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."

43 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. One down... by irving47 · · Score: 4, Funny

    SCO to go...

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  2. DeCSS by (1337)+God · · Score: 5, Funny

    /* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root@ihack.net> */
    /* */
    /* Thanks to Phil Carmody <fatphil@asdf.org> for additional tweaks. */
    /* */
    /* DVD-logo shaped version by Alex Bowley <alex@hyperspeed.org> */
    /* */
    /* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob */

    #define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<

    unsigned char x[5] ,y,s[2048];main(
    n){for( read(0,x,5 );read(0,s ,n=2048
    ); write(1 ,s,n) )if(s
    [y=s [13]%8+20] /16%4 ==1 ){int
    i=m( 1)17 ^256 +m(0) 8,k =m(2)
    0,j= m(4) 17^ m(3) 9^k* 2-k%8
    ^8,a =0,c =26;for (s[y] -=16;
    --c;j *=2)a= a*2^i& 1,i=i /2^j&1
    <<24;for(j= 127; ++j<n;c=c>
    y)
    c

    +=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,
    i=i>>8^y<<17,a^=a>>14,y=a^a*8^a<<6,a=a
    &nbs p; >>8^y<<9,k=s[j],k ="7Wo~'G_\216"[k
    &7]+2^"cr3sfw6v;*k+>/n."[k>>4]*2^k*257/
    &nbsp ; 8,s[j]=k^(k&k*2&34)*6^c+~y
    ;}}

    --

    Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
    1. Re:DeCSS by xargoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they will sue them for abusing the DVD logo and trademark instead..

    2. Re:DeCSS by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Funny

      The fact that you can easily do ASCII art with C shows what a god-awful language it is. Nice program, though!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    3. Re:DeCSS by shaitand · · Score: 4, Funny

      The difference is I bet the guys who put this out there INTENDED for it to be ASCII Art. With perl I write my app first and then go back to see what images I can find hidden within it.

  3. Full Press Release by mpav · · Score: 5, Informative

    Full Press release is available here.

  4. distro's by byrd77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    --
    - Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
    1. Re:distro's by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Funny

      " so does this mean the varios linux distro's will be able to include a dvd player by default?"

      Yep, as soon as we can find a DVD player in this damn spaghetti System V code.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:distro's by gnuadam · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
    3. Re:distro's by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
  5. So if something is released to the public... by cartzworth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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?

    1. Re:So if something is released to the public... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:So if something is released to the public... by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So if something is released to the public... by wfberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    4. Re:So if something is released to the public... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  6. Does this mean? by Facekhan · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  7. Yeah... by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
  8. so by pvt_medic · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
  9. CCA finally concedes CSS is no longer a secret... by dodgyville · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if we can only get the Beatles to finally admit that Paul is dead, then that will mean the two most important but worst-kept secrets in the world will have been revealed on one day.

    --
    apt-get install deathstar && deathstar alderaan && echo "You're far too trusting"
  10. And I still... by downix · · Score: 5, Funny

    haven't gotten the damned t-shirt yet. 8(

    Ok, thinkgeek here I come!

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  11. Will it be easier to get region-free players? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Will it be easier to get region-free players? by EinarH · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.
      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  12. Linux? by mahdi13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I can finally watch encrypted DVDs on Linux without having the fear of the FBI crashing through my windows?

    --
    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    1. Re:Linux? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does this mean I can finally watch encrypted DVDs on Linux without having the fear of the FBI crashing through my windows?

      No, the SCO case is not settled yet.

      (HOW-TO: Mix SCO into a COMPLETELY unrelated story...)

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Linux? by JoeBuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

  13. DMCA ? by vlad_petric · · Score: 4, Informative
    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)

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:DMCA ? by red+floyd · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  14. In Other News... by plasm4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft releases Office under the GPL Steve Ballmer wins Nobel Price in physics Former Enron executive Ken Lay goes to jail Duke Nukem Forever released

    1. Re:In Other News... by EulerX07 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Patent on punctuation expires! You can now freely make use of it!

  15. No, sorry, that's spin your reading.. by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  16. Don't be so naive by BigChigger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  17. Re:How does this affect DVD Jon? by bwt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. It doesn't affect his case. by jbn-o · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  19. DMCA? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  20. Re:Wait, by kfg · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  21. Visit my DeCSS mirror by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  22. Too damn old by siskbc · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yep, as soon as we can find a DVD player in this damn spaghetti System V code.

    I dunno about that, but you might find a serviceable 8-track player. Do those need decoding though?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  23. Re:40 bits by edwdig · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  24. Re:Wait, by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 4, Funny

    according to sco, that'd be your legally purchased DVD's on your illegal linux platform.

    i can't wait for the ibm lawyers to finish with darl and friends. they'll make goatse.cx look like a cakewalk

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  25. Re:Import one.. by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  26. Failure to pursue translates into the conclusion.. by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  27. Re:40 bits by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  28. I'm Andrew Bunner -- here's my reaction by kinesis · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I'm the "Bunner" in DVD CCA vs Bunner. If you could look in my out-box today, here's what you'd see:

    Friends and family,

    My fifteen minutes of fame are over. The DVD CCA is dropping their case against me. For those that don't remember, I was sued in late 1999 for posting the source code to a software DVD player on my web site. The plaintifs included Sony, MGM, Panasonic, Microsoft, Warner-Brothers, and most other corporations in either media or electronics.

    Today, they gave up. They've withdrawn the case
    without prejudice.

    Reading between the lines that means that they finally realized they were going to lose and that even if they won, the "secrets" of playing a DVD have been pretty well documented for the public.

    To celebrate the occassion, I've asked my lawyers to file a counter-suit alleging emotional anguish and seeking damages of one hundred billion trillion dollars.

    -- Andrew