Slashdot Mirror
13 Years After DeCSS Case, Congressional IT Endorses VLC
New submitter robp writes "After a link to VLC showed up in one of HBO's DMCA takedown requests, I recalled how often I've linked to VLC in my own copy, and how often I've seen that app noted across traditional-media outlets — even though you could make the same arguments against linking to it that Judge Kaplan bought in 2000. Now, though, even the House's own IT department not only links to this CSS-circumventing app but endorses it. Question is, what led to this enlightenment?"
Either that or there are now aware enough and truly computer literate people are emplyed in the IT department (at least in regard to media tech)
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
As soon as some unaware VLC-hating corporate campaign donor gets wind of this, you can bet your useless vote that said endorsement will be history.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Why the surprise? Not to imply VLC is in any way, shape or form bad or illegal, but why does it surprise you that the largest, most sophisticated organized crime syndicate this planet has ever know (U.S. Fed) endorses this product?
I mean criminals, gangsters and their ilk are ordinary people just like you and me; they just have a different line of business and shall we say questionable judgement. But they need a good media player like anyone else.
I am dead serious, and this is NOT a troll.
Where's the news? As soon as some politicians notice that some "illegal" tool, device, substance or whatever is useful to them, suddenly it's no longer illegal.
That's actually a bit unusual.
... but their own guards are armed. Usually the politicians are complete hypocrites about it because they think they're special and the rules for everyone else shouldn't apply to them.
A more typical example would be the anti-gun politicians who really don't want any private ownership of firearms at all
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
More likely, the addition of the program came without knowledge that it included an illegal decryption program. Once it comes to the attention of the lawyers (which, thanks to this story, is more likely now than ever) it will probably be removed.
The "best practices" PDF isn't recommending it /because/ it plays DVDs or uses DeCSS, after all. The article suggests best practices for setting up a Congressional website and one of those practices is "Any page that links to a multimedia file (or an audio file) should include access to software that allows the file to be accessed." VLC is just one of four media players listed (and it's mentioned after Quicktime and RealPlayer!). Whoever updated this PDF probably threw in VLC without being aware of its potential illegality and nobody up the line caught the mistake. I mean, it's a one-time mention on page 153 of a 250 page document!
Hell, /I/ didn't even know VLC used DeCSS code to read DVDs. Then again, I don't think I've ever /used/ VLC to play a DVD; I barely use disc-based media anymore...
So, yeah, most likely a mistake by the poor intern tasked with writing "revision 36" of this document. Expect mention of VLC to be gone by revision 37.
I'm glad not to have a Bluray drive or any bluray discs. Every disc and drive bought supports software patents many which are of course of dubious validity. And that money supports further draconian DRM and more bribes to the congresses of the world. Not to mention both drives and discs can be bricked by new discs, firmware updates, internet checks etc. Part of the reason I never bought into this junk is because you can never be sure the 'content protection path' is going to work with your hardware. It's just not worth it.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.