Slashdot Mirror
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."
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? Or can they claim that he's still guilty, if they prove it was a trade secret at the time he "hacked" it?
en francais, aussi...
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
If any of you have some spare dollars or Euros lying around, maybe this article and the fact that you're in a relaxed Friday night mood might convince you to make a tax-deductible donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and help save civil liberties in cyberspace.
Andrew Bunner, the man featured on this Slashdot page, was being prosecuted under California's trade secret laws for redistributing DeCSS. If the EFF hadn't stepped in and stood up for his rights (at no cost to him), he very well might be in jail right now.
So please, consider joining or donating right now. It really does make a big difference.
One thing I promised myself back in college was that if I made any money off my computer knowledge gleaned from the Open-Source and computer-loving communities like Slashdot, Freshmeat, SourceForge, etc., I would donate 1% of my salary to various groups such as the EFF. I have kept my word, and I must tell you that it feels great.
I urge you all to think strongly consider it. Who's watching out for us if we don't all chip in?
Thanks for reading this, friends. It means a lot to me.
Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
They're readying the next format now anyway. They know that DeCSS has made no dent at all in their revenues. But they won't make that mistake (letting the keys out) again.
BC
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.
from well, anywhere but the US? :)
I can buy one at the Japanese market down the street from me for $119. They do exist in the US, you just have to know where to look. Of course, a wide variety of web sites sell them too.
It's moot in terms of this discussion, though, because CSS has nothing to do with region coding. My player's region free but it's still CSS-protected - you can't make a digital copy of DVD's even if you could somehow connect a PC to it. My old Apex player would remove the CSS protection but as far as I know there was nothing you could really do with the resulting data (unless someone did eventually invent a cable and connector to do it... but then why not just use a DVD-ROM drive to begin with?).
My point? I have no point. Well, maybe just that we should clarify what CSS really does before talking about what the removal of it can do for us. Using DeCSS is not going to remove region coding on your DVD player (not like you could use it on a standalone player anyway), nor is it going to do it for you on a DVD-ROM drive (though other commonly-available firmware utilities will).
Probably not. CSS may not be a trade secret any longer, but there's also the problem that under the DMCA any open source DVD player could be considered a circumvention device and thus illegal.
The DVD CCA and motion picture studios were separately suing (or threatening to sue) people over both issues: the trade secret and the redistribution of a circumvention device. I got a C&D letter about the later myself. 2600 magazine was sued on grounds of the later also. Unfortunately 2600 lost, and they lost on appeal too. But no circumvention case has gone to the supreme court yet.
You can't be prosecuted under the DMCA for having Ogle or DeCSS or the like on your computer, and using the program to play DVDs that you have obtained legally. The DMCA only forbids "trafficking" in technology that circumvents copyright protection measures, not use of such technology.
You could still theoretically be at risk for use of software that infringes patents, but that's a civil matter (the patent holder might be able to sue you), not a criminal matter (no one can arrest you).
In essence, it all comes down to the EULA that accompanied the software that Jon Johansen reverse engineered in the first place.
The DVD CCA was succesful in the Supreme Court of California in establishing that the provisions of the EULA that prohibited reverse engineering were enforceable and constituted discovery by "improper means".
There are other serious precedents, namely that no one may reverse engineer a software product for the purpose of interoptability where the EULA strictly forbids it, that the EULA of any software product is enforcable and most distressing of of all, that trade secret law trumps the First Amendment (under very narrow circumstances, granted).
Even with the case dismissed, these precedents stand in the State of California, do they not?
Niether of you are right. Software clouds the issue, software should not be patentable at all, it doesn't fit in with the scheme of things.
Patent's are to cover IMPLEMENTATIONS of physical things, a specific way of making a steam engine, a certain weight shape and size of hammer for a specific purpose, etc.
Copyrights are to cover ACTUAL creations of non-tangible things, source code, books, writting in general, artwork, etc.
NIETHER is to cover ideas which are in themselves not SUPPOSED to be ownable. Patents are dangerous because if overly broad they can effectively protect an idea instead of an implementation.
Software is copyrightable, it should not be patentable. The things which software patents are issued for are ideas and that is why software patents should not be considered truely valid.