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.
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
I would totally disagree. The code itself protests a law. To put it another way, the Buddhist monk who set himself on fire to protest the war was not claiming that the fire was free speech, however, you cannot deny that the combination of fire, and the monk was a powerful free speech image. Perhaps that's a slightly intense image, but in this case, this 'code' alone is not free speech, but in combination with what it means and what it does, it is.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
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.
Ah, but the CSS algorithm has been reverse-engineered and is no longer a secret. Why pay a license fee when you can get the specs for free? Just download DeCSS and invert its function.
That's the trial I really want to see: DVDCCA suing a publisher for making an encrypted DVD without a license, in order to play in Phase 2 players.
Because if the publisher were to win that case (and I think they would) and 2600 loses the DeCSS case, then every single DVD player manufacturer -- even the ones who already have licenses from DVDCCA -- would be in violation of DMCA unless they reached a settlement with that publisher for "authorization" to circumvent.
Read DMCA some time. It uses words like "authorization" but is pretty vague on who does the authorizing. I'm pretty sure it refers to the owner of the copyrighted work, though it doesn't explicitly say that. I'm damn sure that it doesn't refer to the inventor of the algorithm.
I wish there were some say to make Judge Kaplan aware of this. It sheds a lot of light on the bizarre consequences of DMCA's language.
---
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.
OK. I'll bite.
That's like saying there's no creativity in designing bridges, buildings etc...
My god man, Cathedrals rely on those laws and rules in order to stand up for centuries, but take away the creativity and I'd rather they fall down than to look at a functional, boring square box they'd turn into.
(Moderators, don't 'troll'/'flamebait' this just yet. I want to see those hundred of replies how this suit's got it all wrong.
---
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