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'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); }
DeCSS is NOT used primarily for law breaking.
Well then, what is it used for?
DeCSS is the only DVD descrambling technology that is suitable for manufacturing a DVD player without the user restrictions mandated by the DVD-CCA licensing contract, such as a ban on unencrypted digital outputs, and the Macrovision requirement.
In fact there are several Windows programs to decrypt DVDs, why are they not in court?
Good question. Why aren't they?
Other technologies, such as DVD rip are not suitable for development of an unrestricted DVD player because they are simply modifications of an existing, licensed player. You could not legally use these programs to manufacture an unlicensed player. Tellingly, the MPAA has made no moves against people who distribute DVD decryption programs based on hacks to licensed CSS implementations, even though they perform the same function.
The only difference between these programs and DeCSS is not that DeCSS enables copying and the other programs don't. The difference is that by using DeCSS one is legally free and clear of the industry tying arrangement between the MPAA, the DVD-CCA, and the player manufacturers that controls and restricts what consumer features are allowed and disallowed on DVD player products.
As usual in the entertainment industry, the real issue is over control and power. Copying in this case is a red herring designed to draw attention away from the MPAA's real interests.
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.
I wouldn't concede that without a hell of a fight. Not if I paid for the software before to getting to the installer. Once the deal is closed, it is closed.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That is flat-out untrue.
DeCSS is not primarily used for lawbreaking. That is only one of many uses for it, and I would even go as far as to say that so far, that is the least popular use for it. The plaintiffs in the case admitted that they had never even heard of anyone using DeCSS to pirate movies.
And in all that time since DeCSS has been out, while it hasn't been used for breaking the law, it has been used for:
- A first step in an awkward complex process for watching DVDs
- A starting point to write other DVD players (e.g. Livid) that hopefull aren't so complex
- Education and amusement
I bet that so far, piracy isn't even up to the 10% point.How could piracy be considered the primary use for the software when this goes against the facts of how people are really using it? That's like have an alleged lockpick tool that 99% of it's owners only use for brushing their teeth, and claiming that lock picking is its primary use.
When people criticize Napster, which isn't technically a violator, they have a damn good point that the overwhelmingly most popular use of Napster (despite its more neutral purpose) is to pirate. But in the case of DeCSS, even that isn't true.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In that same article, the phrase (actually paraphrased here) '[the legality of DeCSS] would allow anyone to copy DVDs'...
If these f***ing journalists bothered READING anything before spouting off, they'd realize that there are plenty of programs out there that copy DVDs, and the central purpose of DeCSS is to 'De'crypt the 'CSS' protecting access to the DVD.
Idiots. Oh yeah, it's not just the NYT, the Associated Press actually released the article, so it's their hacks who screwed up this particular article.
Eric
You could look at this declaration by Touretsky. Personally I think this is the most powerful argument in the entire case.
To paraphrase, the question he asks is "Where do you draw the line?"
Is some English text describing an algorithm protected under the 1st amendment?
What about the same text, but annotated in some well defined programming language for which there is no compiler?
What if it was annotated with C code?
The C code all by itself (ready to be compiled)?
Object code?
Binary executables?
At what point is it no longer 'speech'?
Griff
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
>> 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.
How do you figure? On the very first day of the trial the MPAA's shill had to admit that he could not name a single instance of deCSS being used for bootlegging.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
The fact that DVD's can be copied without decrypting them is mentioned in Golstein's deposition. It was the only thing I read completely, and it's in there.
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.)
The reason GPL/BSDL/etc licenses are valid and EULAs aren't is that the GPL/BSDL/etc licenses give you something in exchange for your agreement to be bound by more restrictions.
... irrelevant, because they already have that right. To offer a contract giving them this right is pointless and as such, the contract is void.
With the GPL, you have no right to distribute a GPLed file under copyright law. The only way to get that right is to agree to the license which grants you all the distribution rights you want, as long as you do it their way.
The EULAs try to restrict your actions, but they don't offer you anything in return so you have no reason to accept (and even if you do, it's not a binding contract.)
A contract needs to have consideration (something for you) for both parties and consent.
EULAs don't have consent because you don't know about the license when you buy it. Even if you know there will be one, it's not presented as part of the sale, so it's void. They also force you to 'agree' to use the product you legally paid for, this extortion means you didn't actually consent to the contract, you just said so to be able to use the product. They don't have any consideration for the end user because that user already paid for the right (or it was paid on their behalf) to use the software. They are legally entitled to it. To offer them the right to use it is like offering someone the legal right to drink a Coke(tm) that they legally purchased
EULAs *could* be valid, *if* you told the sales person you wanted to buy a package, they bring out the contract, explain it, and then in trade for cash, let you use the software in certain ways only.
As it stands however, EULAs aren't valid. You can click 'I Agree' all you wish, you aren't agreeing to anything, just clicking 'Next'...
In fact, something ammusing is that licenses that 'allow' your software to do something, like buying windows NT and finding out it'll only server a 5-user network, aren't required. You can legally crack that software and do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't copy copyrighted material.
(ie, if it's a registry hack to make NT server more machines, it's legal. If you have to copy binaries from a 25-user license, it's not legal.)
This means that cracking software to remove restrictions like only serving a certain number of users, or requiring the CD, is perfectly legal.
Not true. The EULAs Microsoft uses have no power. The RIAA and MPAA could claim the same things, but they wouldn't have any more legal weight than when Microsoft does it.
The only exception to this is the UCITA which isn't a law in any place worth living and is a documented case of bribery. (There was an NYTimes article back when the UCITA was first passed in one state that documented the payoffs to a few elected officials, both as campaign donations and as other barely legit things.)
You can ignore the UCITA, it wouldn't stand up in small claims court, let alone the Supreme court...
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.
Not even then, you already own the program so the click-through can't offer you anything, thus it's not a valid contract.
It's also invalid because of extortion, they're trying to get you to 'agree' despite your wishes. If you click 'No', you don't get to use the software you bought and paid for. If there was 'Agree' 'Disagree' and 'Cancel Install' where the first two installed just the same, then it *might* be binding, if the EULA as offered granted you any benefits you didn't already have the right to.
I'll answer two questions at once:
"Well then, what is it (DeCSS) used for?"
"Good question. Why aren't they?" (windows DVD decryptors being sued).
Simple. What if you wanted to make your own DVD player so you could add custome functionaility, and perhaps do things like pipe firewire video through the house, eliminate menu lockouts, and add persistant bookmarks into movies?
Well, the anser is without a legal DeCSS you can't do any of those things. You can't make your own player unless you pay the MPAA money fo access to the decrpyiton info, and alnog with THAT comes all sorts of things you can't do in a player (like firewire output).
It's all about who can make players, and not really about being able to copy movies. If just anyone could make a DVD player without paying the MPAA, they would loose a large source of revenue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Software and Mathematics both should be protected under the first amendment. Just because I express myself in a language that uses "real" and systematic rules instead of grammer is no reason to exclude me. I am still describing a process (just in precise, accurate detail) and my description deserves freedom of speech protection.
Else how long until I can't legal even *think* about crypto? What if someone copyrighted "plus" and "minus"? Use to be that one had to join a guild to use screws...make your own screws (for your own use) and the king's soldiers would have your ass.
We've come along way, lets not slip back!
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.
>So, if I understand you, copyright is good, but >it's bad. Which is it?
Ever heard of "Ambivalence of invention"? Copyright is a human invention and therefore what holds true for all other inventions also holds for copyright: It *must* be both good and bad at the same time. I think Mattdm demonstrated the point pretty well.
>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?
Who said we've given Microsoft the right - go ask RMS what he thinks. But at least, current software EULA's do not override existing copyright laws.
"reverse engineering is prohibited *except where this prohibition is prohibited by law*" tells you where your freedom is. Most software EULA's are designed to guard against *piracy* - at least they say you can make 1 (one) backup copy. Even if the copies are identical.
The "MPAA license", however, says, "reverse engineering is prohibited except where this prohibition is prohibited by DMCA". Now you see where the problem is. Want to make an analog backup copy? Nah. Macrovision prevents you from doing so. Want to watch a disc you bought on your trip to Europe? Nah. Region coding doesn't let you do that.
With the protective measure designed to protect against access of content and NOT piracy, but
1. DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL and price*S* THEREOF,
2. EXCLUSIVE right of determining WHO can produce DVDs
Sounds like, looks like and smells like an anticompetitive practice to me.
You're looking at the wrong question.
Instead of asking "we're giving MS the right why don't we give MPAA too?" why don't you take a second and wonder "why doesn't MPAA give us the right even MS so generously gives us?"
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.
A better question is ask is: what level is he reading at.
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.
Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
blah blah blah....
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.
The only movies that cannot be copied cannot be seen. The only music that cannot be copied cannot be heard.
Yup. Herr Mozart took that brat little Wolfgang A. Mozart to the Vatican to hear a celebrated mass some person wrote but didn't want published because he was afraid it would be pirated (no copyright then).
So Mozart listened and then went back to his room, took some pen and paper, and wrote the whole mass from memory.
Some copy protection. Put the kid in jail instead of giving him a prize for his genius?
Erk. Gotta disagree a teeny tiny bit, sorry. :-) )
Firstly, IANAConstitutionalL, nor an American - however, I've spent many a long evening learning about historical cases in US constitutional law, particularly those concerning freedoms like the ones in discussion here.
(Roe vs. Wade? 2 ways to cross a river!
I think that the First Amendment is ideal include these issues.
Here's my logic:
- The code is an implementation of an algorithm.
- The algorithm is a set of instructions to perform a particular task
- The algorithm could equally have been described in human language.
- That discussion would be covered by the 1st Amendment.
So, if it is protected in one form, then there's no point in saying it's not protected in all forms. Free Speech, even for Computers!
or more succinctly -
The First Amendment can/could be broader than it was first created to be.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
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.
Sure, but you have permission to break your own access control device. However, breaking somebody else's access control device is surely wrong, for their copyrighted material. If I want to prevent anybody but you from reading something, and somebody else finds a way to read it too, then they broke an access control device as part of their copyright violation - an extra offence, just like it should be.
If I put up a website that asks for a key that I sell (to view a book, for example) before entering, and you break that key, then you just broke an access control device, in addition to violating my copyright (reading my book without permission).
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 -------------------
Copyright grants to the creator of a work the right to control the distribution of his work for profit (or otherwise, as he chooses). Its relevant that this is (in most people's opinion) not a "natural" right, because that makes its scope and form questionable, and up to society (through the state) to control.
Your copyright allows you to make demands of the licensee in exchange for your work. So far, so good. This allows you to impose certain conditions - in the case of the Microsoft EULA, payment, in the case of the GPL/BSDL certain conditions relating to copying and modification.
However, there are limits to what you can do with such a license. In short, you can't deprive the licensee or any other individual of their other rights through it. You can't (to pick an absurd example) require that someone go out and commit a murder in order to use you software.
To get back to the original issue: The question is not whether copyright is good or bad, but what the legitimate scope of a copyright license is. Can you require that only approved devices be used to access the work ? can you require that no copies be made ? Can you override somebody's right to free expression on the grounds that the knowledge they've expressed might be used to undermine your monopoly on players, or copy your work ?
According the doctrine of fair use, which is fundamental to the law in this matter, the answer to the first question is "no", you can't create a monopoly on players in this way, as it has nothing to do with your profiting from your work. To the second "sometimes", you can only control the making of copies where you can reasonably argue that you're being deprived of a sale you'd otherwise have made.
The answer to the third question is clearly the critical matter in this case. To us, the answer is pretty clearly no. The MPAA has no right to maintain its monopoly on players, and no right to restrict information about copying (thats like outlawing the instructions for making a photocopier).
Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many people have such a naive idea of copyright as a form of "ownership" that allows the owners copyright to override everything else.
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
Partially true- if it were wholly true, all cathedrals would be identical. And even given the similarities in cathedrals, it is still clear that their design is influenced a great deal by personal (or communal) expression as much as functionality. Why are cathedrals in the shape of a cross, with the main alter at the meeting of the two beams? Why are there so many upward-pointing structures (spires, steeples, the pointed-topped arches)? Why were they built to that size at all, with huge vaulted ceilings and massive internal fixtures? Functionality controlled how these features were achieved (ie- flying buttresses et al.), but why set out to create those features at all? If the people who had conceived of and built the cathedrals had not been religious people, there design(not to mention existance) would have been wholly different. Features were chosen, based on what the designers and patrons wanted the building to express, and then the means to achieve that vision were used where necesary.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
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.
No matter who pretends to exercise them, that still doesn't make them rights. They are exercising a unilateral extension of contract law, which is generally not legitimately enforceable. They do this to try and prevent fair use. However, fair use still stands, because it is the condition under which copyright law exists.
License agreements operate under the smokescreen of copyright law, when really they are more closely related to contract law. By getting someone to agree to a contract, you can give yourself any "rights" you want to. The problem with license agreements is that they try to take away the fair rights of the consumer without that consumer's actual agreement. This generally makes the contract invalid. In all reality, the only basis for license agreements is fear. (Of course, if you get right down to it, that's the basis of law itself.)
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
> 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...
Both fair use and the ease of copying DVDs without decryption certainly were mentioned. I have read all the trial transcripts as they have become available. Boring as hell, but part of my job.
/. comments about the case.
An interesting note is that Slashdot was mentioned over and over again as a primary source of information by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Even Judge Kaplan seemed to have read many of the
His decision is going to be interesting. I look forward to reading it.
- Robin
Since it's so easy to replicate digital media, it's fair to make some laws which govern doing so, and to have the government enforce those laws. 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.
--
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
> Even Judge Kaplan seemed to have read many of the /. comments about the case.
Yes, but did he moderate them up, or down?
--
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
Well then, what is it used for?
Well I use it to decode the DVD vob to my hard drive, then run a converter to mpeg format, and then I watch the movie. I am well within my rights as I own the DVD that I'm decoding and watching.
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.
For your info, speed ripper was out long before DeCSS was. In fact the code for DeCSS was not originally available but then the css-auth code came out. I do not think that they are all DeCSS offshoots and I would love to see you prove it. If DeCSS and css-auth have no practical purpose, what about its role in LiViD?
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
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