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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lobbyists will flood the streets of Washington and this will be down before August. While the decision by the IT staff is sensible and sane that won't change the thinking of the entertainment industry. I know someone in this industry and they produced a pilot good show a few years ago that they just couldn't sell. So I suggested that they promote it via various torrents and whatnot. This person just about lost their mind. It wasn't that they disagreed with my marketing logic it was that they wouldn't allow those pirating bastards to make one cent off their work. I pointed out that he wasn't making one cent off his work either.
This and other factors leads me to believe that the thinking inside the movie industry that the whole internet (Netflix types included) is pure evil. This thinking seems to be religious in nature. So if you sell you wares on Netflix you have gone to the dark side.
An example of the venom that I once heard about Netflix was that they won't do things like feature one work over another based on kickbacks or politicing. Basically the traditional TV types are comfortable when they can use their political weight to push their show into the primetime slot on Thursday which guarantees an audience. Whereas Netflix is more of "If people want it they will click on it". This does not sit well with people who would rather use their sharp elbows to make their crap shows a success.
So these government IT people are showing a hint of reality by putting up the most used tool VLC. But the lobbyists will show their well financed Fantasy thinking by shutting this down before the end of the month. So in the long term they will run out of money to finance this stupid fantasy of theirs but they have a lot of money so it will take a long time.
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.
VLC doesn't contain libdvdcss by default -- that library must explicitly be obtained and compiled as plugin to be used. Nowadays, there are commercial codec packs that contain legal licenses for all patented codecs, making libdvdcss unnecessary.
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.
TheDMCA was heald not to apply to the goverment:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca/
"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."
Darn, just after he got dumped by NTSB for confirming the offensive joke pilot names, he steps in it again.
What's the issue. VLC does not decrypt DVDs and plays a myriad of formats, all legally. If one takes the step to install libdvdcss, which does decrypt the DVD that is the individual doing that, not VLC. Saying that VLC is responsible for it is like saying Ford is responsible for people speeding.
Context is pretty important. DeCSS was illegal in that specific context. This does not make it always illegal. The argument the MPAA made was that the purpose of DeCSS was to copy DVDs. While there are all sorts of problems with their argument, this point was technically true.
Now the primary purpose of DeCSS is to allow VLC to play DVDs. The fact that it does exactly the same thing isn't important.
The decision in the DeCSS case was the wrong one, and that was harmful, but this naivety about its ramifications is also harmful in that it discourages innovation
VLC does NOT "circumvent" CSS at all.
It will, however, make use of an external code that circumvents CSS... if you have that code installed separately.
That may sound like splitting hairs, but it's not. There is no code in VLC -- or from the folks at VideoLAN for that matter -- that circumvents any DRM. If you want that functionality, you have to install it separately. VLC is not responsible.
True, bipartisan support is hard to find since the rise of the Tea Party, but it takes only 67 senators and two-thirds of the House to override President Obama's veto. Anything passed through a voice vote, such as the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, can be assumed to have at least 80 percent assent and should easily pass once it goes back for a roll-call.
They needed something to watch any video they were sent. VLC does the job.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That's nice that they recommended VLC, but I can't take this recommendation seriously when they also recommend RealPlayer.