DeCSS Source Mass-Posted to Usenet

Flitz writes "It looks like the inevitable is happening: someone is mass-posting copies of the DeCSS source code to Usenet. It showed up today in the comp.os.linux groups, with a little checking, it looks like it was posted to all of the comp* groups. Will MPAA be suing Deja now? Here is a link to the spam sighting report." I'm really amused by the various things that have been released with the DeCSS code embedded. Song lyrics in free MP3s, encoded into MIDI files, poetry, pictures of the statue of liberty. I just wish this whole lawsuit thing would get dropped so I could start playing DVDs on my laptop's DVD drive under Linux. I've bought tons of movies: its so unfair that I can't play them on the plane without rebooting. Having to keep a whole operating system around just to watch movies is pretty harsh.

Comments

You sure are law-abiding, Rob. :)

[Booker]

I just wish this whole lawsuit thing would get dropped so I could start playing DVDs on my laptop's DVD drive under Linux.

While I don't want to diminish the effect that laws like the DMCA will eventually have on our everyday lives, I'm a bit incredulous that Rob doesn't play DVDs on his laptop just because it's "illegal." Are you incredibly law-abiding, Rob, or is LiViD just not good enough yet? :)

---

More ideas

[Warpedcow]

Someone should encode DeCSS in a DVD movie ;)

Agreed

[MolGOLD]

Have to agree that having to reboot just to watch a DVD can be a pain...so far I've had no luck getting DVDs to play under linux...
The HOWTO at http://opendvd.org is a great help, but I can't seem to overcome a few little problems...
As far as posting the code to USENET in such a manner, doing so obviously isn't going to give the right impression on major corporations that is needed.
Doing so rates supporters of DeCSS as SPAMMERS and basically is going to create more and more negative attitudes and opinions in the eyes of major businesses.
Are there constructive ways to make the point that we want DVD support under Linux?
I think i've probably filled out a million petitions requesting companies to support such a product...Hell, didn't InterVideo promise us a software player by the end of summer 2001? At this point, Ihave enough trouble finding reference to that product on their web site....

Re:Agreed

[quux26]

"Are there constructive ways to make the point that we want DVD support under Linux?"

I understand and appreciate your point, but this is far more than DVD support under Linux.

CSS is control access, not copy protection like the official MPAA site claims. CSS does NOTHING to stop copying. If I have an encoded message on a piece of paper, I don't need to decrypt it to xerox it.

What the DMCA provides is a method to prosecute access violations. For example, if I want to make a DVD that is only viewable by white people, I can. And viewing by a black person is illegal and prosecutable under the DMCA. Think I'm joking? An author of a protected work can set whatever limitations they want and the DMCA makes circumvention of that protection illegal.

So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest. Almost any type of protest is going to disturb bystanders - think of this week's oil blocade in France or the Seattle protests last year. The relevant question is, "does this do more good than harm, does this advance the cause?" I think it succeeds in spades.

My .02
Quux26

Re:Agreed

[dirk]

CSS is control access, not copy protection like the official MPAA site claims. CSS does NOTHING to stop copying. If I have an encoded message on a piece of paper, I don't need to decrypt it to xerox it.

But, as people so often point out, there is no way to make something that can't be copied (and the jury is still out on whether you can make a playable copy of a DVD, I've yet to hear any convincing evidence for either side). People are continually saying how now that we have entered the "information age" everything is free because it can be copied and there is no way to stop it. So, what do you propose to stop this copying? Do we let people take what they want? Since everything can be copied (and once copied and on the net it can never be contained again) do we just give up and expect everyone to give everything away? And if we do do this, how do keep the economy running?

So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest.

While I appreciate a protest as much as anyone, spam is spam. A protest that does nothing but annoy people (which is really all this will do) accomplishes nothing but turning people against you.

MP3 song version too!

[antdude]

I think this is old news, but I will share. Someone made a song out of it too. 7 minutes long. I saw it on detonate.net at this
UR L

Pretty weird ;). Someone should make a game mod out of it [grin].

i hope you know...

[Wakko Warner]

posting DeCSS makes baby Jesus cry.

-A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

DeCSS is a lame duck anyways

[ferrocene]

I think there's a big issue that either no one is aware of, or that no one has posted.

DeCSS is based on the Xing key, we all know that. What many people don't know is that the key has been pulled from all new DVD's, therefore if you're trying to watch T2U with yer "all-knowing" DeCSS it won't work.

DeCSS no longer works with new movies! If you really want power, and avoid DeCSS completely, I suggest you use vobdec or some equivalent (CladDVD) that uses a brute-force method of cracking the CSS.

http://doom9.excelland.com/software.htm

Includes binarys and source. Yes, I do copy dvd's, but just to see if I can. It's rather fun.

DVD rippers (such as myself) haven't used decss in a long time, which leads me to believe that most of you haven't used it in awhile, if at all.

Y'know that poster on ThinkGeek...?

[TSN]

The one w/ the picture of Tux made up of Linux code? There ought to be something like that made out of the DeCSS code. Perhaps a large portrait of the president of the MPAA... :-)

Re:Great, now the MPAA will come 'a knocking

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an entirely far fetched proposition. A little known and often overlooked provision of the DCMA legally requires ISPs and such to deploy "copyright protection" schemes should or when such schemes become practical to deploy. I am sure this is precisely what our mad execute at Sony was
thinking about in his recently published remarks,
and I would not dismiss it as an idle threat to
liberties as some seem to have.

With this consideration in mind, would not a
physical "censor" be considered a "technically
feasable" means of "protecting against copyright
infringement" in the case of an environment such as slashdot and hence legally required under the DCMA?

Porting to Other Languages

[Tom7]

Some people have been converting the DeCSS source to other languages. Search for "ExCSS", for instance.

This seems like a good hour-or-two project for hackers who are interested in this sort of thing; port DeCSS to your favorite language and anonymously post it to a few usenet groups. This could potentially make an even bigger nightmare for the RIAA folks.

Check out Dave Touretzky's Archive for starters.

It's not that simple

[Jeremy Erwin]

We're not pirating copies of Windows. We're not stealing copies of Windows DVD Players. We want to be able to develop our own DVD player, for Linux, for *BSD, for any OS we care to run.

We won't die if we're unable to play DVDs. It's just an itch. But itches are made to be scratched. The entire Free software movement is about developing software-- and about exchanging source code. If comapnies are allowed to put arbitary limits on the nature and kind of code we are able to exchange, free software will no longer be so.

There are those who believe that artistic endevours only provide "content" -- content that can be metered, censored, and restricted. There are people who would copyright "facts", believing that short term profits are more important than long term advances in knowlege. I'm not one of them.

One way to "safely" distribute DeCSS

[ravi_n]

After October 28, 2000 it will be illegal to circumvent an access control according to the DMCA. According to the MPAA's legal theory, this means descrambling any scrambled copyrighted work if you don't have the consent of the copyright holder of that work. So to safely distribute DeCSS: make up your own form of scrambling. Distribute DeCSS and your own associated copyrighted content (say an essay about how you feel about the case) scrambled with your form scrambler. Distribute the descrambling tool separately and explicitly inform anyone who downloads the tool that they are permitted to use the tool to descramble your work for their personal use unless they are an employee, lawyer, consultant, etc. of the MPAA or one of its member companies or they communicate the results of the descrambling to any of those people. When the MPAA sues you distributing DeCSS either:

1) The only evidence they have is your claim to be distributing DeCSS (because they didn't descramble your scrambling) or

2) You can countersue them for circumventing your "access control". Quote extensively from the MPAA briefs and Judge Kaplan's opinion to establish your access control rights.

DISCLAIMER: IANAL so this is probably not airtight, and I wouldn't even dream of doing this unless you have plenty of money to cover your legal bills.

Re:Even More ideas

[AFCArchvile]

Someone should engrave the contents of css_descramble.c into a brass placard in front of the Jefferson Memorial. We all know he would have supported us in this cause if he were alive.

You just don't get it yet, do you?

[throx]

Go back a few days and read the suck.com piece on lawyers and the internet.

The internet provides computer oriented people with a wealth of freedom never found before. Suddenly some rules start getting imposed by the external world and we cry to each other that because they don't understand they can't possibly succeed in tying us down. Guess what? Bad news is they can. In the real world you have the freedom to do anything you like. There is nothing physically preventing you from going next door and burning down your neighbour's house if you feel like it. Nothing stops you from creating a nuclear weapon if you have the materials to do it. You have all these freedoms. Of course, nothing stops you from selling an index to where you can pick up goods, of which most are stolen (pretty much what napster does), or photocopying your own books for the hell of it (what DeCSS does). Laws prevent you from doing some of these things in the real world, and pretty soon now laws are going to prevent us from doing that on the net.

The question of how are they going to find out is stupid. 20 years ago they couldn't trace DNA evidence at a crime scene. They can now. In 20 years time do you really think they won't have the ability to enforce the laws which are being made now describing how the internet can legally work? If we don't stop bitching to ourselves when outside influences start controlling our sphere of influence then the outside world just isn't going to care about us any more. Once laws are in place we become irrelevant. We can bitch and moan all we like to each other but the police and judicial system are going to keep locking us up, fining us and laughing at how stupid we are. Don't bitch to each other. Protest to the people who count - the people that make the laws. If you care about this sort of thing and haven't sent money to the EFF then you are a hypocrite. If you care about these laws and haven't written a nice and non-abusive letter to your congressman or senator then you are a hypocrite.

Stop blowing off steam and do something if you care. Spamming to Usenet is going to be seen as the equivalent of something like "Well, if we kill enough niggers then they'll stop making it illegal". Didn't work back then (thankfully, I might add) and sure as hell won't work now.

John Wiltshire

Re:You just don't get it yet, do you?

[logicnazi]

I disagree with your claim about the ability to enforce.

First of all it is the size of the community resisting these changes which makes it more difficult to enforce. In the real world crimes are so often able to be solved because there is an opposing interest. Burn down someones house and it is obvious a crime has been commited and that man his friends and anyone walking in the neighborhood that night are willing to help the police find the guilty party.

This is why there is some much trouble enforcing "victimless" crimes. For instance despite the billions and billions of dollars spent in drug interdiction the government has not been able to stem the flow of drugs. The reason is that their is no offended party so the government has no entry into the situation. A similar argument applies to the possesion and distribution of materials on the internet. The person who suffers harm from the crimes (presumably the MPAA) is not a party to the transaction making enforcement much more difficult.

Secondly the internet is a much more controlled medium. Breaking into a neighbors house, no matter how careful you are, leaves the possibility for incidental evidence. Carefully planning and using multiple mail anonymyzers carries no such risk.

Thirdly the manner and dedication of the people engaged in the crimes. Criminals are often caught so easily because they commit their actions in the heat of the moment without planning or forethought. Moreover, I would hasten to add that your hacker is far more sophisticated than your average burglar.

Furthermore, while lynchings and murders did occur in times past, I do not believe there was ever an organized genocidal type effort. Fortunately such a thing never emerged but if it had (and had enough backers) it might have worked. Conversely the civil rights movement steadfastly refused to obey racially discriminitive laws (in a non-violent manner) and eventually in fact these laws did disappear.

Re:SLashdot, please don't encourage the criminals.

[logicnazi]

>I cannot help thinking that by giving these DeCSS spammers the oxygen of publicity, we risk setting a very bad example for the weaker members of society (like our children) who may think that its OK to break a law, simply because it doesn't fit with your world view.

In fact, almost by definition, it is okay to break a law which does not agree with your worldview. If you do not believe such an action is wrong then in fact it is not wrong even if 300 million people believe that it is wrong and are willing to throw you in jail for it. Now of course some actions may be wrong for secondary reasons (for example you may believe it to be morally justifiable to shoot someone who is a very negative influence on society but you realize that others may duplicate your actions on otherw who aren't so deserving) but DeCSS doesn't seem like such an issue.

There are many instances of righteous law breaking. For instance the civil rights movement in the south purposefully violated many racist laws in order to get them appealed. Every revolution throughout history, especially against the most tyranical regimes, has been breaking the law and yet many of these revolutions are now venerated and seen as cornerstones of our society (be it the signing of the magna carta or the american revolution).

Yes I do in fact think there would be as much terroism around the world if CNN turned a blind eye. The majority of terrorists do not want the United states attention or any other of these far flung countries attention. They are motivated by a sense of vengence and a desire to right what is an inherintly local wrong. Unless the government placed gag orders on every citizen those close to the affected (the people the terrorists are trying to scare) would here about the activities.

Moreover we only hate terrorists because we feel their causes are wrong. In fact we still celebrate the "terrorist" bomb attempt to kill hitler (which would no doubt have been a good thing if it succeded).

In fact in reference to CNN it seems bringing the world attention to the problem often alleves it. It attracts the notice of non-partisans whose only goal is to end the violence. For instance many of the US recent overseas milatary missions have been motivated by the moral outrage of viewers at home (think somalia). The peace process in northern ireland and in isreal has also no doubt been helped by US involvement which is a direct result of US citizens caring about peace in the region which is a result of being informed via CNN.

"just to watch movies"

[jfedor]

Having to keep a whole operating system around just to watch movies is pretty harsh.

Last time it was "just to play Diablo II". :)

-jfedor

Re:I still think this is the best:

[Duckie01]

Shoot, the &lt&gt thingies got messed up. Here's the right code:

dig @138.195.138.195 goret.org. axfr | grep '^c..\..*A' | sort |\
cut -b5-36 | perl -e 'while(&lt&gt){print pack("H32",$_)}' | gzip -d

Sorry about the f*ck up.

Irony

[TrumpetPower!]

Is it just me, or is it ironic that the linked post, to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, first complains that the ``[s]pammer is knowinkgly and willfully disseminating the source code of illegal software so it will be stored on usenet archiving systems like deja.com,'' and then has the entire original post...complete with the ``illegal software''?

b&

OT: Quit buying DVD's already!

[Stephen VanDahm]

This is gonna get modded down, but, hey, I can afford it. :-)

I've bought tons of movies: its so unfair that I can't play them on the plane without rebooting. Having to keep a whole operating system around just to watch movies is pretty harsh.

Don't buy DVD's!! Ever! Maybe I'm being a bit of a zealot, but it just seems that every DVD that people like CmdrTaco buy creates more revenue that can be used to fund these bonged-out lawsuits. If you're sick of the MPAA, quit funding them -- I have, and I won't buy a DVD until either all this bullshit gets resolved in the consumers' favor or until someone convinces me that I'm full of shit.

I know that nothing I do as an individual will make anything better, but I like to think that, by doing what I can, I've at least somehow earned the right to bitch about it.

Take care,

Steve


========
Stephen C. VanDahm