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..."
#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
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
Get said T Shirt here.
This is generally one of the situations in which the Supreme Court will step in, that is, if two states rule differently on a federal law, it is up to no one but the Supreme Court to sort it out.
The Supreme Court only accepts a small percentage of the cases they are asked to hear, but then again generally the states follow each other's precident.
Troll Like a Champion Today
For example:
http://www.lawguru.com/faq/19.5.html
Considering that the reporting organization doesn't know that DeCSS gets around the -playback- control mechanism, not the -copy protection- mechanism(since there isn't one), I'd say we're pretty screwed.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
It wasn't reverse-engineered cleanly, though.
Remember that is was obtained by looking through unencrypted code in the Xing player.
The guy who wrote it even admited that an anonymous source led him to the Xing player to look for the one key to break. After that, the rest of the manufacturer keys were cracked with ease.
If it had been a clean room reverse, then they would have more of a leg to stand on.
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.
Based on the same law? I don't think so. The NY case was about DMCA. The CA case is about trade secrets.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.