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.

Comments

Unencrypted DVDs

[Andy Dodd]

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.)

Access control circumvention

[raygundan]

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.

Re:The Times missed the point

[konstant]

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!

The Times missed the point

[Battra]

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

Re:Maybe, but so do you

[molog]

DeCSS is NOT used primarily for law breaking.

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?

Changing methods

[DragonMagic]

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