Slashdot Mirror


Legitimate uses for DeCSS

Tabercil writes "Interesting article at the Washington Post, which among other things points out that DeCSS does have valid uses, and that the industry's paranoia over DeCSS is overblown." A reasonable mainstream summary of all the DVD related legal hype. Interesting that the libdvdcss folks have never had a bump with the law, but instead DeCSS takes all the brunt even tho nobody uses it.

19 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. now if only... by Adrodieu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they could convince the MPAA.

    --
    "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it" - Voltaire
  2. Visability by rf0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is all about visability more than anything else. If you ask your average lay man they might know about DeCSS and taking a stand against it gets a message across. Most lay men won't know anything about libcss. Its not a techincal issue rather more one of believed usage

    Rus

    1. Re:Visability by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Agreed. I had a conversation with a friend last week, and he offered to loan me a DVD. I told him that I didn't have a player, and wasn't planning to for a while until I could cobble together one of my own that would let me get around the restrictions. He asked what I meant, and e was surprised to learn the sort of things you're not supposed to be able to do (get around region encoding, the unskippable bit, back up to HD, etc.).

      It's not that he's cluless or anything -- he's quite an intelligent guy. But this sort of thing never (well, rarely -- kudos to Mr. Pegoraro for his article) gets mentioned to people shopping at Walmart for their DVD player, or explained in terms that make sense to them. Information wants to be blah blah blah, and people's eyes will glaze over. But try telling them they're not allowed to skip the commercial/FBI warning -- Warner Bros. sez so -- and they'll get mad, all right.

  3. At last. by sketerpot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People have known that there are perfectly legitimate uses for DeCSS for how long now? I see this as a mixture of good news and bad news. Good news that the mainstream media are figuring this out, bad news that it took so long. And will it make any difference? The media as a whole seem to be eating out of the *AA's hands. Witness the article about music piracy in Time....

  4. DeCSS a necessity... by maharito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I (and many other linux users) have known for a long time that DeCSS/libdvdcss is a necessity for those of us who like movies, but refuse to run windoze. I find it heartening that a media outlet such as the Washington post recognizes valid uses for the same. Maybe now the various distros out there won't make their users jump through hoops just to watch a dvd.

  5. The use is already legitimate... by Thinkit3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is copyright law that is illigetimate.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:The use is already legitimate... by Gerad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may have been moderated "Funny", but it has a point. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by estabishing copyrights and similar intellectual property. Abuse of copyright for personal greed doesn't promote the arts, in some cases it retards the progress of the arts.

      --
      Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
  6. Re:self destruction by arcanumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah. Why don't we make them explode and chops your fingers off when you try to RIP them or lend them? Maybe there should be a poisonous surface that realeases the poison after it has been Ripped, therefore killing the perpetrator.
    I find this very fascinating. In fact , since the US still has the capital punishment in effect, why don't you fry their asses in case the poison does not work or it is "libDePoison"'d?
    And naturally, the company will be legally covered with a warning label on the DVD that would say something like "Infidels risk mutilation"
    Very nice idea indeed.

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  7. My childrens' videos... by Keebler71 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To those who say that DVDs are indestructable, I suggest you let your 3 year old play with them a few times. Parenting techniques aside, I have found one good use for decrypting... we have purchased several children's educational DVDs but each only has about 30 minutes of material. Rather than continuously swapping them out, I decrypted them and copied a few of them onto one DVD so they play end-to-end. Can you think of a better "fair-use" example?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  8. Doubt it. by phalse+phace · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Washington Post, for one, can afford their own team of lawyers. Aside from being seen as a "legitimate" news source, compared to 2600, in the eyes of the public, the Post can't be so easily intimidated. More importantly, the info isn't being published by a bunch of "hackers." And we all know how "hackers" are portrayed in the media.

    It probably comes down to the publics perception of who's doing the reporting and what's being reported. Just like the NY Times and Wired News weren't sued for posting a link to DeCSS in their past articles, the Washington Post won't be either.

  9. Re:Quiet! by bsharitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole DeCSS thing was a big publcity stunt\scare tactic to try to frighten people into not developing thisngs like it. It just didn't work.

  10. Re:self destruction by small_dick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    actually what the USA will probably do is simply poison everyone at birth, and an antidote will be doled out over you lifespan based on the quality of your citizenship and/or the volume of your consumer purchases.

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
  11. Well duh by Durandal64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course there are legitimate uses for DeCSS. They're called set-top and Windows DVD players. Furthermore, what if I want to rip a DVD that has 40 seconds of non-fast-forwardable commercial trash a the beginning and burn just the movie's video track to a DVD-R?

  12. We are all thieves and pirates... by Wolfbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least that's what the MPAA and CCA among others like to think and that's because people tend to imagine that others are minimally dissimilar to themselves.

    I use and only ever have used OSS because it has always been the only choice for software development, mathematical and scientific software that I can reasonably afford.

    I bought a DVD drive some years ago and have since spent a lot of money on DVD movies. I have no intention of turning my PC into an industrial scale pirating machine, I don't even copy DVDs to hard drive - why would I bother?

    None of my friends has ever asked me to copy a DVD for them and I don't expect they ever will since they know I'd just say "Buy your own you tight fisted git!"

    Do I sound like a normal consumer of entertainment media? Aren't almost all people who buy DVDs like me? I hope so because I might be afraid to go outside if the streets are full of the kind of people the MPAA/CCA thinks they are. If they want to catch pirates then they can use something like unique watermarking together with investigative, forensic and epidemiological methods and cease trying to gain absolute control over each and every individual consumer from within their steel and concrete fortresses.

    If the entertainment and publishing industries succeed in their Orwellian objectives and make it impossible for me to watch DVD movies on my GNU/Linux box I'll no longer be buying 3 or 4 movies a month, I might even be so angry I don't go to the cinema any more. But one thing I'll never do is castrate and lobotomize my PC by installing software on it that suits not my interests but the interests of the corporate megalomaniacs.

  13. Oh, please. by Selanit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "all 'copyright' = greed . . . the TRUTH is that there is no LEGITIMATE use of CSS on the first place"
    Copyright is not greed. Copyright is a legal mechanism designed to encourage people to create new works of art and useful inventions. Its purpose is to get people to continue creating new works, by rewarding them for ones they've already made. This is supposed to better society.

    Copyright can be used in a greedy fashion. But kindly keep in mind that most open source and free software licenses, including the GPL, depend on copyright. Those works (the Linux kernel, GCC, Mozilla, libdvdcss, and thousands of others) have been given to the community by their authors without the expectation of monetary compensation. This is a non-greedy use of copyright.

    CSS (and Macrovision, and region coding) is used by the movie industry to attempt to control our movie-watching behavior by dictating where and when and how we can watch movies that we have paid for. That is a legitimate use in the eyes of the industry, though I'll agree that it has been misapplied.

    But those same techniques could be used in good ways; for example to protect your own privacy. Say you have a digital camera, and you make some risque films with your lover. You could then burn those to DVD and use CSS, Macrovision, and region coding to try and make sure that no-one but you and your lover are able to watch those videos. Mind, it probably wouldn't work very well -- the techniques are too well known and too easily broken. You'd be better off encoding it to DivX or Xvid and then encrypting the whole file with PGP.

    Anyway, my point is that copyright and DVD technologies are neutral: it's how they are used that makes them good or bad.
    1. Re:Oh, please. by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful
      kindly keep in mind that most open source and free software licenses, including the GPL, depend on copyright.

      Well, kindly keep in mind that the reason the GPL is often referred to as "copyleft" is because there's no reason it should exist if it were not possible to copyright software. It's a manner to fight copyright using its own laws.

      Basically, these "licenses" depend on copyright because it exists, but open source would do very well without them if no other software was copyrighted.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    2. Re:Oh, please. by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, kindly keep in mind that the reason the GPL is often referred to as "copyleft" is because there's no reason it should exist if it were not possible to copyright software. It's a manner to fight copyright using its own laws.

      I hear this all the time, and it's just not true. If copyright didn't exist, I could take someone else's source code, put it in my product, and then not release the source code to my program. BSD is much closer to "no copyright". The GPL is simply trying to force it's own alternative set of rules on everyone (different, and possibly better than "normal", but still a set of rules) MrJeff

      --
      Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    3. Re:Oh, please. by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the reason the GPL is often referred to as "copyleft" is because there's no reason it should exist if it were not possible to copyright software. It's a manner to fight copyright using its own laws.

      No, the GPL attempts to control what the recipient may or may not do with the source code. Specifically, it requires (not requests, requires) that you distribute modified source code if you distribute modified binaries. There is no legal basis (though there is of course an ethical one) for this requirement if not for copyright.

      Basically, these "licenses" depend on copyright because it exists, but open source would do very well without them if no other software was copyrighted.

      Without copyright, a company can take GPL code, modify it slightly, and actually sell your hard work simply because they can afford marketing. I'm not as sure as you are that the open source community would be just as vibrant.

  14. Public Domain Films by Catiline · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I own a copy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis on a DVD. The film footage of this movie is in the public domain (there was no original audio track). Because this film is CSS encoded, the DMCA makes it a crime for me to copy this film for others (doing so is an illegal violation of the copy protection).

    Could someone please explain to me what good I (as the end consumer) should see in this law? All I see right now is greedy media companies trying to loophole themselves eternal copyrights (or any effective analog) of a sort that independent creators are prevented from sharing that term of protection. They are using otherwise reasonable-sounding arguments -- such as "director's vision" in the case against CleanFlicks or the (now tired) complaint of piracy against Studio 321, and at one time I might have found myself agreeing with those complaints -- but when I realized that they are pushing a campaign for eternal control of media even to the destruction of fair use ("it's not a sale, it's a licensing -- laws reguarding sales do not apply"[link goes to a .PDF]) and that they refuse any middle ground or quid pro quo, those arguments lost all meaning with me. I fear that the DMCA may create a modern, digital stationer's guild, and the thought that the *AA may have exactly that in mind frightens me.