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. "
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.