Slashdot Mirror
David Touretzky Interview
tklancer writes: "Salon has an interview with David Touretzky (the CMU professor who was kind enough to point out to Judge Kaplan that code is speech during the DeCSS trial). He talks about the court decision and several ongoing free speech battles."
Code is speech and you should be able to copy DVDs that you own and be able to play them on your Linux laptop!
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
I wonder if he can comment on if the Judge ever reads /.?
If I write a program it is an extension of myself, therefore much like good literature writing a program should be granted the same writes that are entitled under the first amendment.
BTW: Does anyone know the email address for the MPAA? I couldn't find one on their site
There's a fine line to be walked there when we start to call code free speech. It is convenient for us to call for that now because it will protect the people who coded up the DeCSS and others who would do the same in future situations.
But personally I doubt that code is a true form of expression. When an engineer builds a device it serves a purpose, there may be an artistic component to the work, but it's first and foremost a solution to a problem. The protection afforded by free speech was originally intended to allow the expression of opinions, not to protect the creation of illegal devices on artistic grounds.
Do I think DeCSS should be illegal? Hell no. Do I think that trying to convince the world that code should be protected as free speech is the way to go in this case, probably not.
Intergalactics - A pretty cool strategy game in a java applet
Any mostly unknown geek out there can give the MPAA the finger and create a gallery of css descramblers but to do it as a CS professor at a major university, you risk a lot more, so you've got to have balls.
So if I get this straight, it's against the law to save someone else the whole 2 seconds it takes to cut & paste a link?
Is that some obscure plan to make people think instead of being lazy or something?
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
Regardless of how you feel about DeCSS/etc, it's a very complex and possibly scary thing to say code is "protected in exactly the same way speech is".
For example, that would seem to imply that it is subject to exactly the same copyright restrictions as a book - hence illegal to copy and share with a friend.
We may all agree that "Information Wants to be Free", but what it really means to say that something is "Free" is highly non-trivial, and the subject of millenia-long debates.
One needs to be cautious when equating different forms of Information and/or Freedom. Or maybe one doesn't, but at least consider the quesion...
I think Mr. Touretzky has some interesting points. The most important of which is the Amphetamine Anti-Proliferation act.
Whether you're for or against drugs, you have to recognize that the government is starting to over-step it's bounds where freedom of speech is concerned. It's become sort of a "well, we're all for freedom of speech, just not this type of speech" type of thing
There are serious issues here. We cannot allow agencies, or people, or organizations, or judges to out-law some form of speech simply because it is distasteful or even slightly dangerous (in the non-physical form: excluding libel and slander, which are crimes that are alot harder to commit than one would think). This is exactly the type of thing we must prevent in order to secure our more "traditional" freedoms.
I won't go so far to say that code is definitely a form of speech. Personally, i feel that falls under reverse-engineering arguments. But if it's concievable that the government can take away our right to express ourselves in any way, simply because it's unpopular - then they're one step closer to taking away everything else.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The ACLU does not defend every potential case. No one has the resources to do that. The secret is to put resources behind good cases and win precedent to leverage for other cases.
Unfortunately we have a situation where groups like 2600 and the EFF actually benefit from the situation worsening. 2600 benefits because that advances their idealogical agenda, the EFF benefits because they can increase fundraising. There is simply no incentive for either to choose the right fight at the right time. It is unfortunate that Judge Kaplan did not order 2600 to pay the plaintiffs' court costs, that would have made the defendents a little less nonchalent about taking the case eventually to the Supreme Court where a loss would be the ultimate disaster.
Note that even a win at the Supreme Court won't last for long. If one reads the decision to stay the injunction against Napster, the justices from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clearly said that Congress had the right to clarify the laws governing the interpretation around precedents such as the Sony Betamax ruling. 2600 will win the publicity battle only for an insignificent fringe sector of the electorate. The movement will be classified by the rest of the populace as extremists.
Note that in the current US Presidential, Congressional, Senate, or gubanatorial campaigns there has absolutely been zero public interest in the issues surrounding 2600 or Napster despite incessant articles on Internet and sometimes mainstream news outlets. The current EFF approach is hardly the one to create a civil rights movement as Martin Luther King Jr. did--it's the equivalent of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakan.
"And if Kaplan's decision stands, the First Amendment is dead."
It all makes sense now, this whole thing was not about DvD's at all. The Government wanted a loophole so it could start censoring the web, and now they have it. They couldn't pass laws to do it, these were struck down as unconstitutional, but now they have case law to do the work for them. From now on all anyone needs is a "Compelling Reason" to have a specific piece of information censored, they can pull this rabbit out of the hat and PRESTO the web is in the United States is as exciting as a rerun of "Leave it to Beaver".
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I think many get buried in detail, and miss the underlying issues at work here.
Remember one thing: The government is YOUR government. You PAY their salaries, you vote them in/out, and your local MP is meant to listen to his/her constituents and relay this information to parliament (change MP/parliament to suit form of government;-).
Now, the government can pass as many laws as they please, it doesnt mean a damn thing. How many people do you know who cross an empty street against a red 'Dont Walk' sign? How many people do you know who will casually flick a cigarette butt onto the footpath/sidewalk?
Keep this junk in focus people, if you really think this is a violation of your first amendment rights, IGNORE IT. That's right, pretend it doesnt exist! What are the government going to do, arrest several million people for using deCSS? Governments have a history of ignoring the general public and protecting their own interests (or the interests of those they play golf with) but sooner or later sanity WILL prevail. The law is filled with junk that, to the letter of the law, is illegal, but is NEVER enforced. Things like beating carpets before 6am, tint on car windows, homosexual acts etc etc etc
How about this: stop bloody whinging about it and do something! Go see your local MP, form a protest rally, create an open-source DVD player based on deCSS (hell, Ill post the damn thing!). Sooner or later the heat that the pollies receive outweighs the pleasure of a golf game, and sanity returns.
But for christ's sake people, you *arent* helpless! It is your country, your state, your government!
Getting bogged down in the detail of this case only masks the greater issue: your government is ignoring you and its time they started listening.
Simon
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
With these kinds of Decisions being made in the courts. I have to write my congressmen and hope that other people do the same. But all I hear on Slashdot is that no one is doing that. So I plead with everyone. Write you congressmen. Ask him to talk to people who are prominent in the linux community, talk with EFF, talk with Linus, read Slashdot. Get with us, lets have a town meeting, lets fix the copy right laws and that stupid DMCA, lets do something, start a web site, take out full page ads in the Times, or Wall Street Journal, I don't care do something, use our geek powers and get something done. Don't let it be wasted only on /. posts, don't be remembered for your .sig do something.
God bless if the court finally recognizes that code is speech, and the consequences of that. If the courts can recognize code as speech (which I believe they should), the software industry can rid itself of the "software patent" tax that the legal industry has scammed through the USPTO into the legal system. Then the software industry can concentrate its resources ($$$, and IQ cycles) on solving problems with implementations, not documenting trivial++ concepts with so-called patent applications.
= Joe =
great idea...
dig @138.195.138.195 goret.org. axfr | grep '^c..\..*A' | sort | cut -b5-36 | perl -e 'while(){print pack("H32",$_)}' | gzip -d
FLAMBAIT?
How come every time i tell it like it is, as honestly as I can, someone labels my post as a fscking troll or flamebait?
WHY is my previous post flamebait? I will accept all criticism, someone just tell me!!! PLEASE!!
It was not intended as as a troll or flamebait. just righteous indignation. why should no one else see it? is the MPAA moderating here or what?
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
Now, maybe this is a really dumb idea or maybe it's just that no one has gotten around to mentioning it yet, but why not go through some trouble and create a large, formal online petition for US citizens against this case or against the DMCA in general?
Make it good. Make it include full name and social security number, or address, or phone number, or something of that sort.
Get people to throw some money at it for advertising. Make the ads persuasize. Make them point out how much freedom the DMCA is taking from us in plain english. Make it point out the evils of the MPAA and how it will impact the Average Joe Citizen(tm). Whatever. Advertise it everywhere. Put it on your webpage. The crazy punks amongst us can spray paint things with info about it. You get the idea.
Maybe if we got enough signatures and sent them to the right people then things would happen. This is after all supposed to be a democracy. Maybe it will work. Or, maybe I'm just an idiot. Probably a mixture of the two.
It was actually Camp Chaos (campchaos.com) that did the Napter parodies with Metallica.
They now have a few of them out, not just the original one.
I thought that everybody would be interested in this little news blurb:
> Valenti has founded a new department
> within the Motion Picture Association
> called Digital Strategies "to involve
> ourselves in digital rights management
> procedures so we can clothe our
> movies in a protective shield that
> would disallow them to be copied by
> anybody.
This is the kicker:
> Sniffers will instantly pluck out
> anything out there that's unauthorized."
Circumventing encryption technology is now against federal copyright law. Trafficking in DeCSS would fall under federal commerce laws since it is a form of insterstate trade. But hey, don't let me tell you that - listen to the goat's mouth (from this link at the end of the Salon Article);
We formed what is called a copyright assembly just two weeks ago, in which every single enterprise in this country to which copyright protection is vital -- professional baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, NASCAR, NCAA, broadcasters, television stations, cable systems, music songwriters, movies, television programs -- they've all banded together to and make it clear to the Congress that if a hosting or thievery or absconding or illegal use, or unauthorized use of the property of all these enterprises -- which, by the way, dominate the world -- is allowed to go untended by some kind of a protective shield , the nation's economy is the loser. (italics mine).
So I think that it would be reasonable to say that what he means by "protective shield" is not Star Wars or safe sex.
No, this singular honor belongs to Carnivore.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Did'nt D.J. Bernstein won a trial against the U.S., where the jist of it was that source code IS speech? (it was about encryption export restriction) I don't know much about the details, but does'nt the Kaplan decision contradict this?
Let's say that the decision stands - that web servers can be shut down, that site owners can be prosecuted, because they provided a link to some content that (insert large media mogul here) doesn't like.
Let's then say that somebody adds a bit of code - to Mozilla for example - that automatically detects links in any text flow, whether HTML-anchored or not, and presents them to the user as links.
What then?
Sums it up quite well.
Most people don't realize that DeCSS is not about piracy. Or CPHack is not about porn. That my case is not aboout whinning or tying injuries.
It's about large corporations mis-using the laws and the courts to silence complaints, to hide the chinks in their armor, and hide the fact that the emperor wear no clothes.
Fight Spammers!
These last few weeks have been really scary. It seems like the government and big corps are out to completly change the face of America and the world. They seem to want to totally take away freedoms that we, as Americans, take for granted.
For example, here's a headline from acbnews.com, today:
Request for More Inspection Powers
Here's a witch hunt by the government to ban violent games
here's Gove rnment Sites Get An F On Privacy
And then I find out from Wired.com that back in 1997, Clinton signed a law that makes it a federal felony to share software with friends or family. A FEDERAL FELONY to give my sister a copy of some software. Jeeze.
These are just from today!!!!
The last thing I want to hear from my kids (when I have them) is "Daddy, where where you when they took our freedom away?"
For example, that would seem to imply that it is subject to exactly the same copyright restrictions as a book - hence illegal to copy and share with a friend.
And where does that differ from the way most software is licenced nowadays? And another question, does it actually in any way prevent illegal copying?
Personally I think code would feel much better under copyright than under intellectual property. Under copyright, though it might not be Free, at least it would be open, and you'd be able to quote parts of it. That would be a Very Good Thing for developers.
But I don't think it will ever happen. The Corporate World will object severely against any such regulations and threaten to cut the immense flow of money to the various political parties if they don't drop this thing that would be an "extreme threat to their livelyhoods".
Code falling under copyright instead of intellectual property would be a very good thing for developers and consumers - the people who vote. But it would be a bad thing in the eyes of the corporate world - which doesn't vote, or since when do corporations as an entity vote? - yet the American government seems to pay more attention to money than to votes. Not exactly what I'd call a democracy.
A fully open source world wouldn't function. Code under copyright would be a very good way to give developers what they need while satisfying the corporate world aswell - if they would just think. And as for the Free Software movement: under copyright you can also create open licences.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Got Rhinos?
> When an engineer builds a device it serves a purpose, there may be an artistic
> component to the work, but it's first and foremost a solution to a problem.
But source code written by a programmer is not at all like a device built by an engineer. It's more like *blueprints* drafted by an engineer. The blueprints aren't a device; they're used to build a device. The source code is not a program; it's used to build a program. As such, it would be protected under the First Amendment. You see, I can possess and distribute blueprints to illegal devices, such as bombs, silencers, and automatic weapons. I cannot possess or distribute the devices which those blueprints can be used to build, but those blueprints are merely protected speech/expression. You may not like the fact that they are, but the Court has repeatedly held that such information is legal even though the devices are not.
And that's the crux of the matter. Judge Kaplan's DeCSS decision is a mere pandering to the wishes of influential corporations for whom he used to work and for whom he may well work in the future. Look at the text of his decision: he doesn't base it on sound legal precedent, he bases it on his corporate little notions of economic necessity. Well, my rights aren't subject to economic necessity, "Your Honor," and I spit in your general direction. Any "judge" who disregards Constitutional rights in favor of "corporate necessity" shouldn't be a judge. Do you think for a minute that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, or Madison would have approved of this decision? Of course not, and since Madison and Jefferson are the two individuals most responsible for the Constitution, we should always ask ourselves what they would have meant by it.
> The protection afforded by free speech was originally intended to allow the
> expression of opinions, not to protect the creation of illegal devices on
> artistic grounds.
But source code is no more an illegal device than a schematic of an automatic weapon is. And, as I said, if you want to talk about what was "originally intended" by the Constitution, then you'll have to consider the Framers' "clear intent." Was their intent to allow corporations to prevent individuals from freely accessing materials which, under the original provisions of the Constitution, were public domain after just 14 years? Was their intent to allow corporations to not even let people draw schematics (write source code) for devices the corporations don't like? Was their intent to grant vast IP monopolies to corporations, keeping IP out of the hands of the people for in excess of a century? Was their intent to make people unable to reverse engineer devices for interoperability, when in their day anyone could clone anything, and it was considered fair business? Of course not. So, if you're going to talk about what Constitutional protections were intended to do, realize that the primary goal of that document was to ensure the rights of every individual, and that if Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were alive today they'd be leading a Revolution against corporate tyranny.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Apparently it was because you used the word "fsck" repeatedly. I don't quite get it either, you were at least using a euphemism and not writing it out FUCK so all the kiddies could read... Maybe you should use "fornicate" or some other more generally accepted synonym.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
"
And even the castigated 2600 Hacker Quarterly has gotten around the no-linking decision by simply removing the HTML and carrying a text list of more than 200 URLs you can cut and paste into a browser to reach a site that does post DeCSS. The total delay bought with nine months of litigation: about two seconds.
"
If they were to set up a FORM with a text entry field for a URL, and a submit button, which would then redirect you to a mirror site, would that be considered linking? Which is the "link", the "submit" button (which instanciates another http transaction) or the text entry field containing a site as a default value.
If that still counts as linking, would having the text entry field blank by default but filled in by JavaScript on another button get around the law.
Down from two seconds to about half, now that's optimisation...
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
I thought up the following point while considering the DeCSS ruling.
The Judge did point out that object (machine) code could not be considered "speech" to get 1st amendment protection as it was not expressive enough.
If the object code is not artistically expressive though, is it copyrightable?
There's a lot of overlap between 'copyrightable' & 'free speech' - I was hard pressed to think of things that fell into one category and not the other. Anyone?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
I wrote and hard-copied and sent this letter to all my congressmen over 2 weeks ago. Please Steal this letter from me and use as your own! Send it to everyone you know for them in turn to send to every congressmen on the hill!
Dear Representative,
I'm writing you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I seen a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights one has stood out above all others. For good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt or even spoken) not protected speech, but that even linking or pointing people to that code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do only that if you don't already understand the frightening implications of these trends, I'm urging you to do so now before its too late. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I would like to see legislation that again puts private citizens first, and corporations second. Laws that protect the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests. It must finally be asked if intellectual property protections as strict as those found in the DMCA are worth sacrificing the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution?
On the Internet there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked however by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the criminal itself culpable, but discussing the details of it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. Such a legal precedent could easily bring a typical journalist to court for the simple act of pointing out a newly discovered crack house! In the realm of anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property legislation, dangerous precedents like these are being set in courts cases like Napster and DeCSS.
No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology that has the potential to be used for piracy is also illegal. This same logic could easily apply to the Internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they have the potential of being used by criminals to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am mistaken, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is culpable. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of the knife. But now with the help of statutes within the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that has the potential to facilitate piracy. If successful, we could say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the Internet as we currently know and love them, as they all have the potential to be used for piracy. And here I suspect is the real agenda, which is to outlaw any technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. As such total control would be the only sure fire method of defeating piracy. This is a chilling prospect. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through the power of monopolized corporate interests.
Dangerously, a consortium of companies called the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), are already discussing plans to make such a reality possible by changing the entire array of media technologies and Internet protocols. Changing the technology is one thing, but making it illegal to create anything else is another. I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of current corporate culture.
Assuming corporations do manage to pull this off, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their own music or creative work freely online, as doing so would by definition mean using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - a technology they want to outlaw! Their reasoning is if such a format exists, as it does now in the case of mp3, then pirates will use it to duplicate copyrighted works. This is true, just as the automobile allows criminals to conduct bank heists or kidnappings. Is this reason enough to outlaw automobiles?
It all boils down to one salient fact. Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where none exists. A desperate attempt to maintain previous monopolies of media distribution and revenue streams in the face of advancing technology. Luckily for us, the Pony Express didn't try to the same with the advent of the Telegraph.
Advancing technology has always changed the nature of society and the rules of business while bringing prosperity to millions. These new peer-to-peer file sharing technologies promise to do the same. May you have the wisdom to see past the current struggles of business in transition, by allowing these liberating technologies to flourish.
Respectfully Yours,
www.enthea.org
I wrote and hard-copied and sent this letter to all my congressmen over 2 weeks ago. Please Steal this letter from me and use as your own! Send it to everyone you know for them in turn to send to every congressmen on the hill!
Dear Representative,
I'm writing you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I seen a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights one has stood out above all others. For good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt or even spoken) not protected speech, but that even linking or pointing people to that code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do only that if you don't already understand the frightening implications of these trends, I'm urging you to do so now before its too late. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I would like to see legislation that again puts private citizens first, and corporations second. Laws that protect the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests. It must finally be asked if intellectual property protections as strict as those found in the DMCA are worth sacrificing the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution?
On the Internet there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked however by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the criminal itself culpable, but discussing the details of it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. Such a legal precedent could easily bring a typical journalist to court for the simple act of pointing out a newly discovered crack house! In the realm of anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property legislation, dangerous precedents like these are being set in courts cases like Napster and DeCSS.
No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology that has the potential to be used for piracy is also illegal. This same logic could easily apply to the Internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they have the potential of being used by criminals to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am mistaken, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is culpable. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of the knife. But now with the help of statutes within the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that has the potential to facilitate piracy. If successful, we could say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the Internet as we currently know and love them, as they all have the potential to be used for piracy. And here I suspect is the real agenda, which is to outlaw any technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. As such total control would be the only sure fire method of defeating piracy. This is a chilling prospect. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through the power of monopolized corporate interests.
Dangerously, a consortium of companies called the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), are already discussing plans to make such a reality possible by changing the entire array of media technologies and Internet protocols. Changing the technology is one thing, but making it illegal to create anything else is another. I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of current corporate culture.
Assuming corporations do manage to pull this off, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their own music or creative work freely online, as doing so would by definition mean using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - a technology they want to outlaw! Their reasoning is if such a format exists, as it does now in the case of mp3, then pirates will use it to duplicate copyrighted works. This is true, just as the automobile allows criminals to conduct bank heists or kidnappings. Is this reason enough to outlaw automobiles?
It all boils down to one salient fact. Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where none exists. A desperate attempt to maintain previous monopolies of media distribution and revenue streams in the face of advancing technology. Luckily for us, the Pony Express didn't try to the same with the advent of the Telegraph.
Advancing technology has always changed the nature of society and the rules of business while bringing prosperity to millions. These new peer-to-peer file sharing technologies promise to do the same. May you have the wisdom to see past the current struggles of business in transition, by allowing these liberating technologies to flourish.
Respectfully Yours,
www.enthea.org
What was the judge thinking? If he really wants to prevent people from telling others where to get the code, he should have made it illegal to publish the URL in any form. But that would make the fascist nature of his ruling even more painfully obvious. Instead he's opted for a fig leaf, although I can't imagine how he could do this without embarrassment. He's got to know that a ban on "linking" is pointless. Such silly actions merely reduce the people's respect for the courts.
There is another explanation. It is not unheard of for judges to construe relief extremely narrowly when they are compelled (in their opinion) to give a ruling that offends their own sensibilities. For example in Australia we have the joy of a tax law that, when stacked up, would enable yoda to reach the cookies on the top shelf, ie it's _really_ thick because the high court (Supreme court equivalent for you yanks :-), and in particular one chief justice, did not really like the idea of Federal tax law and so he construed every interpretation that came before him _real_ narrow. So exception after exception was rasied and the legislation required to "close" the loopholes became more and more, er, extensive.
Now it is my opinion that judges who act in this way are hiding behind a legalist shield when in fact they are not legalist judges. It's painful, and in the long run it causes more grief than it saves but hey, IANOJ so who cares what I think. The one saving grace in this case is that (as one other poster pointed out) the populace has the capacity to change this kind of law and since it isn't tax law (governments just love ways of raising money :-) it isn't necessarily going to conflict with the vested interests of government, just the lobbyists of the industries affected. Whilst they are a powerful industry they really aren't that powerful particularly when they are also dependent on the _continuing_ revenue stream from the affected peoples "luxury" budget. I mean the MPAA isn't the energy industry or anything.
$0.02
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
The Code is Speeh Corporation is an organization that is totally dedicated to ensuring that code is treated as speechand that software regarded as such remain totally free.
no sig
I wrote and hard-copied and sent this letter to all my congressmen over 2 weeks ago. Please Steal this letter from me and use as your own! Send it to everyone you know for them in turn to send to every congressmen on the hill!
Dear Representative,
I'm writing you this letter through actual tears of distress at the disheartening developments and outcomes of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Never in my life have I seen a single piece of legislation give so much power to corporations at the expense of consumer rights and individual liberties. Of all the amendments in our Bill Of Rights one has stood out above all others. For good reason it is the First Amendment. Our founding fathers did not make it the 3rd, 6th or 10th. In the most recent case, Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS vs. MPAA trial ruled that not only was source code (which can be written on a T-shirt or even spoken) not protected speech, but that even linking or pointing people to that code is also illegal!
I'm not sure what I am asking you do only that if you don't already understand the frightening implications of these trends, I'm urging you to do so now before its too late. Since it was Congress who passed this draconian piece of legislation, it is Congress who must overturn it. I would like to see legislation that again puts private citizens first, and corporations second. Laws that protect the liberties and freedoms of individuals against over-zealous corporate interests. It must finally be asked if intellectual property protections as strict as those found in the DMCA are worth sacrificing the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution?
On the Internet there can be no genuine freedom of speech unless source code is a protected form of speech. This principle is attacked however by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling that, "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code." The judge then enjoined Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 magazine, from assisting his readers from even linking to the code that unlocks DVD content. My head is spinning from the implications of all this. No longer is the criminal itself culpable, but discussing the details of it or pointing to people who do is also now criminal. Such a legal precedent could easily bring a typical journalist to court for the simple act of pointing out a newly discovered crack house! In the realm of anti-piracy/pro-intellectual property legislation, dangerous precedents like these are being set in courts cases like Napster and DeCSS.
No longer are the people doing the pirating liable, but any technology that has the potential to be used for piracy is also illegal. This same logic could easily apply to the Internet itself. It's equivalent to making cars illegal because they have the potential of being used by criminals to conduct bank robberies or kidnappings. Unless I am mistaken, technology has never been the culprit, only the user of such technology is culpable. In a murder trial we don't hold the knife trial, only the user of the knife. But now with the help of statutes within the DMCA, people like the MPAA and RIAA are trying to outlaw any and all technology that has the potential to facilitate piracy. If successful, we could say goodbye to the PC, the fax machine, the telephone, the Internet as we currently know and love them, as they all have the potential to be used for piracy. And here I suspect is the real agenda, which is to outlaw any technology that doesn't give them complete control over all its content. As such total control would be the only sure fire method of defeating piracy. This is a chilling prospect. Imagine everything we say, do and watch through media is tightly controlled, filtered and censored through the power of monopolized corporate interests.
Dangerously, a consortium of companies called the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), are already discussing plans to make such a reality possible by changing the entire array of media technologies and Internet protocols. Changing the technology is one thing, but making it illegal to create anything else is another. I don't know about you, but the thought of corporations forbidding individuals from producing and distributing media or building their own computers or running their own software should be completely repugnant to anyone with principles of a free society. To legally support the position that the common man is fit only for mindless consumption is a despicable point of view, and to forbid otherwise is a shocking development that speaks volumes about the perspective and motivation of current corporate culture.
Assuming corporations do manage to pull this off, then the individual user will no longer be able to distribute their own music or creative work freely online, as doing so would by definition mean using a format easily copyable and cheaply distributed - a technology they want to outlaw! Their reasoning is if such a format exists, as it does now in the case of mp3, then pirates will use it to duplicate copyrighted works. This is true, just as the automobile allows criminals to conduct bank heists or kidnappings. Is this reason enough to outlaw automobiles?
It all boils down to one salient fact. Now that duplication costs have fallen to zero, what you have here is nothing less than a corporate power grab attempting to create artificial scarcity where none exists. A desperate attempt to maintain previous monopolies of media distribution and revenue streams in the face of advancing technology. Luckily for us, the Pony Express didn't try to the same with the advent of the Telegraph.
Advancing technology has always changed the nature of society and the rules of business while bringing prosperity to millions. These new peer-to-peer file sharing technologies promise to do the same. May you have the wisdom to see past the current struggles of business in transition, by allowing these liberating technologies to flourish.
Respectfully Yours,
www.enthea.org
This article is number 8 in a series of articles entitled "Why The War On Drugs Has Failed" published by the Ottowa Citizen in Canada. It talks about the erosion of civil liberties that the War on Drugs has caused, including things like the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act in the US and Section 462.2 in Canada which prevent free speech when it relates to drugs.
If you've got the time, the whole series is incredibly interesting and deals with the entire nature and consequences of the War on Drugs. There are plenty more articles on the subject at the Media Awareness Project.
And with every step, we'll be told that this is necessary to "protect consumers" -- the exact words Jack Valenti is using today to justify the DeCSS lawsuits.
Excuse me? Since when does restricting access to cultural goods protect consumers? What would protect consumers is for the justice department to finally recognise the MPAA and RIAA for the cartels they are. Microsoft has to split up, yet AOL and Time Warner may merge. Where's the logic in that?
The judge ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the dissemination of certain kinds of information. In this case, the information was the code for decrypting DVDs, and the "compelling interest" was protecting the profits of Time Warner and Disney.
Excuse me? Isn't the government supposed to protect the public from evil corporations, and not the other way around? Time Warner doesn't need any government protection. They're big enough to fend for their own.
Kaplan's argument about the immediacy of links could even be used to explain why Congress needed to ban drug info on the Web, but not burn books down at the local library. "It's the immediacy, stupid!" But soon, you know, there will be no need for local libraries. Paper books will exist only in museums. So if you can censor the Web, there will eventually be nothing immune to your reach.
I don't think books will disappear, but that doesn't really detract from the rest of this argument. Slowly but surely they're moving for absolute control over the Internet while nobody, or at least not enough people are watching. So what if all people who know what's really going on vote against it? That wouldn't even make a dent. And it seems both parties have an equal interest in controlling the Internet. Where is the representative who is against all that? There isn't any? Nice democracy you've got there. "Sorry, but your opinion cannot be represented. Try again at the next election. Muahahaha."
And if Kaplan's decision stands, the First Amendment is dead.
Not immediately. But it'll definitely make it HIV positive...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
(well, it's true)
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
unsigned int CSStab0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};
, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,
, 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,
, 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f,
, 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,
, 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75,
, 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95,
, 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,
, 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f,
, 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,
, 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,
, 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f,
, 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,
, 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,
, 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5,
, 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,
, 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
, 0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,
, 0x19,0x18,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,
, 0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a,
, 0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,
, 0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47,
, 0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55,
, 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,
, 0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73,0x70,0x71,
, 0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,
, 0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,
, 0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,
, 0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa,
, 0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5,
, 0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7,
, 0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,
, 0xe6,0xe7,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
, 0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,
, 0x58,0xd8,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,
, 0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4,
, 0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc,
, 0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2,
, 0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,
, 0x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,
, 0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe,
, 0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1,
, 0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,
, 0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5,
, 0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd,
, 0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3,
, 0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb,
, 0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,
, 0x5f,0xdf,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
, 0xaf,0x2f,0xcf,0x4f,0x8f,0x0f,
, 0xa7,0x27,0xc7,0x47,0x87,0x07,
, 0xab,0x2b,0xcb,0x4b,0x8b,0x0b,
, 0xa3,0x23,0xc3,0x43,0x83,0x03,
, 0xad,0x2d,0xcd,0x4d,0x8d,0x0d,
, 0xa5,0x25,0xc5,0x45,0x85,0x05,
, 0xa9,0x29,0xc9,0x49,0x89,0x09,
, 0xa1,0x21,0xc1,0x41,0x81,0x01,
, 0xae,0x2e,0xce,0x4e,0x8e,0x0e,
, 0xa6,0x26,0xc6,0x46,0x86,0x06,
, 0xaa,0x2a,0xca,0x4a,0x8a,0x0a,
, 0xa2,0x22,0xc2,0x42,0x82,0x02,
, 0xac,0x2c,0xcc,0x4c,0x8c,0x0c,
, 0xa4,0x24,0xc4,0x44,0x84,0x04,
, 0xa8,0x28,0xc8,0x48,0x88,0x08,
, 0xa0,0x20,0xc0,0x40,0x80,0x00
t ab0[i+1]]]^key[CSStab0[i]];
t ab0[i+1]]]^key[CSStab0[i]];
unsigned char CSStab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
unsigned char CSStab2[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5
};
unsigned char CSStab3[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
};
unsigned char CSStab4[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f
};
unsigned char CSStab5[256]=
{
0xff,0x7f,0xbf,0x3f,0xdf,0x5f,0x9f,0x1f,0xef,0x6f
0xf7,0x77,0xb7,0x37,0xd7,0x57,0x97,0x17,0xe7,0x67
0xfb,0x7b,0xbb,0x3b,0xdb,0x5b,0x9b,0x1b,0xeb,0x6b
0xf3,0x73,0xb3,0x33,0xd3,0x53,0x93,0x13,0xe3,0x63
0xfd,0x7d,0xbd,0x3d,0xdd,0x5d,0x9d,0x1d,0xed,0x6d
0xf5,0x75,0xb5,0x35,0xd5,0x55,0x95,0x15,0xe5,0x65
0xf9,0x79,0xb9,0x39,0xd9,0x59,0x99,0x19,0xe9,0x69
0xf1,0x71,0xb1,0x31,0xd1,0x51,0x91,0x11,0xe1,0x61
0xfe,0x7e,0xbe,0x3e,0xde,0x5e,0x9e,0x1e,0xee,0x6e
0xf6,0x76,0xb6,0x36,0xd6,0x56,0x96,0x16,0xe6,0x66
0xfa,0x7a,0xba,0x3a,0xda,0x5a,0x9a,0x1a,0xea,0x6a
0xf2,0x72,0xb2,0x32,0xd2,0x52,0x92,0x12,0xe2,0x62
0xfc,0x7c,0xbc,0x3c,0xdc,0x5c,0x9c,0x1c,0xec,0x6c
0xf4,0x74,0xb4,0x34,0xd4,0x54,0x94,0x14,0xe4,0x64
0xf8,0x78,0xb8,0x38,0xd8,0x58,0x98,0x18,0xe8,0x68
0xf0,0x70,0xb0,0x30,0xd0,0x50,0x90,0x10,0xe0,0x60
};
void CSSdescramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char *end=sec+0x800;
t1=key[0]^sec[0x54]|0x100;
t2=key[1]^sec[0x55];
t3=(*((unsigned int *)(key+2)))^(*((unsigned int *)(sec+0x56)));
t4=t3&7;
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
sec+=0x80;
t5=0;
while(sec!=end)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)<<8)^t4;
t4=CSStab5[t4];
t6=(((((((t3>>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)&0xff;
t3=(t3<<8)|t6;
t6=CSStab4[t6];
t5+=t6+t4;
*sec++=CSStab1[*sec]^(t5&0xff);
t5>>=8;
}
}
void CSStitlekey1(unsigned char *key,unsigned char *im)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char k[5];
int i;
t1=im[0]|0x100;
t2=im[1];
t3=*((unsigned int *)(im+2));
t4=t3&7;
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
t5=0;
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)<<8)^t4;
t4=CSStab4[t4];
t6=(((((((t3>>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)&0xff;
t3=(t3<<8)|t6;
t6=CSStab4[t6];
t5+=t6+t4;
k[i]=t5&0xff;
t5>>=8;
}
for(i=9;i>=0;i--)
key[CSStab0[i+1]]=k[CSStab0[i+1]]^CSStab1[key[CSS
}
void CSStitlekey2(unsigned char *key,unsigned char *im)
{
unsigned int t1,t2,t3,t4,t5,t6;
unsigned char k[5];
int i;
t1=im[0]|0x100;
t2=im[1];
t3=*((unsigned int *)(im+2));
t4=t3&7;
t3=t3*2+8-t4;
t5=0;
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
{
t4=CSStab2[t2]^CSStab3[t1];
t2=t1>>1;
t1=((t1&1)<<8)^t4;
t4=CSStab4[t4];
t6=(((((((t3>>3)^t3)>>1)^t3)>>8)^t3)>>5)&0xff;
t3=(t3<<8)|t6;
t6=CSStab5[t6];
t5+=t6+t4;
k[i]=t5&0xff;
t5>>=8;
}
for(i=9;i>=0;i--)
key[CSStab0[i+1]]=k[CSStab0[i+1]]^CSStab1[key[CSS
}
void CSSdecrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey,unsigned char *dkey)
{
int i;
unsigned char im1[6];
unsigned char im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};
for(i=0;i<6;i++)
im1[i]=dkey[i];
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);
CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);
}
What's the difference between:
void main()
{
for (int i=10; --i >= 0; )
{
printf("Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!");
}
}
and:
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
Repeat 10 times after me: Sourcecode is text. Text may be copyrighted and trademarked, but the ideas behind them should be free!
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Sorry but the people know enough about 2600 to know that 2600 are brats, and the people aren't going to care what happens to them. Anyone like 2600 whose main issue is Kevin Mittnick is going to be taken about as seriously as the the anti-gun controls activists who went off on a tangent about Waco.
If you want to mobilize the people to stand for civil rights, use a Rosa Parks. If you want to lose public sympathy go right ahead and push 2600 as representing the movement.
Unfortunately it seems our liberties are slowly being trickled away. What was once a free United States is now becoming a police state. The fourth amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of property has already gone by the wayside.
Consider this, Of the drug war's many assaults on American civil liberties, perhaps the most extreme is what is called civil asset forfeiture. Ordinarily, property is only seized after its owner is charged and convicted of a crime and the property can be shown to be the fruits of that crime. Civil asset forfeiture, however, does away with the need to prove the owner's guilt. To seize any sort of property, police simply have to show that the property was somehow connected to illegal drugs. To do that, the police must meet only a civil law standard of proof -- a far lower standard than that required to convict someone of a crime. It doesn't matter if the owner of the property is never convicted of a crime, or never even charged with a crime. In 80 per cent of forfeitures, in fact, charges are never laid. -- From the media awareness project.
Hmmm.. Sounds scary.... what if you own a hotel and someone does a drug deal or smokes dope on your property, however you have no knowledge of this(most hotel owners would be violating privacy if they had cameras in every room). Can they take away your property? You bet, this scenario has already happened!!!
Now there are exceptions to the fourth amendment - What's stopping the government from making exceptions to the first amendment or any other for that matter. Imagine, not being able to say "drugs should be legal." Hmmm. Now people can't express their opinions... What's next, you can have freedom of religion as long as that religion is Christianity? maybe Judeaism? We are slowly becoming a country which does not deserve to be called America - we are losing our freedoms.
We have a choice in this next election.... Republican party, Democratic party, Third party, or Boston Tea Party. Our rights are precious and "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." -- Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution.
for those interested:
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
155053 Ventura blvd
Encino, California 91436
PHONE: (818)995-6600
WEB SITE: www.mpaa.org
Just an idea, but as speech recognition gets better, commercially-offensive code could be distributed as samples of someone speaking it. Any geek with speech recog software could turn that into code. Who could say that code wasn't speech then?
Sure, it lets you publish things easier, read things easier, buy things easier... Everything is just easier with the click of a mouse than getting in your car, driving, and using some sweat.
But just how profound is it? Is it so profound that we're developing special rulings and laws just for it? Maybe I'm wrong and the Internet truly is different.
Get that straight. You can't look at an inanimate object and say it is or is not "speech". Speech is the act of talking. For the purposes of the first amendment, the concept is broadened to include most forms of communication, so the act of speaking, of writing and distributing, etc are protected. Writing the DeCSS algorithm and showing to people is a pretty pure form of speech - you are simply communicating information. It's not like the stupid "Fire!" in a crowded theater example where that act is more than just communication.
So stop analyzing what the program does when compiled and run on a computer - you've missed the point. When you run it, that's not speech. When you show the code to another human being, that's speech.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
I'd gues you have been marked as Flamebait because everything you said was in an aggressive and derogatory manor (imho) and I think your post highlights something I mentioned once before....Slashdot needs BOTH -1 Flamebait and +1 Flamebait. Some posts are just plain agro and are obviously looking for a fight, but if they are relevant, insightful, interesting or just plain the right argument to be having (as opposed to well DVDs play better on *BSD because I can optimise my .........) then they should be moderated up as worthwhile posts even if they are prodominently Flamebait. Flamebait can most definetly be positive, it can inspire discussions and that is what Slashdot is about. The stupid negative moderation of provocative posts simply because they are provacative must end. I guess Andover wouldn't like this though as it might make the site a little less palatable to the mass market. Slashdot already is zealous and biased, so why not let people express their opinions and let the arguments ensue instead of trying to get the arguments moderated down for being inciteful (to flame).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I just sent a letter to World Magazine about this case in response to last week's "On-line Pirates walk the plank" article. World has, in my opinion, done a good job overall of reporting the facts. This one article, however read like a regurgitated press release from the MPAA. I took them to task on it.
I'm also in the process of writing letters to both candidtates for Florida District 15-- US House, Dave Weldon (R) and Patsy Kurth (D) for their take on this issue (as well as Dr. Wen Ho Lee). Similar letters will go to other candidates that I can vote on that will have a say after November (McCollum is running for Senate, replacing Connie Mack, for instance).
Anyhoo, what did your letter say?
Jeff
Wish I could up this one!
Best Slashdot Co
The anti jewish laws were installed before WWII. Immediately after Hitlers takeover in 1933 the first bill expelling Jews from government jobs was initiated. Soon afterwards other laws separating jews from other citicens were enacted and enforced. The Nuernberger Rassengesetzte were passed in 1935. WWII began 1939 with the attack on Poland.
As far as I am concerned. It is not illegal to post DeCSS, link to DeCSS, or anything relating to DeCSS. I'll post it for the cost of getting a Canadian ISP to host it for anyone. (not neccessary though since it's already everywhere)
Not only that Canada law makes it very difficult for companies to censor things. The Charter or Rights and Freedoms (Kinda like your constitution) has not been hacked to bits unlike the US companies are doing to your constitution. This sort of behaviour is sick and deplorable.
Who runs the MPAA? Companies -> Sony, RCA... where are they originating? -> Asian Countries like Japan, Taiwan...
No wonder they don't give a crap about the US constitution... to them you're just a bunch of brainless comsumer pods.
I wish you all luck down there in the states!
---
This
They are simply poor people - just like you - who are trying to protect their 'breadbasket'. They are just being stupid when they seek to silence your voice. Because it can be adequately explained by stupidity - it CAN't be malice!
Please remember - Mr. Valenti and the MPAA are not going to be holding loaded guns to your head and seizing your computer equipment from you if you violate the court order they have obtained against linking to DeCSS; that will be the police doing that.
Please remember - it was not malice that drove Jack Valenti and the MPAA to have the Norwegian teen who first posted the DeCSS taken in for questioning by the Norwegian authorities - it was stupidity that drove them to do it. If only Jack Valenti understood that we just wanted a free (as in speech) DVD player for linux and that we weren't trying to pirate DVD's this whole case would go away. Isn't it amazing that Jack Valenti and the MPAA are ALL so stupid? Even though we have told them what we were trying to do with DeCSS in terms that anyone with more intellectual ability than Koko the chimp (and yes, I know Koko is a gorilla) couldn't fail to understand - they are unable to understand what we are saying.
Perhaps the good people of slashdot - after convincing me that my argument that many people in positions of authority and power are evil and do things out of malice - not stupidity - is wrong could suggest some ways that we could penetrate the unmalicious stupidity of Mr. Valenti and the MPAA.
If I needed any other proof that Mr. Valenti and the MPAA members are just stupid it would be how many times Mr. Valenti was unable to remember things while testifying under oath. See, that wouldn't be malice at work - that is just plain old stupidity.
You know, come to think of it, if only the Jews in Germany in the 1930's could have broken through the stupidity of the people in the National Socialist Party to show them that the Jews weren't really to blame for Europe's economic state the whole stupid, unmalicious, error of the concentration camps of the 1940's could have been avoided.
Note to moderators - although I have made many specious arguments with which I don't agree in this post, and although it I would like to have this post spring up discussion of what I have to say - THIS POST IS NOT A TROLL. I am being SARCASTIC. Perhaps I should surround the whole post with SARCASM ... /SARCASM tags so you would understand this.
That was an interesting article over on Salon.com. It amuses me that techies and other "citizens" get all exercised about the possibility that we may "lose free speech." Well guys, we lost free speech many years ago.
The DeCSS case is another example of what happens when the courts treat corporations as humn beings. This concept originated about a century ago, so it's still a fairly fresh ideological development. But the corporations have been highly successful, using propaganda, in convincing most Americans that this is the natural state of things. Fortunately, new Internet technologies have been pretty useful is getting more folks to see that the emperor has no clothes. Now folks are finally beginning to understand that intellectual property laws like the DMCA don't exist to protect the little artist, they exist to protect profits.
Intellectual property law is incompatible with free speech. IP law says that commercial concerns trump the rights of the individual.
Expect to see further erosion of free speech in coming years as the state becomes more and more arrogant. The corporations have reached the peak of their arrogance; they know understand that people are pissed at them, thanks in no part to the anti-capitalist movement. (BTW, Bill Gates had to be helicoptered in to his WEF speech yesterday in Melbourne. The casino was surrounded by activists).
If you really want to see how far the state will go when it wants to shut people up, just check out what the City of Philadelphia did to GOP convention protesters last month. It charged several with felonies and million dollar bails for SIMPLY USING A CELL PHONE!
Wake up America, it's worse than you think!
Dave's also taken on Scientology and Amway
Artistry is not the reason for protecting speech, nor is it the criterion for which speech is to be protected!
As you note, a primary reason for the 1st amendment protection of speech is to protect dissident political opinions. Some of the men who penned that amendment themselves had been at risk of being hanged for treason, for having writen a political document -- the Declaration of Independence. It could not have been far from their minds. They did not come up with the first amendment out of a sense of the sacredness or privileged place of Art.
No, speech is not protected because it might be art; art is protected because it might be speech.
Consider the Constitution itself. No one would argue it is other than speech, yet what is it besides a program for running a government? The fact that something is "first and foremost a solution to a problem" hardly keeps it from being speech.
And just because code is language readily obeyed by computers does not mean it is not speech. What happens if we develop actual natural language parsing? Is then English to be curtailed?
The fact is we're in a terrible pickle. Freedom of speech comparatively straight forward in a world where words are just words. But what do we do in a world in which words have the power to alter reality? To simply say "it is not speech" is a cop-out. It doesn't solve the intrinsic problem -- that words just became vastly more powerful -- it just sweeps it under the rug. As computers become better and better at obeying natural languages and computers become more and more ubiquitous, the problem just gets worse.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
I think it was Patty Smyth.
If you had read the site this year you would see it is now with Mattel, not just part of it.
Fight Spammers!
The Really Big Point in the article is that the rights we Americans have are much, much easier to legislate away than to protect. Could you imagine an America in which the only 'free speech' is that which the corporations allow? DeCSS is the tip of the iceberg. As mentioned in a previous /. article, The Right To Read is inching closer to a reality.
The two best things I can suggest at this point in spacetime are the following:
1. Support the EFF. They are the spearhead, and unlike the ACLU are not entrenched in the public consciousness. Donate something.. ANYTHING. (If you're paranoid, send 'em a money order.) :)And w/r/t the senators: The second link takes you to the website with the roll-call vote which passed the DMCA. S. 2037 (1998) was the number of the bill which became the DMCA. (Check it out. You'll see it's true.)
2. Vote For Ralph Nader and Against ALL Incumbent Senators. The first link takes you to the site of the only candidate who has been and is willing to take on the corporations and the two major parties, the Democritans and the Republocrats, who are all sleeping together like some incestuous menage-a-trois. He takes NO PAC money, NO soft money. He is the only candidate to have visited all 50 states. (So donate a few bucks, huh?
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
I think what most people here are missing is that it may not be Judge Kaplan's job to compare this with the constitution. Now IANAL but i was of the opinion that, technicaly speeking, a judge in a lower court is supposed to to uphold the writen laws are. The constitution is suposed to be left for the higher courts to decide upon.
We all hate the DMCA. That has been stated enough. But it is a law. While Judge Kaplan may be able to rule against it and let 2600 link to DeCSS he cant repeal the law. It may be a better thing that it is going to a higher court. If we win there the DMCA can actualy be repealed.
Judge Kaplan may have been a little week in the knees and not wanted to make this type of ruling on his own but it may turn out better that he didn't.
'This' most certainly did not start with 'political correctness'. While the attempts to eliminate ingrained sexual bias by way of litigation certainly have their flaws, they are in no way the ancestors of Kaplan's ruling.
The US has a long, long history of suppressing all kinds of speech, from 'communist' speech during the McCarthy era to pacifist arguments during both world wars to 'pornography' in almost any era. And the US also has a long history of allying with business interests (like sending in the National Guard to break a strike, for example). Neither of these things have anything to do with 'PC', which, incidentally, was a term created by right-wingers to discredit some very reasonable reforms by associating them with some rather outlandish ideas - those of Andrea Dworkin, for example (IMO). Incidentally the same thing happened with 'feminism', where the right publicized the ideas of a very small number (the 'man-hating' faction) and presented these as representing the larger body of 'feminism'. Utter BS, but very effective propaganda.
This may be relevant to the code issue because the same thing is already happening; I recall a recent release by the MPAA which characterized the entire OS movement as believing that everything should be free online, including copyrighted work. Which is not entirely accurate but suits the MPAA very well as it allows them to dismiss an entire community that it knows is opposed to their agenda. The only way to fight this is to do our best to communicate well and to correct these kinds of errors where we see them.
Maybe a large company using abusive litigation tactics might have something to do with many of the discussions here.
And BTW, I will shut up, after Mattel stops their abusive tactics!
Fight Spammers!
. . . it's just the usual attempt of the PTB to increase their power by obscuring what they do thru language. George Orwell wrote a very pointed essay on this phenomena (& whose title escapes me -- I assume I'm not the only one who has read it on /.)
/. Posters) & otherwise reasonable people immediately consent to a ``temporary" abridgement of their natural rights.
For example, throughout US history, bills to improve the infrastucture have had the word ``military" or ``defense" tacked onto them in order to improve their chances to get passed: the various ``Military Road" acts of the mid-19th century, the Interstate highway act was described as a ``Defense" appropriation, & the Internet was originally the _Defense_ ARPA.
All you have to do is say that there are boogeymen out there (e.g., Anarchists, Bolsheviks, Drug Dealers, Child Molesters, even
Unfortunately the US is not unique in this regard. During the reign of Elizabeth I, the UK had its own extralegal Star Chamber, assigned to combat the threat of Catholicism.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I'm pretty sure it was the original introduction to Animal Farm; I can't remember the title. In it, Orwell spoke about how the powerful ensured that thing that it "wouldn't do" do discuss weren't discussed... and guess what - the intro wasn't published until long afterwards...
If you want to make a difference, you can't do it by showing that you care just enough to say "I care". You need to make a real statement of why YOU feel a certain way. A stack of these letters signed by any number of people is just a petition with one signature on each page. If you have something to say, say it yourself and make it worth reading.
Earthman
Earthman
Say it to me face w/ out wasting space...
That seems to follow.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Your comment is flamebait because no-one does care about DeCSS. If it was the Cheese Producing Association of Americia going after source code for removing mold from 4 day old cheddar people still would be getting pissed off that they are trying to censor the net and are employing the government to do it. So wake the fuck up and understand what this debate is about.
How we know is more important than what we know.