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.

35 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. all ''copyright'' = greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the TRUTH is that there is no LEGITIMATE use of CSS on the first place

  3. Quiet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Interesting that the libdvdcss folks have never had a bump with the law...
    SHHHHHHH!

    Don't give them any ideas. ;-)
    1. 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.

  4. 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.

    2. Re:Visability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No reason to make your own. Check out vcdhelp.com for information on what DVD players can be hacked. Some are more work than others. I never buy one without checking there first.

    3. Re:Visability by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative
      Found this bit from The EFF:

      Second, as to proof of current substantial adverse effect, the evidence on the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that it is not just a handful of titles that are affected. 66 individual consumers submitted comments to the Copyright Office in support of this exemption. These comments describe their first-hand experience of encountering non-fast-forwardable promotional material on over 40 different popular titles. These titles included Lilo and Stitch, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Toy Story I and II, Monsters, Inc., A Very Merry Pooh Year, Bob the Builder, About a Boy, Blue Crush, American Pie II, The Sixth Sense, Ice Age, the Red Violin, Shawshank Redemption, the Bourne Identity, Baby Mozart and Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer.

      An assessment of the substantial adverse impact on consumers requires consideration of both the number of titles which may contain UOP blocking, and the number of units of each of those titles that have been sold to consumers. All of the titles I mentioned are extremely popular and were high volume sellers. According to the 2002 Year End sales report from Video Business, in 2002 Monsters, Inc sold 11.8 million units, Ice Age sold 7 million units, Lilo and Stitch sold 6.6 million units in the last three weeks of December 2002 alone, and Beauty and the Beast sold 4.3 million units. In total, there are - just for those 4 titles alone - 29.7 million units in consumer households that may have been affected by the inability to fast-forward through commercial advertising. This is hardly an insignificant impact.

      Third, in assessing the impact of these technological measures on noninfringing use, the nature of the harm to individual consumers must be taken into account. In the case of each of the 66 consumers who filed comments with the Copyright Office, the harm was significant, and rose beyond a mere inconvenience. They were not able to avoid the objectionable material. The harm was redoubled when they were not able to prevent their children from viewing the objectionable material on various Disney titles. A number of parents commented that they had specifically purchased DVDs as a means of controlling their children's exposure to commercial advertising, and were understandably upset when they could not fast-forward through that material. This is not a mere inconvenience.

      (Emphasis added by me.)

  5. 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....

  6. 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.

  7. I wonder... by kien · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..if the MPAA is going to sue the Washington Post for the same reason that they sued 2600. I doubt they've got the chutzpah for that legal fight, but it would be quite interesting if they did.

    --K.

    --
    Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
    1. Re:I wonder... by moonbender · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean they need a reason now? ;)

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  8. Not to mention open source works.. by wfberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've had no problems playing DVDs using videolan on windows, but no luck whatsoever with a variety of closed source programs such as powerdvd and windows media player. Same DVD, same drive, same operating system. Fully licensed commercial crap = don't work, open source = works beautifully and will even rip it for me, add subtitles and make an SVCD out of it so I can watch a German language flick with my American friends.

    Glad to see the Post gets it.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  9. An alternate history by lateralus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think that we should allow what we of weak taste call "movies and music" studios to succeed. Allow them perfect control of everything. You will not be able to do anything without paying them but run a Commodore 64 that is disconnected from the Internet.

    The result?

    The complete, total and utter collapse of the above Industries. People will not be able or willing to afford even to buy a book online because of crippling proprietary formats and greedy prices. No one will be interested in anything digital anymore, disconnected we will peacefully slip back to telling stories by the fireplace (reading them off the C64's screen that is).

    Or maybe not.

    --
    If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
  10. Wrong. by cduffy · · Score: 3, Informative

    One huge difference: While your copy is physically loaned out to a friend, neither you or any of your other friends can use it. You're not making a new copy, you're just passing one around.

    Doing the IRC thing, OTOH, you're actually making additional copies which can then be used concurrently. Big no-no.

  11. Haha by DougMackensie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh sure. Whats next?
    Legitimate uses for Mp3s?

  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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
    1. Re:My childrens' videos... by Boogaroo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another good use for parents can be the removal of Macrovision protection. It allows you to put the DVD on VHS so you can give the kids the movie in a format that's a little less likely to be destroyed in ten seconds.

      If you have a DVD burner, you could also give the kids the back-up version instead of the original to avoid the same problem(loss of the original).

      Solution one is probably beyond most parent's computer ability, and solution two is pricey(DVD burner ~=$300). However, in comparison to having the kid ruin the originals it can be cheaper since X x $20 = Big bucks if your kid scratches a movie every other week.

      The movie studios want to have it so that you only own the disk, but restrict you like you only license the content. If you are paying "only" for the disk, you should be allowed to back it up. If you only payed for the content then the studios should replace the disk no matter what happens to it since what you payed for was "the right to watch the movie when you want to."

  15. 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.

  16. Re:yeah by cmeans · · Score: 3, Funny
    Yes, but to be honest, it's likely they would all be VB programmers :)

  17. 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.
  18. 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?

  19. Unskippable commercials suck by C3ntaur · · Score: 5, Informative

    Back in the days before DVD, whenever I bought a new VHS video for my collection I'd do a few things during my first viewing of it. First, I fast-forwarded through all the commercials at the beginning of the tape. Sometimes this would come out to more than 15 minutes worth of crap. Next, I took the tape out of the player, cut the labels at the cartridge seam, removed the screws from the cartridge, and opened it up. Then, I carefully removed the take-up spool, and cut the tape. I unspooled all the crap from the take-up spool, pulled out the little retainer clip, and threw the crap in the trash. Finally, I reconnected the remaining tape to the take-up spool and put the retaining clip back in, and put everything back together. Voila! My tape was now configured the way it should have been from the getgo: no commercials.

    I'm pretty sure I was well within my legal rights to do this to tapes I had purchased legitimately, and that no *AA organization or anyone else would even think about going after me for it. All this has changed with the DMCA and digital formats. IANAL, but it seems pretty stupid to me that physically hacking a tape I bought is perfectly legal, while digitally doing the same thing in a much less invasive manner to a DVD is not.

    --
    Loading...
  20. DeCSS Perl Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    # 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-iap-dvd@mit.edu>
    # MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
    # usage: perl -I <k1>:<k2>:<k3>:<k4>:<k5&gt ; qrpff
    # where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order

    s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=29;R=142;if((@a=u nqT="C*",_)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
    b=map{ ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9
    |256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=255)& (Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))<<17,O=O>>8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
    ^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^=R^=110&(S=(unqT ,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);E
    ^=(72,@z=(64,72,G ^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12:0,@z)[_%8]}(16..271) )[_]^((D>>=8
    )+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT ,@a}';s/[D-HO-U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval

    1. Re:DeCSS Perl Code by NamShubCMX · · Score: 3, Funny

      someone reminds me why Ive never got into perl...? :)

      --
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
  21. 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.

  22. General purpose CSS by yerricde · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the TRUTH is that there is no LEGITIMATE use of CSS on the first place

    What? You want to go back to table layout and <font>!?

    Somebody who went to school with me made a crypto module for the Mono platform based on the Skipjack cipher used in the Clipper chip. I wonder what it'd be like if DVD CCA's CSS were re-implemented as yet another general-purpose stream cipher for a popular platform's crypto interface. Interchangeable modules, each with a substantial non-infringing use, make it harder for the DMCA police to point a finger at a guilty party.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  23. 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.

  24. 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.