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."
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.
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.
Which makes me think - what if you use a flash or java applet to display a list and allow a visitor to click on the location you want to go to. Or a dropdown list of mirrors, and a button to "Go Get DeCSS"?
What about a shockwave video game where you shoot little Jack Valenti's who are trying to torch the Constitution, and when you rack up ten hits, you get forwarded to a copy of DeCSS as a winning screen?
What is a link? A anchor reference? Does a javascript outputting the first and second half of the link html count (since it is assembled on the client, and not sent by or stored on the server?)
Hey, Kaplan... ya wanna write an RFC on exactly what a "link" is?
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
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?
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
Hey, Kaplan... ya wanna write an RFC on exactly what a "link" is?
Ask British Telecom. They've got a patent on it.
)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*
"
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
People have been copyrighting ROMs for many years, even though they contain machine code. Does anyone have a citation for the court case? Whether or not ROMs could be copyrighted was an early example of the application of copyright law to computer technology.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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
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);
}
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.
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!
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.
void main{}
/readings/voidmain.960823.html
/faq22_25.html
/ctips01.html#int_main
Ack! You must be an old school coder! For your information, you cannot have main not returning an integer in standard C or C++. It is invalid code.
The following links should help refine your coding style. I only mention this because a) I am pedantic, and b) because I happen to believe new programmers reading this list shouldn't have to read crappy, non-compliant code (especially when the C standard has been around more than 10 years):
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq
And one of my favorite alt.lang.learnc-c++ contributors, Jack Klein:
http://home.att.net/~jackklein
Stuart
*slashdot pedant*
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
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 -*-
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.
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
No, not that one -- although it is probably relevant. the essay I had in mind was ``Politics And The English Language"
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
That seems to follow.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra