Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS, From the Beginning
An anonymous reader sent in a link to a presentation given by Tom Vogt at HAL 2001. He reviews the whole CSS/DeCSS mess from the beginning, which makes a it a nice backgrounder for people who are wondering what the Sklyarov, 2600 and other cases are all about.
Ever wonder if there's any connection between these virus outbreaks and the issues the RIAA nad MPAA hold dear? Maybe I'm starting to sound like one of those "conspiracy theorists", but it seems funny that when an issue such as the fundamental loss of freedom presented by the DMCA is before us, it is eclipsed in the media by these horrible nasty internet worms and viruses. And at the end of the day if there is any mention of Skyarlov, it's "Oh...he's one of THEM!" (a hacker) and he's immediately equated with the authors of Code Red or Sircam and immediately he's views (and those of others like him)are invalidated, and he and all the other hackers should be locked up and the key thrown away, and humanity will be able to breathe easier and all will be well in MPAA-land!
You're using her as bait, Master!
All I can say to everyone complaining about the whole DeCSS affair is: DON'T BUY ANY MORE DVD'S. Send money to the Electronic Fronteir Foundation (www.eff.org). Voting with your wallet is the most effective thing you can do, aside from being the subject of one of these lawsuits, which most of us do not have the $$ to do.
You can have my keyboard when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Cliches aside, I have been thinking for a while that geeks and the NRA now have a lot in common. The key to the issue is an interpretation of the constitution. Many of us believe that the DMCA is an abridgement of our first amendment rights. Let's do what the NRA does, let's lobby. Maybe we don't have the time or money to go to Washington, but we U.S. citizens can slashdot our senators and our representatives. My one e-mail may not make the difference, but if we all send a polite e-mail expressing our concerns, we can make a difference. Contact your senators and representative. Let them know. They are becomming aware that there is a growing population of the technologically savvy. If they hear from enough of us, they will listen.
DISCLAIMER: I actually believe that the DMCA is poor public policy, and a bad law. I hope the Court's limit its impact to the extent legally possible, and that it is repealed. I think there is a better solution to the problem presented. However....
Conversely, the fact that DeCSS might have some legitimate uses does not necessarily mean it is, or should be, legal.
My simple questions are as follows: Do the numbers matter? Does how DeCSS is actually used in the real world matter?
If, hypothetically, as a matter of empirical fact, it turns out that 99% of DeCSS use is for an illegal, improper purpose (i.e., copying of DVDs for the purpose to distribution to others with no payment to the copyright holder), and only 1% of DeCSS use is for an arguably legal, proper purpose (i.e., play of DVDs on Linux, BSD systems, etc.), would it really be unreasonable, immoral or legally wrong (unconstitutional??) for Congress to make DeCSS illegal?
The sad truth is this. Many things -- e.g., guns, pesticides, medications, locksmith tools, cars without airbags, tri-wheel off-road vehicles, etc. -- have both legitimate and illegitimate functions, or legitimate functions coupled with danger to society and its values. In all these cases and many more, the law is about finding a balance drawing lines. Frequently those who are on the loosing side in a democracy (or a republic as you will) either complain that: (a) they have a "right" to engage in the activity (without ever specifying where in the Constitution that right may arise); or (b) the "corrupt" "big money" "corporations" had an unfair advantage in the system. And you know what, sometimes, just sometimes (albeit far, far more often in the case of (b) above) they are right.
And then the solution is what? Disregard the rule of law? Piss on Congress and vilify the courts? Take to the hills? Joke (hopefully), as some (not you) in this discussion have about blowing up buildings?
Why? Admitting that DeCSS has some legitimate and beneficial uses, if it in fact turns out that it's illegitimate uses far, far outweigh its legitimate ones, and that the most efficient way to prevent the unauthorized, uncompensated duplication and distribution of copyrighted digital material is to have the DMCA make DeCSS illegal, then why is Congress compelled to use less efficient means? Why? Law is often based on such predictions and empirical observations. The law frequently has to draw up a balance between benefit and burden. Of course not. Nothing is 100%. Nothing is ever "solved." But it may very well be the case that the DMCA will, as a practical matter, solve 90% or more of the problem of unauthorized, uncompensated distribution of digital material, and do so in a manner that is more efficient -- in terms of the total cost to society -- than any other alternative. This is easy. "They" -- i.e., those who would violate copyright -- won't have the benefit of tools created by you, other Slashdotters, and other "geeks" to help them.
Now, I happen to be one of the people who think the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. But even constitutional rights can be limited if the limit is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest (the current legal test). Few people who believe there is an individual Constitutional right to bear arms really believe there is an individual Constitutional right to own and possess tanks, artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and atomic weapons.
You may think that is a bad, extreme example (although it does involve a recognized Constitutional right). You may be right.
Locksmith tools have many legitimate purposes. If I'm locked out of my house, I can get the tools from my hiding spot and let myself in! You might say I could just hide my keys outside. Ah, but what if my neighbor locks himself out, and didn't hide any keys? I could get my get my tools and, with his permission, let him into his house! A perfectly legitimate, and even laudable purpose.
And in many jurisdictions, not sufficient. In many jurisdictions, mere possession of locksmith tools is a crime unless you are licensed as a locksmith. The relevant legislative body considered the legitimate uses and benefit to society, and weighed it against the illegitimate uses and possible cost to society, and drew a line. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to possess locksmith tools, or that a law outlawing their unlicensed possession is irrational or wrong. I keep hearing this, but no-one ever explains to me where this right comes from? Is this a God given right? A natural right that preexists government? A Constitutional right? If so, what Article and Clause? So what? You can legally purchase pesticides, but not only use them in certain areas under certain conditions. Hell, you can legally purchase an automobile but you can't drive it at 90 mph through most cities. If the dealerships are all working together trying to maximize profit, this would violate antitrust law. If it was a contractual obligation, you would either refrain from taking your vehicle to the mom and pop auto mechanic shop, or you would be in breach of the contract. However, I wouldn't purchase an automobile from such a dealership.
Then again, such service limitations already exist to some extent. If you don't have your scheduled maintenance and repairs done by an authorized shop, you void your warranty and lose its protection.
You know what? I largely agree with you. As I stated above, I think the DMCA is poor public policy and a bad law. However, that does not mean it is unconstitutional or morally wrong. It certainly doesn't mean you have a right to disregard it, or to do whatever the hell you want anytime Congress passes a law you don't like.
Great! I hope you vote, are politically active, etc. Contribute to a legal defense fund.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I hope it hasn't come to this. A speedy revelation of who voted for what and an explanation of how this happened would make me feel a lot better
In 10 years I hope to get artificial vision implants, because of my poor eyesight.
Imagine, I can watch something, then use my built-in TiVO in my bionic eye to watch again and again.
Think the DMCA means I can't go to a movie theater or watch a DVD?
"So it begins... The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
I just bought a new Linux PC as my main desktop machine. Nice box: and it even has a DVD drive. Finally, I can watch the DVDs I bought (and paid for) in my office.
Not. I found a DVD player alright (xine), but all it will play is one DVD, that is not encrypted (ghost in the shell). I have watched it twice already.
Now I'd really like to watch the others that I bought. But the suits say I cannot. Worse, the American suits - I am neither American, nor living in the USA. And yet, I cannot find a downloadable player anywhere that works.
Another issue: my DVDs are also a mixture of regions 1, 2 and 3! I know the suits will say that this is bad of me, but I live in Canada and work in Hong Kong and London (UK). So naturally I do not restict my buying behaviour to the time that I am home.
It's not FUD. Sowing FUD is "creating unreasonable fear of what might happen". This is annoyance at what HAS happened..
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Does anyone have a list of which senators and representatives voted for the DMCA? I tried the LOC, but all I got was when it was passed, not the voting records.
You are missing the entire moral ground here. Pirating DVDs is *illegal* and no one should do it. Anyone who really understands this issue would agree. But DeCSS is simply decryption code that has a multitude of perfectly legal uses.
Unfortunately the media giants have pressured the goverment to make decryption itself illegal if the work is copyrighted. Panty-hose can be used to cover your face during a bank heist BUT YOU CAN STILL BUY THEM! Rather than prosecuting people for encryption algorithms they should be prosecuting the people using [ DeCSS | Napster | CD-R Drives | insert evil technology here ] to illegally trade in copyrighted works.
That is called being impartial. Endorsing the misinformation that the media giants are spewing about the "evils" of DeCSS is not.
A DVD must be decrypted to be viewed; it does not have to be decrypted to be copied since the players do the decrypting, plain and simple.
I agree with the rest of your post, but it is easier to use DeCSS to convert the DVD into (say) an MPEG file and distribute that over the internet, than it is for `pirates' to distribute disc images and for the end person to write the DVD image on his DVD writer, and play it through an authorized player.
I don't think that DeCSS should be illegal, because it can be used for legitimate purposes. But it's important to admit the facts to be able to be useful in any debate to that end.
I just pulled out several DVDs from my collection and read them. None of them have the disclaimer you mention. They have the following: "This product is authorized for sale in U.S.A. only. This DVD is [or "these DVDs are" for 2-DVD sets] for private home viewing only. They are not authorized for any other use. All other rights reserved. Distributed by blah blah blah..."
In their own legal disclaimers, they gave me explicit rights to private home viewing. No limitation is given for licensed players. The verbiage varies, but no mention is made on any of them for licensed players; therefore, I have the right to use any player I wish as long as it's for private home viewing.