they'll be completely unresponsive to any criticism, bug reports etc. just because they choose to comply with the licensing restrictions that have enabled them to produce this software so quickly in closing their source. Of course we all know that people who close the source code to the programs pull the legs off small children too.
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.
Well, help out the Linux DVD folks, write your own player from scratch or live in a world without DVDs. Those are your options. Or just whine a lot on Slashdot; it's a lifestyle choice
And if you're really concerned about getting your player for free, I've no doubt that the moment this software hits the streets, a de-regioning hack, along with probably the full version will be out within not very long...
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
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
Actually, free software has a copyright because of the laws of society. RMS was VERY against copyrighted software. He believed that software should be free. The reason the GPL existed was the believe that he was going to snub the system, and if people wanted to use his stuff, they should join him in snubbing the system.
While the FSF appears more moderate than it is, don't pretend to think that free software is based in copyright law... the copyleft is an intentional, legalistic, snub of the copyright system.
Alex
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.
1. Arbitrarily censor content based on region.
2. Engage in region based price gouging.
3. Control the use of your property after you have bought and paid for it beyond what was allowed by traditional copyright law.
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.
I'm not sure why you think the MPAA battle is smaller than the OS battle, unless, again, you see Linux only as a product. If the principles currently being affirmed by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act end up permenently affirmed in this country, there exists the strong possibility that copyleft software (like Linux, Apache, and others) could be severely impacted by it in the long term.Look at it this way:
1. Adoption of LinDVD kills open source DVD development due to lack of interest and the fact that people don't want to take on scary lawyers to work on an open source product
2. The MPAA decides to form a trust with Microsoft and Apple, and eliminate the license for LinDVD.
3. Linux is again left without a DVD player and no open source alternative.
I mean one of the biggest problems with Linux right now is its reliance on a quasi-abandonware Web browser called Netscape, which AOL didn't seem to care about much until Linux started to take off. The fact that IE seems more compatible with the Web than older versions of Netscape (hopefully version 6 will correct this) has hampered Linux's acceptance by the mainstrean more than the lack of a DVD player would.
Oh, one last thing, since if I by a DVD I don't actually own it but only a license to view it under restricted conditions, I see no reason to by DVDs. That being the case, why would I buy a DVD player for Linux or otherwise? 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.
So, I don't think that LinDVD can be supported on a philisophical level because I don't think that the DVD formats problems can be supported on a philisophical level. (Anyone who is still buying DVDs for a set-top box, though, should buy LinDVD.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
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!!!