Slashdot Mirror
MPAA v. 2600 NY Trial Has Ended
jlj writes: "According to this New York Times (reg. required) article, the MPAA v. 2600 trial in New York has ended. Judge Kaplan indicated that he was likely to declare the DeCSS code as a form of expressive content, "a distinction that may help bring it First Amendment protection." No matter who wins, this case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully 2600 will win this round because I can only imagine the very truthful press releases the MPAA will be pouring out if they win. From the article: The judge said he was impressed by David Touretzky, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who testified that the case raises ``very serious concerns about the future of computer science and my ability to function as a computer scientist.''." No ruling has been issued yet, as you can tell from the article - we'll keep you updated.
I tried to perform summer research with him for this summer. I talked to him many times by e-mail and I've spoken to him personally. He is definately no CS lightweight, but he has a OVERLY healthy ego.
In fact I found him very gruff and mildy insulting. He somewhat belittled my scientific curiosity and pretty much just brushed me off in a very arrogant way. He work is impressive, his personality much less so.
Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
What on earth is this man Erikson saying? Whilst it may serve to argue his case, the very idea that a poem constitutes a form of "expressive" work is ridiculous. A poem is no more expressive than an accountant's books or a differential equation.
Poetry is not an art, it is a science governed by metres, grammars and orthography. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of stringing words together into lines and making sure they scan.
Poets aren't artists - they're much more like word engineers. Anyone who goes on about how writing poems is a "creative exercise" is lacking something in their life and probably needs to get out some more - go to a computer science library and see something that is expressive, like the third volume of "The Art of Computer Programming", still unsurpassed and visionary.
What is there creative in rhyming? Children can do that.
The world's disorder
a quicksort conquers faster
than does a poem
Neither. He was the guy posting the MDMA & Beer posts....
YES! and giving a buddy a URL to a good free pr0n site would make you responsible for the death of millions of sperm!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Isn't that how virtually every major US industry works?
The oil/auto industry: Billions for roads and tax breaks for car manufacturers, and wars to ensure cheap foreign oil supply.
The air transportation industry; Billions for FAA regulation, defense contracts to prop up manufacturers, Echelon to ensure global market dominance of US manufacturers (relax, I'm only half-joking).
The power industry: Billions to construct electrification network.
The sports industry: Billions for "municipal" sports stadiums, law-enforcement to control riots and arrest sports stars who can't handle they're new wealth.
The Computer Industry: Billions in research for govt. constructed Internet.
The Motion Picture Industry: Billions in PR to glorify war and violence so people will watch movies about war and violence (fully joking here).
The Music Industry: FCC regulation of airwaves.
Tobacco Industry: direct subsidies.
Religion Industry: Tax breaks,
Insurance Industry: Pro-corporate legislation.
Legal Industry: Obfuscated and over abundant legistlation ensuring lengthy and multitudinous lawsuits and other litigation.
Advice to enterpreneurs: find a business that the government thinks is important to fund or otherwise interfere with. Get rich off the taxpayers. People will pay a little money for a good product, a LOT of money to keep from going to jail for non-payment of taxes.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Hey, this isn't too surprising. Who do you think has more credibiity to a federal judge, a guy who runs a "hacker" mag or a bona fide university professor?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
It's good in its place, which is, as I said, to provide a benefit for society. It's not supposed to be used as a weapon against the public.
You're completely ignoring my point. We're giving Microsoft rights that we're not giving the MPAA and the RIAA. Why shouldn't the MPAA have the same rights as Microsoft?
No I'm not. Microsoft doesn't have those rights either. For example, I can attempt to run MS Word under Wine if I feel like it.
--
Of course, since code is speech, that's a totally different issue.
--
Sure. Check out Austin Powers. "We don't want to have to bail you boys out like we did in dubba-ya dubba-ya two."
Wil
--
Wil
wiki
So don't send any love letters to the Times about how bogus the report was by implying that DeCSS was the only way to copy DVDs and that it'd let anybody do it. Send them, if you wish to the AP.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You're making a strawman argument, and unfortunately lots of people have responded to it rather than pointing out the real issue.
Touretzky claimed that code was a medium of expression, not that things expressed in it would necessarily be emotive. The point isn't that a few people get teary-eyed when they see consistent indentation. The point is that code is an excellent way of expressing Djikstra's algorithm, for example. Would you rather describe quicksort in code or in prose? How would you feel about legislation that prevented you from describing it formally?
There are, I would expect, much better copies of TPM by now. It was released on Laser Disc in Japan, and that's the best source on the market at present.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Hate to break it to you, but none of the DVDs I've bought have a license on them. They do tend to say 'For Home Viewing Only' but not only is that not a license, that's already covered by copyright law and is pretty moot.
First sale applies for books, records, etc. What's so special about DVDs? (hint: Nothing)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You _could_ put a license on any kind of media. But not only is this virtually unheard of in the consumer market outside of software, there is a lot of contention right now as to whether or not even software licenses are valid.
My opinion: If you have to agree to the license as a PRE CONDITION to obtaining the software, it's valid. But if you can pay cash money for the software and walk away with it without having to agree to anything except for that financial transaction you are not bound.
If you agree to a clickwrap license in the process of installing it, yeah, you're bound. But if you circumvent the installer or otherwise modify the software so that no license is presented to you (which you're free to do - you own that copy, you aren't bound by any license) you're free and clear. It's just difficult.
Obviously, there are other issues as well - software licences still can't violate the regular rules for contracts, etc.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Now _that_ is an interesting idea. I'll have to think about that for a while, but I suspect that you're on to something.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And pray tell, what is an assault rifle?
And how is it illegal for me to build my own personal DVD player - which would require DeCSS or a functionally-equivalent piece of software in order to function? Smells like antitrust to me.
Remember, copying material as an essential step in using it in a computer is quite legal. You think that when you use Word there's not a copy on the hard drive, another copy in RAM and bits and pieces in your caches and CPU?
If DeCSS *has* to place decoded material in some memory other than the original DVD so that it's able to be processed by an MPEG player or whatever. If you've got 20GB of RAM, or a version of DeCSS so fast that it can send data straight to the Player in realtime that's nice, but it's not a requirement.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Americans who were Nazi sympathizers or with Japanese ancestors of course ;)
(and unionists; anyone who isn't happy with whatever scraps their employer tosses to them clearly can only be stopped by attacking them with the entire US Army - pretty similar to WWI veterans too, really.)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Nope. There is a difference between owning a copyright and owning a copy of a work. (which is actually impossible, but I won't get into that here)
Let us say that you take the pages on your website, and put them onto a CD. Then you start selling the CDs to passers-by. If I successfully buy the CD from you, you don't have any rights to dictate to me how I can use what's on the CD. The law prohibits me from distributing copies I make, or publicly displaying it, but OTOH I can read it, change what's written, make copies for my own personal use, read it, etc.
The trick is this: If you tell me prior to my buying it that I have to agree to use it only in ways you approve of, and I agree and buy it, then I'm stuck using it with your permission. If you don't tell me this before the sale, you're out of luck.
The four or so cases that have dealt with software licences don't all agree, so generally it's assumed that unless you agree to a post-sale license (using the product you already bought doesn't count - clickwrap probably would) you're not bound by it.
Want to buy Windows and use it w/o agreeing to their license? Just don't click on the 'I agree' button. Installing it is trickier, but you don't need MS's permission, as they already sold it to you.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Before other C programmers who haven't seen Duff's Device get thoroughly confused, someone should point out:
The "to" register in Duff's system was a special I/O register, so copying different bytes to it over and over without reading from it made sense.
If you use the postincrement operator each time you assign to it, instead (*to++), then you get a pretty good memcpy. But basically the idea is that Duff's device unrolls an arbitrary length loop, without having an "extra" chunk of code to handle the remainder instructions when count isn't evenly divisible.
Why can't I make them publically available as long as I don't sell them.
Ruben
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
No - that's not like broadcasting on a Radio. Radio Stations are businesses which exploit the work for profit. Sharing is allowed for free with no comercial benifit. Ruben
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
You also bring up a good point. One of the MAJOR troubles of the DMCA is that everyone who was involved in voting for it got a piece of legal code added. There were all kinds of expectations of how it would work, and various Congressional leaders who pushed for the Bill and altered it in the concilation Commitee which dovetailed the Houses version with the Senates version, and the individual comitees in the house and senate, all had different ideas about what certain clauses would do to protect and enhance Copyright and Fair Use.
The DMCA is one of the poorest written peices of legistlation ever to come out of Western Civilization, in addition to it being largely unconstitutional.
It would not have been passed if key members of Congress who voted for it had the ability to see the assualt on Fair Use that it created.
New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
----------------------------------------
I also think Metallica is being given too much grief. It's anti-artist, for one thing. An artist speaks up and the artist gets squashed: Sharecropping. Don't get above your station, kid. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker. It's piracy when those guys that run those companies make side deals with the cartel lawyers and label heads so that they can be "the labels' friend," and not the artists'.
Recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free under the old system, so new technology that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing. Why aren't these companies working with us to create some peace? There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up. Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more demand.
Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Oh - That's rich, but I thought it was true.
The record companies actually PAY the Radio stations to play their records. In addition, did you read the section where she says that under current law, Musicians never have copyright of the material they create!! So the whole argument that the Copyright law protects the Artists is, as we actually knew, just untrue when the facts of current business law is examined.
Ruben
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I think you have a falacious argument here.
Let's talk about the car scenario here first. It is more like buying a copy of your keys to get access to your car. We aren't talking about getting a second car OR someone else breaking into your car. The second of these should be illegal.
What we are talking about is gaining access to something you have already purchased a different way.
Further, there are some good anti-trust arguements about the industry being able to stipulate who can build these devices exclusively. Reverse engineering is a time honored method of having competition in a field. (Assuming you don't step on patents which is pretty hard in itself.) Using copyright/DMCA to prohibit this activity is as anti-competitive as you can get!
This is the BIG difference between the DeCSS case and napster. Napster is simply ripping off the content of the music copyright holders, i.e. it's committing the act of theft. DeCSS CAN be used in that process, but has other uses as well...all of which are legal. Further, if software is expressive speach (and there are now going to be a couple rulings along that way) then is should/is protected by the 1st Amendment and that portion of the DMCA becomes mute.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Three Amigos springs instantly to mind... :) Wish I could think of some more classic examples... not that Three Amigos isn't a classic. ;)
Back on topic: the realization that copyright law is not and should not be absolute nor identical to physical ownership is important, and something the DMCA tries to destroy. They in effect want to take away our physical ownership of works and give it back to the author, even though we bought and paid for it.
The enemies of Democracy are
You hit several topics shotgun-style, so this might be long...
Okay, you want no one but me to read the thing you sold me. Well, I'll ignore fair use for a moment, and call that reasonable...
But DeCSS has nothing to do with that! The problem is you're keeping me from reading the thing you sold me, and saying it's illegal for me to circumvent your "access control" so that I can read it.
This is no different than saying it is illegal for me to break into my own car if I lock myself out, because I broke the "access control". You own the copyright, but I own the object just like I own my car, and I can use the object as I wish so long as I don't violate copyright.
The thing you get wrong, and which the NYT gets wrong, and the MPAA gets wrong, is that DeCSS is not about copyright violation! DeCSS != Napster, okay? It does not allow me to copy DVD's because it was already possible without DeCSS. DeCSS lets me - the owner - view the material I paid for in whatever way I choose. While conceivably it could be used to aid in copyright violations, that should not make it illegal any more than cp, which is a far more usefull tool for violating copyright.
As far as an 'extra offense', ala using a gun in a robbery or sexual assault... Well, that's fine, but just like having a gun on it's own isn't a crime, neither should having a device for circumventing access control.
Okay, now I'll bite on the copyright issue itself... You say you - the copyright holder - don't want anyone but me - the property owner - to read something. Tough. It's called fair use.
Which means I can publish snippets for use in articles, reviews, etc. I can loan it to a friend so he can view it. I can show it to my friends at my house, or bring it to their house and show it. I can make a backup copy for myself, on the same media or different.
The fact that you don't want me to do these things is irrelevant. It is not your right as the copyright holder to keep me from doing this, nor should it be. I bought it, I own it, and outside of redistributing copies of it, or showing it to the general public for money, I can do what I want. Your "access control" is attempting to keep me from using the thing I purchased in a legal manner, and thus circumventing that control is my right. In this case, the access control itself, is what should be illegal. If you can find a way to prevent me from violating your copyrights without violating my ownership rights, then go for it.
The MPAA may try to use DMCA may to change this, but the law explicitly says that it cannot be construed to impinge upon fair use in any way. It is unfortunate that their power may win them the day, because they have no legal leg to stand on.
The enemies of Democracy are
And if I already own the book?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that copryright means permission is needed for me to _read_ your book. You seem to be suggesting that if I go to my friends house and pick up a copy of your book off his coffee table and start reading it then I'm violating copyright because I didn't ask you first.
This is not a violation at all. It is perfectly legal. Even if you put a lock and thumbprint scanner on the book so only my friend can open it which my friend has to circumvent.
Or your website example... if I sit at my friends computer and read the book he paid for, that's legal -- even if my friend forgot his key and thus had to crack the control mechanism.
If my friend started _distributing_ the book itself, or the key (which, in this case, would be effectively the same as distributing the book), then that would be illegal. But in either case, the 'access control' mechanism is a bit-player, and not really deserving of special attention.
The enemies of Democracy are
Well, unless you're memorizing the whole book so you can perform it on stage, I'd say you only remember 'snippets', which would be 'fair use'. :)
Oh, and there'll always be a wedge between the spirit and letter of the law... keeping the former in the face of the latter is one of the purposes of the Judicial branch of US government.
The enemies of Democracy are
Aye, there's the rub! Where do we get congresspeople that will get rid of the DMCA? For if the MPAA can't get satisfaction in the judiciary, their lobbyists will certainly descend upon the legislature to get written into law that which they couldn't get in court. To combat this, we'd need a concerted effort by a concerned citizenry to elect more representatives immune to the scent of greenbacks. The representatives we've got are the ones who passed such odious laws in the first place!
I wish I could have been in the courtroom. I would have called some lawyer from Sony as a
witness.
Exhibit A: "The Matrix" on DVD (CSS scrambled).
Exhibit B: A Sony DVD player.
Exhibit C: "Sloppy Drinks a Six Pack" on DVD (CSS scrambled).
Q: Did Sony manufacture and "traffic in" this DVD player? [Holds up Exhibit B]
A: Yes.
Q: Does Sony have authorization for this player to play "The Matrix"?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you get authorization?
A: From our license with DVDCCA. All MPAA members who publish a DVD give
DVDCCA authorization to grant authorization to others, on MPAA's behalf.
Q: [Holds up Exhibit C] Does Sony have authorization for this player to play
"Sloppy Drinks a Six Pack"?
A: I presume so. The creator of "Sloppy Drinks a Six Pack" is a member of
MPAA and has agreements with DVDCCA, therefo--
Q: No, the creator of this movie is not a MPAA member, and has no contracts
whatsoever with DVDCCA. DVDCCA does not have any right to grant
authorization on behalf of this copyright owner.
A: Oh. Uh...
Q: Did you get authorization from the copyright owner?
A: No, we just get authorization from DVDCCA and uh--
Q: [Places Exhibit C into Exhibit B] I see that your player is able to play
this movie.
A: Yes, it appears so.
Q: This movie is CSS encrypted. Is your player circumventing the protection
on my DVD?
A: Uh, I guess...
Q: By the way, I _have_ granted authorization to the DeCSS author. Can you
think of ANY reason why your player has a legal status that is any
different from DeCSS' legal status?
A: Uhh...
Q: Are you aware that I am going to file for an injuction against Sony
producing or selling any more of these DVD players unless you pay me
ten billion dollars?
A: Uh...
Q: Are you aware that in six months there will not be a single DVD player
on the market?
A: Uh.. Well, I'm sure I'll find another job somewhere.
Q: Thank you. I call the next witness, Mr. Valenti.
Q: Mr. Valenti, what are the projected DVD sales considering that all DVD
players are about to disapper from the market?
A: Zero.
Q: Anything you would like to add?
A: I would like to drop this case. Just please don't kill my industry.
Q: Okay then.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Gentlemen do not open each other's files.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If that's true, then code cannot be copyrighted.
If the judge rules that code isn't expression, then the software industry is in deep shit.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The Times has, in the past, linked to 2600 and even to 2600's list of links. In fact, an editor submitted an affidavit saying so. Nice example of the corporate media doing something right.
--
That case was in a different appeals court jurisdiction. No he dosen't have to follow it. If it was at the national level or in the same appeals court jursidiction the judge would have to follow it.
For those wondering about this, it is possible to have wildly differing prescidents between differing court jurisdictions. The prescidents only become national in scope when the supreme court makes a decision.
To hell with MPAA, im keeping DeCSS up on my site.
I hope they contact me. I have a few things to say to them.
I believe that you are entirely correct in what you say, but that doesn't make any difference at all still. Whether the architect builds an ugly concrete and steel monstrosity, or a beautiful building which people will visit and marvel at for centuries, it is still expression. Whether it is a nice expression, or a depressing, ugly expression is beside the point.
You mentioned the 'eye of the beholder'. I think this might be the key here - it doesn't matter what the creator (be they an architect, programmer or whatever) thinks they are. If you, or someone else, can look at an object and think, "That is beautiful/nice/boring/dull/ugly", then it is probably expressing something.
I would refer you to David Touretskys declaration here .
I summarised it (probably quite badly) fruther up this page.
I ask if you consider architecture to be an art, or a science? After all, it is just a design for a building governed by the laws of gravity, etc.
As with almost anything, there are many ways to write a computer program - some are merely functional, other are graceful and, I would say, expressive.
I don't see how having source code available can stop the object code being speech. That simply makes no sense to me at all. How can something stop being speech because some other thing is made available?
You seem to be reading 'preferred form for making modifications' as 'most likely to be accepted in the courts as speech'. While I might not disagree with that, it still doesn't invalidate the other forms of expression that are available, including object code.
I think maybe what he was trying to say is code is not in and of itself a form of expression to be protected by a law. I can communicate an idea in French or English or Perl and it's the TRANSMISSION OF THE IDEA that is protected not the medium in which I transmit. Not that I am saying that the medium isn't protected, but the medium used is trivial. However to say that code is a form of expression that should be protected is diverting the issue from where it should be, which is that even though information COULD be used to break the law that doesn't mean I can't communicate it.
Well...smashing or breaking a lock would be destruction of property, as the lock does have a physical value.
Look at this another way.
If I go out and buy a copy of the latest Harry Potter book, I am legally allowed to draw on the pages with colored markers, tear pages out, rebind the book with tinfoil, use it as kindling to start a fire, pour acid all over it until it dissolves into a puddle of viscous goo, and so on. I can disassemble the book to find out the composition of the ink used, figure out the binding process used, etc.
As long as I have legally purchased the book, the doctrine of first sale applies. As long as I don't infringe on the copyright of the work itself, I'm legally entitled to (basically) do what I want with the work.
> Are you saying there is actually an American movie which acknowledges the existence of the rest of the world?
Sure. Hollywood always has to identify someone as the villan in their plots.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I could not possibly disagree more. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm forced to conclude that either you're trolling or you're speaking out of ignorance. Do you write code? Do you read code? I do both; a lot of both. For someone to imply that what I do is not creative...well, I find that offensive and narrow minded.
This morning, while on a plane, I was reading "After the Gold Rush" by Steve McConnell. It's subtitled "Creating a True Profession of Software Engineering" which is a pretty good summary of the subject of the book. This book address the artistic aspects of software many times. For example, on page 59 I read "Software includes many aesthetic elements, and software developers have no lack of artistic ambition." Engineering in general incorporates mathematics, science, economics, _AND_ artistry. Source code is expressive. There's good source code and there's bad source code. When I read bad source code, it often evokes emotion (i.e. anger and frustration). Just as equally, when I read good source code, it evokes emotion (excitement at a new concept or an elegant design). When some says that a piece of code is elegant, it's not a misappropriation of the word. Elegance implies beauty, and beauty implies something that's aesthetically pleasing.
The seminal classic text in programming is Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming." Notice the title; it contains the word art. The first edition of the virst volume was written over two decades ago, and Knuth chose the word Art deliberately. Knuth is arguably one of the top masters of our profession. If he calls it art, that's good enough for me.
Randy Weems
rweems@nospam.home.com
Without the use of a descrambler, legal or otherwise, you do not have the content. Since you have not paid for a copy of the content (in the illegal case), you have no right to obtain it. In the case of dvd's, you own a physical copy of the content (as physical as one can get in this situation). Therefore, one has a right to use whatever means necessary (within reason) to view it. Think of the deCSS case as if book publishers attempted to control the lighting conditions that one could use to be able to see the contents.
arg, too many ins :)
Code is Expression according to the federal courts in Junger V. Daley as reported by /. on April 4 of this year The previous story is here
"However, the information on the CD is copyrighted by them, and you use it with their permission."
Yes, under current law. No one is disputing what the current law says. You said that "surely" no one would object to a ban on ACD circumvention. *I* do object because it makes moral things illegal (or just more illegal in some cases).
As for your website example: So...you came up with an example where I would agree circumventing an ACD would be wrong. Point? I didn't say it was bad in all cases, I said I didn't necessarily agree it was good in all cases.
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"But surely you want it to be made illegal to circumvent an access control device, be it some form of encryption or a defense system on your computer."
Not in all cases. Let's say I buy a car. Should it be illegal for me to "circumvent the access control device" by welding the doors shut and removing the windows (a la the General Lee)? No, because it is MY car.
I happen to believe the same should apply to software. Once I've bought it, any "access control devices" are MY property to do with as I please. This doesn't just mean disable the licensing module. It also means decrypting (via a new system) data that I have already bought and decrypted via the "approved" system (i.e. decoding DVDs with DeCSS).
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I think they deserve a lot more credit than that though, just for the myriad small details that led to such a rout. For instance, in the deposition where Garbus asked the MPAA head if he knew of any DeCSS pirated DVD's. They laid a lot of groundwork to make the MPAA look so silly.
And perhaps the defense put forth by the MPAA was really the best they could do given such a weak case!
And for my closing point I'll just say that you could win ANY case with OOG as your lawyer, as he would simply BREAK OPPOSING HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD (my apologies to OOG).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Who cares? We have opennap, and every platform worth using has a client for the napster protocol that supports unofficial servers. So why bother?
Movies are a form of creative expression. Code (and, by extension, compiled software) is a form of creative expression. You can put a EULA on code. Or a GPL. Or a BSD license. Or whatever. So why can't you put these on some other form of creative expression?
But the license for code generally dosn't limit you to a specific architecture (x86, PPC, ARM, etc). Why should I be limited to only "approved" DVD players?
Not available yet at 2600's site, which has trial transcripts through last Friday (or on Dr. Touretzky's home page, which I thought would be a logical next place to look). If anyone has any pointers to articles, etc., setting forth the substance of that testimony, I'd appreciate the same.
The track record of the government, legislative, judicial and executive, had seemed pretty bleak until now. DMCA, COPA, the meth proliferation act, internet taxation. Success and failure.
Actually, I think that the judiciary has ruled in favor of the side supported by the majority of /.-ers pretty consistently. (The only exception is the trademark area -- e.g., the PETA case -- and even there I think there's beginning to be some recognition among /.-ers that there is something to be said for the pro-trademark positions.) And there hasn't been any movement that I'm aware of toward "internet taxation," unless you count those persons suggesting that transactions facilitated through the 'net should be taxed like any other transaction.
(Tr. 571.) After Fisher testified that copying of DVDs(*) would likely harm studio revenues, the judge commented:
(Tr. 583-84.)
(* Not bit-for-bit, but from DVD via DeCSS to a smaller file with lower quality.)
In 1996 or so I read the DMCA, the entire bill, including all the riders and junk added to it. I don't remember much except that the good parts tended to be redundant, already covered by existing copyright law, and bad parts, like your anti-circumvention measures, seemed less about protecting copyright and more about increasing the power that copyright holders have over how, why, and where inviduals use or experience copyrighted works.
The "digital" and "millenium" parts of this law were simply a smokescreen to push these changes through. An author needs no new rights in the "digital age", the same rights that apply to words on paper apply to bits. Unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works was as illegal in 1990 as it is now. The unauthorized access of others' computer systems was as illegal in 1990 as it is now (which has nothing to do with copyright, your example is intentionally misleading).
I wonder, are you plant by the RIAA?
>If I can prove you gave Timmy McVeigh the recipe >for a high-yield fertilizer bomb, you can be held >liable in the crime.
Doubtful.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
Garbus himself was predicting a defeat.
At least that's what he was saying
at the Legal Panel at H2K.
That was before the trial even started, though.
I think that the trial went extremely well for
the defense (I attended as much as I could),
but will ultimately be decided in appeal.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
NYTimes wrote:
> Corley posted the software on his Web site,
> 2600.com, and in his print publication,
> ''2600: The Hacker Quarterly.''
This isn't true.. It only appeared on the website.
Journalists never fucking get it right.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
Hey! I have Gigs and Gigs of MP3s, and guess
what? I paid for all of them on CD!
This is exactly the point of this discussion:
I bought the CDs and I have a right to recode
them and to put my physical CDs in storage if I want to.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
If that is the case, does that mean that if I lose my copy of the physical media I purchased, or if it gets scratched and becomes unplayable, that I am immediately entitled to a new copy of the media, because I purchased an irrevocable "right to view" license?
The studios, for their part, say no.
So, is it truly the media or the "right to view" that you are purchasing? The studios can't have it both ways, and have not offered us an answer to this question in no uncertain terms yet.
This is a very good point...
DeCSS is not quite like a gun, its like the knife and fork you use at dinner.
Sure, you can use the knife to kill someone, but there are much easier ways of killing someone (making a lower-quality bootleg).
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "creative problem solving?" While the goal of art and code may not be the same they both attempt to solve a problem. In the case of art, the problem is how to best express visually a certain message or how do I create a design such that people will want to look at it. With code the problem might be how do I decrypt CSS.
In either case there are certain rules, materials, and techniques used to accomplish the goal. An artist has a choice of medium -- paint, sculpture, video -- and a programmer has a choice of language. An artist knows the rule of paint mixing just as a programmer knows the syntax of the language. And an artist has knowledge of techniques that bring about certain responses from viewers similar to a programmer who knows algorithms to preform specific tasks.
In the end it is the creativity that the individual uses to combine these elements to create a whole work that is uniquely their own. Each person's solution may be different although with computers the comparison is more objective as to which is better, most of the time anyway.
I feel personally the creativity involved in coding as I started off my college career as a theater design major and will be switching to CS. Also in my job as a web coder I am often called upon to complete difficult programming tasks when the methods needed to solve the problem are not yet know. My bosses know that I have the ability to think and come up with a creative solution to seemingly unsolvable problem, compared to others' abilty simply to repeat learned patterns.
Coding is art, and I prefer to fill my canvas with 1's and 0's.
Code most certainly *IS* a form of expression.
You are making the *common mistake* of assuming that by "expression", as it pertains to the first amendment, is only concerned with *artistic* expression. Thankfully, the first amentment protects expression of *facts* as well.
While we could debate for days about whether code is (or can be) creative or not (I believe it can), it is not relevant to this discussion.
Anyone who has ever read a book dealing with the computer sciences knows that code (pseudo-code, C code, etc) most certainly is a form of factual expression.
It's about time that source code was given the legal protection of being self-expression - almost everything else creative is given this distinction so this sounds like it will finally give source code the recognition it deserves.
That already happended
for the lazy...
. Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, released on May 6, 1999, states that software source code is a language worthy of First Amendment protection.
and a second source for effect.
--
+&x
To the MPAA however, which has far more potent propaganda organs than Slashdot can boast, this really is about copying and piracy.
It is about player control, really. With DeCSS out there, anyone can make a DVD player that is not restricted by the DVDCCA licensing regime. i.e., zone free DVD players with perfect digital output, without macrovision and with copy/recording capabilities.
That is the reason why they are going after DeCSS and ignoring all the other DVD copy tools like PowerRipper.
the MPAA fully expects movies to be downloadable in a short period of time by ordinary viewers in just a matter of a few years.
That won't happen until backbone access becomes a lot cheaper than today.
When ISPs are selling cheap xDSL and cable modems to private customers today, they don't really expect them to use the full bandwith 24/7. They are gambling on most users to use it only for email and web browsing, perhaps the occational realvideo broadcast. Thus, they don't need to buy a fat expensive upstream pipe to the backbone.
If the MPAA nightmare comes true and it becomes the norm for normal people to download gigabytesized movies, these uplinks will be congested in no time. They'd have to buy a much larger uplink - at a very high cost, a cost which will be sent on down to the customers.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
License? What license? I bought a DVD. I am allowed to do anything with it which is legal to do. Copyright law has certain restrictions as to what I may do with it--I may not copy it except for fair use, I may not exhibit it publicly without permission of the copyright holder. The studios sold me a DVD, and first sale doctrine gives me the right to use it for its intended purpose.
When you buy a car, you're not allowed to use it to run over someone on purpose. That's because running over somebody on purpose is illegal, NOT because I'm violating my car's "license agreement" from Ford. Movie studios may want you to think things have been licensed rather than sold, but that's (currently) a fiction. You don't need a "license" from them to do anything that isn't against the law. Prior to DMCA, there was nothing about private viewing which was against copyright law. Now there is, and that's where it gets tricky.
There are numerous accounts of cathedrals that collapsed during or shortly after construction.
Often the construction of a cathedral would take decades, presumably in part because parts of it kept falling down. I suppose it's a bit like writing code in that respect.
Of course, any 500 year old cathedral is going to be full of examples of good engineering practise. The ones that weren't will have fallen down by now.
Molly.
Maybe that whole "fair use" thing caught his eye?
Whatever. Touretzky is quite friendly in person. Don't be bitter because you didn't get a summer internship.
He already has enough research and other work going on that it's quite reasonable to not want an undergraduate for summer work, let alone one not from CMU.
The Wu Master
Just as a non-musician appreciates Mozart when it's played, can't a non-programmer appreciate a browser when he uses it?
I think that, to a certain extent, you and I are talking past each other. My contention is not that art is not intended to enjoyed by people who can not read musical scores or understand esoteric programming languanges.
My point is that part of the value of such arts as programming and orchestral compasition lies within the esoteric symbols used to record the product and not solely in the final presentation.
After all, Milne didn't write Winnie-the-Poo for parents. It was written for mainly for the enjoyment of children.
And yet, literate adults are still able to experience Milne's art by examining the 'source code' without performing the work by reading it aloud for a child.
Programmers usually don't write for other programmers.
Hmm. How many non-programmers use emacs? ;)
Users are the ones who determine what programs are crap and what are good, even though they will never see the code.
And programmers will admire or castigate many nuances of the work of art that the average user will miss and in the case of very well written open-source or free software, programmers will be able to enjoy the art in the source without viewing the end product. So, yes, end users will be able to experience the art of the programmer, but other programmers can also experience the art that is contained within the source code.
One of my favorite bands, Mental Destruction, spent two years writing one of their albums in assembler and C. No synthesizers were used, no analog equipment, no instruments. The entire album was coded on qwerty keyboards.
Is their album not art? If it is not art, what qualitatively differentiates Mental Destruction composing music with code from Bach composing with staff notation? If it is art, what qualitatively differentiates a program with some other output from what Mental Destruction has done?
I'm not knocking what they have created, I'm sure many people here have coded some genuinely useful and innovative programs. All I'm saying is that the act of programming is not expressive, just like building a wall isn't expressive. It's all about putting things together in a consistent and methodical manner so that it acheives its purpose.
In any form of art, painting, sculpting, archetecture (sp?), caligraphy, poetry, prose, performing arts, musical composition, etc., the goal is almost invariably to 'put things together in a consistent and methodical manner.' (I'll not a possible exception for Da Da and some other of the more esoteric art movements.)
If you closely examine a Da Vinci or Degas work of art, you will see evidence of their methodical and consistent manner. Similiarly, theatre troups and orchestras that are world renowned have achieved their level of excellence mostly because of their consistent and methodical manners in applying their skills. So, too, can be programming.
I'll gladly grant that most programming is on the same level as drawing comic books, but in both cases along with all the trash are some excellent pieces of fine art. I do mostly maintence programming for a living. Some of the code I've fixed defects in has been as close to art as a consumer tabloid. Other portions of code are beautiful to contemplate, showing elegance, cleverness and spirit (the same qualities we look for in music and paintings).
I've read code that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality.
I've read books that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality.
I've heard poems that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality.I've seen paintings that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality.
I've viewed plays that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality.
What again is the qualitative differentiation between any of these judgements?
The other posters have done a good job of rebuking your thought that code is not art. But I feel that we can take this discussion a bit further.
At issue here is whether code can be an "expressive work." I know of programs that a friend of mine wrote for his mother's birthday each year. Expressive of love.
This has been covered by other legal precedent, a program is a formal description of some idea the coder had. The act of making the "virtual sit-in" page for the WTO's page is not dissimilar to actually doing so. It is merely a strict recipe to follow, analagous to the transition of an idea from an artist's head into the final expression of their work. What is so different between a polictical cartoon satirizing copyright enforcement, an League for Programming Freedom protesting software patents, and the Freenet project. Each carries it's expression to a physical form, each is expressive of a powerful idea.
By the way I am an artist and a programmer. My life has been about creation and is rooted in that process, my code is merely an expression of my ideas, just as my monotypes and photographs and writing and sculptures are. Just as my phone calls to the people I love are. Just as each and every movement I make is.
+-------+ between the wish and the thing lies the world - All the Pretty Horses
After Sony's continual failures in court over Playstation emulators, it should come as no shock I suppose that the judge is ruling this way. The future of reverse engineering is looking pretty damn good for once right now. Unless UCITA comes to your state that is...
http://www.ucita.org
What about the notion that you don't actually 'buy a disk' you are buying a 'license to play' (too bad they don't sell a 'license to kill'!)?
... "Don't do oxytocin; it's a ghetto drug...", Bob Roberts ...
It's not yours to do with as you will, as it were. Rather it seems that at the cross-roads between physical reality (and real goods) and the informational world of 'represented reality' (movies, music, etc.) things get squirrely and people are looking to either the past or the future for the answer -- and just end up being embittered in the present.
Not that I am defending the corporates...
=
==
===
Oliver's Law: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
If I say "you are clueless" I am not a poet. It is not art. Yet it is an opinion and it is expression.
:-)
Hence: expression need not be art to be protected.
Although QED has superceeded Maxwell's equations I still suggest that (despite the UV catastrophe of black body radiation, and the "spiraling" in of an electron) Maxwell's electrodynamics is *art*. The interplay of the differential equations *is* poetry. It is *good* art. It is beautiful.
They don't understand science very well either. The process of building a model is art. It involves inuition and induction and pattern recognition at a (usually) visual non-verbal level. It is *not* about deducing from the last stage what the next stage is or we'd have more theoreticians. Breakthroughs would be planned.
Recommends: Godel, Escher, Bach: the eternal golden braid.
Maybe your world should be opened up a bit (or at least your definitions). I don't think that painting a house *has* to be art. I suggest it most often is *not* art. But Quantum Mechanics *is* high art, as is Relativity.
Comparable to Bach? Can you compare music to painting to sculpture? Does that mean sculpture is not art?
But its not about "building a wall". One considers the concept: partion, barrier, wall. Then one realizes that a wall could include shelving! What about a fireplace? How far away the fireplace need be. Brick? Multi-colored brick? Perhaps solid colored brick but N-colors? Do we want to consider room acustics? Will the color of the partion impact the emotional and or intellectual state of the people living/loving/working there? Is then the design of a spacial-partion / human interface art?
A. Einstein: "The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, donot seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be 'voluntarily' reproduced and combined ... this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others".
Which is not illegal, as long as it is your own property. Just like a DVD is yours to use after you legally bought it, and you don't breach copyright (private viewing, no copies).
> Radio makes a profit, but not from broadcasting music. They do so by charging for advertising time.
Courtney Love had something to say about that awhile ago.
Look for the paragraph, the twelveth from the top, about independent radio promotion. FFT.
> No matter how you try and put it, a piece of code does not share any similatities to a poem, and a programmer does not share any similarities to a poet. Coding is just a process, not a work of art.
So are you saying that a poem doesn't go through a process? That it doesn't follow any rules or have any structure, is just random words strung together without serving any purpose or having any meaning? That also they never logical? Are you saying that poems can't be improved from their initial, rough-draft state into a more completely edited state, 'optimized and debugged' as it were? Are you saying that every poem is a completely unique experience, lacking any resemblance, however slight, to other poems that came before it? Are you saying that any such resemblance two poems might have is accidental rather than allegorical? Are you saying that it is not common practice among artists of any stripe to build off of each others' work?
The problem with people who don't consider coding an art usually isn't that they don't understand coding - it's that they don't understand art.
Erg. No. I think you have the wrong page. And I probably didn't count right anyway. Here's the paragraph I wanted people to read.
---
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
wouldn't that make your fingers some kind of circumvention device? :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Only the winners get to decide what are war-crimes"
(to quote someone I don't remember the name of)
The designer is not being tried for this. He testified in court though.
He was under investigation, but his gov't cut that out and apologized. Not only was he not tried, but he was given an award from his country (mainly because of DeCSS). With the money he bought a high end DVD player.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that's why the Federal Government decided to break them up.
Don't cite Micros~1, for God's sake, as an example of fair business practices if you want to get any respect.
Oh, and I realize some people (yourself included) will figure this whole post is invalid because I called you an idiot.
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Oh, and I normally don't read responses to my posts... or posts that are at 1 (or lower). But feel free to reply anyway.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I remember seeing a tape someone made of ET with a video cam in a theatre. Why would anyone want such a horrible viewing experience?
Intolerant people should be shot.
Why is DeCSS necessary for a DVD rip? It's long been possible to simply play the DVD and rip frames from the framebuffer using a fake video driver which then passes it on the real video driver.
DeCSS in't necessary here at all.
oops. I kinda got off on a tanget there. The point remains however, that you are never entitled to free media (even replacement), regardless of the licence the content is under.
No, that would be buying a licence to view regardless of media (fair use).
The par-parent scenario had you buying the media, with a licence to view it _only from that media_. That's why everyone is pissed off. (this point was driven home by exagerating the onerousness of the licence)
Fair use says your licence to view is _regardless_ of media, (so if you have a scratched, unplayable CD, it is ok to make a copy from a friend to listen to) but the DVD license is media specific (dvds would prohibit you to replace damaged media with a copy from a friend).
This entire debate is whether having a licence that prohibits fair use is legal, basically.
What if we put our opposition to your viewpoint this way: It is possible to shape clay into a brick, and the vast majority of all bricks are not really works of art. But this does not mean that all acts of shaping clay are necessarily lacking in creativity.
In the same sense, a great deal of source code is not terribly artful. But, so are exquisite expressions of ideas or arguments that are difficult to express as well by any other means. I think there are probably more of these than many people realize. My favorite example is Duff's Device. Duff's Device is an answer to the argument that there is never any good reason to depart from some religious ideals about coding. The code used to express Duff's Device is the argument in its most concise form. The device is typically shown as:
send(to, from, count)
register short *to, *from;
register count;
{
- register n=(count+7)/8;
}switch(count%8){
case 0: do{ *to = *from++;
- case 7: *to = *from++;
}case 6: *to = *from++;
case 5: *to = *from++;
case 4: *to = *from++;
case 3: *to = *from++;
case 2: *to = *from++;
case 1: *to = *from++;
}while(--n>0);
Understanding why this is significant involves a long standing controversy about programming style. The controversy itself is not important, here. What is important is that Duff's Device does provoke thought and some strong emotions amoung people involved in the controversy.
Adrian
Interesting note on local laws: For the record, possession of lockpicks here (.ca) will generally land you with a charge of "Possession of Break-in Instrument" [CC S 351(1), indictable offense, 10 years] unless you can show beyond a reasonable inference that you weren't going to use them to commit break & enters (ie, you are a locksmith). Same goes for crowbars or any other implement that could be used to "break in".
Not saying that it's good, just that it's there.
#include "ianal.h"
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
I'm not sure that the court in this case is required to follow this precedent or not, but a US court has already ruled that code is protected free speech.
IIRC the reasoning is along the lines of comparing code to sheet music, or recipe instructions: it's a functional item in that you can play it or use it to bake cookies (respectively), but it's also a form of expression in and of itself. I personally had been waiting for a verdict like that for a long time.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
You must be kidding. Would you have us believe that your garden variety program that computes the value of pi using a mathematical relation, and this program by Wesley that calculates pi by computing its own area, are the same? That neither (especially the latter) are creative, unique, artistic or expressive? Bullshit.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
It just bugs me to have programmers consider their work to be the equal in expressiveness of Bach or Van Gogh or other, true, artists. Anyone can see that there's a world of difference.
I can accept that. I don't agree with you, but I can accept that you feel that way.
At least you are internally consistent. I'm not certain whether we differ in our axioms or in where we go from there.
Personally I can't see the world of difference. The Brandenburg Concertos for example are all variations on a single theme. (beautiful music as well of course) I would say that multiple programs to accomplish the same task are also simply variations on a theme. The implementation is what counts. Had Bach not been the author of the Concertos the variations might have sucked, had a good programmer not been the author of my hypothetical programs they might suck. Bach was great though, and the Concertos are magnificent art, and a good coder can weave art in the same manner.
It occurs to me that neither of us will convince the other. I believe I understand, and respect, your position even if I disagree with it. Hopefully you can understand mine, even if you disagree.
Fare well in your life Jon. No malice here, just discourse.
Absimiliard
Hey Jon.
Do you really believe this? Okay, I'm sure you do or you wouldn't have said it. It just sounds so unbelievable to me.
May I inquire if you are a coder yourself? If you are, why do you code? Do you just do it for money, or do you get some enjoyment from it? If you do it purely for money and it is nothing more than an exercise in assembling blocks then you would seem to have a pretty sucky job. If you enjoy coding then I would argue that in itself proves that there is art and expression involved.
If you don't code, then how can you presume to know this? Only a coder can state whether or not coding is art or expression. A non-coder making a categorical statement like yours is extreme hubris.
Personally I'm a network admin, my coding is pretty weak. Even I find that coding is an expression of my self when I do it. Given the vast number of different ways to accomplish one task I find the choices involved are very expressive. In fact I think that elegant, succint, aesthetic code is in fact an artistic expression. Take this with a grain of salt though. It is just my opinion.
Absimiliard
Based on my experiences, nothing could be further from the truth. I am taking my last semester of computer science classes this fall, and if I weren't a cs major I would be either music composition or graphic design. While computing "...is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises...", so are music composition and architecture -- both decidedly artistic endeavors. In my mind programming is best summed up as creative problem solving.
Some excellent examples of this creativity are the programs that come out of the European demo scene. Groups of middle school to university-aged people will get together to show off their skillfully coded 'demos' complete with original musical accompaniment. Though extremely technical and well-optimised, some of the better demos out there are fantastic artistically.
I hope this helps shed some light on the fact that a lot of programmers are really artists with a technical edge... and code _is_ a form of artistic expression.
magic chef
this comment shows a complete misunderstanding of the few exceptions which the courts have made in regards to free speech.
the one of importance here has to do with clear and present danger. in fact, america could well have limited (amongst its own population) speech re: codes -- speaking about these codes probably would have seriously compromised america's national security in a direct and obvious manner.
no such exception occurs in the case of a particular company or consortium's codes. crack CSS and who gets killed again? who invades?
further, the us doesn't claim to be able to squash free speech in *other* nations, as your hypothetical seems to have germany doing in great britain's direction.
so, this is a really, really unsuitable analogy. doesn't apply at all. apples and oranges.
god is just pretend.
The Times was probably paid-off by DVD, or owned by the same company that owns the patent on DVD.
--
it's a sig, wtf?
But the poster of such information could be held liable as aiding and abetting to a crime. If DVD's start being pirated, couldn't MPAA start suing all the distributors of DeCSS?
I guess the various Gun manufactures must be in a lot of trouble then. And car manufactures.
The various gun manufacturers are in trouble. Several states attorneys-general are suing them for making their products in such a way as to encourage violence (the was Saturday night specials are marketed to urban communities is the commonly cited example). Here is a fairly old article about that. I'm not sure if it's been settled.
There's also the Paladin Press case, where the publisher of the book "Hit Man" was successfully sued when a reader followed the instructions contained within in committing a murder. This article has a fairly biased summary of the case.
The point is the First Amendment does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of your speech, and some could interpret DeCSS as an invitation to violate copyright law.
Kook9 out.
If this does make it all the way up to the Supreme Court, what kind of implications is the decision going to have? Personally I think the decision will be made ruling DeCSS OK, but I suppose only time will tell.
Thank you.
4920616D206E6F7420656C6974652E
Remove the obvious to email me.
+++ATH0
uhhh... what?
He was talking about circumventing access control devices, and now you're saying "this isn't about locks, it's about copyright, a different arena". That's not correct, this IS about locks, and has NOTHING to do with copyright.
He was saying that breaking/picking your own lock should be legal, whether it be a digital device, or a physical lock. Technically, this whole thing doesn't even come CLOSE to being about copyright, it is entirely about breaking a ditital lock on your own property.
This whole thing has been twisted around so much it is absolutely ridiculous! CSS is a lock. Its purpose is to protect the data on a DVD, whether for access control or marketing control shouldn't matter. (It IS for marketing control however, which IMHO is disgusting) Breaking/picking a lock is not illegal, unless you are damaging someone else's property. Whether it's digital or not shouldn't matter.
The DMCA is grossly unconstitutional, and needs to die as soon as possible.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You mean to tell me if someone tried to stop someone from publishing a blueprint he made, that's not a 1st Amendment violation?
Or say if a document included instructions for safely performing an abortion? Should that be banned.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Additionally, RE, insofar as we consider it a right, is pretty much based on free speech I think../I>
You can't pull an idea out of your ass. You have to use easily acquired materials, efficient designs. There's only a few feasible designs for any device, the rest are crap, guaranteed. Think about it.
How many of the chemical elements are suitably organic? Out of over 100, less than a dozen.
Or perhaps that's a bad example. How many of them are useful in a variety of products?
Physics is a science. Anything you do in the beginning of a project will haunt you later. If you try to improve one thing you will cause another to fail.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I didn't think I was being elitist. It'd be wrong to assume that VB could solve all your problems, same with Java. However, there is no arguing that Java is a more powerful language and can be used to create more complicated programs. Yes, you should use the right tool for the job. I think my analogy between playing a recorder and playing a saxophone holds.
Maybe that's why I get paid to provide advice and you don't.
I'm an Engineer, I get paid to DO. There is no reason to be mean...it only detracts from the discussion.
All I'm saying is that the act of programming is not expressive, just like building a wall isn't expressive.
You should visit New England sometime...we have some great stone walls.
You can use more than one kind of brick, and you can put them together in different ways and still get a wall. Creative? Not really.
Maybe we shouldn't be using so many analogies, that might be clouding the issue. A wall certainly serves a different sort of purpose than a computer program or a sonnet. The amount of intellect, analysis, and work to build a wall differs from writing a bit of enterprise software. (What about The Great Wall?) I'm not arguing that every piece of code is masterpiece...likewise, not every piece of music is a masterpiece. Just b/c it's not a masterpiece doesn't make a piece of music or a piece of code not part of an artform.
I'm not knocking what they have created,
Creative? Not really.
You're being imprecise.
I create: a watercolor, a joke, a movie, a web site, a computer program, a journal entry. I am creative.
TGL
--- this space intentionally left blank.
I don't think anyone is trying to say they are a Bach or a Van Gogh. However, people get offended (and rightly) when you knock something that they have created. There is usually more than one way to code a piece of software...how do you account for the way a programmer picks and chooses his or her way?
Programming (a subset of Engineering) is a creative, intuitive process. It's also analytical. Analysis does not rob the art from science.
Everyone's shouting about what's art and what's not art. My life is my art, dammit. There is a spectrum, a gradient...it's not black & white, eh? I think whenever the creator is given a choice..that's art. While the worker on the assembly line is manufacturing a car is not an artist. The guy who designed the '57 DesSoto most definitely is.
(most) People don't start out painting the Mona Lisa. Someone blaring "Hot Cross Buns" on a recorder might be the next Coltrane (or O. Coleman). Scratching on a notepad prepares you for painting portraits. Likewise, "Hello, World!" is the road down which every programmer travels to create beautiful, expressive code.
I agree that Bach or Van Gogh, programming is not. It is art.
TGL
--- this space intentionally left blank.
You know, that's just like saying that painting isn't an art. It's just a science, governed by the mathematical and scientific (logical if you will) premises. In the case of painting, it's governed by the premises of colour and light.
Writing computer code is an art, and let me tell you why. Each coder has his or her own style. Think of the language that they use (C++, Pascal, BASIC, Assembler, perl, etc) as their paint. The compiler is their brush, and the OS it runs on? the canvas. It's the intellectual property of how you put the code together, and in what form. It's because of this that you're not allowed to reverse engineer a program, because then you'd be using someone else's intellectual property (okay, this may not be the actual reason, but you see my point).
Painting isn't something that anyone can do, as is programming. It's an art, it's a way that some people express themselves (see xBill.. I'm sure that it was just someone's way of expressing themselves.)
How would you legally access your important documents in your own safe if
+1, KarmaWhore ;-)
Mmmm.. Donuts
I understand your intentions were noble even though there is a little bit of Karma Whoring involved (nothing wrong with Karma Whoring btw - we all do it).
My comment was just a joke. I guess I was Karma Whoring for the +1 Funny.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Do you really honeatly believe that there's no creativity involved in programming? Really? Damn, you must write boring code.
> I was wondering about that. Star Wars is owned
> by George Lucas. But since it came out, it has
> in many ways become a part of our society's
> mythos.
Which goes back to the very reason that art is so important to culture and WHY we benefit from encouraging art through copyright. It goes back to the problem of publishers who would publish books and not pay the author, that discouraged art. It was needed to stop this problem and encourage it - because it is part of our cultural identity.
> In a way, he borrowed from our stories and
> sold it back to us.
Oh most definitly. Human storytelling isan ancient art form. Many stories contain similar plots and stories. How could they not? As I remember even Shakespear's 'Romeo and Julliet' was based on a much older poem (that was well known in his time).
It would be interesting to identify storylines and plots and to go back through litterary history and see the incremental borrowings and developments of them through successive stories.
Like take this one "group of peopl eneed hero(s) find and actor playing a hero and mistake him for a real hero. They contract him to help through misunderstanding (he thinks they know hes an actor and want him to act for them). Truth is discovered, he initially tries to run, ends up rising to the occasion and saving the day".
Very common story. In the past few years 2 movies that I know of used it. Galaxey Quest, A Bugs life, and I know I have seen it before even that.
I have to wonder how old the story itself is. How many other times has it been used?
But I digress....thats really somewhat offtopic. Anyway I agree, these stories belong to us. They are a part of our cultural identity, part of our very selves. We don't just watch a movie, we absorb it. Art changes us, becomes part of us.
Im not saying copyright is horrible (I have said it, but now that I think about it, its worst to have a situation where authors get screwed over too), but its not ownership and should never be mistaken for it.
--Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That would be a better protest of the anti-meth bill. I know I shouldn't reply but... not only is the information wrong, I would caution anyone against doing this. Wildly offtopic, of course but it should be noted.
HBWR seeds contain some nasty toxic stuff. Im not sure what exactly but I have eaten these seeds and the toxic effect is unmistakable. Body pains, headache. Run down feelings all persisting for about 24 hours too. Extraction is said to remove the toic stuff and leave only LSAs (not LSD) but I wouldn't try it.
Just figured I would throw that in to save others from making the mistake I did. The toxic syndrome from those things is quite nasty (though luckily only lasts about 24 hours - the LSA effects are not part of the toxic effects and end long before the toxic effects do)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Your missing the point.
Its perfectly legal for me to go out and buy a bunch of locks, then break/smash/melt/pick them.
Picking a lock, or smashing it etc is "Circumventing an access control device". That should not be illegal, unless the intended result is illegal.
ie, it should be illegal for me to smash or even pick your front door lock, so that I can enter your house and steal your stuff. It should NOT be illegal for me to smash, cut, or pick my own front door lock to get into my own house (or even just to see if I can do it)
The DMCA is an attempt to make it illegal for me to go out, purchase some software (not that I normally do that,othe ONLY peice of software that I actually bought within the past few years has been a lokisoftware game for linux), and then 'circumvent its access control'.
So I can buy the locked box with the key, but im not allowed to take the lock apart or smash the lock to see if I can break it.
Seems to me to be an attempt to take away my rights as a consumer.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I wish it was never even a langauge. And can in some ways barely be considered one.
Go look at Perl. Go look at C. Dont go and look at some nasty creation of MS! =D
A suggested site would be Perlmonks, my favorite perl site. There is code poetry there as well.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
With Python the use of whitespace is enforced. Which means I have to use the style pretty much dictated by someone else. Takes all the fun out of it for me.
And that's DEFINATELY a 'for me only.' Because everyone has different parts that they enjoy, or mediums they use. Otherwise ALL paintings would be oil on canvas, and all sculpture done with marble.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
The judge can give a multipart decision. Its happened before. Especially if it was pressed as a point in the trial.
But it sounds like his attitudes have shifted dramatically since the beginning of the trial, and that is of great credit to the quality of the witnesses that the defense brought in. Kudos to them all.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
DeCSS is being used for piracy today.
Can you provide a URL to a movie that is being distributed by means of DeCSS? One will do. (The MPAA wasn't able to do so.)
you'll find plenty of movies there that are described as having been converted by a DVD rip.
And you conclude that the person who ripped the data used DeCSS because....?
Certainly it would be *possible* to use DeCSS for this purpose, then step down the quality to get the file down to a remotely reasonable size. But it's a serious mistake to look at files that say "This is ripped from a studio DVD" and conclude they've ever been anywhere near DeCSS. Rippers for DVD movies existed and were in circulation before DeCSS existed.
After a somewhat dodgy report of the case earlier in the week, the Guardian had a fairly clueful article . Shame about the title but that's editors for you.
OTH really puts all of this into perspective realy well from a show in late june, before the case ever started. Its about the control of fair use after a dvd has been bought. Who is to say what you can and cannot do with the dvd after you paid for it! can it be used to copy dvds? yes, but its alot of trouble and the MPAA shouldnt be worried about that. thats a mute point.
I actually have a "Demo DVD" which came with my DVD drive and promised to show me all the cool features which DVD's have. It is actually not encoded or encrypted at all. I tried to use DeCSS on it just to see if it even worked, and it failed due to the fact that there was nothing there to decrypt!
That's a foolish concept at best. Lawsuits aren't a cheap matter, and the cumulative cost of that many lawsuits, not to mention counter-suits filed by parties found to be innocent (likely most of them), is enough to give even groups with deep pockets pause.
To say nothing of the public relations nightmare that sort of policy would be. It's bad enough as it is.
Please let's not confuse SPEECH with EXPRESSION. Burning a flag is not speech. It is expression, and as the Supreme Court says, First-Amendment protected. Why setting a flag on fire would be expression, but setting yourself on fire would not is lost on me.
Actually, you get to choose how to express yourself. That's settled (in general).
Supreme Court case: Hippie wants to have "Fuck the Draft" on his T-shirt. Argument of the government was that he didn't have to use the first word where little kiddies could read it. Government Loses. Cohen v. California (1971).
It's a botch for the defense, and the cards may collapse on this. However, it is unlikely to be the last DVD/CSS case -- once Livid works, there will almost certainly be a case against someone the MPAA selects as a suspect.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
You're probably right, but since I lack the knowledge to understand the encryption, when I think about it on a personal level, I'm just waiting for LiViD to work so that I can watch DVDs on my Linux box.
Salocin.com
I'm still pissed about the reporting inaccuracies though.
Salocin.com
I see...so all those pieces of Shaker furniture, or appliances from the Art Deco/streamlining era, in museums shouldn't be there, eh? They're just furniture, or toasters, or radios...
Radio Stations are businesses which exploit the work for profit
Yes, Radio makes a profit, but not from broadcasting music. They do so by charging for advertising time. They broadcast music for free.
So, if I were to have banner ads at a web-site, and offered MP3s for downloads, it would be exactly the same as what the radio does.
Why can't I make them publically available as long as I don't sell them.
That would be like broadcasting over the radio. Radio stations pay fees to broadcast a copyrighted song to the public.
So if you would like to pay a fee to the MPAA as friends, then you, too can "broadcast" on the net. Since the copyright on the CDs you buy say it is for private use only, that excludes you the right to post it on the net.
I don't see a problem with that exclusion of rights. You still have fair use. You can still listen to the CD in any device you want, do anything you want to it. However, providing copies for other people, instead of them purchasing it isn't right.
It doesn't matter, no software will be going into the public domain for the next 80 years or so (ok more like 60). Certainly no current day, well used software. By that time the interests of Big Buisness will have done away with the concepts of public domain and "fair use".
This is why I think that software should fall under patents, no copyrights. Software isn't a work of art (no offense meant to the CS people here), but a product that was designed and built, and copies made of. Because of this, copyright doesn't apply correctly (to me).
So, if software was covered under patents, then it would be protected for 17 years, but only if they disclosed the source code (analgous to design drawings). However, that is still too long for the industry. This industry advances at a much greater rate (generation-wise) than technology did when the 17 year limit was chosen.
As for creativity, what you say is utter nonsense. If computing is a science with unalterable ways of doing things with no room for creativity, how come my programming professor taught us six ways to sort data? How come I went home and came up with another one? How come Linux runs so much more reliably than Windoze? If you can't understand the difference between code that is elegant and clean and code that is kludgy and hacked, that's your problem - but don't expect the rest of us to hire you as our sysadmins.
This is absolutely correct. It is legal for me to tell you "If you pick up this knife, and slit a man's throat from ear to ear, you will open both the carotid artery and the jugular vein, blood will spurt six feet, and he'll die within two minutes at the longest." Now, if I say that exact same thing, then point to a man across the room and say "why don't you go try it?" then I'm guilty of conspiricy to commit murder.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Is it possible to play a DVD with unencrypted (but still compressed obviously) video on a normal DVD player that is fully licensed and CSS comatible? I think the worst thing would be not if people couldn't copy DVD's but if small time movie makers couldn't make their own DVD's. With digital video flooding in there are bound to be some great independant movies made completely digital and on a very low budget. Mass producing DVD's should be much cheaper in the long run than mass producing VHS tapes so I am wandering if they will be able to put there work onto DVD's to distribute? It would be horrible if the MPAA controlled the content of DVD's as well as the distribution. Does anyone know?
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
So how dumb does that lawyer look now, after slagging off the judge and saying he's biased?! Maybe that wasn't quite the smartest move of your life, sonny...
Grab.
The government imposed a moratorium on internet taxation. However, it did not get passed without opposition. This was a case of success, though.
Pax Digitalia
Praise Cthulu, it's an intelligent Judge!
The track record of the government, legislative, judicial and executive, had seemed pretty bleak until now. DMCA, COPA, the meth proliferation act, internet taxation. Success and failure.
In fact, I was ready to assume that the government was full of technological neophytes and sychophants, willing to bow down to any corporation with even an ounce of intelligence. I am starting to get restored faih in the government, though. Watching the congressional hearing on MP3 tech, I started to see that the senators aren't all mindless fools.
Lets hope that the judge makes a good ruling, and the MPAA gets beating in the kidneys when they go for appeal.
Pax Digitalia
Napster founder Fanning has been heard to say, "Heheheh, just gotta keep us out of jail until this baby flys, and were outa here, so long suckers!" Napster is also rumored to be considering supplying its own "official" merchandise at the same time with the logo imblazoned on the front and the words "Fuck metallica, fuck The Offspring, and Fuck You!" on the back. Projected sales figures are not yet currently available.
Lemure, wtf! Don't you mean Lemur?
Thats what should happen. The first ammendment should be unneccesary, since everyone should consider it wrong to try to restrict information.
This The Register article suggests that the judge will only rule whether this breaks the DMCA, and leave the constitutionality of it to other courts.
It could go either way, depending on whether the MPAA convince him that DeCSS does break the law, but freedom of speech could be n influence.
The design of a typical 500 year old cathedral is actually mainly based on functionality. The curved roof is essentially an arch. This has been designed to be self supporting, and also such that the rain runs off. Because of the outward forces this causes, buttresses are used.
Medieval architects realised that it was only neccesary to support the top of the wall, and so created flying buttresses, which when nested give that elegant multiple arch that most cathedral have. Try to build a box that size out of stone, and the roof would fall in, or the walls would fall outwards.
I've skimmed much of the transcripts, and found some interesting differences from the secondary coverage. For one thing, while the judge and Garbus did have a personality conflict, Kaplan seemed pretty reasonable, and wasn't sitting down for bull**** from either side. (Furthermore, it seemed that Garbus had the good sense to sit down and let his assistant handle most of it once it became clear he was irritating the judge). What's more, Kaplan was pretty funny at times... (can't quickly find an instance searching the text, but...)
Any true movie "aficionado" (Spanish for "in a relationship with") will recognize that this story is best represented in the classic 1986 John Landis vehicle The Three Amigos, where Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short play the roles of three unemployed Western actors hired by a small Mexican village that needs protection from malicious bad guy El Guapo (Alfonso Arau, in his finest role since Herrera in The Wild Bunch). In this movie, of course, the roles are reversed, as the Three Amigos don't realize that they are being hired as real heroes until well into the movie. Hilarious antics ensue.
In fact, to bring this back on topic, you could agree with Steve Martin's character Lucky Day when he said "I suppose you could say everyone has an El Guapo." In this case, the MPAA is El Guapo, and 2600 is the small Mexican village.
Visit 2600.com: The Small Mexican Village
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
They did not change methods, methinks. They are reacting to the Defendant's method of making the trial into a techno-trial instead of a civil-trial. Which is to the Defendant's advantage of course since it has the entire techno-geek brainpower behind them.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
All news agencies have places where readers can give feedback and corrections. Every time I read an article stating that DeCSS allows movies to be copied, I send a polite notice of a correction that DeCSS does not enable any form of copying that we weren't able to do in the first place.
I gave them an analogy, to a Southern movie theater in the pre-Civil-Rights era. If you are African-American (i.e., a Linux user), you cannot enter the theater (i.e., watch the DVD) whether you buy a ticket or not. DeCSS is like a trapdoor in the theater whereby African-Americans can sneak into the theater to see the movie. Since they can't buy a ticket legally anyhow, the legality of sneaking in is irrelevant.
Now the obligatory rant -
Trying to outlaw expression because it is too utilitarian makes a judgement about that code. Would you say that:
int F = m * a;
is not protected? Well then, what about the first chapter of a physics text? What about a biography about a physicist? What about a program that prints the biography of a physicist? How about a book about programming? Where is the line? Do you trust anyone - Judge Kaplan, Emmanuel Goldstein, CmdrTaco, me - to determine where that line is?
The reason that Congress shall make NO law limiting expression, is because that line can't be drawn in a way that someone can't attack. If you claim that C++ isn't protected speech, but HTML is, I'll ask about HTML pages containing C++. Is my slashdot discussion free speech? At some point, it is reduced to an SQL statement - if that SQL isn't protected speech, how can my rantings and ravings be protected speech. Later, it becomes HTML.
Coding may not be poetry (except in certain cases, with Perl), but it is certainly a way of relating information between individuals. If writing a book on how to commit suicide - certainly a work consisting of instructions, with no apparent art or poetic value in my opinion - is protected expression, then my rants and raves had better be, as well.
End of rant...
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
I found it interesting that at the bottom of the article, they wrote out the url to 2600 (http://www.2600.com) rather than place a link, which they do for other sites related to stories - I guess they want to avoid litigation.
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
"IMNSHO It is important to remember that copyright is not "We allow authors to do this, because they made their work and they deserve to own it" it is "We allow authors certain rights because we wish to encourage authorship for the good of society as a whole". Copyright comes from a desire for art, and a belief we , as a whole, win by temporarily giving up our rights to authors. It does NOT derive from the basic "right to property". "
I was wondering about that. Star Wars is owned by George Lucas. But since it came out, it has in many ways become a part of our society's mythos. I would argue that we all own Star Wars in a way. Especially those who paid a lot of money to Lucas because it resonates so well.
And "resonate" is the key word because Lucas himself said that the Star Wars story was derived and inspired from other stories on Western culture like "King Arthur". In a way, he borrowed from our stories and sold it back to us.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
"No, because a piece of code is merely a series of instructions for an algorithm, not something designed to evoke emotion and thought. People are saying that code is, of itself, a thing of beauty which is blatent rubbish. Similarly a musical score by itself does not evoke emotion, it is the finished product!!"
It seems true. A symphony is only beautiful when it is performed. A program is beautiful when it runs. Depending on the hardware or orchestra, the composer's score or programmer's code could be played beautifully or crappily.
I'd have to say that the SETI@home client is beautiful. The movement and colors and efficiency are something to behold.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
"Arts and SCience are basically the same."
Art and Science are the same because they both describe worlds that are invisible in ordinary life.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Forget it. I wrote out this huge reply. Then I got this image of the movie "Amadeus". When Salieri sees Mozart's sheet music, he hears the notes in his head. I think this is what you refer to. Even though the music was never played or heard by an audience, Salieri knew Mozart was a genious.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Just as a non-musician appreciates Mozart when it's played, can't a non-programmer appreciate a browser when he uses it?
After all, Milne didn't write Winnie-the-Poo for parents. It was written for mainly for the enjoyment of children.
Programmers usually don't write for other programmers. They write for users. Users are the ones who determine what programs are crap and what are good, even though they will never see the code.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
"Personally, I think it should be an open system. The artists/authors can encrypt as much as they want, and the users can decrypt as much as they want/are able. As long as they can prevent 80+% of the population from ripping them off, everyone should be okay (maybe...). We'll still have some l4m3r5 who feel they shouldn't have to pay for anything, but we're stuck with them till we can ship them to Mars. All we have to do is shoot the publishers to make this possible (they want 100% control...they won't settle for 80%)"
This is what happened with software, right? Nowadays, most closed software has some sort of copyright protection. Most people put in their keys, serial nums, and what not. Mr. and Mrs. Smith don't usually go on the net looking for the cracked copy on warez sites.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
You are obviously not a programmer.
if you were you would know that there is no
one way to solve a given problem, and there
is no one style to format the code, and there
is a ton of room for personal expression on one's
code. if you dont have a personal coding style,
then you cannot code at all. it is an art.
witness that the productivity of a hacker is
inversely proportional to the amount of management.
http://partners.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-DVD-Soft ware-Trial.html
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
DeCSS is simply a tool that lets you decode the format of a DVD movie. What you do with the movie after that is your buisness, legal or illegal. This is a tool; and just like other tools, it can be used for good or it can be abused. Banning a tool simply because it has the ability to facilitate illegal actions is as stupid as banning a hammer for the same reason (you could break into a house via smashing a window, or injure someone with it).
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
I grepped through all the testimony on 2600's website, but I couldn't find any testimony from Touretzky, who apparrently made a big impression on the judge. Anyone know where I can get a copy?
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
And to extend, others who cannot read the source (music or C) can still see the beauty when the source is run, either on a computer, or played by an orchestra. In other words, you don't need to be a programmer to understand the beauty of (for instance) a well-written and nicely designed internet browser. However, programmers might notice some subtilties of design and neat little quirks. Likewise, a musician might notice interesting little passages and cute little tricks with harmonics that the average listener might miss.
Besides, just like an artist feels a sort of creative rush when they create something beautiful, and I feel that rush of creating something useful with a computer program that finally works sans (major) bugs. The same feeling of accomplishment that people feel after completeing anything. Given that people like to code and give it away for others to look at, and that terms such as spagetti code are used to describe design flaws and such, I'd say that there's a lot of expression in code. Same as there is expersion is architecture, and in inventing. The way a complicated circuit works may not be interesting to non-electrical engineers, but there is still expression in the methods of using it. The choices made in creating anything show expression on the part of the creator.
The mere existance of Open Source and the existance of an Open Source community seems to suggest that many people do find expression through code. After all, why bother creating code if won't get paid? Well, for the communities appreciation, of course. That seems to suggest that some people find code to be an expression. I don't think Open Source could exist should code not be a method of expression for people.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
He's a troll - look at his posting history. He's one of the better trolls, granted, but a troll non the less. Try looking for "NPO Technologies" on the web (the IT firm he claims to work for). Surely they'd have some form of web presence, they're an IT firm, right? Nearly every company has a web site, and I'd be very surprised to find that an IT consulting firm would not have one. Yet searching AltaVista for either npo technologies or n.p.o. technologies returns nothing. It doesn't seem to exist. I'd expect there to be some web page about them somewhere, but there isn't... he's a troll. Albeit a good one.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Don't you love how they didn't bother to put an A HREF around the 2600 link at the bottom of the article? :)
Conspiracy? Sure, why not?
Movies are a form of creative expression. Code (and, by extension, compiled software) is a form of creative expression. You can put a EULA on code. Or a GPL. Or a BSD license. Or whatever. So why can't you put these on some other form of creative expression?
Note that all these licenses have substantial influences on what you can do with the code or the binary after it's in your hands.
Yes, but the GPL license for example weakens the traditional protections of copyright law, by using the law against itself. I agree with the purpose and even the interpretation of Copyright Law - the creator of a work has a right to make money and control its distribution. But once legally acquired, the user can do whatever they want with the work, as long as it is private. Redistribution of the work or derivatives must adhere to copyright law, which may or may not be weakened by permissions of the author. (i.e. feel free to give this to as many people as you want, as long as you publish your changes.)
The MPAA is trying to strengthen the reach of Copyright Law into where it was never meant to go - to dictate how their creative work may be used, not just how it may be distributed. I have issues with this, and I don't think I am alone.
Now you may bring up EULA for software that impose rules against reverse engineering, etc. but as far as I know the enforcability of these provisions is questionable, as it should be.
imagine the legal precedents that this case is going to set either way it goes. For the sake of innovation, free speech, and our ability to function as a community under both of these, pray that the courts decide in favor of 2600.
For any one that saw the Mock Trial at H2K it is quite clear that 2600 will win, what with Jack Valenti paying the jury cash in open court and all...
I had a bad morning, and this made me much happier. ;) Congrats, and keep fighting!
----
I put the link there because I thought it would be genuinely useful for some people. Especially as just as people were figuring out the "www->partners" loophole they changed the scheme.
What I think is a shame is that an A/C posted seconds before me with the same link. My comment was modded up and the A/C's was left alone. This shows that the moderators are not browsing at 0, while IMHO they should be browsing at -1. That is a shame.
Programming is one of the most complicated and difficult human activities, particularly if the system is of any size. There is reason to believe (Rosen, 1985, Life Itself; Chaitin, 1987, Algorithmic Information Theory) that it cannot be formalized. That immediately implies code is a form of expression.
Looks like for once the initial ruling goes towards the side in the right. Although I can't see this causing the MPAA to pack up and go home; I don't see this thing ending until it gets up to the Supreme Court. Now if we can only get congresspeople that will get rid of the DCMA.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
He said that they were trying to create a safe legal environment in which music companies and such would feel comfortable with online distribution. I suspect, then, that the primary purpose of the paragraph about circumventing technological measures was to forbid people from bypassing password authentication on websites where music (and such) is published--but had nothing to do with over-the-counter "packaged" materials like DVDs, or people's right to decode and view them on whatever OS they wanted. I suspect the congresscritters who voted for it never thought about those implications, and wouldn't have written the law that way themselves. . . it's just that they got so many kind offers of assistance in writing the law from RIAA and MPAA lobbyists, and they had such busy campaign schedules.
The good news, then, is that if the court case goes the wrong way, it's not impossible that the next congress may take action to bring the law more in line with original intent.
http://www.verizonreallysucks.com
or
http
Not my personal thoughts, just other names registered by 2600.
My next Slashdot post will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
maybe the case should be refered to Secretary of Education (Richard Pryor) and the secretary of fine arts (Stevie Wonder) :) hehe, couldn't resist it. LollypopMan --- feet don't fail me now...
Course, if you then share the whole archive publiclly...that's different.
The real deal/lesson in this is;
Know what business you are in.
If Amtrak/Conrail understood that they were in the transportation business, you would be flying the 'metroliner' from NYC to Paris.
The MPAA is in the Motion Picture business, not the software, encryption, or Intelectual Property Business and hopefully the courts will agree.
I applaud Judge Kaplan and the code poets everywhere for stridently thinking in a sane direction.
This communication is secured using Rot-26 Encryption Algorithm, Unauthorized decryption will be subject to laughter.
Ahhh yes... the New York Times. A bastion of unbiased reporting and journalistic integrity.
Humorless sig goes here.
oh, so you admit wanting to go to SF? i knew you were a fag.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
you, sir, are a:
T.R.O.L.L.
Wishing the defendants the best of luck. Nothing useful to say, so I suppose that makes me a troll. Hehe
By the way, which member of the /. editorial team was it that predicted defeat for 2600 et al? 'Cos the NYT is predicting the opposite.
hey you left out step 13.
13. Sell your bunk yellow goo shit LSD to raver kids.
EXCUSE ME!!!!
I'm a senior programmer where I work. ANY time I need to express an idea to a subordinate, its done in code. We SHARE IDEAS by writing different code snippits to drive our points home. Its how understanding is born and work gets done. From what you've written, I seriously doubt you've ever WORKED in an environment where this was true. I even doubt your a programmer. Other programmers know this is how we share ideas. In other words, its the way we EXPRESS OURSELVES.
Another thing. Art IS BASED on the very same mathematical and logical premises as programming. EVERYTHING in art is based on a geometric primitive. Its the blending of these primitives that makes them beautiful to us.
Next time YOU visit an art gallery, try paying attention to this fact.
First, I really am curious if you actually are a programmer...
I'm an IT consultant, though I have done a fair bit of VB programming in the past. So yes, I suppose I am a programmer, if not a professional one.
Secondly, as to use of whitespace, I suppose its rather non-American of me, but I happen to find a quiet elegance in code that is well spaced, and where whitespace is used to create clear, clean segments of code.
And yet you say that you don't like languages like Python where such neatness is part of the language?
I have read code that made me laugh, code that made me think, and occaisionally, code that made me cry.
Well, I've read code that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Code is yet another extension of all of this. Not only in the elegance of algorithms, but also in how problems are approached and dealt with, and creative use (or lack thereof!) of whitespace. (No, I dont like whitespace delimited languages, for just that reason!)
You view the usage of whitespace as being creative? The only thing that whitespace is used for is to make code readable by people - there is nothing "creative" about it. Sure you could add enough whitespace to make your code in the shape of a smiley face or something, but that's not being creative, it's being a dick.
Please explain how hitting the space bar is being "creative".
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Do you really believe this?
Well, yes, I posted it didn't I?
May I inquire if you are a coder yourself?
I'm an IT consultant, although I have done some VB coding before and occasionally not. It has put me off of programming though, and it certainly isn't an "art form" as some seem to suggest.
It just bugs me to have programmers consider their work to be the equal in expressiveness of Bach or Van Gogh or other, true, artists. Anyone can see that there's a world of difference.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
And if you have permission, there's nothing illegal about it.
Jon, you're not making much sense. First off, you say that a score and code aren't equivalent because the algorithm wasn't "designed to evoke emotion and thought." I'm a gamer, and I can tell you that there are quite a few games out there that were designed to evoke both emotion and thought.
You also say that because the "code is merely a series of instructions", it is not art. What, then, is a musical score? and how can you protect the final product without protecting the source?
One last thought - what does it matter whether code is art or not? There's plenty of free speech that isn't art. The whole point of the first amendment was to protect political speech (which isn't to say it doesn't, wasn't intended to or shouldn't protect anything else)! I don't know about you, but I don't find most political speech very artistic, clever lies notwithstanding.
It is one thing to ban the use of crypto, or deny someone the use of an algorithm (Frauenhaufer... cough, cough), it is something different for a judge to cop out and say that the MPAA must accept people backing up their DVD's in a smaller format in case their discs break because it is "protected speach." Kaplan should have the integrity to tell the MPAA to suck it.
One reason I can see for doing this is the appeals process. The judge recognizes that 2600 is right, but wants to pass the buck as far as setting a precedent that could quickly be overturned. Its a shame that this is how it has to be.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
It really would be nice if things worked out as they should, but we never know with the way the courts work today. I agree that free speech is important, but to protect software with the First Amendment... gimme a break.
DeCSS should be upheld under "fair use," not hide behind the First Amendment.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
The sad state of america right now is this: Gun manufacturers DO get sued. So do Car Companies. That implies to me, that it's more than possible, even likely that distributors of DeCSS will get sued. I don't think it will hold up in court, being that it's so minor of an infraction. There is no loss of life (guns, tobacco) or property (cars, lockpicks, etc), but it is definately feasible. Especially with the wrong jury...
-Superb0wl
-Superb0wl
It's not that I'm lazy....it's that I just don't care.
Apparently our fine feathered friend is either not a programmer or is a programmer without a soul!
#!/Jerald
You forgot the smiley, Jon.
--
Copyright (and other intellectual property) isn't some sort of magical natural right. It's something we've set up as a society because in general it's a good idea that promotes creative expression.
How is this relevant?
However, it's not an infinite right -- there are limits to its extent, including the fair use doctrine. These limits exist for exactly the same reason as the IP laws themselves: the benefit of the public as a whole.
So, if I understand you, copyright is good, but it's bad. Which is it?
But why should we radically increase the rights given? Large copyright interests are taking the opportunity presented by digital media to attempt an overcompensation -- they're asking for rights they've never had before.
You're completely ignoring my point. We're giving Microsoft rights that we're not giving the MPAA and the RIAA. Why shouldn't the MPAA have the same rights as Microsoft?
DeCSS is NOT used primarily for law breaking.
Well then, what is it used for?
It is much more likely that a potential infringer would use a Microsoft Windows tool rather than a Linux tool.
If the DeCSS people had never published it, these people probably wouldn't have found the decryption algorithm, correct? So they're all essentially DeCSS offshoots.
In fact there are several Windows programs to decrypt DVDs, why are they not in court?
Good question. Why aren't they?
Look, idiot, I think there is just about no one posting to Slashdot or in the entire software industry who doesn't actually work for Micros~1 who thinks that the power they wield is a "right."
Oh. Really. Well, I guess it's understandable that you overlook Sun and Oracle and IBM and Adobe and Corel and all those other minor little companies that exercise those exact same rights.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that's why the Federal Government decided to break them up.
I certainly don't see another IBM antitrust trial on the horizon.
Don't cite Micros~1, for God's sake, as an example of fair business practices if you want to get any respect.
Ok. Apple. Borland / Inprise. Napster. They all exercise that same right.
Oh, and I realize some people (yourself included) will figure this whole post is invalid because I called you an idiot.
Translation: "I know my argument is weak, but I'll attempt to discredit you by trying to get you to base your defense on my blatant attacks on your intelligence."
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Please consult an optometrist.
Oh, and I normally don't read responses to my posts... or posts that are at 1 (or lower). But feel free to reply anyway.
"I want to have a way out in case I can't think of any way to rebut what you have to say."
I don't know why the Times article repeats so often that DeCSS is about copying DVDs.
Well, most of it is, isn't it? I'll let this slide for now.
It isn't, it's about access control and the movie studios trying to control what you can you with a DVD *after* you have bought and paid for it.
I keep wondering just where everyone gets the idea that studios have to get the hell out of your DVD-owning experience after you buy the damn thing.
Here, let me give you an example. I'll even assume that code is a form of creative expression, just for you (and if it's not, then 2600 has no case):
Movies are a form of creative expression. Code (and, by extension, compiled software) is a form of creative expression. You can put a EULA on code. Or a GPL. Or a BSD license. Or whatever. So why can't you put these on some other form of creative expression?
Note that all these licenses have substantial influences on what you can do with the code or the binary after it's in your hands.
We know this all ready, but the general public doesn't and it is a shame to see the Times drop the ball.
Well, it's a shame, but not exactly surprising. They're not the bastion of good journalism that they like to think they are.
Well, at least the article wasn't written by John Markoff
And what do you have against him? That he was against destructive computer crimes? How is that wrong?
As for the issue of piracy, perhaps you could liken that to guns as well. If a disgruntled individual goes to K-mart and buys a gun, goes through the background checks without a hitch, gets his gun, and promptly kills six people on Main Street, the only thing that would happen to K-Mart is that they would be checked to see that the gun was sold legally, with all the proper background checks and whatnot. (That was a hell of a run-on sentence.) Similar thing with DVD piracy. If you get caught distributing copies of DVDs, what can they do to the person who gave you DeCSS? Nada, if there's nothing wrong with distributing the code.
Okay, that's enough outta me.
-- ~Can money pay for all the days I've lived awake, but half asleep?~
Arts and SCience are basically the same. The major difference between an Art and a Science is that the Science is bleached of all the genious by 85% humans that resemble robots. If Einstein was around would he call Quantum Mechanics an Art or a Science? I would imagine he would call it an Art, but an average engineer would definitely call it a Science. The Art is the crude, pure form where the Science springs. Dig it.
"The 85 I fear they don't got a clue."
Whether its an art or a science is in the eye of the beholder. Go ask a pioneering scientist(architect) and he will tell you its an art. Ask the average state university-taught engineer, only in it for the money and he will call it a science. But who actually accomplishes things in the world and makes a difference? The pioneer with his head in the clouds, or the average engineer that will just finish thoughts that the pioneers have started.
"The 85 I fear they don't got a clue."
Note that the article kept referring to DeCSS as *copying* software vs. playback software.
Incidently, I had Touretzky as a professor last semester for a neural nets class, he's a cool man. And he wasn't bullshitting for the sake of winning a case; it seemed to be fairly obvious to me from hearing him lecture that he really does feel his work goes beyond applying "the process" and churning out new algorithms & programs for his work [simulating rat brains, interestingly enough].
You miss the point -- it's not a matter of whether writing code involves creativity or not. It's a matter of whether DeCSS is a form of expression, and clearly it is. Imagine an author with some technical background became fascinated by the copy control mechanism "CSS". Imagine this author studied the mechanism, spent significant time researching it, then for the benefit of his readers wrote an article describing how the mechanism works, its weaknesses and its nature. Would this article be a form of expression? Of course it would. In many ways, expressing these items in code is so much more effective (and efficient) than expressing them in a natural language. The Dr. Touretzky's life work involves studying systems security -- he expresses himself in articles and in code which exercise his understanding of the systems he studies. Personally, I derive a lot more information about CSS from the DeCSS code than I would from an article describing it; to me, DeCSS is CLEARLY expressive. Imagine how limited the professor would be in his work as a computer scientist if he was precluded from expressing his understanding of systems' security in the form of computer code. -Chernyakov
Oh SO wrong. Coding is the ultimate art form. The art of beathing life into a product. A product that will live or die based on how well it fits a need. Look at the entire open source concept. If you have captured the user needs properly and coded it properly you have entity that will live on for a long time.
The fact that I look at coding as a creative outlet has come up in every interview that I have ever had.
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization. Programmers aren't artists - they're much more like engineers. Anyone who goes on about how coding is a "creative exercise" is lacking something in their life and probably needs to get out some more - go to an art gallery and see something that is expressive
Again I say "bagh". Tell me that the Eifel tower or the Space Needle are not beautiful, tell me that a suspension bridge is not beautiful. Tell me that the sheer magesty of the Sears tower is not beautiful, then tell me how the Parthenon is not beautiful. We have always found beauty in engineering, and I feel sorry for the engineers that do NOT see beauty in their code.
end soap box
Post the email if you want. You have my permission.
Am I the only one that has not been able to connect to 2600 in the last couple of days? Tried from 2 completely different networks, fails to connect after at least 50 tries. I have not seen anything about it anywhere else. I have read all the transcripts except for 75% of the last days, making me feel like I just check out a mystery from the library, and someone ripped out the last 5 pages!
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The thing is, that by buying the DVD, you have the right to decrypt it, as you do when viewing it on any DVD player. That encryption was a way of controlling where you could view it technologically, but with no right to control it.
I may disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to death your right to speak it.
I'm surprised that the case has gone this far. First, what reason is there for the government to protect outmoded business models. At a former international (brown truck) delivery company, we were always told about how the railroads had managed to fade to near irrelevance because they couldn't adapt to change. The railroads were the only way to transport goods until trucks, planes and other methods sideswiped them.
This is a fact of business. Adapt or die. Imagine if the government had decreed that railroads were the only way to transport product? Or what if copy machines were banned because they infringed book publishers' rights.
Secondly, if the MPAA wins this case it could also make vulnerable such products as Wine (windows emulator), VMWare, or the PlayStation Emulator.
Third, an MPAA win would severely limit the freedom for informative articles about technology. For example, it could then become illegal to explain the pitfalls of the CSS encryption procedure because doing so would aid in its circumvention.
I'd say an elegantly-written program can be the artistic equivalant of an elegantly-written musical score.
In either case, you must be able to understand the language in which they are written to appreciate their beauty. To someone who can't read music, a Bach score is as indecipherable as a C program is to someone who doesn't know C.
- Robin
Survival in the entertainment industry is and has always been about ATTENTION. Somebody with gigs and gigs of mp3s is not abusing the system, they basically don't count. They are sitting on a lot of music that they're essentially ignoring- they are doing the equivalent of playing about 6 radios at once all tuned to different stations. It's drowning in choice, being so swamped by the amount of mp3s they have that few wind up worthy of particular attention. There is effectively no difference between three mp3s you don't listen to and three million mp3s you don't listen to- and the psychology of this type of uber-hoarder is to have the three million mp3s and sit around with the speakers off. It's about collecting, not listening- so it entirely fails to connect to the industry using the only relevant currency, the currency of attention.
All that aside, it is going to be quite hard for the judge to rule that something published in a magazine is not covered by the 1st Amendment. The MPAA made a *MAJOR* mistake in going after 2600 Magazine as their first "big-name" villain here... if they'd first tried to shut down private citizens, and left 2600 alone, they could have gotten their precedent. Instead, they have run ashore on the shoals of the 1st Amendment here, because you don't censor magazines here in the United States unless there is a darn good reason to do so.
Of course, the trial transcripts of the MPAA execs on the stand showed that the MPAA was seriously clueless anyhow. Apparently they had no idea that 2600.com was the webzine version of a magazine until after they'd already filed the suit.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere on www.digital-digest.com - There's a HUGE amount of DVD information there. If it's not linked to from there, I don't remember where I saw it...
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Slashdot;
$sd = Slashdot->new('00/07/26/1317255');
@expression = ("expression", "of", "form", "a", "is", "code", "My");
$agree = 0;
if (! $agree) {
foreach $word (reverse @expression) {
print "$word ";
}
if ($sd->usertype($sd->post(27)->getuser()) eq 'dumbass') {
print "dumbass";
}
print "!\n";
}
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Email me a link to a ripped copy of The Matrix so I can verify that DeCSS is being used for piracy. I promise I won't watch it much. It's really just for educational purposes anyway.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
How is this relevant? Well, to make a pirated copy of a movie like this, DeCSS isn't even necessary. Just ripping it from the output of a DVD player will be fine.
--
--
All WWII movies acknowledge the existance of other countries. I mean, without Germany and Japan, who would we be winning against?
Smashing or breaking a lock is legal if you own the lock, or the owner of the lock says you can. Under the DMCA it is illegal to smash locks you own (assuming "locks" are digital access control devices).
Think about it. You bought it, and until the DMCA there were very few limits on what you could do with (digital) things you had bought. The software industry has been thriving for well over two decades without the DMCA, it clearly didn't need it to keep going. (I think software history prior to two decades ago isn't all that relivant, because they tended to be packages with an actual negioatated contract once you get much before the 80s, and today's software is mostly shrink wrap licences)
I wouldn't object to the region coding so much, so long as it was only used to control the release schedule for a limited time - for instance, encode a region lock expiry date on the disc, and STOP USING REGION CODING ON DVDs OF 30 YEAR OLD FILMS! It's the region-coding of EVERY DVD that hollywood makes that pisses me off. The only region-free DVDs that I own are BBC discs (Black Adder, and the Flumps), I think.
It's too bad that such a great scientist suffers from such a terrible mental disorderzky.
that it was'nt funny?
You make some great points, but a few things to be looked at.
First, I think that the Constitutional provissions of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of speech can not be superceded by any act of Congress, including the DMCA. This is why I beleive Kaplan is looking at the Freedom of Speech issue and wondering if the Horse is out of the Barn.
If Corly (Pronounced Goldstien
Ultimately, while the DMCA tries to define Reverse Engineering, and Fair Use, it's not really the last word on these issues since they are Constitutional Doctrin. But even still, the DMCA, which can be seen in it entirety in the link provided, gives us the following contradictory passages!!!
------------------------------
(f ) REVERSE ENGINEERING.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained
the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent
a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particu-
lar portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying
and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary
to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer
program with other programs, and that have not previously been
H. R. 2281-8
readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to
the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not
constitute infringement under this title.
``(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and
(b), a person may develop and employ technological means to cir-
cumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection
afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identi-
fication and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of
enabling interoperability of an independently created computer pro-
gram with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve
such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute
infringement under this title.
``(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under
paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may
be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph
(1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means
solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independ-
ently created computer program with other programs, and to the
extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
title or violate applicable law other than this section.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability'
means the ability of computer programs to exchange information,
and of such programs mutually to use the information which has
been exchanged.
_______________________________
Congress added this because it would not withstand a Court Case otherwise. Likely the issue of Fair Use. Without Fair Use provissions, the DMCA would be struck down as Consonstitutional in the Cradle. Part of what these Law Suites are about is the MPAA trying to redefine Fair Use in the eye of the public. Where Fair use was the right to make archival Copies, they are say - no - it isn't.
But the DMCA is clear even in it's text that is can not over rule FAIR USE......
______________________________________________
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.-(1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
______________________________________________
The mechanism of Copyright Office review is some quack idea to try to save this insane act from Court Review death. If the DMCA is an impedence to Fair Use, it should become a dead letter. Therefor the REAL battle is over the definition of Fair Use. That is the issue this case, if decided upon Freedom of Speech/the Press, threatens to circumvent, at least for another day.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Very common story. In the past few years 2 movies that I know of used it. Galaxey Quest, A Bugs life, and I know I have seen it before even that.
It's a comedic variant of the type of story seen in The Music Man.
Don't be silly...everyone whos seen the film U-571 knows that it was the Americans who captured the Enigma machine, cracked the code single handedly, and won the whole war without any help from the rest of the world!
<p>
Are you saying there is actually an American movie which acknowledges the existence of the rest of the world? Wow.
Again, read the license: when you "purchase" a DVD, sure, you bought a physical disk you can play, microwave, etc but the CONTENT you are NOT buying! The movie or content remains the property of the owners, who reserve all right - you may only view it on an official player, between the hours of 7-10PM, except on Sundays, on a set with a minimum size of 21", and only with Orvill brand buttered popcorn - consumption of any OTHER snack brand constitutes a violation of the license agreement whereupon you must destroy the disk. If more than one person wishes to view the content, contact the publisher for a "license pak" upgrade available in multiples of '5'.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
From your comments, its obvious that you haven't worked on programming for any large or medium-sized project.
Just as you can paint a picture a million ways, and tell a story a million ways, you can design a system in a million ways. A coder is an artist in the purest sense because he (or she!) is not limited by the medium. Code can be made simple, elegant, robust, and/or portable. Code can be ugly, orderly, confused, structured... A single program can be written in hundreds of ways using many different languages.
Certainly my code is governed by mathematical laws, no different than the laws which hold paint to a canvas, or the laws that allow two notes to harmonize. Just because something is governed by laws does not make it less expressive.
Coding is not a process. It doesn't follow a procedure. It has commonly used methods and practices, but common in the way that most painters use their hands instead of their feet to create.
But the poster of such information could be held liable as aiding and abetting to a crime. If DVD's start being pirated, couldn't MPAA start suing all the distributors of DeCSS? (Even if thay can't prove a specific site led to it - sue them all and hope one sticks)
Lots of books have been made that describe the creation of bombs. Does that make them liable?
Firearms instructors aren't held liable for aiding and abetting if one of their students uses a gun to murder someobdy, either.
How about these security sites on the Web? They post known exploits and other security loopholes in popular operating systems. If someone uses that information to crack a Linux box, for instance, should that site be held liable for aiding and abetting?
No, I don't think so.
My journal has hot
You're right, DeCSS (or something like it) does seem to be being used as part of the process of making unauthorized (and downgraded) copies of DVD movies.
However, if you look at the time taken to rip a DVD and downconvert it to, say, something that'll fit on a CD (upwards of 15 hours, I've seen), you realize that folks are probably doing to more so they can say they've done it than anything else. If I wanted to make a CD of a DVD movie, I'd just play the thing into a video capture card and grab it in real time. No DeCSS involved at all.
Heck, where do you think the bootleg V-CDs of 'The Phantom Menace' came from? Certainly not from someone ripping a DVD, there aren't any of TPM. (The one I've seen came from a vidcap of a tape somebody made by sneaking a camcorder into a theatre. There are probably better ones now that the movie has been officially released on VHS.)
-- Alastair
So. Writing an essay describing the mathematical methods of breaking a certain type of encryption *IS* protected speech, and is most certainly expressive, however, computer source is not?
Actually, this simply refines the LSA from the Hawaiian woodrose seeds. Morning glory would work as well, in larger quantities.
LSA has similar effects to LSD, though it (I believe) has a shorter half-life and more toxicity.
Simply eating the seeds works just as well as refining, though you must make sure the seeds you have obtained have not been adulterated (toxins added to make you sick if you eat them, to prevent kiddies from tripping on K-mart seeds).
If they have, you must refine first.
Mu_Cow's point was that the AC posted *before* him, so in browsing you should see that before his post. The only reason you wouldn't would be if you were sorting by score or were only reading +1 and higher posts... If you are, you shouldn't be moderating.
And by reading this message, I claim that you agree to my licensing agreement which forces you to (blah blah blah).
Of course, this isn't a valid license, neither is the license with a DVD movie.
1) You bought the disk, the license tries to offer you the right to play it which you already own, thus the license doesn't offer you any consideration - invalid license.
2) The license isn't brought to your attention before the purchase - invalid license.
You are bound by copyright laws because those are applied in blanket fashion to *all* copyrightable works. The only way for copyright protection to not apply is for the author to give away the right.
DVD Licenses might be valid if the disk performed properly without the license, but if you agreed to it, they'd ship you a movie poster, or something. This way you'd have a valid contract.
Anyways, they lie, as do software companies, when they claim they have tons and tons of rights and that you *must* agree, etc. It's nothing but lies, you can click 'I Agree' all day and it's not binding.
(The only exception is in places where the legislators have been bribed to pass the UCITA, but those places suck anyways.)
Right, the GPL/BSDL/etc are binding, if you enter into the agreemnt, because they give you something above and beyond normal legal rights if you agree. Regular EULAs try to take away right without offering anything (and without offering you a way to say 'No, install the software without any additional licenses') so they're invalid and completely ignorable.
..." start to cross out those words. To tell someone how to modify software you say "0C42A3 bytes in, where it says 0x23 0xAC 0xA5, change those three bytes to 0xEA..." That's fair use, using a small ammount of copyrighted material to describe it.
And yes, you can do *everything* (legally, not physically) with software that you can with a book. You don't need to look at the license unless you want to do something normally prohibited by law (such as make copies, etc.)
You're allowed to take a magic marker and modify your book, you're similarly allowed to take a crack and modify your software. To tell someone how to modify a book you say "Ok, on page 83 where it says "Fourscore and seven
The DMCA steps on some of these right, not only is it an unfair law, but like with the UCITA they stepped over the bounds into bribery to get it passed and (it appears) in trying to defend it.
Yes, today it would be a lot easier to do a video capture. But video capture is kind of a pain- you need to have a separate DVD player, a video capture board, cable them together and hit "start" and "stop" at the right times. My point is that, if the restrictions on DeCSS were completely released, you'd see tools released that would make ripping and recompressing a DVD a lot easier than doing an analog capture, similar to what tools like Music Match and kin have done for MP3 (assuming you've got a DVD drive). Moore's law will take care of the lengthy recompress time soon. The movie industry does have a lot to fear from DeCSS.
Also, remember that the quality of the images stored on a DVD are a bit higher than standard NTSC. For one thing, it's not interlaced, and secondly, the analog recapture would introduce artifacts that (from what I've seen) significantly degrade the quality of the recompress. And while you do sacrifice some quality for smaller size, what I've seen using Divx / mp4 is quite acceptable, especially compared to the old VCD format.
I travel a lot, and I'm considering using these tools to rip movies I own so I can easily watch them on the plane without having to carry a DVD drive or burn the batteries on my laptop spinning it. I could easily fit 5-6 movies in the spare space on my HD...
While the URL of the site is printed at the bottom of the article, it is not linked. This seems too coincidental...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
wookin' pa nub in all the wrong pwaces
No, but it has always been legal to BUILD a descrambler... just not legal to use it to steal cable. If you are paying for cable but using your own homemade cable box, I don't think you are breaking any laws. We are talking the same thing here. DeCSS is legal to build and use for viewing your own DVDs, but using it (or anything else) to pirate movies is illegal. At least that is how I interpret the law. Lets hope Kaplan sees it the same way.
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
It seems true. A symphony is only beautiful when it is performed. A program is beautiful when it runs. Depending on the hardware or orchestra, the composer's score or programmer's code could be played beautifully or crappily.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Scores can be beautiful to those who know how to read them, so too can code be beautiful to those who can comprehend. Those who can not understand staff notation or awk might only be able to appreciate the beauty of the output, but that does not diminish the beauty in the original.
Imagine an illerate child and a fabulous tale such as 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.' To the child, the book is just ugly pages until the kind parent reads the story aloud and then the child is captivated by the beauty of the story. The parent is able to perceive the beauty of the story without 'performing' the work because he or she can comprehend the written word.
Scores and code are no different.
Well DUH! this is a NY Times you think they would print anything that wasn't slanted towards the corporate interests.
War is necrophilia.
The problem is, the DMCA makes circumventing access control devices illegal, even if no other crime is committed. In your example using a gun alone is not illegal, at least in the US (it may be self-defense, or gasp shooting at a target during a sporting event); it is only illegal when used in the commission of another crime (armed robbery, sexual assault, etc.)
Possibly. You could bring one suit and name numerous defendants. With enough evidence you might be able to nail someone. You may be right that the cost of even that one trial would scare away the MPAA, espescially with each defendant having their own legal team.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
I guess the various Gun manufactures must be in a lot of trouble then.
Actually they are. The difference is that the primary use of cars is to drive (legally of course). The vast majority of people using cars do not do so illegally (unless you count speeding). The primary purpose of piracy software however is to pirate which is illegal. IANAL but I think it has to deal with primary intention and/or likelyhood of a committing a crime.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
"The RIAA is a private, not-for-profit trade association whose members produce, manufacture and distribute approximately 90 percent of all legitimate
recorded music in the United States."
Hrm. Wonder what percent the MPAA owns.. Probably like 99.9%. Thanks for standing up to these creeps 2600!
English law has something about goods being fit for the purpose they
were designed for, and I suppose the same is true of US law. I'm
guessing the MPAA isn't trying to argue that the purpose of a DVD disk
is to be a pretty, shiny round thing.
That was right before the Africans came out of the jungle and started tribal dancing, I believe. Nelson Mandela would be proud.
Wah!
Not so. A DifEq or the bank books are just a way of cenceptualizing an existing phenomenon. The equation describes and predicts behavior of something- a moving object or a wave, the books describe the state and history of a bank account. They describe and nothing more. Code on the other hand, both describes and creates. If I code a beautiful GUI, is that any less of a creative expression than any other picture, be it in a marketing campaign or the Louvre? I decide how the problem is to be solved. Looking at the problem, you could not predict the precise way in which I as opposed to someone else will solve it. Maybe I think C is appropriate, and someone else would rather use pure assembly, or C++. The solution is unique to me, not the the problem
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization
It seems that if that were true, most source would be written by computers by now. Coding is more than a logical batch process. It involves conceptualizing potentially new solutions to existing problems. A novel method of solving a problem has as much to do with the person solving as it does the problem. It is the creation of a model and a method, and those are both creative acts.
Expression does not have to be poetry; we aren't talking about "what is art" here. Source code can constitue expression, because it describes the way in which you (the coder) uniquely feel a set of problems ought to be solved. Consider this: I need to solve a complex problem, so I come up with a solution. I write a paper expressing my method of solving the problem, and why I think it is most appropriate (talking here about engineering-style problems, where solutions have to take into account existing conditions and other factors, not a pure-mathematics problem where solutions can be proved). Then I make some psuedocode describing the procedure, with comments explaining certain orderings or optimizations. Finally, I sit down and pound it out in C, or Java, or Perl, or (insert favored language here), creating a source file that includes the methods that I described for solving the problem expressed in code, with comments that explain why a particular statement is in a certain order, or why certain optimizations or algorythms are appropriate at a certain juncture. I think most people would say that the first of these three examples is expression. Now, why, I ask, can the last two be considered any differently, simply because they do not use regular English (or other) grammer? I am yet to see a reason why an idea expressed in one form (a paper) is expression, but the same idea expressed in another way (code) is nothing.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
None of the things that you mention are illegal. According to the terms of the DMCA that bans means of avoiding copy-control products, DeCSS might be. Gun manufacturers cannot really be held liable as long as they sell their actual product in accordance with the law, and there is no question that selling specs or blueprints for guns is legal. The sourcecode for DeCSS can be used to create something potentially illegal, which is where the trouble comes. Providing a legal tool is not a crime- be it a gun, a knife, or a potato peeler, as long as it is sold in accordance with the law (which is where the gun manufacturers could be exposed to liablity- if it is illegal for so many felons to own guns, how are they getting them? It's more likely that the individual reseller will get dinged, though). Providing an illegal tool- LSD, high-yield explosives, is obsiously illegal. Providing a description of an illegal tool- bomb recipes, LSD recipes, is legal, as long as they are not used in commiting a crime. If I can prove you gave Timmy McVeigh the recipe for a high-yield fertilizer bomb, you can be held liable in the crime. So, if a tool created from the DeCSS source is illegal, than the source is legal to publish, but you incur liability if the illegal tool derived from it is used in a crime.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Can you?
If you mean pro-Napster legal arguments and such, try going here.
Of particular interest is the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (182 kb PDF).
As the parent points out (mod him up).
If this is true, then the MPAA is acting just like the RIAA with their phase1 and phase2 players. Phase one is to get the public to accept it. The phase1 players play unencrypted, unsigned media. But then they flip a switch and you can only play encrypted, signed media. And from that point forward, you HAVE TO GO THROUGH them to get anything published.
And, if it's true, then the switch has been flipped in the case of DVD players. You can no longer play unencrypted discs. You can no longer avoid paying a license fee to the DVD/CA to make a disc.
(I did some research and cannot confirm that that is true. But I can confirm that the phase1/phase2 switch DOES disable changing your region code. In Phase 1, you can switch regions, in Phase 2, the DVD drive itself holds the region code and it cannot be changed or reset.)
Quick question: Anyone know how to tell if you have a phase1/phase2 player?
Am I the only one missing it?
;)
The code was published by a Norwegian in Norway, where disassembling code isn't a crime.
When the movie industry in US reacted, the police in Norway asked the kid some qustions (_not_ arresting him in any way).
He was even given awards from his school for his coding.
So from a coders perspective he was given a pat on his head within his country.
2600 reported abot this, what logic is it in the first case to atack 2600 for reporting about something that a Norwegian did in Norway?
US Law as far as I know, doesn't aply here in Scandinavia, so it seems to me abit strange that you guys (as a country) are sueing one-another about a thing done over here???
This is not intended as a flamer, just my inability to understand, what the trial is realy about, but since it's already over, maybe it's a little late to ask this
Napster CEO Optimistic for Hearing on Wednesday
Updated 1:31 AM ET July 26, 2000
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Napster Chief Executive Hank Barry said Tuesday he was optimistic the company will prevail at a hearing in federal court Wednesday to decide if Napster's popular song-swap service should be shut down amid claims it is promoting digital piracy. 'We're very optimistic about our legal positions and our legal team,' Barry told Reuters in an interview Tuesday.
I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Can you?
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Napster CEO Optimistic for Hearing on Wednesday
Updated 1:31 AM ET July 26, 2000
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Napster Chief Executive Hank Barry said Tuesday he was optimistic the company will prevail at a hearing in federal court Wednesday to decide if Napster's popular song-swap service should be shut down amid claims it is promoting digital piracy. 'We're very optimistic about our legal positions and our legal team,' Barry told Reuters in an interview Tuesday.
I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Are you interested? Help us out by posting 'em if you find 'em, most notably the time and place of this thing? I would love to go - maybe you CAN!
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
While doing so he's done it in the guise of academic scholarly study - pointing out why the 1st amendment is important and why 'fair use' is needed for a free and open society
But surely you want it to be made illegal to circumvent an access control device, be it some form of encryption or a defense system on your computer. CSS is a marketing control device and not access control, but access control circumvention must be a crime.
No, sir, I most certainly do NOT want circumvention of access control to be a crime! The issue of cracking someone's computer or infiltrating their firewall is NOT the same as that of blocking or exercising fair use of copyrighted material that I have purchased and now OWN.
Cracking a computer or a firewall is a form of burglary or trespass, and, IMHO, should be recognized as such in law; the cracker has no legitimate business being there. It's an infringement of a property right; I have an essentially absolute right to be free from trespass by private citizens.
Restricting access to copyrighted material one has bought and paid for is an infringement of "Fair Use" under the copyright laws (the DMCA excepted; it WILL go down.). I DO have a legitimate right to view the work, 'cause I bought it! Traditionally, a copyright holder relinquishes ALL control over the manner in which a buyer will view or experience the work, (or even make copies not for distribution); all the copyright holder gets is the legal assurance that he/she will have exclusive rights of first sale for a limited time.
DMCA and its demonic brethren attempt to extend this control over first sale to a total control over all access; THAT is an intellectual property land grab of breathtaking proportions.
Tonight's homework: What about circumvention of access control AFTER the copyright expires and the work enters the public domain?
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
. Please explain how smearing a brush on canvas is being "creative"
Not to take away anything from the EFF's legal effectiveness in this case, because I do think putting Touretzky on the stand was a brillinat move, but I think this case (if the defense wins) will have been won as much by the MPAA's utter failure to present a decent argument as it was by the EFF's defense. I mean really, when your star "anti-piracy investigator" can't even provide evidence of a single DeCSS-pirated DVD, and 99% of whose testimony consists of "I don't recall," you could have had OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN serve as your defense lawyer and still win.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
I'm sure someone convicted of murder has a very strong opinion on what his or her sentence should be, and they certainly have a greater stake in that decision than anyone else, but ultimately their opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
I would say Touretsky's testimony was probably the most valuable offered during the whole trial, since he was able to make it starkly clear that this really is about free speech, and not about copying DVDs. The DMCA simply has no power to override your 1st amendment rights, and the judge's decision in this case could set the precedent to either nullify, or at least take a significant bite out of the DMCA. If the judge makes a ruling that states, in effect, that the DeCSS code constitutes protected speech, then the MPAA will have no recourse but to go after the actual pirates, instead of software developers and journalists.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
And what was writing a DVD that would work in a DVD player if not authorization? If I encrypt a message with your public key and send it to you, can I then sue you for circumventing an access control method?
So before the DMCA it was legal to use a descrambler to get free cable?
Access control circumvention does not need to be illegal. A ruling in favor of DeCSS wouldn't mean that copyright infringement is ok.
Remember, the Supreme court only hears a very small (maybe 5%) of the court cases brought to it. Heck, there was question on whether they will even hear the Microsoft case (if you happen to think that is more important than this). So perhaps we should be worried more about the appelet courts making the right decision here. Just food for thought.
I found a fairly complete set on the openlaw page - they've got all of the trial testimony (including the last day's), as well as links to news stories covering the trial.
-Denor
I had Dr. Touretzky for an interesting class last semester at CMU, Intoduction to Artificial Neural Networks. Like everyone else, he was told to remove DeCSS from his web page, but didn't. Check out his Gallery of CSS Descramblers -- it's quite interesting and informative about the legal and moral issues involved, besides being a good resource if you want to understand how the descrambling actually works. He's obviously put a lot of time and effort into this issue.
Well...smashing or breaking a lock would be destruction of property, as the lock does have a physical value. However, picking the lock is not illegal (nor is owning lockpicks illegal), unless you're using the picks or picking a lock to commit a crime.
IANAL. YMMV. Check your local laws (CYLL)
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Ow hey quit it.
Destuction of property implies someone else's property. You are of course free to destroy your own property, by putting that new shiny DVD in the microwave.
The point is that having the ability to break access control (be it a physical lock or a software code) shouldn't be illegal, unless you're using it for an illegal purpose. Breaking into your own house is fine. Breaking into my house is right out. Watching a DVD on your own machine is okay, but copying it and distributing it to people that didn't pay for that copy is not okay.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Depends on your definitions...
There is actually creativity involved (if you can't accept that coming up with a different solution to a problem is creativity, think of creating the user interface).
Of course there's a difference between writing and coding, but there are also a couple of similarities (also, comparing this to technical writing is much more appropriate than comparing it to writing a poem; technical writing is a form of expression and thereby protected, as well!) - and these similarities are all that matters for deciding whether or not it is a type of expression and creativity:
So, coding IS a form of expression.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Mathematical equations are beautiful, they hold an inherent symmatry that echos natural laws, which brings me to physics. Physics is the scientific realm where dreamers and artists and musicians live, and if you think their work doesn't echo THAT... you are sadly mistaken! Read Einstein's works, listen to Feynman's lectures.
Code is yet another extension of all of this. Not only in the elegance of algorithms, but also in how problems are approached and dealt with, and creative use (or lack thereof!) of whitespace. (No, I dont like whitespace delimited languages, for just that reason!)
Go back and take another look at the sciences... they are far closer to the arts of the world than you are letting yourself believe.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
First, I really am curious if you actually are a programmer...
Secondly, as to use of whitespace, I suppose its rather non-American of me, but I happen to find a quiet elegance in code that is well spaced, and where whitespace is used to create clear, clean segments of code. It is visually pleasing - much as a an arrangement of a few pieces of sushi on a plate are. (I am among other things, a chef, and consider presentation to be one of THE most important aspects of properly prepared cuisine). Whitespace is the ultimate framing of code. Code needs also be clean, and functional, but it in and of itself has the elegancy of mathematical equations.
Code converys concepts. Code teaches, and can expand the mind. I have read code that made me laugh, code that made me think, and occaisionally, code that made me cry. Are these not things that also are functions of art?
Check out Magic Firesheep!
I instantly respect anyone who get's picketed by Scientologists.
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
The testimony from day 6 can be found here.
And where are those transcripts!! I need my daily doses of legalese ;-)
Sander.
Are you saying there is actually an American movie which acknowledges the existence of the rest of the world? Wow.
Independence day did-
"Oh, I say old chap. It seems that those splendid American chaps have found a way to defeat those bally flying saucers"
"Gosh, about time too, what old boy."
From the article: The computer code the judge may opt to protect would make it possible for anyone to copy DVDs.
Does this seem like a completely uninformed statement to anyone else?
First off, it makes it sound like decrypting a DVD is the only way to copy it. This is simply not the case, in fact for pirated DVDs, you'd think people would want them copied exactly the way you could get them in the store, for compatibility reasons.
Second, it makes it sound like anyone off the street will be able to just pick up a DVD and make a copy if DeCSS is not banned. This is not correct either, as it takes a lot of effort to rip a DVD, and turn it into something useful. There is also bandwidth, quality of the copy, etc... to consider that would prevent many people from copying, or obtaining copies.
This is what the general public is seeing about this case, and they will side with the big companies. This kind of innaccurate reporting needs to be stopped.
They didn't mention this, but if you want to read (and soon listen to) transcripts of the trial, point yourself over to www.2600.com. Long and tedious, but straight from the horse's mouth.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
Course, I also understand that the copyright issue is a big one too. Just because a work has no physical form doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to a copy for free. Seriously, Napster has gotten out of hand. Downloading a "one-hit-wonder" or sampling a few tracks to see if you want to buy a cd makes sense to me. (espc the one-hit-wonder'ing, there is way to many of them now...) But people with gigs and gigs of MP3's are just abusing the system.
Same thing applies to other works. Soon enough it'll be movie "napstering" that'll hit the big time.
It's a tricky position, on one hand I agree that we should be allowed to break the encryption if we are able/want to, but I understand the artist's/author's desire to retain some control. (the MPAA, publishers, etc can bite me...they're just leaches).
Personally, I think it should be an open system. The artists/authors can encrypt as much as they want, and the users can decrypt as much as they want/are able. As long as they can prevent 80+% of the population from ripping them off, everyone should be okay (maybe...). We'll still have some l4m3r5 who feel they shouldn't have to pay for anything, but we're stuck with them till we can ship them to Mars. All we have to do is shoot the publishers to make this possible (they want 100% control...they won't settle for 80%)
Course, this is rather idealistic, with Peer2Peer sharing (eek...new acronym? P2P?) if anybody can break the encryption, anybody can get a copy...and people being people, they can rationalize ripping other people off. (an extension of free t-shirts being better than t-shirts).
Pandora's box is open. The only real resolution I can see to this one is for the music industry to move towards a TV-orientation. (ie commercials) Download a song, but it has a commercial in it. Easier to find that the rip off napster, so people'll do it. Some people would setup ways to edit out the commercials, but it'd still work for your 80+% margin. Realistically, I can't see any form of encryption holding up (not unless it's a complicated server/client transaction stream).
Ramble, ramble, man I'm incoherent this morning.
Business speech is already not protected like other speech, and "intellectual property" claims get expanded all the time to the extent that creativity is being stifled. Sure protect innovation, but mouse click patents and codecs that we all need to listen to music and encrypted artificial barriers so we all need to pay tariffs for commodity services... these things should not be protected. Reverse engineering must be protected.
Hey, my favorite acronym for a reverse engineering enterprise: RevEngE
I wish the judge would sit back and think about what he is saying at times. Respecting the opinion of a CIS Professor over the defendant Corley's makes no sense when Corley has just as much to lose. The judge was moved by the foresight that the Professor would have a lot to lose professionally and personally as a result of this case. Doesnt this speak to Corley even more? His entire life seems to revolve around computers and yet the judge will only listen to the professional witnesses claim.
Sadly, however, computers and the programs that run on them are a mystery to many people who are not actively working with them other than word processors and games. This includes many, if not most, judges and allows for fast talking lawyers to sneak one past them. Now we can just hope that Kaplan has enough experience with lawyers that he doesn't fall for their bull. I also want to applaud the defense lawyers for taking this case on. It takes guts to defend the little guy against a large corporate entity such as the MPAA.
On a less happy note, this whole trial is a mystery to most people who do not read Slashdot or know to check 2600.org for updates. Blame it on a lazy media who all to often fails to do accurate follow ups. A good example is Jon Johansen. The press was all too eager to point out that DeCSS got him arrested, but how many actually went back and reported that he was never formally charged and even complimented on his work and on being a good student? Add to that the lamentable fact that people are all too willing to lable 2600.org and the people who keep it as being evil. It's shocking how a newspaper article can stamp a person as a "hacker" or a "cracker" and suddenly that person is public enemy #1.
Sorry to get off point there. The bottom line is that this trail, as I see it, is about journalistic rights and the sharing of information. It's not as though Goldstein set up an underground DVD pirating operation. He wrote a story and allowed the people who read it to have access to the proof of the story. What's so bad about that? I wish more journalists would do the same so we didn't have to take their word for it. In my eyes, it only serves to increase his credibility. Of course, big companies don't want you to have anything they think may cut into their profits in the long run, but if they were so concerned about profits, they would have encouraged the creation of a Linux DVD player to begin with.
The only people who appreciate change are wet babies
-Anon
I'd say an elegantly-written program can be the artistic equivalant of an elegantly-written musical score.
No, because a piece of code is merely a series of instructions for an algorithm, not something designed to evoke emotion and thought. People are saying that code is, of itself, a thing of beauty which is blatent rubbish. Similarly a musical score by itself does not evoke emotion, it is the finished product!!
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
What on earth is this man David Touretzky saying? Whilst it may serve to win this case, the very idea that computer code constitutes a form of "expressive" work is rediculous. A piece of code is no more expressive than an accountant's books or a differential equation.
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization. Programmers aren't artists - they're much more like engineers. Anyone who goes on about how coding is a "creative exercise" is lacking something in their life and probably needs to get out some more - go to an art gallery and see something that is expressive.
No matter how you try and put it, a piece of code does not share any similatities to a poem, and a programmer does not share any similarities to a poet. Coding is just a process, not a work of art.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
That said, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The DMCA is just a copyright law; it has positive and negative applications. But surely you want it to be made illegal to circumvent an access control device, be it some form of encryption or a defense system on your computer. CSS is a marketing control device and not access control, but access control circumvention must be a crime.
It is imeperative that the application of the DMCA as requested by the MPAA be denied and the spirit of the DMCA as expressed in Congress be upheld. The DMCA was formed not to prosecute those who got in the way of a big conglomerate, but to extend the notion of copyright and author's rights to the digital age. The future of Free Software will some day depend upon the DMCA, or another law like it. Let us hope that the Courts show us the way to fair copyright law for the digital age.
There is an obvious parallel in Stallman's GNU Manifesto to the arguments in favor of abolishing copyright. The open source movement shows us this in practice.
If we were to abolish the existing copyright laws, nothing would happen.
Here is my reasoning for each statement I have made.
[1] will occur because people invented before copyright laws existed, the inventors and tinkerers who discovered such all time favorites such as fire, and the wheel did not do so to become rich, they did so to make their lives easier. People will still need better tools and better methods of performing tasks. Innovation will not be stifled. People will still be paid to perform R&D, just as Stallman argued programmers will be paid to code. Notice the similarity in the arguments. People will be paid for what they do, NOT what they have done. Inventors still invent, possibly even more so because they need to keep producing in order to make a living. They can't rest on their laurels and live off off the one wonder invention they make early on.
[2] Companies like to save money. Companies who are worth their salt have a good well-funded R&D infrastructure in place. Universities will still research, it is their bread and butter (besides robbing their students blind, but that's another story.) Companies will still hire R&D because R&D will save them money in the long run and allow them to invent new products which they will still be able to sell and service despite copyright laws. Yes, other companies will benefit from their R&D and leech their designs, but most likely they will have to enhance them in some way to make them more appealable to the consumer. Notice how robust and feature rich open sourced software becomes (as opposed to bug ridden proprietary stuff Redmond spews forth.) If company A invents and builds the wonder widget, company B will have to make the wonder widget++, or they will have to make theirs cheaper, or in five fruity flavours, or provide the customer with some additional service to distinguish themselves in the market. This benefits the consumer. Prices will become lower and the market will have many different variations of the same product, offering more choice. (Choice == Good)
[3] Just as Linux is free, as in free bheer and free in speech. Products will be reduced to saner levels of pricing. That new wonder widget might sell for 50 bucks, but the wonder widget++ made by somebody else might be 25 bucks. It will force fierce competition between corporations. They do not like this. It causes them to have to work for a living instead of being robber-barons.
Copyright is an obstruction to the movement of thoughts and ideas. It exists to benefit the greedy and the lazy. Sometimes it is necessary to enact a revolution to change the stagnant ways of the past. We need to abolish copyright. Pay writers to write, not for how many books they sell. Pay artists to create instead of sell. Force a different model of thought to come into play when it comes time to dish out the paychecks.
We need to think outside the box on this, we are too accustomed to thinking about the way things are. We need to start thinking about the way things will be.
Dan O'Shea
root@foobar# shutdown -h now
System will be halted.
I think the real reason DeCSS was written was to find out how the CSS encryption worked. Writing a DVD player was only a secondary benefit.
If the ruling goes this way, that means the judge will not be ruling on linking, which is what everybody was worried about.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Don't expect any amazing insights here, but let me say this. This ruling could be a great thing. This lawsuit is ridiculous for a number of reasons. First, most companies either have patents or trade secrets. Each affords different protections. You can only bring a trade secret violation to court if it is leaked, which isn't the case here. Patents need to have algorithms published, of course, this isn't the case either. So what the MPAA is trying to do is make a buffet out of these regulations and pick and choose what they'd like to use.
Which brings up the second point, which is that the DCMA provides for this type of unfair practice.
So, the MPAA losing here would be a great blow to this ridiculous law.
I also agree that this is freedom of speech. Some people would disagree here, but this type of hack is not only a technical breakthrough, but it also indirectly protests an unfair law. You must admit that the thousands of people mirroring the code, are doing it out of principle. The fact is, they should be able to mirror it, because it is both a message that the DCMA and MPAA are wrong in denying us fair use. In that way, it is freedom of speech, and it ought to be protected. I doubt those who are mirroring it are doing it for the technical validity of the code.
On a more personal level, I have a laptop with a DVD player, and I'm stuck running Windows on it. The potential legality of DeCSS could lead to a good Linux DVD player, which means I can eliminate the last bastion of Microsoft in my home. Which will be a victory for me, anyway.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Well...smashing or breaking a lock would be destruction of property,
But that's the whole point the RIAA says that if we buy the lock, we can't break it. Last time I checked, we were able to buy an object, then do anything we wanted to it. Otherwise, the Who and Jimi Hendrix would be jailed for smashing or burning their insturments.
In fact, they say that if we bought an Epiphone guitar, we would have to buy Epiphone strings, and only play it on a Epiphone amplifier through Epiphone cords. If someone built their own amp (a fairly simple task that requires some technical skill, similar to writing DeCSS) to play the guitar that they bought, they would be seized out of their home and taken to the police (like a certain scandinavian fellow).
What pisses me off is that some fairly intelligent people can't get past the "well, are you saying it should be legal to copy movies and give them to your friends?" This is not about copying - it's about using the objects that you bought fairly and making them do what you want for your own private use.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Mr Brooklyn writes:
> One of the problems that those of us watching this case have had in our
> analysis and understanding is that we are so
> passionate about the issue of being able to create free software
> to play DVD's, and the threat of the DMCA to the continued development
> of free software, that we are overlooking the specifics of this
> particular case.
>
> In the case against Corey, we have a situation where the prosecution
> is saying that Corey is trafficking in an illegal software program
> that violates the DMCA. The defense, on the other hand, has been
> arguing that Corey is a JOURNALIST!!! and that the links to the
> DeCSS program is a protection of the 1st Amendment, protected
> Free Speech and an issue of Freedom of the Press.
>
> In this light, actually, the issue of the DMCA is actually a side
> show altogether. The real issue is can the court suppress the
> Press from reporting the location and contents of DeCSS,
> regardless of any violation of the DMCA.
First of all, it's Corley. (pronounced Gold-stein)
Let me enlighten you on some fine points of the DMCA:
Sec.1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA hasn't even taken effect yet.
[DMCA]
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.
(1)
(A)
No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected
under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence
shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this chapter.
[/DMCA]
That 2-year period hasn't yet expired.. In the interim, the Library of
congress was charged with holding hearings about exempted works.
The interesting part of this case, isn't that Emmanuel is charged with
copyright infringement under 1201(a)(1)(A), but that he's charged
with copyright infringement under 1201(a)(2)(A,B,C)
[DMCA]
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.
(2)
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof, that--
(A)
is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
(B)
has only limited commercially significant purpose or
use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C)
is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
a technological measure that effectively controls access
to a work protected under this title.
[/DMCA]
There is no 2-year waiting period on 1201(a)(2).
It is in effect right now, and has been in effect since 1998.
So it's not accurate to say that the real issue is regardless
of violations of the DMCA.. The DMCA itself puts these restrictions
on the press and on every other American.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
This is only good news until people start pirating DVD's. Observe:
He noted that free speech rights allow the publishing of a formula for LSD even though it is illegal to possess LSD -- and the publishing of a schematic for a timing device for a bomb.
But the poster of such information could be held liable as aiding and abetting to a crime. If DVD's start being pirated, couldn't MPAA start suing all the distributors of DeCSS? (Even if thay can't prove a specific site led to it - sue them all and hope one sticks)
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
> all the copyright holder gets is the legal
> assurance that he/she will have exclusive
> rights of first sale for a limited time.
And even then, its not total. In fact, hows this for a kicker in the whole "information as property" copyright argument:
There is a section of copyright law, which applies explicitly to music. It states that you do NOT need to obtain permission to distribute copyrighted musical works AT ALL. There is a simple, outlined procedure whereby you notify the copyright holder, distribute, and then send them royalties.
It is called a compulsory licence. You notify them, not ask for permission. Why? Because they can't refuse. Its law, its compulsory. All you need to do is be sure to notify them and send in the royalties in the manner that is specified.
I think that is a pretty clear statment that posessing a copyright is NOT the same as owning property.
> Tonight's homework: What about circumvention of
> access control AFTER the copyright expires and
> the work enters the public domain?
It doesn't matter, no software will be going into the public domain for the next 80 years or so (ok more like 60). Certainly no current day, well used software. By that time the interests of Big Buisness will have done away with the concepts of public domain and "fair use".
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It seems to me that the biggest problem has been divorcing the legality of posting the DeCSS from the legality of copying and pirating DVDs.
The next part, and this will be the trickiest step, is how to deal with the legal and illegal uses of DeCSS. I agree with all the posts here talking about how one of its major uses will be to circumvent the horrendously idiotic region controls that the MPAA has built into it. This goes back to the heart of intellectual property issue, that I buy it and I should be able to get every part of it. Hopefully this issue will get resolved in another fasion (probably a court case) so that people don't have to DeCSS their DVD's just to get all the content.
The other side is how to deal with the piracy. It seems to me that this will eventually mirror the mp3 issue... the algorithm is of course legal, but piracy isn't, and I suppose we'll see the MPAA looking more and more like the RIAA, hunting down Napster sites. I hope that the Congressional hearings on Online Music will have implications on fair use and licensing that will extend to the MPAA. As they currently stand, the intellectual property laws cannot continue to exist, and they most certainly will have to be changed. And this is why the DeCSS case has been so complicated.. it has been impossible to divorce it from issues of intellectual property rights, the rights of the consumer, and the potential for piracy.
Firstly, this sounds like an extremely positive step. It's about time that source code was given the legal protection of being self-expression - almost everything else creative is given this distinction so this sounds like it will finally give source code the recognition it deserves.
But while it sounds like the courts may be getting it sorted, it looks like we still have a long way to go in educating the Media at large about technical issues. First, this NYT article constantly babbles about how DeCSS allows people to copy DVDs. AAARGGGGHH. How do we get the Media to realize that you can copy DVDs anyway, without the DeCSS code? And more importantly, how do we get the Media to spot the distinction between Access control (i.e. CSS) and Copy control (such as special disks, watermarking, etc.). This seems to be an issue that just isn't getting explained in the general press.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
It's a yes and no question. The original release of DeCSS was on Windows, not linux. The reason for this was at the time UDF support in linux was not up to par. So what did DeCSS do? It unlocked the DVD, descripted the contents and copied a VOB onto the hard drive.
Everyone, even Emmanuel Goldstein and Jon Johansen have stated DeCSS copies the VOB to the harddrive in windows. So the Times is correct, the version of DeCSS that Johansen released, a windows Binary, was designed to COPY files from the DVD drive to the hard drive. It is however, a qualified yes because the end intention was to copy the files to Linux and allow them to be played there.
Great analogy.
Very simple, I would get arrested if I went and broke into someone elses locker, but if I broke into mine. I have the right to destroy my own property.
I can blow up my car, I can kick dents in it. But YOU CANNOT. There is the truth. If reconized that we own the property, then we can do whatever we want.
So, is the DVD ours? or a loner?
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
I wonder if it's too late for Nazi Germany to sue the British for breaking their code in WWII?
Don't be silly...everyone whos seen the film U-571 knows that it was the Americans who captured the Enigma machine, cracked the code single handedly, and won the whole war without any help from the rest of the world!
Oh, wait...
analysis and understanding is that we are so
passionate about the issue of being able to create free software
to play DVD's, and the threat of the DMCA to the continued development
of free software, that we are overlooking the specifics of this
particular case.
In the case against Corey, we have a situation where the prosecution
is saying that Corey is trafficking in an illegal software program
that violates the DMCA. The defense, on the other hand, has been
arguing that Corey is a JOURNALIST!!! and that the links to the
DeCSS program is a protection of the 1st Amendment, protected
Free Speech and an issue of Freedom of the Press.
In this light, actually, the issue of the DMCA is actually a side
show altogether. The real issue is can the court suppress the
Press from reporting the location and contents of DeCSS,
regardless of any violation of the DMCA.
In consideration of THIS question, Kaplan is asking if the Horse is
out of the Barn, Is DeCSS publicly available knowledge which is
newsworthy and therefor afforded protection. This is indeed a
fair point of view in regards to this specific case. Does it
really matter if 2600.com publishes the link, as opposed to
the NY Times?
Probably not.
However, such a ruling does not answer the fundamental question
of the legality of the DMCA or it's use as a legal means to
repress reverse engineering or forms of freedom of speech more
specific the "Fair Use" doctrine.
On the other hand, if Kaplan rules that DeCSS is a form of
speech protected under the 1st amendment, regardless of it
being an instruction kit to descramble the CSS algorthim or
not, then the issue of the Horse being out of the Barn is
irrelevant. Free Speech is assumed to be permitted, horse, barn
or entire farm notwithstanding!
In any event, a ruling in favor of Corey under this logic may not
be what's in the best interest of Free Software, or for that matter,
the public's welfare. Ideally, Kaplan would examine the facts and rule
that the property rights of the writers of the DeCSS permits them to
reverse engineer the CSS encryption scheme, and their rights to
freedom of speech permits them to distribute the code
as they see fit. He would rule this is permissible under the DMCA
and in line with previous Constitutional Ruling of the Supreme Court,
or he would rule that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it's
enforcement would violate the civil rights guaranteed every citizen
to their property and their freedom of speech. Then he would
rule that because the software was legally developed for a legal
purpose, that the MPAA's arguments for a permanent injunction
has no basis in the law, DMCA notwithstanding.
Baring a ruling similar to this, the MPAA might loose this battle, and
not appeal, thereby sidestepping the major issues which argue that the
DMCA is either unenforcible as the MPAA wishes it to be,
or unconstitutional. And in the long run, that would be very bad
for the public and Free Software.
Bet the Farm on it!!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
You can, of course. You just can't count on the end user agreeing to the EULA. The terms of the license is entirely optional to the end user! (Yes, even when the license is the GPL.)
When I buy some software, there's a tiny little implicit contract between me and the vendor (who is likely not the copyright holder) which is basically: money in exchange for a copyrighted work. And when I download some GPLed software off the 'Net, there's probably no contract at all.
At this point, I may not have even seen the license or know whether or not it exists. I certainly haven't agreed to it yet. After I own the box that contains the software, or after I have exploded the archive, I might see the license and then decide whether or not to agree to it. If there's a seal that says, "by breaking this seal, you agree to..." I don't worry about it because I know that the words on the seal are incorrect, even misleading. I already own it without the need for an additional contract.
If I don't agree to the license, then the usual copyright laws apply. I can't redistribute the software, but I can do anything within fair use. This even applies to software that is distributed under GPL! If I do decide to agree to it, well, then whatever is in the license applies. Some licenses (e.g. GPL, BSD) grant me additional rights, above and beyond the rights given to me by copyright law, to entice me to agree to them. Think of those additional rights as my "consideration" in the new contract that I'm entering into with the copyright holder.
In the case of DVDs, the MPAA offers a license that nobody wants. It doesn't grant any additional rights, so there's no reason for me to agree to it. (In fact, if it doesn't have any "consideration" for me, it may not even be a legal contract at all.) Therefore I reject the license, plain and simple, and just accept the rights given to me by copyright law. The only restrictions on what I can or can't do with the DVD, are the ones specified by copyright law. The license is irrelevant if I don't agree to it.
(Of course, the restrictions "specified by copyright law" were severely changed when DMCA passed. A lot of people think that it is an unfair law. All unfair laws should be ignored, since the Purpose of Law is to serve us by making the world a more fair place, rather than to make us slaves. Laws that do not serve the public interest are a form of tyranny. I wish legislators would stop and think about that for a moment before they vote on things.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Touretzky is an interesting guy. I first heard of him while studying simulated neural networks. Definitely not a CS lightweight.
However, it may be appropriate to label him as an "activist" as well. On his Web page you'll find links to such things as his "Ethics and Etiquette in Scientific Research", deCSS, Cyber Patrol's filter list, and the latest poop on Scientology and Amway.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The case looked like trouble to start with, but now it looks like they may have a good ruling - this just goes to show that the EFF CAN wage an effective legal war in this case and others like it.
Show your support, and send money to them RIGHT NOW. There simply is no more effective way to tell the MPAA and RIAA that they can not get away with what they are trying to do.
Boycotts will not work. Protests will not work. Support the only fight that can actually achive a lasting victory!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure I'll get moderated down for this one, but I have to say it:
DeCSS is being used for piracy today. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.
I'm not talking about the old-style piracy of copying a disk physically and selling it through some black market channel... this is the modern, Internet-enabled kind. Download Scour Exchange sometime and search for videos- you'll find plenty of movies there that are described as having been converted by a DVD rip.
With mpeg4 (divx comes to mind) it's very feasible to put a reasonable quality dvd rip into files that can be downloaded without too much trouble by anyone with a DSL connection. It's happening today- people who didn't buy the DVD download these movies and watch them for free. This is piracy, any way you look at.
It's like guns- they have many potential uses, but it's hard to ignore that they're awfully good at killing people. DeCSS has many potentially benign uses, but it's awfully good at helping to enable piracy. If freely packaged with the right tools, it could enable digital piracy of DVDs on a scale approaching that of mp3s and CDs.
Just so you don't think I'm some sort of industry flack- I think the movie (and music, for that matter) companies are being terribly hidebound and reactive, and they deserve every last bit of damage that comes from their inabililty to grasp and sanely exploit the potential for electronic distribution of their content. I don't think programs like DeCSS should be illegal. Lawsuits against companies like Napster and Scour are sad attempts to return to an earlier time when complete control of content was possible through restricting physical distribution. My only point: just don't say that DeCSS isn't used for piracy- that's BS.
I don't know about its being called "expressive content," but I did always think it ludicrous to tell someone, "No, no, I'm afraid you're not allowed to decode my encryption. Shame on you."
I wonder if it's too late for Nazi Germany to sue the British for breaking their code in WWII?
--- --- --- --- ---
Santa tells me you're bad. That makes you good in my book.
But of course every time someone makes that mistake and publishes an article containing the implication that the purpose of deCSS is to copy/pirate/steal, it strengthens the MPAA's case. If people are copying DVDs, then go after them, sure, but isn't it time they came clean and declared once and for all that the CSS is a tool for segmenting the market, creating regional focuses that allow them to price discriminate, and potentially create a new source of revenue through the need to licence the CSS code to companies that want to make DVD players?
Does this also mean that amateur film-makers will be unable to create films for distribution on DVD because they won't be allowed to use the CSS encryption standard and therefore can't create content readable by CSS-hobbled DVD players? Or am I wrong about that last point?
Salocin.com
Here.
CSS-capable DVD players will play one of two types of discs:
CSS-encrypted discs for the player's region
Non-encrypted discs which will play in any region.
It's perfectly feasible to create an unencrypted region-free disc, and playing it will be no problem as long as you use the correct file formats/bitrates/etc. (Which ARE documented AFAIK - In fact, there are guides on how to make your own DVD. Although in most cases they cover using the DVD filesystem/file format on CD-R media, which DVD players will recognize and play just like a normal DVD.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Circumventing access control devices ought to be legal. There is nothing illegal about picking or smashing or melting a lock, unless by doing so you violate some other law. (trespass, theft, etc...) There should NOT be laws against breaking access control mechanisms in the computer world, either-- it would remove a right that we have otherwise. If you break the encryption on a DVD you own for watching in a manner that is consistent with fair use guidelines (in your house, with a couple of friends, no public showings, don't redistribute it, etc...) there is nothing wrong with it.
The distinction between a marketing control device and an access control device is a good one, but breaking both should be legal, so long as no other laws are violated. If I want to hack the living crap out of my linux box, breaking every access control device I can find along the way, I should be perfectly within my rights to do so. To declare otherwise legally would be silly.
I don't know why the Times article repeats so often that DeCSS is about copying DVDs. It isn't, it's about access control and the movie studios trying to control what you can you with a DVD *after* you have bought and paid for it. We know this all ready, but the general public doesn't and it is a shame to see the Times drop the ball.
Ah, but that's only what it means to us, to the consumers who purchase and have to make use of these DVD products.
To the MPAA however, which has far more potent propaganda organs than Slashdot can boast, this really is about copying and piracy.
When you rip a DVD directly without decryption, the resulting DVD remains playable only on MPAA-controlled hardware. The number of "rogue" copies is limited to your financial potential for output of physical DVDs - in other words, not much. This means the MPAA can largely restrict number and presentation of their movies, ultimately squeezing scarce-product revenue out of zero-scarcity information.
But with DeCSS, users can extract a clear copy of teh content, and present it via any channel they like, including the Internet. Unlike some geeks on slashdot, who for some reason only envision a future of broadband when piracy isn't on trial, the MPAA fully expects movies to be downloadable in a short period of time by ordinary viewers in just a matter of a few years.
They are trying to head off the perceived obsolesence of their marketing and distribution channels. It's not piracy now they're fighting but piracy five years from now.
All together now: YOU CORPORATE A$$HOLES!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I don't know why the Times article repeats so often that DeCSS is about copying DVDs. It isn't, it's about access control and the movie studios trying to control what you can you with a DVD *after* you have bought and paid for it. We know this all ready, but the general public doesn't and it is a shame to see the Times drop the ball.
They had acutally been an important supporter of 2600 through this case and made a point of linking to the 2600 site to test the MPAA's contention that linking to DeCSS is illegal.
Well, at least the article wasn't written by John Markoff
I've been reading the transcripts on 2600 throughout the trial because it's too far to drive to sit in on the court case, and realized many things during the course of the trial.
First off, that the MPA admitted that their original suit and their original assumptions changed over the course of the trial. They admitted they only targeted DeCSS and knew when the trial was starting that they weren't going to get a piracy issue through. The true nature of the suit filed had been changed so that they had a better chance to win.
Secondly, that the MPA was really looking to make the DeCSS code and software a tool to help copy DVDs and help take away their licensing powers, but failed to call the proper witnesses. They did do a better job cross-examining the Defense witnesses than examining their own witnesses, from what I could see. As well, calling only one MPA agent for the prosecution seemed to weaken their case more, since she failed to shed much light on anything.
Truthfully, I think that DeCSS will win, just based on the lackluster case built by the MPA lawyers. I don't think they've actually built any substantial case about anything other than they're going to lose their ability to control licensing of their DVD encryption. If the MPA had better prepared for the case and realized earlier on that they were focusing on the wrong points, we might have seen DeCSS shut down permenantly. Not that such a thing could happen effectively, but it would have been the ruling.
My only hope is that Congress sees the growing trend of corporations trying to take away rights of their consumers by using the laws, and stop listening to lobbyists for the corporations about "proper" copyright laws. It just leads to cases like these.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield