Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600
A number of people have written in with the news that the MPAA [?] has filed another injunction in the DeCSS case. This time around, they've filed for an injunction against 2600 seeking to stop 2600 from linking to the DeCSS Source Code. Interestingly enough for both (and us, who are in a similar situation) a Judge recently ruled that deep linking was legal. Hopefully, this will enable a better defense.
DeCSS is clearly a tool used to circumvent copyright, even if it has "legitimate" uses to some users. The courts are supporting this view.
The courts, though, have also ruled that code is speech. That's a constitutional right. And code in itself isn't a tool until compiled.
So, if 2600 could kindly acquire and post the source code to their site, they'd not only undercut the MPAA arguments, but their free speech challenge could be used to force the MPAA into court, where their DMCA arguments could be trumped by the First Amendment and, ideally, lost (along the way taking the DMCA down for the unconstitutional nonsense it is). And any liability would rightfully be transferred to the individual (who can then compile and erase binaries as needed :)
Unfortunately, it's not so simple. Firstly, I'm not sure whether you're trying to justify DeCSS's position, or 2600's position on linking. I'll assume the latter.
None of the precedents you cite really apply here. For a precedent to apply, the current case has to be similar enough to a previous ruling that there is no difference under the law.
1. Interfaces cannot be protected.
Microsoft and Apple battled over user interfaces. The injuction had nothing whatsoever to do with user interfaces.
2. Source code is protected by the 1st Amendment.
But computer programs themselves; i.e. DeCSS, are not. Besides, once again, this relates to the DeCSS case and not the 2600 one.
3. A link is not the content.
Deep linking? That's not what the case said. The case said that you can legally link to anywhere in a site you please, no matter what the proprietor of the site would prefer. So once again, the precedent is not relevant.
4. US vs Microsoft ?!?
Come on, I don't think 2600 is going to win this case based on anti-trust laws. Neither is Jon Johansen.
5. The ability to play back is NOT proof of the ability to record.
Again, not relevant. This has nothing to do with 2600 linking intentionally to content previously deemed illegal.
The truth is, there is no precedent to this case. That is the scary part, though. If the court decides 2600 is trying to just circumvent a court order and prohibits them from even linking to DeCSS, this could be used as a precedent in further cases. This is very dangerous.
As has been pointed out many times here, this could make EVERYONE liable for EVERYTHING that is on the net.
i.e. Yahoo! linked me to a porn site when I searched for "Chocolate Chip Cookies", and I was deeply offended, so where's my $89 million in emotional damages?
#include <stdio.h>
Whoops, I think I just broke the law.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
As someone who was mirroring DeCSS until the MPAA's lawyers said no, then the system admins said no... all I can say is DOWN WITH THE MPAA!!! Sorry, guess I am still a little pissed! *grr*
This is aimed at this 86% of people. The ones who think the way they are told to. Simply by wording things carefully you can persuade people that water should be banned. How difficult do you think it is to make them believe that things like DeCSS are only for pirates and have no legitimate use?
Deleted
As soon as I read this I rushed to post this great idea I had...then I realized maybe I should read the other posts, don't want to get -1 (Redundant)!
/. not too long ago about how many clicks wide the 'net was at the time? I'm sure that somewhere on /. someone's posted a url that points to a page that has a link somewhere that points to something a judge/congressman/etc has decided should be illegal...
Anywayz - here's what's really interesting about this to me - not so much that Yahoo, etc could get in trouble for linking to 2600 if 2600 gets in trouble for linking to people who are linking to DeCSS...but the fact that if they got in trouble for that and a judge ruled a site responsible for the links on sites they link to theoretically EVERY site on the Internet (except one that has NO links) would be in violationg of some US law somewhere. I wish I could remember what it said, but wasn't there a story on
Remember the previous DeCSS case? The judge said specifically that linking to DeCSS is allowed. So does this case actually stand any chance or is MPAA just trying the scare tactic?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Wired was completely Wrong in the article when it said that Linux now has DVD. You still can not buy Linux DVD off the shell.
Chances are, as rapidly as Linux changes, without an open source solution, there never WILL be a Linux DVD closed sourced solution.
What happens when the 2.4 Kernel comes out. Video4Linux is Kernel level programs.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I just pinged them moments ago, and 207.99.30.230 seemed to be alive. tracert seemed to work as well. Check again. I would, but I am stuck behind a damn proxy/webfilter.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
http://hackphreak.org/decss/
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
-=Bob
http://www.circus.com/~nodhmo/
http://www.dhmo.org/ This one is their own domain
Melvin
--
"Situation's changed, Jules...Take my buffalo gun and hand me my mime rifle." -The Far Side
Can anyone else access 2600? I'd think it was /.ed, but I can't even resolve 'www.2600.com'.
Didn't that teacher with the crypto code on his website just win a case in which a federal judge said that source code is expresive, and therefore free speech? If source code is free speech, then the DeCSS source is free speech and anybody who wants to put it on a web site should be able too. Stopping somebody from posting the source code is a violation of that person's first amendment rights.
Source code is free speech. Post it everywhere.
Actually, it's more like publishing a book on how to pick locks, with a listing of stores which supply the necessary tools. Hosting the DeCSS code itself is closer to handing out the lockpicking tools than is posting a link.
I can give directions to a drug dealers house
great!! we're having a bit of a dry spell over here...
I'm not so sure that this would apply here.
Deep-linking relates to whether or not you have the right to point to a specific page at foo.com, instead of pointing to http://foo.com/index.html, as Foo, Inc. would like you to. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with this case-- all the participants are voluntarily mirroring the source code, and the material is not allowed on the linking party's web site.
If, as Jack Valenti and his lawyers say, this is the same as having it hosted at the 2600.com domain, this *could* have implications toward deep-linking. That is, if linking to a page and mirroring the same page are considered equivelent actions by the law, then that would mean that by linking to copyrighted material, you have (in the eyes of the law) stolen that person's copyrighted material and placed it on your own site.
But the deep-linking case seems to be a totally different area.
IANAL, though. Any arguments that show how the deep-linking decision *could* help 2600?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Sigh...
IANAL, but I'm not even hopeful. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that 2600 is going to come out of this one vicorious. The judge is likely going to tell them to stop linking to copies of the 2600 source.
Why? Because 2600 still is still a major point of "distribution" for the code. Hell, I've used their list of mirrors once or twice when I wanted to show friends what this software *really is* (i.e., not an evil "hacker tool that has no legitimate purpose"). 2600 doesn't have the source code stored locally, but that doesn't mean they aren't "distributing" the program to others (at least, not in the eyes of the MPAA and the judge).
Remember, the MPAA requested the injunction because they wanted to stop 2600 from distributing DeCSS. So if linking to material (with an expressed intent to make it available to others) is considered a method of distribution by the courts, then the court can say that 2600 is distributing the code. And since the court has already issued an injunction against one method of distribution, issuing an injunction against another method is what the court would be *expected* to do.
Mind you, I don't think that linking is the same as distributing. But if the MPAA presents the case strongly enough, 2600 doesn't stand a chance. What we need are strong, logical arguments as to *why* linking is not a method of distribution.
Any ideas?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Michigan is PARTICULARLY evil in this respect. There are numerous such cases, including a famous one where a young man was put in jail for LIFE for providing information on where to obtain a controlled substance, without ever being in possesion of it, or profitting from its sale, etc. As far as I know, he is still in jail for it.
I encourage anyone with a link to the details to follow up this post w/ relevant info.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Freon IS illegal, isn't it?
R-12 requires a license to obtain in the US.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Please explain how DeCSS helps pirate movies?
If you have the right kind of burner, you can already do a bitwise copy of the disc. No DeCSS needed. If you are putting it on tape or anything else, you just pipe the output of your DVD player into your VCR. I suppose it could help, but there are much cheaper/easier ways to copy DVDs.
Next thing you know, you'll tell us that freon should be illegal because car thieves use it to get rid of the club in a heartbeat.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
For that matter, there are a lot of publications which describe how to make many dangerous things, from catapults to go-karts...
If you're not mirroring this stuff, then you damn well should be!
himi
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.
"How about this example?
Seems to fit a little better, and is already in reprodcutive mode.
--
+&x
This is probably (ok certainly) off topic, but...
.com Domain Name Registrants could now be inadvertant cybersquatters!
.com name, then unless I trademark the name, the URL can be taken, the site ripped off, and the work I put into developing & advertising benefited from.
got my copy of Nominet (UK names agency) News today and it had the following...
"Are you cybersquatting?
The new Anti-Cybersquatting Act passed in the USA at the end of December 1999 could mean that a number of
The new Anti-Cybersquatting legislation allows those corporations or individuals which have a Domain Name or trademark registered in the USA to sue any other company, orginisation or individual who has registered a Domain Name but does not have have the name registered as a trademark in the US.
..... (more here)"
This would seem to mean that although I have my-company-name.com registered, the fact that there is a company with the same name in the US means that (if they have the name trademarked) they can basically just take it any time they want.
Also if I create any online business with it's own
~ppppppppö
also notice that Wired link direct to the list of mirrors, so they should be liable as well, only one more click than from the 2600 homepage than from wired's hp.
and slashdot links direct to the wired article so same number of clicks from Slashdot hp (if this topic is still on the frontapge).
where does it stop?
your #4 is very accurate if they succede in their case against 2600, and as a webmaster, quite often directly responsible for the external links from my clients sites this would make my job pretty much impossible.
~ppppppppö
Ignoring (for the moment) the fact that technically he isn't transporting anyone anywhere, it seems to me that this would be more analogous to a taxi driver picking up a fare and taking him to a bar that is a known hang-out of drug dealers. The driver doesn't know if his passenger is going to deal drugs, and he probably doesn't want to.
Actually, an even better analogy would be asking someone for directions to said drug bar. If they give you those directions, are they dealing drugs?
NOTE: I do not mean to directly compare DeCSS to drugs, nor am I attempting to make any sort of judgment about either, I just needed a good real-world example of something that is illegal that one has to go to a specific place to acquire. Besides, to listen to the MPAA talk, you'd think DeCSS was worse!
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
CSS Descrambler
Were sent out as part of a mailing list? Hmm, if I use an Email account that let's me send Emails in HTML form (like Netscape Webmail, for instance), I might be able to put it in as a comment. If everyone who had one of those Emails with an HTML sig (well it's too long for a sig... but you can do a save draft and use that draft everytime you are sending out Emails), they could send out a lot of copies of the code to everyone they Email.
Well, it's just something I was thinking of today... unfortunately being an anti-social, misanthropic loner, I don't Email enough people myself for it to be an effective distribution method. Hmm... I have an idea though...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
First, the basic stuff:
The MPAA has been granted injunctions in New York and California to prevent the distribution of the DeCSS source code. In every other state, this activity is legal.
Despite the fact that DeCSS is still legal in 48 states and the rest of the world, the MPAA sends out threatening letters to everyone listed on the 2600 mirror list, and whomever else they can shake an email at, in the hopes of preventing its distribution.
2600 has hired a lawyer with the help of the EFF who has experience defending first amendment rights in front of the Supreme Court and in many states. They are specifically prevented from hosting the data, but have provided a mirror list. The links to this data are on 2600.
And now the extrapolation and fun stuff:
A recent ruling has determined that source code is free speech. Clearly, this applies to HTML, and is likely related to the decision that deep linking was OK'd by another federal judge. This puts 2600 squarely in the right, and now that they have a quality lawyer, I expect this injunction to be denied.
Aside from on 2600, some good advocacy information can be found on OpenDVD.org The best suggestions I have heard for protecting our first amendment rights from the copyright zealots are:
- contact local media and eloquently state your case, providing resources like 2600 and OpenDVD for reference;
- crafting fliers to distribute peacefully and respectfully near movie theatres or rental outlets, copying them to brightly colored paper and explaining the situation (or use the flyer at 2600, though I'm sure a whole we could fill a whole archive of new and varied leaflets for different audiences);
- and mirroring the source code on sites where the code is still legal.
In fact, if anyone wants to share your flier design with me, email it to me and I will host it at my site for anyone to use and distribute. Good luck everyone.I don't need large brains to have a good time.
You're so smart, dazed.
Even that information wants to be free. But what good is it?
I'll bet that if you wanted, you could go to that AC's house and discover all of that information, if your motivation was great enough... But it isn't.
The only reason information wants to be free is because people want it to want that. The more significant the information is, the freer it will become because people will make it so. So as soon as you have a pressing need for the information you requested, it will remain private because nobody else wants it.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Bad laws should die. It happens all the time. But we shouldn't just sit waiting for them to; not if we have a stake in the outcome.
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
If the MPAA says something about how movies should be made, nobody would listen.
If that's true, then I would like to formally invite any studio, including those that are members of MPAA, to release one DVD (hopefully one with at least some geek appeal) without using CSS.
We can then find out how long it takes for someone to pirate it. I expect that it won't be pirated at all.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
US vs. Microsoft. Conclusion: Intmidation to maintain absolute control is an illegal monopoly, in violation of anti-trust laws.
For all practical purposes the MPAA has a monopoly control of the motion picture industry. Following the logic of US vs MS couldn't it be argued that they are now illegally using that monopoly to leverage control of a new industry (the digital distibution of motion pictures)?
I think what we need is a test case. If someone has a movie they made that they want to distribute without the CSS protection on the DVD, would they still be able to play it on a conventional DVD player or on a PC with "conventional" DVD software? If not, could they use DeCSS (or a similar program) to play it back? If so, they could then bundle this playback software with their DVD and the primary purpose of the playback software could no longer be considered defeating copyright protection, and it would therefore be legal under DMCA.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Just think of the possibilies if this was approved!
Non-smokers could sue every magazine in existence because they carry ads of cigarettes thereby telling you who makes them and where to get them, thereby contributing to the rise in smoking deaths.
Nike, Adidas, etc. can be sued because they make running shoes. Everyone who wears those shoes and has been in a traffic accident can sue those companies because those shoes allowed them to run in the street!
Coca-cola, Pepsi, etc. can be sued because they make drinks, and I'm sure that people have choked to death on soft-drinks somewhere.
Hollywood can be sued because they show violence in movies, which shows the common person how to commit violence!
Etc.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
2600 wrote about this in their current issue. They siad that if they were told to stop linking, they'd switch over to a list. If they're told to get rid of the list, they'll have sentences telling you where to go.
Linking is saying. How can it be illegal to say a web address?
"***JUMP PAD ACTIVATION INITIATION START***
***TRANSPORT WHEN READY***
May Marathon live forever 8^)
I don't respect your opinions, but I respect your right to hold them
How about this example?
Say you link to decss.zip on someone else's location.
What is to stop them from changing decss.zip to be a zip file of pr0n pics?
Suddenly, things aren't so exact.
Sure, you have a good idea that perhaps you are getting DeCSS source code by linking to it directly but you don't know for sure until actually download it and look.
And just because you download it today and verify the contents are correct does not indicate that it won't be different tomorrow.
Kind of like QM.
-Vel
According to the MPAA's own site the loss to the whole video industry was $2.5B US so I have no clue why and how they are attributing it all to DVD. Im quite sure that VHS copying is MUCH MUCH more prevalent. To quote their site: "The most prevalent form of piracy in the U.S. is the 'back-to-back' copying of videos. In some cases, video retailers purchase one or two genuine cassettes from an authorized distributor and then duplicate copies .... Worldwide, video piracy costs the American motion picture companies $2.5 billion a year in lost revenues." They seem to miss the point that at the moment, making copies of DVD's costs more than purchasing the original copy, so who in their right mind would do it anyway. You should check out their FAQ for more amusing, disjointed reasoning on the issue. It really is a trip.
Have a chat with the Phillip Morris attorneys. I'm sure they'll enjoy being told that the court system is stacked in their favor.
In many cases, look at the juries. They're the ones that decide whether a single car accident (i.e. NOT a class-action suit) is worth billions of dollars in damages (true award!), for instance.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Suppose somebody links to a personal page on any of the free hosters, like Tripod or Hotmail. Then, the account lapses and somebody else gets the same URL; or, alternately, the page's owner simply drastically revamps content.
What previously was, say, something mildly amusing but innocuous like experimental results involving candy and chemistry, might be replaced with a page advertising drug paraphenalia or other contraband (given the fact a pair of bozos tried to auction a LOT of weed on Ebay, I wouldn't be too surprised...). Should the linker be held responsible? Must he be given a "reasonable" amount of time to review everything linked to?
Also, by transivity this would suggest that, say, everybody who links to search engines (a LOT of normal sites, like colleges and such...) is legally responsible for hardcore porn involving pre-teens and dogs. I'm not sure that this is such a good idea, although it'd be a field day for lawyers.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Doesn't everyone just love the old American spirit? If you don't like 'em, sue 'em! This kind of thing really shouldn't be tolerated AT ALL by the U.S Government.
I guess we can tack on another reason to hate the MPAA, and patiently wait until the public sees that their own hardware is being used against them to make money for major corporations. O well, until then we can sit and dwidle our thumbs hoping something will happen, or actually do something...
I wish I was old enough to have a say in this country (I'm 17, people don't take us 'rebels' seriously), I'd be talking to my congressman ASAP.
~Marshall
--
Homer: "No beer, No TV make Homer something something";
Marge: "Go crazy?";
Homer: "Don't mind if I do!"
arcane for life
GO up 75,000 feet and then tell me what you are seeing is the color blue.
Don't have a SR-71 Blackbird or U-2 spyplane? Stick your head out your door tonight at midnight and let me know what color your sky is =)
If it's blue let me know, I need to know what drugs you are taking. Remember, as we've established in this discussion it's not illegal to tell me what and how!!
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
Courts often have to judge both the action and the intent. Judging actions usually revolves around determining facts. Judging intent is inherently subjective, I.e. at the whim of the judge.
I suspect the judge will suggest the action (linking) is legal, but the intent (to contravene a court order) is illegal.
My bet is that the judge will order the links removed, but it will not be a precedent for any other circumstance.
The issue in the DeCSS case is not that the mirror sites don't want the links. It's that the DVD-CCA and the MPAA want to restrict the ability of 2600 et al. to link to specific information. This is more of a free speech issue than a copyright issue.
Just my $.02.
HipNerd
Hipnerd
Of course, when they're busy trying to suppress DeCSS, they imply that DeCSS is responsible for the entire $2.5e9 figure. When it's videotape, they'll pretend it's illegal VHS copies. When it's people copying to hard drive to play repeatedly for their kids without risking damage to the original.... you get the idea. It's all a pack of artistically-packaged lies. That last is Hollywood's stock in trade; why would you expect anything different in their defensive (as opposed to promotional) PR?
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
There are two separate issues going on here. Whether the code itself is free speech, and whether linking to the code is the same as "providing" the code.
The first issue is that of speech. I see an easy analogy: how to make bombs. (cracking silly DVD encryption has little to do with bombs, I agree). Anyway, with bomb making instructions, you always have that clash between free speech, which it is, and the 'threat to society', wich is far more debatable.
Regardless of whether or not the language used to express bomb making is legally distributable or not, is it in turn illegal to even refer to those instructions? Unlikely. You'd might as well try to make it illegal to refer to bomb making instructions in any abstract way whatsoever.
Not that cracking the silly DVD encryption is anything tanamount to making bombs.
Mojotoad
His use of "trafficking" is not unusual at all. The law [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)] which 2600 is being sued under says:
"No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology..."
--
314-15-9265
(IANAL applies here)
In one case, they ruled linking is legal.
In another case, they ruled source code was protected speech under the first amendment.
So... if source is protected, doesn't that put linking to source out of the reach of these people? Does the DMCA somehow override the constitution?
Somebody help me out here, I'm not seeing how they have a case against the source.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Does anyone know where we can find the actual text of this latest filing? A PDF would be prefered. I would like to see exactly precisely what the MPAA wrote as opposed to reading a quicky summary from a web magazine.
Take away all the tags ane leave the link. Can MPAA accuse them of linking anymore?
Listing the sites is obviously speech.
I'm not sure. Can I be sued (or prosecuted) if I tell you where a gunstore is if I know you are going to use the gun to kill someone? Is that aiding and abetting? Would it be something similar in this case when the content in question has been deemed illegal? (Which while we may not agree with it, is the case.)
Or to look at it another way, would it be illegal for me to link to a kiddie porn site even if I didn't have any of the illegal content on my site?
--Ty
-Legion
You don't have to buy that story. They're not "selling" it to you. They're selling it to John & Jane Q. Public, residents of Anytown, USA. You & I know that there has been no such damages - it's totally impractical to pirate a DVD - but if they succeed in selling that to the rest of the nation, who's going to listen to us?
I'm not sure whether this is legal or not, but I think the guy who wanted to buy the stolen watch would be a little confused when you handed him the gun. Or is this like a do-it-yourself stolen watch kit?
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The will try to convict him of _helping_ in doing something illegal, but they've already ruled that what he's doing himself isn't illegal in the strongest sense.
Moderated down -5 for the worst English sentences I've written in a long time ... I'm tired ...
it's in my head
Wasn't slashdot also included in that injunction? If so they now have links all the same mirror sites that 2600 had. Hmmmm after all the censorship articles do you think that slashdot will take this comment out or will they try to defend themselves if MPAA files for another injunction?
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
Notice that the other dos attacks earlier this year targeted sites that might link to DeCSS or have articles about the same.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
I think the MPAA is willing to go to any extent to increase their profits. If the Federal Government had filed suit against them instead of M$, I'd have been perfectly happy. Unfortunately, from what I've read of it, the DMCA gives the MPAA the power to do exactly what its doing. Scary, no?
"I'm afraid this copy program is illegal. It can be used to copy copywritten data. Same for cat, less, more, and your entire "free" operating system."
-RickHunter
If the judge allows this to happen, he cannot have much knowledge about the internet.
This proposes another question for me. How can these companies (arnt they publicly traded?) justify such an expenditure? They cannot stop something once it gets on the internet, this has been proven over and over again. Pamela anderson came to recognize this when she attempted to stop that sex tape from being distributed from the internet.
With an extreme commitment to the stockhodlers, they must be using some twisted logic to think that this whole case is in their best intrest.
Or i could be wrong and they arnt publicly traded.
Allright, even if they arnt publicly traded, how can the people behind this case justify such a foolish notion that they can stop distribution of something on the internet. Its impossible. Period. There is no way to remove something on the internet once it gets out there.. its the nature of the beast. The expenditure of such a large amount of money on such a fruitless effort is, well, stupid.
Sounds to me like the lawyers have been giving the buisness owners some false information on the way the internet works. The Internet is a more powerful freedom-of-information tool then ever before. Even if the courts do make everything about DeCSS illegal, guess what. It wont go away.
So why all the foolish effort? Can anyone explain their mindset? Id like to know where they are coming from.
no
Note: I don't condone virus writing in any way shape or form... really. I don't. You can trust me. Honest.
I must say... that would be *cool* =).
Although, I'm sure that the MPAA could blow THAT way out of proportion too...
"Look at those rogue hackers! They're making viruses now to spread this evil illegal code! You computer could get infected and it might crash! Show your support for us and help us crush these evil-doers!"
-- Dr. Eldarion --
http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:3:./temp/~ c106QAfgFN:e59696:
title "`Sec. 421. Distribution of information relating to manufacture of controlled substances". While it does exempt service providers that remove such materials or links once notified of their existance on the ISP's system, it does come down on the originator of the material and/or links. It also makes a number of chemistry textbooks and journals sitting in libraries and 2nd hand bookstores illegal.
A judge can grant a preliminary injunction to stop practically anything; however, doing so only says, "Stop what you're doing until we've had time to deal with this at trial or you settle."
With respect to your idea about how being unaware that a site you link to may not give you legal trouble, (unfortunately) may not be true. You could certainly be liable under a standard of negligence, that is, although you may not have known what the links contained, you *should have known* what the links contained.
Of course, I think the MPAA is full of monkey crap, but I'll go ahead and address that in another post.
xoxo
shana
tcd004
LostBrain
Does this mean that If I take the bus to burglarize a home the local transit system is at fault. No, it's just someone providing a service that I may choose to use.
It hasn't been ruled illegal. Linking to a site is different than hosting something. Also, should we never fight injustice because they can get mad and we could end up worse? Should be just lie down and take it?! Think things can't get worse then? Thank God the civil rights activists in the 1960's didn't think your way.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
What? I hate to tell you this, but with some interesting modifications you can get a copy of DVD in mpeg-2 content using a licensed DVD player in Windows. There are utilities that you can download for Windows that are specifically for taking advantage of some of the players to get a copy of the content.
Doing so might actually be legal even if DeCSS is illegal. Why? Because the "accessing" of the protected work is done by the authorized player. The CSS decryption is done in an authorized manner. You didn't hack around its protections. You didn't "circumvent" the access control. You did circumvent controls in a program which accessed the copyrighted work. But that program is not "circumventing" the code, it is applying "information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." See 17 USC 1201(a)(3)(B). That is one degree removed from circumventing it yourself. So is it legal or illegal. I am not a lawyer, but it is an interesting question. Indirect circumvention? I know about software licenses, and that can come into play, also copyright infringement is also a possible change if you are exceeding fair use. But is having an authorized access tool provide you with access it should not have a DMCA violation? For the case where you hack the program? Maybe. For a case where you do not hack the program, but every time it writes to the "video card" it really is writing into a virtual framebuffer device which sends it to the hard disk? Can they say that is illegal? Could running a Windows DVD player under VMware under Linux be illegal if the MPAA was to say no linux players are allowed? (Yes I have heard of the possible authorized Linux player, but the point is could they ban Linux DVD if they wanted to, even to the point of prohibiting Windows emulation to view the DVD) The issues of law and technology collide and get very complicated here. What precedents we set today will determine our future (and our freedom) tomorrow.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If I were to link to a page on someone else's site, true, I would have no control over what they post at the URL. I may have had no idea that they had illegal content on their site and did not intend to link to said illegal content. Assuming I remove my link after I become aware of the illegal content, I'm sure I wouldn't have any trouble legally.
.
However, if I knew that the page had illegal content and linked to it for the sole purpose of directing my viewers to that illegal content, I'm sure that would be a very different situation. Linking to that illegal material for that reason is more like handing someone a gun and then intentionally convincing them to go down to the nearest school and unload a few clips and then saying you had no control over what they would do with the gun.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support 2600 and all other DeCSS mirrors, but that argument just doesn't cut it.
1. kiddie porn sites are (and should be) illegal and all that.
2. keeping your website obscure so that the authorities don't find out about it allows the kiddie porn to propogate.
3. then someone points it out on /. with a deep link to the hidden files on a non-descript webserver.
4. slashdot effect on the site, and more importantly.
5. the gov will find out about it easier and can go after it.
addendum: not doing so would be somewhat akin to making all discussion of kiddie porn illegal and thereby as no one talks about it, it is allowed to propogate
just a thought
---
What I want to know is who are the people who accepted the bribes, err axcuse me the campaign donations, to get the DMCA passed, exactly what were the rest of our "representatves" drinking/smoking, and where is that gun shop.
I hope this hasn't already been mentioned somewhere...
If you're bored, go check out the MPAAs site. They have a link for info on the deCSS case. So far I've been reading through the faq, which is pretty interesting. A computer that has the DeCSS utility can use it to break the CSS code on DVDs making it possible for motion pictures in DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied onto a computer's hard-drive for further distribution over the Internet or otherwise, in perfect, digital format. DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house.
Wow. So was this written by a moron, or someone who knew they were misleading the public?
sfc
standing on the shoulders of giants,leaves me cold
sfc
standing on the shoulders of giants,leaves me cold
Go to
Oh dear... ;)
Yesterday I gave someone directions to a shop where he could buy a crowbar he _could_ use to break into an office or something.
I think I'll just turn myself in...
I would argue that it is more like saying "the sky is blue, so that means that the sky is blue under all circumstances." Unfortunately, that is not a particularly good analogy because the sky is sometimes obsured by clouds, dark, or turned pretty colors by the sunset. Basically, deep linking to a site that provides illegal things is still deep linking. And as many other threads have pointed out, it isn't illegal to tell somebody where to get something illegal.
Then - oh Anonymous Coward - kindly post your SSN, bank & account #, address, phone, DOB, driver's ID, and a copy of your last 1040 form submitted to the IRS. That information wants to be free too.
What's that? You balk and refuse in the name of "privacy" and your soveriegnty over your so-called-personal-yet-so-public information? What happened to "information wants to be free"?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
This is an excellent idea, but of course it would not work. The bull-headed idiots in office are not going to allow you to take away their control of your life that easily. The intended checks on government power have been ignored by the government (Ooooh, big surprise).
We have to elect new leaders that care about the Constitution and want you to have the liberty our forefathers' paid for in blood. We need to use the power we do have: VOTE. Vote for a candidate that believes in your ability to make your own choices and lead your own life, instead of insisting that you conform to his draconian regime.
We don't have to stand for this. I know I won't. I love my country, and I've sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The presidents swear an oath, too. They just don't take it seriously. It is my moral and patriotic duty to cast my vote for a candidate who does take that oath seriously.
I will vote for Harry Browne in November, and make it clear that I am tired of a huge government wasting my money. Are you tired, too? Support Harry Browne for President.
Consult the Libertarian Party home page to find candidates for your local elections that believe in you and your freedom.
Topher
Got Freedom?
I am confident that since the 2600 team has more time to prepare for this one, they will be better able to defend themselves. Remember, last time they only had a few hours to get their shit together.
In the California lawsuit, the DVDCCA did ask for the judge to have the sites remove links to the code on other sites but the judge decided against it. This is excerpted from Judge Elfving's ruling:
However, the Court refuses to issue an injunction against linking to other websites which contain the protected materials as such an order is overbroad and extremely burdensome. Links to other websites are the mainstay of the Internet and indispensable to its convenient access to the vast world of information. A website owner cannot be held responsible for all of the content of the sites to which it provides links. Further, an order prohibiting linking to websites with prohibited information is not necessary since the Court has enjoined the posting of the information in the first instance.
I'm optimistic about our chances.
Injunct this.
tingalingusob
Since the source code for DeCCS has been deemed to be illegal how much has to be there first? So in other words 3 different sites have 3 different pieces. Or is any of the source code on a site illegal? Anybody know?
--
Bill was here
---
> However, in this case, 2600.com is linking to
> sites that have software which was deemed illegal,
> yes, ILLEGAL by a court, under the Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act. 2600.com has been
---
I disagree with this statement as well as what Wired's story said
about DeCSS's legality. Right now, DeCSS is in limbo. The MPAA
believes it to be illegal, the rest of the world does not. It's
legality will be decided by that court come December. Until then, the
only correct statement concerning DeCSS is that it is "unauthorized."
---
> stopped, by court order, from posting the software
> on their site, and are circumventing it by linking
> to it. Whether we like it or not (and I hate it),
> this is just a sneaky way around a court order
> (i.e. providing access to material banned by said
---
As many other posters have pointed out, 2600 is in full
compliance with the court order. This is no more "circumventing" or
"sneaking" than a court order saying I may not distribute X. It is
not circumvention or "sneaking" to tell people, "Sorry, I cannot give
X to you. Go see Bob."
Second, the material is not "banned." There is just an
injunction against a list of people to not publish it. Until you are
listed as one of them, what you do with it is your business.
The link is not a gun. The link is not the sky. C'mon guys. The only reason to use analogies is when you can not think through the issue on it's own merits. Analogies never really illuminate anything. They obfuscate. They draw a comparison, often to something (1) overly simple, which reduced the issue to absurdity ie. the code is the sky and it is always blue or (2) Overly controversial, thus making the agents in the case (MPAA, RIAA, Mattel, H4X0RS) out to be Stalin or worse. What is at issue is the right to reverse engineer for interoperability (MPAA DeCSS), The right provide criticism of corporate agendas (Mattel, cpHack) and the right to have your speech/code protected by the First Ammednment/GPL/Licensing terms of your choice. If you can not read the arguments for/against and understand the case on its merits, all you can do is provide underinformed bitching. Sophistry is dangerous for democracy. It functions as a smokescreen, hitting hot-buttons and provoking the basest reactions...Never well thought out opinion/action.
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Hello, Sloppy,
/. operate pretty much how I said they do. You really can not tell me that DeCSS is like a gun. I mean a gun implies LIFE OR DEATH responsibility tied to your use/nonuse of it. DeCSS not that grave (pun not intended). It is not a gun. Not even a cheap jailhouse shiv. We are not going to convince a judge or the public with these lines of "reasoning."
giggles at your post. OK so I should not have ranted so and went overboard. But I am serious.
Maost of the analogies on
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Pretending that DeCSS can't be used for piracy is silly. If code is protected, it's protected whatever it can be used for, and trying to put a cherry on top damages your argument. (I'm a lawyer and the worst thing on earth that can happen to you is when the opposition manage to knock down a little piece of your argument that isn't crucial to your case, but its destruction damages your credibility. It's the worst feeling in the world).
Furthermore, to deny that DeCSS enables illegal copying of DVDs is effectively tantamount to conceding that the manufacturers of DVDs have the right to stop other people from copying them -- that bits can literally be owned. This lets through an important principle, and makes it harder to argue against DMCA and UCITA.
Bottom line; if you want your information to remain proprietary, encrypt it properly, or provide services with licensed copies that people want to have. Don't come fucken whining to the courts when your copy protection gets broken.
This is the case we need to make, and your false claim only weakens it.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
It's very difficult to make legal analogies when we're dealing with electronic media. You cannot physically "hand" a criminal your neighbor's crowbar if he keeps it in his toolshed. But, you can link directly to a file - making the link essentially the equivalent of the file. Your average kid who wants to play DVDs doesn't care where the file literally came from.
Also, in this case, the copyright protection is more important than the media itself. The MPAA is well-aware that once the player gets out, piracy will be completely out of control (consider the effect of WinPlay3 and, later, Winamp and Sonique). Anyone can figure out how to rip a file to their hard drive. Not anyone can figure out what to do with it.
What the MPAA really needs to figure out is that it's inevitable that all media will eventually be as good as free, and figure out other ways to make money. Eventually, I'm willing to bet, DVDs will be as free as TV - and they'll have commercials every 10 minutes.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I still think that if you want to use the gun analogy, then it is not correct to merely say you just telling people where the gun store is. Because most of the digital media opyright problems stem from the fact (I believe) that digital forms of information can be copied effortlessly, then giving someone a link to information on the net has the same effect as _giving them the information itself_.
But I think that the main cause of digital copyright problems is the fact that digital media can be copied so easily. So easily, in fact, as to make it impossible to deal with the information itself on a bit level - you have to go one level higher. In this case, if I give you the ftp address of a piece of code that could bring down the net (let say!), then I am, for all intents and purposes, giving you the code itself... As another example, lets say that your personal details were stored in a file on a unix box, and someone came along and gave me a symbolic link to that file. You could say that as it wasn't the file itself then he didn't do anything wrong. But I'd argue that he did, and giving me the link was as good as giving me the file...
I don't think this is necessarily a free-speech case. I think a link is more than 'telling someone where it can be found'. It's like handing it to them on a platter. If I was to tell you that you can buy a gun in a gun store, then obviously I have committed no crime. But if I was to leave a loaded gun on the sidewalk outside a school, then a case could be made that I am at least partly responsible for the consequences of someone picking up and using that gun. There are no perfect analogies for what goes on with information on the net, and I think that a lot of the ambiguities are caused by people trying fit the sqaure peg if internet information into the round hole of media we're more used to.
Why even fight this on the basis of linking? Just publish the URL in plaintext and let people paste it into their browsers. An additional 5 seconds of effort for the user (ok, maybe much longer for someone exquisitely lame, but are they going to be looking for a technical CSS crack anyway?). It has the virtue of being on much safer first amendment ground - even more so now with the ruling that source code == free speech. It would be a tough argument to attempt to censor a web page's publication of something that says "www.decss.com". That said, I applaud anyone who has the wherewithal and inclination to battle the MPAA Fascisti in their attempt to stand athwart the internet yelling 'Stop!"
Fair Use Law.
Not particularly related to this 2600 incident, but to another "milestone" incident. I have compiled this information.
The usage of "fucknbc.com" was of critical nature.
According to the Fair Use Law, the fair use (which includes criticism) of copyrighted work may not be classified as infringement of copyright.
---
The Fair Use Law:
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and
106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including
such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes SUCH AS CRITICISM, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market
for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
It is quite a shame, the "2nd Generation of the internet" is going to incorporate all of these issues and compensate for what may be seen as "unjust", whether we like it or not, odds are we will not win the Free Speech battle, or any other battles pertaining to the many other issues of the Internet. Enjoy what you have now while you can.
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
You talk as if DeCSS is contraband of some sort. It's not. It isn't illegal at all, at least for now. There is just a list of individuals and/or entities that are prohibited by injunction from distributing it. 2600 was just telling people where they can find sites that are not prohibited from distributing DeCSS. Therefore, these people are able to obtain the software legally.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think this is pretty similar to what 2600 was doing. Except that they are linking to sites that are legally distributing DeCSS. It is legal for them to do so until they receive a court order to cease distribution of the code. So, while 2600 is prohibited from distributing the code themselves, there is no reason they can't tell you where you can legally obtain the code. Anyone find fault with this logic or legal guesswork?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Define "traffic" in this case. How does telling someone where they can legally obtain the DeCSS software from a site that is legally allowed to distribute the software constitute trafficking?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think a link is more than 'telling someone where it can be found'.
Actually that is exactly all it is. If the person has the proper tool, in this case a browser, the browser will do the work of making that link a clickable entity and take them to the site where they can download the software, legally I might add, since the sites that 2600 is linking to have not been ordered by the court not to distribute DeCSS. Therefore, they can legally provide the source to anyone who wants it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The people downloading the software are not breaking the law, so 2600 is not helping anyone break the law. The sites that are being linked to are not prohibited from distributing the DeCSS software because the MPAA has not gotten an injunction against them. Therefore they can legally distribute the software and the people downloading it are not breaking the law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Why doesn't the MPAA just come out and say it. "We hereby expressly prohibit you from doing anything with this DVD that we don't want you to do." End of story. Instead they try using vague laws to take away our fair use rights. I wish their losses were a hell of a lot more than $2.5 billion. They deserve it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
2. Source code is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Is HTML considered source code? It's doesn't really do anything until it's interpreted by a browser.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Next thing you know, you'll tell us that freon should be illegal because car thieves use it to get rid of the club in a heartbeat.
Freon IS illegal, isn't it? Maybe I missed some sarcasm or something.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It is worth noteing that 2600.com is the main target of these actions. The reason is quite simple. They have little in the way of public simpathy and even less in the judicery.
Remember that 2600.com is the same site that spent the last few years screaming for the releas of "The worlds most dangerus Hacker".
The last time this hapend was when Lary Filth ( AKA Lary Flint of Hustler Magazine ) was sued for slander vulgarity etc...
The Times and the Post stud byhim in there own interest. Where are VA, MSNBC and ZDNET now ? This WILL come back to haunt you all.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
The legality of putting up such a site isn't important - you would be breaking the law by scouring the net for kiddie porn, and that is how you would be prosecuted. If you put up such a site, and allowed individuals instead to submit links, I suspect your site would be kept alive by law enforcement agencies looking for such content.
Your ISP might find you in violation of your TOS, though, and I'm sure Johnny Law would find some way to shut you down, once you outlived your usefulness.
In any case, drawing a parallel between DeCSS and child pornography is specious, as I'm not aware that DeCSS had been ruled as contraband yet. I'm only aware of preliminary injunctions against certain website operators. The (il)legal status of kiddie porn, however, is well-established.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
So... what if I put up a whole page of _links_ to child pornography. Call it www.kiddiesex.com, but I don't host any of the images. However, I scour the net every day to find images, and keep my links up to date, sort of a convenient one-stop-shop for your kiddie porn needs.
Would this be legal?
It's not really any different from the DeCSS case (as far as linking issues go) - the material linked to has been declared illegal, at least in the US. Now, you may not like the fact that it's illegal, but if it is, I imagine that you're not immune because you simply linked to it.
What do you think?
---
I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing here. The 'deep linking' is where you point to some page, or image, or something, thats inside my website, and allow people to surf to/view it (Thereby bypassing any obnoxious advertising, etc) . The injunction against 2600 is for linking to a certain page (deCSS) that the MPAA thinks is illegal.
-=Bob
% date
Wed Apr 5 19:21:51 BST 2000
%
% ping www.2600.com
ping: unknown host www.2600.com
%
% nslookup 2600.com
Server: tr505.mediaconsult.com
Address: 192.168.1.1
*** tr505.mediaconsult.com can't find 2600.com: Non-existent host/domain
%
Hmmm. Must be our ISP or us or me or something.
\a
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Did anyone else see the latest EFFector? The trial is scheduled for December 5, 2000. Sheesh, I had no idea that it would be so far into the future. That means that these injunctions last I long time. I know it's peanuts to them, but I really hope MPAA loses that $10k deposit they had to pay when the first injuction went into effect. When all is said and done, after at least 8 more months of suppression (and probably more), the defendants will deserve a lot more than just $10k.
Hey, EFF, if the judge actually grants this injuction, try to at least talk him into making MPAA put up more than just a token this time.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ah, I see what you're saying. An analogy is like one of Stalin's speeches, distorting the truth. Explaining things by analogy is like me writing a program that computes a result, instead of using math to derive the result.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Using analogies is for the weak-minded; it's like making up a bunch of stuff when one can't think of anything truly relevant to say.
It's like running a bad joke into the ground.
(Moderators: don't mark this up as funny. That would be like marking something insightful down as a troll.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
There is a very important difference here. In your analogy you were the one to place the "gun"/"code" there, not someone else. 2600 is not the one who is publishing the DeCSS code, but only the one pointing to where it can be found.
It means that if you are running a website linking ot the mateiral and also use the material to copy a DVD, you are guilty of:
One count of posession a pirated copy of a protected work.
One count of copying a protected work.
One count of circumventing the protective measures around the protected work.
One count of running software capable of circumventing the protective measures around the protected owrk.
One count of posessing above software.
One count of distributing said software.
And probably one count of illegal use of a computer, as the computer is now a 'tool of crime' or sometehing.
It can be illegal when the whole point of the judges injunction is to PREVENT THE SOFTWARE FROM BEING DISTRIBUTED.
He can ban you from discussing it with anyone. He can ban you from telling someone where to get it. He can ban you from communicating it's wherabouts by any means, to anyone.
Until the trial is over, of course.
A good analogy.. He let some guy borrow his map, yellow pages, and phone book. It's not his fault if the guy ends up robbing a store after learning it's location.
You know what? As much as people say 'CSS doesn't prevent copying...'
Well. Let's just look at it this way.
Did people make digital copies of DVD *before* DeCSS came along? *NO*. Why not? BECAUSE IT WAS ENCRYPTED.
Sure.. SOME pirates can purchase the $$$ equipment to do it... but does joe average univeristy kid? NO!
Now.. what with stuff like DivX (the algorithm, not the player) we see poeple slamming amazing quality movies (not quite DVD, but really really good) on a 650MB cdr.. and those movies came from where? converted from raw, decrypted dvd data.
So, actually, full-length movie copying *IS* just around the corner. Many people already have sizeable collections. And this is JUST the beginning.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
I've just had a thought and since it's such a rare occasion, I thought I'd share it. I'd like to compare DeCSS to another illegal productpot.
Point #1
It is illegal for me to own pot just as it is illegal for me to have a copy of DeCSS. AFIAK there is nothing illegal about me NOT having pot and yet telling my friend that I know someone else who has pot and may be willing to part with it.
Point #2
The pot (hemp) people have their own magazine (High Times). They lobby Congress to legalize pot, talk about pot, how to use it, and sometimes where to get it and all that is covered by their first amendment rights. But somehow it is illegal for me to say, "I think CSS sucks and the MPAA are money grubbing bastards. We are trying to get this software made legal and in the meantime, as an expression of my first amendment rights to free speech, I'm thumbing my nose at the MPAA and here is where you can get this software" That's bullshit.
I guess its a good thing that no big companies make pot substitutes. Or pot access control software.
Skippy
"False modesty is the refuge of the incompetent." - The Stainless Steel Rat
Or, in more pedestrian terms, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
Excuse me, but what court ruled that deCSS is illegal? I thought a judge only decided that allowing deCSS distribution might cause harm, and his injunction tried to stop its distribution while the case continued...
If we are allowed to link to the DeCSS source code, are we allowed to link to it using the data: URL scheme that is defined in RFC 2397? That would, of course, be exactly the same as mirroring it; but there's no limit to the amount of hair-splitting that legal nonsense can lead us to.
If your browser supports the data: URL scheme (pretty damn unlikely, really), then you should be able to read this document.
$2.5 billion?
$2.5 billion???
I'm not even sure twice that much has been made off actual DVD sales! If characters like the ones in the MPAA can get away with throwing around numbers like this, they'd better start saying just where this piracy is coming from. If they don't tell John Q. Public, we will.
DVD has been out for...a little over three years.
DeCSS has been out for...eight months.
In that time, the number of DVDs pirated using the utility can probably be counted on my left hand, not counting my thumb. I sure don't see a wave of DVD piracy in warez channels - over the summer, I was more likely to encounter VCD piracy, for obvious reasons. Even that's died off now.
$2.5 billion.
If the MPAA is serious about this number and not just pulling a Clinton, and if they were really, really serious about cracking down on piracy, they sure as hell wouldn't be bleating about a little utility that people are more interested in using to watch their own, legally-purchased movies than to Screw The Man. They would be pushing the feds to put pressure on piraters in the US, and nations that turn a blind eye to piracy. I'm forced to conclude the MPAA is either made up of hypocrites (quite likely), or outright liars (damn near proven).
I just might whip out my old "Stop the MPAA" posters and start covering Toronto in paper. Publications that repeat this stuff are going to get letters. Hell, I might produce a short feature on the case - I've always wanted to get started in freelancing. After all of the crap we've been through, trying to link a questionable $2.5 billion to DeCSS put me over the edge. The Big Lie is being told. Are we going to answer it, or sit here, preach to the converted and get squashed?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Why?
e _searchbox&sv=IS&lk=noframes
Well, let's see.
http://www.mpaa.org/about/
Click on Walt Disney company.
Drop down menu to the Go Network
Click Go to the Go Network
Type 2600 in the search field.
This Returns the URL
http://www.go.com/Titles?col=WC&qt=2600&svx=hom
And the first link is www.2600.com - the Hacker quarterly.
HOLY SHIT! The MPAA links iteself to the DeCSS code.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
But no comments about the latest MPAA action yet. 2600 News should have Emmanuel's comments on the latest action if he chooses to say anything.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Earlier today when I was posting this on our website, http://www.2600.com was not reachable at that time. No word from Emmanuel or Macki as to why, but I would just assume for now that it is unrelated to the stories.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Just imagine the implications for them...
It's exactly because that information wants to be free that those of us with privacy concerns don't dare let it out. My passwords want to run wild across the net, into the hands of every cracker; no law could stop their wild rampage. Therefore I must keep them tightly caged, and don't even share them with friends. My SSN wants to be spray-painted across billboards all over the world, where identity theives will take it for their own; once it gets out even the FBI and Secret Service couldn't stop it, so I must keep it well-leashed, not even divulging it to my doctor.
"Information want to be free" doesn't say what those affected by the information want - it's a value-neutral statement about an emergent property of data-flow in highly connected systems. You can't half-share a secret.
I think it was Twain who said "Two can keep a secret - if one of them is dead." Same thing, a billion times bigger.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Yeah, but in the past, it's been possible to keep large organizations from doing illegal things (they're too visible and have too much at stake). That effectively kept the general public from finding out about it. There will always be a few people who knew about it before it was declared illegal, but if you can keep them to a dull roar, you've wiped it out as best you can. For instance, warez still takes some knowledge and persistence to get (the general population only knows the web and its pr0n banners... irc, hotline, etc. are usually only passed by word of mouth).
Now information travels much faster, so companies like Napster can get their products or services become known to the general public before the law can do anything about it.
(begin flame war about whether or not napster is illegal...)
--
There is also this quote:
I object to the words "content protection" and "legal." The movie studio's actual idea of content protection is to control your use of content they produced even after you've bought it. The idea of content protection they are trying to put forth concerns "piracy" which impractical for DVDs using current technology. Note that even though I'm sure people will object to that statement, "but it will be practical someday!" the fact that casual piracy of DVDs is currently impractical is far better protection for content in an anti-piracy sence than the flimsy and pathetic protection offered by CSS. I object to the word legal because it implies that OpenDVD is illegal, as opposed to contested. It would be like calling a contested, unauthorized biography that was being tried in slander court an illegal biography. Again, the word legal is loaded in this context. Oh, and the quote from Lord Jack Valenti is of course absurd, a deliberate attempt to dumb down the concept of the Internet. I think most people should know what linking is, and they know it is essentially drawing a map rather than transporting. I could write a JavaScript that would be more like the transportation he refers too, i.e. click on my page and be automatically shunted to a page with deCSS content.Of course, this shouldn't be surprising coming from a magazine which has the headline, Geeks Protest, Nobody Comes , which is literally untrue. (This is the correct use of the word "literally" in other words, saying "Nobody Comes" is a lie because there were actually people at the protest.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The MPAA is not a corporation, and therefore cannot be a corporate monopoly. It is an association of corporations, each competing against each other.... The constituent companies of the MPAA are not monopolies. They all make movies, and try to make more money than the other guy.
I believe the NFL was found to be a monopoly when it was sued by the players union. I don't see much structural difference between it and the MPAA.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
IMHO, if code is Free Speech and linking is also allowed, the last problem remaining for DeCSS is to prove to/convince the judge that utilities that crack (cheap) encryption are legal, "fair use", consumer-protection applications of free speech.
Of course, IANAL, but when is the US judicial system going to decide in favor of consumers instead of in favor of huge maney-making corporations? One gets tired waiting for a little sanity in the entire copyright/patent/money-grabbing mess that rages around Open Source...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Man, when are these crusty-old judge buffoons goign to get it.... getting the code off the net is impossible. I personally get an updated copy every few days, just in case it ever DOES go off line, i can upload it to a smany sites a s possible.
Someone should write a macro virus that saves the source code in a .txt file on everyones system :) That'd be cool.
I think it depends on whether they were linking directly to the source itself, or a web page that contained the source. I believe it should be legal to link to page which contains the source, either as a link or as text on the page, because you have no control over what's on the page. You could have a link to a page with somethign legal, and the owner of the page changes the links on the page and links to DeCSS or puts up kiddie porn pictures, or whatever illegal thing you can think of. You have no control over what is on the page, and could be linking to something illegal without ever knowing it (because the page was changed after you made your link). If you link directly to a file (either a picture in the kiddie porn example, or the DeCSS source code in this one) you know exactly what you are linking to. To use an example, in the first case, someone is asking you where they can buy a stolen watch, and you tell them to go and see Vinnie down at the corner. In the second example, they go and see Vinnie, and Vinnie hands you the gun, and you hand it to the person. You're personally involved in the transaction, not just pointing them in the right direction.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
if Alice asks Bob where to buy cocaine and Bob tells her to go to Cathy and Cathy really is a coke dealer, then Alice has committed a crime (unless maybe if Bob was an investigative reporter or a cop and Alice was providing the information under the understanding that Bob wasn't actually looking to buy coke).
If I put up a sign in my window saying "There lives a coke dealer in the appartment across the street" Is that a crime? I don't tell a specific drug user how to get his stuff, I tell everyone including reporters and police.
(In reality I would have a hard time. If the drug dealer's goons don't get me, the Coca-Cola companys lawyers will :-)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
As I see it this case is a match between two "divine" rights: Freedom of speech vs Right to property.
Now that is a hevyweight match indeed. Both sides have massive support, but nobody (I hope) wants any side to get knocked out.
So the key is to shift the attention to the other arenas, preferably one where your side has more support. "We" prefer focus on the "Little guy vs megacorp" match, the MPAA tries to point the cameras on "Law abiding citizen vs evil pirate"
The MPAA has the resources to spread the fight over many rings, we need to avoid losing fights.
(and when I say "we" I mean "I and those who agree with me")
All opinions are my own - until criticized
So we've gone from announcement that a legal will be available soon to the press saying one is already available although it of course isn't available.
If you go to the Intervideo Website, you will find no mention of Linux, a Linux player, or even any announcement on their News page.
Verdict? The Intervideo Announcement is part of an MPAA FUD campaign to weaken their opponents position
My other .sig is funny
XML causes global warming.
What? I hate to tell you this, but with some interesting modifications you can get a copy of DVD in mpeg-2 content using a licensed DVD player in Windows. There are utilities that you can download for Windows that are specifically for taking advantage of some of the players to get a copy of the content. Are you telling me that with these things already out there that DeCSS is going to destroy the movie industry? Hell no! First off, people who buy the pirated versions probably weren't going to buy the damn thing in the frist place. You lose no money from people who were never going to buy (this is my argument for why estimates on damage from software piracy are bunk as well). I am so sick of this. Yes, you can get a copy of a DVD and use it to distribute illegally using deCSS. You can do the same things with stuff in Windows. With these tools already out, for much longer then deCSS was out may I add, deCSS adds nothing to the picture.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
For example, if I told you that you can buy cocaine at a specific liquor store, using certain passwords, I haven't committed a crime.
I do not know about elsewhere in the US, but in Michigan, it is a felony (4-15yr) to tell someone where they can obtain an illegal controlled-substance. (Personal experience)
The charge is "Aiding and abetting the distribution of a controlled substance." and I was charged with it after I told a 'friend' to call another mutual friend when he asked me if I knew where he could get a certain herb. Well, lo and behold I was charged with that felony, but the charge was later dropped because it was lame.
I can give directions to a drug dealers house, and there is nothing illegal about it. If you go there and buy drugs you may face repurcussions, but I have done no wrong. This is a tactic that TV news crews have done for years, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
That's it. I'm copying the list of all sites mirroring the software to my page. I say, mirror the mirror page :)
kwsNI
Let see, the phone company gives out addresses, the city gives out addresses. We should sue them all!
Fight Spammers!
Did I miss something here? As far as I know, there has been no trial, only a preliminary injunction. Are you trying to say that a preliminary injunction against 2600.com somehow makes this software illegal?
Anyone can still legally post and use DeCSS under the assumption that they are using it for compatibility as guaranteed by the DMCA. Under any form of copyright law, it is and has always been illegal to use DeCSS to make copies of movies and redistribute them.
Let's face it, the reason why the MPAA went after 2600.com is because they are an easy target. They posted the code along with statements that this code could be used to pirate movies. Should doing this be illegal? Probably not, and hopefully this case will set a precedent on the matter. Is it illegal to sell a gun by advertising things like "Hey, you can kill people with this gun!"? I don't know. If I am considering killing someone and then I see a "gun control" PSA that says "Guns kill people", who goes to prison then?
<RANT>
What I do know is that killing people and/or robbing their homes is a hell of a lot more serious than decrypting some bits. If you steal someone's car, they no longer have a car. If you kill someone, they are dead. If you pirate a movie, the MPAA is out $20. Fuck the analogies, Mr. Valenti, and talk about the real world. You want to continue to be paid for providing a service that open source and broadband technology has rendered obsolete.
</RANT>
A choice of masters is not freedom
C'mon, Jack, get it right: His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they can get to their own house!
---
> First, anyone notice that the Wired article acts
> as though LinDVD is already available, as opposed
> to vapourware?
---
Actually, I'm miffed at more than that in this Wired story. Not
only did they mislead the reader into thinking that LinDVD is
available, but:
1. I believe they mis-characterize DeCSS when they say it is a
utility "that copies a DVD movie disc... to a computer hard disk."
Yes, the unencrypted movie can be saved to a hard disk, but DeCSS
isn't doing that. It is just doing the decrypting. (I've never
used it, but this is how I understand it to work. Am I right?)
Either way, Wired is certainly sucking up to the MPAA when they
only frame the functional definition of DeCSS as "copying" and
exclude "playing."
2. In describing LinDVD as "a legal player for Linux" they imply that
DeCSS is illegal. Right now, its legality is still up in the air.
The MPAA thinks it should be illegal, the rest of the world does
not. The judge will decide whether it is or not. Right now,
LinDVD is the only *authorized* player. DeCSS is simply not
authorized.
However, I did have to smile at the quotes from Jack Valenti,
president and CEO of the MPAA. Anybody with half a clue can see he
doesn't understand a blinking thing about today's technology or about
the implications of it. (Implications, of course, other than putting
money into his pocket.) Talk about a cow needing to be put out to
pasture...
DeCSS is not a controlled substance, nor is it considered contraband of any sort. DeCSS was not outlawed by the court. An injunction was obtained against specific individuals and/or entities that prohibits them from distributing DeCSS. Aside from the use of the word "traffic" in the ruling, which I'm still not clear on the meaning of, it doesn't prevent them from telling people where they can go to download the software legally. The sites that are being linked to are not under the injunction and can legally distribute the software.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
According to http://www.techweb.com/wire/stor y/TWB19990112S0011, just over 9 million DVDs were sold in '98, an increase of 600% over the year before.
Presume the same increase for 1999, giving 9 million * 6 = 54 million DVDs. What does a DVD cost these days? $20? A bit more? Figure printing, packaging, and media costs, and profit's probably $20 or less. So, 54 million DVDs * $20 each is roughly $1.1 billion.
Someone is seriously screwed up in the head if they expect anyone to believe that even though blank DVDs cost more than pre-recorded ones, somebody (a whole industry of somebodies, from the looks of it) has managed to turn a profit selling over twice as many DVDs as the entire motion picture industry, even with the help of country codes and other monopolistic advantages?
I would certainly like to see the chain of reasoning that supports the MPAA's claim, especially starting from the same figures I've got. Further, even if this were true, the MPAA has the gall to say that this piracy is due to DeCSS, and that everyone who apparently bought two pirated DVDs would have been willing to pay full price, so the MPAA in fact lost a sale, which also is a false assumption.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if they lost a tenth of what they claim, in all the years since DVDs have been for sale.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
The deep linking ruling had only to do with whether or not a website can file suit against another website for providing 'deep links' into it's content.
ie: Some ticketing website providing 'deep links' directly to Ticketmaster.com's ordering page for the appropriate tickets.
Ticketmaster said that this was illegal, as the other site is using their own content in an unapproved manner.
The judge said that as long as it is clear that the user is being sent to a different site, and the information is not presented is if it were it's own, it's fine.
Wow. Too many pronouns.. anyway...
As for the 'free speech' argument.
Remember, a judge can *ALSO* censor an original work if it is in question, whether it is source code or not. He can attest that the original authors of that work cannot legally publish the information contained in the work.
Probably not, because the guns in gunstores generally aren't illegal. Telling someone where to get an illegal gun, if you know or should have known that your information would lead to an illegal gun sale probably is a criminal offence. In general, the act of aiding criminal activity is criminal.
To use an analogy from another rabid, politcal, over-the-top area of law enforcement, if Alice asks Bob where to buy cocaine and Bob tells her to go to Cathy and Cathy really is a coke dealer, then Alice has committed a crime (unless maybe if Bob was an investigative reporter or a cop and Alice was providing the information under the understanding that Bob wasn't actually looking to buy coke).
- bridgette
If we can pirate that much in so little time, we could certainly get out movie trailers and advertising as fast.
Why bother with TV Ads?
One must wonder how much in damages have been generated by their and Mattel's lawyers lying or manipulating the truth.
Fight Spammers!
The code is not a lockpick. It is not a bus. It is not a gun or the sky or a fucking mallard duck. Listen to the lawyer earlier in this post. These stupid analogies hurt the effectivity of our case (in court and in the court of public opinion). SHIT would you just listen to yourselves..."NO the code is an egg salad sandwich, only I can put it in my shoes because they are my shoes." "WORNG IDIOT: the code is egg foo young, and you can make a kickass yarmulke (little jewish hat thing) out of egg foo young. It's not just for dinner". "OH BS: If I shoot them out of a railgun and kill a bus load of hydrocephalic Brazilian Nuns are you gonna be responsible?" "Yeah, but can you imagine a Beowolf cluster of egg foo young." STOP IT FOR CHRISSAKES.
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
The following is a list of all the mirrors from the 2600 site.
Slashdot has long been one of the best true forums for free speech in the world. Link to this comment. Post that link on your website and everywhere. CmdrTaco archives these comments indefinitely, right? Lets see the MPAA take on Slashdot, Andover, and the ACLU (who I'm assuming would back you guys up) BTW: When I click the "Post Anonymously" button, is there any way to retrieve my IP address, or my login info? I sure as hell hope not. Big risk I'm taking here for the sake of free speech... but we gotta do what we gotta do. Right? /css /smith/dvd n crypt.html /4/0/3/403_error /dvd /index.htm /DeCSS.zip .com/wa2/phederalphelony/breakingnews.html /dvd.htm s _are_scu m-sucking_pigs [...] /CollegePark/3807/2600Tribute.html /Curb/1232/DeCSS .com/SiliconValley/Ridge/3727/2600/dvd.htm /SunsetStrip/Towers/1379/DeCSS.zip .zip ://www.oksanen.net/ville/this_is/under/Finnish/jur isdiction/otherstuff.htm /wrobell/css
ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/arobs
ftp://sun.rl.odessa.ua/pub/decss
http://130.111.75.63:142
http://216.35.100.9/ma/kdawson/deecessess
http://24.114.168.235/public/css.htm
http://24.15.107.67/DeCSS
http://24.6.244.114/DeCSS
http://2600.dk/mirrors/css
http://334.se2600.org
http://DVDoutrage.Tripod.com
http://MSD.dyndns.org
http://Winmac.tripod.com/DECSS/decss.zip
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~sd_fort
http://alsscan.webjump.com/DeCSS.zip
http://alsscan.webjump.com/DeCSS.zip
http://amergeisaphreak.netfirms.com
http://andrewstern.freeservers.com/decss
http://artun.ee/~rommi/css
http://benyossef.com/freedom
http://bigpoppa.adsl.alpha1.net/decss
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/clcktwr
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/klflatt
http://budice.ancients.net/decss
http://budsmoker.com/sites/decss
http://bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu/d vd
http://cant-stop-us-all.freehosting.net
http://chaz.fsgs.com/misc/DvD
http://chemlab.org/~dvd
http://cherryville.org/dvd
http://come.to/intelex
http://cs.unca.edu/~dillzc/decss
http://css.choppy.com/data
http://cssalgorithm.8m.com
http://cybertrippin.net
http://cymorg.bizland.com/index2.html
http://dB.org/dvd
http://dandruff.cs.unm.edu/~bap/DeCSS
http://darklord.darkthrone.com/users
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~homeyd/DVD
http://dbzauctions.tripod.com/decss.zip
http://dcwi.com/~wench/decss
http://debian.mps.krakow.pl/mirror/css
http://decss.8m.com
http://decss.cx
http://decss.cyvoid.net
http://decss.fall0ut.com
http://decss.freeservers.com
http://decss.freeshell.org
http://decss.fzylogic.net
http://decss.htmlplanet.com
http://decss.netfirms.com
http://decss.z-man.org
http://decss_files.tripod.com
http://decssmirror.homestead.com
http://deelbeson.detour.net
http://dephile.hypermart.net
http://dephile.hypermart.net/dvdinfo.html
http://developer.dnepr.net/dvdcss
http://dialug.org/html/decss.html
http://dirtass.beyatch.net
http://dlsf.org
http://dogh ousepages.lycos.com/collecting/midnightrider/DVDE
http://donotsueme.freeservers.com
http://donotsueme.homepage.com
http://dosdemon.yi.org/decss
http://dsl129.drizzle.com:2001/downloa ds/DVD
http://dvd.coolpeople.dhs.org
http://dvd.k4dwi.net/dvd
http://dvd.loathe.com
http://dvdcopy.cjb.net
http://dvdcrack.homepage.com
http://dvdcss.newmail.ru
http://earendel.gt.ed.net/dvd
http://ebmedia.net/dvd
http://elknews.netpedia.net/dvd
http://fairuse.freeservers.com
http://freedecss.50megs.com
http://freemymind.homepage.com
http://freeshell.org/~simm
http://friko6.onet.pl/war/mkochano
http://ftp.yodanet.schwaebischhall. de/pub/DeCSS
http://ftso.org/decss
http://geocities.com/donquix0te
http://geocities.com/dontquit222
http://go.to/decss
http://go.to/nairos_dvd
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~deepbleu
http://heavymusic.8m.com
http://heky.org/dc
http://home.att.net/ ~phreakonaleash/ccs_mirror--screw_the_feds
http://home.clara.net/bangor/DeCSS
http://home.cyberarmy.com/drj/DeCSS
http://home.cyberarmy.com/enac/dvden crypt.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~kaos_inc
http://home.earthlink.net/~rocketrob
http://home.earthlink.net/~snagnbytz
http://home.monet.no/~christel/dvd.html
http://home.onestop.net/lakitu/mirror
http://home.pacbell.net/pfconces
http://home.postnet.com/~wsl3/DeCSS
http://home.primus.com.au/ratzmilk
http://home.rmci.net/bert/dvd
http://home.rmci.net/bert/fuckthelawyers
http://home.sol.no/~craphead/DVD
http://home.worldonline.dk/~loadfree/CSS
http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/paul.chan
http://homepage.interacces s.com/~mycroft/decss/DeCSS.zip
http://homepages.go.com/homepages
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~cbunton
http://imezok.tripod.com/Untitled.txt
http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/dvd
http://inferno.tusculum.edu/~neil/decss
http://internettrash.com/users/linuxdvd
http://intfreedom.homepage.com
http://io.spaceports.com/~decss
http://isupport2600.8m.com
http://jackvalenti-ismyhoe.tripod.com
http://jadin.virtualave.net
http://jump.to/decss
http://jupiter.spaceports.com/~decss
http://kb5kjn.karco.org/~alpine/DVD
http://kesagatame.tripod.com
http://kevins.ne.mediaone.net/~kevins/dvd
http://killer.radom.net/~shoggoth/dvd.ht ml
http://leeroy.webjump.com/DeCSS.zip
http://linux.uci.agh.edu.pl/~outlaw/ decss.html
http://logical-solutions.com.au/DeCSS.zip
http://loogham.2y.net/decss
http://magic.hurrah.com/~fireball/dvd
http://mail.sirak.org
http://matt.frogspace.net/css
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/jwhite80 55/DeCSS
http://members.home.net/dgweb
http://members.hometown. aol.com/_ht_a/MysticJTY/myhomepage
http://members.theglobe.com/Greed yMan/greedy.html
http://members.tripod.co.uk/SneakyBat
http://members.tripod.com/donotsueme
http://members.tripod.com/donquix0te
http://members.tripod.com/ny2600
http://members.tripod.com/r-sobin/dvd
http://members.tripod.com/~Denney/DeCSS
http://members.tripod.com/~baloney97/dvd
http://members.tripod.com/~lucvdb/decs s.html
http://members.tripod.com/~sk8or311
http://members.xoom.com/CaitSith16/DeC SS.htm
http://members.xoom.com/LinuxDVD
http://members.xoom.com/NiKeX
http://members.xoom.com/amateursoft
http://members.xoom.com/arjicle
http://members.xoom.com/chapter3/Mamma No.htm
http://members.xoom.com/freedvdinfo
http://members.xoom.com/get_decss
http://members.xoom.com/hairfro/DeCSS.zip
http://members.xoom.com/iamkeenan/master
http://members.xoom.com/iox
http://members.xoom.com/maud123/Home/C SS.htm
http://members.xoom.com/mogreen/decss
http://members.xoom.com/nyc2600
http://members.xoom.com/phireproof
http://members.xoom.com/s_o_sam/help.html
http://members1.chello.nl/~o.seibert/DeC SS
http://merlinjim.freeservers.com/dvd
http://mikedotd.penguinpowered.com/deccs
http://mikedotd.penguinpowered.com/decss
http://mikepark.org
http://mpaasucks.homepage.com
http://natara.freeservers.com/decss/ decss.html
http://ndez.bizland.com/css-auth
http://neil.gotlinux.org
http://netmanor.iboost.com/zachgoss/s imm.html
http://noc.res.cmu.edu
http://nomoredvd.tripod.com
http://ny2600.iwarp.com
http://nycsoftware.com/MirrorList.asp
http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css
http://pages.hotbot.com/arts/weknow
http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/silex/mir ror.html
http://pcmania.bg/9-99/mortyr/_vti_ cnf/_vti_pvt
http://people.mn.mediaone.net/bojay/sl ashdot
http://people.mn.mediaone.net/si mulacrum/decss.htm
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/cy berwave/DeCSS.html
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/dantepsn
http://personalweb.smcvt.edu/wtaylo r/decss.html
http://planeta.clix.pt/DJ_AmAzInG/DVD
http://primate.net/DVD
http://pyrrhic.8m.com/DeCSS
http://quintessenz.at/q
http://rha.housing.niu.edu/~davebb/css- auth
http://rlk.ch.utoledo.edu/DVD
http://sadennes.is.dreaming.org/hanadu
http://saturate.org/decss.asp
http://saturn.spaceports.com/~brainz/DVD
http://screw_MPAA.tripod.com
http://sektor1.dhs.org/decss.html
http://sites.onlinemac.com/beback
http://sites.uol.com.br/decss
http://smokering.org
http://sophien.webjump.com/css-auth_tar. gz
http://st-bart.net
http://strange.8k.com
http://stunman.iwarp.com
http://stuweb.ee.mtu.edu/~krcalh oo/DeCSS/DeCSS.htm
http://sweet.as/decss
http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/moorco ck/337
http://telnet.stealth.kirenet.com/~star
http://the.wiretapped.net/wt/dvd
http://theannux.homestead.com/decss.html
http://thesanitarium.n3.net
http://ts1.online.fr/dvd
http://underground.pl/dvd
http://users.1st.net/roundhere/decss
http://users.1st.net/roundhere/decss
http://users.bigpond.net.au/nf/dvd
http://users.pandora.be/glenn.plas/dvd
http://vandenborre.org
http://vedaa.tripod.com/decss.html
http://w1.1634.telia.com/~u163400190
http://wakeupthe.net/dvd
http://warpedreality.members.easyspace.c om
http://website.lineone.net/~kellypink/D eCSS
http://werewolf12.cjb.net
http://wildsurge.a2000.nu/decss
http://wiw.org/~drz/css
http://wusn-members.xoom.com/ambisagrus
http://www.19f.org/dvd.html
http://www.2600.org.au/dvd.html
http://www.UnderTheStairs.com
http://www.adulation.net/css
http://www.agybby.com/dvd
http://www.algonet.se/~skeleton/other.ht ml
http://www.alltel.net/~ledwards/css.htm
http://www.amerisuk.com/~carbon/css.html
http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/revblack
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/drug me
http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/acidlocke
http://www.angelfire.com/hiphop/rawkus
http://www.angelfire.com/in/sight
http://www.angelfire.com/mb/DVDoutrage
http://www.angelfire.com/movies/DeCss
http://www.angelfire.com/movies/dvdiss
http://www.angelfire.com/movies/mpaasucks
http://www.angelfire.com/nh/panzah
http://www.angelfire.com/nh/panzah/DeC SS.zip
http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/ny2600
http://www.angelfire.com/or2/buzzkill
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/sh3/deccs
http://www.angelfire.com/pokemon/decss
http://www.angelfire.com/punk/DeCSS/DeCSS
http://www.angelfire.com/punk/freedom
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dblagbro
http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/braindamage
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/winger s/decss.html
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/bigbrother
http://www.angelfire
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/leggosfun
http://www.angelfire.com/yt/mpaasucks
http://www.angelfire.com/zine/DeCSS
http://www.artnotart.com/anne/decss.html
http://www.asleep.net/dvd
http://www.asylum.webprovider.com
http://www.auntfloyd.com/DeCSS
http://www.auracom.com/~rhomac/dvd
http://www.azillionmonkeys.c om/qed/recess_for_css.html
http://www.best.com/~drumz/decss
http://www.bugbbq.org/decss
http://www.capital.net/~mazzic
http://www.charm.net/~dutch
http://www.chello.nl/~f.vanwaveren
http://www.cognitronics-tech.com
http://www.conspiracynow.com/theories/d ecss
http://www.constant.demon.co.uk
http://www.copkiller.org
http://www.corecomm.net/~davebb/css-auth
http://www.corova.com/dvd
http://www.cpinternet.com/~jhanson
http://www.crosswinds.net/oakland/~ahrendt/Lawyer
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dvdcrack
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS
http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~feise/DeCSS
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/dvd.htm
http://www.csl.mtu.edu/~pdl athro/filez/DeCSS/DeCSS.html
http://www.ct2600.org/2600-DVD.html
http://www.cybertrippin.net
http://www.cyperspace.org/~multicom
http://www.darkkingz.com/DeCSS.zip
http://www.december.ndo.co.uk
http://www.deforest.org/CSS
http://www.deprecated.org
http://www.dgw3.com/dvd
http://www.discountwebhost.com/decss
http://www.divisionbyzero.com/decss
http://www.dodgenet.com/~nickz/decss
http://www.ductape.net/~alpha/decss
http://www.duffbrew.com/decss
http://www.execpc.com/~unicorn/dvdmirr or.htm
http://www.firstlight.net/~clarka/decss
http://www.flypop.com
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscrap er/coax/1107
http://www.fortunecit y.com/skyscraper/motorola/1415/decss.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/vic torian/parkwood/95/DVD
http://www.frankw.net/decss
http://www.free-dvd.org.lu
http://www.freebox.com/zcedri
http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/mpa aidiot
http://www.fsp.com
http://www.futureone.com/~damaged
http://www.geekbits.com/decss
http://www.geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/Ongakka/rebel. html
http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline
http://www.geocities.com/Res earchTriangle/Station/2819
http://www.geocities.com/Shapierian
http://www.geocities.com/Silic onValley/Hardware/6188
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconV alley/Modem/4192
http://www.geocities
http://www.geocities.com/Silic onValley/Software/3971
http://www.geocities.com/Silic onValley/Software/8762
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5258/de css.html
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhi bit/5771/decss
http://www.geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/ SunsetStrip/Underground/3587/dvd
http://www.geocities.com/Ti mesSquare/Dome/4021/dvd.html
http://www.geocities.com/cold_dvd
http://www.geocities.com/corporatemin dcontrol
http://www.geocities.com/dba3297
http://www.geocities.com/decss2
http://www.geocities.com/decss_2000
http://www.geocities.com/decss_forever
http://www.geocities.com/decss_mirror
http://www.geocities.com/djph3ad/decss
http://www.geocities.com/donquix0te
http://www.geocities.com/duck_ohm
http://www.geocities.com/dvdcracked
http://www.geocities.com/dvdfightback
http://www.geocities.com/dvdrevolution
http://www.geocities.com/dvdsuit/dvd
http://www.geocities.com/dvdthings
http://www.geocities.com/epoxy_css
http://www.geocities.com/fairusedecss
http://www.geocities.com/fr33dvd
http://www.geocities.com/getyourdvd
http://www.geocities.com/ghaniali
http://www.geocities.com/iwantdvd
http://www.geocities.com/k4dwi/dvd
http://www.geocities.com/k4wi/dvd
http://www.geocities.com/ma dasian2000/decss_mirror.html
http://www.geocities.com/mastaflame
http://www.geocities.com/mavic007/decss
http://www.geocities.com/meluchwj
http://www.geocities.com/mydefiance
http://www.geocities.com/necready433
http://www.geocities.com/necready433/dvd
http://www.geocities.com/neurosis_dvd
http://www.geocities.com/opendvdecss
http://www.geocities. com/siliconvalley/computer/2303/DVD.html
http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/67 52
http://www.geocities.com/solidex
http://www.geocities.com/verruktesten
http://www.geocities.com/warrdragon_2000
http://www.geocities.com/watice2
http://www.geocities.com/whackmol
http://www.geocities.com/xtridzz
http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~awirth1/decss
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~castongj
http://www.hackunlimited.com/dvd
http://www.hakor.com/DVD
http://www.hellnet.org.uk/decss.htm
http://www.hobbiton.org/~tpm
http://www.hote.qc.ca/dvd
http://www.hotsoupmedia.com/decss
http://www.idrive.com/decss/web
http://www.iinet.net.au/~matlhdam/DeCSS
http://www.illiterate.net/DeCSS.zip
http://www.image.dk/~mbp
http://www.imsoelite.com/dvd
http://www.infa.abo.fi/~raine/pub/ software/DeCSS
http://www.ironbrick.com/decss
http://www.ismokecrack.com
http://www.jabberwocky.eyep.net/decss.ht ml
http://www.k4dwi.net/dvd
http://www.kentroad.demon.co.uk/decss
http://www.kiss.uni-lj.si/~k4ef1890/css
http://www.kki.net.pl/~rsr66/css
http://www.koek.net/dvd
http://www.krackdown.com/decss
http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS
http://www.lifesolo.com/bin
http://www.linuxnerd.net/decss
http://www.linuxstart.com/~kv ance/projects/decss.html
http://www.linuxstart.com/~sys_admin
http://www.lockpicking.nl/decss
http://www.mafkees.com/dvd
http://www.mayday2000.org.uk/decss.htm
http://www.members.tripod.com/dkdecss
http://www.mindspring.com/~coueys
http://www.mindspring.com/~stonethrower
http://www.multimania.com/sxpert/decss
http://www.mykle.com/DVD
http://www.myshed.net/dvd
http://www.nacs.net/~vodak/dvd
http://www.netby.net/Oest/Hva lfiskegade/jana/css.html
http://www.netspace.net.au/~gromit
http://www.networksplus.net/blogg
http://www.neurosis.org/dvd
http://www.nsnva.pvt.k12.va.us/~abc
http://www.ntsmedia.com/decss
http://www.nvhs.nl/decss
http://www.nwu.edu/people/ldb/decss.html
http://www.oblivion.net/~amar/css
http
http://www.olen.net/deCSS
http://www.oz.net/~tvaughan
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jer24
http://www.penismightier.com/weisha upt/dvd.html
http://www.pepper-land.net
http://www.philter.com/DVD
http://www.pippy.itgo.com
http://www.posexperts.com.pl/people
http://www.projectbullshit.com/decss.html
http://www.projectgamma.com/deccs
http://www.qix.net/~pheonix/decss.html
http://www.ratol.fi/~asiipola
http://www.reapers.org
http://www.redgnatt.homestead.com
http://www.redrival.com/chimx/computer s.html
http://www.robotslave.net
http://www.rpi.edu/~jettea/dvd.html
http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~marsie
http://www.scwc.net/DeCSS
http://www.sealteamsix.com/phagan
http://www.sent.freeserve.co.uk/css -auth.tar.gz
http://www.sk3tch.com/freedecss
http://www.smackfu.com/decss
http://www.spin.ch/~rca/decss
http://www.stanford.edu/~drumz/decss
http://www.stupendous.org
http://www.subcor.com
http://www.subnetsystems.com/decss/dec ss.zip
http://www.swcp.com/~ampere
http://www.tar.hu/decss
http://www.teamnismo.com/2600
http://www.underwhelm.org/decss
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/ree ds/decss.zip
http://www.users.on.net/johnm/DeCSS
http://www.uwm.edu/~zachkarp
http://www.vent-soft.com/dvd
http://www.vexed.net/CSS
http://www.visi.com/~adept/liberty
http://www.vulgar.net/dvd
http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~echerry/dvd
http://www.webnx.com/tuna
http://www.webzsite.com/decss
http://www.wizardworkshop.com
http://www.wolfpaw.net/~decss
http://www.worldcity.nl/~frank/dvd
http://www.wwcn.org/~grit/free
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/dvd
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rasch/dvd
http://www.zeal.net/~pyro/DeCSS
http://www.zip.com.au/~zzz/dvd
http://www.zone.ee/DeCSS
http://www3.50megs.com/dvd4free
This is an obvious free speech case - telling people where something illegal can be found is protected speech. For example, if I told you that you can buy cocaine at a specific liquor store, using certain passwords, I haven't committed a crime. If you use that knowledge, you have. If I broadcast that knowledge, I've given the police a very useful tip.
2600, by putting up a pointer to the DeCSS source, is aiding law enforcement by letting them know where this supposedly illegal product can be found. Therefore, it is not illegal, it is a public service in aid of law enforcement.
If the MPAA get this idiocy hammered through, then it would be the death of the internet as we know it. If one can be held responsible for the contents of the links you have, or of the links links, then you can be held responsible for .. well, nearly anything.
If the judge allows this to happen, he cannot have much knowledge about the internet. And, it would be a catastrophy. I don't know exactly what can be done, except for a huge demonstration on the day the ruling is. And then I mean HUGE. This needs to get media attention.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Check the Spring 2000 edition of 2600, Emmanuel wrote that they will be doing something similar to what you are saying if they keep getting muzzled, down to publishing it in paragraph form (I think, copy of mag not here at my desk, but I remember the editorial).
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
First, anyone notice that the Wired article acts as though LinDVD is already available, as opposed to vapourware? You and I know differently, but this adds to the innacurate "Linux DVD players already exist, so those DeCSS defenders must be pirates" line that the MPAA PR department's been doing a good job of pushing lately.
Secondly, I really hope the court gets a clue and doesn't grant the injunction. It has to be made clear by the defense that making a site responsible for linked-to content would make:
- All search engines illegal
- All compiled indices (eg. Yahoo) illegal
- Any bulletin-board-esque site which allows posters to post links (eg. Slashdot) very vulnerable to spurious lawsuits
- Hell, any site that links to any other site (ie. virtually any site on the web) very vulnerable to spurious lawsuits
You might be able to argue that (1) and (3) don't count because the site authors don't exercise any editorial control over the links, but (2) and (4) are pretty analagous to what 2600 is doing.[TMB]
how they came up with the figure of $2.5 billion per year in damages caused by "pirated" DVDs. It sounds like they're trying to imply that it's all due to DeCSS, and I don't buy that story at all.
---
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
Then 2600 could post a list of sites that provide lists of sites that distribute the source code.
If this is found improper as well, then they could post a list of sites that provide lists of sites that provide lists of sites that distribute the source code. And so on.
As soon as 2600 was ordered to stop linking to lists of lists, then that would mean that any site linking to 2600 now (for example, Yahoo! or Slashdot) would also be in violation of the law.
If that's the best they can do, feed 'em to the hamsters.
Precidents are ALWAYS very important, in a case like this. Far more so than actual logic, so by bringing up as many precidents on as many legal points as possible, you should be able to walk it.
Precidents that could be used:
Between these legal decisions, I am -certain- that 2600's legal team could absolutely fry the MPAA's challange, and set a precident wrt the DeCSS code which could shatter the existing lawsuits.
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)
*sigh*
Ok, let's go over this again, redundant as it may be. (*duck*)
It is legal for any one individual or corporation to link to anything on the internet, whether it is immediately accessible from the originator's website or not, including frames, etc. The judge mentioned that it should be mentioned, however, that the linked-to content was not originating on the website from which the link comes. This means I can embed a frame into my homepage that shows, for instance, a movie clip that's on Apple's website. The place that is being linked to can not protest against this in any legal manner. (But there're technical ways around it)
However, in this case, 2600.com is linking to sites that have software which was deemed illegal, yes, ILLEGAL by a court, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 2600.com has been stopped, by court order, from posting the software on their site, and are circumventing it by linking to it. Whether we like it or not (and I hate it), this is just a sneaky way around a court order (i.e. providing access to material banned by said court), and the judge probably won't like it at all. This has nothing to do with deep linking - said linking referred to a person's right to link to something (perfectly legal) even if the people on whose site it is don't want that to happen.
Unfortunately, people have been sued over linking to illegal material (MP3s mostly) before - Slashdot posted a story of the Swedish Kid who was arrested and sued over linking to MP3s on his site (an arrest initiated by the RIAA, and no, it's not the deCSS guy
Seriously, guys - this is the real test, the one we've been waiting for. Is it illegal to LINK to material that is deemed 'unworthy' under our laws? To use a gun metaphor (which will probably start a flame war)
I guess this'll finally show how free the system really is.
Alex T-B
Following the MPAA reasoning, and the familiar theory of six degrees of seperation, the next injunction will ask that any site on the internet that links to a site that links to a site that links to DeCSS (including any links to search engines) and any web browsers with built-in Search buttons that link such sites, must be shut down until further notice.
It's actually just part of MPAA's master plan of getting all the current users of the Internet to start going to the movies again.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
- "He is transporting individuals electronically to locations in order to facilitate the illegal copying of DVDs. His behavior is analogous to driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home."
Not true. This is more closely analogous to telling someone the address of a home to which they then burglarize. URLs are very much like road-side billboards. Pointing someone to a web site containing materials they could use to break the law is no more illegal than selling someone a gun -- unless it can be proven that you are aware of their intent to break the law. It is far easier to suggest (and later prove) the links are a form of protest. AND, 2600 isn't wisking you away to someone else's web site -- you have to click the link.- According to the MPAA, the pirating of DVDs poses a "serious threat" and costs the organization $2.5 billion per year.
I really want to see the supporting logic and finacial analysis in support of such claims. DeCSS is nothing. How much does a DVD-R drive cost? a DVD-R blank? How long does it take to burn a 3.9G DVD-R? Even given the increasing consumer internet access speeds to which a surprisingly few people have access, moving a 4GB movie around is difficult. And there's no economical means to store the digital copy. (Ok, a 4GB DDS-2 [4mm] tape is under 10$) One would assume the professional crook would be a much more serious threat -- they don't care what you put on the disk; they make a near-molecular copy.When digital VCRs become a common thing, then there will be a problem. HDTV will force this issue. (It'd also be nice to be able to direct record from a DSS system. DishPlayer is a nice start.)
- McNelis said without this additional injunction the first one would be "worthless."
I'd have to say first injuction was also worthless, but go right ahead and file away. 2600 has obeyed the first injuction -- they are not hosting, distributing, or publishing the DeCSS source code. They are, however, hosting a page where people can add links to their own content (one pressumes it to be DeCSS, but 2600 hasn't indicated any verification of any kind; I could, for example, add a link to CmdrTaco's resume *grin*) Again, 2600 is only breaking the law if they are distributing DeCSS (this would be in violation of the prior restraining order.) They would be an accessory to a crime if they they had foreknowledge of one's illegal use of DeCSS downloaded by following the link(s) on 2600. But then, so would the site from which the DeCSS program was actually downloaded.- "We are hopeful that consistent with the court's earlier ruling, the activities of the defendant constitute trafficking and the illegal act and the court will stop him from doing it," said Litvack.
That certainly is a liberal definition of "trafficking"... Last time I checked, we still had the right to peaceful protest.It's illegal to manufacture cocaine. It's illegal to sell cocaine. It's illegal to posses cocaine. But it's perfectly legal for me to tell you where you can go (and/or who to see) to buy some cocaine. The police may harass you, but you cannot be arested and jailed for merely knowing where to obtain cocaine.
This is insane! This is analogous to me getting thrown in jail for telling someone where my neighbor keeps his crowbar, because they might go borrow it and use it to commit a crime!
The MPAA has lost it's mind. Is it just a case of too many lawyers trying to manufacturer a need for their services, or are the media execs really that power and money hungry?
Our contemporary thinker and philosopher, Michel Foucault suggested that the theories generated by theorists and supported by power mold an individual and alter his/her behavior accordingly.
So, for example when Sigmund Freud came out with his theories on sexuality, the power started promoting these theories. It promoted, boosted, intensified, magnified and tried to keep our attention to the subject so constant, that we started to believe in these theories.
Such theories are suggestive and they are prescription to actions and views. so for example constant discourse about sexuality on Oprah is the same promotion as constant advertisements of potatoe chips. When people are constantly reminded of food, they become hungry. When people are constantly reminded of sex, they become horny.
In case of DeCSS, power constantly reminds us about this case. In fact by not keeping quite, RIAA promoted, intensified, and constantly reminded us about the case. I believe that they hurt themselves by doing this and should they have kept quite, much fewer people would have concentrated their attention on the subject. By displacing attention, the subject would have stayed (as it was intended) for a much fewer spectators.
NICE GOING, RIAA
May be those people never read Freud and Foucault.
You can't handle the truth.