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

distro's

[byrd77]

so does this mean the varios linux distro's will be able to include a dvd player by default? could be a boon to wider acceptance on the desktop, especially at home

Re:distro's

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

The DMCA does not disallow users to decrypt works for which they have purchased a license to. If you legally obtain a DVD, there is no law which states you cannot decrypt it with any method provided you do not distribute the work, or display it in public. The act of purchasing the DVD means you are authorized to decrypt the dvd by any means under the home recording act and fair use doctrine of the supreme court. The DMCA SPECIFICALLY states that all decryptions which are covered under the US Supreme Court "Fair Use" Doctrine are not to be illegal or prosecuted. Until the supreme court chimes in and says it is illegal to decrypt legally licensed works, it will always be innocent until proven guilty..

On the issue of DeCSS DISTRIBUTION: There has yet to be any ruling on the validity of appeals courts ruling that DeCSS distribution breaks the DMCA. Until the DMCA's clause which prohibits decryption tool distribution is proven constitutional (in which case the Supreme court would have to take back the fair use doctrine, which is unlikely, but not unprecedented) it will always be legal to distribute such tools. In all cases where this has come up, the DoJ has stopped short of taking it to the supreme court. Until companies are disallowed to lobby the department of justics, prosecution under false pretenses will always be an issue in America (and it is still illegal BTW).

There is a problem in america when people think things are illegal just because some company says it is. Just remember... there has been no court ruling which says that distribution of decryption tools is infringing on anyone's copyrights.

Since district courts cannot rule a law constitutional or unconstitutional, that particular clause of the DMCA has not yet been able to hold much weight. The MPAA will never allow the DMCA to be taken to the supreme court. This is why they sued 2600.com, and not a bigger corporation who has in the past distributed knowingly DeCSS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Elcomsoft was aquitted of all charges in its adobe e-book reader case, which has nearly identical case background to the DeCSS.

Now.. the fact that companies don't want to risk being sued, that is their decision to make. But the facts are that nobody can be held liable for a law which does not even comply with basic supreme court doctrine. You cannot be sued under copyright law unless you are copying works. And you cannot be brought up upon charges for crimes against the state without the department of justics getting involved. You won't find John Ashcroft doing that to a company like RedHat or Mandrake wrt DeCSS. There is too much risk of it going to the supreme court and getting shot down.

The ONLY target the DMCA can touch now is distributers without a good track record. And that is just the reason all DeCSS cases which have supreme court merit will be dropped by the DoJ forever until eternity.

So if something is released to the public...

[cartzworth]

...whether or not it is by the company that created it, it ceases to be a trade secret in the case of proprietary encryption schemes?

Does this mean?

[Facekhan]

Does this mean that Xine and Mplayer can now be distributed with libdvdcss included.

so

[pvt_medic]

does that basically kill thier argument about anything that copies DVD because if it is public knowledge anyone can do what they want

Will it be easier to get region-free players?

[MichaelCrawford]

One would think that all the DVD player manufacturers will now start making region-free players, but that might not be the case because they have contracts with the DVD-CCA that forbids them from doing so.

I've so far avoided getting a dedicated DVD player just because they have region coding, preferring to use a software-based open source dvd player.

But it's sure not as convenient or as pleasant to watch DVDs on my laptop as it would be on my TV with a dedicated player. For one thing, my laptop doesn't have a remote control.

Re:Will it be easier to get region-free players?

[EinarH]

Just out of curiosity, on average how many DVDs that you watch are made for regions other than the one you live in?

Not many, some though maybe 20% for me (I'm from Europe). But that is not the point. If I want to buy DVD's in Asia why should I not be allowed to do so?
The whole point behind the region coding is to stiffle competition and control distrobution so the prices on the DVD's can be kept artificially high. Without region coding the prices on both players and DVD's would have been lower.

No, sorry, that's spin your reading..

[stratjakt]

This means that the DVD CCA has finally conceded that CSS is no longer a secret

No it doesn't, it means they decided not to pursue this particular case. I dont see where they conceded anything, or shut the door on any future legal action.

Just because the EFF sees it that way doesnt mean it's so, they're a special interest group with an agenda. Agreeing with the agenda doesn't make everything they say/do in pursuit of that agenda right.

Re:How does this affect DVD Jon?

[bwt]

Actually, I suspect that the timing of this DVD-CCA decision is completely explained by the fact that Jon won in Norway. If Jon's actions were legal under the laws of his country then Bunner's actions in the US are not traceable to an act of misappropriation.

DMCA?

[Rick Zeman]

IANAL, but could it be that the reason they backed away from this case is that they don't want the DMCA itself to undergo the judicial scrutiny that it would?

It sure needs to, like, oh, shrinkwrap laws.

Visit my DeCSS mirror

[MichaelCrawford]

Want to post your own DeCSS mirror? You can get it from my DeCSS mirror.

It's been on the first page of hits at google for the query content scrambling system for a couple of years now.

Failure to pursue translates into the conclusion..

[Svartalf]

Either it's a Trade Secret and they vigorously pursue the violator- or they completely lose the ability to pursue anyone with regards to the secret in question (as it's no longer one...).

For the DVD CCA to decide to no longer pursue the case means nobody will be harassed by them in this regard- if they do, they can and will face harassment or misuse of procedure countersuits that they'll lose.

Re:40 bits

[DavidTC]

Except figuring out trade secrets by brute force is completely legal.

Trade secrets are basically anti-patents. (Which is why the term 'intellectual property' is stupid.)

With patents, inventers are screwed even if they reinvent it without knowing about the original.

With trade secrets, not only can invent it myself, but I can do everything in my power to learn it from you as long as I obey the law and don't break any signed NDAs.

If I am, to pick a mostly silly but widely used example trade secret, trying to steal the formula to Coke, I not only can subject the drink to chemical analysis, but I can take a tour of the plant with a hidden high-powered camera, I can rifle through their trash, I can get hired as a employee and attempt to learn it that way, I can get an employee drunk, etc. If I do, I win. (Note all companies make you sign an NDA before learning trade secrets, and in some places it's actually part of your employment contract, so you actually can't sign on with them to learn it.)

Also note that if I trick someone else into telling it, while they may be liable, I am not, and can use my knowledge in any way I want. (Which, BTW, is one of the few forms of legal blackmail...I can offer to sign an NDA if they will pay me X amount of money.)