Slashback: Lunacy, Cinema, Parliament

Beating plows into ploughshares, turning lead into gold, casting new light through windows opened only just last week, it's another spellbinding outbreak of Slashback. Stand back, breathe slowly as the scent of humble correction wafts over you, mingling with the essence of new and perhaps intriguing information. Bruce Perens, too.

"That's not censorship, mate. This is censorship!" Carnage4Life writes: "After causing a murder trial to be aborted last month CrimeNet has been ordered by the attorney general of the Australian state of Victoria to be shut down. If the site operators refuse to shut down they will face jail time. The story can be found here. In news which can only be considered related, an anonymous kangaroo wrote: "Found a reference to this article on LISNews. Seems the Aussie Parliament pitched a hissy fit when their internet access got filtered. Oh gee, how the fsck do you think the rest of the country feels?" How indeed. That's what happens when you start introducing clashing premises, I guess. Geese, ganders, sauce.

To the moon, Alice -- To the moon! We've frequently linked to NASA photos from Slashdot; what if they said "(registration required)" after them like links to the New York Times? MousePotato writes: "NASA announced today that it has entered into an agreement with Dreamtime Holdings to provide multimedia coverage of astronaut activities. The press release details "creating a state-of-the-art multimedia portal, www.Dreamtime.com, that will, with the click of a mouse, open the door to thousands of images, sounds, documents, blueprints and plans from NASA's currently underused archives. " Interesting to note about it is the fact that they will be using HDTV to give us as well as NASA engineers high quality video." Interesting, too, that billions of space research tax dollars are being used "to create new market opportunities in the multimedia arena."

Does this mean I can watch my -- errr ... "classics" again? The DVD-under-Linux story continues, specifically with an update on LinDVD; soon, the MPAA's claims that there are legal DVD players for Linux users may hold at least a sprinking of water; johnnick writes: "Another update in the DeCSS saga. One of the arguments for DeCSS was that there was no legal DVD decoder for Linux boxes. CNET reports that InterVideo, a licensee of the software that enables DVD information to be decoded, plans to release beta software called LinDVD this month that allows people to watch DVDs on Linux machines."

Microsoft not making a run for the border: Calz writes: "Both Microsoft and B.C.'s Investment Minister have denied that Microsoft is considering moving, as reported in this Yahoo article."

In other news from planet Microsoft, the indefatigable Bruce Perens has this to say about mixed-case licensing:

"Microsoft has been caught in a trivial, easily remedied, GPL violation, which is detailed here. They have been contacted, and their response was, well, dumb.

Why do companies get involved in trivial GPL violations? Because the company picks up Free Software as part of one of their products without making a commitment to do the simple, easy, inexpensive things that are required to comply with the Free Software license. Folks, if you can't comply with license requirements as easy as those in the GPL, find other software, please.

One of these examples comes up at least once a month, and I'm going to keep submitting these stories until the situation improves. Maybe that means forever. Today's wakeup call goes to Microsoft corporation, read the account from Tim Burlowski. "

As Bruce says, this looks like a relatively easy one to fix. It could be explained by the complexities of mergers and acquisitions, general confusion, alignment of planets etc, but eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, including as applied to software. Unless Microsoft would like to declare all EULAs null and void ...

Comments

Is LinDVD Intel-only?

[Stephen VanDahm]

I mean, what if I want to build a Linux machine with an Alpha processor? Or what if I want to use LinuxPPC on an Apple computer? In order for something to count as a DVD player for Linux, it ought to be available for all the different platforms that people run Linux on. Otherwise, it's just a DVD player for i386 Linux, which means that DeCSS is still needed.

I guess you can extend this argument to other operating systems, too. Is there a DVD player for BeOS, and *BSD? If not, DeCSS is necessary.

Take care,

Steve




========
Stephen C. VanDahm

Re:Microsoft/Interix Source Code

[SgtPepper]

This argument, too, has already been disproven. A COMMERCIAL distrubution CANNOT satisfy Section 3 of the GPL simply by linking to GNU's website. The GPL says this EXPLICITLY in Section 3(c):

Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) ( bold is mine )

They need to use sections 3(a) and 3(b) which to paraphrase state:

3a. Put the source code in the distrubution
3b. Make a written offer, good for a min. of 3 years saying you'll give them the source code, at a price no more then it takes to distribute, in a way commonly used for software interchange.


Linking to gnu.org's website falls under 3(c), which is invalid for them, putting source on their site follows 3(b) which is what they need to do. Specially since there is no gaurentee that they have not tampered with source code.

It's a common misconception.

Re:Legal DVD

[Sloppy]

It will never matter. The whole "there's no legal player for Linux" argument was irrelevant from the very beginning, probably created as a strawman by an MPAA sympathiser.

And either way, it's product-tying. They're tying the DVD purchase to the DVD-CCA's license fee. It doesn't matter if you're "forced" to buy a copy of MS Windows (and a Windows player) or "forced" to buy a copy of LinDVD, in order to play your DVDs. You're still having give additional money to DVD-CCA and establish their monopoly position. Making your own player or getting it from a totally unrelated organization should always be an option.

And since they insist that everyone pay that license fee (and agree to those atrocious license terms) and are suing people over it, I will always counter-insist that the player I use be unlicensed. If someone wants to make money selling a commercial DVD player for Linux, they should advetise it as being unlicensed. I bet they'd outsell LinDVD, because a lot of people really do care about this issue.

---

Re:Legal DVD

[kaphka]

This doesn't directly answer your question, but... The DMCA makes all protection-defeating software illegal (and DeCSS clearly falls under that, no matter what it's actually used for.)

However, exceptions must be made, if "persons who are users of a copyrighted work are... adversely affected by the prohibition... in their ability to make noninfringing uses... of a particular class of copyrighted works." If there are no legal DVD players for Linux, then that exception clearly applies... but if legal players appear, the argument loses a lot of its weight.

Personally, I think that the DMCA is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech (i.e. code.) But until we can get it overturned, that's where it stands.

Re:Microsoft should move, but to...

[hypergeek]

Great... next thing you know, Billy-boy's travelling back in time to the 1960s and building a giant "lay-zurr". (It's a well-known fact that the Evil Empire is a Seattle-based corporation!)

Fortunately, GNU Time Transporter 0.1 was just released, so the world will be saved by Richard M. "Danger" Stallman.

Re:Aussie Parliament censorship

[mjj12]

This article is about the state parliament of NSW complaining about their internet access being censored. The silly censorship laws were passed by the federal parliament. Therefore, it isn't actually the same people being hypocritical. (The article does use the word "State" once, but otherwise expects you to figure it out from the fact that the people named are all state politicians, which is easy if you are an Australian, hard if you are not).

Michael.

Fun with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it would be an interesting situation to find a GPL violation in Internet Explorer.

"It's part of the operating system, so you have to open the entire operating system."

MS would then reply...

"No!!! It's not part of the operating system. Look, here's an uninstall for it. You can even take it off of your desktop. You can't have the entire source, just the source to Internet Exploder."

Legal DVD

[Booker]

If a legal Linux DVD player comes along in the middle of the trial, that's all very well and good, but it shouldn't affect the trial, right? There was no player at the time the alleged crime was committed...

I don't think the presence or absence of a legal player should have too much bearing on the legal issues involved, in any case....

---

Re:Legal DVD

[Cyberdyne]

If a legal Linux DVD player comes along in the middle of the trial, that's all very well and good, but it shouldn't affect the trial, right? There was no player at the time the alleged crime was committed...

It shouldn't matter whether there is an existing player or not. One case is being held under trade secret law: providing the `trade secret' was obtained legally, it is no longer protected. Reverse engineering for compatibility reasons is a guaranteed right in Europe (under the Decompilation Directive), meaning reverse engineering a DVD player to work out how to play DVDs is perfectly legal. Scratch one `trade secret'.

The DMCA case is more difficult; DeCSS can be used to copy DVDs, which could well make it illegal under the DMCA. It's the DMCA which is in the wrong here, not DeCSS, but the law doesn't (yet) take that view... :-(

I don't think the presence or absence of a legal player should have too much bearing on the legal issues involved, in any case....

Indeed - otherwise, the first `legal' player could secure a legally enforcable monopoly, at least on that platform. (Would the DVD CCA resist money and/or pressure from the members to refuse licenses to competing players? I wouldn't bank on it.) DMCA or not, we [should] have an absolute right to reverse-engineer any product in order to create a competiting product of our own.

Actually, I think a specific law to that effect could be good - absolutely prohibit the use of patents, the DMCA, `trade secrets' etc. to block competition.

Re:Legal DVD

[RobNich]

DeCSS can be used to copy DVDs

DeCSS cannot be used to copy DVDs. Once you have decrypted the information stored on the disc, if you put the MPEG onto a disc, no DVD player will play it. DeCSS can, however, be used to get a digital copy of the MOVIE off of the disc. This can be done by other means, all of which lower the quality of the movie. However, since you must compress the movie to get it to fit on a VCD or to be downloaded, the quality is lost in that stage instead.
DeCSS does not make it easier to copy or pirate AT ALL.
Although this is a matter of semantics, I think that those of us that write about this need to make this clear in our writings. Don't forget that the press does occasionally read slashdot.

Re:An Interesting Quandary

[gendal]

Could Microsoft just like to the GNU web site and say, "Here's your source code!"

No - Section 3c of the GPL says:

"This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution ..."

So - they can't just point to someone else's source and make them incur the bandwidth costs.

IIRC, LinuxOne tried this stunt when they were asked for the source - they pointed people to Red Hat's ftp server...

Microsoft has always violated free software

[rifter]

After all, how long is it since you have seen any acknowlegements to the origins of their *bsd-derived tcp software? Was it ever displayed prominently?

The only reason that microsoft got caught here is that they finally violated gpl rather than bsd, and got caught. Since gpl requires a source release, the violation is more obvious. BSD license does not require source release, just acknowlegement, and as such violations are harder to prove. (IIRC someone was able to find hidden bsd copyright strings in some of MS's tcp software at one point. Hidden, mind...)

It's very funny that microsoft can say you agreed to something you are bound to by opening the box to your computer, even if you turn it on and immediately boot to a linux cd therefore never seeing the agreement, but they are not bound by that agreement themselves (which says you can get a refund). You can also be bound by an agreement that only shows up if you use a certain procedure in windows to open a file, rather than using a cross-platform method. But microsoft is never ever bound by anything. In that they have always been consistent. When they ignored the agreements they made with the Justice department around 1995, when they violated their agreements with apple and almost every other company they have ever "partnered" with, they were just being consistent.

Microsoft has always been and will always be an outlaw company who takes advantage fo the fact that here in the US we are used to allowing wealthy corporations to be above the law.

Aussie Parliament censorship

[orpheus]

I think that the irony of Parliament's protest against filtering cannot be emphasized enough, considering that effective Jan 1, 2000, they put their entire nation, public and private, on a mandatory filtering system

According the the Australian EFF, in the area of 'adult images' (one area which the parliament protested filtering). All 'R-rated' content must be subject to age-verification, no 'X-rated' sites are permitted in Australia, and all foreign 'X-rated' sites must be blocked regardless of the age of the viewer.

So basically, 'pornographic content' shouldn't be available to the Parliament (or anyone in Oz) in the first place. Blindness - a fine starting point for future reasoned debate!

A Real-World example of uninformed debate
-----------------------------------------
A friend recently returned from Costa Rica and said their War on Drugs is based on a survey that saud a quarter of voters 'felt drugs are a serious concern'. Concern, possibly, but not a problem, according to external public health agencies. Costa Rica has an extremely low drug usage rate -- about 1%.

Unfortunately, only in the past year has there been any real discussion of the facts (some local doctors held a public forum). Until now, 'drugs' were considered a 'dirty' subject that everyone just naturally opposed.

Costa Rica is a wonderful country, with a stable government, low cost of living, good medical care and a large expatriate USAn community - a great place to retire - but it has real infrastructure deficiencies that would benefit from the resources devoted to this misguided policy. I'd hate to be in an ambulance dodging their crater-sized potholes!)

I can't see you!

[laborit]

I can't help but see some similarity between MS's treatment of the GPL and their treatment of Mac-format floppies... When you're the 364kg gorilla, what you acknowledge determines what the rest of the world acknowledges.
On the bright side, maybe this will form the kernel for that GPL test case we've all been waiting for. If MS really can get away with this, best that we find out soon...

- Michael Cohn

Re:Microsoft/Interix Source Code

[SgtPepper]

Uh, no it's not...

The license specifically reads:

The utilities bc, ci, co, cpio, csplit, dc,diff, diff3, gawk, gzip, gunzip, ident, merge, nl, rcs, rcsdiff, rcsmerge and rlog are covered under the GNU General Public License, here reproduced.

Show me the source code for THOSE programs, and then they will no longer be in violation.

Oh Oh!

[the_other_one]

state-of-the-art multimedia portal, www.Dreamtime.com, that will, with the click of a mouse, open the door to thousands of images, sounds, documents, blueprints and plans from NASA's currently underused archives.

Only one mouse click. Amazon is going to sue these guys.