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. "
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
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.
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'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...
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
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.
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
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.
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!"
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...
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.
DeCSS sued
Openers of encryption
The crime is knowledge