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.
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.
If someone comes up with code that has the same function but was developed independently (even by reverse-engineering), they aren't infringing a trade secret. (If they copy code literally, they may be infringing a copyright, but that's an entirely different matter.)
A trade secret is infringed when someone who is privy to the secret divulges it to another party without authorization of the owner of the trade secret.
If I invent a new lawnmower mechanism, and choose to keep the details of how it works as a trade secret (rather than, for instance, applying for a patent), anyone who is not privy to my trade secret can legally purchase the lawnmower, disassemble it, figure out how it works, and build comparable lawnmowers of their own. This woul dnot infringe my trade secret.
But if I have an employee, perhaps a person on the assembly line, who is privy to my trade secret, and he posts the information on a web site (or otherwise disseminates it to unauthorized persons), he has infringed the trade secret, and the people to whom he disseminated the information might be in posession of stolen property.
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.
I think Joel Furr also used to sell a T-Shirt with an RSA implementation written in perl, in barcode form. The idea was to make a shirt that violated both the letter and the intent of the regulations (if worn outside USA). Sadly, I never got around to ordering one at the time... *sigh* I would kill for one of those nowdays. Well, maybe not kill, but happily spend the $20.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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