Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen Interviewed
wuzfuzzy writes "Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary. To the copyright industry, Jon Lech Johansen has been a detriment to their policy of control since the advent of DeCSS (Decrypt Content Scrambling System.) To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media. After two trials, the courts finally ruled in Jon's favor. However, there is much more to Jon Lech Johansen than DeCSS. In this interview, Slyck hopes to bring to light the many facets of Mr. Johansen, and the numerous projects he is involved with."
Seems a reasonable enough feller. I thought the university comment was quite interesting.
...I remember the days when everyone loved this guy, that was, of course, until he applied his skills to slashdot's favorite purveyor of DRM.
I don't know which Jon I love more, Stewart or Johansen.
When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.
Exactly! When I buy a DVD (not rent) I expect to have complete control over how I view that content. My DVD player has no right to restrict me from fastfowarding through any part of that media.
Any DVD I purchase that does not allow me to fastfoward any part is immediately ripped, stripped, and burned. That's my right. Thank you Jon!
I thought we had a great Ivy League candidate, since he said he want to Yale. Then he told me his name was Yon Yohansen.
pow(256,5) != 32768
I predict we will have two responses to this guy here:
#1 Lets nominated him for sainthood in the house of GNU.
#2 Lets string him up high.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Oh, wow. How did I screw that up. Jesus, where's my "Take that post back and never let anyone else see it" button.
I think this would not be a good time to reveal I've a higher degree in Mathematics.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
5 bytes covers 1,099,511,627,776 possibilities, which is a little harder.
It rather depends on how difficult it is to test each possibility.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
Right On Jon! I already paid for the DVD I don't see why I should be forced to sit though adverts after that.
Just let me navigate the content of my new DVD in the manner I choose thanks very much!
It is just a pity that the studios/player manufacturers are not going to listen to the public on this matter.
Slyck.com Interviews Jon Lech Johansen
April 4, 2005
Thomas Mennecke
Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary. To the copyright industry, Jon Lech Johansen has been a detriment to their policy of control since the advent of DeCSS (Decrypt Content Scrambling System.) To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media.
Jon Lech Johansen became well known for his role in the development of DeCSS. Jon spent 3 long years in the Norwegian courts proving his innocence. The American movie industry pressured the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit to press charges against Jon Lech Johansen in 2000 for allegedly bypassing the CSS copy protection on DVDs.
After two trials, the courts finally ruled in Jon's favor. However, there is much more to Jon Lech Johansen than DeCSS. In this interview, Slyck hopes to bring to light the many facets of Mr. Johansen, and the numerous projects he is involved with.
Describe your role in the development of DeCSS. Was is a group effort or were you the mastermind behind it?
DeCSS was written by 3 people: a German developer, a Dutch developer and myself. The reverse engineering was done by the German.
From time to time I see people repeat the claim that DeCSS was only made possible because a DVD player manufacturer forgot to "protect" their DVD player. This is a myth that is perpetuated by people who don't understand how computers work. Code obfuscation only slows down reverse engineering, it doesn't block it.
What was the motivation behind creating DeCSS?
The motivation was being able to play DVDs the way we want to. I don't like being forced to use a specific operating system or a specific player to watch movies (or listen to music.) Nor do I like being forced to watch commercials. When your DVD player tells you "This operation is not allowed" when you try to skip commercials, it becomes pretty clear that DRM really stands for Digital Restrictions Management.
Did you ever expect the level of legal entanglements; and for it to become as popular as it is today?
No and no.
How difficult was it do break the CSS encryption? What did it take to break the encryption?
Technically DeCSS didn't break CSS. Breaking a crypto algorithm requires revealing and/or exploiting a method that's faster than brute force. DeCSS simply implemented CSS the same way as a normal DVD player.
CSS was however broken by Frank Andrew Stevenson: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/FrankStevenson/ index.html. Many DVD decryption tools today exploit the weaknesses in CSS that he revealed.
Another myth is that DeCSS is illegal because it uses a "stolen" key. A CSS key is 5 bytes. How anyone can think that it's possible to "steal" 5 bytes is beyond me. 5 bytes do not have any protection under copyright law because it's not an original work. It's probably possible for 5 bytes to be protected under trade secret law, but CSS hasn't been a trade secret since DeCSS was released and mirrored all over the net. Is someone who names their child "Frank" (5 bytes) stealing Frank's name? It's absurd.
Was there at any point during the DeCSS trials when you felt you were in serious trouble, or were you confident throughout that you would emerge victorious?
I was confident throughout.
What was the expression(s) on the face of the movie industry when you were finally acquitted?
The MPAA's (or rather, the MPA, which is the international arm of the MPAA) Norwegian lawyer was present for most of the first trial. I don't remember if he was present when the judgment was handed down, but if he was, he was probably wearing his standard grumpy look.
For the acquitt
OK. You can stop replying to this now.
I'm a cretin.
OP
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The chap who moderated it interesting is in the same boat.
I generally find it's Maths grads who have the biggest problems with arithmetic.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
From the interview:
People who claim that the iTMS DRM is a "good compromise" have naively bought into the impending doom propaganda.
He has a point - the DRM that comes with iTunes is already creeping up in restrictions from the point at which you first agreed to it. Perhaps you should take another look and think again if it is really worth it to you?
I remember all the comments here about how no one would buy anything with DRM attached... but then it turns out that yes, most of Slashdot indeed would buy it willingly. How very dissapointing.
Beep beep.
the most interesting thing he's done recently in my opinion was hacking the VC-1 codec from SMPTE into VLC. Something that provides real hope for linux and mac users trying to view WMV9 encoded video content
not to belittle the rest of his accomplishments, but I feel this one has the greatest possible advantage in legitimate terms
Business Voyeur
" "Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary. To the copyright industry, Jon Lech Johansen has been a detriment to their policy of control since the advent of DeCSS (Decrypt Content Scrambling System.) To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media. After two trials, the courts finally ruled in Jon's favor"
Shouldn't this be in the "Your Politics Online" section? Now all we need is someone waving a flag, and banging a drum to complete the effect.
...
Possible but riding his "I wrote decss" thingy won't always pay off.
And when he's forced to apply for a job through normal avenues [cuz let's be honest decss is cool but not the be-all of the computer industry] he'll get the HR run-around.
The best thing he can do is at the very least get a community college diploma or something. That way he has "some paper".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media.
You paint a picture of an evil corporate-controlled society with black helicopters and spotlights swarming in the night to take away your cherished freedoms. But DRM like iTunes' is the most liberal there is, and you can easily use its loopholes for things like infinite CD burning (just recreate the playlist).
If your freedom is being taken away by a DRM scheme, then don't use that DRM scheme. Don't shop from the iTunes Music Store (and don't ruin it for everyone else by trying to sabotage it).
In my personal opinion, he isn't a freedom fighter. He's a guy whose making it harder to get the record labels to embrace online downloading as their business model.
As a matter of fact, I think it would be nigh on impossible to convince us of that! :-)
Dude, do you realize which day that was posted? Take another look and then look it up if you don't.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I guess April Fools day was named after you huh?
With a symmetric key algorithm, a 40 bits key is considered extremely weak. Remember that DES (56 useful bits) is dead and 3DES has been officialy replaced by AES (128 bits).
Dude, the date... THE DATE!
This paragraph struck me as odd:
"Another myth is that DeCSS is illegal because it uses a "stolen" key. A CSS key is 5 bytes. How anyone can think that it's possible to "steal" 5 bytes is beyond me. 5 bytes do not have any protection under copyright law because it's not an original work. It's probably possible for 5 bytes to be protected under trade secret law, but CSS hasn't been a trade secret since DeCSS was released and mirrored all over the net. Is someone who names their child "Frank" (5 bytes) stealing Frank's name? It's absurd."
If those 5 bytes are a key to unlock something.. ehm.. I think comparing that to someones first name is a bit weird. If someone has my credit-card code, I would say they stole my code.
For the record, as I do not want this thing to be flooded with "Great , go ahead and support DRM", I'm 100% against DRM. They have been spending a thousand times more on DRM-development than what they claim they have lost by illegal copies. DRM is only good if you want to finance the legal department and throw money out of the window, because no DRM will be 100% safe, and all DRM-schemes that I've seen passing by were broken, sometimes even before their official release. Not to mention they cause enormous headaches with their paying customers, and I don't think paying customers are the kind of people they want to piss off.
DRRM = Digital Right to Restrict Management
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
Why do things have to be so black and white? I don't care one way or the other. DeCSS Jon is marginally better than Mitnick, because Jon actually produces something and is Fighting the Power (TM) and Sticking it to the Man (TM)... and that's a good thing. I don't agree with all that he does, but at least he's out there in the proverbial trenches doing what he thinks is right rather than just stealing music (or credit card numbers, like Mitnick) just because he can. He's also not a famewhore like Mitnick, trying to turn a moment of dubious fame into 3) profit!!! Mitnick proves that Scott Adams is right: people get promoted because management knows their name, and one only gets one's name known when it's attached to some disaster. Thus, companies hire criminals like Mitnick as "security experts" because they've heard the man's name.
I put Jon into the same category as Linus... someone pushing the boundaries of the electronic world, and our rights therein. Someone has to be the pioneer, if mainstream society is to struggle with the issues brought up by the envelope-pusher.
Or you might think he's just some guy, you know?
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope
Since when did George Bush's writers start submitting slashdot articles?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
The best example of this is the DVD of "Master and Commander". It forces you sit through 10 minutes of advertising of other films before you get to the main menu!
I found this requirement to be shockingly obnoxious.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
But DRM like iTunes' is the most liberal there is
And that's the problem. People don't balk at iTunes DRM. They simply say that it's the best out there, so they're happy. Kind of like saying having a brick dropped on your foot is better than having a bowling ball dropped on your head. People keep forgetting the fact that both options suck.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
We "own" the DVD but we don't "own the rights" of the DVD.
Since we don't own the rights then they can control how we use the media.
Just to point one thing out here... CDs are digital. Just uncompresed digital instead of compressed digital. It takes about a minute (tops) on todays computers to take a cd track and convert it to MP3. So it too, is easy to copy and distribute. Of course, I can always burn a copy or send the entire thing over the internet given todays bandwidth on home computers and networks, so even ease of copying doesn't hold when compared to red book audio cds.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
After applying my Awsome Jedi Powers(tm) to this (somewhat badly worded) sentence, I have cunningly concluded that Mr Johansen did not take a job with Apple.
I did however, break out in cold sweat for a minute.
phew,
-RG.
HAHA you are so funny.
DRRM = Digital Right to Restrict Management
I mean WOW, That is sooooo original.
I had never heard that before
He didn't crack iTunes DRM, anonymous engineers at M$ and Real did. He just agreed to release their hacks as his own... supposedly to protect his cracker brothers. Nevermind, that it played right into the hands of the beast of redmond and the ex-spyware company... all of this convienantly at a time when Apple and M$ were in negotiations with the labels.
I'm sure youre aware that some countries such as the US have double jeopordy rules where a person can only be tried once for the same offence. Did you think it was unfair that you had to stand trial multiple times after being acquitted?
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
Pay your $599 SCO license fee for DeCSS, you lazy slack-off pigs!
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
To those who cherish freedom...
Don't mince words, Taco. Tell us how you really feel.
Seriously, though. While I'm not a fan of DRM by any means, I'm a little unhappy with the fact that a lot of anti-DRM advocates use strongly charged statements like this one in their arguments. I think the argument that once I've paid for content I should be able to device-shift it at will is solid enough without regressing into hyperbole and strawman attacks.
Ok, this guy may have some valid ideas about DRM, but I feel that a artist/musician/owner/company... whoever, has the right to protect/use/distribute thier product however they see fit and if someone doesn't like it then they have every right not to purchase it. Wresting control of a item away from it's owner is not a nobal pursuit.
BTW normal consumer actions often police the worst sorts of DRM and Meida lock. Example... Disney once released a DVD were you couldn't skip the previews, they did this once, got slammed by the consumers and stopped doing it. If you want to change something you can do it with dollars.
If this guy is so smart about DRM and the finances of Media Companies, then I suggest he start his own media company and see how long it takes for himto go out of business.
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Maybe not
1) if he fails at univm that's not going to do him any good
2) now he's the guy who quit school because 'the industry bought him'
Who is going to like him more because he has a university degree?
This is the argument why Mac heads hate Johansen and friends. Apple's original DRM was simple and easy for anyone to crack... we just didn't tell the non technical pukes. But stupid people like johansen had to go and shout out how l33t they were and blow it for the rest of us!
He's definitely a very talented kid, I mean he wrote DeCSS when he was around 16. Did any of his teachers notice his talents? Of course not. So he takes his skills underground where he meets people like himself. These people are tossed aside by an uncaring system, of course he thinks the way he does. He hates the system because it created him.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
MOd down immedietly.
Truthful post detected. Understanting of media distribution laws rule set tripped. Pleas emod down beofre others can fully understand just what you buy when you buy a DVD
How is being anti digital RIGHTS management cherishing freedom? Maybe you mean to say "freedom to do whatever you want with things you spend money on." I guess we should be lobbying to be able to burn money next, oops, you don't really own your money.
Loading...
If you want to change something you can do it with dollars.
Actually, Disney still does this. And no, you can't change things with dollars if a company knows it has a lock on a product. You can't go buy a Mickey Mouse DVD from anyone else, so Disney can distribute its DVDs any way it sees fit -- including forcing you to watch commercials.
Of course you want music/movies/etc. to be treated like tangible products -- you stand to make more money that way. But it's not supported by the US constitution, therefore making any congressional laws that allow this practice unconstitutional.
And it's illogical; why the hell can't I copy my DVDs even to back them up? Or make copies to take to a second home? Even the corp-centric US Congress has decreed that owners of media such as DVDs and CDs have the right to copy them for their own use.
The bottom line here: you need a new business model; pretending that the non-scarce (music, movies, anything else that doesn't exist except in people's minds) is just like the scarce (cars, coffee mugs, telephones) is silly and untenable. The big media industries are merely using the willing US govt. to prolong a business model that is clearly archaic.
Lots of innovators were called "misguided youth" when they were young; those who called them that look silly now. You look silly already.
"nobal" = noble
"it's" = its (possessive)
"Meida" = media
"a artist" = "an artist"
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Wresting control of a item away from it's owner is not a nobal pursuit.
You lost control over your "item" once you released it to the world. You want control over your items? Don't release them. But once they're out here, they're not yours anymore. That's the fundamental point you clearly don't understand. Why should it be this way? Because by releasing your items into our culture, you're affecting all of us.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media.
Okay, this is bad.
Have we degenerated to the level of the government that we must use overblown rhetoric, that we don't question such rhetoric?
This is classic Loyalty Oath type stuff--"You Love Freedom, Yes?" "Um.. yeah..." "Then You Love Senator McCarthy."
I have the highest respect for those whom I can view as "pillars of hope", but I also have the highest respect for our language, and shit like this is, at best, abuse, at worst, propoganda.
The credit card analogy is a good one. And someone "stealing" your credit card number is not illegal either.
I can legally obtain a copy of your credit card number, make a poster of it for my wall, write a song about it, etc. What is illegal is if I try to use it to buy goods or services. Just like if I tried to use your name to buy goods or services. That would be fraud.
The phrase "Intellectual Property" should be banned from all languages and anyone using it slapped with a wet fish. Say "copyright" or "patent" instead. IP is a meaningless term that confuses people into thinking that corporations can own anything
-Ryan C.
Most fair because they allow you to infinite burnings? Umm all most all the guys except buy.com has infinite burning. You know why i like itunes though, its so fair apple licenses their drm to other mp3 manufactors. Oh wait they don't, they use DRM to lock out competitors. And once Real gets their harmony stuff working, we'll see Apple bust out with the DMCA. You apple fanboys amaze me.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
It's kind of like seeing a re-enactment of Ye Knights of Olde. Those of us in the 5-digit and 6-digit user ID range shall stand aside and admire your Slashdot acumen and applaud you as you verbally parry and thrust.
(Yes, I did ignore the 7-digit sprogs that keep getting under our feet).
If you can't figure out that it was Wuzfuzzy who wrote the line about cherishing freedom, and not CmdrTaco, who merely posted it, you don't deserve to read Slashdot.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Newer dvd players ignore the disabling of the menu of button and lets you jumped to the menu.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Did he actually *say* all those smiley faces??
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
He's the high-pitched DVD rapper from Norway.
you've hit on the reason why no. We have no choice. The *government* enforcing the monopoly of copyrights stops us from putting forward a competing product.
Now, what happens for "Real Property" is
1) Someone makes the raw material
2) Someone buys from #1 and processes it
3) Retailer buys from #2
4) Customer buys from #3
Now, if another retailer comes along and does #2 an #3 or offers to sell to #4 in a different manner, then that is fine. Unfortunately, copyrights and the automatic gifting them to the RIAA member means NOBODY can sell to the customer if they find a better method of selling.
Why?
When I can buy the copy from the artist and sell copies to others THEN we have a free market.
Until then DRM is using copyright power from government to restrict other than copyrights.
Nope.
Drives me nuts. I especially can't stand the Apple DRM fanboys. Oh how I disklike them. Thank God for people like Jon.
The music industry survived for years and years with NO copy restrictions at all. Tapes and CD's could be copied at will. And best of all at the height of "Copyright infringement" and P2P, the record companies are making record profits.
Any yet now we are supposed to accept these lockdowns and be grateful at all for their services? Because as the parent pointed out that's already happening. Let's look at what Apple has done with the power of DRM to brainwash users. Restrict from Internet streaming to local streaming. Restrict from unlimited Lan to 5 users a day. Restrict from 10 burns of a playlist to 7(IIRC), and finally as someone else had pointed out disabled features on Itunes and the Ipod to lock out competitors.
And still Apple DRM fanboys and people ignorant of how damaging DRM can be talk about how great it is . Well from here it sure as heck looks like real world DRM implementation suck and are only getting worse. Itunes 5.0 is going to be locked down so tight you can only listen to your songs in a locked room in the presense of an authorized Apple Rep.
btw I should mention I have no problem with Itunes and besides the Ipod being expensive have no problem with it either. This prasing of DRM and accepting your software being locked down has to stop.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Beyond a certain point, key length doesn't really matter. It's the alrogithm that produces those keys that will get cracked.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Ok, I've kept pretty silent about the whole DRM issue for a long time, because it doesn't really affect me. Since when was the "right to be entertained" a fundimental human right? I'm tired of hearing people whine, "I should be able to do whatever I want with my DVD." You bought a liscense, because that is what was sold to you. Just because I buy a book does not mean I can "do whatever I want with it." I can't copy it 50,000 times and sell it. I can't distribute it all over the internet. If you don't like what you're buying, stop buying it. Stop it with the childish ranting which is really rooted in your inability to break the entertainment-addiction.
most of you sound something like this, "my entertainment dealer won't let me steal entertainment(drugs) from him for myself or to give to my friends. So, I'm really mad at him and I'm gonna find all sorts of creative ways to steal from him anyway."
Whew, that said, I'm all for the freedom to develop and test new technologies. I just think there are better ways to stop DRM. Don't buy their liscenses. Don't buy anything from them until they sell exactly what you want. Otherwise, don't whine.
Other than computers or programming, what other interests do you have?
:-D
:) Many people speculated what would happen if the amazing potential of nanotechnology will be locked in military research labs and universal assemblers will never become available. Now that I know the DVD Jon is keeping an eye on it, I feel marginally better. :)
Politics. Movies. France. Nanotechnology. Not necessarily in that order
After reading this, I feel slightly safer.
Seriously, if you consider what this bright lad will be doing in 2020, he might very well be breaking DRM on physical products, so that Manufacturers and Producers Association of America can not prevent you from copying toasters, BMW sedans and medieval castles...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Who decided the change was fair? Apple. What if I don't have 2 other computers but lots of CD burns required? I have now lost.
If apple came to each user and said "we want to change. Do you want to accept the change" and allowed a valid yes or a no, THEN it is a trade.
A one-sided agreement is no agreement. It is an edict.
Johansen did a marvelous job on deCSS, but the article is very superficial.
I count 2 projects and 2 interests which mainly involve one thing: programming with GNU. I'd hope there's more to Johansen.
I'd like to see many facets: personality, other hobbies, (the discovery of) women etc.
..in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens..
Its Digital Restrictions Management, that is the technical, unbiased and proper description of it and everytime you type 'Rights' you play in to their marketing.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I think his analogy is inapt though, "Frank" is one word that has been around for, what, 100s? of years (thus no creativity in using it) whereas the CSS code was at least independently created.
IIRC, in a Witney Houston song, a series of three notes was held copyrightable, so I would think that the CSS code at 5 bytes could be copyrightable, depending on how it was created.
Even if it was a threshold issue, in the current state of the US, courts would likely find copyrightability.
Is this. Now what do you think about him? An asshole? That's what I thought.
Joe Connard
Despite its name, DRM isn't about RIGHTS. You are so native.
So I was sitting here thinking about how I like to fast forward through commercials, and use adblock, and such, when I had a strange thought. So, I thought I would play a little Devil's Advocate, and toss it out here for comment.
:)
Think about how it is when you buy a magazine. The publication is chock full of advertisements. You can cut them out, but probably not without ruining at least one part of text. Fast forwarding a DVD is kind of like flipping past an ad page without reading it, but being as the technologies are different, I'm not quite sure how to compare them. So, what makes the magazine scenario different from the DVD one?
In addition to the comment above, I offer another idea that makes some bit of sense: What would it cost to buy the same magazine without advertisements? I'm thinking quite a bit more, and I doubt I would pay for a magazine that cost $20-$50 (depending on content, of course). There are conflicting ideas about what a DVD "actually" costs to make, but if you think about how it would probably cost more if there were no advertisements, I think you can kind of see why they make you watch those advertisements.
To me, it all boils down to the fact that a business is a business, and the only purpose of a business is to make money. If, in order to make money, a business has to agree that it will make a consumer watch someone else's add, then the business will do it in a heartbeat. It may suck for the user, but as long as they buy it anyway, it doesn't matter.
Anyway, just thoughts. Respond if you wish, but I'd rather hear interesting arguments than rehashed, tired quotes and flames.
1. Put in movie, wait until it queues up 2. Press Stop 3. Wait 3 seconds 4. Press Stop again 5. Press Play 6. Movie will begin at 00:00:00 Problem solved. Seriously, try it.
do yourself a favor and stay away from their cars.
If there's such a thing as Analog Rights Managment, then there's such a thing as Digital Rights Managment?
"Actually, Disney still does this. And no, you can't change things with dollars if a company knows it has a lock on a product.* You can't go buy a Mickey Mouse DVD from anyone else, so Disney can distribute its DVDs any way it sees fit -- including forcing you to watch commercials."
Everyone has a "Lock" on their particular product. It would be "someone elses" product if they didn't. So what part of "not buying" are people having trouble with? The "not buying and doing without the benefits of having it in your possesion", or the "not buying, but having the benefits of having it in your possesion" part?
"Of course you want music/movies/etc. to be treated like tangible products -- you stand to make more money that way. But it's not supported by the US constitution, therefore making any congressional laws that allow this practice unconstitutional."
You'll note that for something to be copyright, or patented it has to be in a "tangiable" form.
"And it's illogical; why the hell can't I copy my DVDs even to back them up? Or make copies to take to a second home? Even the corp-centric US Congress has decreed that owners of media such as DVDs and CDs have the right to copy them for their own use."
Fair use is fine. It's the people trying to go outside it's boundaries that are causing the problem.
"The bottom line here: you need a new business model; pretending that the non-scarce (music, movies, anything else that doesn't exist except in people's minds) is just like the scarce (cars, coffee mugs, telephones) is silly and untenable. The big media industries are merely using the willing US govt. to prolong a business model that is clearly archaic."
The part that's scarce isn't the "tangiable" part, nor is it the protected part. The part that's protected by law is the scarcity of those that can take intangiable ideas and put them into a tangiable form. Mass copying (nothing original in copying) doesn't change that.
"Business models" is simply the commercial embodiment of the "intangiable to tangiable" conversion. And so far all the "archiac" boosters haven't come up with a comprehensive commercial representation, but more a limited "corner cases" representation.
*A truism that's not a truism. Any more than saying "There are WMD's in Iraq" is a truism.
"Have you even been paying attention to the crap congress is up to?"
Good thing "Right to be Entertained" is a subset of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Anyway I find it most commical that people point out "Lookie at what congress is doing" when it comes to their "Right to be Entertained", but turn a blind eye to all the other things we should be paying more attention to.*
*No one's ever died from being unable to backup their DVD.
You mean naive? It is entirely about rights, you're so ignorant. The rights of the content owners, NOT your rights.
Loading...
"Why should tracks I buy from an online music store be more restrictive in what I can do with them than ones that come on red book Audio CDs?"
(Q) And why should I live in a world that's more restrictive than one that has no police, or military, or even government?
(A) Because of the behaviour of others.
Next naive question?
noone can hear you turn the page.
,ake money when selling something. If you are a customer, you must be satisfied. A consumer MUST consume and since there is so much corporate buy-out going on, there is NO WAY to know if buying a Masushita is giving money to Sony (in a general sense, change the company names).
Oooh, there, I've gone and "fast forwarded" past the adverts.
Do I win a prize?
PS A business can only
Type Ontology into a search engine, and maybe people will realize that school is a very important prerequiste. Learning at home is possible, but the more complicated the subject. The greater the chance of missing a great many things.
This just shows how the MPAA has brought this on themselves. When DVDs first came out, what was the point of CSS? Average people couldn't make copies of DVDs until pretty recently. Was it forethought regarding the copying capability of the public? Hardly. It was about control. They wanted to be able to control the format. They wanted to be able to sell licenses of their product to DVD player manufacturers. They are still doing this today, but their grip is slipping.
Look at WHY DeCSS was created:
The MPAA and their cronies pushed the boundaries of good business, and got called on it. They thought nobody could do anything about it, so they didn't even consider backing down. I don't know of ANYONE who likes to sit through the crap they are forced to sit through on DVDs. The problem is, people are willing to put up with the inconvenience because there are no other options. Now there are, so MPAA - reap what you sow motherfuckers.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Yes, it is about the restriction of consumer's rights. Normally, when a person buys something, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. This includes copying it and distributing those copies.
If that something they bought is copyrightable, however, then the consumer is restricted from exercising that right. The person holding the copyright has a monopoly on exercising that right.
The restrictions do not affect the copyright holder's rights, nor do they give that person any rights; the copyright holder's rights are the same as they would be if copyright didn't exist. The restrictions only affect the consumer's rights, by restricting those things the consumer can normally do but that the copyright monopoly explicitly restricts (monopolizes).
Jerry
Then why is any of it necessary?
See: Joseph McCarthy & Richard Nixon
The exact reason this conversation is being held.
"To those who cherish freedom, he has been a pillar of hope in an age when DRM (Digital Rights Management) threatens to overtake mainstream media."
Wow, do you have enough tissue to whipe his cum off your chin?
Would I prefer that apple's songs be completely restriction-free? Yes, no, I would.
Have I ever actually wanted to do something to one of my few iTMS songs that they wouldn't let me.
No, no, I haven't.
Therefore, I feel no real need to complain about them when there are so many other systems that actually *do* conflict with what I want to do.
If someone offers up something that has the song I happen to be looking for and fewer restrictions than apple, well, good for them, I might buy it. If it isn't annoying to use, at least.
It has nothing to do with idealism or fanboy-ism, just the simple fact that IMO a corporation can claim whatever restrictions they want on their product as long as I didn't want to do what they're restricting. If car companies said "no driving on the moon" I wouldn't really care, now would I?
"User 1431 and you still haven't figured out that everybody on Slashdot is not the same person?"
The Corollary is however proven through Statistics and Psychology.
What we have here is... failure to communicate!
"No it's a failure to understand high school math, and college level psychology.
"There's some people you just... can't... reach."
Any yet we still continue trying to reach you.
First, it is about the rights of the content producers. They are restricting the usage of the products THEY are producing. As a result of this, people (like yourself) feel that THEIR rights are being restricted.
This is not the case at all. You are under no obligation to purchase these products. When you purchase them you implicitly and explicitly accepting the limitations of the products usage. Nobody is changing the usage rights of something you bought previously.
As for "Normally, when a person buys something, they have the right to do whatever they want with it", that's total baloney.
What are you not allowed to do with US currency?
What are the restrictions to operating a motor vehicle?
What are the restrictions on using headphones in an automobile?
What are the restrictions on the usage of prescription drugs?
What are the restrictions on buying and selling stocks and bonds?
What are the restrictions of handgun ownership?
What are the restrictions on the purchase of demolitions?
What are the restrictions on buying a book?
What are the restrictions on buying distilling equipment?
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
If you're objective about the situation you'll quickly realize that MANY items you 'purchase' have restrictions as to what you can do with them whether do to copyrights, safety, or law enforcement infringements.
Loading...
I mean, sure, we knew that to be true... but to put it right out there like that kinda hurts when you realize it's probably the main activity going on around here...
Alright, what's with the "Lech" middle name? Is he related to Walesa or what?
"Man in the Moon and other weird things" - wfmh.org.pl/thorgal/Moon/
There is a difference between not being allowed to do something and being unable to do something.
I can do whatever I wish with US currency. It is illegal to wilfully destroy it, but I still retain the ability to do so. Dollars don't come on an indestructible medium that makes it impossible for me to carry them easily in the name of "protecting" the US Treasury.
I can operate a motor vehicle in any manner I wish. There are laws regulating their operation on public roads, but vehicles aren't built to check to make sure that I am driving on an approved road in an approved manner before starting.
There are no restrictions built into headphones to prevent their use by an operator of a motor vehicle. If any were built they would restrict passengers from using them as well. Would that be acceptable to you?
Prescription drugs are strongly controled in their distribution, but they work regardless of whether or not upstream procedures are followed. If the drug company recommends one pill a day and my doctor prescribes me two, the pills do not cease working.
The buying and selling of stocks and bonds is regulated, but Wall Street does not grind to a halt and wait for each individual sale to be investigated by the SEC before the next trade moves forward, despite the billions of dollars in fraud that might be prevented if such a system was adopted.
Handguns can be used in all manner of crimes, yet guns do not contain any software that decides if the gun is being used in a lawful manner before firing. Would you be in favor of having guns "decide" what was ok for hunting (in-season? in approved areas?), self-defense (does the target qualify as an intruder and pose as threating enough?), or law enforcement (is lethal force warranted? is it excessive or not)?
Demolitions do not check to see if they are being used properly or safely before detonating.
I can't think of any restrictions on buying a book. Any banned book is likely to be challenged in the courts on 1st Amendment grounds by "drama queens". There are no limits on my use of the book. I can even run it through a copy machine with intent to infringe the author and publisher's copyrights. The book makes no attempt to regulate my behavior.
There are a great number of items I can easily purchase which might be used to distill alcohol. Once purchased, I can use them in an infinite number of ways, including distilling alcohol, without the items ceasing to function. Indeed, if your assessment was correct then every sale of items such as wood and nails would be carefully inspected by the ATF to make sure I wasn't going to use them to build a still.
You seem to have a very narrow worldview of "That which is not permitted is not possible." True, there are a great number of laws and restrictions on our behavior, but we are always free to use our property without it second-guessing us or checking to make sure that we really aren't breaking the law. There are many things that are legal that can be pursued without interferance despite their being similar to illegal activites. What makes copyright (no, copyright on digital media) so special that the usefulness of our purchase should be crippled just because there is a possibility that we could break the law?
Fuck you! Fuck You! Fuck You! ...
You Cool! ...
Fuck You! Peace I'm out!
Well, you and a few other gents thought I was serious, so I must have been. I guess the secret to being funny is having other people know when you're kidding.
Not from my point of view. My point of view is like that said about Zaphod Beebelbrox: "You know, Zaphod, he's just some guy."
Why does everything have to be divided into extremes? I don't think it's healthy for anyone to think of people in terms of heroes or enemies. Why not just look at things as they are? Jon writes software. There are controversial uses for his software, which some people like, and others don't - but these issues aren't even relevant to the vast majority of humans on the planet.
99% of the population's perspective (even among the tech-savvy) is "Who the fuck is Jon Lech Johansen?"
... and then they built the supercollider.
I've never once seen any clarification of the legal status of libdvdcss in the United States. As far as I can tell, hosting the source, using it to watch or copy DVDs, linking to it, or printing it on a t-shirt are all still officially illegal. And... whatever happened to LinDVD? It was the only MPAA sanctioned software based DVD software for Linux and it was only for sale to OEMs. Why haven't they made a commercial version for those of us who are not interested in breaking the (unfair) laws just to watch a DVD on a computer? I'd happily pay $40 for a software DVD player that I knew was "kosher".
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Dear asshat. :-/
iTunes is a good store that has a very reasonable download structure. Despite that there are limitations in what you can do with the files when you first get them, most normal users don't bump into these limitations very often, if at all. The limitations really do limit unreasonable use of material and allow normal use quite well.
I am not your typical user, and as such the DRM gets in my way. So, without even leaving iTunes, I burn my legally downloaded files to an audio CD (useful for my car) and then re-encode this CD (minor quality loss) so that I can have really good files of legally owned content with no DRM. And I have a backup copy in case my hard drive dies. This is all _totally_ reasonable.
If the workflow required something from a third party I wouldn't consider it reasonable. If the DRM got in the way of normal use, I wouldn't consider it reasonable. The argument that iTunes's DRM is too restrictive is akin to bitching about nudity laws because you think wearing a shirt limits your "freedom of speech." Seriously, get over it.
The DVD player not being able to fast forward totally gets in my way and I bitched all the time until I got a DVD player that got around the bastard implementation of modern commercial DVDs. I still think the DVDs have suck issues, but I can get around them easily enough now. But the ITMS is not the enemy (nor is it our friend, but that's not my point) and the DRM involved is used for legitimate reasons and implemented with sane limitations. If you wish to oppose sanity, then by all means keep on bitching about iTunes and their awful DRM. I'm sure that'll get people to think that you are a reasonable fellow with important things to say.
- theed
Sure you can teach yourself math [for instance] but the likelyhood of missing key concepts is much higher [and it takes longer to learn the basics in my experience with crypto for instance...].
School is a great way of learning good ways to do things. Experience is a great way of learning bad ways to do things, and which things matter and which are fluff.
Programming is a great example (not counting all that started programming long before school). You come out of school and try to apply concepts, but you haven't understood them well enough to see where they apply. I've met some of those, and they couldn't code worth shit really. The DIY people are at times terrible at conforming to standards (institutionalization has some pros), but they sure know how to code.
Personally, I always found the theory fairly easy. Very few of my lecturers have given me much, apart from a "schedule" to keep up with (meaning I'd learn as fast as class, not necessarily in class). Grades were always good, but experience is what lets me use it. If I had some more discipline, I could easily have done without class and a formal degree as such.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This was in response to a statement about DRM, which is about sellers placing restrictions on what buyers can do. None of your examples have anything to do with sellers placing restrictions on what buyers can do. They are about laws having to be specially written to restrict what people can do with specific items. My statement stands: normally, when a person buys something, they have the right to do what they want with it. What restrictions do normally exist are not imposed by the seller.
b s-Merrill_v_Straus_2Cir.html) They have since ruled that the same is true of shampoo and most every other thing that people purchase. Once purchased, the seller can place no restrictions on the use of what was purchased.
I will answer this one, however, because it shows just how clueless you are:
>What are the restrictions on buying a book?
This is about *using* what we purchase. Sellers cannot place restrictions on using a book. The Supreme Court in 1906 ruled that EULAs placed on a book have no legal force. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus. (http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Bob
Jerry
I'm sorry, but that is your basic misunderstanding. DRM is intended to do one thing, enforce the preservation of the content owner's rights. It doesn't have anything to do with your rights at all because you've forgotten that you have not been allowed to copy this media arbitrarily at any point over the last 30 years. The problem for end users is that this is now being 'enforced.' This 'enforcement' then brings to light issues that were never broached before because people just copied stuff however they pleased (improperly.)
Sellers DO place restrictions on using a book. Try reading the inside cover.
BTW, try reading your link to the Supreme Court ruling. It is a dismissal of the complaintant because they linked the restriction to copyright law and the restriction was a price of resell restriction. It has nothing to do with your rather convenient "Sellers cannot place restrictions on using a book" LOL.
DRM isn't about your rights, but it does affect what you perceive to be your rights. You didn't have the right to copy DVD and VHS types arbitrarily at any time before, now it is just being enforced.
The issue really is "what is the granular detail concerning what does or does not consitute fair usage of a product."
Loading...
>Sellers DO place restrictions on using a book. Try reading
>the inside cover.
The inside front cover of the book I'm reading right now, Mike Royko: A Life in Print, says only that I'm not allowed to "reproduce" it except for reviews. It is clearly expressing the copyright monopoly: no copying and distributing without permission. There are no other restrictions listed, and if there were, they would be invalid.
>BTW, try reading your link to the Supreme Court ruling. It
>is a dismissal of the complaintant because they linked the
>restriction to copyright law and the restriction was a price
>of resell restriction.
More specifically, because they linked it to copyright law and it had nothing to do with copying and distributing the work, which is what the copyright monopoly restricts.
The Supreme Court continued this interpretation in the Betamax case, when they said that "Even unauthorized uses of a copyrighted work are not necessarily infringing. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute."
>You didn't have the right to copy DVD and VHS types
>arbitrarily at any time before, now it is just being
>enforced.
Are you seriously saying when I copy music from CDs and vinyl--that I have purchased and still own--to my iTunes library, that I am violating the law? Not even the RIAA is claiming that.
Your interpretation of copyright law is wrong today, but if it is allowed to become real I won't even be able to listen to the music I have purchased without breaking the law.
Jerry
"says only that I'm not allowed to "reproduce" it except for reviews"
*BANG*
I hope your realize that the statement you made above quite clearly and irrevocably makes clear to you that you DO NOT have the right to do what you want with a book that you purchase.
To try to explain this to you even more pedantically, imagine that you purchased a book, and there was some device which you could not circumvent without difficulty which prevented you from making photocopies of the book, or scans, or viewing the book through another medium (such as a video camera.) The device would be the equivalent of DRM, but for books. The same restrictions mentioned in the first few pages of the book except enforced. This is what DRM is today.
DRM only enforces the very same limitations which have been stipulated previously.
I can't believe you still can't see that.
You don't like it, I can understand that. I don't particularly like it, but the only thing that has changed in regards to your "rights" is that the same things you've been cognizant of before are being enforced.
Loading...
>>"says only that I'm not allowed to "reproduce" it except
>>for reviews"
>I hope your realize that the statement you made above
>quite clearly and irrevocably makes clear to you that you
>DO NOT have the right to do what you want with a book
>that you purchase.
If you would like to win the argument by agreeing with me, you are welcome to do so. As I said from the start, the copyright monopoly specifically restricts us from, and only restricts us from, copy and distribution ("reproduction") of a copyrighted work. Items not covered by the copyright monopoly don't have that restriction. Books are covered by the copyright monopoly; ergo, unless I hold the monopoly in a book, I cannot legally copy and distribute it. But I *can* legally make copies of parts of it or the entire thing for my own use, just as I can make copies of parts of my CDs and vinyl or the whole album, for my own use. The copyright monopoly is a limited monopoly on copy and distribution. Beyond that, I can do whatever I want with that book.
This is what I've been saying from the start. The normal state of things is that when somone purchases something they can do whatever they want with it. If that something is restricted by a copyright monopoly, then they can do whatever they want except violate the monopoly, which restricts specifically, and only, their otherwise existing right to copy and distribute that item.
BTW, I'm more interested in your answer to this, when you said:
>You didn't have the right to copy DVD and VHS types
>arbitrarily at any time before, now it is just being
>enforced.
Are you seriously saying when I copy music from CDs and vinyl--that I have purchased and still own--to my iTunes library, that I am violating the law? Not even the RIAA is claiming that.
Jerry
My lord you can be pedantic.
Are feigning obtuse stupidity or is it real?
Let's cover the lead up to this particular post of yours.
(1)Several posters, including yourself, attempt to assert that people have traditionally been able to do whatever they wanted with the things they have purchased.
(2)I provide an example list of many common things which shows that item #1 is a ridiculous broad assertion.
(3)You get on a side tangent about one example from that list, books. You provide links to a URL to support the ridiculous assertion that EULAs in books are not enforceable, when the link is actually about how somebody tried to sue under the copyright act in order to preclude someone from doing something unrelated to copyright - which has nothing to do with EULAs at all. Of course the whole point of the list is to show that many consumer items have for many years had restrictions on their use, but you missed that and focused on something else...)
(4)I point out the problem with your "support" and proceed to try and point out to you that your own statements support my argument that these "cherished freedoms" regarding consumer goods are a fantasy.
(5)You reply that I'm agreeing with your stupidity because I concur that copyright laws restrict users from using a product however they desire.
Funny, you should have realized last post that you're agreeing with me that many products have been restricted for a long time and that, as I stated in my original post, the original poster is acting like a drama queen when referring to "cherished freedoms."
Of course, due to historical precedent, I have to presume that you've missed all of this.
Loading...
>Several posters, including yourself, attempt to assert that
>people have traditionally been able to do whatever they
>wanted with the things they have purchased.
>You reply that I'm agreeing with your stupidity because I
>concur that copyright laws restrict users from using a
>product however they desire.
Most specifically, because the example of a restriction that you gave was the restriction on distributing copies. From my first post on the subject, the one to which you first replied:
"Normally, when a person buys something, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. This includes copying it and distributing those copies. If that something they bought is copyrightable, however, then the consumer is restricted from exercising that right. The person holding the copyright has a monopoly on exercising that right."
This is the "stupidity" that you have come around to agreeing to.
Jerry