Slashdot Mirror
Legal Actions Against Linux-DVD authors
Teancum writes "Legal actions have already started to happen against the programmers who wrote the DVD-CSS decription routines. This page contains the official response by the programmer, who has had his web site shut down by his ISP. I guess that the DVD Forum doesn't want to see an open source project that can read DVD-Video. More info about the Livid project can be found here. " Update: 11/05 04:33 by H :Check out the latest announcement from his site - eMedia has done a great report on the whole thing - read this.
Where do we send legal defense contributions? Do not let these coders suffer for their efforts!
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
Well, the replies on livid-dev are just starting. As of right now, not much is known. According to Derek's most recent message, it "potentially violates the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988; Sectiond 296(1) and (2)". You can keep up with the discussion if you want at http://livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/, which is the archive for the livid-dev mailing list.
Also, to get your own copy of the code, do the following for bash (*csh people, export your variables properly with setenv instead :)
--
Jeremy Katz
I'm not sure I understand why they (the entertainment industry) has their shorts all in a bundle over this. Surely they new that at least some people would be knock off DVDs via a redigitalization of the analog signal? Sure, it isn't as high quality and the seconday channels are lost, but aren't they already subject to piracy galore with VCRs? And yet they make money hand over fist on VCR rentals and sales. I am fully capable of copying videos at home, and yet most of my videotapes are purchased, pre-recorded videos.
Frankly, I think piracy should be regarded as competition. If you lower your price enough, people are simply not that tempted to pirate. I think most people would buy rather than pirate depending on price.
In shrink wrap software (which I hardly ever have to buy anymore, thank you FSF and Linus et.al.!), I would buy just about any title at $20 or less. I'll even go up to about $60 for something like Quicken (where's the Linux version, Intuit? -- BTW, I've sent them letters swearing that I'll not upgrade again until they make Linux version. What could any future version do that my current one can't?)
In movies, at an average price of $20, I seem to be content enough to buy them.
I can't help but be outraged, however, at the fact that DVDs, which cost them FAR less to make than videocassettes, are consistently more expensive! I have stuck with VCRs for now because of that (well, and because I expect HDTV to be the "must" for upgrade to DVD -- why get a DVD and feed it to my 24-inch academy ratio 3-inch mono speaker TV?).
I guess I'm saying it should be a linear programming problem to compute the price at which they get the most money rating rate of sale against rate of piracy. I don't care how much technology they throw at it. If it can be viewed, it can be copied somehow, even if it's sampling the voltages at the CRT! Give it up. Keep it open and make it cheap. People will pay then.
The record and video industry has been crying about this for years, but I think it's still a red-herring. Their real purpose is to make it difficult for you to be in the business unless you go through one of the established studios. They don't want artists to be able to do their own distribution, electronicaly, and keep all of the profits.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.