Slashdot Mirror


Emmanuel Goldstein Profiled

Danny Ra sent us a link to a really interesting story about 2600's Emmanuel Goldstein. It's mostly about him, and his involvement with the recent DeCSS hoopla, and it's definitely worth a read since his case stands to change the face of the Net. The worst case scenario is of course the banning of links.

28 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. I hate to say it... by xtermz · · Score: 3

    but as much as i dont like the guy, he needs to be given credit where its due. He has the balls to stand up to the MPAA and fight for the rights of all DeCSS users. Plus he's taken on the SS, the FBI, the court system, etc etc. Part of me thinks of him as a media whore, but yet he still has done alot to contribute to the electronic community and protect us from the bass-ackwards view that the media and society has on 'hackers'.

    "sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."

    --


    I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
  2. Unbanning links. by pallex · · Score: 3

    Apart from the fact that it is completely futile to ban links, its probably time for a website to host a links database - just thousands and thousands of URLs, anyone can submit a link,no testing would be done to even ensure it was a link. then instead of saying `get your decss source here` you`d say `check out link #139523 from the links site`. the site would be mirrored, and you could submit the same site multiple times.

    Anyone see any problems with this? It could be mirrored easily, would compress reasonably well, and i cant see how it could be the subject of a legal threat. `Your honour, we found the defendant openly passing on a single, 32-bit number!`

    1. Re:Unbanning links. by GeorgeH · · Score: 2
      i cant see how it could be the subject of a legal threat. `Your honour, we found the defendant openly passing on a single, 32-bit number!`
      Well I can't see how `Your Honor, we found the defendant openly passing an address to an article of speech' to be something the MPAA could press charges on, but here we are!
      --
      --
      Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
    2. Re:Unbanning links. by pallex · · Score: 2

      "Maybe 1 out of a hundred would be good links. MAYBE."

      Doesnt matter! I`m not suggesting people use the page/dbase as a place to just browse for links, simply that once a site has been allocated a number, it`d be there for you to lookup.

      Really, the number thing is just a way to abstract the site from a url. The links site itself could be moderated, people could mirror just parts of it that prove useful... i mean, i`ve not thought about it too much, and there are probably better ways of doing it, but the idea of going to a site, or getting the links page from a linux distro or non-US site, and then looking up a number seemed a quick and easy way of avoiding having to `deal` in illegal links.

  3. What happens to 2600 if he loses? by b0z · · Score: 3
    There's a good chance that he will end up completely losing, and that the supreme court will refuse to hear this case. I don't want it to happen, but as cynical of the broken U.S. "Justice" system as I am, I have to think about this. If Emmanuel Goldstein owns 2600, and he ends up needing to pay lawyer fees for the MPAA, it sounds like he stands to lose 2600 as well, at least he would end up completely bankrupt.

    Personally, what I would do would be to put 2600 in the hands of someone else, much as Bill Gates did with Microsoft. He can still be as involved with the magazine itself, just not fiscally.

    I may be completely wrong about all this since I am not a politician, lawyer, accountant, or some other form of scumbag. :o)

    --
    Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
    1. Re:What happens to 2600 if he loses? by ichimunki · · Score: 3

      The lawsuit's defendents are clearly stated on this document. Both Mr. Goldstein and 2600 are listed. Either way, I doubt Mr. Goldstein would be afforded the typical protection of the State given to white collar criminals by the legal shenanigans surrounding business incorporation. Protection of corporate directors and principals from any real responsibility for crimes committed by the entities they supposedly control is typically reserved for large companies who have through decades of marketing efforts convinced the citizenry that to attack their company is to attack the American Way. This is not the case here as 2600 is a solid dissident voice and has already been ascribed outlaw tendencies by the Judicial system far beyond those merited by this single act of disobedience.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:What happens to 2600 if he loses? by JWhitlock · · Score: 2
      Let me just fire up the old time-traveling device, calibrate it for the "2600 and EG looses court case", and see what pops out...

      Ah, here we are...

      • 2600 - The Hacker Quarterly


      Editor's Corner

      Hello! This is the new editor, Jack Valenti, welcoming you to the exciting first issue of 2600 after the MPAA's recent Supreme Court victory over Mr. Corely (his real name wasn't Emmanuel Goldstein, you know). I think you'll be very excited about the changes. For one, we're switching to a full color format, at the request of our new advertisers from Verizon and Intel, and making the magazine much larger, so you can find it much easier on the store shelves. But not for long, soon we will be offering the magazine only by subscribtion, so, if you want to continue getting all this excellent news and information, please send your name, address, age, telephone number, email address, and a sample of hair to the address below, and we'll get you on the special supscriber list.

      I think you'll be very excited about the quality of the new arctiles. We're no longer printing any random submission, only the best articles from giants of the technology world. Some of our upcoming articles:

      Watermarking of Digital Music - You can help decide what can't be broken! (Hillary Rosen)

      New Security features in Win2000 - It's no longer hackable! (Bill Gates)

      How to get DSL (What houses are for sale within 100 ft of the Central Office)

      Why would you surf naked? (Why open-source software is insecure)

      ...

      ...Sorry, I can't transcribe anymore. I have to call this number and get the new McAfee FireStorm Digital Baricade!!! They say it's completely hack-proof!!!
  4. First news about the appeal by Apotsy · · Score: 4
    After Judge Kaplan's decision, the MPAA said all the talk of an appeal was "posturing". Since then, I expected to see them forced to eat crow due to numerous news stories about the appeals process going forward. Instead, I find ... nothing.

    This is the first story I've read about this since the decision. I must say I'm very glad to see it. I was beginning to wonder if the appeal was going to happen or not. I'm also extremely happy that someone like Mr. Corely is willing to actually go to court to back up what he believes in. Would I have the guts to do the same if I were in his position? I don't know. I would hope so, but you just never know until you're actually in the situation.

    Side note: Anyone else find it ironic (or maybe just an odd coincidence) that the author of this article's name is just a couple of letters off from that of the friend-to-artists-and-consumers-alike Hillary Rosen?

  5. Hello, calling any sane moderators by billybob2001 · · Score: 2
    The guy is from a book called 1984 by a man called Eric Arthur Blair who wrote as George Orwell. It was published in 1949, and had its title taken from the year of writing (1948) with the last 2 digits reversed.

    It begins It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.

    The text is here Try reading it to find out the difference betweem Smith and Goldstein

    THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
    OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM
    by
    Emmanuel Goldstein

    Winston began reading:

    Chapter I
    Ignorance is Strength

    So Winston Smith, you will agree is the better name to assume

    Another ONtopic comment here

  6. Concern for Goldstein... by Gendou · · Score: 4
    Is Goldstein (and his lawyer) really the only individuals at the pinnicle of this fight against the MPAA? It sounds like he's loading up quite a debt on his shoulders and so far, the situation is looking grim.

    Yet he refuses to give up.

    Aside from owing 8 million dollars and change for court costs on the side of the MPAA, what else is going to happen to him? I some how doubt that the couch change of a community of hackers is going to do much good - and the EFF certainly doesn't have that kind of money.

    I don't know... his situation seems pretty shitty to me - these massive risks, the uphill battle. Should those who feel threatened by the MPAA find a different strategy to beat the nasty licensing (and other various attrocities) that the MPAA are looking to impose?

    1. Re:Concern for Goldstein... by Restil · · Score: 4

      After you've crossed the bankrupcy point of no return, it doesn't really much matter how large of a bill you rack up, as you'll never be able to apy it anyways. If you're gonna be ruined, might as well pound it in good. After all, theres always the slim chance you might win in the end, therefore making the whole problem go away.

      Still, I think its sad that laws have to be fought in this way. A court can basically nullify a law, but its a gamble as if the court upholds it, you stand to lose BIG TIME.

      Personally, I'm wondering if this whole battle is really the right fight. DVD's are really nothing special. They're a more compact form of CD, but the issue isn't really the storage mechanism, but the encryption. Eliminate the encryption, and the DMCA has no place.

      Of course, the MPAA and the DVD consortium control the content distribution of all the major motion picture companies and its highly unlikely that they will conform to distribute movies on any format that is not sanctioned by the MPAA.

      I'm wondering if a transition won't soon take place. CGI is getting better all the time. Eventually it may be possible to create movies with no real actors at all. Of course, live acting will always have a place, even if only in voiceovers, but the cost of the actors is a significant percentage of a movie's production cost. As for CGI, as better software is developed, hopefully some of this might be developed under a GPL type license, and CPU speed increases, CGI will become more capabale and less expensive. It could very well happen that blockbuster motion pictures could be produced for 1-2% of their current cost, which means that production companies other than those covered by the MPAA might get a leg up.

      IF this happens, and the MPAA were to lose some of their clout, they would lose some of thier monopolistic control over the type of media we have available. They wouldn't be able to license out their encoding technology, nor would they NEED to sue someone to "protect" it.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
  7. Re:Freedom to rip people off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2
    No, you idiot. DeCSS isn't used to copy DVD's, it's used to allow you to play DVD's on non-standard equipment (like any DVD player under Linux). It's always been possible to make an exact copy of a DVD, and that's not what the issue really is (even though that's what the MPAA is claiming).

    The issue is for the MPAA to be able to charge you again to use something that you've already bought; they force you to buy an "approved" DVD player, and get a kick-back from that sale as well.

  8. Oh, Hillary *Rosner*! by EricWright · · Score: 3

    Whew! For half a second, I thought the article was written by Hillary *Rosen*... then I stopped hearing Twilight Zone music and learned to read.

    Is today Monday? anywhere? It sure feels like it.

    Eric

  9. Re:Freedom to rip people off... by b0z · · Score: 4
    Your ignorance of the whole situation is showing. You must have been reading the MPAA version of the case only, and not cared to listen to what it's really about.

    basically he is trying to make it possible to copy DVDs.

    Wrong. He is trying to make it possible to watch DVD's. Also, in any case, if it were about copying DVD's, it is something we are allowed to do as long as we don't do it to make a profit. The DMCA, which was passed by politicians that are in the pockets of the entertainment industries, are against that, but since we have clashing laws now, it is up to the courts to decide.

    obviously it just means that someone (or many) will use the code to remove the encryption and pirate DVDs

    Yes. And to continue with your logic I will make the following statement: obviously it just means that someone (or many) will use automobiles to go over the speed limit and run over people. The primary use of cars is not so you can speed and run over people, but to get you from point A to point B. The primary purpose of deCSS is so you can make a software DVD player, such as one for linux. Just because it is potentially possible to use something wrong sometimes does not make it bad.

    Also, it seems this guy is just doing it for a laugh, trying to become famous in some high level law case.

    Yes...haha...those silly things such as freedom of speech and such...what a laugh. Who needs those silly dangerous things? Next some jerk like Goldstein will come say we should learn to think for ourselves! What a joke!

    I'd bet quite a bit of money on him not winning - I'd say he has no chance.

    Yeah, there's a big chance of him not winning, since the country is run by a bunch of corporate whores.

    Freedom of speech and freedom to do what the hell you want (which is basically what he stands for), is all very well, but the film makers have to have some rights too - i.e. to make money from their efforts, and not be ripped off by crackers trying to make a swift profit out of piracy.

    Well, freedom of speech is a RIGHT given by the constitution. There is no right to make a profit, and the intellectual property laws that are currently on the books are a joke. There is no intellectual property to sell, despite what we are told. You either perform a service, or provide a product. The original idea of I.P. was to encourage people to make things to sell, and give them an artificial monopoly for a short amount of time. However, it has become something completely different. Noone has the right to make money, only the right to try.

    And, by how you ended it, it is clear that you still know nothing about this court case. It is not about piracy, but about freedom. Not the freedom to do "Whatever the hell you want" but the freedom to do what the law says we can do according to fair use. Some people say that it's about free speech, I don't have a complete opinion about that yet so I won't say anything more about it. However, this definitely is not about piracy, but about consumers rights. In that respect, Goldstein and Nader should be teaming up. :o)

    --
    Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
  10. Re:Freedom to rip people off... by defile · · Score: 2
    CSS does not directly make copying DVDs impossible. CSS just encrypts data on the DVD so that it can only be played by certain DVD players.

    There is nothing stopping you from taking a DVD and recording it onto another DVD, encrypted bits and all. The copy will work and appear exactly as the original. This can, and already is being done. Just like it can be done for any other media you probably own or use.

    The purpose of CSS is to code DVDs for a specific country. Movies sold on DVD in Japan can only be played on DVD players sold in Japan. Basically, if you travel the world and buy DVDs, you'll only be able to play them if you buy a DVD player from each region. While this is highly immoral, this isn't even what we're (I've contributed money to this, http://www.eff.org/) fighting for.

    Apparantly, CSS is a weak algorithm. In fact, it's so weak that it can be cracked brute force in a very short time on a PC. The MPAA is trying to stop the spread of INFORMATION that can potentially be used unlawfully. Not only that, but according to the DMCA, they can sue simply because their encryption algorithm was broken!

    This raises so many more issues than just piracy. This is a violation of free speech, of fair use, and still other things highly immoral that don't fall conveniantly under any law. It's conveniant to just file this under "Pirating scum tries to rip off artists", but there really is a lot to this story.

    This isn't Emmanuel Goldstein running a service that lets you download DVDs for free. This is Emmanuel Goldstein (among others) having the book thrown at him because of what he is printing, or linking, or even just saying!

    The interpretation that YOU have is exactly what the MPAA is trying to promote.

  11. Not the banning of links... by Rombuu · · Score: 2

    The worst case scenario is of course the banning of links.

    You mean the banning of links to illegal material.

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
    1. Re:Not the banning of links... by Rupert · · Score: 2

      DeCSS has not been ruled illegal. Linking to it has.

      So actually he means banning of links to any kind of material simply because it may at some point become illegal.

      --

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    2. Re:Not the banning of links... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2

      You mean the banning of links to illegal material.

      Correction: illegal in the US. Norway has already shown they don't find DeCSS "illegal material" by releasing and apologizing to Jon Johansen, who originally distributed the software, because it was found the laws he was charged under didn't apply at all. Ignoring the ill-advised IP conventions my country has signed for a minute, there is no law like the DMCA making DeCSS illegal in my country, either.
      -------------

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  12. No, linking is transitive. by jamused · · Score: 5

    Linking is transitive...that's the whole point of the Web. If it is illegal to link to illegal material, then the page that contains that link is itself illegal material, and any pages that link to it, and any pages that link to those pages, and so on.

  13. Off The Hook by British · · Score: 2

    I enjoy listening to Off the Hook since Emmanuel goes on some rant on how a vending machine ripped him off, and for that he thinks there's some huge corporate conspiracy against him to take his 65 cents away.

    He's a high-tech andy rooney. For once I just wish he would tell Rich the Rebel to go screw off for once, when he calls up(which is on every show, first time. he's OTH's own troll) and discovers if you press so-and-so buttons on a payhpone, you get this and that operator.

  14. Damn... by F250SuperDuty · · Score: 2

    ...and I was hoping for an Emmanuel Lewis profile! (as small as it might be :) )

    -k

  15. Re:It wouldn't be that. by CrayDrygu · · Score: 2
    The "defendant" isn't just passing a single number--he's not just saying "42," he's saying "link 42 on the links page" or somesuch.

    Not necessarily. Observe:

    Hey guys: 42.

    --
    Links page: http://127.0.0.1

    --

    --

    --
    "I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett

  16. Re:Valenti's deposition by Apotsy · · Score: 5
    Yep, I've read it. His constant "I don't know"s and "I don't recall"s are just like Clinton in his sexual harassment lawsuit, and Bill Gates in the anti-trust trial. Their lawyers appear to have given them the instruction beforehand: "Say nothing. I mean nothing. Just answer every question as 'I don't know'." The technique has a grand tradition, going back many years. Remeber the Iran-Contra scandal? Ronald Reagan swore under oath that he pretty much didn't know anything about what went on in his office!

    If what these people say is to be believed (and since they are under oath, it presumably is), then it could be taken as proof of their complete incompetence, and thus they should be removed from their positions of power and replaced by someone who at least knows what planet they are on. The fact that this doesn't happen just goes to show everone knows their supposedly sworn testimony is complete bullshit.

    Just once I'd love to see some really powerful person who thinks they're above the law get nailed for giving Reagan-esque testimony. They answer "I don't know" to some question, and the defense produces a tape of them talking about said subject, proving that they do know. That person goes to jail for perjury, and everyone lives happily ever after!

  17. Re:It wouldn't be that. by pallex · · Score: 2

    Exactly. Or some notation, like

    (42)

    as part of your sig, or even as part of your anti-spam obsfuscation :

    bert@hot(42)mail.com

    or whatever. Illegal email addresses...whatever next?!

  18. Whoa... by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 2

    Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Emmanuel Goldsteins?

    --

    "I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
  19. The banning of links by Ian+the+Mad · · Score: 2

    "The worst case scenario is of course the banning of links. "
    Dear God! Slashdot might actually have to do some writing of its own then! That would be disastrous!

  20. *DeCSS, the cracker's tool* - again by DaveHowe · · Score: 2

    "a program called DeCSS, which disables the Content Scramble System (CSS) that prevents consumers from making copies of DVDs."
    *sigh*
    will they *ever* get the idea? you can copy DVDs just fine without DeCSS - it is not removing copy protection, it is removing WATCH protection.
    --

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  21. 1984??? by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 2
    Wasn't Emmanuel Goldstein the guy in 1984 who was the leader of the Eurasian power block? Or I just imagining that?

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.