Slashdot Mirror
"If You Can Put It On A T-Shirt, It's Speech"
Carnegie Mellon Professor David Touretzky testified before the court on this very issue. (See his Gallery of CSS Descramblers.)
Here's Touretzky being questioned:
19 Q. The next item, the DeCSS T-shirt, why did you post this on
20 the website on the gallery?
21 A. Well, this is a photograph of a T-shirt that's offered for
22 sale by an outfit called CopyLeft, and I purchased one of
23 those shirts myself. And the point of including it here is it
24 seems to me that there is some confusion among all the parties
25 in this case about whether something is speech or not.
1 And my reaction is if you can put it on a T-shirt,
2 it's speech. And so the point of showing the T-shirt was to
3 illustrate that and, also, to raise the question if this
4 T-shirt, itself, would have to be prohibited, then I wonder
5 what would happen to me if I wore the shirt in public.
6 Wearing the shirt in public could, perhaps, be interpreted as
7 engaging in trafficking a circumvention device.
8 So if one really wants to afford the plaintiffs the
9 protection that they seek, I think I would only be able to
10 wear my shirt in the privacy of my own home and must not go
11 outdoors with it.
Touretzky drew up a lengthy argument showing that if the DeCSS source code were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms - image file, various perturbations of the code into forms similar to plain English, annotated commentary, even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the source code is easily retrievable from all of them. The Technical Term for this is "opening up a can of worms". Touretzky was trying to show the court that the issue was hardly open-and-shut - if you look at it one way, it's a device which can perform a task, but if you look at it another, it's speech that's expressive and communicative. If you're a programmer who's never taken much of a look at the legal issues surrounding computer programs, it may be patently obvious to you that code is speech, but to the judicial system, it is not so clear.
The judge was apparently much impressed, and started seriously thinking about the free-speech implications of banning DeCSS, possibly for the first time in the case. He seemed to take Touretzky's argument to heart - either all would have to be banned, or none. Apparently the MPAA took Touretzky's argument to heart as well, and they're therefore doing what is necessary to remain consistent with their argument: going after the T-shirts.
Maybe they'll go after the New York Times as well. Perhaps if the Times gets dragged into the case for posting an image of the illegal shirt, it might finally become clear to all and sundry that this case is about much more than copyright infringement.
Subject: [CAFE-News] EFF DeCSS Trial Summary
DVD Update: July 31, 2000
Universal City Studios et al v. 2600 Magazine
EFF DeCSS Trial Summary:
Facts in EFF's Favor as MPAA Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny
EFF defense team established a solid record at trial that the major film studios are attempting to use the DMCA to ban DeCSS so it can monopolize the DVD player market. Despite its immense investigative resources and months of effort, the MPAA was forced to concede at trial that it could not find a single instance of piracy related to the software. The First Amendment rights of all citizens have been endangered because of the studios' panic and over reaction.
Norwegian teenager Jon Johansen testified for the defense that he was working to build a DVD player for the Linux operating system when he posted the program to the LiVid list that he and two others authored. LiVid Project Leader Matthew Pavlovich testified that his development group used DeCSS to create a Linux DVD player that can compete with the studios' and DVD-CCA's current monopoly on DVD players. The studios were hoping to ban the software before a competing DVD player could be created that is not required by a CSS license to restrict features which allow people to exercise their legal rights. Journalist Emmanuel Goldstein, the editor of 2600 Magazine testified that he published the code in his reporting of Hollywood's crazed reaction to the software's existence, when the studios launched this legal attack against him.
The high point of trial was the electrifying testimony of Professor David Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University's Computer Science Department, EFF's final witness before resting its case. Touretzky explained to the court how computer programmers use computer code to communicate to one another with precision. He showed the court how an injunction against DeCSS chills his ability to express himself. Judge Lewis Kaplan stated Touretzky's testimony was "persuasive" and "educational" and would likely change his First Amendment analysis of the case. The judge did not indicate that he intends to rule in favor of defendants however, and EFF is prepared to take an immediate appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Trial briefs are due August 8 and a short turn-around is expected for a ruling.
After the close of trial, DVD-CCA filed a motion to intervene in the NY litigation to fight EFF's challenge to unseal the Xing CSS license entered into evidence. DVD-CCA has requested to keep its CSS license out of the public record and Judge Kaplan will accept papers opposing DVD-CCA's intervention and secrecy request until August 2 at 5p.m.
You can subscribe to EFF's mailing list to receive the regular DVD updates. To subscribe, email majordomo@eff.org and put this in the text: subscribe cafe-news
EFF's archive of MPAA v 2600 litigation:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) is the leading global nonprofit organization linking technical architectures with legal frameworks to support the rights of individuals in an open society. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most-linked-to Web sites in the world.
You're completely right! What if someone put the source code for Quake on a T-Shirt? That would be a shirt glorifying violence, for all to see who could read C. And if someone wore a DeCSS shirt in a mall, that would be exactly the same thing as if they shoplifted every DVD out of Suncoast. Such hooligans must be stopped at all costs. And anyone who puts a quote from the pornographic book of Psalms on a shirt should be shot as well.
It would be so easy to have an ideal society, if only people didn't wear naughty T-Shirts.
My copy of "The Matrix" is 1.2 gigabytes. I'm not posting it here, sorry.
Aren't they all?
Endless discussion could be had of this point (and probably should be).
Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote the above letter, and made a lot of speeches about liberty and freedom.
Yes, this is grossly inconsistent. From what I understand, this did bother him.
I don't feel that his ownership of slaves is enough to brand him as "evil", yet I don't feel this makes slavery any less evil either.
Everyone is human. It's complicated. It's also off-topic.
Roger Schlafly patented a large nearly 150 digit prime number. Check out: http://bbs.cruzio.com/~schlafly/sciam.htm
All the talk of distributed randomized pads and that movie Pi got me thinking -- it should be possible to distribute a translation of DeCSS based on references to characters/numbers in the Bible.
:)
.exe that is bundled with various texts from Project Gutenberg.
Obviously, the MPAA would attempt to suppress the translation/lookup instructions, but I'd still like to see them try and ban the bible
Better yet, imbed the translation instructions in an encrypted
Here is what I get from copyleft.
[/Paranoia]
-Davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
No, because that isnt speech, its someone elses copyright protected work. Also in that format it has very little meaning to anyone who doesnt have an mp3 decoding algorithm burned into their mind from too much work hacking on mp3 decoders, but yea, it would still be considered distribution and most likely you'd get sued if any record company could be bothered to pay someone to type all that back into a hex editor to proove that it really was their copyrighted work.
Still, keep in mind that the big debate over mp3's and the issue about DeCSS are different things. Just because they both feature a lot on Slashdot does not make them the same. The issue about DeCSS is that its code constitutes free speech as it is expressive and therefore it shouldnt be possible to limit its distribution. The issue with mp3's is a whole other can of worms about how to properly reimburse artists who create work when its so easy to digitally copy their work, essentially creating a 'free rider' problem.
The two are very different things, dont try to compare.
Nick
Nick
Would it then be legal to run through the streets naked, if a police officer made you remove your clothes? If not, would the officer be asking you to commit a crime?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I think if that happenned, you'ld be taken to a war crimes court for using biological warfare :)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
If its the 2600/DMCA case, its would be quite bizzare to have a subpeona or a summons because the trial is more or less over. And I don think that there are any space for unnamed defendants.
/. is one of the name defendants and where there are slots for new people to be brought in. And the trial hasnt happended yet. It could also be a subpeona, but that would be unlikely as I dont see much that any party could get from Copyleft. Maybe the defendants want to prove that this trade secret is out in the wild and that therefore trade secret laws dont apply... They'd normally have to sue someone who entered a contract with them, as trade secret are contract based. I can legally publish a trade secret if I received it from someone without knowing I was doing something illegal... But that's probably not the case as the T-Shirt was made after the begginging of the trial. Or maybe the studios are just trying to block the sale of DeCSS deshirts because it annoys them to have all those uniformed people in court...
It would seem most likely that it would be the 500 defendants trade secret one where
True, but most congressmen (and other governmental figures, for that matter) are lawyers. ('cept that Jesse Ventura ;)
In show of support, I just went to copyleft and bought three t-shirts, one of which is the decss shirt. Put your money where your mouth is.
Palin...
This is what you ignored when you claimed"you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater." There is nothing magical about the word Fire! Modern theaters are not the same as the old deathtrap buildings that existed when that court ruling was established. The audience might ignore someone yelling those words today. We can certainly pray that Judge Kaplan has the ability to consider the full context
At that point, it's protected by the first amendment and subject to the restrictions you pointed out. If something is not speech (code is not considered speech, even now) then it dosn't have any first ammendment protections.
Free speech is always legal. Speech is not.
--Dan
already exist. If they had patented the algorithm, then the case would be much differant.
The CSS algorithm was a trade secret and as such has little protection under the law. That is why they are use attempting DMCAs provisions.
ESC:wq
STFU about slashdot bias.
i've worn the "(dvd/cca)" shirt a few times, and it gets good reactions from my friends (geeks and socs alike). those who know the story enjoy the shirt and those who don't invariably ask and hear the "truth" (my undoubtably biased side of the story :7 ). i plan on buying the "got decss" shirt soon.
Difficult to say, but I found it interesting :)
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
From the NYTimes article:(regarding piracy)
"We don't have to prove it," said Leon Gold, a lawyer with the New York firm Proskauer Rose L.L.P., who is the studios' lead lawyer. "The point is, we're trying to prevent it."
This attitude is truly scary. They admit that they can't prove that DeCSS has done anything to aid or increase the rate of piracy of DVD discs but say that they don't need to, since they are trying to prevent piracy. The ends justify the means, right? Wow, this is truly an incredible point of view. I hope these guys aren't actually lawyers, since I thought it took brains to be one. My entire worldview has been shattered!!
But seriously, maybe we should ban guns because they might be used for killing (hey, I'm Canadian so I don't like guns anyways), and maybe we should ban cars since people can kill themselves with them by crashing into light posts and such. Why not ban kitchen knives since I'm sure people have died as a result of a kitchen knife-inflicted wound. When I was growing up, I remember my mom telling me that it only took as much water as can fill a teacup to drown in, so why don't we ban teacups too! And didn't I see a movie where somebody was killed with a wood chipper?
As off topic as that above rant might seem, I think it has a very valid application to the whole DeCSS thing. The enemy (MPAA, etc) wants to prevent piracy of their medium which is, as far as I'm concerned, fair enough. But, I like to think of DeCSS as a woodchipper. Sure, it can kill somebody, but it's built for a legitimate purpose, which is to be able to play your legally owned DVD wherever you damn well like.
And this whole preventing piracy before it starts argument is similar to shooting down somebody who is walking up the sidewalk to your house because they might be trying to break in. (remember that whole thread about census workers? or was that on kuro5hin, I dunno). I only have one other thing to say, a poorly done quote of Thomas Hobbes (or has it Thomas Jefferson, I dunno, anyway): A man that sacrifices liberty for security loses both and deserves neither.
The school board agreed with us and T-shirts which glorify alchohol, sex and violence or contain obscene words.
The school board agrees with you and T-shirts which glorify alchohol, sex and violence or contain obscene words? Rock on! I like sex,violence and obscene words myself!
I would love to see how the law was worded, if this guy is a product of their local school system. Who cares if those children learn anything, they might be wearing shirts that glorify alchohol, sex, violence or contain obscene words.
--fatboy
They might outlaw your butt. And I don't think I need to say that that would suck.
So If I wear my anti-dvd-css shirt am I going to go to trial? :)
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
*CLiCK!*
-39180 - humor.dll - permission denied. Does the file exist?
Well, let's look at these in a bit more detail:
Leaving aside the non sequitur involved in comparing spam and source code, what this is saying is: You do not have the right to force information upon me, and you do not have the right to deny me information. Sounds almost... reasonable... that way, doesn't it?
In other words: Music is just bits, and should not be afforded any protection, Source Code is just bits and should not be afforded any protection. Once again, what exactly is ``confused'' about that?
Not that I agree with the statements above, mind you. Well, except for the one about spam.
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
I'm sure these countries find it next to impossible to obtain so called 'strong' crypto. After all, it would require the intense coordination of the particular country's intelligence / security agencies, involving perhaps more than one person. They'd almost have to send an agent into the US (cleverly disguised as a tourist or something), walk up to any public web terminal (cafe, etc) and download all the lastest techniques / tools into their ultra-secret 'floppy disk' from any number of the hundreds of sources of cryptographic tools in the US. The next question is getting said disk out of the country; given the intense scrutiny of all digital media at all border control points, we can plainly see that the current campaign to control cryptography is completely effective in achieving its stated purpose (keeping strong crypto within US borders.) Good work men, keep it up! You're almost as succesful as the gentle souls who brought us the War on Drugs!
It's more than one or two people who have come over in a bar and asked about the T-shirt. The story of Jon Johansen and the Big, Bad Consp^H^H^Hrporations entertains girls and boys alike.
And no, it does not fade when washed, it's pretty well done.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
What about the RSA Encryption/Decryption T-Shirt at http://www.thinkgeek.com/brain/bazaar/mart/cart.cg i?action=view&type=item&itemid=31fe, which can't be distributed outside the U.S.? Isn't that a form of free speech? Has anything similar to this been challenged in court before?
This may prove that the code is speech but because this is an issue internal to the United States (as opposed to the export of PGP which was an international issue) why can't the judge ban the use of the code. You may be able to argue that having the code printed is free speech and I'd agree with you; however, once you compile that code its no longer speech (as the law goes). Then by using that code you could commit a crime. I understand how this wouldn't apply to PGP because once its outside the US your dealing the the law of the nation in which you reside. To the best of my knowledge no nation has a law stating that your not allowed to use PGP.
One step forward two steps backward?
And the reason Coca-Cola doesn't patent the Coke formula, is, even if you ignore the fact the patent would end in 20 year, when Coke fully expects to be selling Coke still, they run into the fact you can't patent recipes. :)
And why the hell am I posting in such an old discussion?
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If it's 'printed' on a t-shirt, maybe it's 'freedom of the press', not 'freedom of speech'.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The object of the suit doesn't matter.
Only that the ndustry be pushed into sueing everybody for copyright infringment upon the release of every new movie, CD, CD-ROM with immediate requests to suppress and quash every poster, ad, t-shirt, cummerbund, toy or other source of revenue generating tie-in.
Sue the industry if it does not sue everybody for infringement and for their selective application.
The law is an ass and the law responds like one. It will haul anything for anybody with equal disregard for justice, truth or the American way.
Don't circumvent it. Use it...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Nah. A butt plug. They they can shove it up their collective greedy little anal-retentive, control freak-ish ass.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Napster:
The judge knew exactly what Napster does. It does not post copyrighted anything. It knowingly provides a forum in which users violate copyright law and does nothing to stop them. Doing so is illegal as our laws stand. (There's the case of the swapmeet that was closed b/c people were swapping pirated music.) That's why the judge issued the order to shut Napster down. The judge understood the facts and acted correctly. The order was illegal though, because it would, as Napster's lawyers argued, spell death for the company and that can't be done until they lose at trial (and they will).
DeCSS:
DeCSS is illegal according to the DMCA which is law. The DMCA might be unconstitutional (I think it is) but until the supreme court says so, DeCSS is a copyright circumvention device and illegal. Distributing it may not be, and linking to it probably isn't and a T-Shirt with it certainly isn't, but the software tool is.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Well, what would you do with the 's? Those are non-unique. A whole buncha hex values become that character, and you wouldn't know which they were. I know I'm being too literal, but still.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
That's true. Another example is Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, which contains instructions for both electronic (Perl) and physical (playing cards) implementations of a strong crypto algorithm called Solitaire. It's a book, so it can be distributed worldwide. What's even more elegant is that the strong crypto can be implemented without any computer, as long as the cryptographer is willing to be bored stiff and never make mistakes.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Here, here teacher, I know the answer:
Speach is the genetic combination of spinach and peaches.
Bet you thought I was going to make fun of your spelling right?
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Corporations ARE people in the eyes of the law. That's exactly why groups of people or even individuals incorporate. They own property, sue, be sued, pay taxes, and everything else that individuals can do.
Many people incorporate their businesses to lessen their liability. They have every right to. But they shouldn't lose rights that they would have had otherwise by doing so.
It's a common sentiment that corporations are bad. They're not. Mom and Pop, Inc. shouldn't be grouped with the Microsofts and Time-Warners of the world. That being said, how large would a corporation have to be before it no longer had the same rights as people in this country? Would a one person corporation have free speech, while a hundred person corporation couldn't?
Welcome to America, land of the free, so long as you don't fall too far outside the norm (I know, that... that statement can be reversed on me in a second)/
At issue for you is a misuse of the word "subpoena." They merely meant "add to the list of defendants," or something to that effect. Hell, maybe "subpoena" was not misused, and you're just missing that definition.. whatever.. they meant to say "add to the list of defendants."
Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
I meant that the mechanism used to protect the copyright (CSS) is/was a trade secret, whatever, maybe I'm wrong.
Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
I believe it's a "trade secret to protect copyright issue" not "copyright issue."
Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
Actually you get a printout of the code with your shirt, so you don't need a T-shirt scanner.
Q.
No, of course not. The point is that in the case of DeCSS, the speech was obviously legal all along. Placing it on a T-shirt just makes that fact more obvious to people who aren't familiar with how software works.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Alright, would you please stop making me laugh out loud and embarassing myself?
This is NOT offtopic. Grrrr.
And if the t-shirt contains PGP or the perl crypto code, since those are munitions, can you get arrested for carrying concealed weaponry w/o a permit???
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Actually, no it doesn't. I have probably washed my DeCSS shirt a dozen times, and it still looks good as new. It's a pretty decent quality shirt. My only complaint is the anti-DVDCCA logo on the front is kinda large and solid, so that my chest gets a bit sweaty in that one spot.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think that instead, it was decided to reevaluate free society.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Cool! Thanks, dude!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'm reminded of that Monty Python skit about the 'killer joke' developed during WWII that would cause people who read it to die laughing. If you print the joke on the shirt, maybe it really is a munition!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Or what if you sold tickets to such a performance? You could do it in a theater. Then DVD-CCA would have to sue you for "Shouting DeCSS in a crowded theater."
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you did this (kind of thing) and got drafted, could you be sent overseas?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Interesting.
If that is valid code, which I don't know, I appear to have copied it onto my computer without knowing that I was going to. When the cache is cleared, it will go away, but for now it exists. This seems like speech (or at least writing) to me.
For some reason it's called e-mail rather that transational programming. Somebody must think that it's like writing!
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
a) It may say nothing about legality, but it does indicate that it is speech.
b) Why can't anarchists have a legitimate freedom issue?
c) Why can't "kiddies" have a legitimate freedom issue? (Do you really think name calling is an appropriate grounds for a decision?)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The fact that this attitude isn't really hypocritical either is less cut-and-dried than the first one, but here goes: In the case of both the music and the source code here, the 'right' being claimed is that "I have it, and I should be allowed to look at it as closely as I want, all the way down to source code". Since the 'bits' in the case of music amounts to the 'source code' of the mp3/ogg file, I see nothing hypocritical about this at all.
A little misfire there. The previous poster was making the arguement that slashdoters want music bits to have no type of intellectual property protection, while supporting copyrights for source code.
"Looking" at music bits isn't the problem; redistrubiting them (via binary or CD-R) is; much like redistrubiting code bits (via binary or CD-R) is. What makes one piracy and not the other?
I guess the previous poster believes most ./ers say "Your code is my code, but my code isn't your code", unless they believe in the FSF ("Your code is my code and my code is your code"), or are my boss ("Your code is shit.") ;)
George Lee
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I just bought one -- pretty nice shirts! I hope the EFF takes my 4 bucks and crams it down Jack Valenti's throat...
I for one find it very scary that in a case like this a judge might not be thinking about freedom of speech.
Just because it is on-line should it be treated any different? Legally the internet should be treated no differently then radio,tv,cable,books etc.
But that's kinda a moot point if you click on this link. Complete source for your reading pleasure. :)
--------------------
Aren't decency laws determined on a local scale and not on a national scale? To me, this means that shirts cannot be banned from the United States, but instead from localities within the United States. Those localities have to specifically ban those shirts based on content. I am reasonably certain that no locality is going to claim that source code is indecent unless it explicitly uses profanities (although a creative perl script could swear at you and a passerby would never know it).
Right... if. The old lady suing McDonalds case is usually brought up as an example of an unjustified lawsuit - she spilled the coffee on herself. Of course it was hot, that's how people like coffee. How does serving someone a hot beverage constitue screwing them over?
And just for this, I had to go and buy one... It was rather hard because copyleft seems hopelessly slashdotted, but it was worth the persistence.
Hell, gonna wear my shirt out to the bar tonight, always get into interesting discussions about it.
I must be doing it wrong. Every time I wear my DeCSS t-shirt I get a hundred people asking me how to pronounce DeCSS. I rarely get anything more interesting. What am I doing wrong?
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
That this has been posted for 2 hours and has not been moderated up is a sincere tragedy.
I agree that they are different things,
but part (a large part I think) in the DeCSS case is not just the code constituting free speech, but the limitations placed by the DMCA in general are unconstitutional and fly in the face of the assurences organizations like both MPAA and RIAA gave congress that the law would not impinge on existing "fair use" copyright law.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Yeah... but how will it sounds after you run it through the wash a few times? You'll just have to go out and get a new t-shirt. I'm convinced this is a plot by "Haines" and "Fruit of the Loom"!
;)
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
it is illegal to reproduce copyrighted works without the holder's permission.
The point you are missing is that CSS is a trade secret, not a copyrighted work.
Norwegian and German law allow you to do reverse-engineering for interoperability purposes, no matter what Xing's EULA says.
CSS is not patented. In order to patent something, you have to document how it works.
So, you have a trade secret that has been lawfully reverse engineered. If the DMCA had not existed, the plaintiffs wouldn't have a leg to stand on in this case.
One of the defense strategies was to raise free speech/1. amendment issues.
The problem is that DeCSS first was published as a Windows binary, and the court find it hard to consider a binary protected speech. The point of Touretzky's testimony is to show that object code, structured english, C source-code and stuff printed on T-shirts can all be considered speech.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
trial when you refer, as the NYT writer(s) did, to Judge Kaplan as Judge Jackson...
Jeff
And frankly I get the warm-fuzzies knowing $4 of it goes to help the good people fighting the good fight. :)
Really?? Where's the speech? where's the expression? All you're doing is regurgitating data. That may have been adequate for college tests, but it isn't speech, it isn't an expression. Now, if you did something creative with all that data (make Yet Another ASCII Tux, for instance) that would be protected.
James
Sure it is. Have you never seen one festooned with BumperSnickers?
Evolutionists probably find the darwin fish to be offensive, and I'm sure the Redmondians find the Linux|Linus fish offensive as well...
James
"Could not connect. Please contact administrator"
Either that, or III) they used inconsistent numbering in their reasoning.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
For more information, click here.
An offensive T-Shirt is illegal if it breaks decency laws. If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal. There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
First: Name a single "decency" law that has withstood Constitutional scrutiny, please. There was a case in the early 70's (I forget the case name) where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a biker who was thrown in jail for wearing a leather jacket with the word "FUCK" emblazoned in large letters across the back. (He was on trial for marijuana possession, wore it to court, and the judge was not amused.)
The Court takes free speech *very* seriously. There are a very, very limited set of circumstances wherein prior restraint will withstand Constitutional muster:
It must be a clear and present danger to national security.
It must "appeal solely to the prurient interest and hold no artistic, scientific, or educational value" [from memory], i.e. it must be obscene. This is a very difficult thing to prove.
"Fighting words" are also unprotcted. If you are black, and I walk up to you and say "you dumb nigger", and you promptly beat my ass, I will have very little protection under the law.
So if the T-Shirt can be viewed as a political statement, even if it takes a stretch of the imagination to do so, then it will very probably be considered speech by the courts.
The ACLU has a good briefing on this here.
Remember, the First Amendment is the higher law whenever it conflicts with copyrights. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; copyright laws are enacted by Congress. T-Shirts are special, and are viewed so by the courts, merely because they are an expression of speech.
- Rev.People keep pointing out that if the source code is ruled illegal, that it is illegal in any form, and that maoving to a T-shirt doesn't matter.
That is true, and I agree with it, but what the defense in this case is trying to do is point out that code is speech, and as such the DMCA may well be in violation of the 1st amendment. Because under the DMCA, code can be considered (in some circumstances) to be copyright circumvention tools, yet the code is protected as speech.
Since the Defense pointed that out that in the sense the DMCA is written/being interpretted a T-shirt is a cpyright circumvention tool, the MPAA is just following the logical conclusion. This "logical" conclusion is something the MPAA must do if they want to look serious in their fight against it.
Actually, I think alot of geeks are members of the EFF and support it financially, I know I do, do you? Its something that you can be truly proud of.
we compiled in a max connections of 256 into apache and a max of 4000 into mysql, so we're obviously being killed right now.
-neil
copyleft.net
i rule.
Yes, as OJ proved, te criminal and civil courts are a lot different...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't wear trade secrets ;-)
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
How is it that your hex editor doesn't display hex? Surprising that it got through beta...
Ryan
http://www.obscura.com/~shirt
Spend away, my man.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/uk- shirt.html
http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/uk-shirt.html if you're goatse.cx-phobic.
Never mind that dead link I just posted. This is the real thing, with an address and pricing. Sixteen bucks for t-shirt or XXL sweatshirt.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The GNN (DCS/uXu) has, some time back, gifted us with this:
_ __________________ _ __________________
... to criminal activity...
... to harassment...
... to high treason...
- ------------------------- - -------------------------
ftp://ftp.etext.org/pub/Zines/UXU/uxu-443.txt
### ###
### ###
### #### ### ### ### ####
### ### ##### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ##### ### ###
########## ### ### ##########
### ###
### ###
Underground eXperts United
Presents...
####### ## ## ####### # # ## ## ## ## #######
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## # ##
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### ####
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## # ##
## ## ####### ####### # # ## ## #######
[ Forbidden File ] [ By The GNN ]
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
FORBIDDEN FILE
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
This file is forbidden to spread, in
some cases even forbidden to possess.
(PREAMBLE)
This file is neither a work of art nor a joke. This is a serious file, all
its contents have been written for the purpose of creating chaos and
disorder. This preamble is neither a work of art nor a joke.
(INSTIGATION)
You shall make a bomb. You shall use it. Here is the receipt: mix 50%
sugar with 50% saltpeter, put in a proper container; ignite. You shall
make this bomb. You shall use it. You shall use it. It is good for you.
The blast will make your day.
After you have made this bomb, mail a letter to this bastard and tell
him that he must die:
Then use the bomb to kill the king of Sweden. Do not vote! Use the
bomb! Do not vote! SEEK PLEASURE THROUGH VIOLENCE, SEIZE POLITICAL POWER
WITH FORCE, THE FUTURE SHINES SO BRIGHT I GOTTA WEAR SHADES
(COPYRIGHT VIOLATION)
My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh my friends
It gives a lovely light!
(DESINFORMATION)
1+1=3
(INDECENT LANGUAGE WITHOUT PROPER CAUSE)
shit piss fuck ass arse damn screw breast hell piss-christ dick cock cunt
dumbass big-ass heck blast blazes gosh son-of-a-bitch prick pussy turd
fart bastard sucker crap bananas schmuck crud twit twat
(CHILD PORNOGRAPHY)
"Oh, my sweet lover, what a wonderful night we had together. When the moon
was a cold chisel dagger, we embraced each other and embarked on the
journey into sexual pleasures; me, penetrating your rectum; you, being
only (Depending upon sexual preference, put any number (in letters, you
illiterate fool!) between one and fifteen here; Example: eleven) years
old."
(TRADEMARK VIOLATION)
always the real thing always underground eXperts united
(VIOLATION OF THE FAHRENHEIT 451-CLAUSE)
The meaning of life is not only a complicated question. The answer, if
there is any, would probably be even more complicated; so complicated that
we would never be able to understand it.
(WRONG PROPAGANDA)
(X) is the superior political movement. It must prevail!
(Depending upon which political paranoia that is currently fashion among
the masses and intellectual elite in your country, exchange the (X) with
your favorite fringe political conspiracy. Examples: Marxism, nazism,
anarchism or the republic of Plato.)
(SEXUAL HARASSMENT)
I love You.
(THE WORST POSSIBLE CRIME EVER FACED IN HUMAN HISTORY)
Spread this file.
-------------------------------------------------
uXu #443 Underground eXperts United 1998 uXu #443
Call UNPHAMILIAR TERRITORY -> telnet upt.org
-------------------------------------------------
Boy, I hope that worked.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
While I agree that my code and your code should be expressive free speech under the law, it's important to note that such a standard has not been established in court per se. The ruling cited above says:
"C. Concluding comments. We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not. Nor need we resolve whether the challenged regulations constitute content-based restrictions, subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, or whether they are, instead, content-neutral restrictions meriting less exacting scrutiny. We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech."
That doesn't say one way or the other whether DeCSS is free speech, it says it doesn't say. I hope Kaplan is moved enough by all the testimony to actually give us the precedent we need.
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
How many damn cases are there? I was only aware of one...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Except that CopyLeft did not violate the NDA, nor did the DeCSS code itself stem from a violation of the NDA. If anyone should get sued by the MPAA (or whoever) for revealing the trade secret, it should be the software DVD company that left their bloody key in plaintext.
I make it a point to wear it in public...and every once in a while, someone says "hey...what's DVD/CCA and why are you against it?" once they see the front. It's a perfect time to explain what's
going on with the trial, and why it's a problem. Most people are curious enough to listen for a few minutes.
I know it's a small thing...but if a couple of people think about it when they're at the store looking at DVD's to buy, then maybe it'll help.
Ya gotta do what you can.
Karma only matters to me now and zen.
Of course not. It's illegal to export the code, not sell it.
No it's not. The boxes map to multiple characters.
Symantecs symantecs (-:
My point was that there are many ways to interpret a file. Binary data can be expressed in numerous ways.
Hmm. I couldn't find that link two days ago when I was looking through all the stuff at ThinkGeek. The only thing I found was a zoom of the shirt which was still illegible...
Intolerant people should be shot.
Well, on his behalf, it is hard to tell them apart, they act pretty much the same way.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Thinkgeek makes a point of saying they won't ship it out of the country, and that image is completely illegible, so they're safe. Of course, its not their fault if you happen to be wearing it when you cross a border...
Intolerant people should be shot.
I love these laws that specify open ended scopes. It really makes me shudder that either 1) someone sat down, thought this through, and thought it was a good idea, or b) just wrote it without pondering the consequences.
I don't know which is worse.
Computer Readable. They even _had_ rudimentary OCR back then so they knew of at least one case of conflict.
i think banning t-shirts in public places is a horrible idea, i'm guessing your ideal world is not unlike the one in the movie 'demolition man'. where do you draw the line, what if i wore a boxing shirt, should i have to take it off? it's people like you that make me ashamed to be catholic.
-Sigs are for losers.
when in high school if you wore some "indecent" t-shirt (something promoting alcohol, drugs, or ha d foul language) you got sent to the Vice principal's office. he made you wear a t-shirt that said:
"I got sent to Mr. 's Office and all i got was this DECENT t-shirt.
thought that was good.
JediLuke
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
maybe the jumper would count as an encryption-device, making it illegal for anyone to take it off without your permission under the DMCA, as this would be circumvention of an encryption device.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Just to show something mathematicians know long time ago: from contradiction you can probe anything.
I don't think ownership matters in something like a mall. If it is open to the public without restrictions, membership or charge, it is still considered a public place. If you strip at a mall, you will be charged with public nudity.
- I like pudding.
I have both right here, and the T-shirt has the same code as the piece of paper, minus the static byte tables, so the info on the shirt is whats in question here. The byte tables are a key, but the device is in the code. This is what performs the cirumvention that they are crying about.
- I like pudding.
Yes, my bad. What I was thinking was that DeCSS itself and any copyright issues associated with it is not the issue, but what it does to copyrighted materials on DVD's.
I know the statement I wrote to be totally false and am wondering how it was allowed out of my brain.
- I like pudding.
I think you are right, but this disturbs me. Why don't they just make one law that says, "Don't do anything wrong." Then thats all up to interpretation as to what is wrong. Maybe my Rube Goldberg device was to teach the dog not to pull on his leash by making a loud noise when he tugs. The example is rediculous, but someone else deciding what a third persons intent is gets in very shakey ground.
This case is a perfect example. Is the point of DeCSS to what movies you bought legally, on your Linux box, or to bootleg "The Matrix" and sell it for $5 a pop?
- I like pudding.
Well public schools and laws have always walked on the rights of the young. (Because it is OK to be prejudiced against the young. Drivers licences, curveys, R ratings, drinking age, etc. because they have no money and can't vote, and parents can't raise their own children. But I digress.)
They can ban anything they feel interferes with the smooth running of the school. So I am not surprised by the banning of alcohol/drug/violent T-shirts. (When I was in sixth grade a fad came out of wearing really oversized shirts. They were banned, including hockey jerseys, for no other fact than "Why do you need to wear a big shirt? Put on something that looks nice.")
But I am guessing you are somewhere down south or in a very rural area, because the idea of banning a T-Shirt in a public place is never going to be legal under the constitution. If I am correct, I could wear a shirt saying "Kill Whitey" or "All Blacks should die." or as Sebastian Back once wore "AIDS kills fags, dead" The south is usually the only place that attempts to do this sort of thing. Yeah, free speach can be scarey and mean, but I personally think it is the greatest attribute of the US.
- I like pudding.
Viddy the sig.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Forget archives. Forget T-Shirts. Do you really want to protest this thing? Memorize the DeCSS code. Yeah, it takes time, but think of it as time invested fighting the good fight.
The cake is a pie
here here, brother. this shit is getting ridiculous. if it were any more funny, we could make a comedy movie about it... oh but wait, if we did that then the mpaa would sue us for pronouncing the letters d-e-c-s-s in sequence, because its against the DMCA or something... retards...
I wonder: what if someone markets sandals with "illegal" code printed on the soles? I never quite heard of offensive sandals breaking decency laws... For one thing, it would be rather hard to spot the "undecent" part.
Why McDonalds keeps their coffee so damn hot:
So it tastes "better" longer.
That's it. It's so they don't have to go through an extra pot of dirty, warm water, once a day.
And the lady got more money than she asked for, she wanted medical expenses covered, the jury was, well, made of typical Americans.
Dan
And if someone forced you to take the jumper off because it had an indecent image on it, could you claim that they were breaking your protection device and can be sued under DMCA?
If a jumper is a protection device to stop people getting at data, then under UK law you could probably be imprisoned for not removing your clothing when a police officer asks you to...
Oh jez, the conspiracy nuts come out of the woodwork... The T-Shirt isn't the problem -- there isn't anything useful on the damned shirt anyway. The problem is the printout of the source code Copyleft is shipping with each t-shirt. That puts them in the same boat as 2600. (Well mostly as they cannot call themselves "the press" -- they are a distributor.)
Sometimes it's not a political statement; it's simply clothing. (Most of my wardrobe is t-shirts.)
The table is the part the DVD CCA "owns". The code part is just a simple LFSR (linear feedback shift register) -- which they clearly cannot own.
:-)
Never-the-less, they are ditributing the DeCSS source code in its entirity on Copyleft letterhead with every purchase -- technically, they could be charged with selling the DVD CCAs trade secret
So, suppose it is ruled that deCSS is completely banned in all forms, which is inconceivable, but go with me. This, presumably, would mean that all incarnations (not just the exact source code) would be banned.
This means that DVD's could no longer be encrpyted using it! The code that is in DVD players (or in hardware form in that player) is no different (in terms of effect - it is just a different incarnation) than the DeCSS code. Thus it would be illegal as well!
"Of all days, the day on which one has not laughed is the most surely the one wasted." -Sebastian Roch Nicol
this is of course not a new idea ... it's been done in the crypto world a few times already ....
I paid cash for mine at Linux Expo.. so I'm safe :)
Phil. Phil Zimmerman. PGP's original author.
I'm not sure I can agree with you on this one. About two months ago, I was visiting Portland, OR and was in a mall there. They had a sign that said something to the extent of "The Oregon State Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to peaceful picketing and protesting within any public place, including a mall."
Perhaps in some places, they have given mall-owners the right to ban certain things, but apparently the state of Oregon thinks slightly different. Since malls are widely used by the public and are an amalgamation of many different vendors/stores/food establishments, etc., one could compare a shopping center to a place like Copley Plaza or Newbury Street in Boston (both public places).
I'm not sure what the laws are here in the Commonwealth, but I'm pretty sure that people have the right to picket or distribute literature at malls. I've seen political candidates from all sides handing out materials at some malls, and nothing is done to stop them. So a mall may be more "public" than you think.
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Sorry, but the MPAA isn't the copyright holder for DeCSS, Jon Johansen is (and whoever his compatriots are). This is what you are missing. Since the code is under a GPL (?) license, there's nothing illegal about distributing the code. It would be more like if the author of Garfield sued Bill Watterson for writing a comic containing felines (best I could do with your example).
ufdraco
Probably off topic for the main thread but there is another action starting in the UK against McDs and their too-hot coffee. Do they ever learn? See here for details
To a programmer, writing code that is, popular, socially meaningful, historical, and fits on a tee shirt.
The OpenBSD blowfish tee is another one, having done its part to open up encryption regulations.
So here's the idea: Copyleft should take the graphic on the back of the t-shirt and flip it horizontally, so it's a mirror-image. The front of the shirt should read Mirror DeCSS If they're forced to recall the DeCSS shirt, they should offer this one as a free replacement. Hell, I'd buy two.
bugger.net | MunkAndPhyber.com
Humane: Nah. These guys have earned a beating many times over. Once somebody has it coming like this, it isn't inhumane.
Civil: What is civil? Just a word used to cover up the gilded evils of society. One way or another civility is just an excuse for wimps to try and worm their way out of things rather then just fighting it out. Sure losing a fight and getting beaten up sucks, but it's a hell of a lot more interesting than sitting around in court all the time.
Effective: If all these guys got a real good ass kicking, and it was made very clear that more ass kickings were in store, they would be too scared to keep making us mad.
I would make a better post, but no need to go karma whoring when Dungeon Dweller puts it so well.
I think what we really need to do is just beat the bastards. Physically. We need to track down Jack Valenti, his little crew of bitches, as well as the execs of all the movie studios that fund the MPAA, and KICK THEIR ASSES. To hell with lawyers, these guys are just being assholes and it's high time we got this problem sorted out like real men would.
What about this: Publish the DeCSS code with an obvious error. For example, place a comment tag at the beginning which never ends. Then no one can claim that the code can be used to violate any rights -- it wouldn't do anything.
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
That is a really interesting way of looking at digital info. Somehow I never thought of my favourite mp3 as a binary representation of one big number. bizarre.
It's the liberal Democrats who want to take away our freedoms to protect the children (see: gun laws).
The Republican party may not be innocent, but the Democratic party is just as guilty. I think MTV had a larger part to do with Clinton's election than an overzealous religious bigot...
I was replying to the original poster who said that because DeCSS can easily be spread by printing it on a T-shirt and it is virtually impossible to contain it, that makes the case stupid.
My point was simply that just because something can't be contained doesn't make it legal or ethical. Racism can't be contained and millions practice it - that doesn't make it legal or ethical.
Note that I'm not saying spreading DeCSS is not legal or ethical - just that the fact that it can't be contained is not the _reason_ why it's legal and ethical.
Mmmm.. Donuts
it fades after a few washes anyways.
And when was the last time you saw someone in the street following you with a pen writing down what your tshirt says?
The horror! People might buy these to scan the code and distribute it online! Oh NO!!!!
if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans
There is a point when the idiocy of our legal system goes too far. When and how will it end? What's next?
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
DeCSS source could not possibly be ruled as copyright infringement. Jon Johanssen holds the copyright to that code, which he released under the GPL. There are no copyrighted materials of anybody else in the code, and that is not the issue.
The MPAA is arguing that this code is an illegal circumvention device that illegally breaks their trade secret (CSS) and was developed to pirate all their stuff and give it away for free. All bullshit, but that's their position. The only stuff in that code that is used by the MPAA are the static data structs, and you cannot copyright a number. Copyright infrngement would have to be ruled ona case-by-case basis, since their are many legitemate uses of this program.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
No, both keys, viewed individually, are random: every bit in the keys has a 50% chance of being 0 and a 50% chance of being 1. If you have only one key, you have absolutely no information about the original data. A key stores information in how it is related to the other key. It's like a puzzle with three pieces (data, key #0, key #1): if you have only one piece, the others could be anything; but if you have any two pieces, then you can determine the other.
In fact, you can break data up into more than two keys. Here's how. Cool, no?
As I understand US law, this would require "prior restraint", otherwise the functionallity would be publically available and the "can of worms" condition is reached.
Having said that, I would be interested to see if you're board of ed would withstand a serious legal challenge to its policies. The definitive opinion for expression by students and teachers by the supreme court is TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) . Quoting from the majority opinion:
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
> That's completely independent of whether or not
> the deed being committed is an actual crime.
Is it? we are talking abou speach here. How do you deinfe "Criminal speach"?
I don't think this confuses the issue at all. In fact it clarifies it. It is never morally or ethically wrong to express yourself. (unless that expression comes in the form of violence against another who is not consenting to said violence)
I would go as far as to say that any law which attempts to abridge speach is itself a crime against the people.
This case comes down to the old question "what is speach". It is my solem belief that the only answer which can possibly be correct is "anything that conveys information" whether that information is technical, emotional, visual, or what is what is really beside the point.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I have always been an advocate of creative spelling. Its a damned fule who can only think of one way to spell a word.
Afterall, as Ambrose Beirce said, a Dictionary is a "malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of language".
--Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Didn't the US recently change the laws making it LEGAL to export strong cryptography? 128bit Netscape can now be downloaded from [almost] anywhere in the world. The exceptions being places like Iraq, North Korea, etc.
In the Calvin and Hobbes case, SELLING the t-shirts would be illegal, but WEARING them would not.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Yes, but if you took off your shirt (thus exposing the tattoo) you could be arrested for indecent exposure with intent to distribute.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
At least in some (puny) minds.
Just because it mentions breasts.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
I hate to be devil's advocate, and my own opinion on the subject is that I tolerate that people do stupid things. You cannot control by regulation as effectively as by education and problem-solving. Anyways here we go:
Child pornography on a T-shirt anyone?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Ultimately we all decide for ourselves what should be "legal" and "ethical" in our society. There are no final answers or solutions to our current situation other than those we create for ourselves. We create it, we experience it, we change.
So as you point out, it's not easy. There's really no arguments that hold either way! (If you're gonna start looking broader and broader on the subject) There are no limits, but of course we want a workable solution.
One big reason we live like we do is because of the scarcity of resources. Well, information technology is threatening to break that barrier since the natural state of information is to be spread and processed. Copying being the most simple form of operation, thus also the most natural one. Well, there has only been natural restrictions on information before man, natural laws. However, WE decide now, artificially..
The case now is: Should we add more restrictions on information, or should we change how we distribute wealth and create entertainment and software? Free information/speech and the current economic model are simply incompatible with eachother. Yet we still try to advance both, even though they both go in opposite directions. Both having their advantages and disadvantages.
This is NOT so easy to decide as many will have you believe. In a few years, technology will have broken the last barriers that the MPAA and RIAA are so afraid of (If we are not already living in a police state). You will be able to copy anything down on media that can handle bookstores of film, music, books and you-name-it. However, you may not even have to, because it will all be available in some form on the Internet, almost INSTANTLY. I'm talking about a decade or two from now, but it affects us NOW.
With such technology either the industry will go down with a big bang, draconian restrictions/regulations may be imposed on all citizens or people may be educated/brainwashed to believe they should buy instead of "stealing".
People say that the industry could live on the convinience factor, but for how long? We could create rules, but someone is bound to break them, and then you have to have harsh percecutions, procecutions and punishments. Should we teach our kids that looking at- or hearing something you didn't pay for is MORALLY WRONG?
How reliable is this "common sense" we're supposed to lean on? And if you think these issues are important, what about all the other problems in the world? This is small compared to how the rich exploit the poorer, but it gets all the attention since it's in the interest of us, the rich ones.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I have a suggestion.
Next time the Slashdot editors think of posting yet another in the series of "Bu-bu-bu-but *why* aren't there more women posting to Slashdot/writing code/participating in the geek community??? We don't understand!" articles, maybe they could instead just point to this ugly little post, and the moderators who thought it was worth "+3, Funny". It'd answer the question nicely while saving some disk space on the discussion.
That is about the damn funniest thing i have read in a long time
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
That's trademark, not copyright
I've written some weird stuff, but there's no way I'm going to be able to start that many sentences with semicolons.
;)
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
When was law something other than that?
True. The t-shirt thing is being blown out of proportion here, though. That was just one of a range of examples meant to point out the absurdity of trying to ban DeCSS source. There was an issue in the court over the difference between source and object code and the t-shirt example was just meant to show that it was not even THAT cut and dried, and that computer code could be expressed in ways one would not immediately think of. Or something like that. I was not there and I'm not a lawyer, but those are my impressions from reading about it.
Oh my god I am slightly embarrassed. I just had a cup of coffee, went back to re-read my original comment, and 100% agree with your above assessment. ;-)
Free music from Jack Merlot.
This is the best argument yet made for a new moderation category: +1 Groaner.
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
They only claim to distribute the T-shits.
I ordered one about 7 months ago, and never received it!
Hmm...
If you want to delude yourself about the here-after, be my guest. But trying to force your values on others results in the sort of backlash which gave Clinton a 8 year term.
Thanks to your efforts, we now all have memories of blow jobs in the white house.
That is just fucking wonderful.
If the republicans could cast off the boat-anchor of brain-dead religion, they could have won those elections. You won't find too many employed people in favor of higer taxes and bigger government.
Your wallet stays open. Our source remains closed. We are MSFT
Q: So what's the basis of this case?
A: Your honor, he tried to kill me with that T-shirt.
Q: And how did he try to kill you with it
A: He rolled it up in a ball and threw it at me!
Q: And what's so dangerous about throwing a T-shirt at someone?
A: It's a munition your honor.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If you'd bothered to find out more than what the media spued you'd know why she got 8 million for the incident.
Fact: The cup had the wrong sized lid resting on the top
Fact: The employee testified he was looking the other way when he let go of the scalding hot cup of coffee
Fact: The woman actually suffered, severely. As in 3rd degree burns
Fact: McDonald's (their lawyers) had promised judge after judge in case after case they would change their system to reduce the risk of burning customers. They never did
Fact: McDonald's own documents showed that "it would cost 8 million to change the equipment" but much less to "Keep burning consumers"
So the lawyers simply made Mcdonald's keep it's promise to "do something" by removing the 'cheaper to burn' incentive.
Oh gawd... that is funny. Somebody moderate this up.
it is time to buy a tee-shit.
It looks like something may have happened to the directory where they store graphics at copyleft. None of the graphics loaded. Just gave the error x's in the place. Too bad. I was going to order one of the shirts for myself. Guess I'll have to try back later.
Pick one (or both) up, it'll help support these companies, and It'll be a historically-significant item decades from now.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Hey baby, wana piece of my DeCSS?
"Dying tickles!" -- Ralph Wiggum
I'm wearing the "got DeCSS?" shirt in question right now as I write this, FYI.
I can't believe that these idiots would go as far as to go after Copyleft for have css_tables.c on the shirt. What ever happened to the First Amendment, our freedom of speech? Those bastards have gone far enough.
What's next, going to sue the people who WEAR the shirts?! "They're distributing it, look, people are looking at the source code in public!" Oh God, please say it ain't so. For those of you who haven't, make sure you get your anti-MPAA stickers (available at ThinkGeek). I am not an employee of ThinkGeek, FYI, but I do have the sticker on my car for the whole world to show that I support the cause. Show your support too, and lets take these bastards down.
Patrick
Yet.
In time, of course, they will, and people will use the fruits of these labors. In the mean time, the MPAA and its corporate sponsors will be seeking more legislation in an attempt to maintain control.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Yes, putting it on a shirt makes it legal (rather, non-illegal). Does owning an MP3 ripper/encoder sound illegal? no. using it may be. DeCSS should be treated the same, it's just code. Now, someone in the business of ripping and copying DVDs with DeCSS is guilty of copyright infringement. DeCSS is just sorta there, like the electricity he uses to power his computer.
Is sitting a computer going to be illegal tomorrow?
semantics are everything!
Any state got a cool senator who can read DeCSS into the federal congressional record? I'd like to see them ban that!
It took them years to get the plain white t-shirt declassified so they could remove it from the vault.
Actually, it makes sense for me. Thanks to a suggestion from someone here on Slashdot, I got a free subdomain from Bizland.com (spamcheck.bizland.com). As part of it, any email sent to any address at my subdomain (*@spamcheck.bizland.com), gets forwarded to my real email address. So whenever a website asks for my email, I put it as sitename@spamcheck.bizland.com. If I start getting spam sent to sitename@spamcheck.bizland.com, I know exactly where they got it, and I can easily filter out all spam with that address in the 'To:' field.
It's a really novel idea, and I wish I knew about it sooner (my main email already gets other unfilterable spam).
--
Yeah, but if they admit it's all really about control, then their case looks a lot weaker. We know and they know that the case is about control, but they'll never openly admit it because it hurts their case. If they are conciously ignoring other DVD rippers, then they are admitting in an indirect way that it's not about piracy. They don't have to be honest, but they do have to be consistant.
--
This declaration, made by Michael I. Shamos, contains detailed instructions not only on how to rip a DVD using, but on how to obtain pirated copies of DVDs (#divx on EFNet) and links to a still functional DVD piracy group's website (FreeMpeg4; they run #divx). This is in the public record already! I find it very hard to believe that the MPAA can't find the DVD piracy 'scene,' just because it's 'underground.'
--
SPAM: I'm a person. They're a corporation. I have free speech, they don't.
MUSIC: I don't think many of us say music should have NO protections (because it's PEOPLE with RIGHTS making the MUSIC) but when CORPORATIONS use COPYRIGHTS to maintain MONOPOLIES against the PEOPLE, that's wrong.
I don't see that as lopsided.
MyopicProwls
My homepage
i belive thinkgeek has it
/*
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
Actually, they can if it's exported outside the US. If you read the ThinkGeek Dolphin page, it says in very clear english:
This is my
This is my
--An Oldie, but a Goodie!
I don't about ya'll, but this is what it took for me to actually go order one of them-thar t-shirts. What a bunch of nipple-heads (the lawyers, not copyleft)
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
That would be a form of copy protection, and trying to get a peek at the code through the side would violate the anti-circumvention clause of the DCMA...
it is a summons.
Can you cite a source for this?
--
--
Things are only impossible until they are not.
Shouldn't they make these available for download too? I want my free shirt!!
Hook me up with napster and let me download a tshirt!
The MPAA has been arguing that the source code of DeCSS is just like a pair of pliers, and should have the same (low) hurdles to the Constitutionality of banning the distribution. Up until now, the judge has been buying that argument, but now he's not so sure.
No, this is definitely confusing the issue. The case is not about free-speech, it's about reverse-engineering and NDAs.
Xing (sp?) signed an NDA with the DVD folks to say that they would not release the CSS algorithm (a trade secret of the DVD folks). Xing screwed up, and made it available. Someone (Jon Johansen) used that screwup to reverse engineer CSS. Now Jon Johansen is within his rights to reverse-engineer - Xing made it possible to do this, and he did it. Since he now has access to the CSS algorithm without signing an NDA, and without doing any illegal activities, he can skywrite it and have it tattooed on his bum, and there's nothing the DVD folks can do about it, cos there's no laws against it in Norway.
Meantime 2600 and co are distributing DeCSS. They don't have to meet any NDA, they just have to follow Jon Johansen's copyright agreements (in this case the GPL). Unless the material doesn't meet import regulations by being obscene or whatever, they're OK. Trouble is, the DMCA makes it illegal to trade in this (IIRC), so they need to get that sorted. A perfectly reasonable temporary solution is offshore hosting - then they can't touch you. Long-term, other bad laws/precedents have been enacted b4, and have been repealed - the issue is to show that this portion of the DMCA is unconstitutional (as you Americans say).
The one place that is caught bang to rights is Xing. They screwed up their CSS implementation and consequently made the CSS algorithm easily available to anyone who cared to look. Xing can therefor have the ass sued off them by anyone, and all they can do is plead guilty and hope they don't get hit too bad.
We're really good at coming together on the net to voice our opinions, but we lack the widespread organization in Real Life (outside the net) to really leave our mark on the workings of government and the judicial system.
We may have a few organizations at the national level, but I believe that any organization would tell you that you need to have good organization at the state and local level. Such organization would be helpful when it comes time to hold demonstrations and petition congressmen and senators from our districts on issues.
Organization at the state level would also afford the opportunity to watch and petition state government on electronic issues as well. (How many states have passed UTICA laws now?) Organizations at the state level would be able to get assistance, information, ect. from other state-level organizations through ties to the natioal organization.
I know I'm being real vague, so I'll make my point: Somehow, we've got to organize in real life. We need a national organization, supported at the state and local level by state and local organizations. We need the state and local organizations to get people to lobby the congressmen and senators they elect. We need a national organization to provide direction and focus on nationwide issues, and provide support when issues come up at the state and local level.
My $0.02 worth. Organization on the national level is of course necessary as well, as you have to coordinate effort
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
You could print on a t-shirt just like a paper.
:)
My father once was given a ticket by a cop for running a light (which he says he didn't) but for the payment he had to write a check. So he wrote the check on a t-shirt. Forced them to accept it, since it was a legally binding check. They never did process it
But yes a T-shirt can be a legal document.
Ever need an online dictionary?
How can the government be so blind as to allow frivolous law suits such as this. It is ridiculous when a corporation can sue over something that is so obviously protected by the first amendment. It is sad when the constitution can be bypassed by civil litigation. The legal system needs a major overhaul. No longer is the defendant innocent at the outset ofr a trial. Technology is a hinderence to a beaurocratic government such as ours. Smaller is better able to cope with problems.
Pax Digitalia
No, but if you tie-dyed the shirt first ...
:wq
CRASH! "Federal agents! Search warrant! Get down! GET THE F*CK DOWN! NOW!! On your stomach, get on your stomach NOW! I don't give a f*ck if you're pregnant, YOU GET ON YOUR FACE NOW OR I'LL BLOW YOUR MOTHERF*CKING HEAD OFF!! Don't move. Don't even breathe, or we'll kill you." "Good. Now where do you have the DeCSS T-shirts hidden..."
Sure! The US armed forces are the world's best experts at shipping "live munitions" overseas.
WireHead
WireHead
The previous message was created with 100% recycled words.
I think a lot of people seem to be confusing source with a compiled program...
Get his testimony @:z ky-testimony.txt
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/touret
The judge was impressed with paragraph 3.
Direct copy from transcript of the judge's statements:
---- (Snip) ---
25 The one that caught my eye particularly is the
1065
1 assertion at the beginning of paragraph 3 that "source code is
2 expressive speech meriting the full protection of the First
3 Amendment." That is ultimately for me to decide.
--- (Snip) ---
Wow. He must decide whether source code is freespeech or not. There's a lot of weight on your shoulders.
---
This
So I bought the T-shirt. So sue me already. I
Well, back in the good old days, people settled their complaints in much more civilized fashion. If somebody did something that you didn't like, you'd challenge him to a duel, and God would grant victory to the party in the right. Our curent legal system is obviously a much worse idea than this. I'd love to see some old lady who burned herself by spilling coffee on her lap send her champion to fight McDonald's champion in single combat...
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
It's not very secret, and it's not like they are selling something with the code being used to decode DVDs. The US doesn't use shoddy encryption techniques and then just sue everyone who cracks them.
Eh...
but don't you think that a counterlawsuit would be more humane/civil/effective?
Eh...
Actually, the actual physical violence is in the media, the engine can be used to build many different sorts of games.
Eh...
rotfl...how did this get mod'd up?
Computer Readable. They even _had_ rudimentary OCR back then I think that was their point. They didn't want it to be exported even in print. Not that the actual part of the code that makes it an encryption algorithm would actually be a major problem to type.
Anyone see how awful copyleft's website is in Lynx?
Just seems odd considering the disproportionate number of lynx users likely to go there.
I seem to remember the munitions export rules actually talked abut "computer readable". This would have made it illegal to print it on paper if the font used could be scanned and OCR'ed.
Of course, the DMCA was not written so carefully since nobody seemed to think that it might apply to code.
In fact, IMO, the DMCA seems to have been intended primarily to prevent pirate cable and satelite descramblers.
Believe me, many people are trying to outlaw racism. I know a kid who was kicked out of school for using the "n" word. I think that really set a bad precedent for speech issues and, moreover, did more harm than good. Restricting the expression of a particular word, no matter how hurtful, gives the word power it would not otherwise have. I still am to this day afraid to use the word because of this incident, not because of how hurtful the utterance might be. Because it was so poweful as to necessitate action.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
There is no such thing as "a 'trade secret to protect copyright issue'."
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
The MPAA is trying to command the tides to recede.
Thats's right! Only Jesus can stop DeCSS now!
These opinions are my own and not necessarily
the opinions of God or any other supreme being.
Thank you for that redundant information.
Who requested a summons? The MPAA? The DVD-CCA?
What kind of summons? A summons is an order for someone to appear in person to testify or to produce evidence. Is someone asking for the names and addresses of the people who bought the shirts? Is there someone at Copyleft who is wanted to testify somewhere? Are individuals at Copyleft being charged under a criminal DMCA circumvention charge?
Is it in connection with an existing case? The MPAA v. 2600 is done collecting evidence. Is it in connection with the California case DVD-CCA v. the World? Is it in connection with a different case?
Could it really be a Cease and Desist order and not a summons? That is the first step in preperation to filing a lawsuit of this kind.
We really do need nore information. Summons just sounds wrong in context.
--
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think you can be jailed for revealing secret information that you are not supposed to have access too, unless you stole it. In other words, if I am given top secret information, and I reveal it, I am in trouble. If you steal top secret information and reveal it, you are in trouble. If I am given top secret information, leave it at your house, and you reveal it, I am in trouble. You aren't eaxctly on the government's happy list either, but I don't think you can actually be arrested. You never signed the security documents that I did, and never agreed to keep this information to yourself. You have nothing binding you to keep "secret" information secret other than patriotism or loyalty to your friend.
Same with trade secrets (here I am positive). If I reveal a trade secret (which CSS is), and I neither signed an NDA, nor stole the secret, I can reveal it all I want. If a Microsoft employee that I know leaves the source code to Windows ME at my house, I can publish it. My friend will likely be a bit miffed, but MS can't do anything (other than being more careful of who they hire in the future) unless the work is copyrighted. CSS is not copyrighted. The difficulty here is DCMA which turns these rules on their ears. The court's decsion on the Constitutionality of DCMA (or at least this part of it) is what will decide this case in the end. (IANAL)
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Yes, but FFT is not Fourier's invention. FT is.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
I hate to break this to you, but patented stuff is published for all to see in the course of the patenting process. It is already available for any and all to see, and putting patent information on a t-shirt is not illegal. Go visit http://www.patents.ibm.com sometime. You might be surprised.
I have arranged to buy one of these shirts.
I will send certified mail to the MPAA advising them of my intention to wear it.
I have arranged for pro bono legal counsel to represent me should the MPAA attempt action against me.
Any comments?
The MPAA wants this shirts off our back.
Lets print DeCSS on underware, wear it for a week straight, then let them have that.
Fight Spammers!
Their lawyers would demand it, we will just give them what they demand. They would just not expect the condition. :)
Fight Spammers!
yes, you could do it... he could also sue you for everything you have and win. A personal attack on a person an entirely different realm.
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
The three restrictions that are placed on all speech, whether it is symbolic or not, are time, place, and manner. Clearly source code on a T-shirt passes all of these criteria. I seriously doubt that source code can be considered offensive or hateful speech. So, unless DeCSS is claimed to be a threat to national security (hahaha) they can't prevent its propagation, in any medium. It is unconstitutional for the government to limit speech based on content. If I wanted to wear a shit that said "The US licks my balls" then I am free to do that. The problem lays in that DeCSS isn't officially owned by and company or individual. Its easy to tell M$ to not distribute their latest version of windows (because it is crap)... but things under a GNU license (or and "free" software) are MUCH harder to control because they are pseudo-self-propagating. Killing the creator doesn't solve anything... these trials are a joke.
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
dude! go for it! I will host the pics for you!
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
I got a can of campbells soup and when I opened it, it just happened to have just the right amount of letters to make the DeCSS code.... Campbel's soup is distributing cans of DeCSS anagrams!!!! I hope that the MPAA doesn't find out, I RELY on that alphabet soup to distribut pirated code!
What you do not seem to understand is that this is all a control issue.
As far as I know, the judge in this case is not a geek, and probably does not frequent slashdot.
He may be fooled by the MPAA's lawyers into thinking that this is all a technology issue, and make a wrong decision. The people who cracked the dvd encryption did so because they wanted a DVD player for linux, not just to anger the MPAA (which would probably serve no purpose anyway). By breaking the encryption, there is hope for a dvd player for linux, but if this is decided to be illegal, then the MPAA will hold the code as their copyright and there will never be a linux player. The mirrors, they won't matter. If the MPAA gets pissed and owns the copyright, they will never licence it to a company who will create a commercial linux player because they will be bitter over the linux fans who cracked it. Quite clearly, you don't care too much about your freedom of speech. When you have a right or freedom that you care about taken away, you should expect the same reaction as yours from others.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
This is no longer simply about DVD's; it's about control. Really -- who is going to buy a T-Shirt just so they can copy the source code into their computer? Especially when you can download it for free off the net.
People who are buying the t-shirt are making a statement. Either these people want to completely stamp out any thought that they could ever be beaten, or they want to stamp out EVERY COPY EVERYWHERE. Why are they worried about a simple t-shirt when the code is all over the net? These people are (literally) making a federal case to demonstrate their ability to stamp out independent thought.
-- In the future, everyone will code Perl for 15 minutes. --
Well, in *that* case, would you be required to take off your swimming trunks if it had DeCSS printed on it? =:)
In this case, however, the copyright holders (DeCSS Authors) gave explicit permission for their works to be distributed and others (MPAA) are attempting to subvert their right to do so
I just purchased one of these tee-shirts in support of what I believe is the correct side of the argument. I know that I don't have the background to contribute to the DeCSS effort any other way. I'm not even that interested in the code (beyond the standard, how'd they do that). I am curious though, being a relative newbie, can I get an RPM of this whole DeCSS thing with my purchase.
Ah yes, that would be it, thanks.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Dunno, you wearing it to a truckstop, or to a bar where the after-work techs hang out. (I live just North of Schaumburg IL where the big Motorola campus is, the 'Alumni Club' is where the young engineers and coders go to quench their thirst and seek female company after work.)
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I think it is a lot more simple-minded than that. Witness for the defense points out that the code is available on a t-shirt, as well as on/in other non electronic source code file format, and to effectively ban DeCSS, you would have to ban all expressions of this algorithm, including image files, t-shirts, tatoos, etc.
Laywer for the prosecution isn't going to just let that statement go unanswered, decides to file subpoena to get copyleft to come testify.
And yes, it is stupid, but is just another shade of stupid in this whole rainbow of stupid. Once you push the rollercoaster cars off the top, you kind of have to either stay in the car and hang on no matter what bumps and turns come, or fall out.
Hell, gonna wear my shirt out to the bar tonight, always get into interesting discussions about it.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Good question. My take was that since Touretzky was being questioned by the defense, that it was the defense now getting a subpoena to get someone from Copyleft to testify.
I didn't think that meant the same thing as the MPAA trying to get an injunction, or having Copyleft added to the list of defendants for distributing the code. Anyone know for sure what is going on? This statement is a little vague.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Heh, could be a real bragging point if the area in question were in fact large enough to accomodate a legible DeCSS tattoo, although that would hurt like a mother!
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
>-- "Sweet Creeping Zombie Jesus" - FascDot Killed My Pr, July 31, 2000
;-)
Actually, think Fascdot got this from somewhere else, I'm pretty sure I heard this as line in one of the movies I own. Have to go home tonight and scan through my collection.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Now really that's true, but also I can use a pen for that. Let's ban all pens. That's what the T-shirt issue was trying to point out... both can be used break copyright, but also are both forms of expression, and such tools of freedom of speech.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
With the URL to their site that has the source code available, and then send the shirts to the lawyers... How many people do they add to the suit before it becomes painfully obvious, even to the judge?
Yep, that was the most coherent and realistic analysis of the issue that I've ever heard. The pro-DeCSS crowd is going rah-rah around principles, which is fine. What they don't realize (or acknowledge) is that most of our beloved computer systems ARE built by power & money-hungry people who ARE willing to protect their investments and money trees with guns, both figurative and literal. And they don't give a d@mn about what you think you are entitled to.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
My God! You've uncovered a conspiracy! The Amish are trying to destroy one of the major technology sites by inudating it with posts that seem insightful and informative but are actually cleverly hidden trolls! I hadn't realized it until you connected NPO Technologies "Jon Erikson" with the Amish. It's all so clear now!
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Trust me, lawyers can find ways to do it. I think that about covers any way of giving out information on decrypting CSS. I wouldn't put it past the judge to find ways to prevent 2600 from giving out DeCSS code should he rule against them. Judges are paid to do this, after all. He'll come up with a set of terms that prohibits it. It's his job.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Reguardless, I'm hoping that 2600 win the case. The point is that 2600 can't possibly hope to win in the long run should the judge rule against them. Besides, at some point, it no longer becomes worth it to post the link. When we're getting something like "SAKJ9098234LKJDLKSJWJEHR" which you need to decrypt with the enclosed Perl script, then you're getting to the point where it's too difficult to bother trying anymore. Besides, I've already got my copy of the DeCSS source - both in electronic form, and as a hardcopy.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
- Circuit - contains the circuit diagram for the nuclear missile ignition system.
- Molecule - contains a diagram of the molecules that make up a patented drug.
- Car - contains instructions on how a patented portion of the engine works.
I can get a book that describes how a car works. Is that free speech? I can go out and look up the structure of various molecules. Is that free speech? My point is that just because you can put it on a shirt doesn't make it free speech. Although maybe you couldn't fit anything large on a shirt (like maybe the source to Windows) you could still put some small portions of stuff that is clearly owned by someone else. Just because it's possible to give information out over a shirt doesn't mean that it's OK.Just because code is on a shirt doesn't mean it's a form of expression, unless a circuit is a form of expression, a catalytic converter is a form of expression, or anything else that can be written down is a form of expression. Technology is technology, whether or not it is a form of expression is up for society to decide.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
This is the dumbest move the RIAA has pulled so far.
You mean the MPAA.
RIAA = recording industry, fight against Napster
MPAA = movie industry, fight against DeCSS
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Spam should be outlawed: because it costs the receiver time (and often money), at the sender's choice. Similarly it is illegal, in some countries, to send unsolicited messages by fax. Whether source code is a form of speech or not (I can talk it, so it is, trivially) is another question. "Just bits" can reasonably be protected by copyright law. It's reasonable to copyright music, or source code. It's not reasonable to copyright algorithms or any other piece of mathematics. What on earth you mean by saying that "source code is a constitutional right" is a mystery to me. But then the very American idea that expressing something as "speech" might override copyright protection is also a mystery to me, so maybe I should duck out of this discussion. Freedom of Speech has limits, and this is one of them.
As a friend just mentioned to me... All the MPAA really needs to do is get the government to classify DVD technology as a state secret, that way they'd get the protection that they're looking for, and save lots of money in trial fees as well. Of course then it would be illegal/treason to import or export DVDs, but hey, when's a little thing like that ever stopped big industry....
When was law something other than that?
;)
Well, there was that time a common man went to Washington to...Wait, that was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Well, then what about that one trial where they talked about evolution, and...No, that was Inherit the Wind.
OK, OK, there was this one trial, where the defense attorney risked his liscense to...No, that was last week's Law and Order.
I should have said "Federal courts". Some state constitutions provide additional rights, among them California, Massachusetts, Oregon and New Jersey. This article says Minnesota is not one of them.
The courts have consistently ruled that malls aren't public places, to the extent that malls can enforce their own dress codes, prohibit picketing, ban soliciting or pamphleting, prohibit "mall-walkers" (the folk who walk round & round for exercise), etc.
Personally, I've always been bothered by this in the context of free speech rights, but the rise of the 'net has reduced those concerns somewhat...
I hope that the DeCSS win, as this is just control. Until that time though we can't all get what we want, even though we try.
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
get drunk
I recalled that NY Courts have the source code for DeCSS on public records. The RIAA should sue the NY Courts for publishing it and putting it on public records for all to see.
Even if a hostile person came across your credit card number, and used it, what would be the point of publishing it for everyone to see? Technically they need your signature to complete the transaction (except online).
Let me take your example a bit further - truly personal information like a diary - publishing someone's private info is illegal, right? But don't the paparazzi do that to celebrities (and make things up) all the time?
My point is, there's nothing really stopping someone from taking someone else's personal (and vital) info and sharing it with the world. However, for some reason people just aren't doing it.
The reason why, of course, is that there's usually nothing to gain (except to do it for pure spite) from publishing a private citizen's info. Corporations want your info and every byte of personal information you give out they pounce on like flies on shit. It's like the Foucault-ish power-derived-from-observation thing, except with corporations rather than states: the watcher has the power. What the MPAA doesn't like is the fact that DeCSS empowers the consumer, to some degree.
[pink beam of light]
Even better! That would not only produce press coverage, but maybe an article on Suck!
When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
I'd be interested in indecent source code on a t-shirt... IIANM, doesn't thinkgeek have a pretty racy *nix shirt? Unless we're talking source code/ascii art in the shape of porn, ala Usenet, I think proving indecency on text would be difficult at best.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer... (but I can play on on Slashdot!)
When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
I am glad to hear at least some of America's judicial system just might be getting the hint about technology. If this judge learns, maybe we can have him sit on the board for Napster and a few of the others.
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
>I know that the system has flaws, but it's better than having nowhere to go for these things.
But it's a lot worse than the systems some other countries use. New Zealand for example has "ACC" (Accident Compensation Corporation), which is essentially a national work insurance scheme. Everyone pays their premium (usually via their employer), which might sound socialist to a hardcore libertarian who overlooks the costs to society of the litigation system, but I'd choose it any day - even in an act of god when you can't pin the blame on anyone worth suing, you can get compensation, and you can also live your life without fear of some greedy asshole suing you for some far-fetched claim and losing everything on your lawer's fees - people don't make a living fraudulently suing the livelyhood off of other people.
That means that if you're dying on the street, people will help you, instead of shun you to avoid a possible lawsuit in case their helping fails to do everything a doctor could.
Or maybe it would be like if the author of Garfield sued me, personally, for wearing a T-shirt with Hobbes on it.
Or maybe it would be like if Bill Watterson sued me because I was wearing a T-shirt advertising a book entitled "How to photocopy and bind a friend's comic book".
Or maybe making Bill Watterson metaphors is just a distraction from the actual point.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Being religious does not automatically make one a Republican and the reverse is also true. And forcing values on people is not exclusively a religious/Republican pursuit. For example, try going on a school campus these days and say that you think the gay agenda is harmful. You'll have people trying to have you thrown in jail for hate speech. The left is every bit as guilty of trying to shut up those they disagree with. Diversity my ass.
I think it's time for Gowachin Law. Litigation is too unchecked-- the purpose of law has become nothing more than launch pad for an all out assault on our society. (at least the kind I'd like to live in)
I think new law should have to face trial to exist and in trials the prosecution should face consequences stiffer than just not winning.
Numerous is putting it mildly. Infinite would be more accurate.
The only way to fight the distribution would be to make the IDEA illegal. I hope the judge isn't dumb enough to try that.
No it's not. The boxes map to multiple characters.
Now, if you were to UUENCODE it and place it on the shirt on the other hand.
But are there issues because they aren't suing EVERYONE that has the code or posted links to it. Unless they add every media outlet that has posted links to the code (e.g. NYTimes), this should be tossed out.
I used to say that with certainty, but I'm not so sure since Apple's lawyers started throwing letters at rumour sites and the sites were scared enough of Apple having a case that they took the information down.
People are looking at me at work funny now... must... stop... laughing...
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
Funny, people usually ignore me in Sch. when I wear DeCSS. You work at Mot? Can't say I've been to the Alumni Club, but I've seen it...
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
I have both shirts. The tables are on the other one. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Create a T-Shirt, on which is printed the URL of a web site which contains a picture of the T-Shirt that contains the DeCSS code...
When will the MPAA admit defeat? Just how absurd is this case going to get before it ends?
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
This is where your argument falls down. AFAIK there is no legal definition of Fair Use which allows selling without written permission of the copyright owner. In fact, even giving the photographic examples you cite away is beyond fair use if it is plain (to a "reasonable person" under British law) that the inclusion of the item is the selling point (so you could probably sell a picture of yourself with the movie poster in the background if it's obviouse that you are the selling point [which you might be; you never know]).
What is fair use is making a copy and doing whatever you like with it or the original that does not involve other people getting their own copy or equivilent (eg a viewing of a movie).
If YOU want to watch a movie you've paid for, it has never previously been the case that you could be restricted in how you (and only you) went about it.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I just know some smart-ass mathematician is going to come up with some definition of random that allows this. Mostly because they don't get invited to the good parties.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
You having no information is not the same as the string having no information. I may not have the key to a locked room but that doesn't mean it must be empty.
Also, in the string 010101010101 any given bit has a 50/50 chance of being 0 or 1 but it ain't random.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The only reason you got "obscene" t-shirts banned is because children are required to attend school.
They have to go, and are therefor forced to exist in whatever environment the school creates for them. Forcing someone to be surrounded by anything that makes them uncomfortable is wrong, so you won in that case.
However, no one is forcing you to go to the mall. You choose to go there, and risk being offended by other people who go there. Nobody dragged you there, so don't complain about it. Everyone has different tastes in music, clothing, and friends. Deal with it.
I'd like to exercise my right to free speech right now and tell you that I consider you to be very stupid and closed minded. You don't care about the feelings of other people, only you're own. You are too arrogant to be makind decisions for other people.
Would you ban the homeless from sleeping under a bridge because it reduces the beauty of the area? Do you feel the nut on a soapbox with a megaphone should be beaten for spreading unpopular ideas? NO!
The point to free speech is that it is SUPPOSED to be unpopular. You're supposed to piss people off. We need to keep being shaken by society or we're going to wake up inside 1984.
Free speech is great. Free expression is great. Besides, what ever happened to tolerance of other peoples ideas and feelings? Or do you love god but not your fellow man?
Damn! I thought all the grits people were gone.
I can put that on a T shirt without even trying.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Now, It's probably to late for any moderators to see this, but if anyone is reading down...
should slashdot be getting subpeonaed (spelling?) for linking to the t-shirt?
just a thought...
Rock 'n Roll, Not Pop 'n Soul
Rock 'n Roll, Not Pop 'n Soul
carldrawings.dk3.com
How many copies of the DeCSS can dance on the head of a pin? Would the MPAA the Subpoena the pin?
--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
I bought the Tshirt from Copyleft a couple of months back and I have been proudly flaunting it eversince. People have come to me and asked me what DeCSS, and I have explained to them in detail as to what the media has twisted to sound like a stealing of Intellectual property. I believe this is how you increase awareness among people about an issue that you believe in.
:).
My other question would be, would I be able to put any kind of source code on my Tshirt or not ? Coz any stupid lawyer could mistake that sourcecode to something proprietary and sue me for it. Where would this end ? Well all this have done is anger the geek community and made sure atleast another hundred would buy the Tshirt and wear it proudly. As for me, I am gonna wear it tomorrow.
Rapid Nirvana
Hey, I want moderation points so I can upmod your reply. You have hit the nail on the head. I am perhaps too techno-centric. (must be my techno-trousers!)
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Perhaps the reason this doesn't apply is because the US DOD classifies encryption software as munitions, not encryption techniques/information. It's not so much because of free speach. Shrug, conjecture tho.
The thing with PGP had more to do with a definition in a goverment regulation. It is not a clear cut matter of law. AFAIK anyway
I say everyone go to the site and buy the tee-shirt and wear it as often as possible... they can have mine back when they pry it off my cold, dead body ;)
-colin
-Colin
I'm goint to put it on Oscar Meyer Bologna, cause it's healthy. And People should eat source code daily.
Actually, it isn't an NY court, but a US District Court in NY. The MPAA might have stuck a few John Doe defendents into their initial filing (which I can't locate at the moment.) I can't imagine what the MPAA would think it could gain by bringing in Copyleft as a witness.
Ops.
Just read the amended complaint from the 2600 site. Just two named defendants. I am wrong again! To little sleep makes for fuzzy thinking.
Upon further reflection, I don't see how it would be possible to add a defendant to a trial already underway, so I am left with the conclusion that one party or another has pulled Copyleft in as a witness. My guess is that is the defendants.
I think I will start calmly and end up ranting.
It seems since day one, the power elites in the US have fought to overturn free speech and the lefties have fought to defend it. How they got it into the constituion is anybody's guess.
IMNSHO, "Free Speech" means the freedom to transmit information.
Whether this is done by strumming my vocal cords, arranging ink in novel patterns, or juggling electrical potentials is not an issue, or should not be an issue. All these methods are Turing-equivalent. Which one to use is a question of convenience and efficiency, not right and wrong.
In the US the constitution enshrines free speech and the legal system attacks it. Patent law, copyright law, the recent plague of UCITA's and DMCA's, are all invoked by power elites to crush individual freedoms.
When are people going to wake up and realise that it's intrinsically wrong to prevent a person from expressing ideas and information? By expressing, I mean duplicating, implementing, distributing, communicating, etc etc.
Arguments against Freedom of information tend to boil down to "but it could be used to break the law" and "it could cut into x's monopoly on distribution of that information". Fine. So punish people who actually do bad things, and fuck monopoly. Monopoly is wrong. Wrong WRonG wROnG WRONG wrong WrOnG wrong! Any justification of monpoly can be shot down with ease.
To the clowns who respond with "you want to rob all those hardworking programmers and artists of their hard-earned cash you stinking pirate", I say this:
0. copying isn't theft. nobody loses when I copy. Hmmm.. that's not quite right - what I mean is, nobody loses anything but monopoly power when I copy.
1. the natural treatment of information and ideas is to copy freely, sorta like public domain code... forcing people to pay is extortion.
2. I want to protect myself from monopolies trying to steal *my* hard-earned cash.
3. People who generate good code and ideas deserve to be rewarded, however they should not recieve their reward at the expense of others (ie, me).
So yes, I am looking for a free ride. I demand to right to free use of any information and ideas I may encounter.
Preventing the flow of information is like chopping off somebody's hands, cos, like, you know, they might try to strangle someone or something.
Hmm.. I see this message will never be read, too far down the list... hopefully the title will catch sombody's eye, even if I've strayed away from it a little.
Software patents delenda est.
If you want to be a real nitpicking dork about the issue, you can pretty much take an arbitrary string of numbers, select an appropriate decryption routine, and create a key to, in effect, decode that string into what you want. Of course, practically, you're decoding the key with the base, but remember that we're dealing with the courts here. In a far-reaching and partially intoxicated line of reasoning, that leaves open the possibility for control of just about any piece of information: "but it's really an encrypted version of a corporate-owned work of art!"
funny munging
This begs the next question, why isn't somebody doing this? It would seem that a few of the right young smart people in the same college lab could hack a Sony TIVO (remember, they use a custom distro of linux, it's GPL'd), add a couple of custom digital out ports and a few new features, and demo it, publish the plans, etc?
funny munging
I did enjoy the various methods of transcribing the DeCSS code; However, I think the most lucid method was a picture. For example, if I were to take a picture of the innards of some mechanical device, say a light bulb, what keeps that from being a copyright violation? Has a company ever before challenged say, a diagram of a toaster in a book, or upon some other medium?(_The Way Things Work_ comes to mind)Seeing a picture of a device, even all of the innards, doesn't violate copyrights, AFAIK, so why would a picture that requires almost the same number of steps of assembly as that picture of a lightbulb be illegal, and pictures of lightbulbs not?
It was obscenity we saw at the malls which has prompted us to challenge the public decency codes in our area. We succeeded in the schools, because we had parents backing us. I think we can carry the victory further.
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
Anyone have it tatoo'd on their back yet so that they can attempt to outlaw skin?
---
Keith Barrett (kgb)
I congratulate you sir, you deserve a prize based on the number and rabidity of the replies!
Picture of t-shirt
Funny AC, actually, you probably clicked on my home page, but the link I gave in the message body of the parent is:
c h/articles/31rite.html .
http://www10.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/bizte
You should at least get some facts before you speak.
wiZd0m
IIRC, the book was Applied Cryptography, and could be exported as long as it didn't include the floppies with the source in it. The export regs said that the encryption algorithm was only a munition if it was in "machine-readable" form. So people overseas just bought the book without the floppies and typed in the source code themselves.
So if I am not mistaken, the issue actually had to do with the language of the export regulations and therefore wouldn't apply here.
There was also a t-shirt angle to this one. Joel Furr had a short Perl algorithm converted to barcode (and therefore made machine-readable) and put on t-shirts, which he sold only to those who would provide notarized statements that they would not export the shirts. He applied for an export license with something to the effect of: "the algorithm is printed in barcode form on a high-quality, all-cotton 'Beefy-T', so in addition to being machine-readable, it's also machine-washable."
There were also stories about people who got the barcode tattooed onto themselves, thus making them unexportable munitions under the export regulations. Don't know if any of these were true.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
Which is, to a large degree, the problem. (almost)All our lawmakers today are just that, professional lawmakers. Many of them have been doing the political campaign thing so long that they no longer understand the real-world implications of the laws that they make. We need a return to the USA's original system of people being professionals first and lawmakers second. The state of society today is very much like that of the immediately pre-Revolution days. The government has little to no contact with those that it governs and the people feel (rightly so) that their government no longer understands them, and worse, doesn't seem to care. If Congress does not take care in how it deals with issues like copyright and patents, the techno-savvy will stage the informational equivalent of a Boston Tea Party. Copyright law, patents, and "Intellectual property" are the modern-day equivalent of trade routes, taxation, and troop housing.
This is what I get for reading Slashdot while listening to the Patriot soundtrack. Sheesh....
Averye0
--o You're just jealous cause the voices talk to me and not to you! o--
+1, Hits-Nail-on-Head.
I do not have a signature
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
There are accepted limits on free speech regardless of medium. Public display of obscenity falls in this category in most places, whether it's on a T-shirt or coming out of your mouth. And school kids don't generally have the right to express themselves through their clothing; hell, some schools require uniforms.
So if your point is that not everything you can put on a T-shirt deserves 1st amendment protection, then, well, duh... It's the same for other types of speech. Some things do deserve this protection, however. (e.g. political campaign T-shirts). Did you have a non-obvious point?
I congratulate David Touretzky on his well job testifying. What have we come to? We put a thing that's somewhat in the public domain, and put it on a T-shirt, and then get supeoned?!! Give me a break! Were trying to help ourselves with the DeCSS code. Giveing DVD to Linux, or other OS's. All these big alliences of companys, that sell entertainment stuff, do the world bad!
The web page is a freedom of speech issue, the t-shirt is a copyright issue. If you make a t-shirt of say your favorite bands logo, and sell that, you have broken the law. In fact the band is required by law to pursue you, or they loose the copyright for their logo.
This is where Metallica screwed up. If they had just given away the Napster t-shirt, there would have been no problem, and they would have been doing to Napster, what Napster is doing to them, but they tried to sell the t-shirt, which is a clear violation of Napster trademark and copyright, and had Napster not responded, they would have lost their trademark rights.
I have to be honest, I really don't understand the whole complaint that MPAA has...the DeCSS itself is what is in question as though, because it was made, anyone who touches it is breaking the law. Anyone who makes it available is facilitating piracy...hmmmm...something doesn't sound right about that. Ohhh well, just because this, I have made the code available here and I think we all should...they can't stop us all right?
and to those who wonder why I simply say...
Just to clarify ... it's the MPAA .. not the RIAA Been reading too many Napster articles lately? :-)
-ryry
-ryry
Unfortunately, this action is valid (as someone else already pointed out), if a little silly. If the MPAA can sue one place (2600) for propogating links to the code, then they can sue another place (CopyLeft) for propogating links to the code (not on their website, but on a T-shirt this time). It seems legally valid (not that I support the move :-)
-ryry
-ryry
Looks like this link went down moments after it went up.
Better yet, a vinyl wrap for my car with the code printed on it and a vanity plate that says 'DeCSS'
A beacon on a high tower flashing the DeCSS code in morse code for all within view to copy.
Hey... Didn't people used to shave product logo's in their hair about a decade ago? Who wants to shave the code in their hair?
One could extend this argument to include the HTML used to mark up a web page, or the PostScript instructions defining a logo.
If this argument holds, it could set a very dangerous precedent.
Browser? I barely know her!
if it's illegal to say "Kill Bill Clinton" it should be illegal to wear a T-Shirt that says "Kill Bill Clinton".
If you say "Kill Bill Clinton" and then he comes to your town, the Secret Service will put you in jail until he leaves. Also, if you walk around in front of the White House with a "Kill Bill Clinton" shirt the S.S. will arrest you. I don't think they charge anybody though, and they let you go after you learn your lesson and they take your shirt.
I wonder if Billy has a big box full of confiscated death threats? Now that's a souvenier! I'm going to run for president so I can get free shirts too!
American people, excluding the Amish, who probably don't frequent /. anyway
But some of the most prolific posters here are Amish. Like Jon Erikson for example.
Is code even related to the first ammendment. Correct me if I am wrong, but the first ammendment (free speech) really only concerns opinions and beliefs. It means that you are free to say and believe whatever you wish. I dont believe that code is really related in any way to the first ammendment, or really to any kind of writing, in that code is hard fact (assuming it is well written), not an opinion or belief. Any code, once run, is concrete, it does exactly what it is written to do.
A religious text, protected under the first ammendment, may claim that all other religions are false, and the participants in sed religion believe this. But anybody is allowed to believe, or not believe this religious text.
On the other hand, say a program is written that encrypts a certain file. It doesnt matter if you believe that the file is encrypted, it just is. Its in the nature of programming. If somebody else writes a program that decrypts this certain file, it matters not if you believe that the file is decrypted, it just is.
When seen in this light, it seems to me that code functions very differently then other forms of speech, and it doesnt seem logical that it be protected by the first ammendment.
---Alex---
I think we should get the code printed on the side of an 18" dildo. I'd like to see that introduced as evidence.
Instead of being introduced merely for sexual gratification?
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
I wonder if they would even bother.
But this brings to mind an idea. It would have to get passed around and become hacker chic, but it's kinda nasty.
Tag the bottom of ALL your emails with the following sig:
Bomb Arab Kill President Blow Up Federal Building Shoot Guns Explosives Drugs Mafia Crime Terrorist etc...
If that suddenly appears at the bottom of 50 million emails a day, you'd at least knock the load on their systems up a notch or two, not to mention making it infeasible for them to be read over by people.
But my guess is they'd just add you to a list of minor trouble makers and make their software a bit smarter.
I guess it comes down to exactly what the word 'publish' and the word 'describes' mean.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Remember the book Fahrenheit 451? It was about a fireman whose job it was to start fires and burn books! Whole families lost their homes just because they had books!
The main character, IIRC, met several hobos that memorized the great works of Plato, Shakespeare, et. al., just because the books were banned. The hobos, in fact, had become walking libraries. They also were very well aware that the government they lived under banned those very books and in response committed the writings to memory. Knowledge = Power.
If the knowledge came from books, then burn the books. The MPAA is trying to do this very thing by restricting access to DeCSS code. However, books aren't illegal (yet), and I'm sure many people could commit DeCSS to memory. I'd rather read it freely without fearing having my house burned or ransacked while the MPAA gestapo trys to remove it from my personal property. Perhaps it's time to join the NRA to protect my home.
Fahrenheit 451...It's been so long since I last read it, it might just be worth another read. And I got one of those EFF shirts before it was slashdotted.
- Get a powerful laser (couple of kilowatts should be enough), point it to the Moon (preferably when it's new), and modulate with DeCSS source.
- Everybody puts one line of DeCSS source to their
.sig and starts posting to Usenet. - XOR it with the text of US Constitution and distribute that.
- Write a long story in such a way that CRC8 checksum of Nth line is the Nth byte of DeCSS.
Should be fun to watch all this stuff banned...--
Better yet: make a boring movie of someone reading it, encrypt with CSS (is that code even out there?) and sell it on a DVD.
---
Something else just came to mind ... even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the source code is easily retrievable from all of them."
... even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the pictures are so easily retrievable from all of them."
Quoting:
"Touretzky [said] if the DeCSS source code were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms
Again, see my point 1) how is this different with the current situation - it is illegal to reproduce copyrighted works without the holder's permission.
I can rewrite the quote as,
"Someone [said] if the calvin & Hobbes comics were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms
That's the present situation. Maybe I'm missing something critical, but it seems the arguments are pretty hollow.
ShoutingMan.com
What you need to do before posting is to replace every occurance of < with <.
instead ofSo that you can print out things like:
What about the guy who tatooed RSA in Perl onto his arm? The man is walking munitions.
When is this going to stop?
However, the practicality of reading the DeCSS source code off a t-shirt and implementing it shares the stature of a midget with both knees missing.
And all I got was this lousy T-shirt... Sorry, that just popped into my head...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
i agree completely that the eff *could be* something effective and to be proud of but it isnt anywhere near where it could be and has mostly been moving sideways since the blue ribbon campaign.... are you telling me that with so much "geek" support thats the best site they can have or the most engaging and inviting of action they can be... theres no "help develop this site" ... no hyperactive mailing lists highlighted on the site ... no active efforts to spread beyond commenting on the sidelines and giving legal support in certain cases here and there.... what the eff does do is great but it could so easily open up a much bigger can of worms in defense of the issues we are all dedicatd to than it does... for an advocate of the internet and all its high tech legions supporting it there isnt much difference between what the eff does and what all the other old style organizations who have no clue what any of us or any of the hardware and code are capable of...
First some background about me : I've been involved in art for more than 10 years : studying it and creating it.
:-(
/. community, so I don't know if I'm rehashing old stuff. My knowledge about the USA is also very limited, being a European. So feel free to correct me, but please don't make me sit in the corner wearing that dunce-hat (not again! ;-)
I've only recently started learning how to program.
Now : why did I write this? Well, a lot of people look at me stangely when I tell them I consider programming an art form.
IT IS !!!!!
You're CREATING something in a way that only you could. When I program a database, for example, it will work in a certain way because that's my individualistic view on how a database should work.Not all people will like it of course, but not all people like my paintings either
Of course : if you're working for a company then you're no longer making art, because you're following orders and not expressing your individuality.
But what does it have to do with the case?
Well, how would a judge feel about outlawing art? (please remember that the days of both Nazi Germany AND McCarthy (sp?) have long passed)
Please note that I'm also new to the
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
(-1 Moron)
I was just about to go to CopyLeft and buy a shirt.. but if they get my name and address in their database, if the case DOES go in the MPAA's favor, can I now be named a defendant because I bought the shirt there?
What's going to happen if someone cobbles together a bit of money to hire a few hundred actors to walk around chanting the de-css code?
Nearly well stated...
I'm sure if I were to waltz around outside the US Energy Dept. with a T-shirt emblazoned with certain content from the temporarily missing Los Alamos hard drives, we would see how far the "free speech" argument goes.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What the hell. It's only $20. I'm gonna wear it to the mall. At least it's not from Old Navy... Charles
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
I have a brilliant solution. Are you ready?
First, we need an ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE. Let's say that our access protection is to invert all the bits in a file: exchange 1's with 0's, and 0's with 1's. Now, we need a body of copyrighted works. I'm sure we could get some submissions, perhaps we could copyright an entire thread of petrified natalie portman spam. Finally, we distribute our body of copyrighted works with our ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE engaged - we bit flip all the ascii. End step 1.
Step 2: create a license for authorized access to our copyrighted works. The license would be:
1) by viewing these works you agree never to file a lawsuit again, ever.
2) by viewing these works you agree to strip naked and run screaming down the street if we should ever call upon you to do it.
Now, the third and masterful step:
3) Encrypt the DeCSS source code using our bit-inversion ACCESS CONTROL DEVICE. Think about it - if they try to prove that we're distributing the code, then we can prove that they were in violation of the terms of our license (they sued us) AND we can charge them with trafficking in a device specifically designed for circumventing access protections to a body of copyrighted works!
Oh yes, we'd have them by the short curlies!
Then we could sue their fat asses.
The next step, of course, is to get the english language declared to be an access control mechanism, and license it. but first things first.
Of course it's ridiculous, but then hey, they're banning t-shirts and declaring martial law in seattle, so why the fuck not?
morons.
Your Calvin & Hobbes argument might make sense if it was a movie that was being reproduced on the t-shirt. You are confusing the copyrighted content with the method that MAY be used to access it. In the frame of your argument, the banned t-shirt would contain instructions detailing how to read the comics section of your local newspaper.
The MPAA does NOT own the copyright to the DeCSS code, and THAT is what is being reproduced on the shirt.
Now, the questions the argument poses are:
Should a person be able to communicate instructions that describe how to *access* copyrighted materials?
Should that communication be restrained by the DMCA, or is it protected by the right to free speech?
Bringing quality to Anonymous Coward posts since 1999
Obviously, they should start producing t-shirts with a list of links to sites that carry DeCSS :-)
Uh, no. Open Source is a particular type of distribution, controlled by copyright law. Copyright law gives the author the ability to control distribution. Making DeCSS open source means that the author chose, under his copyright, to distribute it in a certain way. It's still copyrighted.
Now, if you had said public domain, you'd be be right. However, DeCSS was not released to the public domain. (Maybe he should have.)
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
What is NOT legal is selling a book that advocates USING one of those bombs. Speech which has the purpose of inciting to violence is not protected speech, the courts have ruled. Speech which merely shows how to make an instrument of violence, on the other hand, is protected. Given this, it's hard to see how, considering that the judge has basically concluded that code is speech, he could conclude that code can be banned... it does not, after all, provide an incitation for violence, it merely gives the "blueprint" for a "copyright bomb".
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
If you encode a copyrighted music file in a mp3, and put it on a t-shirt (see also the comments about uuencoding or such) and wear it in public you are fine because that is courts have held that medium transfers (they use a different term) is fair use.
However if you see the t-shirt without including the orginial recording (or vise vera sell the CD without including the t-shirt) you are now illegal.
It probably doesn't matter when CSS was broken. They can't touch Jon Johansen anyway. He didn't break any laws in his country. That seems to have been established now.
What the MPAA is doing is trying to make the distribution of the code illegal in the US which they claim is a violation of the DMCA.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The way I understand it, any conversion of a text or other form of copyrighted work into another format would be considered a derivative work, which is still subject to the copyright, and therefore illegal without the copyright holder's consent.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It has long been established that (for better or for worse) students in schools have considerably fewer rights than people in other public places (the streets, public buildings, and other public land). If you're trying to get t-shirts that glorify alcohol, sex, violence, or indecent language banned from public places (in the US, at any rate), you will almost surely fail, if not initially, in the appeal. Obscenity (which does NOT mean the "seven dirty words") is not protected (unfortunately, IMHO).
If by "public mall" you really mean "convince the owner of a privately owned shopping mall to ban said shirts", you may have more success.
Not entirely true. If you got his personal information, it would be through illicit sources, and therefore, your collection methods would be an offense for which you are liable.
on the other hand, if you wrote a random number generator that spit out visa numbers, and one of them happened to be Mr. Touretzky's, printed that on a shirt, you would be (i think) legal.
the argument lies in that DeCSS code was created by a kid in sweden. He did not break into MPAA's secret underground lair (pinky to mouth), steal their code, and publish it.
You can discuss at length analogies (I love those ...) between speech and singing and T-shirts and protected speech ... However, the really funny part of this is .. what's the exact wording in the DMCA? What is *exactly* forbidden? A "device ... used to circumvent"? Now, someone's got to tell me how a t-shirt, a photograph of the code, a GIF file with the code embedded in it or whatever you can think of is a fucking "device" which has no other commercial purpose than circumventing a fucking copy protection scheme? It's not even a "device", it can't be used to circumvent anything, it's just a fucking T-Shirt / photo / gif.
(Now I'd like to see that subpoena, is it a real one or just a publicity stunt?)
Interesting comment about any piece of information being codeable as a number. In most cases a really big number.
Can you get a copyright on a number?
Obviously any piece of information can be coded into just about any number you want if you allow for a wide enough variation in coding methods.
Where then is the copyrightable information, is it in the coded form, or the codeing algorithm or only in a combination of both.
To what form of the information does the copyright hold, only the original, or any mutable combination thereof. Say Bob Jones software publishes some code on a CD protecting it by copyright. Does the copyright apply to any other coded form of the CD or just the original. With the right mapping any CD is just a coded copy of any other CD. So every CD is theoretically in violation of the copyright of every other CD.
Copyright law really needs revision now!
What if you were to in the middle of the street start announcing the DeCSS code? Would that be illegal too?
Can't be. 'cause if it was patented, the algorithm would have been public knowledge (patents ARE public knowledge), and writing DeCSS would have not necessitated any reverse engineering at all, and would have been done mere days after the first DVDs hit the market.
So, that's why CSS is a trade secret rather than a patent or a copyright: "security" through obscurity.
But once you let the genie out of the bottle, it ain't coming back in...--
Here's my mirror
Well, copyright is AFAIK the only form of speech control explicitly permitted by the constitution, with the requirement that it be an incentive to artists to create material.
Unfortunately, this is different than trying to restrain speech for national security interests, which has more than once been ruled unconstitutional (remember the Pentagon Papers, anyone?).
The Sony Bono Copyright Extention Act was, based upon those constitutional requirements, clearly unconstitutional even to the most casual observer. Unfortunately, the courts upheld that law. There is a possibility the courts will rule parts of the DMCA unconstitutional, but no guarantee. If not, this kind of speech can and will be restricted in the future, just as you are restricted from reprinting and selling a written work in some other format (Reader's Digest lost such a suit when reprinting substantial portions of novels).
Copyright is the greatest threat to free speech there is, in no small part because the constitution explicitly permits its existence (other restrictions on speech, such as trademark, aren't explicitly spelled out and are correspondingly weaker).
Imagine if the Pentagon had been able to suppress the pentagon papers based on copyright. Hell, that could be applied to any leaked document. All of a sudden every investigative reporter is completely hemmed in by copyright law and can acquire no evidence of wrongdoing without violating copyright. This is the direction copyright law has taken and is taking, and there is the possibility that the constitutionality of this may actually be upheld!
I will say it again. Copyright is the single greatest threat to free speech that currently exists. We should be seriously reevaluating the appropriateness of its existence in a free society.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
1 - Spam should be outlawed, while source code is speech
There's a HUGE difference between "being allowed to say something" and "being forced to hear someone say something."
Even freakish neo-nazi extremists have the right to SAY whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they have the right to stand outside my window and make ME listen to them saying it. Spam amounts to forcing, tricking,or otherwise causing someone to see an advertisement that they may not have wanted to.
2 - Music is just bits, and should not afforded any protection, yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
The fact that this attitude isn't really hypocritical either is less cut-and-dried than the first one, but here goes:
In the case of both the music and the source code here, the 'right' being claimed is that "I have it, and I should be allowed to look at it as closely as I want, all the way down to source code". Since the 'bits' in the case of music amounts to the 'source code' of the mp3/ogg file, I see nothing hypocritical about this at all.
But, then, that's just me.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Not if it has redeeming value. For instance, there was a Supreme Court case during the Vietnam War involving a person who wore a shirt (or maybe a jacket) inside a courthouse which said, "FUCK THE DRAFT." The Court ruled that the message was not without social value and was not to be taken literally. Despite its vulgarity, the T-shirt was protected because of its political message.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
The overall sentiment is that although the advertisers should be fully allowed to speak in any form (A la free speech), they have no right to force me to pay for them to send me ads. I pay for my bandwidth, and every e-mail I get has a real cost. It's like sending you a postage due letter (that for some reason you have NO choice but to pay for) to tell you my opinions. Is that fair? No. So this is a seperate issue from freedom of speech - they can talk all they want, but they have no right to FORCE me to pay for them talking to me.
2 - Music is just bits, and should not afforded any protection, yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
A) I think most people around here would be happy to apply the same rules rules across both. 1. Allow copying of both music and source code. 2. Allow the author of both music and source code to express themselves freely.
You are comparing apples and oranges in both cases.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Seriously. We can call it GNUism. We'll meet to discuss Dogma in the Slashdot Temple, we'll have prophets and martyrs, and we'll have Holy Texts. We'll have the Gospels according to Phil Zimmermann, Jon Johansen, Linus Torvalds...
I'd LOVE to see the MPAA et al, not only try to ban a book, but a Holy Book to boot. It's not just about freedom of speach, but also about freedom of religion.
Then we can all take one character of the DeCSS printout, and stand in a long line while our "Pastor of Muppets" types it into a computer. This way we include the freedom of assembly.
Fsck the MPAA in accordance with the Law Of The Land, not in-spite of it. Play by the rules of the lawmakers to point out the absurdity of big business.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I think Touretsky was trying to show the absurdity of arresting everyone who trafics (sp?) the DeCSS code by implanting the image of being arrested for wearing a t-shirt in the judge's head. Clearly you aren't allowed to sell t-shirts bearing a copyrighted image, and clearly there are certain things that shouldn't and can't be printed on t-shirts, but he's just trying to point out the absurdity of indicting every last person who is involved with "trafficking" the code.
Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
Actually, you're wrong in this case. IIRC, a trade secret loses its status as such if a large amount of people is aware of it (adding flour to water isn't Wonderbread's trade secret, but the method of making Coke is Coca-Cola's trade secret (yes, I know that's not 100% legally kosher, but it's close enough for this argument)). Therefore, if everyone on the internet gets a copy of DeCSS it can be argued that the MPAA isn't properly enforcing its trade secret/the MPAA can't realistically enforce its trade secret, so it's no longer a trade secret.
BTW, the last sentance is actually almost a halfway-valid reason the MPAA should sue CopyLeft (if there is such a thing.Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Advertising itself should not be outlawed, but violators of the above should be prosecuted. Ban it and they'll still do it. Make those rules and people that follow the law will probably have an easier time than those who don't, making it impractical to NOT follow those rules.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Oh and by the way, for some odd reason the ordering system at Copyleft is really swamped right now.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
No "Natalie Portman in crotchless panties serving crusty grits"?
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
http://www.thinkgeek.com/rsa-dolphin.html
--------------------
1 - Spam should be outlawed, while source code is speech.
A spammer can put his ad on a t-shirt, AFAIC, just not *my* t-shirt.
That's the difference.
--
bachiatari na torisetsu o yome!
In 1972, Paul Cohen wore a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" written on it into a LA court house. He was arrested for "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct." When the appeals process ended up in the Supreme Court, the justices held that to censure Cohen for wearing the jacket was tanamount to censuring his opionions on the war. Here are some exerpts from the decision as rendered by Justice Harlan and joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall:
The conviction quite clearly rests upon the asserted offensiveness of the words Cohen used to convey his message to the public. The only "conduct" which the State sought to punish is the fact of communication. Thus, we deal here with a conviction resting solely upon "speech," cf. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), not upon any separately identifiable conduct which allegedly was intended by Cohen to be perceived by others as expressive of particular views but which, on its face, does not necessarily convey any message and hence arguably could be regulated without effectively repressing Cohen's ability to express himself.
To my eyes, this seems to remove all trace of wrong doing from Copyleft. It is merely expressing itself, not actually removing the CSS. Even if DeCSS is consider unlawful, Copyleft cannot be held equally responsible, nor can any individual who wears one of the shirts.
Appellant's conviction, then, rests squarely upon his exercise of the "freedom of speech" protected from arbitrary governmental interference by the Constitution and can be justified, if at all, only as a valid regulation of the manner in which he exercised that freedom, not as a permissible prohibition on the substantive message it conveys.
Once again the shirt cannot be held to be illegal unless itself violates valid regulation of speech. Generally, these "valid regulations" are held to be such things as "fighting words" (speech that can be reasonably assumed to incite violence), obscenity (remember that man in MI who was fined for swearing in front of women and children?), and some other very narrowly defined situations. None of these seem to apply to Copyleft.
Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it [403 U.S. 15, 26] is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures - and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 -674 (1944).
This is precisely the situation with DeCSS, though this time we are speaking out against corporations instead of the state. To wear a DeCSS t-shirt is to "criticize public men and measures." CSS has flaws (in most geeks' opinions) and this T-shirt by Copyleft expresses those opinions. Just as Cohen spoke out against the draft by wearing his shirt, so should geeks speak out against CSS by wearing theirs.
Alot of people are saying that geeks don't have a political cause. The harken back to the days of Vietnam and those protests. But if you look carefully, history is repeating itself! This DeCSS shirt debate is not very dissimilar to that of Cohen.
Well, this concludes our Constitutional Law 101 class for today. Their might be a pop quiz tomorrow, so study up! Class dismissed.
-Mark Fredrickson (I'm not a law prof so don't consider any of this stuff accurate!)
You can't get a blue screen on a black and white monitor.
MPAA, not RIAA.
:-(
RIAA is suing Napster over MP3s
MPAA is suing EVERYBODY over DeCSS and DVDs.
Sorry, it gets fubared so much, I had to correct it...
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Speech is protected, but not all speech is free. I think people seem to forget that there is speech that is NOT protected. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected. Threatening to kill the president is not protected. HEll, convincing other people to kill people is not protected (Manson never killed anyone, he just convinced everyone else to). Just because it's words doesn't mean it automatically rises above everything else in the world. Illegal is still illegal, whether it's written, spoken, compiled, printed, recorded, or built.
And that brings us full circle: is this law constitutional, as it restricts speech? The answer is hopefully no (oh, and IANAL). The examples you give involve distributing someone else's information without their consent, causing another person's life to be in jeopardy, or damaging the security of the country. I challenge you, however, to demonstrate how DeCSS fits into this category.
The code was distributed freely, thereby allowing Copyleft access to it, defeating the first case. So far as I'm aware, walking around with the code for DeCSS on one's shirt is unlikely to force them to kill themselves/others, so kiss the second case bye-bye. And (despite the MPAA's hopes to the contrary) the nation WILL continue to thrive, regardless of whether or not they hold an absolute monopoly over the distribution of DVD players (and seeing how they couldn't document a single case of DeCSS being used to pirate a DVD...), so the final case is baloney, too.
On a side note, the moderator who marked the meta-parent for this discussion as "Redundant" should probably be shot. Post #11 isn't likely to be redundant.
I just found a link to a ZDnet story here
The story says this is about the California case in which the DVD-CCA (copy and control association) is claiming misappropriation of trade secrets which has nothing to do with the DMCA or the MPAA. They are going after hundreds of defendants, not just 1 (originally 3) like the MPAA is. However it is questionable whether this STATE court will have any binding effect on defendants outside California. The DVD-CCA is the organization that is in charge of selling css decoding licenses to various hardware and software manufactures.
An offensive T-Shirt is illegal if it breaks decency laws.
Yes. It can be indecent to wear the shirt in public due to certain communities standards. That does not mean that you cannot distribute the shirt. Indecency does not prevent commerce (as the porn industry can readily agree).
If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal.
Again, it's not quite that simple. If the source code is ruled as copyright infringement, then the t-shirt is illegal unless it falls under fair use. If the source is ruled legal under DCMA, it may have different implications, but there are no precendents to determine what it would means.
There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
Finally, something I agree with. Yes, a t-shirt is just another medium, but it is a perfect tool for showing how code = speech. If the DeCSS case starts to be viewed under free speech rights (as the judge appears to be leaning), then the question becomes does the DCMA infringe on free speech. Free speech is not universal (child pornography being the prime example). At the same time, courts have been loath to restrict free speech. The T-Shirt is just a magnificant visual aid to prove that code is nothing more than language. Most non-programmers have a hard time understanding this. I can think of nothing better than a T-Shirt to illustrate how code is language.
"Look I'm wearing a T-Shirt. It has DECSS Source on it. I'm wearing it because I disagree with the DCMA and the MPAA. I'm wearing it as a political protest. It is my form of political speech. In fact, while wearing this shirt, I am going to recite, from memory, the DECSS source. Are you going to stop me from speaking? Can you stop people from listening to me speak?"
Follow my logic here, okay? This is graphic designer logic, so it's a bit odd:
Want a better example? Emigre's Hypnopaedia
One of the reasons why copyright on typefaces is so loose is that there is an unfounded fear that typographers (generally a good natured sort, no pun intended) would attempt to assert copyright over creative works which use their type. (That's why we have licenses. Just include a nice little license stating that, as the type designer, you do not make claims over the content. simple.)----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
The 'old lady' in question suffered third-degree burns, and originally was laughed at by McDonald's when she came to them asking for money for her medical expenses, which had reached five figures by then. She only sued them because it was her only recourse, and the amount, like in nearly all tort cases, was reduced on appeal.
The whole *point* of our legal system is that we *can* do things like this. If someone bigger and stronger than us screws us over, we have recourse to the law, where we hopefully receive justice. I know that the system has flaws, but it's better than having nowhere to go for these things, and having all those corporate lawyers doing whatever else they're useful for... err, dealing crack? Pimping? (That's all I could think of...)
Think for yourself and do some damn research before you go parroting a year-and-a-half old story that's half urban legend.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And I am currently waiting for the 2600 anti-MPAA shirt, 3 buttons, and ten stickers. I first balked at the expense, then thought to myself "What price for freedom?" - the answer came immediately "A hell of a lot more than this drop!"
All told, including my re-subscription to 2600, I sent off a total of $65.00 - I am putting my money where my mouth is.
Fuck the MPAA!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It would be a first, though, to have to ban a T-shirt for something other than indecency or hate. These are (so far) the only two types of speech which are not protected by the first amendment.
It's a sad precident when we have to ban any discussion of certain algorithms. What's next? Banning books on making bombs? Banning works of terrorism? Works by terrorists?
Once we go down that road, we're banning the Declaration of Independence (a work by terrorists)...
"Banning books on making bombs? Banning works of terrorism? Works by terrorists?"
Done. Done. and Done.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ralph Nader: Millionaire Hypocrite?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I posted it.
;)
Can I have my karma now?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Will major corporations like Anheiser-Busch sponsoring major public political events like the *presedential debates* it's no wonder our politics has been reduced to what it is today. See my sig.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I guess I'm a munition. I better not attempt to get on an airplane...somebody could use me to commit a terrorist act or something.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
And if someone forced you to take the jumper off because it had an indecent image on it, could you claim that they were breaking your protection device and can be sued under DMCA?
--
I'm not saying that this argument is necssarily a bad one, I just think that it has far more reaching implications than it first appears.
Also, if the law decides that not every string of letters is protected under free speech... then it's not necessarily the string of letters that should be restricted. It's possible that, under coding scheme A, that the string would be decoded as sound waves of a Metallica CD... and under coding scheme B, the string would be decoded as mom's chocolate chip cookies.
To make this point clear, someone could write a program (call it an "unzipper") that takes in the results of the Human Genome Project and spits out the source code to DeCSS or a Metallica MP3.
--
We need to adjust out political suystem so that money influenced the distribution of ideas less.
We should set up land mines for lobbiests who send politicians and judges to confrences where they expouse an interpretation of the law which favors only the lobbiests clients. Specifically, we should reequire the government to support independent tracking of how judges and politicians spend their time AND allow orginisation which feal they have been wronged to sue for resources to counter the wrong, i.e. MPAA spends $10 million brain washing judges would mean the government must give the FSF and other anti-IP groups $10 million to counter the MPAA's arguments. This system would allow everyone who was not insane to speak their mind and be heard by the people who matter.
We should also adjust the laws to help special interest groups which use votes and phone calls instead of money (like the EFF, ACLU, ADL, AFL-CIO, NRA, Greanpeace, Log Cabin Republicans, etc.). We could start doing this by allowing orginisation which wish to challeng something to sue the government for funding, i.e. the ACLU/NRA/GReanpeace has somehting they want to take on in court. The just need to convince a judge that it's worth taking it on and they wilkl get some funding (or at least assistance from federal agencies).
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
If I load an mp3 into a hex editor, I get this:
+
[snip]
ç¦_Ä^-t+_ñ K_^
_¦-±+%+7___9¦¦^(_gCÜß?-__+V¦4L+_c-+]+ìPq-6Qènßö
e!%rú_élúÑö+irGò½S¦f_x:¦__v+ 44 +`çMæ)-óÅÖ--+JH-éJl"ö.ßê+_jW5I
[snip]
Now, say to print each ASCII byte onto a t-shirt, and wear that t-shirt in public, would that be considered distribution?
I mean, after all, it IS possible to turn what I'm wearing into something that you can listen to.
I see your argument, but the difference is that DeCSS is not copyrighted material. It is written to circumvent the encription of copyrighted material. DeCSS is open source, meaning there is no copyright.
- I like pudding.
This is not necessarily true. You cannot distribute the source code to Bruce Schneier's APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY as source code/application code on a disk outside the US, but you *can* distribute the book [which contains the full source code!]. I would imagine that a T-Shirt with Blowfish on it is still just a T-Shirt.
Arguments like these confuse and detract from the main issue at hand and contribute to the perception of some people that the DeCSS code is being spread by anarchist kiddies instead of by people with a legitimate freedom issue.
Are you implying that these anarchist kiddies don't have a legimate freedom issue?
Everyone has a legimate right to freedom. Anarchists included.
I also believe that since a T-shirt is inherently harmless, and inherently speech, the fact that it is on a t-shirt does make it right. Anything else is an overextension of law.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, ...
... then here's to crime!
Does anybody really think that we're willing as a country to enforce a ban on DeCSS?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Similarly, a major reason the law changed is be cause it was unconstitutional restriction on free speech, and we kept backing the government into a corner with lawsuits, lobbying, publicity, and free crypto programs - much thanks to Phil Zimmermann as well as all the academics from Diffie and Hellmann on who worked to get their crypto papers published in spite of NSA pressure on publishers.
DVDCSS is a different issue - there are some legitimate trade secret concerns (though the cat is out of the bag because of Norway's explicit exemptions for reverse engineering), rather than government-run censorship. But the DMCA Digital Millenium Copyright Act has some really terrible law that the Big Media folks got Congress to pass, and the provisions on copy protection are out of proportion and need to be overturned. They were designed to be abused by people like the RIAA and MPAA, and they're fulfilling their design goals :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The most rational outcome, however, seems to be that the judge should rule that DeCSS is legal in any form, but that pirating DVDs is not. If the MPAA wants to sue someone, they should go find people actually pirating movies.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
I will try to scan and put the images of the document up on the site as soon as our bandwidth lets up a bit.
Dom
dom@copyleft.net
We have lobbied in our town quite a while ago to make sure that public schools do not allow vulgar T-shirts to be worn. The school board agreed with us and T-shirts which glorify alchohol, sex and violence or contain obscene words.
While I don't agree with this, I can see the point in the school trying to foster a learning enviornment.
We are now attempting to get the same ruling for the public malls in our area. So if these T-shirts were deemed obscene, people could be forced to take them off (or turn them inside out).
You just proved why those of us who believe in Liberty fight so hard for the little things, because if you're given an inch you'll try to take a mile.
What right do you have to apply your standards to a public place?
The MPAA seems to be going after the wrong people, and I believe that they are going after them simply because it is easiest. If the DVD pirate 'scene' didn't have DeCSS or DoD Speed Ripper they would simply input the DVD into a video capture board like they do to pirate screener tapes. The MPAA obviously would have a much harder time cathing these people because they are, unlke the OpenDVD people, operating underground. The MPAA is losing more revenue from the guy selling bootlegs on the streetcorner and the huge pirate industry in countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Jordan than they are from some guys decrypting a dvd for personal use. The MPAA is simply looking for a way to make people see any type of circumventing protection as evil and wrong.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
I'm not sure if you simply missed the point, or if you're attempting to show that T-shirts are no different than electrons on a screen. In either case: the principal difference is that a T-shirt is something this judge (and ALL the American people, excluding the Amish, who probably don't frequent
And because it can be put on a t-shirt makes it seem legal? It is illegal for me to give out government secrets, but if I print them on a t-shirt it's okay, because then it's a free speech issue? If my friend the FBI agent comes to my house, and accidently leaves his file marked "super secret government documents. Top secret! Do not show to anyone!" can I put it on a t-shirt and it's okay? No, because how something is distributed doesn't make a difference if the material being distributed is illegal.
Speech is protected, but not all speech is free. I think people seem to forget that there is speech that is NOT protected. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected. Threatening to kill the president is not protected. HEll, convincing other people to kill people is not protected (Manson never killed anyone, he just convinced everyone else to). Just because it's words doesn't mean it automatically rises above everything else in the world. Illegal is still illegal, whether it's written, spoken, compiled, printed, recorded, or built.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I wonder what Touretzky would do if I printed up t-shirt's with all his credit card numbers, addresses, social security numbers and then sold them. By his argument it would be legal (and right) to do so, because he incorrectly believes that anything which can be printed on a t-shirt (regardless of how the information was gathered) can be freely given to the world without consequence.
The more defendants they name, the more money they bring in for the defense's case, the more arguments the judge will hear against them. This move can't possibly help them - does the MPAA really need the T-shirt money??
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The problem is that CSS is a Trade Secret. What this means is that it is an essential part of their business that no one else is allowed to use. That sounds very similar to a patent, except in one very pertinent area: a patent is registered, and enters public domain after a certain amount of time.
No, it's not that similar to a patent. With a patent, no one is allowed to produce/use the patented device, period. With a trade secret, unless you steal the secret from the company, it's legal to use. That means reverse engineering, or even blind luck, is perfectly acceptable.
The legal ramifications are that when you have a trade secret, you have responsibility for protecting it. Once someone reverse-engineers it out of your product, the cat is out of the bag (and many other cliches), even in a legal sense. If the reverse-engineering was legal and legitimate, the trade secret is no longer.
AFAIK, the only argument for the reverse engineering being illegitimate is the license agreement. I hope the idea that you can protect any trade secret from reverse engineering simply by forcing all consumers to agree not to do so is seen as bogus.
This is one major reason that I oppose the DMCA.
Yes, even if they lost trade secret protection, they could still continue the claim of DMCA violations, in which trade secrecy has no bearing.
IANAL
Again: Here, it's breaching a legally binding NDA that was willfully entered into that's illegal. Publishing the T-shirt is simply an aspect of the breach. The people who broke the code weren't bound by the click-through license. As shown by the COPA/CDA fight, indecency laws are on the bleeding edge of the boundary between free speech and justifiable infringement. What the pro-DeCSS lawyers were trying to do is show just how badly a finding for the MPAA would go into the realm of restricting free speech. Their intent is to push the case far into the 'free speech' realm, and away from "It's just a case of commercial piracy."
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
This is a great point. The EFF lawyers can make the argument that the MPAA is trying to cut off their legal means of financing a their fight against them. That should give an anyone with a sense of justice and fairplay food for thought.
I got your argument all the way up to here. Even we supposed that the program is illegal. Why should the links be illegal? After all, the link is just a pointer - it may not even be linking to anything. I could say this is DeCSS when it is not. It is also not illegal to say "you can buy drugs from the corner of 11th and 13th". Why is a hyperlink illegal?
Now turn to the question of the program being illegal. What do you mean "DeCSS program"? Is the DeCSS program any different from the decryptor running inside any DVD player? What about source code to DeCSS? Under Unix, many programas are distruibuted as source, not binary, for portability reasons. Why should the binary, but not the source be illegal? And if you claim the source is illegal, then by Tourezshky's (sp?) argument, T-shirts are too, since the T-shirt graphic is just the output of a mechanical translating device, just like a compiler.
Well, it certainly isn't the normal copyright that we know of. In FSF terms, it's copylefted, not copyrighted. Which means that its distribution in source form is expressedly allowed, and in binaries alone, not allowed. In fact, this strengthens the case for DeCSS and the point Prof Tourezsky (sp?) is making - as source code, it could be expressed in any form an any medium whatsoever.
This is exactly like the schoolyard bully, who picks in the nerdy kid, who (with guts and chutzpah) asks him why he does not pick on the rest of the kids. It would be a stupid bully indeed that decides that therefore to go pick on everyone else too.
Instead of trying to find a good counterargument against this "code == speech" argument, they are now showing everyone else exactly what their intentions are. I don't see them winning any friends with this move. In fact, this is just makes it easier for the uniformed to make a judgment.
Are there truly good counterarguments for this code is speech issue? Well I can't think of any. But in trying to formulate and defend their position logically, the MPAA may truly forge precedent, and force the courts to confront the issue. But instead of doing this, they are instead withdrawing from the good fight, and revealing themselves to be the bullies that they are.
From this point on, IMHO, the battle has become truly boring. We are no longer in a "Xavier-vs-Magneto" situation, but a "Neo-vs-The-Agents" scenario. The MPAA has no credibility left to speak of, whatever the merits of their case (and I do think there is some small modicum of merit to their case).
This is the dumbest move the RIAA has pulled so far.
By suing over things printed on a t-shirt, the RIAA is just about forcing the judge to consider DeCSS as speech. No judge is going to say people can't wear clothing with statements on them.
The problem is that CSS is a Trade Secret. What this means is that it is an essential part of their business that no one else is allowed to use. That sounds very similar to a patent, except in one very pertinent area: a patent is registered, and enters public domain after a certain amount of time.
The legal ramifications are that when you have a trade secret, you have responsibility for protecting it. Once someone reverse-engineers it out of your product, the cat is out of the bag (and many other cliches), even in a legal sense. If the reverse-engineering was legal and legitimate, the trade secret is no longer.
This is one major reason that I oppose the DMCA.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
I agree with you on all of those points, but unless I'm wrong (I could be, so tell me if I am), the stuff being printed on these T-Shirts is source code that was written by a teenager and released to the public -- hence, no copyright problem. So, I would agree with the free speech issue on this point. While I don't have a right to distrubute somebody else's copyrighted code, I do believe that a person has a right to use his own code as a form of expression and distribute that code as he deems appropriate.
Do not teach Confucius to write Characters
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Think of CSS (the "encryption") as a widget. CSS (the real DVD code) is a machine that makes a widget. (decodes the data) Now it is possible to patent the widget, or patent the machine, both of which I do not believe have been done.
Now, I can show you a widget, and you can see what a widget is, or does. Once I see a widget, unless the widget is patented, I am allowed to make my own "widget like objects" that perform the same function.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is like saying you can't make aftermarket stereos for cars, because the wire hookups can only be used by GM. This case takes on a whole different feel when you relate it to physical objects, like "widgets", or aftermarket car stereos.
There is very little different about the digital world, when it comes down to these basic ideas.
Soccer Goal Plans
Could you all lay off for a bit so I could actually buy one of these Tee shirts?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can see why the judge had to reconsider his First Amendment position...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
God, no kidding. I can just see the MPAA lawyers huddled around a big oak desk on some building's 40th floor, strategizing ways to 1-up the competition.
Lawyer1: They introduced this shirt as evidence, with the code printed right on it! They said if we ban DeCSS, we have to ban the t-shirts as well!
Lawyer2: Well, we can't let them think they've won this point. Subpeona Copyleft, they're now defendents. They think they can play hardball with us? We'll show them!
It's kinda funny to think about what lawyering these day's really is: two people (or groups of people) drawing lines in the sand for each other, trying to see who's got the most sack, and basically costing everyone a ton of money in the process.
They also make great Christmas and birthday gifts! Who's going to send one to the judge?
If that is valid code
Anyone who can read C can tell you that it isn't; one of those paste attempts must have failed, there's a for loop that ends in a close comment about halfway down.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
It's not the DVD moguls source, it's open source, owned by those good norweigens who made it. There's no court order against it, at the moment, so it's legal.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
remember that shirt which allows application of strong encryption in perl? or the guy who tattoed it on his arm?
i think it was one of those near-jibberish perl programs...
anyways tho, the point is since that still is technically a munition, you cant leave the country while wearing the shirt, or at all in the case of the tatoo.
hm. what century is this again?
shaolin punk, activist post-industrial
We have lobbied in our town quite a while ago to make sure that public schools do not allow vulgar T-shirts to be worn. The school board agreed with us and T-shirts which glorify alchohol, sex and violence or contain obscene words. We are now attempting to get the same ruling for the public malls in our area.
Normally, I have no arguments with religious people, but this goes too far. Even assuming that you could get this legislation passed, it would be struck down by the courts, and rightly so. If your malls are plagued by this sort of thing (I have yet to see anything offensive on a T-shirt in any mall I've visited), then don't go there. With the internet, you can buy anything you want online these days.
'Subpoena' according to Black's Law Dictionary is "a command to appear at a certain time and place to give testimony upon a certain manner." There are two flavors mentioned by Black's: The subponena duces tecum which is a command to produce a document or paper that is pertinent to the issues in a pending controversy, or the subpoena ad testificandum which is a command to appear in order to give testimony. The article makes clear that Copyleft has been added as a defendant, but from the mention that they've received a subpoena I inferred that they've probably received a subponena duces tecum to produce some material as well. Perhaps the article writer meant to say 'summons' instead of 'subpoena'.
-- start quoted text
IIRC, the book was Applied Cryptography, and could be exported as long as it didn't include the floppies with the source in it. The export regs said that the encryption algorithm was only a munition if it was in "machine-readable" form. So people overseas just bought the book without the floppies and typed in the source code themselves.
So if I am not mistaken, the issue actually had to do with the language of the export regulations and
therefore wouldn't apply here.
-- end quoted text
Well that's slightly off because the issue was that the author wanted to export source code in machine readable form but the export regulations prohibited this while allowing export of the same code printed in a book (presumably to avoid first amendment problems). One of the author's arguments was that the source code was speech regardless of whether it was in a books or on a floppy. The government could then only ban speech on a floppy with the same justification as would be used to ban speech in books.
The issue has come up in two similar cases in different circuits (6th and 9th). Both appellate courts have concluded that source code is speech despite attempts by the government to argue the contrary.
I would think these cases would be relevant.
What if you were to sing the DeCSS code to a Metalica tune and put it on Napster?
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Does this mean the US gov. could go after ThinkGeek for putting munition code on a teeshirt too?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
it is a summons.
In fact, CSS is just a trade-secret - that is all. DeCSS is something else altogther.
Trade secret? Hmmm... that doesn't sound right, but...
After a recent patent/IP training seminar at my company, I learned that trade secrets are not patentable. They are trades secrets only until someone knows about them. Then they become public domain.
That is why coca-cola won't patent its secret formula: to do so would require them to publish a trade secret!
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
We have lobbied in our town quite a while ago to make sure that public schools do not allow vulgar T-shirts to be worn. The school board agreed with us and T-shirts which glorify alchohol, sex and violence or contain obscene words. We are now attempting to get the same ruling for the public malls in our area. So if these T-shirts were deemed obscene, people could be forced to take them off (or turn them inside out).
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
Right, and if (for example) a frame from the Star Wars DVD ended up on a T-shirt, that would be copyright infringement. But DeCSS is available under the GPL, as I recall, so there is NO copyright infringement here, at least of the traditional kind.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Is there any way that in the future that something like this can be stopped? As I see it, there will always be someone smarter who will be able to break the encryption and then to show off they'll post it...Stricter laws maybe?
I love the idea of the NY Times getting dragged into this.. Talk about a can of worms -and if you could get some sort of precedent on the illegality of linking to such material, you could get everyone who linked to the NY Times site involved- WooWee! (And there are people out there that dont think this involves them)
-
Starsucks
Slightly wide of the mark. The judge has considered nothing until it comes time to give a reasoned decision in the case. He may have not understood that the source for DeCSS (and its derivative works, the binaries and t-shirts) was speech within the meaning of the First Amendment until Touretzky explained it to him, but that's what trials are for.
Basically, you don't have a decision until all the evidence and legal argument is in, and until you do, anything the judge might think about the issues in the case is potentially a GIGO error, because he hasn't heard the whole case yet.
On that basis, Touretzky's evidence was a very good move on the part of the Defence: they put up an expert witness who explained, in words of one syllable, that program code was not a widget (with no protection) but rather a form of communication (which is protected speech).
Of such manoeuvres is good forensic practice built
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Dont have a program generate the source code.
Have a program that takes a DVD, reads values off the DVD and uses that Data to generate the source code.
They would have to BAN the DVD that was used. (assumingly)
How you ban this:
MPAA LAWYER: this program reads offset 0xD98AC8F2 of regionX of Air Force One DVD, then offset 0x29A..... blah blah blah
JUDGE: umm yeah?!
-Rev
You wouldnt even have to unencrypt the data. just raw read
This seems very obvious to me.
If you're free to say "Impeach the President!" you should be free to wear a T-shirt with "Impeach the President!" on the front of it. And similarly, if it's illegal to say "Kill Bill Clinton" it should be illegal to wear a T-Shirt that says "Kill Bill Clinton".
But it's apparently not obvious to everyone. In the Napster and DeCSS cases, it's not the fact that corporations are suing and getting them shut down that really worries me. It's the level of ignorance that it reveals amongst the people (mainly judges) who make the important decisions. It hadn't even occured to this judge to consider the free speech issues present. And I think the judge in the Napster case truly believed that Napster was posting copyrighted material, as opposed to merely providing search information to people who share copyrighted material.
Most people ignore that distinction, choosing to focus on things like "Who cares if Napster is illegal, the corporations it's ripping off were ripping me off!" or "Napster helps them more than it hurts them". While I believe the latter statement is both true and relevant, the key to the issue, as I see it, is the fact that Napster is just the Internet equivalent to the radar detector or the handgun. It's a tool. Sure, the majority of its users break the law with it, but it is not inherently illegal, so it shouldn't be outlawed. The same is the case with DeCSS. It's not inherently illegal, it just has potentially illegal uses. So does damn near all technology.
My real fear isn't that the judges are considering these issues and disagreeing with me, it's that it doesn't even occur to them.
Now, it's clear to me that:
- a T-shirt is not a circumvention device (I cannot decrypt DVDs with a T-shirt)
- it does have significant non-circumvention uses (I can wear it)
I hope MPAA wil be laughed out of court on this one.--
What we really need is for someone to print up a book containing (say) the source code and a bunch of discussion of the issues of the case, and selling it. This needs to happen soon. Then, get a copy of the book entered into evidence, so that the RIAA either has to
a. Ignore the book
b. Ask the judge to effectively ban the book
Either way, it ought to be fun.
Also, when the PGP source was released as a book, the font used was optimized for scanner accuracy. Perhaps someone at PGP still has the font files?
--John Kelsey, k e l s e y (at) p l n e t (dot) n e t PGP: 5D91 6F57 2646 83F9 6D7F 9C87 886D 88AF
Let's take a movie example: I can go down to the local cinema, where in front of the theatre will be displayed a quantity of "one-sheets", those big movie posters. Those posters are protected by copyright.
However, I can take a photograph of one, in precisely the same way that I can take a photograph of a building whose architect owns the copyright on. I can photograph the front cover of a novel. I can paint a watercolour rendition of the opening page of Neuromancer.
I can even sell any of the above; they're fair use.
The code on the t-shirt is not code. Why? Because it's not running anything. What's on the t-shirt is a graphic representation (a photograph, if you will) of a piece of code. Regardless of who owns the original code, the reproduction of that code on a t-shirt is fair use (and, no, for the hard-core out there, it's not a derivative work by the legal definition).
To claim that this t-shirt is infringing would be like Scholastic Publishing suing me for putting a photo up on my web page of me reading the new Harry Potter book -- because, after all, they own the cover and all the words inside.
Suppose, however, that the MPAA is claiming that the code is protected as a trade secret. At this point we get into the territory of hypocrisy; if they wanted to keep CSS secret, they should've used a better scheme. By the DMCA, the legal tenet of "first sale" would be null and void ("first sale" advises that the owner of a work only has control over the first sale of that work, and loses control after that). Buy a used DVD? No, sorry, since you didn't actually license it from the copyright holder, your DVD player is infringing on our rights under the DMCA.
For chrissakes.
--
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
The motion picture industry is now following Scientology's example, suing a t-shirt vendor for disclosing their trade secrets, all the while knowing that this makes them look like total loons.
Here's a clue, Mr. Valenti: IT'S NOT A SECRET ANYMORE. Scientology had to learn that lesson the hard way. It's a pity the motion picture companies, who are just down the street from the Scientology "pod palace", couldn't have learned from that example.
Your point that not all speech is protected, however, is a good one. Speech that violates a contract is protected but can get you sued for breach of contract. But the bar for what speech is protected vs. not protected is rather high, and generally involves speech that has a likelihood of inciting violence or causing immediate harm to people. The bar is especially high when it is a media outlet involved, because you're not only dealing with free speech, you're dealing with free press, i.e., a double-whammy. I believe the judge in the EFF case has basically concluded that the code involved, as printed by 2600, is speech. However, he has asked the lawyers to make arguments as to whether it should be considered protected speech (bringing up the issue of the draft cards during the Vietnam era, where a judge says yes, burning them was speech, but it was not protected speech).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
"curly bracket space print eff open parent-thhh quote hello world quote close parenth-thhh... boom chakalaka... semicolon..."
Read Communications of the ACM Volume 43, #8 (August 2000)
Software is not a product, its a medium of expression
Knowledge is expressed in it as much as in oral tradition (very perishable and difficult to transmit,[like documentation by osmosis,]) or the via the written word which at least persists but is passive and inert, software is an interactive means of expression.
Furthermore it is about as patentable, and copy- rightable as anyother human language. I don't think, despite possible protestations of those much parodied and maligned "upper-class twits" who speak with proper received pronunciation" that it can even be considered to be owner, since much as it is the result of consensual aggregation of linguistic rules and recognizable algorithmic process.
Software is a medium. It is used to express knowledge in a form which is efficient, or at least self-sufficient, and beyond active (unlike the passivity of words on a page or audiences in a theatre,) it is interactive.
The industry consortia are not about rights. They are about control but control is a double edged sword.
Start a copyright infringement suit against them about using the English language without having obtained written prior consent (one might ask from who and in what language and that's the point!
)
Of course, they might very well try to control the use of the language next but I don't think that a suit could be expressed that did not itself violate the nature of the suit.
They are trying to control what you see, hear, think for their own profits.
Stop paying them for a few weks and catch a live show or a play, read a book, watch TV and let the wind of change blow through record stores and movie theatres. Give the next block-buster a pass. You can live with the alternatives and wait until is comes back in video.
It won't take long before they notice the deleterious effect of their own campain.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
IIRC the only way that PGP can be exported is to be printed, exported as print and scanned. This is because as text on paper PGP is pure speech and not a tool.
Wouldn't a T-Shirt with DeCSS on it fall into the same category? The printed DeCSS code on a T-Shirt couldn't be considered a piracy tool any more than the printout of PGP sourcecode could be considered an encryption tool.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
As an exhibit in the court case, the source code for DeCSS is part of the court documents, isn't it? And these are open to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, aren't they?
So will the records be sealed, just because the MPAA says so? Or will the MPAA buy a Constitutional Ammendment against Free Speach?
Here's an idea. Someone dictate the DeCSS source code into an MP3, and start distributing it via Napster, with permission of course. Let's see how many law suits we can converge into one court-room. Maybe the MPAA and the RIAA can be made to target each-other and finally end this nonsense!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
The T-shirt doesn't bear a non-permitted copyright. The DeCSS is open source. And the DeCSS code doesn't violate or reproduce copyrighted material, it circumvents a 'trade secret'. Difference being, once the cat is out of the bag, there's no legal 'animal control' officer you can call to stuff it back in. Hence the whole litigation.
As for decency laws, that's complete bunk:
Anyone can proudly wear a Van Halen T-Shirt from the:
For
Unlawful
Carnal
Knowledge
album without a worry of "the law", as long as they paid a royalty. This isn't about law and ethics, it's about MONEY.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
2600 Magazine made a similar point when they wrote about what they would do if the judge issued an injunction requiring them to remove the code from their website. They wrote (paraphrasing): If we have to remove the code, we'll link to the code. If we have to remove the links, we'll write out the web addresses in ascii. If we have to remove the addresses, we'll display an image that contains the web addresses, if we have to remove that, we'll spell out the address (http colon slash slash www dot 2600 dot com slash (etc.)). 2600's point (Touretsky's (sp?) point) is that it'd be ludicrous to try and ban everything relating to the code for two reasons: persistant people (i.e. 2600) would find ways around it, and you'd have to create a virtual police state to enforce it.
Mark Prindle, the most underappreciated genius on the web.
What if you wore a jumper over the t-shirt? Is that a form of steganography? Or would that just be considered smuggling? :)
I don't know, but I wore an RSA export code t-shirt under a sweater once, and got busted for concealing a weapon
_______
2B1ASK1
Or: Imagine patenting RSA.
The role of lawyers in corporations today is unfortunately too much focussed on making legal behaviors (free speech not the least) become very expensive ... you have to pay for your free speech, big time.
In the case of RSA, the US Govt applied this knowledge in two basic ways to slow down the spread of cryptographic technology ... likely a better approach than the media monopolies took, but I hope they don't find a way to do the same:
What it's really going to come down to is that the US government has to decide whether it wants its accomodation with media organizations to be more like that between governments (which let themselves curtail fundamental human rights because they're the cops, and dammit they don't like "those kind of people" at all) ... or instead to be like it's supposed to be, where individual rights are more than hot air.
The thing to really watch out for is when the Executive or Legislative branches start getting in bed with the multinationals. Oh wait ... that's like the DMCA helping Disney or Warner, isn't it? Or the office of Drug Policy engaging in media payola to get propaganda out, closly in cahoots with private organizations that gain financially by continuing the current generation's major Prohibition?
The Legislative and Executive branches have too many ways to prevent the courts from seeing their non-constitutional acts. And what we need to see, but won't, is the Judicial system ripping new orifices into those other branches for pulling so much crap.
I fear that any crotchless panties large enough to hold a legible copy of the source code would conjure up images of women the size of Roseanne Barr wearing them.
Of course that is more than enough to be ruled indecent, and such undergarments would quickly be banned.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
While I agree with your general frustration, I don't agree that the lawyers are the root cause. They are a symptom of a larger problem, which is: corporations lobbying Congress to create laws which favor them. In the extreme: no laws, no lawyers. Now, I'm not an anarchist, but if you take away Congress' ability to pass laws to protect corporations, you take away the lawyers' ability to get involved as well.
--jbI have a brilliant solution. Are you ready?
First, we need an ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE. Let's say that our access protection is to invert all the bits in a file: exchange 1's with 0's, and 0's with 1's. Now, we need a body of copyrighted works. I'm sure we could get some submissions, perhaps we could copyright an entire thread of petrified natalie portman spam. Finally, we distribute our body of copyrighted works with our ACCESS PROTECTION DEVICE engaged - we bit flip all the ascii. End step 1.
Step 2: create a license for authorized access to our copyrighted works. The license would be:
1) by viewing these works you agree never to file a lawsuit again, ever.
2) by viewing these works you agree to strip naked and run screaming down the street if we should ever call upon you to do it.
Now, the third and masterful step:
3) Encrypt the DeCSS source code using our bit-inversion ACCESS CONTROL DEVICE. Think about it - if they try to prove that we're distributing the code, then we can prove that they were in violation of the terms of our license (they sued us) AND we can charge them with trafficking in a device specifically designed for circumventing access protections to a body of copyrighted works!
Oh yes, we'd have them by the short curlies!
Then we could sue their fat asses.
The next step, of course, is to get the english language declared to be an access control mechanism, and license it. but first things first.
Of course it's ridiculous, but then hey, they're banning t-shirts and declaring martial law in seattle, so why the fuck not?
morons.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
That's completely independent of whether or not the deed being committed is an actual crime.
The fact that it can be on a T-shirt doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
The fact that you can't stop it doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
The fact that there are millions of people doing it doesn't by itself make it right - legally or ethically.
These things combined, don't make something right - legally or ethically.
I can think of several things which fit these criteria and are still obviously wrong. Arguments like these confuse and detract from the main issue at hand and contribute to the perception of some people that the DeCSS code is being spread by anarchist kiddies instead of by people with a legitimate freedom issue.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I wonder what Touretzky would do if I printed up t-shirt's with all his credit card numbers, addresses, social security numbers and then sold them. By his argument it would be legal (and right) to do so, because he incorrectly believes that anything which can be printed on a t-shirt (regardless of how the information was gathered) can be freely given to the world without consequence.
Soooooooo many people here on /. seem to have a problem understanding that there is a difference between civil liabilities due to free speech and any restriction placed upon that speech. The example given by the previous poster is spurious at best; it would be perfectly legal to disseminate that information, provided that (a) no laws had been broken in obtaining it, and (b) no legally-binding restrictions were being broken in giving out that information. Are there civil repercussions for what people might do with that information? Hell yeah! Doesn't make it any less free speech, does it? Slander and libel are excellent examples - you're free to say/print what you want about a person/place/thing, but be prepared for the responsiblities and liabilities that your words might incur.
Free speech - as in protected speech - is expression that does not violate criminal statutes by its very existence; it's free speech to tell everyone your neighbor buggers his dog, if you didn't break laws finding it out. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to sue your ass into the ground if it's untrue.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Stop for a moment, and think. Is the t-shirt a violation of DCMA? That depends on how you read that act. Certainly, it's a means of distributing an illegal circumvention device. Is that it's primary aim? Is it an effective means of disseminating the code?
Touretsky is being disingenuous in his testimony. Buying and wearing the t shirt is an act of political speech, predominantly for the purpose of protest. That's not the same thing as distributing something in a mass medium for the purpose of having it compiled. Moreover, it's not a very effective means of disseminating the putative violation -- somehow, I can't see ten million script kiddies buying their 133t s41rts and typing the code in by hand!
Those are key facts. If the primary purpose in disseminating something is to protest, then it might be (and, in my opinion, probably is) protected speech, even if it's facially a violation of DCMA. Even if it isn't protected, the inefficiency of the medium is a sufficiently high barrier that it would almost certainly be protected under the traditional doctrine of fair use.
Contrast this to the case in front of the judge. Corley and 2600 are alleged to have intended to disseminate a cracking tool. If the plaintiffs show that, the protected speech defense fails. Moreover, they were using a highly efficient technique to disseminate the item: first, the source itself, then, links to the source. So, the secondary "fair use" defence fails.
Judges and juries are capable of makng that distinction. It's perfectly reasonable that the t-shirt is protected from DCMA, but the program and the links are not.
Please let this be the last time we have to see the words "crusty" and "crotchless panties" in the same sentence on Slashdot.
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
I want a shirt with the DeCSS on one side and a copy of the subpoena on the other.
MPAA obviously realized the power of Trouzetky's (damned spelling) testimony and put Copyleft into the suit to be "consistent". I am sure they did it with much reluctance : how idiotic are they looking right now! But they don't have a choice : their act is a signal of capitulation that their suit is a lot more wide-ranging than they thought, and it's not going to help them by going after more and more trivial stuff.
:)
To put in mildly : eventually they will have to sue everybody else with even trivial connections to the code. Technically, they are know trying to patent an algorithm : which will be dangerous to the scientific and engineering community if they wins (so they won't : imagine Fourier patenting the Fourier Transform, or that Runge and Kutta patenting the RK4 algorithm!)
This is going to be fun
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
How about breaking it up in a set, each piece sold separately. One section of the code on the shirt, another section on the pants, a few subroutines on each sock, etc. Individually, each piece is worthless (and so they shouldn't have anything to prosecute on). However, wear it all at once, and...
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
It's nice to see that the judicial system is starting to understand how *impossible* a banning solution would be. Kinda reminds me of 60's demonstrations where hundreds of people get carted off to jail. Now we have people (Corley, CopyLeft, etc...) putting their freedom on the line to defend freedoms that we thought only geeks understood fully! ;)
And they thought 2600 was just a hacker rag...
(jeez... now I sound like katz
When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
If I recall correctly (and I frequently don't, so feel free to correct me!)...
When PGP was banned from use outside the US, someone found a way around the ban by printing the code, and taking the printed code overseas.
The idea was that the print-out was "speech" rather than "code", and therefore was exempt from the ban (because "speech" is protected by the constitution).
So, how does that translate to these T-shirts? Well, the issue is with code, right.. Or with software that can circumvent the encrption.
As I see it, these T-shirts are neither of the above, so how is the prosecution going to make this stick? If printed code is speech, then surely so is a printed t-shirt. It is surely protected by the constitution?
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
An offensive T-Shirt is illegal if it breaks decency laws.
If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal.
There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Hmm... "Illegal briefs in Court"?
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
Break out the ol' black arm-bands, and print that three-line perl script to encrypt all our data, because the nerds are back...
;)
Maybe eventually we can get rid of "programming patents", since all programming is expressible as a discrete system, and therefore can be formalized as math, and math cannot be patented.
However, any piece of digital information can be expressed as, say, one big number, and that can't be patented either. But tell that to the MPAA/RIAA...
Actually, I'd love to post, say, an mpeg of "The Matrix" in base 10. See if anyone bothers to download it and convert it, *or* tries to sue me.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
if they wish to restrain free speech, they have to do it across the board. I wonder if the judge has looked at the number of DeCSS mirrors on the Net. I wonder if he realizes what exactly he sets in motion by declaring this code illegal. Either way, I've still got my t-shirt on today, and if someday that's a felony, well, then this country is more fucked up than I thought.
--
+&x
I think we should get the code printed on the side of an 18" dildo. I'd like to see that introduced as evidence.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Sort of a related opinion piece by Dave Winer...
Software and the First Amendment
"There is no difference between code and writing. I think I can prove it. Manila, the content management system that I use, supports macros. When you put text in curly braces, as the page is rendered, the macro is evaluated. Such macros can be embedded in protected speech, ie prose. What goes inside the curly braces is program logic. So if I want First Amendment protection for my code all I have to do is embed it in a Web page."
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Usability Vortal and News Hub
How to Download YouTube Videos
I think the laws can be written to deal with intent, so anyone who creates something with the *intent* of distributing the source code could be charged.
Ob. Analogy: It is illegal to take a gun and murder someone, but it's *also* illegal to setup a little rube goldberg device so that when the person opens a door, a rope pulls something off a shelf, that lands on the remote, which turns on the tv, which scares the dog, whose leash is attached to the trigger, so that when he runs across the room, the gun goes off. If your intent was the murder, then you will end up in jail.
- Isaac =)
"Hey, baby, I can C right through your shirt!" Sorry, first story I checked today, and the first thing that popped into my head... *g*
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Not to get slashdot in trouble or anything but ...
, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b, , 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b, , 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f, , 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91, , 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75, , 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, , 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11, , 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f, , 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b, , 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb, , 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f, , 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1, , 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15, , 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5, , 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71, , 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
, 0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e, , 0x19,0x18,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c, , 0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a, , 0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38, , 0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47, , 0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55, , 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63, , 0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73,0x70,0x71, , 0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c, , 0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e, , 0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8, , 0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa, , 0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5, , 0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7, , 0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1, , 0xe6,0xe7,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff, , 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
, 0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0, , 0x58,0xd8,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8, , 0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4, , 0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc, , 0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2, , 0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa, , 0x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6, , 0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe, , 0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1, , 0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9, , 0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5, , 0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd, , 0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3, , 0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb, , 0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7, , 0x5f,0xdf,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
1 9);*/ ;
1 9);*/ ;
/*
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
/*
* Still in progress: Remove the use of the bit_reverse[] table by recoding
* the generation of LFSR1. Finish combining this with
* the css authentication code.
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css-descramble.h"
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5
};
static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
};
/* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
*/
static byte bit_reverse[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
byte k[5];
int i;
lfsr1_lo = im[0] | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = im[1];
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
combined = 0;
for (i = 0; i >1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
unsigned char o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
lfsr1_lo = SALTED(0) | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = SALTED(1);
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
sec+=0x80;
combined = 0;
while (sec != end) {
o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
}
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
I don't think that this is surprising at all. There's the old saying, "In for a penny, in for a pound." If the MPAA is really serious that DeCSS is a threat to their business, they have to be serious about tracking it down in all of its manifestations. Hell, it was the defense that made that point to start out with- they've basically dared the MPAA to do this very thing by bringing up the issue of the tee shirts in court.
If the defense is going to stand up and say, in essence, that it's vital to stop the tee shirts for the injunction to mean anything, it's pretty silly of them to complain when the plaintiff goes ahead and does exactly that. Personally, I think that this is a great thing for the defense. The plaintiff is left in the rather difficult position of either refusing to take all steps necessary to protect themselves, in which case their seriousness has to be questioned, or of grossly overreacting by going after apparently trivial and silly violators. Of course it looks that way because it's true.
IMO, this is a great demonstration of what is really meant by the statement, "Information wants to be free." That's free as in speech, not as in beer. Once you let information out of your tight control, it's out of anyone's control; you can't prevent its unlimited replication.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I'm just waiting to hear this in the courtroom:
You want answers? /. reader? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for 2600 and you curse the MPAA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that banning the DeCSS code, while tragic, probably makes people money. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, makes me a hell of a lot of money. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in your computer system, you need me on that computer system. We use words like copyright, code, royalty. We use these words as the backbone of defending a an ancient business model. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very exorbitant prices that I charge and then questions the manner in which I charge them. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a DVD player and start buying movies at forty bucks a pop. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
I think I'm entitled--
You want answers?
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth! The truth is that we live in a world that has source code, and that source code has to be guarded by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? You Mr.
Our society (the US) is idiotic and selfish. I can't believe we've collectively sunk so low as to allow such ridiculous litigation into the public record. The fact that lawyers can constipate our justice system with such crap only verifies what I've longed feared. We're doomed as a society because we no longer have any brains or spines.
Somebody posted up a wonderful quote from Thomas Jefferson the other day. I'm sorry to say that I can't give credit directly to the person who posted this up, but I think it's absolutely wonderful. As for me, I can't wait to move to Sweden....
Quote follows:
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--34
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction ofman, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
And this is all coming from the tech culture that has no shared political issues, if you belive Mr Katz.
/. the Copyleft site viewing it?
Perhaps you should have read Mr. Katz more carefully.
He never said we didn't have political issues, he just said that most of 'em weren't about concrete issues like food, clothing, and shelter; they're about more esoteric issues, like speech and freedom. And that we don't do anything substantive about them.
How many of us have actually *DONE* something about this issue? Not buying a damn t-shirt, actually showing up at political fundraisers and asking your Congressman what his position is?
Actually writing a letter to your Senator, not just yet another completely ignored form email?
The biggest political stand most geeks take is changing their fucking signature line, or the background color of their web page.
And most of us won't even do that much; how many people are taking this opportunity to actually BUY one of those t-shirts, not just
--
To remind you the PGP code was published as a book, shipped out of the US, scanned and reentered by volunteers. This is the way US export controls were circumvented.
If the T-shirt case is won by MPAA someone may rise the old Fred Zimmerman case again. And this has much wider implications than we can actually imagine.
disclaimer: I bought one of the T-shirts and I am wearing it from time to timeBaker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
it's rather hilarious that the overall sentiment on slashdot is that
1 - Spam should be outlawed, while source code is speech.
2 - Music is just bits, and should not afforded any protection, yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
As long as the mentality is so lopsided like that, anyone who looks in to the community will think that everyone is utterly confused.
I can rewrite the quote as, ... even on t-shirts and hidden in image files - all of these would have to be banned because the pictures are so easily retrievable from all of them."
"Someone [said] if the calvin & Hobbes comics were banned, the only way to prevent that knowledge from being transmitted would be to ban it in all its forms
But what if you had Mssr. Watersons (IIRC) permission? Then why would a 3rd party be allowed to ban it? DeCSS is not copyrighted by the MPAA, but they are trying to control distribution of it.
There are cases where this is allowed:
1) Copyright infringement. But only a copyright holder can prosecute this (IANAL)
2) Obscenity. Um... this stuff turns you on???
BTW: I'm mostly paraphrasing from other posts. I have no thoughts of my own...
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
So if one really wants to afford the plaintiffs the protection that they seek, I think I would only be able to wear my shirt in the privacy of my own home and must not go outdoors with it.
What if you wore a jumper over the t-shirt? Is that a form of steganography? Or would that just be considered smuggling? :)
hmmmm .... I wonder where I'll put it ..... is the judge a prude?
"Exhibit A, your honour!"
Should garner even more press coverage...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
There is a difference between a subpoena and a summons, the former being what compels testimony from a witness, the latter being what brings a person into a lawsuit as a party.
If we're talking about the New York DeCSS case, which just was tried, then it makes no sense that a new entity could be brought in as a defendant, after trial, especially since the issues surrounding distribution of printed source are quite different than those surrouning compiled object.
On the other hand, this could refer to one of the two other DeCSS cases, the ones in California and Connecticut, respectively, but the article gives no indication.
If anyone does know whether it is a subpoena or a summons, and in which case, please do post, because as a lawyer who has been following the cases, I am having trouble making any logical sense of this.
There is nothing illegal about writing a free public, source code on T-shirts. Should I be arrested for putting the source code of Quicksort on a T-Shirt. Yes, Quicksort was discovered by C.A.R. Hoare. But by publishing it, Hoare has "given" that knowledge to the public. Just like DeCSS, which as effectively the same status.
This isn't even about their damned DVD's anymore, it's about control. Who the heck is going to buy a T-Shirt just so they can copy the source code into their computer. You can download it for free off the net. People who are buying the t-shirt are making a statement. Either these people want to completely stamp out any thought that they could ever be beaten, or they want to stamp out EVERY COPY EVERYWHERE. Why worry about a freaking t-shirt when you can get it all over the net? These people are really, litterally, making a federal case over their ability to stamp out independant thought.
Eh...
Not mentioned in the story: who is issuing the subpoena, the defense or the prosecution? And exactly what is being subpoened. The shirt? Sales records (in which case will the MPAA SS be kicking in the doors of anyone who bought one)?
Let's say for the sake of argument that the code itself could be banned. How about a program that generated the code (for example a perl script that output the C source when invoked)? How about a program that generated that program? How about a story containing sentences whose first letters contain the source code? I can't conceive of a way that the judge could possibly ban all of the ways in which this knowledge could be represented. The MPAA is trying to command the tides to recede.
Sytax Error - Line 1 - Parameter "boom chakalaka" not recognized.
-
Starsucks
forget one click ordering® - we've got zero click ordering®. www.ridiculopathy.com