Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS Update
First, the Openlaw forum has filed an amicus brief in the case. This is a legal "position paper" filed by people who aren't directly involved in the case but have some interest in the outcome. The Openlaw participants developed it in a collaborative manner primarily using a public mailing list. The brief is intended to address the continuing injunction that the judge issued which prohibits publishing or even linking to the DeCSS code for the defendants and anyone acting in concert with them.
A completely separate issue has also come up within the past week. The MPAA has asked the court to seal the depositions given by their witnesses, claiming that they feel threatened due to receiving hostile email sent to their main contact address, hotline@mpaa.org, and probably prompted by a previous slashdot story... Depositions are question and answer sessions conducted under oath before the trial actually begins, so that the opposing lawyers have some idea of what people will testify to when they're actually in court.
The defense has actually offered to redact any home addresses or personal information from the depositions, and the mail that the MPAA received is no more hostile than any good flame, so it's rather doubtful that the MPAA could truly feel threatened. Most likely, they don't want to see quotes from their executives to the effect that DeCSS is not responsible for any illicit copying published far and wide.
John Young writes "Cryptome has submitted a statement to Judge Kaplan in opposition to MPAA's motion for a protective order to bar revelation of deposition materials. A hearing is scheduled for June 6.
"Read the MPAA's motion for the way complaining e-mail has been used to justify its appeal closed depositions... Anyone can submit a statement in opposition to or in support of the MPAA motion for protective order to bar the press and non-parties from revealing deposition materials. It must be submitted in hardcopy (no fax, no e-mail) to Judge Kaplan by end of day June 2, 2000 (4PM EDT is the hard and fast deadline) at the address given in the letter above.
"Cryptome will accept e-mailed statements in opposition or in support to the motion, print them out and submit them to Judge Kaplan on behalf of authors who cannot themselves submit hardcopy. Send to: jy@jya.com, with the subject: Protect Free Speech. "
In the latter case the consortiums that own CSS technologies would be in an awkward position. They would have to examine everything published using the technology and refuse anything with dubious copyright status. This would leave them open to charges of censorship and and monopolistic practices.
If this motion's granted, we will lose access to timely information that can help 2600.
When we know what's going on, we can spread the word and send advice with an immediacy that has never happened in civil law. MPAA has realized that this case is OpenLaw 1.0; they don't know what to do when an organization like 2600 gets support and advice from around the world. Lawyers like nice, orderly precedent. There is no precedent here. That's one of the big reasons Garbus took this case.
MPAA is like a a drowning sailor, /'ing out at support, but still able to cling to a few life preservers, like this motion to suppress.
Abusive, inflammatory e-mail only gives those buggers room to manoever. Keep your cool, but keep up the pressure. Don't fall prey to the emotions of facism. Blind, reactive behavior is easy to suppress in a court of law, and MPAA's legal team knows plenty of ways to stuff a sock in our collective mouth. Rational actors can do far more damage to MPAA in the courtroom than abusive e-mail and knives can ever hope to accomplish.
You can kill a man, but you cannot kill an idea
Does "rather have a large piece of a small pie than a small piece of a large pie" come to mind?
Yup. It's a commonly used business strategy when market share is the goal rather than actual dollar figures. Amazon does it with their patents. MS does it with Java (and is trying to do it with every other tech on the planet, too). The list goes on.
This could be a good argument to make in front of the judge. "Your honor, according to the plaintiff's own business practices they are more interested in maintaining their monopoly than in innovation..." Of course that would be more a antitrust issue but I think the point can be made in this case. After all, if it can be effectively argued that certain provisions of the DMCA harm consumers, it's all the more likely the law will be watered down or certain parts of it ruled unconstitutional.
What else could be said about this?
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
What about backups? My friends with VCRs tell me that a normal video tape has about a 25 playing lifespan. They further claim that their kid love to watch the same movie more then 25 times. Therefore they copy the movie so that when the copy wears out they still have to orginal to make anouther copy. (Generally the kids gets bored someplace in the middle of the second copy)
My expirence with music CDs is that they get scratched, and they do not take heat well. You can now buy VCRs, and I presume DVD players for use of backseat passangers in cars/SUVs. When blank DVDs come down in price I belive it will be common to make copies for personal use so that the orginial isn't damaged in harsh enviroments.
Lets assume that 99% of DeCSS users are illegaly coping DVDs. That leaves 1% with a legal use, is it right to restic them?
Considering that OpenLaw is composed of both lawyers and programmers, its not surprising that some of the more "childish" tactics have been shot down. The DeCSS case could well be critical in determining the legality of "anti-circumvention" laws, and so it important that the hacker community doesn't "blow it." On the other hand,OpenLaw forum has tried to defend the world wide linking campaign. As for the faux DeCSS program-- you might be interested in reading some of the forum's archives
Amusingly enough, though, they're more expensive than a genuine .uk domain, which costs £7.50 for 2 years at http://www.f2s.net. The subscription form is available in MS Word or PDF formats.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
He's just out to defame me, I guess. None of it makes much sense to me.
Bruce Perens.
Remember: Lawyers are trained to intimidate people. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated. Answer factually and rely on your lawyers. You have my best wishes!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
get your DeCSS and M$ Kerberos here... :P
Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
Bonus points for getting the quotation.
Sam TH
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
If you haven't got a copy of the file, they can't ask you for it -- they don't know you ever had it. Is simple prudence and best practice for data security now against the law ? Presumably not, until you are notified to retain everything related to the case. At which point one unsubscribes from lists, alerts everyone you have email contact with, and so on ?
Clue me in, someone ?
Camaron de la Isla 'When I sing with pleasure, my
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
This is the reason not to email hate mail/threats to the MPAA or RIAA. The people who did that gave the MPAA ammunition in their effort to keep the lawsuit out of the public eye and out of the press.
I think it's amazing, DVD's popularity in the face of the controversy. Compared to CDs, for instance, DAT was great. However, it had the grubby fingerprints of Control on it, players were only made by a few companies, and ultimately it didn't see widespread use. I think this is largely due to freedom and availability of players and copying tech. Meanwhile, CDs, Cassettes and VHS videos, which are easy to copy and have a great many companies distributing players, make tons of cash and see widespread distribution.
Well, for me the issue has always been the longevity and copyability of the format. I've only ever bought a couple of video tapes because they wear out, and I can't make perfect backup copies. It just never made sense to me to buy a movie under those conditions. VHS is fine for renting, but I look on my media collection as a library, not a consumable slowly going bad in the fridge. The same argument applies to audio as well. I've only bought I think two cassette tapes in my life, as compared with something like 300 CDs.
So even though the dvd format is a technical disaster (and because it's a lossy format we'll be stuck with most of its silliness forever) I've started buying movies. Because the discs will last decades and because I'll be able to make backups as new storage media becomes available. Not that I won't buy re-releases in 30 years when a higher-resolution format becomes available.
That's what's motivated me, anyway. I suspect the durability and improved quality of the format has most to do with its success. That and the studios standing behind it, unlike laserdisc. I doubt the average buyer is terribly aware of the CSS controversy.
Today I wrenched my back while placing my CSS protected DVD of Apocalypse Now in my DVD player. While I do not suggest the plaintiffs were responsible for this deplorable incedent, had the CSS protection been absent I could have played the DVD in my computer, which runs Linux and is at a height that does not require me to bend over. I recently posted an anti-MPAA post on Slashdot, and this deplorable incedent reinforces my claim that CSS is harmful and inflicts needless pain on programmers everywhere. (strange but true -- feel free to forward to the judge)
So civil disobedience is childish to you?
What do you think of people Ghandhi or Martin Luther King?
Were they childish for refuing to compromise their beliefs?
Just because you don't like a behavior isn't a good enough reason for you to start calling names.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
All the filings relevant to my case are on http://www.eff.org. Press coverate was really good early on, but the California case has really been overshadowed by the 2600 case.
There's an article on my case on pg 96 of last month's Wired (the one with the cute asian chick on the cover).
The reason the 2600 case has gotten more coverage is because, frankly, it's more interesting. For the DVD CCA to sue people all over the world under California trade secret law is pretty ridiculous. Not only that, but they're completely in the wrong. The consensus within the community is and has always been that decss was not "illegally" reverse-engineered.
With the 2600 case, they're being sued under the DMCA... this law has two conflicting clauses. Our side quotes the clause that says it's OK to break the encryption for purposes of interoperability. Their side quotes the clause that says you can't distribute tools to break the encryption.
So, to resolve the 2600 case, a very important ambiguity in the DMCA will have to be cleared up.
Hi. I'm Andrew Bunner... one of the named defendants in the DVD CCA case.
/.
On June 6th, I'm due to give my deposition. Here's what's happened so far on this topic. We're right now in the "discovery" phase of the trial which means we have to give them stuff and they have to give us stuff.
I've been asked to provide copies of everything I've ever written or read about DeCSS or any other technology used to encrypt images. Huh. I guess they want my copy of PGP.
They're probably going to try to take my computer from me so they can comb through the hard drive at their leisure.
We're going to object to this course of action since my drive is full of nuclear secrets, FBI informants and the witness protection database. Not to mention the fact I do all my work from this box.
On the 6th, I'm heading down to Cupertino to meet with a bunch of the plaintiff's lawyers, a court recorder and a bunch of our lawyers. Then they're going to swear me in and ask me questions all day.
My lawyers tell me that is expressly prohibited for them to apply electrodes to my nipples during the questioning process.
Although I can't be sure, my guess is that their line of questioning is going to be aimed at showing that somehow I knew or should have known that DeCSS was a stolen trade-secret. Their case pretty much hinges on this.
This will be hard for them since they are trying to prove a falsehood.
I'll ask my lawyers if I'll be allowed to talk to the press about the deposition after it's done. If so, I may try a summary to
Anyhow... wish me luck!
(*) Note that the MPAA case depends on a much different section of law. The DVD CCA is suing me under California trade secret law. 2600 is being by the MPAA sued under the DMCA.
I, for one, do not own a DVD player. I am being a little cautious (and more than a little broke), and want to know how things are going to pan out before chucking down my couple hundred dollars with which folks can fuel their legal crusade against those who'd want to watch dvd video from an 'unregistered' platform (say, Linux).
I think it's amazing, DVD's popularity in the face of the controversy. Compared to CDs, for instance, DAT was great. However, it had the grubby fingerprints of Control on it, players were only made by a few companies, and ultimately it didn't see widespread use. I think this is largely due to freedom and availability of players and copying tech. Meanwhile, CDs, Cassettes and VHS videos, which are easy to copy and have a great many companies distributing players, make tons of cash and see widespread distribution.
Of course, now I'm just babbling.
--ben
-- build a man a fire and he'll be warm all day. set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Wouldn't it be perfectly legal for, say, a no-name electronics manufacturer to reverse engineer a hardware DVD player in order to create a compatible DVD player to sell to the market?
Would it be just as legal then for the same electronics manufacturer to reverse engineer a Windows DVD player, and then apply that to hardware, to create a DVD player to sell to the market?
Then wouldn't it be just as legal for them to just package a PC with a software DVD player, crafted from their efforts of reverse engineering, to sell to the market as a DVD player?
Besides the difference of selling a player to the market, how does anyone see DeCSS as any different, other than the ability and desire to spread the information on the market via the Internet?
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Someday, the industry honchos will figure out that DeCSS can actually be very good for DVD. The technology, if used correctly, can actually be used to generate a much wider market of DVD users, and produce higher sales of DVD merchandise.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
As the 'other' defendant in the DeCSS/MPAA case (ct2600.org) I would like to extend this opportunity to the MPAA:
You can, only for the next 24 hours walk away from this case. You may send me in writing your letter of dismissal cc Judge Chatigny at my home address or contact my Legal counsel.
I know this may seem odd to many but I just don't want the MPAA to be wasting their time on a case the will not nay, cannot win. Since it's inevitable that we (Emmanuel and myself) will win these cases I thought I would let the MPAA off the hook now... if they choose... I understand that we all make mistakes.
With love,
Jeraimee Hughes
a.k.a. A.Sleep
ct2600.org
DO NOT TAUNT THE OCTOPUS
the .cx TLD is for Christmas Island, a small Island in the Indian Ocean, just south of Java.
.cx domains are freely available and cheap. 20 UKP for the first year and 10 for every year afterwards. International TLD's are sort of fun, because you can make up nifty domain names like yes.no or eat.it ;)
Well, both are wrong. HTML is really about mapping one quantity of information to another relevant quantity somewhere else. The fact that it can sometimes also be used to specify the layout of that information is a side-effect and has been largely poorly bolted on (as demonstrated by the numerous ways different browsers have of rendering the same page, within appropriate leeway).
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I've heard the argument that DeCSS isn't useful for piracy--this is mostly crap. Sure, professional pirates could already copy DVDs bit-for-bit, but home users can't since there's a small section that's pre-burned on most DVD-RAMS that prevents that.
And real blank DVDs (not DVD-Rs) cost upwards of $50 for a home user.
DeCSS is useful for ripping DVDs so they can be encoded in MPEG-(pick a number) format, and then distributed through your local warez d00d.
That would kinda defeat the purpose of ripping a DVD; I may as well go download a DivX video or rent a tape. I reiterate the words of Jim MIller, Warner Home Video president, back on Jan. 11 to CNN: "There is no economic incentive to pirate this product." Translation; a pirate wouldn't save any money using this method. A full MPEG-2 ripped DVD is several gigabytes, and an MPEG-1 downconversion is still nearly a gig in size. Even then, a movie burned to a VCD can easily span discs; keep in mind, there is no layering system for CDs like there is for DVDs, much less home-burned ones.
Until a good number of people get home access to the equivalent of T3s or greater, ripping DVDs and sending them out won't be a problem. It's a straw man created by people scared that their precious control method was figured out.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
DeCSS has two uses: ripping DVDs for distribution over the net, and integration into an open source linux player.
I've heard the argument that DeCSS isn't useful for piracy--this is mostly crap. Sure, professional pirates could already copy DVDs bit-for-bit, but home users can't since there's a small section that's pre-burned on most DVD-RAMS that prevents that. DeCSS is useful for ripping DVDs so they can be encoded in MPEG-(pick a number) format, and then distributed through your local warez d00d.
The legit use of DeCSS is to build an Open Source linux player. With the advent of one or two closed source Linux DVD player projects (with the blessing of the DVD consortium), why do we still need this? For all the reasons Open Source is superior to closed source. The commercial LinuxDVD player will probably be x86, at least at first, which means my iMac running Linux PPC is SOL. In short, for the freedom Open Source gives us (insert RMS or ESR rant here).
Is it right to ban something because one of its uses is for piracy? IMHO, no. What if it's primary use is piracy? That's much more difficult to decide...
Of course, piracy is not the only claim the DeCSS opponents are making. They also claim DeCSS was created illegally. This is, to my knowledge, bull, as it was created outside the jurisdiction of DMCA, and CSS was cracked through reverse engineering, not industrial espionage, so there was no illegal theft of trade secrets.
As I understand things, there are two ways to protect proprietary technology: patent it and make it public (but nobody else can use it for 25 years), or keep it a trade secret (anyone is free to do it as long as they come by the knowledge legally). CSS was a trade secret, not a patent, so, now that the cat is out of the bag, there's not much the powers that be can do from that legal angle.
Yes, I am ignoring DMCA. Why? The US isn't everything--I personally don't live there. Most countries don't have DMCA-like laws, but they do have trade secret and patent laws.
If someone can convince me that the primary use of DeCSS is a Linux DVD player, I'll firmly support the effort to fight the restraining order. Otherwise, I'm not so sure what's right...
I should remind you that as "radical" as it sounds, my view is in fact the status quo. Until recently there was no question that you owned your copy of a book or recording or any other sort of copyrighted material. Software, movie, and recording companies are trying to extend their rights under copyright law to levels that are completely unprecedented historically. The questions that we should be asking is why should we grant them these extra rights? In this time of soaring profits, do they really need more control in order to stay in business? Will these expanded rights be good or bad for us as citizens and consumers?
I do not advocate eliminating copyright, but recent advances in technology are forcing us to reexamine its role in society and in the marketplace. Old laws will have to be scrapped, and new ones written to replace them. When that happens, social justice, not profit margins, should be the primary concern.
-rpl
One of the basic principles of our society is that people have the right to use and dispose of their personal possessions however they see fit. The recent trend toward licensure of goods instead of sales threatens to undermine that principle by stripping the common man of his ability to own any possesions at all; instead he will license them and use them at the suffrance of the companies who retain ownership. As we saw with DIVX, that license can be revoked at any time, and for any reason. For movies on DVD, maybe that isn't such a big deal, but for truly important goods (say, your car, or your home, or the textbooks you need for your education), licensure keeps you under the thumb of the license holder for as long as you need to use "his" goods. DeCSS is about fighting this trend on every front. It's about not starting down the slippery slope that leads from unimportant stuff like movies and entertainment to the things that really are essential to modern life. Petty concerns like piracy, or even Linux, pale by comparison.
Bringing the subject back to DVD specifically, I think the DIVX fiasco has spooked a lot of people. People that thought they had bought a permanent copy of a movie on DVD suddenly found that they could lose that copy (or, more correctly, the right to watch that copy) at the whim of the company that had sold it to them. This has made a lot of people skittish about any scheme that separates them from the content that they have legally bought and paid for. Few people want to be dependent on the good graces of an organization like the MPAA for anything, not even something as trivial as one's movie collection. (Speaking of DIVX, does anyone know if DIVX discs use CSS? If so, then that might be another legitimate use of DeCSS; DIVX-silver owners could recover the movies that they are no longer allowed to watch owing to DIVX being discontinued.)
-rpl
...asking for an agreement that the transcripts and video tapes not be disclosed to persons not directly involved in this litigation...
I'm sure that everyone on the internet is directly involved through them wishing to take away our right to fair use. So therefore they should let us all see the Depositions.
Judges should not take into account anonymous hate mail presented by a petitioner as evidence that there is a credible threat against the petitioner.
This is because the petitioners can create throwaway accounts, generate as much hate mail as they feel they need, and send it to themselves.
The same applies to Anonymous Slashdot postings, as well.
(This is not to say that there haven't been genuine stupid emails and postings. But who knows how many, if any, of them are real?)
"On the internet nobody can tell you're the MPAA." B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
IANL, but I play one in the shadowbox show in my head.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll
get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
NUKE THE MPAA
Send them all a mail to hotline@mpaa.org!
Don't do that. It's a childish waste of time and could end up backfiring.
If you want to participate constructively, I suggest you join Openlaw's mailing list. If you want want to rant and raive then I suggest you go to a WWF match.
1 June 2000
, and that most of them appear to be signed by their originators, common sense would seem to dictate that the few threats received are childish outbursts that don't represent actual intent to harm.
Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re: Universal City Studios, Inc., et al v. Reimerdes, et al, 00-CIV-0277
Opposition to Motion for Protective Order
Dear Judge Kaplan,
This is submitted in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a protective order, May 30, 2000.
My name is Bryan Taylor, and I am a member of the public who has followed the DVD litigation on the internet since its inception. I have followed nearly every legal filing, every news story, every judicial decision in this case since it began. I oppose the overreaching protective order now before you. This is yet another in a series of legal maneuvers brought solely to secure tactical advantage.
Any member of the public has a right to follow the details of litigation that may affect the boundary of free speech, fair use, and legitimate sharing of information for reverse engineering. This is an important case which will set an important precedent that will affect the public. The mere possibility of "big money" interests overprotecting their intellectual property rights at the expense of rights traditionally enjoyed by consumers, scientists, and programmers is one that I believe demands public scrutiny.
I have studied the extensive resources available from a variety of sources on the internet that are relevant to the DVD cases. These include mailing lists and their archives, court documents, online discussion forums, news sites, news site feedback forums, government cites, online databases of US and European statutory and case law, as well as the websites of the plaintiffs, defendants, and their respective law firms.
In my research, I have encountered many levels of discontent with the position of the MPAA, et. al., in this case. I have not, however encountered anyone who seriously advocated violence or other forms of criminal harm to the Plaintiffs. The emails submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs represent a variety of opinions, a few of which clearly go beyond the range of acceptable discourse. However, considering that these emails appear to have been sent to a public point-of-contact email address (hotline@mpaa.org) which is advertised on the Plaintiff's website at http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm
The handful of threatening emails, which like all the emails submitted, are dated in January of this year. In my observation, emotions have cooled somewhat in the following months. These isolated threats from half a year ago bear no relation to the effect that will be produced by allowing open access to the deposition and discovery material. I make this observation having tracked many similarly relevant documents that have become available over this same half year.
Based on my observations participating in Harvard's Openlaw/DVD project, the effect of preserving public access over the internet to the raw source or original materials is that intense scrutiny will be applied to the documents. As of 6/2/00, the mailing list program lists 171 Openlaw participants. These include a self selected group of lawyers, professors, students, programmers, scientists, and technology people and other interested members of the public. The diverse backgrounds and self-selected nature of our forum ensure a high degree of quality and rigor in the discussion.
Typically when a new document is posted somewhere on the internet it will come to the attention of someone in our forum who forwards the link to the rest of the list. Often a discussion will follow. If mistakes, inaccuracies, or misrepresentations are present, the diversity of the participants will likely lead to the truth being flushed out. This works on both sides of the argument.
In several cases, members of our group have contacted non-participant experts to settle questions. The range of knowledge accessible in such a way to our diverse group is immense. Openness and calm public examination foster truth seeking and truthfulness. This should benefit the parties, their attorneys, the Court, and Justice generally. The desire for public access to the material in question is not intended for any other purpose than to seek the truth.
For these reasons, I hope that you will deny the Plaintiffs motion to hide important deposition and discovery information from the public. If there are any situations that call for confidentially, I hope that you will treat them narrowly and restrict only the minimal content needed.
Sincerely,
Bryan Taylor
Take a look at the MPAA's FAQ about DeCSS and copyright in the digital age - it would be funny if it weren't so downright scary.
http://www.mpaa.org/Press/DVD_FAQ.htm
Among other things, they claim Fair Use effectively no longer exists:
It is a right to use what is available, not a right of access to works for fair use purposes.
Most importantly, this concept of fair use does not override specific statutory enactment such as the DMCA, which are intended by Congress to give clear protection to the rights of the creative community to use technological means to protect its product.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Declan McCullagh of Wired News along with Mike Goodwin, senior legal editor of E-Commerce Law Weekly, are filling a motion today to open proceedings in this case to the public:. 060200.html
http://www.politechbot.com/dvd/intervene.motion
...both ears and the tail.
Wendy Seltzer deserves a lot of credit for the coordination and sorting wheat from chaff.
Now, as to depth and quality of legal arguments which the non-lawyer participants came up with on their own, well, you've been surprised before :-). As a class, programmers are intelligent and logical and very hard-working. IF someone can break them free of their tendency to repeat "This is how it SHOULD be" (instead of dealing with how it IS), then all the qualities that make one good for at coding a program can be harnessed in the service of coding a brief.
Since anyone can write as a watcher, but relatively few people can write as anything else, the balance seemed to favor pressing whatever advantage I had to distinguish my letter.
This has been a highly political case from the start. That's one way of viewing the reason that the MPAA is trying to choke off the information flow.
Honorable Lewis Kaplan
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
Dear Judge Kaplan:
I would like to add my voice in opposition to the plaintiff's Notice Of Motion For Protective Order of May 30, 2000.
I am a signatory to the amicus curiae brief of openlaw participants in Universal v. Reimerdes Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information. This is a case where networked participation through use of the Internet is not a buzzword or cliche, but a reality. The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs. Have the plaintiffs shown any evidence at all that would justify such drastic consequences? Please deny their motion.
Sincerely,
Seth Finkelstein
Senior Software Engineer
OpenLaw/OpenDVD participant
Additionally - try to compete with them...
There's currently a (first?) attempt at making
an entirely GPLed movie at
http://www.freefilm.cx/.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
As one of the lawyers who helped (a little) to write the thing, I found it enlightening also.
It is no secret that I was highly skeptical at first, since I've been writing briefs the old-fashioned way for longer than many here have been alive. But I was quite pleasantly surprised with the process and the result, and, giving credit where it is due to Wendy Seltzer, most of the credit does go to programmers, not lawyers.
As those who were involved know, the brief was a lot shorter than it could have been, for good tactical reasons. But I was fairly well amazed at the depth and quality of legal arguments which the non-lawyer participants came up with on their own, backed up by legal research they had never done before.
It is worth reading for many reasons, not least of which is to show that there are things which slashdot readers can do besides just post their outrage here.
-J, a lawyer who made minor contributions to the brief.
The problem with that is there is *no* way to get enough people to stop watching their movies. A good portion of people don't care what the MPAA is doing... they just want to see their movies.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
It seems an awful lot to me like there are three distinct angles on the whole DeCSS mess - those who want DeCSS stopped in it's tracks (like the MPAA), those who want to see if nothing else a REASONABLE solution to the issue (like the OpenLaw forum), and those who want to use anarchistic, practically childish methods to wear down the MPAA's defenses ("Hey! I wrote a program that strips Cascading Style Sheets!")
Please, if you're trying to make a point about what should be done in this situation, COLLABORATE! It's time WE all pull together and JOIN the forces for whatever side we agree with. Let's not attack each other and drag the matter out.
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
MPAA will just forward the email to your ISP, who will shut off your access for "illegal activity."
Will I retire or break 10K?
putting out my copy by email
:)
As a Malaysian, I totally agree. We Malaysians are a bunch of street thugs who run around with choppers slashing anti-MPAA people!
:)
P.S. Wanna see my Chopper?
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
It sounds to me like the MPAA is not liking the bad publicity they are getting. If a savvy politician clued in to the rising sentiment against the MPAA, due to their censorship and monopolistic practices, it might be very bad news for them indeed.
Well I looked, and the two emails below seem
_ __________
to be the only two real "threats" that I saw.
content: If you even dare try to put forward your litigation
and lawsuits, I will kill you and your lawyers and anyone else
who supports you in your fight against piracy. I will also kill
your attorneys and judges who think piracy is bad.
Also, I hope kill at least one thousand of you!
I have hired several hitmen to kill
Elian when comes back into cuban soil
They repeated this email? Elian.... heh....
REDACTED
Subject: Fwd:fuck you
Screw you. You mother fuckers need to learn what
battles to fight and when to fucking learn the laws
you think are being broken. we're going to kill each
and everyone of you.
_______________________________________________
Do You Yahoo?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Boy, Yahoo has some good advertising. This seems
to be a more believable threat than the first one.
My Personal Favorite.
Austin; Kathy-
From: Anthony Teague [ATeague@arcmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:29 PM
To: hotline@mpaa.org
Subject: 2600 magazine
You guys fucking are assholes. I hope you all rot in hell. Goddamn corporate
lackey fuck-up capitalist shitheads. ANARCHY!
But what really bothers me is this claim...
8. On May 24, 2000, a country manager for the MPAA in Malaysia was returning home from dinner with a female friend when the two were confronted by a man who brutally slashed the friend's face, inflicting a wound which required 22 stitches to close. Again, while I do not suggest that defendants were responsible for this attack, I believe, based on the circumstances known to me, that the attacker intended to hurt the MPAA representative, rather than her companion, because the MPAA representative had received threats recently as the result of her anti-piracy work, and that this deplorable incident reflects the very real danger faced by MPAA personnel and others who work to fight piracy in an increasingly contentious atmosphere. Similar incidents have occurred in the past.
I guess MPAA personnel don't have too much to
worry about, as their "attackers" don't seem
to bright, attacking the wrong person and all...
* Copyright infringement is not piracy. Few geeks walk around with knives in their mouths saying "Arrgh! Avast!"
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It's about an alleged "right" the merchant has to insist on selling encrypted, controlled-access intellectual "property"* and then to bring the full force of the state to bear upon people who hack around the encryption. It's about the alleged "right" of the merchant to enjoy the protections of copyright while encircling, diluting, and ennervating the rights of Fair Use and First Sale. Yet these rights are well-established prices one must pay to enjoy the protection of copyright.
The MPAA and other intellectual "property"* owners want to eat their cake and have it too: They want the government to protect them but they don't want to uphold their part of the bargain. They want unprecendented control over access and content use, yet they want to rely on the precedents for enforcement and protection.
To be succinct, the MPAA does not want to play fair. And I think this is the chord that has been struck. I hope you can forgive the following Americentrism, but that's where I'm from. And I believe that Americans have a very deep and abiding belief in fair play. Sometimes (many times, even) we do wonders convincing ourselves that the thing in our own interest is also the most fair -- but I have real faith that most Americans can recognize the grossly unfair and that most are repelled by it.
* Intellectual property is property in the way that fool's gold is gold.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
And what is this?!?!
He is blaming DVD activists for the attacks of a street thug. The sheer gall amazes me.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
From: John Schultz[johnschultz@mindspring.com]
.. Did they just need to fill up paper?
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 12:45 PM
To: hotline@mpaa.org
Subject: DeCSS
Shame on you. you jack-booted thugs. The lies you're telling to the ignorant courts will come back to haunt you when the public catches on.
OK - some of the other notes were 'threatening', but this one?
-
air and light and time and space
My question is about the idea of a signatory to the amicus curiae and the effect of writing a letter to a judge. After all, a judge is not supposed to be a politician, right? However it seems that nowadays judges in high-profile cases must consider politics on par with complaints, ordinances, statutes, laws, rights, and constitutions. If not moreso.
I think it has been demnonstrated many times that once people realize that "others are watching" something going on such as a court case, people start to really think about the decisions being made. It's easy to go to work, throw a couple of unknown bums in jail, and throw away the key, but a in a case that's being watched avidly by hundreds, if not thousands?
I encourage people to also write in expressing interest in the case, if not to just let them know that people are paying attention
. Make 'em lose some sleep.
[pink beam of light]
It's probably too late in this case, since a subpoena has already been issued and post-subpoena attempts to conceal the data might be considered obstruction (perhaps someone with a legal background can comment), but people who have an expectation that their data may be subpoened ought to consider encrypting the hard drive. It appears to be a difficult thing (at least in the U.S.) to compel disclosure of the password. "As a practical matter, getting past the encryption may not be easy, but there are several approaches to try. First of all, the computer crime lab or the software manufacturer may be able to assist in decrypting the file. Investigators should not be discouraged by claims that the password "can't be broken," as this may simply be untrue. Some can be done easily with the right software. If that fails, there may be clues to the password in the other evidence seized--stray notes on hardware or desks; scribbles in the margins of manuals or on the jackets of disks. Agents should consider whether the suspect or someone else will provide the password if requested. In some cases, it might be appropriate to compel a third party who may know the password (or even the suspect) to disclose it by subpoena (with limited immunity, if appropriate)." And there's always the "I forgot it" claim. One word of warning, though: one well-known person (sorry, my memory fails me) encrypted his hard drive, and the government refuses to give it back to him until he gives them the key. They claim that he might have dangerous material on it (nuclear launch codes, perhaps?) and need to inspect it before returning it. Keep off-site backups.
Further info on how the government goes about conducting information searches can be found here. (I am not a lawyer).
I'm bored of action-packed shoot-em-ups anyway.
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
DeCSS sued
Openers of encryption
The crime is knowledge