DVD CCA Drops Case; DeCSS Not a Trade Secret

jon787 writes "EFF is reporting that the DVD CCA is dismissing its case against Andrew Bunner. He was being prosecuted under California's trade secret laws for redistributing DeCSS. This means that the DVD CCA has finally conceded that CSS is no longer a secret, something the rest of us have known for a few years now."

Comments

Full Press Release

[mpav]

Full Press release is available here.

Yeah...

[c0dedude]

I'd just like to take a minute to thank the EFF. You can help them by donating.

40 bits

[MooseGuy529]

This means that the DVD CCA has finally conceded that CSS is no longer a secret, something the rest of us have known for a few years now.

It's not CSS that's the problem--the five-digit player key is a trade secret.

Anyway, let's celebrate!

Re:40 bits

[edwdig]

The key isn't a problem. You don't need to know the key ahead of time. CSS encryption is so badly designed that you can brute force find a key within a few seconds. Any recent Linux DVD player doesn't contain a key, it just looks at the DVD and figures one out.

They're admitting CSS isn't a trade secret anymore. If you know CSS, then it only takes a few seconds to find a key. Based on that, how can you justify calling the key a trade secret?

DMCA ?

[vlad_petric]

Not being a trade secret doesn't mean it's not prosecutable under DMCA. The reason distros don't include libdvdcss is really DMCA.

DVD css was cracked through reverse engineering, which does not equate to stealing a trade secret. I do think that the outcome is important, but it won't really make that much of a difference IMHO (and of course, IANAL)

Re:DMCA ?

[red floyd]

However, 17 USC 1201(f) explicity allows reverse engineering for interoperability:

(f) Reverse Engineering. -

(1)

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2)

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3)

The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

(4)

For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

It doesn't affect his case.

[jbn-o]

So, if it's no longer a trade secret in the US, does that mean that the Jon Johansen can finally quit worrying about the Norwegian government's appealing the second aquittal?

Wikipedia says "Okokrim announced on January 5, 2004 that it would not appeal the case any further" (apparently Slashdot will not let me type the O with the slash through it, but it gives me the proper character in the editor area).

Re:So if something is released to the public...

[ScrewMaster]

The entire point of a "trade secret" is that it is secret. Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection: both of those require that you disclose that which you are attempting to protect. I mean, you can't tell the patent office "I've got this way cool invention that will make me a billion dollars and I want patent protection but I don't want to tell you or anyone else how it works." Full disclosure is part of the process: your invention may be trivial , totally unoriginal, or absolutely brilliant, but you do have to disclose it in your patent app.

If you choose to NOT seek patent or copyright protection and choose to protect it yourself, you are SOOL if the secret gets out anyway. For example, Coca Cola takes extreme measures, both within its' organization and without, to prevent anyone from learning the actual formula for Coke, because they've never patented it and if it does get out they would lose their monopoly on the Coke taste lickety split.

Re:distro's

[gnuadam]

As far as I understand it, they exist always under threat. Again, I might be mistaken, but I really think mpeg2 is patented.

Ah, yes, yes it is patented.

Re:Wait,

[kfg]

That's actually not a simple question which reading the article would fully resolve.

What it means is that the DVD CCA acknowledges that the keys and algorithm of CSS are no longer secret and thus have no protection under law as such.

In effect it means that said keys and algorithm can be published under certain circumstances without risk of action.

But that isn't exactly the same thing as saying that DeCSS is legal in the US.

KFG

Re:So if something is released to the public...

[wfberg]

Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection.

I don't know what kind of dope you're smoking, but it must be good stuff. Copyright always applies, published or not.

The word "secret" refers to the content, not the "tangible" form. Let's say you have a secret; "Dear diary, last night I robbed the 7-11." If I find your diary and rephrase that secret - as in "The 7-11 was robbed by taustin last night" - that's bona fide freedom of information right there.

Obviously in the case of CSS the DeCSS implementation wasn't a direct lift of any existing code; it was reverse-engineered, and not copied from existing code.

Freedom of information(gathering) is one of the basic tenets of democracy; without it, there is no free press. Of course, there are always companies looking to infringe upon it, even to the extent of pushing for laws that establish so-called "database rights" or pretending that trade secrets are secret when they're not secret any more.

Also note that the US government has a lot of files that are secret, but not copyright protected.

IANAL but I belief this is a case of "cattus ex sacculo est". (the cat's out the bag)

Re:Import one..

[squiggleslash]

Actually the two are connected and CSS's primary reason for existing is to enforce region encoding.

The deal goes like this: In order to produce a DVD player that's worth buying, a manufacturer must license CSS (until now, anyway). However, a license stipulation imposed by the CCA for licensing CSS is that the players that use it also impose region encoding. Outside of the US, region encoding almost certainly violates basic competition laws, which is why manufacturers routinely flout the license there; however within the US, there are fewer competition laws to allow these kinds of get-outs.

Re:I'm pretty sure mpeg2 is included with most..

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

Mpeg1 and 2 (including layer 3 a la MP3) are covered by patents for encoding.

If the decoding process IS patented, it does not carry a royalty. That is how mp3 became popular, because it was free to download the players. mpeg1 and 2 are the same way when it comes to video.