Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS' Continuing Saga
blankmange writes "Newsbytes is carrying
a followup on the DeCSS and 2600's court cases: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which circumvents digital copy protection systems." Maybe it's not over yet..."
... the 2600 case will probably never be won... but how many of the general populace even know what decss is?
its all about the information... the people need to know, or we'll always lose...
#include6 43034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\8 fca8ac21fd999d1004909419 0d898d001480840913d7d35246\4 75dd9dd5044d0d4594dc9cd4054c0 c449559195180c989c11058185\7 074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f53135b8 6c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\6 abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7 a322f6a2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\d 1d5584cd8dc5145c1c5485cc8cc41 5bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcfcb4a5e\1 703878302168286071b7f7bfa2e7a 7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";) ^(lf0>>16 ))b=((lf1\+ 1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key [tb0[i]];}void CSStitlekey2\[ i+1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key\; i++)im1[i]=dkey[i];l ekey2(tkey,im1);}
typedef unsigned int uint;
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0
69b57175f82c787cf125a1a52
d2d65743c7c34256c2c6
081c888c011d797df024
3f3bba6e3a3ebf6befeb
1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15
cace4f53979312069296
typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;
uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\
NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2
>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^(lf1&g t;>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\
|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \
CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];
for(i=0;i=0;\
i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[i
(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0
[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];
uchar im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);CSStit
It is a scary time to be someone like 2600 now.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
In the brief, the DVD CCA argued that, "neither DeCSS nor Bunner's posting of it on the Internet is pure speech." Instead, the group said, courts have treated computer code as "nonspeech" or "mixed speech and content."
All you l33t h4x0rz out there think you're entitled to free speech. That's just fine and dandy with the MPAA. Just remember that you're not allowed to put content into your speech without a license.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Damn, if they make DeCSS legal, my ownership of a T-Shirt with the DeCSS code written on it will be completely meaningless!
Let's hope that the lower court's decision is quashed.
Why not put the deCSS program text in your email signature, so everytime you email a friend you 'polute' their spools, servers, backups, with yet another offending copy.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
The 2600 case was in federal court in New York. They lost the trial, and were also shot down by the federal appeals court.
314-15-9265
At least not until a third-party DVD player becomes available for Linux for free (yeah right), although this will only put the real problem here on hold.
security? we don' need no stinkin' security!
soul daddies in a firewire tumble dryer
DeCSS is only going to come under more and more attack. Senator Tom Daschel was already quoted as saying that he would be "behind legislation agaainst any DeCSS propaganda or code whatseover". This apparently was stated after it was rumoured that hos own son had brought the DeCSS song on MP3 to school, where it was confiscated by his teacher. (http://routers.com).
The irony in this is funny, but it is plain to see that this trend will just keep continuing.
Seriously, since when did the ??AA's become more powerful or important than national security? Who put them on their pedestal? Who died and gave them the monarchy?
Just shows you where this country's priorities are. Trading freedom for security is bad enough. Trading freedom for entertainment is disgusting.
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
in NY, 2600 was told to take down DeCSS.
in CA, Brunner was told he was allowed to keep it up.
Anyone catch that? Two similar if not identical cases have different rulings based on the same law.
Questions --
Have there been other sets of cases that have had the same law interpreted in two different directions? What was the outcome? Are such laws considered ambiguous and thus in need of clarification? Who makes taht decision?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
20 Goat2 10
#include
typedef unsigned int uint;
char ctb[512]=
.....
It's obvious that release of this would jeapordize National Security.
The funny part about this (as I understand it) is that its entirely unecessary to have DeCSS to copy a DVD. DeCSS was only to play the dvd.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
"Historically, the dissemination of stolen trade secrets has not been protected by the First Amendment," the DVD CCA wrote in its brief. It said the injunction, "was not aimed at restricting speech, but was intended solely to protect against the evisceration of trade secrets that are the motion picture industry's critical means of defense against widespread digital pirating of its valuable copyrighted works."
This secret was not stolen, it was reverse-engineered! Their argument is bullsh**.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-Abraham Lincoln
Later,
Phil
"Historically, the dissemination of stolen trade secrets has not been protected by the First Amendment," the DVD CCA wrote in its brief."
This "trade secret" was NOT stolen. No one hacked into anybody's computer or broke into anyone's office to steal anything. The encryption technique was reverse engineered which IS legal. Discussing the reverse engineering process and ones findings with others IS legal and protected by the first amendment.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
(n/m)
"DeCSS is a computer program designed to allow users to choose an operating system and play the DVDs they purchase on it without being forced to donate $89.99 and a perfectly good computer to the Microsoft Monopoly."
Go here: Grab your own text file
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
#!/usr/bin/perl
# DeCSS v 0.06 -- a utility for stripping Cascading Style Sheet (CSS)
# information from an HTML page
# Copyright 2000, Mr. Bad of Pigdog Journal (http://www.pigdog.org/).
# All Rights Reserved.
# This software is distributed under the Artistic License, which should have
# come with this file. Please distribute this software far and wide.
# The original version can always be found on the World Wide Web at:
#
# http://www.pigdog.org/decss/
# THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
# IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
# WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
use Getopt::Std;
use strict; # Choosy software use's strict!
my($USAGE) = <<"END_OF_USAGE";
DeCSS 0.06: a utility to strip Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) tags
from HTML documents
USAGE: DeCSS [-h] [-i input file] [-o output file]
options:
-h print this help message
-i input file input file to strip (default: standard input)
-o output file place to put the output (default: standard output)
END_OF_USAGE
my(%options);
local(*IN, *OUT);
getopts("hi:o:", \%options);
if (exists $options{h}) {
print $USAGE;
Take a Sharpie marker pen and print one of the CSS descramblers on it. Hey, now you've got a convenient 2-in-1 DCMA infringement device. Somebody get the ThinkGeek product guys on the phone...
As of last week, this was too close to call. Now the DMCA doesn't have a chance.
Thank you, Sony, for the copy protection scheme that outlawed the sharpie! Humanity can not thank you enough for the amount of wasted time you've saved. Somewhere on Sony's recently pensioned retirement roles I just know there is some Japanese engineer chuckling silently to himself. Too bad he can't tell his countrymen how he saved the U.S. from the corporate media monopolies.
That's a "she-bang" with 6 lines of Perl!
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I understand why the MPAA wants to protect its intellectual property, but they need to fight piracy by either making the factory-made products worth buying or prosecute those individuals who pirate them. I want to be able to rip a VOB and play it back on my laptop without having to break the law in the process. I think that the MPAA would rather strip millions of legitimate users of their rights to fair use, rather than spend the money to fight a few individuals who are massively distributing illegal copies of a copyrighted product.
Hasn't DeCSS already experience wide spread disclosure. This is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has left the building.
It is the RIAA/MPAA that are becoming powerless...
If you have a trade secret, and someone posts it to, e.g., Slashdot, that does not give every /. reader the right to republish it on their personal websites.
Now, if you have 400 trade secrets, and you burn them all onto a shiny metal disk, and you sell 20 million copies of that disk, and someone works out from one of those disks what the secrets are, your case is a lot weaker. Independent discovery is, AFAIK, a defense against trade secret violations (and copyright, too, but not patents or trademarks).
--
E_NOSIG
So this guy says to me "#!/usr/bin/perl :::: qrpff
, _) [20]_=unqb24,qT,@_ ; =73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q ))>8^(E>14=8e val
# 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
# usage: perl -I
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*"
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$Q=unqV,qb25,
)+=P+(~Fs/[D-HO-U_]/\$$s/q/pack+/g;
".
So of course I punched him.
First Amendment Project? FAP? Organizations really need to check their acronyms when they pick names.
sic transit gloria mundi
"Then again, Jack Valenti thinks he can have anyone he wants thrown in jail. The man deserves to be set on fire."
I bet if you put that on pay per view it'd be the biggest grossing event of all time........
Not to mention with all the backbiting etc the goes on in hollywierd, that would probably be the biggest paying audience.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
The CBDTPA is actually very good for the movement to bring about the death of legislation like the DMCA. I saw a review of the CBDTPA in a roanoke paper about 2 weeks ago and it was really cool seeing a common newspaper make a big feature in its op-ed section about the CBDTPA. People trust newspapers a lot more than they trust websites. Newspapers cost money to produce (so do websites), but websites don't in the eyes of John Q. Citizen. Anyone can make a website is the general view, even though hosting a major website requires an assload of money to pay for bandwidth, high end equipment and a full time staff. Using the Internet to propagandize is not as easy as people think.
What we need are Win32 and OS X open source or free as in beer cd/dvd rippers that make defeating copy restrictions as easy as installing a new plugin. We need to force the issue by making the cartels so desparate they call for the complete destruction of individual property rights as they pertain to IP. The CBDTPA wasn't quite that, we need to get them so desparate that they propose something that makes it a felony to own a computer that can copy music and movies. We need to make John Q. Citizen so scared of their proposals that he says, "listen asshole, you have two choices, protect my rights or their bottom line. You know where I'm voting now!!" to their representatives out of anger and sheer rage. Essentially we need to take demagoguery to a new level, if you support these industries you are supporting your child's inevitable felony prison sentence for making a custom workout mix cd.
What we can do are the following
We must make these people look like absolute monsters to the public. We must find ways to associate RIAA/MPAA with the same feelings that most people reserve for Fascists and Communists. The average person must start looking at it from this perspective, "he is not advocating compensating people for their work, he is advocating the annihilation of my property rights." Once we have achieved that, we can effectively dismantle modern copywrong law and get it back to being constitutional copyright law.
When I saw this about DeCSS case again and the source being published all I could think of is no matter what Nature has given us a way to keep the source alive (besides the source being all over the internet).The Numberexplained in the article is a prime number that when a few steps are applied and compiled you have a working DeCSS executable. IANAP (I am not a programmer) so I can shed little more light on it than this.
OMG BIG PENIS ATE MY SOUP
mod that guy up, then mod me down, then go bite a curb.
But if it's on pay-per-view, you damn well better not invite any of your friends to watch. Unless, of course, each one pays the license fee to watch Jack burn.
When he refused to let the South cecede..... I love how the founding fathers stated it was impossible for their forefathers to give up THEIR right to self governance and self determination in perpituity, and then Lincoln just goes ahead and ignores it just like king george tried to do. No I am not for slavery. According to the laws at the time, those empowered to vote did so, and CHOSE to leave the union.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Don't tell me that. Tell 'The People'. You are just preaching to the choir here.
Michael Loves Me!
They lost the trial, and were also shot down by the federal appeals court.
;-)
Shot down my butt, NYC is a "gun free except for the government" zone, just as Eric Corley, aka, Emmanuel Goldstein advocates... umm... oh wait... oh yea... it is the feds doing the shooting here and we all have been disarmed by the courts.
Be careful what you wish for
How can it be a trade secret if every DVD manufacturer knows it?? Isn't a trade secret is something makes one company more competetive than others in the same or similar field. Even www.dictionary.com (via American Heritage) defines a trade secret as: What is it about the DVD encryption algorithm that gives DVD manufacturers a competitive advantage over, say putting a movie on video tape? If I learn the secret formula for Pepsi, I can make all the Pepsi I want for my own use, and there isn't a damn thing Pepsico can do. But I probably couldn't market a similar brand without paying fees. Isn't using the DeCSS algorithm the same thing?
Now, if I found a secret to making a DVD with less costs or faster, that would be a trade secret. Or if I found a way to improve the quality of the image or put more data on the disk, that would be a trade secret. That is, until everyone found out about it. Then it becomes common knowlege.
Maybe we are fighting this, and other things like DCMA, the wrong way. Maybe it is time to bring unfair trade practice laws to bear and be the plaintiff for a change.
The disadvantage of being a monopoly is you have to play even fairer. Well, maybe in theory anyway.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
n/m.
For those of you who actually care about the article:
The article didn't mention the DMCA. They are trying to protect DeCSS as a 'trade secret.' Now, as I understand trade secret law, it is no longer a trade secret once it has been reverse engineered. So where do they get off making that claim?
What's the difference between something that allows you to copy a DVD from a Xerox machine? Why isn't that illegal? A friend of mine sent me a couple of DVD's for Christmas. The well intentioned friend didn't realize that European DVD's don't play in the US (he's from the UK). Here I am with two DVDs I can't do a thing with. Or, I can rip it and make it work so I can watch it. Whatever I do to watch it would be considered illegal (hacking the region code in the DVD player, removing the region code from the DVD, converting the DVD to a format I can play some place else, etc.) All this for something I own. There should be a way to file a class action law suit against the movie industry for causing us so much grief! They assume everyone is a criminal.
It has always been up.
Heh. http://joshua.raleigh.nc.us/DeCSS/
Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
So If I use this number to decrypt and
watch lord of the rings, we now get this:
"One Prime to strip them all, One Prime to free them, One Prime to bring them all and on my OS see them."
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Try mentioning bomb in an airport?
In court you need evidence to prove your case, you need hard solid fact proving your case. I assume they entered into evidence the actual code in question here as well, both in written (as to show how the 'original' looks) and as a copy of where it was published (t-shirts, books, internet and later also as a tatoo).
Isn't all of this going to the public records later? I'm sure there's a flaw in my thought somewhere but once it enters the legal system it's there to be poked and made fun of for every citizen, no?
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
Has there ever been a definitive legal ruling at high levels on this debate? I'm still forming my opinions on this one. If anyone knows of a legal judgement summary on this subject online, I'd be grateful for a link. I'd like to see the pro and con opinions on this one from you guys, too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This week, German protesters get headlines for demonstrating vs. US Pres. GWB's visit. GWB's response (paraphrase): "Protests are a good sign of a healthy democracy where people are free to express ideas contrary to that of the ruling class/party."
The ruling party (MPAA etc.) doesn't like what is being said and is threatening the 1st Amendment rights to speech. What it comes down to is this: I am free to reverse-engineer, but under the DMCA it seems I can't talk about it or communicate it to others in any way shape or form because the ruling party doesn't like what is being discussed . . . so will the right to speak be destroyed by the failure of "security through obscurity"?
Bad implications for freedom in the US of A.
like, you mean, on a non DVD player?
really???
COOLNESS!!!
To err is human, to really screw things up, you need a robot.
I wasn't aware that a trade secret had been "Stolen". I thought DeCSS was a clean room reverse engineering job. Even if not, then the use of the DMCA is aimed at quashing such reverse engineering and treating it as trade secrets.
If I were to post a photo of the insides of my car's engine on the web, would I be violating the manufacturer's trade secrets? Car manufactures go out an buy competitors cars just to take them apart and see how they work. Why is software so magically different?
From the article:
In addition, the court found that DeCSS is "pure speech" for the purposes of First Amendment protection.
Say what you will about CA, our courts get it! This is from the CA State Appeals Court Ruling.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
In police states like these formerly free United States, everyone is a criminal because there are so many laws. Too many laws for any one human to even learn, let alone remember for any given situation. So when the government wants to make you an arbitrary criminal for whatever reason, they have that power. It's too bad that the Constitution didn't have a word limit on the total number of laws in existence. For example, 100,000 words would be a good total limit for laws. About the size of a standard novel. Readable by most people. And then a rule that says you must get rid of an equal number of words/laws when you make a new law. So there's a legal equilibrium and things like the DMCA wouldn't have a chance. And there would be less need for lawyers because ordinary people would know the laws and be able to interpret them themselves.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Let 'em eat cyberpunk-like corpie warfare and such.
Let them spill blood over each other's secrets, let their hostile takeovers involve 7.62mm rounds.
(And then they'll just destroy each other and we can get back to life on the good old USA.)
Judges have no freakin' clue how dynamic the WWW is.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which circumvents digital copy protection systems."
Perhaps it should read...
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the First Amendment Project today asked the California Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's decision to permit publication of the source code for DeCSS technology, which informs technically capable people how DVDs are encrypted."
Clarification... DeCSS by itself does not circumvent copy protection!!! Only the *abuse* of DeCSS during application does.
Technically inept people shouldn't be making decisions about technology they don't understand. For example, would I, a computer programmer, make critical decisions about launching the space shuttle? Probably not.
Go 2600 and stick it to 'em!
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
you know what's really cool about the mpaa? they control the movie industry pretty much by their rating system, yet none of the mpaa "judges" are publically elected into the position, or placed into "office" by anyone in the movie industry. and it is not required that these people's names be publicly none. how nice is that? faceless, nameless morality judges censor the entire u.s. movie industry. how american.
How can it be a trade secret if every DVD manufacturer knows it??
...
It's a trade secret of an organization called the "DVD Copy Control Association" - or, the DVDCCA.
They license the trade secret to all of the player manufacturers, and in return, the player manufacturers sign a contract that, among other things, forbids them from building DVD players with unencrypted digital outputs, and requires them to include Macrovision distortion in the analog output signal. The contract also forbids the disclosure of the CSS algorithm.
The result is that, prior to DeCSS, if you wanted to manufacture DVD players, you needed to sign the contract and agree to the terms in order to obtain the necessary technology to decode DVDs.
Now, the CSS algorithm is cracked.
The danger that the industry is facing is this. If CSS is deemed, by the courts, to be a legitimately reverse-engineered trade secret, then the CSS decoding process would enter the public domain. If that were to happen, it would clear the way for the manufacture of DVDs without having to obey the restrictions of the CSS contract.
In other words, it would allow companies to start manufacturing DVD players with such desirable features as no Macrovision, and digital MPEG outputs. But it wouldn't allow all companies to do so
... only those companies that had not signed a contract with the DVDCAA. In other words, the entire current player industry would be shut out -- they would be still required, by their DVDCCA contracts, to install Macrovision, and not offer digital outputs. This would be a disaster for the current crop of player manufacturers.
There's a reason that they are fighting so hard to force CSS into the category of "stolen trade secret" -- by sheer force of will, apparently. If DeCSS were to be ruled a stolen trade secret, then the courts would prevent anyone else from making commercial use of the algorithm.
This would be an incredible win for the movie industry -- they would receive what would be in effect a perpetual patent -- the right to exclude others from employing a process.
Note that they are fighting this battle on different fronts -- the DMCA case is to try and outlaw the dissemination of the algorithm. The Trade Secret case is to try and outlaw the implementation of the algorithm. They are fighting tooth and nail to control not the right to manufacture DVD players, but the right to dictate what features may and may not be included in DVD players.
...until the DVD CCA realizes that they will piss off the software industry, severely, if they succeed in their current line of litigation. If code is speech, then it can be copyrighted but the 1st Amendment applies; if code isn't speech, then the 1st Amendment doesn't apply but it can't be copyrighted. Ergo, if the DVD CCA wins, the U.S. government will have to stop prosecuting for those who infringe the "copyright" of software. You think Microsoft is pissed at Linux? Wait until Disney tries to hack their balls off! :-P
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
2600 just provided a framed part of their site where the decss utility could be downloaded from? They don't actually host the utility, the links, nor the actual code. Every week or so another hosted site in a different country has a mirror of both the links and/or the utilities themselves. This absolves 2600 of linking themselves. The point is moot now, I suppose, but the ramifications of their case are mind-bogglingly easy to surmount.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
The real problem, I think, lies with the inability of business to reconcile itself with an information economy. Groups like the MPAA (and Unisys, and RSA Data Sec.) want to provide information as a product. To do so, they have to control the availability of this 'product' to the end user.
In every other part of the Universe, it is the specific product which is patented. If you make a carbon copy of a Honda Accord, then you'll get sued. If you make a vehicle with four wheels, four doors and an engine, you won't. In academia, if you make a discovery, then some time later another person claims to have made the same discovery, that person -- except in rare cases -- you will be laughed out of town, but reproducing the same result via independent work is okay.
So, reproducing the DeCSS algorithm via independent work is okay via logical extension. As for breaking copyright protection, this is really governed by two laws: the so called "Betamax decision" from which the fair-use concept is derived, and by the DMCA. Although I don't know much about the DMCA, fair-use says that any particular consumer of media content can copy it limitlessly for backup, personal storage, alternate viewing, or whatever. Ripping a DVD to DIVX is perfectly legal, as long as you don't redistribute it and merely use it for personal viewing.
"And then those in the rest of the union CHOSE to come down and soundly kick the rebels' asses"
So then might makes right, in which case
democracy is a lie and Our nation was founded
by terrorists, AND perpetuated by a terrorist
(Lincoln).
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Click here or here.
why a uint, its only storing number less than 255.
uchar tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};
As pointed out by Seth Finkelstein in comments a few days ago (and another comment)
Comments, like this one, are ripe for quotes to be taken out of context. ARE BEING USED IN TESTIMONY FOR THE MPAA . Why give them bullets to shoot us with? Especially bullets that are inapplicable. (And you gave a great quote that can be taken out of context: ``Even if DeCSS was "reverse-engineered" from this purloined key, it would not really be reverse-engineered because of the method that the key was obtained from.
There are no Miranda rights. Anything said on slashdot is being held as an opinion of our community. What is said is being held against 2600, me, and the ideals EFF stands for. Our community isn't homogeneous, but what you say in the future may be used against me, personally, because the views you espouse will be put into our mouths, purportedly proving that we knew what we were doing was illegal, which it isn't.
Either reverse engineering is legal or it isn't. If it is, then, I don't know what the legal implications may be. (Reverse engineering being classified as illegal would be such a radical departure, I can't envision it. But if you feel it is, ignore what I have to say below which rests on the assumption that a shrink/click-wrap prohibition on reverse engineering sold goods is legal.)
Assuming reverse engineering is legal, any trade secret derived from Xing's player loses its protected status. IE, anything learned from Xing's player, including the algorithms and keys it uses are now public. Remember, trade secret protections are designed prevent ill-gotten gains from industrial espionage. Which is why they don't apply if they, for example, accidently publish the trade secret, or it gets reverse engineered, thats legitimate.
Anyhoo.. Next time, please be a little more careful in what you say, and how it may be misquoted. Actually, this applies to everyone.
#include /* huh ?*/6 43034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\8 fca8ac21fd999d1004909419 0d898d001480840913d7d35246\4 75dd9dd5044d0d4594dc9cd4054c0 c449559195180c989c11058185\7 074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f53135b8 6c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\6 abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7 a322f6a2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\d 1d5584cd8dc5145c1c5485cc8cc41 5bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcfcb4a5e\1 703878302168286071b7f7bfa2e7a 7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";
typedef unsigned int uint;
const char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0
69b57175f82c787cf125a1a52
d2d65743c7c34256c2c6
081c888c011d797df024
3f3bba6e3a3ebf6befeb
1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15
cace4f53979312069296
typedef unsigned char uchar;
uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};
uchar* F=NULL;
uint lf0,lf1,out;
void ReadKey(uchar* key)
{
int i;
char hst[3];
hst[2]=0;
if(F==NULL){
F=malloc(256);
===========
for(i=0;i>2)^(lf0>>16 ))b=((lf1\
>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^(lf1&g t;24))lf0=(lf0>1)|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;
===== what is this =====
}
void CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key)
{
uint i;
uchar *end=sec+0x800;
uchar KEY[5];
for(i=0;i=0;i--)
key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[i+1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key [tb0[i]];
}
void CSStitlekey2(uchar *key,uchar *im)
{
uchar k[5];
int i;
ReadKey(im);
for(i=0;i=0;i--)
key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[ i+1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key[tb0[i]];
}
void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey)
{
int i;
uchar im1[6];
uchar im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};
for(i=0;i6; i++)
im1[i]=dkey[i];
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);
CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);
}
Yep, pad're the slope is ALWAYS infinitely slippery, and corrosive Stalinist drool never ending. That's why a prudent yeoman in a liberal republic considers free-speech an ABSOLUTE right ... even to the point of permitting "...tit's-N-azz..." to be yelled at a bunch of 6th graders. ... strap-it-on.
Consider the mendacious PC_bleat about "hate-speech" or 'fighting words'. Self-evident crap! No stable 'middle-ground' exists, so freedom
Unfortunately, Federal Law (you can guess which one) requires Macrovision on your analog outputs. But things like region control are enforced purely through IP licencing (which certainly includes patents as well as the trade secrets in question).
The funny part about this (as I understand it) is that its entirely unecessary to have DeCSS to copy a DVD. DeCSS was only to play the dvd.
Well, to set the record straight, this is not entirely correct.
First of all, you _can_ copy a DVD if it is not CSS encrypted.
If a DVD is CSS encrypted, you can still copy the data, but it will remain CSS encrypted, and thus useless (e.g. it won't play normally) unless you have the keys to decrypt the data.
These keys are stored on the DVD disk, but are NOT directly accesible to the software (consider it a 'hidden' part on the disk). You need to enter into a dialog with the DVD player hardware, which requires the ability to crypt CSS data (aka DeCSS).
There are algorithms that brute-force find the keys, but in my experience they don't always work that well and are rather slow.
If you are thinking about copying DVDs with a DVD recorder, forget about it. a) the DVD keys will NOT be copied, so you end up with a useless DVD and b) a lot of DVDs are > 4.7GB (look at the spec for DVD recorders to see why that is a problem).
Of course what some people do is use a licensed software DVD decoder and pipe the output to an MPEG-4 encoder, but this is not a 100% accurate copy by any means.
So, esentially, to copy a DVD, DeCSS (or a derivative) is still very helpful.
Regarding playback: If you copied data from a CSS encrypted DVD to your harddrive, even a licensed DVD player will not play it back properly, because it would not be able to obtain the keys. The only way to do that is to decrypt the data before you run the licensed software player.
For some odd reason, my Dazzle DVCII doesn't pay any attention to Macrovision.
So I can record in anything I want from the analog output of my DVD player, or my VCR, and burn a VCD of it.
Hell, if I had a DVD ROM burner I could record at the much higher resolution of MPEG2 (its not practical to make CDRs at DVD resolution, you get about ten minutes per CDR.)
Actually what I said was wrong -- The DMCA only requires Macrovision for VCRs and only on the input side.
MOD PARENT UP!
the manufacturer requirements also say you cant do multiregion DVD, and there is even a formal committee process to handle when someone is accused of having a trivial hack to turn it into a region-0 box.
if the mfgrs to region-0 boxes then the MPAA will see their per-region markups evaporating, regardless of any duplication/sharing issues. And that is probably something they are scared of, but dont dare mention
While everyone was discussing the tautology of newspapers, including the Wash. Post being full of shit...
The report from Mitre Corp. discussed in Thursday's thread on the Washington Post's article contained one very interesting point regarding Assuring the Safety and Security of COTS Software Products very relevant to the DMCA:
So ideally, the government needs to be able to either read the source (i.e. some form of Open Source) or be able to reverse engineer the product (i.e. no DMCA). Obviously the former is more efficient. Either way brings attention to the practical problems caused by the DMCA.Awareness of the DMCA is creeping in to more trade journals. The February 2002 issue of Scientific Computing & Instrumentation features a special report on the DMCA (page 54 of the dead tree version):
The 1700's saw a serious of protections from governmental abuses, it looks like the 2000's will see a series of protections against similar corporate abuses. It'll happen sooner than later if Europe decides to learn from the U.S.'s mistakes this time rather than emulated them.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
You might be suprised to hear that. But consider what the point of the structure of patents is set up for - if you invent something, and you disclose your invention to the patent office, with instructions clear enough that someone "skilled in the art" can reproduce your invention, then you can be granted a patent.
Part of the idea is that once the patent expires, it goes into the public domain, along with explicit instructions for how to make your invention. Thus society as a whole ultimately benefits from the granting of a temporary monopoly.
Trade secrets are not legally protected monopolies, specifically because they don't provide the public benefit of putting the invention into the public domain.
What protection trade secrets have is a matter of keeping people honest. Someone who has signed a nondisclosure agreement is not allowed to disclose the invention, you can't steal it or bribe someone who knows it or whatever.
But reverse engineering is specifically allowed by california state law, and the law of all the other states as far as I know, in part because it provides a reason for inventors to patent stuff rather than keeping it secret - because that's the only way they can be granted a legal monopoly, and there is no protection from reverse engineering.
At least there wasn't before the DMCA, and I would argue the constitution makes the DMCA illegal, because it only allows for monopolies to be granted by the patent system. Copyrights are a form of monopoly too, but the constitution doesn't provide legal ground for maintaining copyrights by forbidding devices that can copy, it only forbids actually making copies without permission.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Step one: cut & paste your fav descrambler into MS Wordpad.
Step two: select a dark font (like Arial Rounded Bold) and crank the point down to 2.
Step three: use the office's HP laser printer to produce legible copies.
Step four: trim down the output and tape it to a Sharpie Marker(tm).
Step five: submit a memo to the RIAA and the DVDCCA accusing Microsoft, HP (with a 'Q'), Fiskars, and 3M of producing copyright infringement devices -- with your new marker!!
--Logan
Commercial interests < public interests
Free Speech > Financial welfare of any company/industry
Sorry the companies made a bad deal, but it isn't my problem and it isn't 2600's problem. It was reverse-engineered; no one is disputing this. It was poorly conceived, and now several companies will suffer for it. Better luck next time, but this is capitalism - the government isn't supposed to save your ass when you screw up. Take a look at Enron if you doubt me, or any other business that has ever gone under. Just because you're a large industry with alot of money doesn't mean you get to circumvent all of society because you banked on a flawed technology. If code is not free speech, and can be a trade secret, then I'm going to start a company that does nothing but encode famous speeches and quotes into c, and then have protection granted to them as my trade secret.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's." So, the title should say "DeCSS's", not "DeCSS'".
Also, unless this is about a misplaced variable declaration, it should probably be in the "hanging-in-the-balance" department.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
One nice thing about APL is that a piece of tight APL code is equally incomprehensible in any human language.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I bet if you put that on pay per view it'd be the biggest grossing event of all time........
No, but it'll quickly bring the entire Internet to a crawl as Peer-to-Peer networks worldwide load up on gigs of that smokey charred-Valenti goodness.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ with lots of different versions of the source code. 1st on list at Google. Sue Google too.