Slashdot Mirror
Napster Court Date Set For October 2
DaHat writes: "According to Maximumpc.com the trial of Napster vs the RIAA is set for October 2nd, or at least round 1 of it." And just so we're clear on terms, DaHat points out that the MPC story goes on: "The RIAA has even been so kind as to educate the masses on the different terms used for illegal distribution - From the RIAA Web-site:
1. Pirate recordings are the unauthorized duplication of only the sound of legitimate recordings, as opposed to all the packaging, i.e. the original art, label, title, sequencing, combination of titles etc.
2. Counterfeit recordings are unauthorized recordings of the prerecorded sound as well as the unauthorized duplication of original artwork, label, trademark and packaging.
3. Bootleg recordings (or underground recordings) are the unauthorized recordings of a live concert, or a musical broadcast on radio or television.
4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet."
Lets have a "work boycott" of the RIAA and the MPAA.
No geeks take any jobs with any member company of either group.
If they want to be so hostile to us (sueing Napster, Mp3.com, 2600, etc) then lets not work for them.
Let's see how well they do as companies when thier tech level stays mid 1990's.
Hmmm.... Sounds kinda like Animal Farm. Keep changing the terms, then state that they were always that way.
What a crock of shit. I hope Napster and the RIAA both burn in hell. Piracy indeed. It's simply a license violation, a civil matter between the violators (not Napster, but the users) and the licensor (not the RIAA, that's for damn sure - usually a label).
Ban FTP; it can be used to illegally distribute stuff!
If streaming is bad now what happens when the RIAA figures out how to charge us for it will it all of a sudden no longer be illegal despite the fact that the artists will still see little to no money for their hard work?
Ripped-Off: An individual forced to pay more for a CD than a casette (even considering any possible differnce in manufacturing cost)
Harassed: Individuals who excercised their right to the free expression on an idea by linking/posting the DeCSS code
Bottom-Feeding Scumsukers: Lawers for the recording and motion-picture industries
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
Before you charge somebody with *anything*, you have to clearly define the charges. That's all the RIAA is doing. They are not looking down on people and trying to teach people lessons like little children, as the article implies.
The real Fake Bruce Perens has
> may now also include certain uses of 'streaming'
> technologies from the Internet."
them internet pirates be smart, they be...
arrrr...
well, if they can sue Napster, why the hell aren't they suing everybody who's ever created a device for making a duplicate of something. I find it fascinating that during the Industrial Revolution the ability to duplicate things was considered progress, and today it is considered a danger.
kick some CAD
So if I go to a concert with a recording device, copy the music to an mp3, then post a picture from the record on the site and make the mp3 freely available I would be a bootlegging counterfiting online pirate?
Bite my Napster!
But seriously, if these guys are going to ignore technology and try to fight progress, they're going to end up losing, no matter what the courts say. A ruling in their favor will only strengthen my resolve.
The fact is, this doesn't really matter a whole lot. Napster can lose, who cares. Opennap will take over.
Nobody cares about piracy, and this won't stop anyone from getting MP3s. I have Napigator. So stop me. You can't.
Nobody really cares about the legalities of it, and we all know it's piracy. Who cares? I just download a million songs, it's fine with me, it's free.
Music for free.
People without computers, or without large brains, will still buy cd's.
So I will still Nap mp3's and burn them and sell them. Do you want to sue me? So? I don't much care. Try and stop me, and my friends, and the billion other people in the world that don't care about you trying to maintain your source of income.
Well lets see Radio is ok, but shoutcast isn't? hmm I always thought radio was just a differnt streaming medium. A single broadcast that anyone cas tuen into at any time.
I wonder when it will be illegal to do personal rendition streaming (AKA Singing...)
Am I wrong, or is the RIAA trying to write-out fair use? I had always thought that recording a broadcast off the radio [or TV] for personal, private purposes was considered fair use! Wasn't the Betamax case all about just this?
And now the RIAA is trying to tag FAIR USE with the slur of "Bootleg Recordings". I cry foul.
You know, I would really like to see some discussions from IAAL types on what can be done to change IP law so that situations like this do not arise again. IMHO, the economic model which has given rise to the RIAA is outdated. This is not a Katzism, it is simply a fact. Peer-to-peer sharing is here to stay, and without totalitarian rule overseeing every file transfer, it cannot be stopped. This leads to only one conclusion, as far as I can tell: fundamentally changing IP law. This would involve pain, certainly.
The analogy to buggy whip manufacturers in the early days of automobiles is apt here, I think. I fear their lobbying power, however. Should they be vindicated in the halls of Congress, it will be to our collective injury and a further erosion of our liberties in the name of profits and corporate self-interests, which are not, again IMHO, all that important in the long run. Should the members of the RIAA go belly-up five years from now, the economy and the Republic will continue to thrive.
- Rev."if someone in your family dies and you inherit their CD collection, you'd better pay up, because you didn't pay for those CDs, your chilling-in-the-dirt relative did."
I don't think so. Those CDs were already paid for by the deceased when they were alive. If the RIAA wants to argue this, then you can tell them to kiss your @$$, since they are asking for money that they already have.
The sooner we get to true distributed file sharing (freenet - just try shutting it down!), the better. Napster will hold an interesting place in the history of media, but I think thats going to be the extent of its legacy.
/*
* Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus <derek@spider.com>
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
/*
* These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before
* calling engine() to do the main work.
*
* The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of
* the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to
* try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it
* actually adds anything to the security.
*
* The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied
* parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and
* the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised.
*
* The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first
* (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter.
*
* Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the
* code table driven in order to improve readability.
*
* Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even
* abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining
* the nature of the reordering it has to do.
*/
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output);
void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8};
byte scratch[10];
for(i = 9; i >= 0; --i)int i;
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(varient, scratch, key); }
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
* 4 -> !3
* 3 -> 4
* varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> !1
*/
void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d,
0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d,
0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05,
0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15};
byte scratch[10];
for(i = 9; i >= 0; --i)int i;
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key); }
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
* 4 -> 0
* 3 -> !1
* varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> 3
*/
void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e,
0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c,
0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f,
0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d};
byte scratch[10];
for(i = 9; i >= 0; --i)int i;
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key); }
/*
* We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to
* generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams
* are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final
* sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that
* 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer.
*
* The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of:
* x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1
*
* The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of: * x^15 + x^1 + 1
*
* I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus
* represent maximal-period LFSR's.
*
*
* Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in
* bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's
* are implemented in bit reversed order.
*
*/
static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, struct block const *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte carry;
/* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the * initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s->b[0] << 17) | (s->b[1] << 9) | ((s->b[2] & ~7) < < 1) | 8 | (s->b[2] & 7); lfsr1 = (s->b[3] << 9) | 0x100 | s->b[4];
++output;
carry = 0;
for(bit = 0, val = 0; bit < 8; ++bit) {do {
int bit;
byte val;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
o_lfsr0 = ((lfsr0 >> 24) ^ (lfsr0 >> 21) ^ (lfsr0 >> 20) ^ (lfsr0 >> 12)) & 1; lfsr0 = (lfsr0 << 1) | o_lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 16) ^ (lfsr1 >> 2)) & 1; lfsr1 = (lfsr1 << 1) | o_lfsr1;
#define BIT0(x) ((x) & 1)
#define BIT1(x) (((x) >> 1) & 1)
combined = !o_lfsr1 + carry + !o_lfsr0;
carry = BIT1(combined);
val |= BIT0(combined) << bit;
}
*--output = val; } while (--len > 0);
}
static byte Secret[];
static byte Varients[];
static byte Table0[];
static byte Table1[];
static byte Table2[];
static byte Table3[];
/*
* This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations
* one the same theme depending upon the choice in the
* varient parameter (0 - 31).
*
* The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into
* a 40 bit output.
* The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of
* the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed
* by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number
* generators.
*/
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output) {
byte cse, term, index;
struct block temp1;
struct block temp2;
byte bits[30];
int i;
/* Feed the secret into the input values such that
* we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then
* generate the bits to play with.
*/
for (i = 5; --i >= 0; )
temp1.b[i] = input[5 + i] ^ Secret[i] ^ Table2[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1);
/* This term is used throughout the following to
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = Varients[varient] ^ Table2[varient];
/* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = input[i]) {
index = bits[25 + i] ^ input[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; }
for(i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
index = bits[20 + i] ^ temp1.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp2.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; }
for(i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
index = bits[15 + i] ^ temp2.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp1.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index]; }
for(i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
index = bits[10 + i] ^ temp1.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp2.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index]; }
for(i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
index = bits[5 + i] ^ temp2.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; }
for(i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
index = bits[i] ^ temp1.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
output->b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; }
}
static byte Varients[] = {
0xB7, 0x74, 0x85, 0xD0, 0xCC, 0xDB, 0xCA, 0x73,
0x03, 0xFE, 0x31, 0x03, 0x52, 0xE0, 0xB7, 0x42,
0x63, 0x16, 0xF2, 0x2A, 0x79, 0x52, 0xFF, 0x1B,
0x7A, 0x11, 0xCA, 0x1A, 0x9B, 0x40, 0xAD, 0x01};
static byte Secret[] = {0x55, 0xD6, 0xC4, 0xC5, 0x28};
static byte Table0[] = {
0xB7, 0xF4, 0x82, 0x57, 0xDA, 0x4D, 0xDB, 0xE2,
0x2F, 0x52, 0x1A, 0xA8, 0x68, 0x5A, 0x8A, 0xFF,
0xFB, 0x0E, 0x6D, 0x35, 0xF7, 0x5C, 0x76, 0x12,
0xCE, 0x25, 0x79, 0x29, 0x39, 0x62, 0x08, 0x24,
0xA5, 0x85, 0x7B, 0x56, 0x01, 0x23, 0x68, 0xCF,
0x0A, 0xE2, 0x5A, 0xED, 0x3D, 0x59, 0xB0, 0xA9,
0xB0, 0x2C, 0xF2, 0xB8, 0xEF, 0x32, 0xA9, 0x40,
0x80, 0x71, 0xAF, 0x1E, 0xDE, 0x8F, 0x58, 0x88,
0xB8, 0x3A, 0xD0, 0xFC, 0xC4, 0x1E, 0xB5, 0xA0,
0xBB, 0x3B, 0x0F, 0x01, 0x7E, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0xD9,
0xAA, 0xB8, 0x3D, 0x9D, 0x74, 0x1E, 0x25, 0xDB,
0x37, 0x56, 0x8F, 0x16, 0xBA, 0x49, 0x2B, 0xAC,
0xD0, 0xBD, 0x95, 0x20, 0xBE, 0x7A, 0x28, 0xD0,
0x51, 0x64, 0x63, 0x1C, 0x7F, 0x66, 0x10, 0xBB,
0xC4, 0x56, 0x1A, 0x04, 0x6E, 0x0A, 0xEC, 0x9C,
0xD6, 0xE8, 0x9A, 0x7A, 0xCF, 0x8C, 0xDB, 0xB1,
0xEF, 0x71, 0xDE, 0x31, 0xFF, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x5E,
0x07, 0x69, 0x96, 0xB0, 0xCF, 0xDD, 0x9E, 0x47,
0xC7, 0x96, 0x8F, 0xE4, 0x2B, 0x59, 0xC6, 0xEE,
0xB9, 0x86, 0x9A, 0x64, 0x84, 0x72, 0xE2, 0x5B,
0xA2, 0x96, 0x58, 0x99, 0x50, 0x03, 0xF5, 0x38,
0x4D, 0x02, 0x7D, 0xE7, 0x7D, 0x75, 0xA7, 0xB8,
0x67, 0x87, 0x84, 0x3F, 0x1D, 0x11, 0xE5, 0xFC,
0x1E, 0xD3, 0x83, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x29, 0xF6, 0xC7,
0x15, 0x61, 0x29, 0x1A, 0x43, 0x4F, 0x9B, 0xAF,
0xC5, 0x87, 0x34, 0x6C, 0x0F, 0x3B, 0xA8, 0x1D,
0x45, 0x58, 0x25, 0xDC, 0xA8, 0xA3, 0x3B, 0xD1,
0x79, 0x1B, 0x48, 0xF2, 0xE9, 0x93, 0x1F, 0xFC,
0xDB, 0x2A, 0x90, 0xA9, 0x8A, 0x3D, 0x39, 0x18,
0xA3, 0x8E, 0x58, 0x6C, 0xE0, 0x12, 0xBB, 0x25,
0xCD, 0x71, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x64, 0xC6, 0xE7, 0xFB,
0xAD, 0x94, 0x77, 0x04, 0x9A, 0x39, 0xCF, 0x7C};
static byte Table1[] = {
0x8C, 0x47, 0xB0, 0xE1, 0xEB, 0xFC, 0xEB, 0x56,
0x10, 0xE5, 0x2C, 0x1A, 0x5D, 0xEF, 0xBE, 0x4F,
0x08, 0x75, 0x97, 0x4B, 0x0E, 0x25, 0x8E, 0x6E,
0x39, 0x5A, 0x87, 0x53, 0xC4, 0x1F, 0xF4, 0x5C,
0x4E, 0xE6, 0x99, 0x30, 0xE0, 0x42, 0x88, 0xAB,
0xE5, 0x85, 0xBC, 0x8F, 0xD8, 0x3C, 0x54, 0xC9,
0x53, 0x47, 0x18, 0xD6, 0x06, 0x5B, 0x41, 0x2C,
0x67, 0x1E, 0x41, 0x74, 0x33, 0xE2, 0xB4, 0xE0,
0x23, 0x29, 0x42, 0xEA, 0x55, 0x0F, 0x25, 0xB4,
0x24, 0x2C, 0x99, 0x13, 0xEB, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0xC9,
0xF9, 0x63, 0x67, 0x43, 0x2D, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x07,
0x60, 0x89, 0xD1, 0xCC, 0xE7, 0x94, 0x77, 0x74,
0x9B, 0x7E, 0xD7, 0xE6, 0xFF, 0xBB, 0x68, 0x14,
0x1E, 0xA3, 0x25, 0xDE, 0x3A, 0xA3, 0x54, 0x7B,
0x87, 0x9D, 0x50, 0xCA, 0x27, 0xC3, 0xA4, 0x50,
0x91, 0x27, 0xD4, 0xB0, 0x82, 0x41, 0x97, 0x79,
0x94, 0x82, 0xAC, 0xC7, 0x8E, 0xA5, 0x4E, 0xAA,
0x78, 0x9E, 0xE0, 0x42, 0xBA, 0x28, 0xEA, 0xB7,
0x74, 0xAD, 0x35, 0xDA, 0x92, 0x60, 0x7E, 0xD2,
0x0E, 0xB9, 0x24, 0x5E, 0x39, 0x4F, 0x5E, 0x63,
0x09, 0xB5, 0xFA, 0xBF, 0xF1, 0x22, 0x55, 0x1C,
0xE2, 0x25, 0xDB, 0xC5, 0xD8, 0x50, 0x03, 0x98,
0xC4, 0xAC, 0x2E, 0x11, 0xB4, 0x38, 0x4D, 0xD0,
0xB9, 0xFC, 0x2D, 0x3C, 0x08, 0x04, 0x5A, 0xEF,
0xCE, 0x32, 0xFB, 0x4C, 0x92, 0x1E, 0x4B, 0xFB,
0x1A, 0xD0, 0xE2, 0x3E, 0xDA, 0x6E, 0x7C, 0x4D,
0x56, 0xC3, 0x3F, 0x42, 0xB1, 0x3A, 0x23, 0x4D,
0x6E, 0x84, 0x56, 0x68, 0xF4, 0x0E, 0x03, 0x64,
0xD0, 0xA9, 0x92, 0x2F, 0x8B, 0xBC, 0x39, 0x9C,
0xAC, 0x09, 0x5E, 0xEE, 0xE5, 0x97, 0xBF, 0xA5,
0xCE, 0xFA, 0x28, 0x2C, 0x6D, 0x4F, 0xEF, 0x77,
0xAA, 0x1B, 0x79, 0x8E, 0x97, 0xB4, 0xC3, 0xF4};
static byte Table2[] = {
0xB7, 0x75, 0x81, 0xD5, 0xDC, 0xCA, 0xDE, 0x66,
0x23, 0xDF, 0x15, 0x26, 0x62, 0xD1, 0x83, 0x77,
0xE3, 0x97, 0x76, 0xAF, 0xE9, 0xC3, 0x6B, 0x8E,
0xDA, 0xB0, 0x6E, 0xBF, 0x2B, 0xF1, 0x19, 0xB4,
0x95, 0x34, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x37, 0x94, 0x5D, 0x7B,
0x36, 0x5F, 0x65, 0x53, 0x07, 0xE2, 0x89, 0x11,
0x98, 0x85, 0xD9, 0x12, 0xC1, 0x9D, 0x84, 0xEC,
0xA4, 0xD4, 0x88, 0xB8, 0xFC, 0x2C, 0x79, 0x28,
0xD8, 0xDB, 0xB3, 0x1E, 0xA2, 0xF9, 0xD0, 0x44,
0xD7, 0xD6, 0x60, 0xEF, 0x14, 0xF4, 0xF6, 0x31,
0xD2, 0x41, 0x46, 0x67, 0x0A, 0xE1, 0x58, 0x27,
0x43, 0xA3, 0xF8, 0xE0, 0xC8, 0xBA, 0x5A, 0x5C,
0x80, 0x6C, 0xC6, 0xF2, 0xE8, 0xAD, 0x7D, 0x04,
0x0D, 0xB9, 0x3C, 0xC2, 0x25, 0xBD, 0x49, 0x63,
0x8C, 0x9F, 0x51, 0xCE, 0x20, 0xC5, 0xA1, 0x50,
0x92, 0x2D, 0xDD, 0xBC, 0x8D, 0x4F, 0x9A, 0x71,
0x2F, 0x30, 0x1D, 0x73, 0x39, 0x13, 0xFB, 0x1A,
0xCB, 0x24, 0x59, 0xFE, 0x05, 0x96, 0x57, 0x0F,
0x1F, 0xCF, 0x54, 0xBE, 0xF5, 0x06, 0x1B, 0xB2,
0x6D, 0xD3, 0x4D, 0x32, 0x56, 0x21, 0x33, 0x0B,
0x52, 0xE7, 0xAB, 0xEB, 0xA6, 0x74, 0x00, 0x4C,
0xB1, 0x7F, 0x82, 0x99, 0x87, 0x0E, 0x5E, 0xC0,
0x8F, 0xEE, 0x6F, 0x55, 0xF3, 0x7E, 0x08, 0x90,
0xFA, 0xB6, 0x64, 0x70, 0x47, 0x4A, 0x17, 0xA7,
0xB5, 0x40, 0x8A, 0x38, 0xE5, 0x68, 0x3E, 0x8B,
0x69, 0xAA, 0x9B, 0x42, 0xA5, 0x10, 0x01, 0x35,
0xFD, 0x61, 0x9E, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x9C, 0x86, 0xED,
0xCD, 0x2E, 0xFF, 0xC4, 0x5B, 0xA0, 0xAE, 0xCC,
0x4B, 0x3B, 0x03, 0xBB, 0x1C, 0x2A, 0xAC, 0x0C,
0x3F, 0x93, 0xC7, 0x72, 0x7A, 0x09, 0x22, 0x3D,
0x45, 0x78, 0xA9, 0xA8, 0xEA, 0xC9, 0x6A, 0xF7,
0x29, 0x91, 0xF0, 0x02, 0x18, 0x3A, 0x4E, 0x7C};
static byte Table3[] = {
0x73, 0x51, 0x95, 0xE1, 0x12, 0xE4, 0xC0, 0x58,
0xEE, 0xF2, 0x08, 0x1B, 0xA9, 0xFA, 0x98, 0x4C,
0xA7, 0x33, 0xE2, 0x1B, 0xA7, 0x6D, 0xF5, 0x30,
0x97, 0x1D, 0xF3, 0x02, 0x60, 0x5A, 0x82, 0x0F,
0x91, 0xD0, 0x9C, 0x10, 0x39, 0x7A, 0x83, 0x85,
0x3B, 0xB2, 0xB8, 0xAE, 0x0C, 0x09, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x1C, 0xE1, 0x8D, 0x66, 0x4F, 0xF3, 0xDA, 0x92,
0x29, 0xB9, 0xD5, 0xC5, 0x77, 0x47, 0x22, 0x53,
0x14, 0xF7, 0xAF, 0x22, 0x64, 0xDF, 0xC6, 0x72,
0x12, 0xF3, 0x75, 0xDA, 0xD7, 0xD7, 0xE5, 0x02,
0x9E, 0xED, 0xDA, 0xDB, 0x4C, 0x47, 0xCE, 0x91,
0x06, 0x06, 0x6D, 0x55, 0x8B, 0x19, 0xC9, 0xEF,
0x8C, 0x80, 0x1A, 0x0E, 0xEE, 0x4B, 0xAB, 0xF2,
0x08, 0x5C, 0xE9, 0x37, 0x26, 0x5E, 0x9A, 0x90,
0x00, 0xF3, 0x0D, 0xB2, 0xA6, 0xA3, 0xF7, 0x26,
0x17, 0x48, 0x88, 0xC9, 0x0E, 0x2C, 0xC9, 0x02,
0xE7, 0x18, 0x05, 0x4B, 0xF3, 0x39, 0xE1, 0x20,
0x02, 0x0D, 0x40, 0xC7, 0xCA, 0xB9, 0x48, 0x30,
0x57, 0x67, 0xCC, 0x06, 0xBF, 0xAC, 0x81, 0x08,
0x24, 0x7A, 0xD4, 0x8B, 0x19, 0x8E, 0xAC, 0xB4,
0x5A, 0x0F, 0x73, 0x13, 0xAC, 0x9E, 0xDA, 0xB6,
0xB8, 0x96, 0x5B, 0x60, 0x88, 0xE1, 0x81, 0x3F,
0x07, 0x86, 0x37, 0x2D, 0x79, 0x14, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x73, 0xDF, 0x3D, 0x09, 0xC8, 0x25, 0x48, 0xD8,
0x75, 0x60, 0x9A, 0x08, 0x27, 0x4A, 0x2C, 0xB9,
0xA8, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x73, 0x62, 0x37, 0x16, 0x02,
0xBD, 0xC1, 0x0E, 0x56, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x14, 0x5F,
0x8C, 0x8F, 0x6E, 0x75, 0x1C, 0x07, 0x39, 0x7B,
0x4B, 0xDB, 0xD3, 0x4B, 0x1E, 0xC8, 0x7E, 0xFE,
0x3E, 0x72, 0x16, 0x83, 0x7D, 0xEE, 0xF5, 0xCA,
0xC5, 0x18, 0xF9, 0xD8, 0x68, 0xAB, 0x38, 0x85,
0xA8, 0xF0, 0xA1, 0x73, 0x9F, 0x5D, 0x19, 0x0B,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x33, 0x72, 0x39, 0x25, 0x67, 0x26, 0x6D, 0x71,
0x36, 0x77, 0x3C, 0x20, 0x62, 0x23, 0x68, 0x74,
0xC3, 0x82, 0xC9, 0x15, 0x57, 0x16, 0x5D, 0x81};
/*
* css-cat.c
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus.
*
* Released under version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Decode selected sector types from a CSS encoded DVD to stdout. Use as a * filter on the input to mpeg2player or ac3dec.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h> /* __linux__ */
#include <stdlib.h>
#if defined(__linux__)
# include <getopt.h>
#endif
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include "css-descramble.h"
static struct playkey pkey1a1 = {0x36b, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a1 = {0x762, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b1 = {0x36b, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a2 = {0x2f3, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a2 = {0x730, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b2 = {0x2f3, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a3 = {0x235, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey1b3 = {0x235, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey3a1 = {0x249, {0xb7,0x3f,0xd4,0xaa,0x14}}; /* DVD specific ?
*/
static struct playkey pkey4a1 = {0x028, {0x53,0xd4,0xf7,0xd9,0x8f}}; /* DVD specific ?
*/
static struct playkey *playkeys[] = {
&pkey1a1, &pkey2a1, &pkey1b1,
&pkey1a2, &pkey2a2, &pkey1b2,
&pkey1a3, &pkey1b3,
&pkey3a1, &pkey4a1,
NULL};
static unsigned char disk_key[2048];
static unsigned char title_key[5];
static unsigned char sector[2048];
unsigned long sectors = 0;
unsigned long crypted = 0;
unsigned long skipped = 0;
int do_all = 0;
int do_video = 0;
int do_ac3 = 0;
int do_mpg = 0;
int verbose = 0;
int keep_pack = 0;
int keep_pes = -1;
#define STCODE(p,a,b,c,d) ((p)[0] == a && (p)[1] == b && (p)[2] == c && (p)[3] == d)
static void un_css(int fdi, int fdo)
{
unsigned char *sp, *pes;
int writen, wr, peslen, hdrlen;
while (read(fdi, sector, 2048) == 2048) {
++sectors;
if (!STCODE(sector,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xba)) {
fputs("Not Pack start code\n", stderr);
++skipped; continue;
}
if (do_all)
goto write_it;
pes = sector + 14 + (sector[13] & 0x07);
if (STCODE(pes,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xbb)) {/* System Header Pack Layer */ peslen = (pes[0x04] << 8) + pes[0x05];
pes += peslen + 6;
}
if (pes[0x00] || pes[0x01] || pes[0x02] != 0x01 || pes[0x03] < 0xbc) { ++skipped; continue; /* MPEG Audio */
goto write_it; /* AC3 Audio */
}
peslen = (pes[0x04] << 8) + pes[0x05];
hdrlen = pes[0x08] + 6 + 3;
if ((pes[0x03] & 0xf0) == 0xe0) {
if (do_video)
goto write_it;
} else if (do_mpg && pes[0x03] == (0xc0 | (do_mpg - 1))) {
} else if (pes[0x03] == 0xbd) {
if (do_ac3) {
int audiotrack = do_ac3 - 1;
if (pes[hdrlen] == (0x80|(audiotrack & 7))) {
hdrlen += 4;
goto write_it;
}
}
} else
++skipped;
continue;
write_it:
if (sector[20] & 0x30) {
++crypted;
css_descramble(sector, title_key);
sector[20] &= 0x8f;
}
writen = 0;
if (keep_pack)
sp = sector, peslen = 2048;
else if (keep_pes)
sp = pes, peslen = 2048 - (pes - sector);
else
sp = pes + hdrlen, peslen -= hdrlen - 6;
do {
wr = write(fdo, sp, peslen - writen);
sp += wr;
writen += wr;
} while (wr > 0 && writen < peslen);
}
}
static void usage_exit(void)
{
fputs("usage: css-cat [-t title-no] [-m mpeg-audio-no ] [-avPp12345678] vob_file\n", stderr); exit(2);
}
static char *title = "1";
static int parse_args(int ac, char **av)
/* fall through */
{
int c;
opterr = 0;
while (1)
switch((c = getopt(ac, av, "at:Ppvm:01234567"))) {
case 'a':
do_all = 1;
case 'P':
keep_pack = 1;
break;
case 'p':
keep_pes = 1;
break;
case 't':
title = optarg;
break;
case 'v':
do_video = 1;
++keep_pes;
break;
case 'm':
if ((do_mpg = atoi(optarg)) < 1 || do_mpg > 32)
usage_exit();
++keep_pes;
break;
case '1': case '2': case '3': case '4':
case '5': case '6': case '7': case '8':
do_ac3 = c - '0';
++keep_pes;
break;
case EOF:
goto got_args;
default:
usage_exit();
break;
}
got_args:
keep_pes = (keep_pes > 0) ? 1 : 0;
return optind; }
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
int ai, fd;
char titlef[12];
if ((fd = open("disk-key", O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open disk-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, disk_key, 2048) != 2048) {
perror("can't read disk-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if ((ai = parse_args(ac, av)) >= ac)
usage_exit();
strcpy(titlef, "title");
strcat(titlef, title);
strcat(titlef, "-key");
if ((fd = open(titlef, O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open title-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, title_key, 5) != 5) {
perror("can't read title-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if (strcmp(av[ai], "-") == 0)
fd = 0;
else if ((fd = open(av[ai], O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
fputs("can't open VOB file ", stderr);
fputs(av[ai], stderr);
perror("");
exit(1);
}
if (!css_decrypttitlekey(title_key, disk_key, playkeys)) {
close(fd);
return 3;
}
un_css(fd, 1);
fprintf(stderr, "Total %lu, skipped %lu, crvid %lu\n",
sectors, skipped, crypted);
close(fd);
return 0; }
/*
* 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 <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include "css-descramble.h"
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys *
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e, 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a, 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f,
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98, 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c, 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75,
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c, 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95,
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18, 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a, 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f,
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e, 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe, 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a, 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f,
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8, 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c, 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc, 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5,
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78, 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa, 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
};
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=, 0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a, 0x19,0x18,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c, 0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a,
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e, 0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41, 0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47,
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53, 0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55,
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65, 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77, 0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73,0x70,0x71,
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a, 0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88, 0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe, 0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac, 0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa,
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3, 0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5,
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1, 0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7,
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7, 0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5, 0xe6,0xe7,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
};
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
};
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
/* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
*/ static byte bit_reverse[256]=, 0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98, 0x58,0xd8,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94, 0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4,
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c, 0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc,
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92, 0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2,
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a, 0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96, 0x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e, 0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe,
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91, 0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1,
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99, 0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95, 0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5,
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d, 0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd,
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93, 0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3,
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b, 0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb,
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97, 0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f, 0x5f,0xdf,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
};
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
/*
*
* 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] << 17) | (im[3] << 9) | (im[2] << 1)) + 8 - (im[2] &7); lfsr0 = (bit_reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<24) | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>8)&0xff] << 16) | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<8) | bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>24) &0xff];
combined = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)<<8) ^ o_lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 = bit_reverse[o_lfsr1];
/*o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>19);*/ o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0<<24);
combined += (o_lfsr0 ^ invert) + o_lfsr1;
k[i] = combined & 0xff;
combined >>= 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)
for(; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
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) << 17) | (SALTED(3) << 9) | (SALTED(2) << 1)) + 8 - (SALTED(2)&7);
lfsr0= (bit_reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<24) | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0> >8)&0xff] << 16) | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<8) | bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>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)<<8) ^ o_lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 = bit_reverse[o_lfsr1];
/*o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>19);*/ o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0<<24);
combined += o_lfsr0 + (byte)~o_lfsr1;
*sec++ = csstab1[*sec] ^ (combined&0xff);
combined >>= 8;
}
}
/*
* A noddy program for getting and printing some info from the
* DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include <sys/dvdio.h>
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include <linux/cdrom.h>
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int GetASF(int fd)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_ASF;
ai.lsasf.agid = 0;
ai.lsasf.asf = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai)) {
printf("GetASF failed\n");
return 0;
}
printf("%sAuthenticated\n", (ai.lsasf.asf) ? "" : "not ");
return 1; }
int GetPhysical(int fd)
{
dvd_struct d;
int layer = 0, layers = 4;
d.physical.type = DVD_STRUCT_PHYSICAL;
while (layer < layers) {
d.physical.layer_num = layer;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_READ_STRUCT, &d)<0)
{
printf("Could not read Physical layer %d\n", layer); return 0;
}
layers = d.physical.layer[layer].nlayers + 1;
printf("Layer %d[%d]\n", layer, layers);
printf(" Book Version: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].book_version); printf(" Book Type: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].book_type); printf(" Min Rate: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].min_rate); printf(" Disk Size: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].disc_size); printf(" Layer Type: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].layer_type); printf(" Track Path: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].track_path); printf(" Num Layers: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].nlayers); printf(" Track Density: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].track_density); printf(" Linear Density: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].linear_density); printf(" BCA: %d\n", d.physical.layer[layer].bca); printf(" Start Sector %#x\n", d.physical.layer[layer].start_sector); printf(" End Sector %#x\n", d.physical.layer[layer].end_sector); printf(" End Sector L0 %#x\n", d.physical.layer[layer].end_sector_l0);
++layer; }
return 1; }
int GetCopyright(int fd)
{
dvd_struct d;
d.copyright.type = DVD_STRUCT_COPYRIGHT;
d.copyright.layer_num = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_READ_STRUCT, &d)<0)
{
printf("Could not read Copyright Struct\n");
return 0;
}
printf("Copyright: CPST=%d, RMI=%#02x\n", d.copyright.cpst, d.copyright.rmi);
return 1; }
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
int fd;
char *device = DVD;
if (ac > 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd < 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
GetASF(fd);
GetPhysical(fd);
GetCopyright(fd);
return 0; }
/*
* A noddy program which tries to reset all AGID's on the DVD-ROM drive. */
#include<stdio.h>
#include<fcntl.h>
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include <sys/dvdio.h>
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include <linux/cdrom.h>
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include<sys/ioctl.h>
#include<errno.h>
static int fd;
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
char *device = DVD;
int i;
if (ac > 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd < 0) {
for(i = 0; i < 4; i++) {printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof(ai)); ai.type = DVD_INVALIDATE_AGID; ai.lsa.agid = i; ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai);
}
return 0; }
I like Weird Al's site sagabegins.com and the others that have streaming. I nice way to test if the T1 is realy working.
I guess those site need to be blocked by a netnanny.
Four little words
How the record industry used a tiny legislative amendment to try to steal recording copyrights from artists -- forever.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Aug. 28, 2000
Four little words
Go to riaa.org and read their side. Yes, it's mostly propaganda, but in a way so are the stories we get here.
Once again, for good measure: gratuitous link.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Like a network of irc servers, there must be some Pier-to-Pier replacement for napster?
If each user on the napster server could also be a server, then there would be no way that they could "Shut it down".
Also, I think that napster should be protected by the same law that protects ISPs from users who infringe on copywrites.
In 1922, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) felt gravely threatened by a newfangled technology called 'Radio', which they saw as a threat to their once lucrative profit streams.
Initially, ASCAP threatened to prosecute radio stations for playing their music, but eventually realised that they could not combat the rise of this 'Radio'. Instead they tried to milk it by setting up huge royalty fees (about $5000) to dissuade smaller stations and profit from larger ones.
In 1923 the radio stations banded together to fight ASCAP and formed BMI (Broadcast Music Incorporated) to try and break the monopoly ASCAP held over almost all recorded music.
At the time all the big sellers (the metallicas of this world) were with ASCAP, but BMI signed strange new artists with newfangled sounds like 'Rock n Roll' and 'R&B'. ASCAP arrogantly increased their royalties by 70% to try and kill off radio.
During the depression radio had a boom, and ASCAP brought in the lawsuits, in the infamous Waring case taking a radio station to the supreme court.
Instead of dying, radio thrived as a channel for this Rock n Roll sound, championed by popular personality DJs like Alan Freed and supported by lurative advertising. BMI's artists profited immensley and gained for the first time a huge amount of worldwide attention as their music was broadcast around.
I'll let you guess what happened from there on in. Feel free to draw parallels.
They define piracy as copying...
But doesn't "fair use" state that you can copy both for your own backup or to transer to a seperate medium as long as you don't listen to more than one at one time. Thus you can copy your CD's to Tapes (And MP3s) as long as you don't give them to someone else. In fact, even putting them up on your webserver should be legal, as it's just the same as showing someone (not playing mind you, just showing) a cassette tape or CD. They're the ones who are clicking download (which is when the copying actually takes place).
Hmmm, maybe they should sue the makers of all tape recorders, cd burners, and anything else that actually can be used to create copies.
Go take a look at Microsoft's software liscense agreements.
The record companies tried the pull the same shit wrt used CD stores, but they got (rightfully) shot down.
hell, if you're gonna ban the FTP protocol...you might as well ban computers, since if it wasn't for 'puters, we couldn't be making illegal recordings anyways... and then sue Microsoft for creating Windows which made computers popular... don't forget AOL since they essentially brought the internet to everyone's computers... AOL also owns Winamp, which is the primary mp3 player used on Windows also sue all the CDR hardware/software manufacturers for making it possible to create audio CDs from mp3s... hell, while at it, ehy not make it even more pathetic: sue radio stations for overplaying music and hence making it popular, and in effect increasing the chances it would be illegally pirated ...the phone companies for creating faster internet access, which has resulted in much higher-quality mp3s being transferred, for full cd-quality sound (and no, 128k is not cd-quality sound)
each and every website that has the word "mp3" on it (if the MPAA can sue against the First Amendment, why the hell can't the RIAA?)
hey, and why not sue me, for defamatory comments?
Fuck you MPAA/RIAA/Big Business....
When you begin protecting copyrights for the benefit of the artist, go sue, and i'll be on your side...but until that happens, not only are mp3 users against you, but many bands too (ie: Courtney Love, Radiohead, to name a few)...
Let artists keep their copyrights (it's not work-for-hire) and then defend the rights, or at least give them some (a fair amount) of the winnings from the lawsuits you win..
my $.03
I just don't get it. I really don't see what the problem is with Napster. Setting aside all the legal bullshit, the main fear of the RIAA and the Big Five is the loss of control over distribution. If the Big Five have less control over distribution, then they have less power to set and control price levels (which I might add is still considered perfectly legal). The reason that you pay AU$30 for a CD is not because it costs that much to make or that the artist gets even a tiny fraction out of it. It's because the only way you can get it is through a long chain of distributors, stores and other assorted middlemen all taking a piece of the big money pie. The artist doesn't get jackshit and the record companies get fat off the profits.
This is EXACTLY the reason why the rise of MP3 was so rapid. Suddenly, you could get music for FREE! Now the RIAA and the Big Five are complaining that MP3 means lost music sales. This is bullshit and a smokescreen for the distribution control agenda outlined above. Research shows that despite online piracy music sales have increased. Did you hear that you greedy fat-ass music executive leech? Increased! MP3 has allowed music lovers to experience more kinds of music, therefore increasing their range of tastes and subsequent need to buy.
Which makes the whole fear of nobody paying for music seem kinda silly doesn't it?
Self Bias Resistor
"The human brain is like an enormous fish. It's grey, slimy and has gills through which it can see." -Monty Python
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
I once saw a TV show where a peace officer interviened in a shootout. The policeman got hurt and is now suing the perpetrator, AS WELL as the company that manufactured the weapon that hurt him. But the cop's weapon was OK? Blaming Napster for users committing piracy would be correct. Blaming Napster for what their users do, is rather stupid. The RIAA does in fact endorse CD distributions. Well, these are extremely easy to copy. Well, why doesn't the RIAA sue Sony, Panasonic, Plextor, Mitsumi and all the other myriads of CD-R manufacturers? In my opinion, the RIAA should be sued by the government a la Microsoft. Antitrust and monopoly. However, how does one boycott the RIAA? Not working for them? That may hurt them in the long run, but there will always be MCSE's that like fortune and glory. Can we stop buying CD's and just rip off the various artists out there? Sure, but that's not right either... As long as the RIAA is allowed to exist in the form it does today, it will roam free like a beast on a rampage. And YOU, my friend, will be watching... "Wars are won by politicians and lost by innocents" von Clausewitz
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
What the entire lawsuit is trying to decide? I don't think that just because they say so its neccessarily illegal.
If not now, when?
The key issue is one of fair use. This murky item will eventually have to be resolved by the higher courts. I say, get this lower court ruling out of the way. Let's go to the next level. It's going to happen regardless of what ruling the lower court issues.
Another key issue is intent. This is Napster's stumbling block at this time. Can a legitimate use of this technology be identified? Yes. Is this solely for the purposes of circumventing copyright laws? No. Find a serious legitimate use, then this case will be eventually tossed out as it infringes on rights. The problem with napster, is that it is a business plan at this time is dubious. Things like gnutella are not.
DeCSS is also in this realm. Find any sort of legitimate use, then the courts will eventually toss out the case. The technology cannot be banned.
All of this is intramural football in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling. There is an important election (actually all elections are important) that is coming up. Choose wisely. Remember, the next President may nominate the Supreme Court Justice that casts the deciding vote on these issues. We do not want another Scalia and his lap-dog Thomas deciding these issues.
While this at first looks like a simple definition of terms it's more then that. The fourth 'definition' is a good example:
4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet."
Here the term 'license violation' or 'unauthorised uploading' is replaced with a much stronger term 'Online piracy' including all the prejudices that come with the term 'piracy'. Note the comparatively harmless sound (since we are already used to it) of 'Bootleg'.
I really wonder who cooked up these terms, internet piracy is not common language yet and so i wouldn't accept that term were i the defense. The RIAA members surely wouldn't like to be called 'social parasites' throughout the process, 'just for 'convenience sake', and no, 'social parasite' wouldn't be an abuse, merely a definition.
Interestingly while pretending to provide 'clear terms and definitions' they then proceed to make it vague by including "certain uses of `streaming' technologies" as if 'uploading' wasn't already very inprecise to start with.
Why didn't they use a definition like "providing unauthorized public access to copyrighted music via the internet". That would be a much clearer definition. But i think they want to get an exemplary case which they then can further extend and apply to other forms of music exchange via the net (is it also forbidden to send a music-file to a friend, maybe even one i got of one of his own CD's?).
As long as they don't redefine 'uploading' or 'streaming' their term 'internet piracy' doesn't apply at all to napster. The music files aren't 'uploaded' to some central server, they are copied peer to peer (the only thing that is 'uploaded' is a list of names), and the copying process is a simple file transmission via the internet and wouldn't be termed 'streaming'. The only 'uploading' of music files that takes place is the copying of music on a personal PC which may well be 'authorized use' if a person chooses to use his PC as a CD player (in about ten years time you probably can't clearly distinguish between PC and CD-player anyway).
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Why not try to change laws you don't like instead of blatantly breaking them? It doesn't make your case look good. Thats the same as killing a bunch of people in protest of murder laws.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You have a good point here. I make yogurt at home. I go and buy a little container of dannon which contains live yogurt cultures. I then use that dannon yogurt as my starter to make large quantities of my own yogurt. Once the cycle is started I can continue to use a little bit of my own left over yogurt as the starter for the next batch. I know people that have kept making new yogurt from the left over yogurt of previous batches for 5 years. That's a hell of a lot of yogurt not purchased! However, that is a lot of milk that IS purchased.
I have taught some friends of mine to do this as well. We buy more milk than most people but we buy don't need to buy yogurt anymore. Here are my questions:
Am I unlawfully duplicating this yogurt? I can make copy after copy metaphorically speaking. Is dannon going to sue me if I post a recipe of how to make yogurt - DeCSS anyone? Will I be facilitating the unlawful duplication of lactobacillus acidophilus cultures? Maybe linking to "make your own yogurt" web sites will get me into trouble. The world we live in is becoming a befuddled mess!
Okay, let's see. I went to their site (forwards to mp3.com actually) and right now I'm downloading Encrypt/Decrypt. 61% done...
(sits idly waiting for remaining 39%)
(Completed. Plays song...)
(hearing song) Hey it's good! Kinda "Depeche Mode Meets The Matrix". Go for it people. You know, I could get used to acquiring all my new music this way. I knew those Tux CDRs I bought from Copyleft would be useful some day. ;-P
I have a feeling that we as a society have been down this path before, and we fail to learn from our history.
Prior to the invention of the movable type printing press, in order to copy a book or other paper it required someone sitting down with a pen and paper and doing it by hand.
Prior to this technology it was very difficult to mass produce literature, and as such books were incredibly rare and expensive.
I guess the point is, the copyright laws were pretty much created to combat the problems the new technology generated. Do you think now that there is new technology that makes it even easier to copy books or music the laws will not be strengthened rather than removed?
It is not unthinkable as we start to flesh out the problems of the Internet that we will see more police involvement. There have been reports of huge problems with pedophilia, identity theft, fraud, breaking into systems, etc. over the years. The Internet is drawing attention to itself, and many people are outraged by the stories they hear.
Your claim that it can't be stopped is rather naive. As our country grew westward in the 19th century we had bad people doing bad things and getting away with it, also thinking that they could not be stopped because the land was so wide and they could hide easily.
That obviously changed as the land became more populated, and tax dollars were spent hiring law enforcement officers.
The Internet will most likely evolve in a similar fashion.
As far as the issue there are with crossing nation borders, those can be dealt with as well by cooperation between police agencies. The same technology that connects citizens can also be used to connect police agencies. Perhaps the need for such enforcement will result in cooperation and a world government.
It's hard to say... There's a whole future ahead of us. There aren't very many people who want to live in a lawless anarchy, and as such our society will adapt to bring order to the chaos, or at least try to.
>>Bootleg recordings (or underground recordings) are the unauthorized recordings of a live concert, or a musical broadcast on radio or television.
Although I know concerts and live performances are off limits, I always thought it was legal to record off of the TV or Radio. Am I wrong? Or has the Non-Entertainment cartel just changed the rules on us? Or are they just lying? Not that I really have a great desire to record the ssu-re-gi they play on the radio anyway, but it was always comforting to at least know I could if I wanted to.
Do not teach Confucius to write Characters
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
...or rather let the artists and the open source community work together to create a an electronic marketplace that does not involve the riaa. I read an interesting article on osopinion.com that really intrigues me. I have posted a few quotes from the article to give you an idea of the possible future. I highly encourage you to read the original article - Here is the link in plain text(I wouldn't want to break any laws):-)
D avidNimmons1.html
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/DavidNimmons/
Mr. Nimmons basically says open source has the answer. Mr. Nimmons speaks of "a foundation run by musicians for musicians, will exist for the sole purpose of supporting musicians, providing the infrastructure and services presently supplied by the record companies." Secondly, Mr. Nimmons also states "By collaborating with the free software community, the foundation will provide the music community with an electronic marketplace to sell their work and services directly to consumers."
He concludes, "We,the free software community, help the music community establish an electronic marketplace and they pay us a portion of their proceeds to run and maintain the system and also to fund future development of software specific to their needs." I believe this man has an answer to a problem that could be beneficial, both financially and socially, to artists and the open source community. Fellow open source followers, here is our chance to do away with the riaa and to free the artists from the clutches of greedy corporations... let's jump on this opportunity!
We've always had this idea of distributed sharing on the internet for as long as I've been connected... since the late 1980's anyway.
They were called FTP sites. Later we had fsp, and then after that came the Web.
These technologies worked great except that nobody knew you existed unless you advertised. From that concept came the directory services... WAIS and then later yahoo, lycos, altavista, etc.
Napster came out and provided a directory service which catered solely to the purpose of finding pirated music. So yes, they were an easy target to shut down, a directory service that all connected to.
But the idea that you will do peer to peer networking on a grand scale is technically flawed. Anybody who has ever tried to manage a large network of Win95 machines running NetBEUI would understand this.
As the network grows larger, the percentage of network bandwidth which is required to maintain the connections between the nodes, passing queries for services, etc. grows at an almost exponential pace... until at some point you are using more bandwidth handling the overhead than actually sharing data.
Nobody will need to shut down freenet, it will collapse under it's own weight, or it will remain niche and isolated and a bother to nobody.
Napster was a technically sound solution, it was unfortunately ethically and legally flawed.
This article at Salon.com describes how the RIAA suceeded in getting "four little words" added to the copyright light via Congress, that would essentially give them full ownership of all music written by musicians under contract within the past 30 years. Until now, after 35 years, the musician could reclaim copyright ownership, if they wanted to peddle their music to another distributor.
Fortunately, according to the article, an observant pro-musician lobbyist discovered it, and after a huge uproar, negative media, and explaining things to congress, the RIAA has requested Congress to nullify the terms that negatively impact musicians.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Wow. I had no idea that the RIAA members were fans of Star Trek.
;)
You see, there's this classic rule in Trek, known as the 'Rule of Three.' The idea is, name two things that are real, and then, in order to make it plain that it's similar but futuristic, name one made up thing. i.e.: "the great philosophers, Plato and Decartes and Surak."
In the case of the RIAA annoucement, they've named three forms of copyright infringement and are pretending that the fourth is too.
Now I just want to know who their favorite character is
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Never thought I'd say it, but here I am. That article is _very_ informative (if it's true).
Tweet, tweet.
Note that social pressures such as the risk of imprisonment, as well as technical barriers such as locks and keys, are hardly foolproof protections against theft. Yet a small percentage of the population is willing to shoulder the risk, and a sophisticated thief will be able to defeat locks, keys, and even electronic alarm systems. But if you forget to lock the door to your flat one morning, chances are good that all your stuff will still be there when you get home from work that evening, because most people who notice that it is unlocked will not steal anything for fear of getting caught and jailed.
All the RIAA (this was The Man in the '60s) needs to do is make so scary to share MP3s that 80% of Napster users drop off the network. Since the Napster network derives its value from people who participate, increasing risk and cost of participation will decrease the value of the network, and Napster will cease to be much of a problem to the RIAA.
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Umm, what does DeCSS have to do with Napster?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
This is very stupid, they're getting nowhere trying to sue napster, the record industry should find other ways to sell their music, instead of cds and tapes. Why not sell the music on a napster-like-network, which anyone could access it by paying a monthly or yearly fee, somehting like that. The record industry doesnt sell CD's , it sells music, they have to find the way to sell it using the latest technologies.
I'm totally on side of napster. Is there anyway to donate anything I might have to help?
AK
yeah that's definatly the same day as my birthday. happy birthday pat woo woo.
1337
...Metallica said specifically that their intent was to put Napster out of business. Plain and simple. Their act of submitting the names of those 300,000 some-odd names was just to throw in Napster's face it's own TOS. It simply underscored their lawsuit.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Keep repainting the manifesto on the side of the barn in the middle of the night. Eventually, you end up with "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Serious about your frustration with the RIAA and corporatism in general? Try Civil Disobedience. No, really. Be willing to get arrested for possessing the tools we take for granted. I am. But read on...
First, a summary, since this is long and will get chopped:
-
We can't win if we look like the bad guys. Therefore,
we must clean up our act, both public and private, and be
willing to address the real, underlying concerns of our
fellow artists and consumers.
-
Corporations don't trust individuals; individuals don't
trust corporations. Therefore, we must gather all of the
individuals together on our side, artists and consumers
alike, instead of allowing the corporations to divide us.
-
The future is change; everyone is scared. The industry
is afraid, but also opportunistic. It believes it can secure a
future for itself built by legally forcing nature to behave
itself. It attacks the fears of consumers to create this legal
impetus.
-
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is worrisome. Individual
artists are afraid that if they open themselves up to a
meritocracy, they'll be raped. We have counterexamples, and we
also need to set expectations.
We can't win if we look like the bad guysBefore you don your DeCSS Shirt, it's important that we get our act together and learn the very powerful art of spin . Don't sneer and say that's beneath us. Right now, the RIAA and MPAA are mobilizing a very powerful political engine. They are engaging in a classic tactic, painting our community's members as pirates and criminals in the public's eye. It's our job to spin right back at them, to recast the debate in terms that make us clearly the good guys, and them clearly the corporate Goliath, out to trample the rights of individual artists and consumers. Here's how...
Start giving props to artists. Start decrying the fact that there's no widely available, secure, trustable infrastructure for "tipping". Start pitting the labels against the individual artists, whom you would compensate directly, if there were a reliable means to do so. Blame the corporate hegemony for this situation. Traditional corporations exist for one reason alone: profit ; profit to the exclusion of all else, including the rights of artists, and the rights of individual consumers. Start pitting the labels against consumers, by using inflammatory phrases like "abrogation of our rights" and "corporate hegemony" (please understand what they mean and be able to defend them calmly, though). As soon as we can swing the focus of our fellow consumers' mistrust and cynicism to the industry, as soon as we can paint ourselves the David in this battle, we will begin changing things.
The reasons for this are simple:
My freshman year in college, someone stole 250 CDs from my dorm room. 250 CDs that I had worked very hard to afford, and had worked very hard to acquire (many rare imports, anime, etc.). I felt hurt, violated, confused, angry, and all of that. The RIAA and MPAA are trying to connect with those feelings in the consumer public.
We need to be going for the same connection, while also making the connection between individual freedom and liberty. We need to make it clear that we're all for just compensation, and that we don't need Goliath's hand to ensure that compensation. We need to show our fellow consumers that the industry is just in the game for the sake of revenue, and that they don't give a damn about consumer rights, nor do they trust consumers in the least. Yet they ask for our trust that they will justly compensate artists, that they will respect our rights to fair use, that they will treat us as equals (IANAL, but a corporation is legally considered a person.)
Corporations don't trust individuals; individuals don't trust corporationsThe RIAA and MPAA would have you believe that every artist and "legitimate consumer" out there is on their side, and that everyone else is a pirate. We know that's wrong, but what do we do about it?
Get all the individuals on the same side. Artists are individuals. Consumers are individuals. Everything in between the two is corporate infrastructure. The internet makes that corporatism irrelevant to the kind of relationships we could be building with our fellow individuals.
If I play your song, and I like it, I'll give you a tip. If I play it all the damned time, I'll give you big tips, frequently. If Metallica pulled their heads out, they'd understand that they'd make a lot more from me letting me tip them than they are right now, since I won't buy anything new of theirs (even though I really want to).
The future is change; everyone is scaredThings we've taken for granted, as a society, as individuals, and as corporations, are all in the process of changing dramatically and radically. Specifically, traditional notions of property become more meaningless with each passing day. We know how to treat tangible items as property (you're stealing it if you deprive me of it without my consent), but we don't know how to treat intangibles as property; after all, if you copy it from me, how are you depriving me of it?
And if you think that distinction is cut-and-dried, and that it just means we need two classes of property, intellectual and tangible, think again. What's going to happen in a decade or three when nano-technology makes tangible property available to anyone with a handful of garbage, a replicator, and a design?
Now, it's understandable that corporations might be afraid. After all, they might disappear. Or have to reinvent themselves radically. I think they're pretty well aware of that fact. The issue, ultimately, is one of control. The industry wants to control its destiny, but it doesn't have that kind of power. It seeks to create that power, artificially, by lobbying to create laws like the DMCA, that curtail individual rights that are far more powerful than they were when they were granted, 225 years ago, before there was an Internet.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to be controlled by a corporation. I want the freedom to interact with my fellow individuals, to share and communicate and transact by our own rules. I want to write code and trust that you'll compensate me for it justly. And I do. Literally. I have a 100% GPL clause for the work I do. And I trust the community and individuals to be faithful to one another, and to support one another. I don't need a law or a corporation to enforce what ought to be human decency.
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is worrisomeThe idea that some people will steal all the goodies is worrisome. They can't. Unlike the commons about which "The Tragedy of the Commons" was written, you can't trample up the grass around an artist. You can't turn a director into mud by copiously copying her work.
You can refrain from contributing to their livelihood. You can enjoy their work and simply not tip them, even though you can afford to tip them. Fine. We already have a really good term for that in place: cheap asshole. Perhaps we could get it made into a legal term?
Anyway, there are natural responses to the problem of the cheap asshole. The first is the pillory, metaphorically speaking. A good tipping infrastructure will allow you to leave your tips either anonymously or with credit. An advogato-like trust metric will allow folks to rate your generosity in comparison to your means. A well-deployed micro-accounting infrastructure will make artists, producers, technicians, and so forth, accountable for how they spend the tips in pursuit of their art. All of that means that assholes will be highlighted in red, and the object of public scorn.
This is as it should be, and there is a long tradition of such treatment. Read A Christmas Carol if you doubt me. Everyone hated Scrooge because he was... well, you know. A c.a.
The second is based on what I call "laws of information physics". The two fundamental laws of information physics are:
These laws can be exploited to prevent the c.a.'s from propagating:
Such infrastructure can be exploited in a lot of other ways that bring back our ability to trust one another, and to build community even in the massive scale of the Internet and a global economy. People who've had hard times could "get a break." Or if you're a real hard-liner about people overcoming circumstance, you could set your own metrics to shun anyone who claimed hard times, or anyone who was rich without working for it, and not generous with their wealth. "The possibilities," as they say, "are limitless."
Getting there from hereI'd recap, but you can scroll to the top for that. The bottom line is that we need to pay attention to the fears and concerns of our fellow individuals, and address those, and not just go spouting off about how we're going to do whatever we please and the industry can't stop us. We all believe the industry can't stop us, because ultimately, we can hide. But who wants to hide? And who wants a world in which sharing is a criminal act? So don't feed their fire. Help your fellow artists, consumers, individuals understand how we can build a better future together, without corporate hegemony.
And be prepared to get arrested in the meantime. But when you do, make sure you come off sane, rational, and reasonable. Make it clear that the man is putting you down. If you're not calm, careful, and likable, your fellow consumers and artists are going to see exactly what the RIAA and MPAA want them to see. And away goes your freedom and their freedom.
P.S. I'd have crossposted this to advogato, but I'm not certified by anyone as having done anything special. So if you're of a mind to, and have a decent cert there, please certify me if you think I can add value to the discussions there. Thanks.
Mod erotus' post up. That's a good link: http://www.osopin ion.com/Opinions/DavidNimmons/DavidNimmons1.html
You need to pay a little more attention to the intellectual property implications of labels vs. mp3.com. mp3.com does many things horribly (annoying page layout, tottering servers, terrible messageboards) but if you look at their artist agreement there are some extremely important points that I sure hope potential competitors take seriously:
- Nonexclusive contract, with the artist continuing to OWN the mechanicals. Contrast this with any majors contract in which the label owns the mechanicals, the songs, even the band name and the website or the Artist's name itself (!)
- Contract is only renegotiable with the agreement and acknowledgement of the artist! If this seems obvious check out some music biz contracts- see how often the contract is unilaterally renegotiable by the label. That means 'we can change it to whatever we want, after the fact, and you already signed off on it'.
- 49.9999% royalty none of which is recoupable- compared to a tenth or hundredth of that much, already pledged to recoup recording costs mandated by the label. In other words, on mp3.com you get $40, or maybe $400 (what I'm hoping for in the mail) or even $4000 if you have a _lot_ of listens and CD sales- and on the major labels you watch a lot of money go by and keep none of it, nada.
Honestly- it's good to be skeptical, and there are plenty of reasons to knock mp3.com. The deal they offer is not one of them. For all intents and purposes, and even with all their flaws, mp3.com is something new, and the key point (to me) proving that is the nonexclusive nature of their deal- 'sign' with mp3.com and you continue to be totally free to move. Worst that can happen is that you decide to remove your stuff and mp3.com are slow to do it- they make no claim or attempt to own your IP, they just ask for very extensive RIGHTS to USE it, which is waaaaay different, and nothing like as harmful as signing away your creative work to a label.I try to avoid obsessively posting all over mp3 threads with my little links and all ;P but I needed to open my mouth here, because even if mp3.com itself doesn't survive the next decade, as an artist I need something LIKE mp3.com, something that will strike the same terms for use of my music. I'm happy to sign over quite extensive rights to _use_ the stuff- but I'm going to keep the mechanicals, and keep ownership of myself and my name and the tunes, and I'm going to want to see that the contract doesn't get to change the rules about this without my okaying it. And mp3.com walks this line very honorably. It's almost as if they were behaving like some more honorable industry and trying to come up with a fair contract for artists. *shock!* *horror!* ;)
These are all cogent, well-advised. Do you have any practical avenues for individuals to _act_ upon these suggestions?
Here are some (but I haven't done the homework yet, so don't have URLs, phone numbers, etc.):
* Call the RIAA and _politely_ request a list of
their member companies, along with their mail
and internet email addresses. Proceed to send
the RIAA _and_ all their members your protests
against their oppressive business practices.
Take your cues from the Napster defense brief.
* Build the best summary you can and send it in
to your local newspaper, counter-culture rag,
and Penny-Saver(tm) commercial news-excuse, it
being the idea to broaden awareness of the IP
issues and why they will affect all consumers.
* Write to your Congress-critters, Senators, and
State reps. Tell them, in no uncertain terms,
but again politely, that your future support
may well hinge on their stances - and voting
records - regarding IP freedom vs RIAA, DMCA.
Stating you will actively work to defeat them
unless they see the light could be effective.
* Write to the Courts. Yeah, it will have no
formal standing, as the deadline for Friend of
the Court briefs has passed. However, a good
letter that reaches the Clerk might get read
by the Judges too. Good Clerks have influence
for passing upwards any well-written opinions.
* Send a few bucks to Napster to help them with
their legal costs. If needed, tell United Way
that you "gave from my conscience." Hmm....?
* Buy a couple of CDs that you really do like.
The fact that CD sales are climbing while the
RIAA is screaming "Ripoff" is most persuasive,
for Napster. Keep those CD sales climbing....
Ciao,
R
<rant> ... and then they go on to ask that the major contributor boycott the campaing finacement off the democrats or give much less, to show Gore-Libermann that they don't support their censorship plan. For sure they had all the time needed to talk about what they wanted.
It's always funny to see them lie like that. I was watching Larry King on CNN the other night and he interviewed some fsck from the label and the movie producer of Show Girls. Everyone agreed that goverment censorship was bad, that without free speech great movies could never have been made, blah, blah
Then they turn around, they sue 2600, they sue everyone who wants to express themselves or who dares to place/talk about DeCSS on their websites, they treaten ISP, they treaten my University with legal action, they almost got me kicked out and they even have the guts to try to take away my fair use right for the music and movies I already overpaid?
</rant>
wiZd0m
If you want to sell me a mass-market album, a software package, or a video in a consumer setting, there should be no shrink-wrap licenses, no click-wrap licenses, no UCITA, and no DMCA-enforced access controls after the sale. Just your merchandise, my money, and the normal copyright / sales / private property laws.
By the way, if you look at the current version of the GNU Public License closely, you'll see that it differs in a very essential respect from most shrinkwrap "licenses".
Shrinkwrap "licenses" start from the bogus premise that you are bound by them, and then proceed to try to take away rights that you, as an owner of a legal copy of a copyrighted item, already have under the law. The GNU Public License acknowledges that you have rights under copyright law, and states that you do not need to agree to the GPL to exercise those rights. The only reason for anyone to agree to the GPL is to gain authorization to perform additional actions (most notably redistribution) which are not part of the default rights you get from copyright law.
To put it more succinctly, shrinkwrap "licenses" are BAD because they distort contract law in the service of taking away your right to make use of your own property. The GPL doesn't do this.
How could this be applied to CD sales? One way might be to include a license in the liner notes that allows buyers to give away copies of songs. Say, "if you accept this license, you can share promotional MP3s of these songs, encoded at a rate of 64Kbps" ... or "you can make CD-quality copies of these songs beyond the limits of Fair Use if you go to http://www.mymusicsite.com/ and pay for the songs you copy." The key here is not that everything is free (as with GPL) but that you would be offering extra value to customers, instead of beating them with a stick.
Actually, while I agree with you from personal experience, the studies I've seen on this subject seem to contradict each other. Some say cd sales improved, some say they dropped. Some studies were done near large colleges with high-bandwith connections, others weren't. The case isn't as clear-cut as you put it.
Well put! My job is to foment rebellion, not organize it, so your suggested actions are an wonderful complement :)
Here's another one that I'm planning: Send real money to artists. Say you're listening to an Oingo Boingo and decide that, if such a system existed, you'd tip the boys. So write a check for a buck and send it away! Even if they never cash it, if enough artists get enough random bucks flowing in in envelopes, they'll get the clue. They'll realize that, if infrastructure existed, they could sever their ties with the beast.
No, it's not practical and scalable. But it makes a point, and that's what's important.
That's correct, as it is now, but I think the main reason is because the technology just hasn't evolved enough yet.
.ogg files) just isn't very convenient.
First, not many people has a fat pipe to the internet and therefore downloading a lot of MP3's (or hopefully soon
Second, most peolpe listen to music on their stereo, not on their computer (better sound, easier, etc.) and most peolpe doesn't have a "connection" from their computer to the stereo. If you have a "connection" from you computer to your stereo, then you still can't control it with your stereo or your remote, which, well sucks...
It has to be atleastas easy to use as existing technology (CD's), before it will be widely used.
Solutions to this is on the way though. Take a look at what Adomo is doing.
This got me to thinking...
You can let your friends come over to listen to your CDs. You could even call them and put the telephone up to the speaker. Why can't you let your friends on the net listen to your CDs through streaming?
If you argue uncontrollable access (not just your friends hearing it), what about clubs? Thousands of people per night listening to a CD/record.
So if a DJ had a server at home where he kept his gigs of MP3s (ripped from CDs he owns) and streamed them to the club where he is?
The RIAA wants to turn music buying into the same thing as a software license. Then they can control how you listen. Then they will want it to be under UCITA so if their playback scheme dies and you can't hear anything, you're out of luck (they could also pull the plug on your CD when your "license to listen" expires).
1) I'm a Napster user.
2) Ever since I started using Napster I increased my spending on CDs from one every 2 month to 2-3 a month. (and many of these titles I ready own on vinyl!)
3) I therefor think that RIAA is stupid to sue Napster instead of coming to terms with it.
4) I do not use pirated software.
5) If I did want to get pirated software I would have to go to the Warez sites, the underground, clearly knowing that I'm doing something illegal.
6) Even though I differentiate between pirated software and pirated music, I do it on the subconscious level, not on the logical one.
7) Can someone explain to me, in simple language and with strong logical arguments why pirating software is different from pirating music?
Why is using software without paying for it is generally considered wrong and and using music considered right?
Not so fast there Tex
If I made a remix I would be bound to provide that remix under the same agreement as I obtained the Source. I know every "musician" cringes at that thought, However his point is valid.
The Artists Coalition would probably also like to hear from those of us that would actively support a voluntary, tip-based, just compensation system.
In addition to your congressional representive, you might want to cc: your notes to mine, Rick Boucher, who's one of the forces behind repealing the "work for hire" mess described in this salon article.
Finally, go visit fairtunes, mentioned a few weeks ago in this slashdot story.
crime pays when corporate pigs can't afford to put gas in their BMWs.
FTP rules! it's more efficient and usually faster than http in most cases, although not quite as pretty. besides- it was the original protocol for the intenet- long before today's fancy webservers and SQL servers.
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
Good point, if MP3/Napster or whatever is good or bad for CD sales will probably depend on who is paying for the research. In the end it's all damn statistics... Anyway I know too many people with 30GB+ of MP3's who haven't bought a CD in a very long time. These same people will tell you that Napster promotes the sale of CD because "studies have proven it". If you ask me that's just plain lame and cheap.
There are many legitimate applications for being able to manipulate audio and video data. Making compilations for personal use, making short film clips for use in reviews or in teaching classes, etc. But let's focus on repairs.
Some repairs that you might do to music: using a scratch and hiss remover program to clean up the music that you are transferring from records and tapes to CD-R; adjusting the volume of a song so that all of the songs in a home-made compilation play back smoothly. I learned the hard way that CDs are not mastered to a common reference level.
Then there's the whole CSS / DeCSS / Open Source Linux DVD player mess. The industry picked a system that creates obstacles to playback (you must decrypt a disc to play it), but that does not pose any barrier to counterfeiters with access to professional equipment (who don't even need to break the encryption). Here the Linux crowd tried to reverse engineer the system in order to build a Linux DVD player application (read: something that would promote the sales of DVD-Video discs), only to get kicked in the teeth.
In any manegerial position I ever find myself in, I will be forced to view with disfavor the ethics of any programmer or technical person who worked for RIAA or MPAA affiliated companies after the start dates of their lawsuits (Or perhaps a short time thereafter, as locating a new job can sometimes be difficult.) I shall never advocate the hiring of such a person in my company.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Let me get this straight....cd's in bulk cost about $.01 USD to make, the artist gets $.05-$.10 per cd, and they retail for $17.00 thanks to price gouging and needless expenses, and the RIAA has been KIND ENOUGH to detail out what *they* think is *FAIR* use?!?
screw em!
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."- Albert E.
Let's say you buy a "DJ DANCE TRAX" CD. It comes with DEFAULT_RIGHTS (from copyright law), and license offers to let you REMIX_AND_DISTRIBUTE and/or PLAY_(REMIXED)_MUSIC_AT_CLUB for appropriate fees. (I do not know exactly how performance licenses for CDs work, so bear with me if I get some of the details wrong.)
You make remixes and play them at the club (which buys a PLAY_(REMIXED)_MUSIC_AT_CLUB license). A lot of people like the music and want copies of it, enough to pay for them. You send a CD-R and a REMIX_AND_DISTRIBUTE license to a manufacturing plant, and back come 500 CDs. The "DJ DANCE TRAX" guys are 500 royalty units richer.
Jill HotToTrot buys one of the remixed CDs. She gets at least DEFAULT_RIGHTS; i.e., she can play the CD, lend it to a friend, make copies for her own use in many forms (tape, CD-R, MiniDisc, MP3, etc.), use it as a Frisbee, and transfer it to a friend or used music store. You cannot take any of these rights away from her.
On the other hand, you are under no obligation to offer her a chance to buy REMIX_AND_DISTRIBUTE or PLAY_(REMIXED)_MUSIC_AT_CLUB licenses for your CD, unless the original offers were viral in the GPL sense. Indeed, your ability to offer extra rights for a derived work, such as this, might be limited by the license offers that came with the original work.
So maybe Jill HotToTrot gets a CD that comes with the DEFAULT_RIGHTS and a PLAY_MUSIC_AT_CLUB offer but no REMIX_AND_DISTRIBUTE. She could remix the CD for her own use -- copyright laws would permit her to do that much. But she couldn't go out and make copies of her remix for distribution -- thus addressing your problem.
Sure any one of those is cool, or Full No Reproduction what-so-ever. My view is that the creater could/should define the usage rights as they feel. RIAA's one way view is wrong. There are too many different types of usage now (Net, games,radio, Club, Club Compilation, CD, Soundtracks...KEO-Packet) for such a limited view of usage.
So, what do I know if the music that I download is
copyrighted and/or not allowed for redistribution?
And what if I were surfing randomly on the net and just happen to come by a mp3-plugin/applet/whatever with "illegal" music.
4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet.
First of all they make the distinction between uploading, downloading and streaming. In pure TCP/IP terms all these acts are the same... a uni-directional flow of data yet they single out these three practises. However gnutella is a lot more focussed on 'transferring' - seems fine to me.
4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public
So if for example I upload a file to a site... that's fine. So provided it isn't me that makes the file I upload publically available then its perfectly ok. So now when I upload a file to geocities i do nothing wrong, and similarly when geocities ftpd sets the file world readable it does nothing wrong.... no piracy there.
downloading a sound recording from an Internet site
The word 'site' typically only descibes passive services like websites & ftp sites. Napster on the other hand is more interactive and typically you would say "Napseter Server" or "Napster User" and not "Napster Site". If someone talked about a napster site I would immediately think of this one.
Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet.
It may now!!!. Sounds to me like "Streaming didn't used to be a crime but we are going to pretend it is one now" or perhaps they mean "We dont really know whether it is or not".
Really if those are the definitions we are up against i find it hard to believe the lawyers, who are much scorned for bending the words of legislation against the spirit that legislation was created in, cant come up with a half decent defence.
...that a nifty little program created by a kid would create such a huge wake. A simple tool to trade files with friends and he sparks would could ultimately be one of the greatest catalyst in technological history, music history, consumer rights history and history in general.
Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Shawn Fanning
"It's all right, it's ok. There's something to live for" - Uncle Bill
Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet.
Why are just "some" streaming technologies considered online piracy? An audio stream is just a bunch of bits that the client software won't let you save on your drive. But bits can be easily manipulated - check out Loop Recorder.
This poor sap is just a front. He doesn't really have anything to do with the company. A mere figurehead for you to admire. I minority stockholder, he has no input on the business the company does.
He may still do jail time...
More rights=good. Fewer rights=bad.
Here's a couple snippets from the Ask the RIAA page:
What is your stand on MP3?
This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. To learn more about digital music, visit the Music and the Internet section.
Waitaminute!!! The RIAA stated only a couple years ago that MP3 was a dangerous technology, did they not? And they tried to sue such items as RIO (the portable mp3 player) because it promoted piracy? Sounds like they were saying MP3 was dangerous and that carrying around a personal copy of a CD you duplicated to MP3 was wrong . . . Nice change of heart, after they lost their lawsuits . . .
And on a link from the "Ask the RIAA" page on cost of CDs, there's this paragraph:
Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable. Each year, of the approximately 27,000 new releases that hit the market, the major labels release about 7,000 new CD titles and after production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit. In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest.
Whoa, waitaminute . . . If you lose money on 90% of what you sell, you're not doing very well anywhere. If a hardware manufacturer did this, they'd be out of business. Same with software. You don't go out and lose money on 90% of your products in hoping that the 10% can carry you. No wonder they're suing to get royalties on such things as MyMP3 and Napster, to make up for their lack of marketing and music sense!
Maybe what the RIAA should do is explain to the music industry, "Just because the Backstreet Boys sell, doesn't mean any boy band who sings falsetto will sell well." Get the dino's out of manager spots and contract areas and maybe we'd have better music and less crappy bands, so that they wouldn't lose money on 90% of the CDs and we could get cheaper CDs already.
Sorry for my rant, but I laughed at the front page article regarding how the RIAA was telling us how the law states different copyright infringements, then adds their own, as though it made that law. And then a quick check of their site had even more humour. (: Please, get back on topic now!
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Thanks for demonstrating your utter lack of understanding of the recording industry business model. You also show off your complete ignorance of The Constitution of The United States. If you don't like our capitalist system you are free to move to Russia or China. Go back to home room and ask the teacher, What does it mean when the Constituation says, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"" You still have a chance to learn the truth!
. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet." so, if i'm on the phone, or in front of a crowd, i can't even sing someone's song!!
The most annoying problem with gnutella (that I find) is getting hit with so many searches, most of which are for porn.
I guess this is necessary to a point if there's not going to be a central directory that could be shut down. IMHO though, the next step would be to have a distributed system that would organise itself into branches based on relevant keywords. (It wouldn't be too difficult for clients to connect themselves to more than one branch.)
This way searches could work more intelligently instead of by brute force, by only looking down the most relevant branches where the searches are most likely to succeed.
===
Yes, even the Dead Sea Scrolls have a copyright.
I don't care how many times someone crys piracy on Napster or how good it is. The fact is Napster is used for piracy. If you go on the service and search for a title that is copyrighted you will find at least a dozen (well known at least). There is not denying Napster is indeed used for piracy. This does not mean that Napster is bad. Napster is filesharing. It is MP3 filesharing but it is filesharing. Just because a file has an extention .mp3 doesn't make it illegal as people have pointed out about some artists use Napster to get their music around to people. Don't blame napster for the piracy. It is a tool and USERS USE this tool whether it be for good of "bad". I believe that the RIAA's definition of copyright is a little too over protective for a profit and to attack napster solely is wrong. Without USERS would napster be illegal. Without those copyrighted MP3's on the user's hard drive would napster be "illegal". Remember the mp3s don't originate on napster. Someone has to burn the mp3 and has already violated the copyright. The people who download these songs are equally wrong but all napster is doing is "Retrieve File" blindly. Napster doesn't know enough and probably can't know enough about the contents of the mp3 to hold it accountable. Can we hold AOL accountable for its users who pirate mp3s and programs in chatrooms using their EMAIL service. Can we hold the Web server accountable for a warez site giving out pirated goods or maybe your web browser accountable. It just doesn't make sense. Piracy is going to happen but from what I hear (not sure if it is just FUD) Napster Users actually buy more CD's by using their service to get the mp3. The main point I am trying to explain is the most Napster servers probably have are user accounts and log files. If anyone is at fault it is the CD ripping users not the service.
-The good humor man can be pushed only so far
Advogato's showing you to be an apprentice. Seems several people went over and certified you.
Go and knock yourself out!
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Repairing movie == recut (directors cut, final cut, myGNUCut etc.) Repairing music == Resample. sorry, i could not resist it.
Parents Against Kuro5hin
The funny part is that the first post in the other article comments that the lack of posts implies that /. readers don't care about Napster anymore *grin*.
~=Keelor
Scrooge didn't give a shit about being considered a cheap asshole. He had his money, the only thing he cared for.
B = piracy
C = stealing
A->B->C == A->C
The problem here is that A->B is questionable but doesn't matter since in traditional logic F->T == T and T->T == T. In this context, no matter whether A->B is T || F, A->C is always T. The question is, is C T || F, since if F, the whole argument is bogus, and if T, no matter what we say, we are criminals. The fact that we can replace A with "The moon is made of green cheese" does not alter the outcome of the argument. The question is simply whether the argument makes any sense at all?
Arty
Sigs died in 80s
...
absurd dipshits abjectly selling themselves for status in their packs like the pathetic primates they are, or home recording enthusiast-types? (teehee...)
-- sayke, v2.3.05
Napster doesn't upload or download the recording. We do! They provide the contact between me and the other guy. The data goes through their servers, but it is just binary, there is no "sound" as such. The forth article is
"Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold."
Notice "copyrighted sound recording". They don't make the sound available to the public, they make the link and pass the binary digits. Now, they can argue that at any one point in the chain that their server has only a few IP packets on their server, not a specific sound track, and nothing that the RIAA can lay claims to (how many bits of a song do you need before you become a copyright infringer? one? wow, everyone must be copyrighting.) Napster doesn't make it available to the public, we do. They just aid the distribution.
Oh, and their server is not an "Internet site."
c0rarc
There are other models of music creation and compensation on the horizon.
See NPR's article on the Street Performer Protocol to see how British band Marilion got more control of their music while still planning to sign with a major label.
4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet."
How is this different from radio???
Ok, this is my plan to get the RIAA and MPAA . . . to write a perl script that grabs the names of the top 50 songs off billboard.com, make symbolic links to the DeCSS song using the names of the top 50 songs, then posting these songs on Napster/iMesh/Gnutella/Scour Exchange/FTP/whatever.
.
If I only had more bandwidth . .
Couldnt agree with you more, but I think one other thing is needed, at least in the U.S.. That is a very strong alliance with A16, Zmag and the other activist groups fighting the IMF, WTO etc. Frankly these kids are pros at protesting and organizing, they hate corporate america and are highly motivated. They are the perfectr allies. Unfortunatly they are generally speaking technically ignorent. This is large gap, but it could be breached.
I don't want to speculate with dark humor, but I woke up with a bad dream from an afternoon nap:
Napster was a deliberate plant by the RIAA and MPAA and carefully managed like a stage puppet to set a legal precident.
Now that would be scary.
[Workers|RIAA] could not halt the [industrial|information] revolution simply by destroying [machines|napster].
In a 100 years (probably less), this will look like a really futile effort from the recording industry.
We can't win if we look like the bad guys
Maybe a DeCSS tie would be in order?
-WG
"America, I smoke marijuana every chance I get."
What we must consider is the full impact that this judgement could have on the whole world. How many people out their have at least one mp3 of their favorite artist? Will they be able to make a judgment that would make so many people thieves, who are ordinarily law abiding citizens?
Second, how long will it take to get rid of all the programs on the internet that enable people to rip copies of cd's?
One important point i would like to bring out involves the amount of money that the RIAA actually loses from people ripping cds. from ripping cds. Most people who spend lots of money on cds do not have rippers or mp3 players, and many do not even have computers.
The only thing that the RIAA is upset about is the fact that they can't completely control every aspect of the music industry. If they really wanted to make some money they could form a company to make and sell portable mp3 players and mp3 ready cd players. That would more than make up for the insignificant percieved losses that come from the proliferation of mp3s.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
This argument is compelling in many ways. A key difference though, is that the recording quality decreases fairly rapidly with each copy generation. Also, mass copying for friends/family/strangers is very time-consuming, and a little costly (gotta buy tapes; maybe postage). There is no centralized database of people's collections, and so on.
Napster - Rapid, free, digital, global distribution. This is a whole new ball game. The RIAA and artists should be scared. Casette tape, video-tape, or even "professional" pirates never posed such a threat to the industry.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
What? GPL'ed software does not require that you agree to the GPL in order to alter it. Given that the source has to be distributed for the software to be covered under the GPL, it would be moot.
The trick is, you can't redistribute your remix version to other people unless you agree to the GPL.
But wait again! If you remix it and manage to transform the original work into something substantially different, the new work is now copyrighted to you - not the original creator. This doesn't mean that adding more bass is sufficiently transformative, but if you remixed the hell out of it, you could be a-ok.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Seeing how they complain that only the music is distributed, I think someone should create a standard that holds an entire album, with the graphics and info. That way entire albums could be distributed with ease. Benifiting online artists that have to distribute virtual covers as seperate unstandard graphic files.
- mp3.com plans to email spam on behalf of RIAA labels' acts
- the artist's agreement I've been talking about so much is being CHANGED.
I've studied the changes in the agreement and can no longer stand by my claims that mp3.com is such a great deal, because of one CRUCIAL change in the agreement: rather than the contract only being renegotiable with _signed_ consent of the artist (email receipt counts), under the new rules almost everything is the same- except that the contract is, like a major label contract, renegotiable by mp3.com at any time with merely an announcement on the artist board five days before any given change. The sole recourse is to terminate- implying that the changes take effect.This is jarringly different from the original contract, in which you had to _sign_ _off_ on changes before they took effect. I, personally, am refusing to accept this new contract, and will see how this plays out. I am very likely going to have to leave mp3.com and scout around to see if there is one single music hosting site anywhere on the net that doesn't attempt abusive practices. I'm not certain I'll find one- and if I try to put up my own stuff, the mp3 patent holders get to come and hit me for a $30,000 fee.
I am not joyous today.
Again, I must entirely recant what I've said about mp3.com- that was the old contract, which I'm keeping a copy of. The new one is _very_ different and the difference is wide open to abuse, something that I cannot condone at all. Would you sign an employment contract with a company that said they got to change anything in the contract without needing to get your okay, and didn't even need to _tell_ you, merely do the proverbial 'locked disused filing cabinet with a sign on front saying 'Beware of the Leopard'? If that seems exaggerated, I might add that the only required announcement for contract changes under the new agreement is an announcement in the mp3.com artist's area bulletin board- which is usually completely unavailable due to the bulletin board's deep unreliability.
I'd _really_ like to see a bit of Slashdot networking to the effect of setting up some way for musicians to host their music (even for totally free- at this point I'll give up payment, if I must, to get a fair contract) in some unencumbered format like Vorbis. And does ANYBODY have the Mac vorbis codec authored at MacHack, seeing as right now I can't put my _own_ mp3s on my own website without being hunted down by the patent holders and billed $30,000 for use of the format commercially?
I am _not_ joyous today.
They've misused the term so much, it's even in the doctionary now. I don't care. I wander if they call black people niggers.
-- Shamus
Look! The Emperor has no clothes!
You missed the fact that Napster is firmly grounded in the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act.
In 1992, in exchange for mandatory "royalty" payments on all digital audio recorders and digital audio recording media, Congress created a law that defined all non-commercial copying of audio recordings as non-infringing.
That's right, every time you buy a blank audio CDR, a small percentage of your money is collected by the government and distributed to the music industry. In exchange, congress legalized all non-commercial copying of music, using any method, on any media, to settle the issue once and for all. One of the main purposes of the AHRA was to end the practice of the recording industry running to Congress for new protection every time a new technology was invented.
Just in case you feel guilty about artists not being paid, here is a table that shows how your money is divided up by the recording industry every time you buy a blank audio CD or an audio CD recorder:
(1.75%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Musicians, to be paid to "non-featured" musicians (studio musicians)
(0.92%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, to be paid to "non-featured" vocalists (backup vocalists)
(25.60%) of the royalties are paid to "featured recording artists", including such bands as Metallica.
(38.40%) of the royalties are paid to "copyright owners" (the RIAA companies)
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to "music publishers"
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to music writers, including such bands as Metallica who write their own songs.
Here is one of my previous postings regarding the AHRA which goes into more detail on what the AHRA is and why Napster is both completely legal and completely within the spirit of the law as well as the letter.
And Radio Piracy - when a radio station plays a song the RIAA members are not trying to promote by putting it on the hourly playlist - how is this different from streaming?
Firstly, I never said that Marillion used the the Street Performer Protocol. That was the title of NPR's article, which is how I referenced it.
What Stephen King did was closer to extortion. He gave you a piece, then threatened to not follow up if he made no money. He had the resources to write the story anyway, but he wanted payment after the fact.
What Marillion did was say to its fans, "Hey, we're not giving up our copyrights anymore to the labels. We want to make another album, but we can't afford it. However, if you front us the money, we will make the album and you'll get a copy of the final product."
This, in my opinion, is a very significant change in business practice for bands. The model is closer to getting venture capitol from your fans -- if people want a new product, they can "invest" in its creation ahead of time.
Personally, I would love to see more known artists take this approach.
There's still the problem of the unknown act. How does a group gain enough fan momentum without being well-known first? From the griping I've heard in the mp3.com forums, this problem has yet to be tackled correctly.
Onlinepiracy doubleplusungood. Plusgood to protect intellectualproperty of moviesec and musicsec so minitrue works goodly.
Other news: Victory against Eastasia soon; chocolate rations increased to 6g by miniplenty.
I am certainly going to be looking at other hosting services. I'd like to hook up with one that's got the right motivations- sort of the mp3 or vorbis equivalent of sourceforge. It obviously looks like no free mp3 hosting service can survive if they will be subject to royalties, and again I'm not ready to assume these services won't be held responsible for paying royalties at the minimum one cent per download. If the service has no income and makes no money in any way, how does it operate a server?
Yes, mp3.com is now operating like any other record label (I can't take the remaining decent bits of the contract seriously when they're so volatile). It didn't used to be- it used to offer a very reasonable, businesslike deal to artists. We need something like that out there.
book
computer
the
a or an
spam
e-[word]
caffeine
[word].h
post
subm it
preview
And these letters:
a,d,e,h,i,k,j,m,n,o,p,s,t,u,y,z
Furthermore, due to my extensive research and marketing, I own the patents for these items of intellectual property:
4 chamber heart design
Cerebellum
a bone protected spinal cord
opposable thumbs
fingers
reproductive organs
the reproductive process
all cholesterol based hormones
the Right eye
depth perception from binocular vision
the Closed Circulation Concept (TM)
emotional over-reacting (bought from the Democrats back in 1992; pending lawsuit against them underway!)
errect posture (and the word "erect"(TM)
beer and any yeast fermentation
the Immune System (TM)
Furthermore, I have sent in for a patent for the genetic codes (not just the process of finding and utilizing derived products from) of the current kingdoms:
animal
plant
these are ALL retroactive, so pay up!!!!!
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
or rather let the artists and the open source community work together to create a an electronic marketplace that does not involve the riaa.
MP3.com fits every aspect of your comment except the "open source" aspect, which cannot be filled legally until one of these happens:
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
The RIAA has no case, because they hold no relevant copyrights.
But the labels have given the RIAA what is called "power of attorney" over the copyrights.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
English copyright was perpetual, and only publishers were granted copyright -- not authors.
American copyright is perpetual under a loophole in the Constitution: copyright is supposed to last "for limited times" but nothing in the Constitution takes away Congress's right to extend the terms of those rights retroactively whenever they are about to expire <cough>Sonny Bono Act</cough>. And a large fraction of contracts require the authors to sign over all rights to the publisher (often an RIAA/MPAA/etc. member).
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
American copyright is perpetual under a loophole in the Constitution: copyright is supposed to last "for limited times" but nothing in the Constitution takes away Congress's right to extend the terms of those rights retroactively whenever they are about to expire Sonny Bono Act.
I completely agree. That's an entirely different battle which is being faught right now.
And a large fraction of contracts require the authors to sign over all rights to the publisher (often an RIAA/MPAA/etc. member).
That's a problem arising from the fact that the record labels have, up until now, had a stranglehold on the entire music distribution chain. If you wanted to be published, the price was the same no matter which label you went to -- you had to give them your copyrights. Newer internet labels like mp3.com don't demand your copyrights in exchange for being published -- just a percent of the profits. Napster, of course, doesn't demand anything in exchange for publishing your work, should you choose to publish your work that way.
I'm a freshman at george washington university, and unfortunatly feel like a *very* small geek minority here. I'd like to try and see some of these court cases if (when) they get to the supreme court, since now i live here! Anyone want to get together and try and figure out how to do this, if it's possible at all.
JustinC
spam.justinc@gwu.edu.spam
In my experience, a 56K-class dialup connection is not very full-duplex. When I'm sending large amounts of data (web site updates through FTP or my band's music through Napster), I have terrible pings and transfer rates to web sites. This half-duplicity makes it more efficient for dialup users to freeload. This phenomenon also affects any asymmetric connection (for example, DSL upload speeds can be as low as one-fifth of download speeds).
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
One in ten is not a bad number. One in ten is bad if you are comparing artists to established products. But that is not what we are talking about. You could compare new artists to research and development or startup businesses.
Companies spend alot on R&D, most of which results in dead ends or does not produce immedate benefits but may be useful down the line. Only one in ten new businesses make it to profitability. This number coencides with the RIAA figure.
We all know burning CD's is cheap cheap cheap. However to get to burning that first CD you've got to spend alot of money on studio time, hiring industry experts to do editing/producing/etc, and do a ton of promotion of the new act. And you never know beforehand if anyone will like it, most times they don't.
Record companies more or less equate to high-risk loan companies with correspondingly high interest rates. The successful artists are subsidizing the search for new talent.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
If you can't see the difference here, perhaps a metaphor will help. Why do we want to let hunters have guns, but not violent felons? The answer is what people are doing with it- the GPL is keeping information free, whereas the RIAA is hoarding information and withering the public domain. The fact that they both use the copyright system has nothing to do with their relative merits.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
The changes in their artists' agreement are still problematic, and still a dealbreaker for me, personally. What is so wrong with wanting to be asked to sign off on major changes to a contract over MY WORK? _Why_ do they need to sneak in this crap about keeping your stuff in perpetuity, and being allowed to change anything they want in the agreement on five days notice with your only recourse to terminate (but then they get to keep anything associated with a 'Secure Account' in perpetuity anyway!)? We already _have_ a major label record industry, we don't need another :P oh well, time to re-evaluate all my plans yet again. Sometimes I really get this gut level sense that Alvin Toffler was right...
> Online piracy may now also include certain uses of 'streaming' technologies from the Internet."
Great. Just fscking great. Now they're going after Shoutcast and its ilk (Live365, Icecast/LiveIce, yada yada yada).
Time to kiss my techno streams goodbye... *Sniff*
--
Yomigaeru Aiyan Geek!!!
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.