Posted by
Hemos
on from the shouts-out-to-the-man dept.
DivideX0 writes "Emmanuel Goldstein's response and analysis of the decision against 2600 in the DeCSS case appears in this article at the 2600 website." As always, Emmanuel's lucid and interesting to read.
I'm getting a little suspicious
by
Bill+Currie
·
· Score: 5
I've only gotten 75% of the way through the article, but it's beginning to sound like Kaplan ruled in favour of the MPAA in order to force the issue up to the next level. Yes, he was insulting, but that is actually why I'm beginning to suspect this: being insulting never gives your argument strenght. If anything, insults detract from your argument.
Too many of the analogies mentioned in the article are just too ludicrous to get past a higher court, and so this seems to be a way of passing the buck. My guess is that Kaplan knew that no matter how he ruled, he would not have the final say, and thus made things even more likely to move up.
I'ld better stop now. I'm having too much trouble passing my thoughts to my fingers.
Bill - aka taniwha --
--
Bill - aka taniwha -- Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
As far as I'm concerned 2600 should have just removed it and said, "remember, it's still everywhere else". They would have saved time and money.
This fight needed to be fought. Sure, meekly complying with the bully would have kept 2600 et al out of court, but where would we be in terms of getting fair use back? The MPAA might be fighting a battle that, in all practicality, is as good as lost, but that doesn't mean they deserve the legal clout the DMCA gives them. What would happen if more laws (similar to the one alluded to on 2600 now, regarding reverse engineering - anybody got more info on that?) further restricting your rights to use/peruse/disseminate information get passed?
I don't like slippery slopes - and the good folks at 2600 are fighting tooth and nail to keep us from taking the first step down this one. They deserve our help, everyone - support the EFF!
-- Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Just wanted to share an interesting experience I just had. Summary: I called the MPAA, as 2600 suggested. I eventually spoke with their PR Manager for Anti-piracy. She recommends that anyone who wants to discuss the DeCSS case feel free to email her personally at: emily_cutner@mpaa.org.
At the bottom of the 2600 article, it reads: We would give out an address for the MPAA but they've been blocking e-mail for some time and blaming hackers for every problem they have. So give them a call at (818) 995-6600 from 9 am to 5:30 pm Pacific Time. Be civil but make sure you get your point across. After all, where do you think that $4 million ultimately comes from?
So, I called. The call went something like...
MPAA-Drone #1: Hello, Motion Picture Association of America.
Me: Hello, I'd like to speak to somebody about the DeCSS case.
MD1: The what?
Me: The DeCSS case.
MD1: Ok, um... [fumbles around] Let me transfer you.
MPAA-Drone #2: So-and-so's office, how can I help you?
Me: I'd like to know if the MPAA has an official position on the recent DeCSS ruling.
MD2: You want what? In what capacity would you like to know?
Me: I am a consumer of many of the MPAA's fine products, and would like to discuss the DeCSS case.
MD2: [thinks long and hard] OK, let me transfer you...
Emily Cutner: Hello, MPAA PR dept. How can I help you?
Me: Hello, I would like to discuss the DeCSS case with a representative of the MPAA.
EC: Well, we would greatly prefer it if you would send us your opinions via Email. You see, we have only a few legal analysts on staff [ed: yeah right!] and they are busy pursuing other matters. With Email, your digital voice can be heard, and we will gladly respond. Also, please check out our web page, where we have a FAQ [etc. etc.]
The act of breaking into a bank is illegal, and it should be rightfully so. The point Emmanuel is making is that the law against distributing information is unconstitutional.
The act of distributing information about how to break into a bank in general, or a branch in particular must be protected under the First Amendment, just as instructions on how to build a bomb are currently protected.
The act of distributing information about how to decode a DVD, protected by cryptography, must also be protected, for source code is speech. The distribution of the source code does not constitute an act of theft, just as publishing instructions on how to build a bomb does not constitute an act of terrorism.
Both instructions can be used for legal and illegal purposes. The act of using such instructions to perform an illegal act is, and must continue to remail illegal.
--
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Like (I suspect) many of you, I have the Anti DVD-CCA shirt. One of my coworkers pointed out the absurdity of prohibiting linking; We know already that I am guilty of a crime by owning the shirt, especially if I wear it in public, because I am an illegal source code archive.
If he points to my shirt, is he guilty of making a link to an illegal source code archive?
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
sobering prospects for future tech
by
griffjon
·
· Score: 5
Goldstein makes some very good points about what is to come with the DCMA, HDTV, and various future technologies and extreme consumer rights violations.
What confuses me is that the judge's ruling is directly at odds with both other caselaw (namely, the Bernstein/PGP ruling) and supreme court cases such as flag burning.
I located a copy of the Bernstein v Dept of State ruling (http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Crypto_export/Bern stein_case/Legal/960415.decision), which among other things states this:
"For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech."
The licences are obtained from the DVD Forum (formerly the DVD Consortium) which originally consisted of 10 big electronics companies (Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson Multimedia, Time Warner, Toshiba and Victor).
There's definately some licenced DVD players for Linux in development (e.g. PowerDVD-Linux), but I don't see how any open-sourced version could ever be legal under the terms of the licence; disclosing the decryption source code is not allowed, as any and all information that you get with the licence is covered under an NDA.
This snippet from the site linked above shows the prices involved:
3. License Fees are now required for the right to use the Format Books. The License Fee is US$10,000 per DVD Format for each Product Category, as specified in Schedule A-1 of the Definitive License.
Example: If a licensee wishes to manufacture DVD-Video players, the licensee shall pay US$20,000 since it needs to obtain licenses for DVD-Video Book and DVD-ROM Book, both to be used for Product Category II (DVD Players).
Example: If a licensee wishes to manufacture DVD-RAM drives and DVD-RAM discs, the licensee shall pay US$40,000 since it needs to obtain licenses for DVD-RAM and DVD-ROM Books, to be used for Category I Products (DVD discs) and Category II Products (DVD drives).
2600 a victim of their own reputation
by
DG
·
· Score: 5
As much as I hate to say it, as much as it sucks, I'm afraid 2600 is fast becoming a victim of their own reputation.
The editorial linked to is intelligent and well-written. The defense case made for 2600 well-argued, well-presented, and logical. But the fact remains that large portions of the 2600 issues that I have read appear to be written as how-to documents for crackers and would-be cyberterrorists.
Now you and I know that, at best, your typical 2600 Hax0r is more of the network equivelent of the flaming bag of dog shit left on a front porch than a series threat to national security - but the judge doesn't see that. The judge sees a small-time larcenist with his hand caught in a bigger bag, and a long-running distain for law enforcement and legal proceedings. (Free Kevin! indeed)
No wonder that, despite their truly iron-clad defence, that the judge gives them almost no credibility. Imagine a skinhead trying to sue for (legitimate!) racial discrimination, and you get the idea.
It's not right, and it's not fair - but it's not suprising either. 2600 is reaping the harvest they have sown the last few years.
Give the MPAA credit - they knew _exactly_ who to tackle first. When you seek to set precident, attack the weakest defendant, then move on to the strong.
It's wrong that what is supposed to be an objective exercise in logical deduction has turned into a public relations contest, but that's what it is.
Anyway, it is the fair use issue that is significant here, and what's more, I think further attention to the matter should be to show that it is not DeCSS that is wrong, it is CSS that is immoral. CSS is specifically designed to deprive people of their fair use right, a right that is an important part of free speech.
I thought that when Garbus asked Valenti about what a student could do if she wanted to play a 3 minutes of "Schindler's List" and Valenti replied that she could get the analog version, I felt it had to be obvious to anyone that CSS did take away fair use rights, but Kaplan actually bought Valenti's argument. I can't believe it. I just can't believe it. How ignorant is it possible to get? Yes, today, analog versions exist, but they won't in a few years. I mean, I have a hard time awarding voting rights to people who are as ignorant as Kaplan was in this case, and when a judge exhibits such extreme ignorance, then democracy is at stake.
In the appeals, it should be very easy to demonstrate that Kaplan put words in the defendants mouths that they had never expressed, and that he was completely ignorant about matters of fundamental importance.
CSS is immoral. The engineers who designed CSS should have understood the consequences of what they where told to make, and should not have made them. That's their social responsibility. It is obvious that CSS takes away fair use rights. It is less obvious, yet important to realize, that it is a threat to free speech if a single body controls distribution of human communication. If DVD gets popular, you can't distribute communication by any other carrier, so in principle, it puts DVD-CCA (?) in the position that they can deny someone to produce a movie that is critical towards e.g. MPAA. Now, it is probably a long way before this is going to happen, but it is a serious threat to free speech if you make it possible. Therefore, I think it is important in the following to hammer on the point that it is not DeCSS that is immoral, it is CSS, and that breaking CSS was a moral act.
Talking about social responsibility, 2600 has one too, and sometimes, they should consider what the consquences of reporting a story is, that's the only bad feeling I get when I read the article, they seem to run away from the social responsibility of reporting a story. I think they would have been much better off if they said that "yes, we are responsible for reporting this story. The consequence of reporting this story is that a security hole will be fixed faster/it is being pointed out that MPAA is taking away our fair use rights", etc.
-- Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Slashdot Mirror
Too many of the analogies mentioned in the article are just too ludicrous to get past a higher court, and so this seems to be a way of passing the buck. My guess is that Kaplan knew that no matter how he ruled, he would not have the final say, and thus made things even more likely to move up.
I'ld better stop now. I'm having too much trouble passing my thoughts to my fingers.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
This fight needed to be fought. Sure, meekly complying with the bully would have kept 2600 et al out of court, but where would we be in terms of getting fair use back? The MPAA might be fighting a battle that, in all practicality, is as good as lost, but that doesn't mean they deserve the legal clout the DMCA gives them. What would happen if more laws (similar to the one alluded to on 2600 now, regarding reverse engineering - anybody got more info on that?) further restricting your rights to use/peruse/disseminate information get passed?
I don't like slippery slopes - and the good folks at 2600 are fighting tooth and nail to keep us from taking the first step down this one. They deserve our help, everyone - support the EFF!
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
At the bottom of the 2600 article, it reads: We would give out an address for the MPAA but they've been blocking e-mail for some time and blaming hackers for every problem they have. So give them a call at (818) 995-6600 from 9 am to 5:30 pm Pacific Time. Be civil but make sure you get your point across. After all, where do you think that $4 million ultimately comes from?
So, I called. The call went something like...
MPAA-Drone #1: Hello, Motion Picture Association of America.
Me: Hello, I'd like to speak to somebody about the DeCSS case.
MD1: The what?
Me: The DeCSS case.
MD1: Ok, um... [fumbles around] Let me transfer you.
MPAA-Drone #2: So-and-so's office, how can I help you?
Me: I'd like to know if the MPAA has an official position on the recent DeCSS ruling.
MD2: You want what? In what capacity would you like to know?
Me: I am a consumer of many of the MPAA's fine products, and would like to discuss the DeCSS case.
MD2: [thinks long and hard] OK, let me transfer you...
Emily Cutner: Hello, MPAA PR dept. How can I help you?
Me: Hello, I would like to discuss the DeCSS case with a representative of the MPAA.
EC: Well, we would greatly prefer it if you would send us your opinions via Email. You see, we have only a few legal analysts on staff [ed: yeah right!] and they are busy pursuing other matters. With Email, your digital voice can be heard, and we will gladly respond. Also, please check out our web page, where we have a FAQ [etc. etc.]
Me: Well, who should I send my Email to?
EC: I am the PR Manager for Anti-piracy. My email address is emily_cutner@mpaa.org.
Me: You mean that anyone who wants to express their opinion about the DeCSS case shoudl feel free to email you personally?
EC: That's right.
Me: Well, thanks so very much.
Can your IM do this?
Actually, I think you don't get it.
The act of breaking into a bank is illegal, and it should be rightfully so. The point Emmanuel is making is that the law against distributing information is unconstitutional.
The act of distributing information about how to break into a bank in general, or a branch in particular must be protected under the First Amendment, just as instructions on how to build a bomb are currently protected.
The act of distributing information about how to decode a DVD, protected by cryptography, must also be protected, for source code is speech. The distribution of the source code does not constitute an act of theft, just as publishing instructions on how to build a bomb does not constitute an act of terrorism.
Both instructions can be used for legal and illegal purposes. The act of using such instructions to perform an illegal act is, and must continue to remail illegal.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Like (I suspect) many of you, I have the Anti DVD-CCA shirt. One of my coworkers pointed out the absurdity of prohibiting linking; We know already that I am guilty of a crime by owning the shirt, especially if I wear it in public, because I am an illegal source code archive.
If he points to my shirt, is he guilty of making a link to an illegal source code archive?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Goldstein makes some very good points about what is to come with the DCMA, HDTV, and various future technologies and extreme consumer rights violations.
n stein_case/Legal/960415.decision), which among other things states this:
What confuses me is that the judge's ruling is directly at odds with both other caselaw (namely, the Bernstein/PGP ruling) and supreme court cases such as flag burning.
I located a copy of the Bernstein v Dept of State ruling (http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Crypto_export/Ber
"For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech."
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Everyone who can should go over to the EFF web site and donate some money for the defense.
Become an EFF member while you're at it.
That single act will probably provide more benefit to the future of the United States than voting this fall.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
The licences are obtained from the DVD Forum (formerly the DVD Consortium) which originally consisted of 10 big electronics companies (Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson Multimedia, Time Warner, Toshiba and Victor).
There's definately some licenced DVD players for Linux in development (e.g. PowerDVD-Linux), but I don't see how any open-sourced version could ever be legal under the terms of the licence; disclosing the decryption source code is not allowed, as any and all information that you get with the licence is covered under an NDA.
This snippet from the site linked above shows the prices involved:
3. License Fees are now required for the right to use the Format Books. The License Fee is US$10,000 per DVD Format for each Product Category, as specified in Schedule A-1 of the Definitive License.
Example: If a licensee wishes to manufacture DVD-Video players, the licensee shall pay US$20,000 since it needs to obtain licenses for DVD-Video Book and DVD-ROM Book, both to be used for Product Category II (DVD Players).
Example: If a licensee wishes to manufacture DVD-RAM drives and DVD-RAM discs, the licensee shall pay US$40,000 since it needs to obtain licenses for DVD-RAM and DVD-ROM Books, to be used for Category I Products (DVD discs) and Category II Products (DVD drives).
Here's a link to the text of the licence (PDF format).
As much as I hate to say it, as much as it sucks, I'm afraid 2600 is fast becoming a victim of their own reputation.
The editorial linked to is intelligent and well-written. The defense case made for 2600 well-argued, well-presented, and logical. But the fact remains that large portions of the 2600 issues that I have read appear to be written as how-to documents for crackers and would-be cyberterrorists.
Now you and I know that, at best, your typical 2600 Hax0r is more of the network equivelent of the flaming bag of dog shit left on a front porch than a series threat to national security - but the judge doesn't see that. The judge sees a small-time larcenist with his hand caught in a bigger bag, and a long-running distain for law enforcement and legal proceedings. (Free Kevin! indeed)
No wonder that, despite their truly iron-clad defence, that the judge gives them almost no credibility. Imagine a skinhead trying to sue for (legitimate!) racial discrimination, and you get the idea.
It's not right, and it's not fair - but it's not suprising either. 2600 is reaping the harvest they have sown the last few years.
Give the MPAA credit - they knew _exactly_ who to tackle first. When you seek to set precident, attack the weakest defendant, then move on to the strong.
It's wrong that what is supposed to be an objective exercise in logical deduction has turned into a public relations contest, but that's what it is.
Good luck 2600 and the EFF. You need it.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Anyway, it is the fair use issue that is significant here, and what's more, I think further attention to the matter should be to show that it is not DeCSS that is wrong, it is CSS that is immoral. CSS is specifically designed to deprive people of their fair use right, a right that is an important part of free speech.
I thought that when Garbus asked Valenti about what a student could do if she wanted to play a 3 minutes of "Schindler's List" and Valenti replied that she could get the analog version, I felt it had to be obvious to anyone that CSS did take away fair use rights, but Kaplan actually bought Valenti's argument. I can't believe it. I just can't believe it. How ignorant is it possible to get? Yes, today, analog versions exist, but they won't in a few years. I mean, I have a hard time awarding voting rights to people who are as ignorant as Kaplan was in this case, and when a judge exhibits such extreme ignorance, then democracy is at stake.
In the appeals, it should be very easy to demonstrate that Kaplan put words in the defendants mouths that they had never expressed, and that he was completely ignorant about matters of fundamental importance.
CSS is immoral. The engineers who designed CSS should have understood the consequences of what they where told to make, and should not have made them. That's their social responsibility. It is obvious that CSS takes away fair use rights. It is less obvious, yet important to realize, that it is a threat to free speech if a single body controls distribution of human communication. If DVD gets popular, you can't distribute communication by any other carrier, so in principle, it puts DVD-CCA (?) in the position that they can deny someone to produce a movie that is critical towards e.g. MPAA. Now, it is probably a long way before this is going to happen, but it is a serious threat to free speech if you make it possible. Therefore, I think it is important in the following to hammer on the point that it is not DeCSS that is immoral, it is CSS, and that breaking CSS was a moral act.
Talking about social responsibility, 2600 has one too, and sometimes, they should consider what the consquences of reporting a story is, that's the only bad feeling I get when I read the article, they seem to run away from the social responsibility of reporting a story. I think they would have been much better off if they said that "yes, we are responsible for reporting this story. The consequence of reporting this story is that a security hole will be fixed faster/it is being pointed out that MPAA is taking away our fair use rights", etc.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid