Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Says If You Support Open Source, You're ...
bwt writes: "It now seems that the DVD-CCA has insulted the entire open source movement. They have responded to LiViD leader Matt Pavlovich's attempt to tell California that he doesn't live there and isn't bound by their laws by asking that his motion to quash be denied. Their opposition brief starts out: Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called 'open source' movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free. "
Linux was used for rendering 3-D for the movie titanic, and most likely in other movies.
I wonder if Hollywood realises that they're accessories after the fact.
So you have this MASSIVE decentralized movement consisting of between 80 and 300 thousand people, depending on who's figures you go by, and they keep a low profile. Sure, you get a few lawsuits here, alittle press there, but considering the magnitude of what we are doing, it's suprising this hasn't been making the headlines for weeks on end - it's far bigger than the OJ Simpson trial, the Year 2000 New Year's Bash, or, well.. any event since the start of the millenium.
No, I think they're strutting around, being the pompous asses that they are, and they have no clue that they're opening the pandora's box of copyright issues - if there has ever been an organized attempt to take down corporations, this is it. Demonstrations in Seattle and the NAFTA protests before that pale in comparison to the damage a successful attack on IP would do in this country. And rather than taking us seriously, they're calling us a bunch of immature punk kids with a bent on going against the grain and who have a keyboard. That is not at all who they are dealing with. They are dealing with the Borg - a decentralized movement with no leaders, and a common cause. How the hell are they going to combat an idea? Imprison every developer in the world? Who will keep the e-commerce infrastructure going, or the "dot commies"?
Heh, it's the other way around guys, you're being a bunch of arrogant suits and you're about to get your ass handed back to you by a bunch of hippies who do nothing but convert caffeine into code all day. I'm going to love watching this..
Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called 'open source' movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free."
Open Source/Free Software nitpicking aside, Open Source -- ahem -- Open Source(tm) is a trademark of the Open Source(tm) Initiative. To say that the Open Source(tm) movement actively encourages criminal activity is defamatory and actionable and demonstrably does harm to the Open Source(tm) trademark and the interests of the businesses that endorse it.
At least, I know if a bunch of Hollywood lawyers called a press conference to accuse freakin' IBM of actively encouraging criminal activity, seismographs on the other side of the planet would be able to detect the rumbling herd of bulk-cloned attorneys pouring from the sluice gates of the vast monolith that is Big Blue.
So maybe the OSI can get their lawyers -- uh, lawyer -- to get off his duff and act like a real corporate attorney.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Doing what it takes to make this happen, though, would cost them dearly. Basically, they would never be able to have general-purpose programmable computers be used to play movies. Because if they did, any mass-distributed player would be vulnerable to RE.
As long as they will allow personal computers to be used to playing movies, legislation like DMCA (and UCITA too) will be the only thing they can do to keep competing players off the market. They're also eventually going to have to repeal a bunch of anti-trust legislation too.
OTOH, I agree that if they decide to bite the bullet and not allow their stuff to be played on personal computers (as we currently know them), where there is an encrypted stream all the way to the monitor, then they can keep students from using Schilder's List excerpts for their holocaust reports, unless the student will settle for an analog sample.
Don't count on that dependance forever. They currently have strong influence over the currently popular means of distribution (theaters and rental stores), but there is this little thing called The Internet that will eventually pose a threat. Since that fateful day that I downloaded an MP3 in order to hear a band that I would otherwise never get to hear, I have bought thousands of dollars worth of music, much of it from non-RIAA labels.
In the MPAA-vs-2600 trial, MPAA made a big deal about codecs like Divx that might some day be used to pirate MPAA movies. And these video codecs are indeed a threat, but not because of piracy, but because they can be used to compete with Hollywood without relying on the means of distribution that Hollywood controls.
Geez, I've seen ads on Comedy Central for little movies to download via The Internet. In a few years, that sort of thing could be quite mainstream and not-so-gimmicky. It's not so much that I wouldn't want to see Star Wars, as it is that there could be so many non-Hollywood movies competing with Star Wars. And if Holywood were to face competition like that, who is to say that the prime movers of entertainment would be willing to make less profit by staying with the dinosaurs? If big already-established names like George Lucas are already guaranteed a large audience, then why shouldn't they get out of the system and go indy, so they have even more control and profit?
Time is on our side and Hollywood is going to lose market share.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Don't be so skeptical; Hollywood has many highly paid people whose job it is to consult on computer issues. I mean, just look at the wonderful film "The Net" and you'll see that they obviously have done their homework.
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
BTW, Im wearing my illegal copyleft T-Shirt right now.
Open Source _used_ to be a trade mark but it isn't any more.
- freedom.html:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for
"The advocates of ``open source software'' tried to make it a trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. The attempt went awry when the application was allowed to lapse in 1999; thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of ``free software'': there is no legal constraint on using it. "
The quote in the article sounds more like a description of the warez community.
When I hear people say "all software should be free" I think of the Free Software movement.
When I hear people say "free sofware can sometimes be a lot better than commercial sofware" I think of the Open Source movement.
Of these three movements, it's rather ironic that they should choose to slam Open Source, since it's the most conservative of the three. One is apt to believe that businessmen protecting their commercial interests are conservatives. OTOH, Hollywood is actually full of liberals.
We may be witnessing them being torn between their liberalism and their desire to make a buck.
Actually, this falls in line with something I've been saying for a while: "The left doesn't know what's right anymore".
For example, you used to be able to count on the left supporting labor. But now you've got Bill Clinton and Al Gore supporting trade with China. That's certainly confused a lot of trade unionists.
Now we've got the Free Software movement, certainly a creature of the left, being opposed by Hollywood liberals. Conservatives, take note. Here is an opportunity to divide and conquer.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I really think some high profile people should sue the MPAA over this particular piece of fiction. It's incredibly insulting.
... and there's nothing you can do.
Legal filings are specifically exempted from liability of allegation in virtually all jurisdictions inheriting from British common law. The theory is that this prevents the target of a lawsuit crushing the plaintiff with their greater legal resources and so forth.
In practice, this means they can say Open Source advocates are crooks and goatfuckers if they feel like it
As we know, the USA, or more precisely, Hollywood, always needs a Bad Guy.
:)
1970's - The Red Commie Threat.
1980's - Those evil arab nations that sell us our oil and have corrupt military leaders.
1990's - Drug runners (with links to evil S. American nations with corrupt military leaders).
Late 90's - Those terrible two-dimensional Terrorists whose sole purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible. Why this is, we're not told (perhaps we might sympathise with them?). They're just born that way apparently.
Coming up next - those evil computer thieves and hackers who wield greater threat to your lives than all the above combined.
In most movies to date, hackers have usually been the good guys, and bad hackers are usually just opposition for the good hackers to defeat. Movies in which a Joe Average hero is besieged on all sides by a foe with unlimited resources have usually had the foe played by things like intelligence services, corrupt institutions and the like.
I suspect that as Hollywood execs in their isolated circles hear more and more about how great a threat is posed by these computer people, and as the net remains a sexy background for movies, but familiar to more people, we may start to see more movies in which we get to play the archvillain, whether we want to or not. And we'll have powers we never dreamed of (like hacking Russian spy satellites in order to take telephoto pictures of your credit card number as you pay for something, or your wife undressing*. Actually, they would have to be US satellites because Hollywood is currently dedicated to the idea that all Russian technology is stuck in the 50's)
Hmmm, writing this incredibly 2d summary of Hollywood movies yet having it so aptly sum up so many movies sorta rams home how numbingly stupid the films are.
Harlequin - Archvillain for hire...
hire details
(And offended at the idea of working for hollywood against my will
*Telephoto pictures of your wife undressing, not pictures of you paying your wife to undress...
Suppose that each individual author who has contributed open source code files a civil lawsuit against this attorney for slander. These are not frivolous suits; he HAS slandered us. Fighting one law suit is difficult and expensive enough; fighting a few thousand is a practical impossibility.
What we have in our favor is numbers - this is a way to use those numbers to fight the big money on the other side.
--
The law, 100's of millions of lines of code - not one line of which has ever been tested to see if it works [
Totally correct. The Internet is a dangerous resource, because you cannot control it. Someone in another country has rights that you don't have control over, because they have different laws.
The result? They sue, to try to regain control because big business sees people's speech as damaging their profits.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know any sites that provide movies copied from DVDs using DeCSS? I've seen a lot of avi's and mpgs copied from VHS, and a few copied from DVDs using the older copiers, but I've never seen anyone post or provide (IRC, Gnutella, etc) a _good_ copy of a DVD. They're just too big!
Even admitting that I don't search really hard for .vob files, how many can there be? They're too big to download easily, too big to keep many, and too rare to show up in the many places I visit.
So where the hell is the $4 billion dollars of loss (or whatever they're claiming) coming from?
Jeff
Fact: Some Open Source Advocates post copyrighted materials on the internet without permission or compensation to the author.
Conclusion: Open Source is about publishing other peoples copyrighted materials on the internet without permission or compensation to the author.
Isn't this like saying....
Fact: Some filmmakers use narcotics in violation of US law.
Conclusion: Filmmaking is about advocating and using illegal narcotics.
Which would continue what has been a generational shift away from group-think, when three channels were enough for anyone, towards individuality where 100 channels are no longer enough. The Internet clearly has the capability to increase the number of channels, to the point where if I don't like YOUR reality-based show I'll just produce my own.
The next question is how long society will tolerate this before reverting back to conformity and three "channels" again. If our only common experience is that we were lied to by the same politicians and corporations, then when a real crisis occurs, our fractured society will urgently look to find commonality wherever it can, including in its entertainment.
For more on this topic, please see The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe.
--
Legal filings are specifically exempted from liability of allegation in virtually all jurisdictions inheriting from British common law. The theory is that this prevents the target of a lawsuit crushing the plaintiff with their greater legal resources and so forth.
Let's not forget that malicious prosecution is still illegal. If their lawsuit is baseless and the entire intent is to harass or defame me, then it's unlikely this exemption will apply. Also, court filings are usually made under the penalty of perjury. Submitting deliberately false filings to the effect that I'm a goatfucker when they know I'm not could land them with fines or jail. Again, for the protection of the little guy.
--
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
That would make crooks out of IBM, RedHat, Dell, Sun... oh wow... lots of major corporations. Thousands of people. God no. Quickly, lock 'em all up and throw away the key before this gets out of hand!
;)
*sarcasm mode off*
I wonder if Hollywood realizes that this is bigger than they think.
------------------
... I've got a good target to whack.
I'm going to leave the Open Source slurs aside, since they're not really relevant (though, as one previous poster pointed out, they hurt the MPAA since it's a direct loss of credibility).
They're misquoting (or should I say, misusing) the case law precedent. The case laws covers only:
Also, I'd like to point out one further thing that I find unusual of this whole thing:
This is a civil case about trade secrets. In order to prove a trade secret case, you have to show proof that the accused gained information about the secret through unlawful means. As of right now, reverse engineering is not an illegal means, no matter what the shrink-wrap says on a product. Right now, shrink-wrap licenses are unenforcable and invalid, period.
Also, the DCMA doesn't apply to this case. Now, depending on the rulings about the DCMA, making LiViD might be illegal, but the methods of discovering how to make LiViD (that is, discovering how CSS worked) are not illegal, even under a strict DCMA ruling.
This case is strictly about reverse-engineering a trade secret, and the MPAA has absolutely no leg to stand on, other than perhaps having more money to blow on lawyers.
Fundamentally, I'd counter-sue for malicious prosecution (that's the criminal law term, there's a civil law equivalent, but I can't remember the phrase), since the suit is prima facia invalid.
Fuck them with a red hot poker.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
But this time, this is just plain stupid.
You do _NOT_ get jurisdiction over every single human being in the entire world merely because they post something on the 'net.
If you do, then we're in trouble when a more repressive regime than the US attempts to indict us in the US for crimes against their nation elsewhere.
This is seeing the trees but not the forest, people. You get jurisdiction over someone by _actively_ doing something involving the forum state. This could be something as simple as putting your information into interstate commerce - but the idea that putting something on the net, for free, is in interstate commerce probably violates a half dozen treaties, not to mention the entire concept of jurisdiction.
(IANAL, usual rules of don't bother fact checking this because I haven't either. And don't rely on this for anything - consult a real lawyer before fighting a megacorporation with tentacles all over the world just like HYDRA)
This would be unbelievable if we hadn't already seen just how mindless the MPAA and CCA have been in the past.
I just skimmed the brief, and it could probably be considered defamation on the FSF, lots of people like Linus, ESR, various people like Bob Young, even Tim O'Reilly . . . Basically, it accuses anyone who claims to be involved with the `open source' movement of supporting theft of intellectual property. This might be my non-legal mind misunderstanding what they were saying, but it's pretty damned blatant, as far as I'm concerned.
I really think some high profile people should sue the MPAA over this particular piece of fiction. It's incredibly insulting.
On another note, if they really do think this about the open source world, it would explain why they're being so paranoid about us - they seem to think we really are out to get them, however we can.
Personally I'm not, and I don't think you could say that this particular group of people really agrees on anything enough to say that we're out to get someone . . .
In any case, this is an incredibly dumb document, put out by a group that, it is becoming increasingly clear, is completely disconnected from anythin that remotely resembles the real world. I think the MPAA should be taken out the back and shot (metaphorically speaking, of course . . . ;-) They're becoming more dangerous than useful, IMHO.
himi
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Kind of like before the invention of the radio .....
Some people, like Eric Corley, are acting by defying the MPAA and risking financial ruin if they lose the DeCSS case.
Some, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation are working to preserve our rights in the networked era by defending brave folks like Corley.
Even with attorneys working pro-bono, mounting a legal defense is terribly expensive (just think of the cost of long-distance calls and plane fare for the participants). One way you can make a difference is by joining the EFF, which you can do with a credit card at the following link:
https://www.eff.org/support/joineff.html
(You can also mail in a check.)
If you do nothing else to work for the cause of justice in the DeCSS case, at least join the EFF. It will only take a few minutes, and you can give what you're comfortable with.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
https://www.eff.org/support/joineff.html
And if you want to read about why this matters, click here:
http://www.goingware.com/decss
It's not about watching movies on Linux anymore.
It's about your right to say what you want in a free society. Eric Corley is a member of the press, and 2600's web site is his publication. Judge Kaplan has just permanently enjoined Corley from practicing unrestrained journalism.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
...at least do it right. Free Software is a "movement". Open Source is just a study in economics.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Well, with the case against 2600 surely going to appeal, and now this, I'm sure the EFF will have it's hands full.
I sent them $100 a while ago in a fit of temporary wealth. Maybe it's time to do it again. Yeah, I also bought Copyleft's anti-DVDCCA shirt (someone at work actually thought my posession of it was illegal without even caring whether such a law was just -- scary. Since I'm not in Judge Kaplan's judisdiction, I'm sure this isn't the case.)
Better yet, perhaps it's time to send, oh, I don't know $20 or $30 a month to the EFF on a regular basis. Anyone know if they accept ongoing contributions via credit card?
FWIF, I don't own a DVD player (and won't buy one unless I can view movies with free software), don't collect MP3s of copyright works, and will actually purchase a CD for one song, if I like it (though I'd prefer if the artist got more of my money for it.) Heck, I've purchased some CDs because I liked the cover art! (And have usually liked the music to boot.) I've boycotted movies (and amazon.com because of their stupid patent) for about six months now (not perfectly -- it's hard with a 7 year old, but cutting consumption is the important thing).
The frightening thing about this is that MPJDGI (Most People Just Don't Get It). They equate the internet as some kind of "interactive TV" in terms of "serving content", instead of a place where you get and share what you wish. An ignorant mob is a dangerous mob.
Also, the issues are so obvbious to "us" that often we don't even realize that "they" don't get it. Ever explain something to a wanna-be code jockey, only to have them program some real garbage? That's how dealing with "the masses" on these issues is.
While the DVD CCA, and MPAA have legitimate beefs against copyright violation, I fear that a great deal of baby is going to get thrown out with that particular brand of bathwater before this issue settles down.
Rene S. Hollan
You could've hired me.
Interesting that the DVDCCA is bashing open source (ok, they make some very negative deragatory comments about "open source" which seemed to mock it.), when they use it. I did an HTTP request to dvdcca.org, and they apparently use Apache 1.3.3 on Unix. Try it yourself, if you'd like. Funny, considering the hypocrisy post earlier today.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
MPAA is missing something: the California Trade Secrets Act provides a complete defense:
They say:
And here is the defense, at eff.org:
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE : SECTION 3426.1
3426. This title may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
3426.1. As used in this title, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
(b) "Misappropriation" means:
(1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
(A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(c) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(d) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
[Emphasis added. So not only is reverse engineering perfectly legal under California trade secret law, it is also perfectly legal under the DMCA right now, and in Norway, where the reverse engineering took place. Send check to EFF.org now!]
As is often noted, "one who intentionally shoots a bullet into a state is as subject to the judicial jurisdiction of [that] state ... as if he had actually fired the bullet in the state."
What's so stupid about them providing examples like this is that it ignores one of the most basic principles of the Internet - that it is an individual user that "pulls" information to himself. The publisher of information doesn't distribute to *anywhere* in the world except the server on which he or she places it.
I'm getting kind of tired of this.
The Entertainment industry wants us to consume but they want to control how and where we do this consumption. I keep thinking of the money fleeced from consumers by the invention of the CD - it was supposed to cut costs of album production, and it did, from ~$10 per to ~$1 per - but did the recording industry reduce prices to consumers?
Even now, the sludge-brains at the record companies are offering music on the internet for - surprise - the same price you'd pay for the CD at Wal-Mart. Gee - I have to sit through a download and then burn a CD and I get no cover art, no liner notes, no CD case, shit, I even have to provide the blank CD and I still have to pay $15 for an album?!
Gnrow!
Yah.
Somehow or another the giants must fall. The gigantic, monolithic, blood-sucking industry that surrounds all popular culture must fall. If it doesn't, freedom will. They can't ever be allowed to tell us what protocols we can use, what software we aren't allowed to own on the assumption that we might put it to illegal use. This cannot be allowed to happen!
There's no need anymore for NBC, Sony Records, United Artists as they stand. The status quo is gone. The future of artistic endeavor has to be: you put it up, you're honest and good, people visit your site and pull it down. No record companies, only music reviewers. No movie industry, just reviewers, etc. Artists and the trusted portals will be the champions, dissemination will be ubiquitous.
What this really means, of course, is that your Monday morning chat around the water-cooler will be highly eclectic, because there won't be any "Friends" or "Seinfelds" - we'll move in different circles.
I'm getting tired.
That is all.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
The guy's still an idiot, of course, but at least we can understand why.
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.