Slashdot Mirror
DVD CCA Applies for Restraining Order
Robert Jones writes "I have just received an email which I think will be of interest to many Slashdotters. Apparently, the DVD CCA [Copyright Control Association] has applied for a restraining order against myself and approximately 70 others to keep us from distributing 'any proprietary property or trade secrets relating to the CSS technology'. The hearing will be at 'the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, State of California, on December 29, 1999, at 8:30 a.m.' This will probably result in the bastards silencing us, but what can you do? If this goes through, I will never purchase a DVD player using current technology." Yes, the e-mail is real. Many people sent copies. We'll post an in-depth story within a day or two.
Is something still a trade secret if it has been reverse engineered? I thought this was the trade off between patenting and keeping something a trade secret. Surely they can't have it both ways?
overseas mirrors.
:)
Make the code ubiquitous, and it simply won't matter any more.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
So where can we get the code *tonight* ?
_________________________
slashdot is also mentioned in the email, which is mirrored here: http://douglas.min.net/~drw/css-auth/legal-info/ ~spot
"and no, im not the spot working for Transmeta, although i wish i was..." -- ~spot "i'm the epitome of public enemy..."
I mean not you personally, but the ideas and knowledge you have surely could be released?
Anybody ever play "whack the mole"? Watching these lawyers try to stop the flood of information is like playing the game - every time you smack one down with your mallet two more pop up.
If anyone wants the source, contact me. Oh yes, and I'm making a dare to any of the lawyers out there - whack this mole.
Why don't they just accept the fact that copying is going to happen. It has already been stated n here that if you can see it, it is in your grasp to copy it. I am surprised CD burners aren't getting more of a shaft, or is that a lost cause for copyright extremists. They go after mp3's and DVD's like mad.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
about the legal merits of the case.
For someting to be a trade secret, you need to take steps to keep it a secret. If the technology is reverse engineered without reference to protected material, I don't think that they have a case.
I guess they realized that they would be really up a creek if they tried copyright law on this one.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The only reason that anybody had to mess with the dang CSS in the first place was because there was no DVD support for *n?x operating systems! I think companies can learn a lot from this. Everybody sees UNIX as an OS that only a handful of 'geeks' use, how come we're always causing sooo many headaches fighting for support?
The DVD algorithms that were found through some clever hacking were not found by rummaging through propretary documents or other blackops means, but through working with software. The software that they aquired the "method of decryption" from was not found illegally in the country it was found. That technology then was legally exported into the united states. These methods are pretty boring and were quickly incorprated into some nice pieces of software. Wheres the lawsuit, oh yeah, the DVD people DONT WANT YOU TO beable to use the technology yourself. That would give the consumer some rights to a product that could the copied and *gasp* pirated.
Sorry DSS guys, it was too late when you released the format.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
remember the machine-breakers of england?
those were the good old days. if a company tried something like this, their buildings would be burned and the owner tarred and feathered in front of his house. sure it's dangerous, but how dangerous is it to let someone step on your freedom? is it really better to die on your feet than live on your knees?
are these companies paying me to allow their software and data run though MY computer and MY cables in MY house? do I have the right to put a logic analyzer or debugger on my system and look at the registers, memory and I/O or the various hardware and programs? can i use than information in turn for whatever purpose i choose? when will this become a "fair use" issue? reselling someone's app as your own is one issue, but using their protocols and command set should be quite another.
sometimes i think that the only reason corporations get away with this stuff is that we've become so acclimated to greed and selfishness that we have forgotten how to stand together and fight when we see it.
c'mon everyone, join me in a rousing chorus of "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
they will lose in the long run. make it sexy, make it warez.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
With only a couple of days to go, I think that this, more than anything else, personifies and highlights the fight we have ahead of us. Nothing is such a danger to the values that ANYONE who loves the Internet and the Information age holds highly then this fight of stupidity (armed with guns) against the progress of the mind.
I'm pretty much at a lack for words right now, so I will just send my moral support to anyone targeted by this outrage. However, this is a battle we can fight on our turf and they can fight on their's. The courtroom is definitely theirs.
There was never a revolution without somebody going under wheel, and there was never a meme to go under without a fight. And there has never been a fighter like corporate society.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Look folks, the only way to combat this is for everyone to distribute copies of this software and associated documentation. Go here and download all of the local files and host them in as many locations as you can. If possible mirror the actual page rather than downloading. Just get them in as many public locations as possible any way you can. Lets make 'em play whack-a-mole.
Remember, one ant won't make a bit of difference, nor will two or three, but millions can overcome any obstacle.
Another issue I am reminded of here is that this is a great experiment by the powers that be. It has long been held that you cannot regulate the internet because it is so distributed and decentralized. If they win, it will be proven that it is easier to control the content of the internet than was previously thought...
Good Luck!
-Chuck
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Douglas R. Winslow
Is everyone evil?
--Alain
Amen brother- Pay the 15 bucks if you like the dern movie and stop your whining ya big baby! -capt.
It's their own fault! :-))
they used a copy protection mechanism that offers no real protection (brute forcing the key is easy) and next they try to sue the people who cracked their code!
it's like putting a large bag filled with hundred dollar bills in the middle of a crowded street with a sign near it 'Big Bag filled with hundred dollar bills, please don't steal'
the DVD CCA people should have their head examined!
I don't know the US law, but isn't it illegal to evoke criminal behavior?
isn't it possible to sue the DVD company's for evoking criminal behavior ?
---
Item 29 points out that slashdot linked to a site that had the DeCSS, and notes other sites that linked to sites with DeCSS. Is this a threat?
Oh, and get item 32. They're saying that because of DeCSS, the whole DVD industry is going to dry up. What a horrible joke.
Let them try to call a few hundred thousand people into court... I'd like to see that. =)
I cannot be in Santa Clara on that day, but if there are as many activists within reach of this article as one is led to believe, and if they believe so fully in their views, go be heard in the courtroom venue.
If I read on Dec. 29th that the hearing came and went without a standing-room-only courtroom, with all sides of the issue having been clearly heard, I will stop caring about the intellectual property debate.
It's not as if the article was "they applied for AND RECEIVED a restraining order." There is still an opportunity to influence the court. If nothing else, a judge could be made to realize that this matter is not something that should be decided off the cuff, but rather has very significant implications. Simply having a few thousand people on the courthouse steps that day would probably be enough to effect change.
Do I think it will happen? No. Will I be there? No. When the rubber meets the road on these issues, the bottom line is we really don't care. We Email our congress people, but do we snail mail them? Are these issues even worth $.33 to us? Maybe not. History will tell.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
47. On information and belief, this proprietary information was obtained by willfully "hacking" and/or improperly reverse engineering
software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which
specifically prohibits reverse engineering.
-- The intelligence on this planet is a constant, but the population is growing. --
Hey, think about this, companies writing proprietary software, like Microsoft, have probably set the computing industry back about 20 years in the micro market. Anything we can do to prevent things from staying propriety is a good thing and will actually cause technology to advance. Think it through before you say it, man.
Help us build a better map!
The main reason this code (DeCCS) is important is it helps for writing DVD software for linux. And to the person who said blame the people who wrote the standards for allowing it to be cracked, as long as there are software players for any standard it will be crackable, without a doubt. For more information see http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9911.html#D VDEncryptionBroken , on why you will never have secure software.
a) The DVD-Guys don't get it, this encryption-shit and Region-Code-Bullshit is just braindead. If a big-organized-crime-group would be interessted in pirating DVD's they would just do it. A 1:1 copy including all the encryption etc. is absolutely no problem for them. b) The guy's saying stop pirating DVD's don't get it too, how should I pirate a DVD? 1. Where should I store the xGB of data, CDROMs, no way. 2. At least here in Germany I do have the official right to copy them for private use. 3. If prices stay were they are now, 39,-DM for Matrix, there is absolutely no reason for copying them. Anybody with at least some grey stuff in the head should regonize that the whole Diskussion is a no-brainer and that the DVD-Copyright-Army will be the first on the wall when the war arrives.
Trying to get something off the Internet is like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool. Once it's in there, it's in there. The fact that they're trying to proves that they're not evil like I've come to believe, but merely idiots. They think any form of copy is illegal, the only purpose of decrypting a DVD is piracy, and that we apparantly shouldn't be allowed to watch DVD's in the operating system of our choice. (An obvious infringment of fair use)
Will someone ever come along with the money/time to take on these morons? Or will be doomed to be bullied by them? I'm really getting sick of hearing how they're taking away my rights.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
the whole point is for us to be able to play DVD, but since we know how to play DVDs, we could also copy it. ; )
"you get hit and your head goes ping" --rocky horror picture show
It doesn't seem to me that you violated any trade secret agreements. All you did was take advantage of a security leak on their part to decrypt the media. Is that against the law? I don't know. It does seem to me that all of this got started because some linux guys wanted to watch a DVD on their system and couldn't get any support from the companies. Instead of suing you, maybe they should hire you to help with their much needed linux drivers. Good luck guys.
Enforce Darwinism
Crap, that stupid
I'll have no problem with them releasing their own client that plays DVDs across EVERY version of Linux if they can produce one. If I've got a DVD-ROM and I have drivers for the board (Thanks, Creative!) then I damn well expect that I should be able to play some f*cking DVDs, whether I'm using Windows or not.
But if they're not offering anything, then they sure as hell shouldn't be putting down these guys who are just trying to simply provide for us when the big guys won't. Put up or shut up, I say.
cvs -d
That's the command to download from the anonymous CVS repository.
Now of course, the code is out, this is just the mechanical yapping of lawyers. What would really make sense is for these industry organizations to come forth and admit that there's no holding DVD back, and open up the doors. They could release open source DVD code and their sales would rise slightly (as opposed to the doom that they predict). How can I know this? Bacause the pirates already have the code so we know pirating will not be increased.
And the DVD organizations would not slack off on prosecuting pirates just because there's an open source reader. Do book companies fail to sell because I could photo-copy the book and sell it? Of course not (books fail to sell because no one reads, but that's a separate issue).
Will they ever learn?
You have missed the whole point. This has nothing to do with piracy. The whole purpose of the DeCSS code is to give people a way to play the DVDs that they've bought. If you want the technology to prosper, then you should support peoples' right to read and play their DVDs.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
DeCSS can be used to -copy- a DVD. Not all copying is piracy. DVDs can get scratched pretty easily, but if you have a "color corrector box" you can record you DVD onto a high-quality VHS tape, and watch that until it wears out, keeping your DVDs safely in a safe deposit box or something. They're acting as if there's no legitimate reason to even copy a DVD, let alone that DeCSS has applications other than copying them.
Are the user license agreements valid in Norway?
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Yes, of course they/we/whomever has an understanding of the real world.
In the real world, there's this new type of media called DVD, and this format in which it is stored, called CSS. CSS is an encryption format; it's not proprietary, really, as they (the creators) have published papers explaining how it works. What they haven't published, however, are the list of keys that can be used with CSS to decrypt DVD movies.
It is a perfectly feasible option to buy a product which will decrypt DVD movies (so they can be played) without having to know any of the keys.
Such products come in two forms: (a) hardware, or actual physical VCR-like devices that connect to a TV, and (b) software, which decodes the DVD format with the aid of a computer.
Although both schemes require a key to operate, the key is embedded - the end user does not need to know what the key is in order to use the product.
This would work well for any standardized environment; from the hardware point of view, as long as you had a standard 60-hz NTSC television, you could use a NTSC DVD decoder; if you had a 50-hz PAL television, like in Europe, you could use a PAL DVD decoder. Here, there are only two major standards that companies need to produce products for.
In the software world, things are much more complicated. Not only are there different standards for how a software product talks to the operating system, but there are different graphical standards, different standards for talking to the DVD drive, etc.
Software companies so far have fulfilled very few niches in terms of all the standards in use. This means that there is still a demand that is unfulfilled, and in the _real world_, demand and supply go together hand-in-hand.
In other words, in the "real world", by not providing enough supply to make everybody happy, you invite competing products.
The only illegal thing done here is to have reverse-engineered a poorly-written software decoder to extract a key. However, it would also have been possible to brute-force test keys until one was found, although it would have taken a while.
So, here (as I see it) are all the things going on here:
In the case of the company with the poorly-written software, negligence.
In the case of the program crackers, reverse engineering. (but is it really illegal to know what the processor knows? I mean, you *own* the damn processor after all!)
Just my $0.02.
--TheOrangeSquid
The fellow sat down at a bar, ordered a drink and asked the bartender if he
wanted to hear a dumb-jock joke.
"Hey, buddy," the bartender replied, "you see those two guys next to
you? They used to be with the Chicago Bears. The two dudes behind you made
the U.S. Olympic wrestling team. And for you information, I used to play
center at Notre Dame."
"Forget it," the customer said. "I don't want to explain it five
times."
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I don't *think* so, it should now be public domain, but I by no means understand the nonsense known as law.
But my bet is that regardless of whether or not it is, these 70-odd people pissed off many very large companies that have vested interestes and lots of money. So they'll be browbeaten into submission. True, they won't have thugs marching up to their door to beat them up like the unionizers had 100 years ago, but is it really all that different to have 100 lawyers march up to your door and give lawsuits, restraining orders, police raids, and such?
Look at eToy/eToys, www.veronica.org, Scientology, or the DVD consortium 2 months ago.
Since my thoughts are shallow today, would someone else wonder about the historical precident of this. Is this deeply similar to the labor leaders from 100 years ago who risked being beaten up, sometimes even killed, for fighting corporations?
I await replies.
I suppose we should also stop doing terrible things like maintaining CERT and bugtraq, because they post information on cracking proprietary technology from Sun, IBM, Microsoft, etc. Can Microsoft sue some bugtraq poster because their security was weak, and Joe Hacker figured out how to get around it, and then posted it to a mailing list? The thought that distributing such a program is unlawful (and that's all the named defendants did was code or distribute the program) is ridiculous. Does the credit card company get sued when someone uses one of their credit cards to get past a locked door and steal something? Of course not. The analogy is the same.
From my understanding, your point is totally correct. The purpose of a trade secret is to provide a legal means of prosecuting when somebody "spills the beans" and discloses stuff they've seen, such as what Xerox should have done with Steve Jobs at the PARC with their GUI interfaces.
In terms of DVD technology, this is a house of cards that is ready to fall apart from somebody trying to poke a hole at it.
Take a look at the DVD Licensing Agreement if you want to look at some perverted licensing agreements. This IS the trade secret agreement the DVD licensing authority is going to try to enforce. The CSS agreement is a seperate license, but nevertheless it is still along the same lines of thought.
The authority of the intellectual property agreements come from Article I, Section 8, clause 8 which says: "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Since trade secrets don't have a time limit (at least the DVD Forum's doesn't) I can't see how it can promote the progress of science or art.
Please let people know how silly the DVD licensing agreement really is, and how the DVD Forum is actually preventing the development of DVD technology as a video medium. You would be able to have your home movies on DVD for $1 + video transfer costs right now if it weren't for the stupid licensing requirement that are actually preventing people from exploiting the technology.
Imagine just what the WWW would be like if you had to pay $10,000 to obtain the specs for http, and deciphering shttp would get you into a similar lawsuit like this one over deCSS.
The breaking of CSS encryption has absolutely nothing to do with piracy. Think about it for a second: how feasible is it to move around 5- and 6- gigabyte DVDs? How do you store them? Not on your hard drive, that's for sure! How many people do you think can afford a DVD burner capable creating true dual-layer DVDs (and not DVD-RAM discs, which are something completetly different?) And when DVDs can be bought online by a judicious shopper for as little as $5 per title, do you really think anyone's going to go out of his way to pirate them? It's far easier to hook a VCR to the video output of your DVD decoder card and videotape the damned things! The loss of quality is far less than if one were to recompress an MPEG2 stream using a lossier but higher-compression encoding.
No, the issue at hand here is that of free access to information--an issue that has traditionally been very important to the open-source community and very unimportant to the corporations that write your software and, to an increasing degree, control your life.
You see, when the DVD manufacturers came up with CSS, their goal was not to protect the intellectual property contained on DVDs; rather, they were establishing an ironclad grip on the entire DVD market. They control who gets to view DVDs, how, and with what hardware and software. They have accomplished this end through the use of a proprietary encryption scheme (CSS) about which they have released no information. Of course, if they'd bothered to consult with any security professional, they would have been told that security through obscurity simply doesn't work, as has been proven endlessly, usually at the expensive of the implementor of said obscure security.
Now, someone has broken their cute little encryption scheme, which they never patented and never published. In what is basically a panic response, they are wasting millions of dollars and contemplating turning the entire DVD market on its side just so they can maintain total control of the market.
As if this wasn't bad enough, they are threatening legal action against the people who cracked CSS, an activity that never was and still isn't illegal, and they are trying to block them from publishing anything else they find out about the non-patented CSS encryption algorithm. This is a violation of the CSS crackers' right to free speech which, if you'll recall, if a constitutional right.
This is an old story, of course. Those of you who have been around long enough can remember countless other occasions where some company's naive encryption scheme was broken and the corporate response was to attempt a legal assassination of the cracker in order to maintain security.
So, instead of whining irrelevantly about piracy, why don't you boycott DVDs yourself in order to protest the violation of someone's first amendement rights? Somebody might someday do the same thing for you when you find yourself against the wall.
The whole situation reminds me of how companies see emulation. Reverse engineering to the point that you no longer need to use genuine hardware. While this is not piracy, it's seen as a promotor of it.
While I feel this should be legal, if someone could explain just why this should be and lock-picking isn't. its still illegal if you reverse engineer how to make a key that fits, right?
Lycestra
Print the CSS algorithm pseudo-code, and css-auth's code on a series of t-shirts. It's HOPEFULLY covered under the 1st Amendment here in the not so good USA. Anybody willing to do this? Thinkgeek? Copyleft? Anybody with a silk screen...
Seriously, if they hadn't said anything about DeCSS, who would have it? My bet is far fewer than have it now.
(apologies for the length of post)
/ index.htm e x.htmlgeocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Cam pus/8877/index.html o m/myband/decss/top.html . htmlfortunecity.com/tinpan/tylerbridge/6 79/dvdcss.html c iphers/decss.tar.gze amciphers/decss.tar.gzp hers/decss.tar.gzi phers/decss.tar.gzp hers/decss.tar.gzp hers/decss.tar.gz. zip m
1. www.free-dvd.org.lu
2.josefine.ben.tuwien.ac.at/~david/dvd
3.rockme.virtualave.net/
4.amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h0444t2v
5.www.homestead.com/_ksi0701961562917005/avoid...
6.www.anglefire.com/jazz/avoiderman/
7.www.intelcities.com/Main_Street/Avoiderman/
8.www.members.theglobe.com/avoiderman/dvd.htm
9.members.zoom.com/_XMCM/lkjhgfdsa2/index.html
10.www.vexed.net/CSS/
11.www.unitycode.org/
12.batman.jytol.fi/~vuori/dvd/
13.www.zpok.demon.co.uk/
14.www.dvdlinks.co.uk/css/
15.www.twistedlogic.com/archive/dvd
16.www.capital.net/~wooly/
17.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Campus/8877/ind
18.www.angelfire.com/mt/popefelix/
19.members.tripod.lycos.nl/jvz/
20.tv.acmecity.com/parody/356/index.html
21.cryptome.org/dvd-free.htm
22.altern.org/bettina/0a0a.html
23.www.crosswinds.net/~valo/DeCSS/
24.info.astercity.net/~nicodem/
25.134.100.185.221/decss/
26.www.dvdripper.videopage.de/
27.Crypto.gq.nu
28.www.humpin.org/decss
29.209.132.25.138/~inkk/DVD/
30.members.brabant.chello.nl/~j.vreeken/main.html
31.dirtass.beyatch.net/
32.therapy.endorphin.org/DVD/
33.www.angelfire.com/in2/mirror/
34.sent.freeserve.co.uk/DeCSS
35.members.tripod.co.uk/bap/css/css.html
36.angelfire.com/myband/decss/top.htmlangelfire.c
37.www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/tylerbridge/679/dvd
38.munitions.vipul.net/software/algorithms/stream
39.munitions.polkaroo.net/software/algorithms/str
40.munitions.dyn.org/software/algorithms/streamci
41.munitions.cifs.org/software/algorithms/streamc
42.uk1.munitions.net/software/algorithms/streamci
43.munitions.firenze.linux.it/algorithms/streamci
44.perso.libertysurf.fr/ortal98/dvd_rip/decss_12b
45.users.drak.net/bemann/software/css/
46.www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Port/3224/
47.ftp://alma.dhs.org/pub/DVD/
48.decss.tripod.com/index.html
49.discordia.de/decss/DeCss.zip
50.www.dvd-copy.com/
51.dvdtidbits.com/dvd.shtml
52.www.neophile.net/
53.perso.club-internet.fr/ches/dl/rippers/
54.plato.nebulanet.net:88/css/
55.quintessenzs.at/q/mirrors.html
56.www.ceraton.com/decss/
57.slashdot.org/articles/99/11/09/1342207.shtml
58.cryptome.org/dvd-css.htm
59.ftp://dvd:dvd@206.98.63.136/
60.www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547600297
61.www.brakton.freeservers.com/#downloads
62.www.remco.xgov.net/dvd/
63.www.dvdcracked.tvheaven.com/index.html
64.dvdsite.homepage.com/
65.www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Derby/2659
66.get.to/dvdsite
67.home.worldonline.dk/~andersa/download/index.ht
68.www.ooze.org/dvd.html
69.start.at/dvdsoft
70.mmadb.no/hwplus/DeCSS/decss.html
71.home.sol.no/~espen-b/dvd/css/decss.html
72.o2.uio.no/dvd
_________________________
What about filing a class action lawsuit against DVD manufacturers for stiffling competition. (From FREE players) harrassment of customers and breaking the fair use regulations? Hey I'm supposed to be able to legaly copy something I *OWN* to make an archive of it.. aren't I? Wasn't the big thing these same DVD companies using against DIVX is that with DIVX you didn't *OWN* the movie (only *RENTED* it) but with DVD you actually *OWNED* it???
One pissed off DVD owner.
Ex-Nt-User
Was I not the only one to notice that the email gave a list of 30-odd URL's with CSS stuff? Lets everybody with a good connection start mirroring all the sites they convienently indexed and cataloged for us! :)
:)
Your one stop shop for CSS information: Their court filing.
Several people have already taken on some aspects of this issue. The EFF indicated interest. Hopefully they will have the guts to follow up that interest with action. 2600 magazine are also mirroring all the DVD material and waiting for first amendmant fireworks.
But then the USA is the country that grew copyright laws 20 years because nice Disney asked and one that allowed home video taping by a single vote in the supreme court... thats how close it came to being the only place you couldnt do home taping....
Alan
apparently the lawyers aren't bright enough to figure out who runs /.
/. article, so it's either Hemos or Rob... or maybe the legal guns of Andover.net are going to have to be brought to bear on this one.
Doe 57 is listed as whoever is responsible for this
This reminds me of a story that I came accross while studying the historical figure Vlad Dracula, the role model for Stoker's Dracula.
Dracula was well known for his brutal treatment of theives. One of his prized accoplishments was to have a solid gold cup placed in the market square, he would have it watched and impaled (set on a large sharpened stake from through the anus untill the stake came through the head) anyone who tried to take it.
Sound about like these guys?
Little Brother, watching the watchers
So, nothing that can be used for a bad purpose should be done at all for any purpose? There goes nearly everything including fire, the wheel, and spears.
CmdrTaco
Hemos
Andover
John
DVD Consortium sux
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I think they're just gonna come after you. Be careful, man.
Yeah, I recieved one of those lovely letters also... you can read it here. Contrary to what was written in the email, it's perfectly legal to distribute the notice.
I promptly called my lawyer (actually a close friend) after recieving the email and he said I have nothing to worry about. Firstly, such a notice must be mailed to me, not emailed. And even by post is not legally binding. Secondly, if they do get their little restraining order, it must be delivered to me in person... hehe, I'm in germany right now. Based on what I told him he said (gasp) that they're just trying scare tactics. I forwarded the email to him, he will review it and give me more advice tomorrow morning.
This sure is a fun, isn't it?
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Seems like the hacker community needs to identify some good Web hosting services (for most of us that can't affort our own 24x7 dedicated connections). Especially non-US services.
.edu doesn't seem like it's making me any harder for the lawyers to attack (I'm working on my .edu mirror anyway...).
Get a domain registered with a (real) corporation, host outside the US, and make sure the Web hosting service has the balls to not cave in to pressure from the man.
The mirror list for the code is heavily US-based, and you'll notice that many of the "defendents" in the letter are US-based. Presumably, making it harder (and more expensive) for the lawyers to find and bully us will help. How the heck will this have any impact on non-US residents, anyway? Can someone explain this?
Any ideas or suggestions for setting this up? Personally, I'd like to be able to just throw stuff in a public mirror whenever something like this happens, but somehow adding it to my
We've heard a lot about CSS, its being cracked, and various vult^h^h^h^hlawyers getting involved. DVD is turing out to be a real mess. So, at the risk of getting sued for talking about another way in which DVD is screwed, here goes...
I got a DVD player for Christmas today. It's the regular console-type thing with composite, digital audio and s-video outputs. I have a somewhat older 27" TV that takes only RF input. So, I hooked the DVD player to my VCR, which takes composite in and emits RF out. Problem solved, I thought... but no. The video goes through a cycle of great->flickery color->crap in color->crap in monochrome->great, repeat. Funny enough, in the troubleshooting section of the manual, under "I can't record DVD video to VHS tape," it pretty much says, "that's right." It seems that they have screwed around with the hsync signal coming out of the box, such that any intermediate device, like a VCR, degrades the video. Short of buying a new TV with s-video or composite inputs, or a timebase corrector (which would probably cost more than a new TV), what can I do? This seems to be a common problem with DVD players. I've got a perfectly legal TV, perfectly legal HiFi VCR, perfectly legal DVD player, and a perfectly legal copy of the Matrix ("DVD killer app"), which I can't use together because of a very stupid, artificial problem. Little help here?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
in addition to the individuals named, there are 1-500 more *unnamed* people being sued - they state that they're going to fill in the names later! did you notice this: 29. DVD CCA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Doe defendants 55 through 72 operate Internet web sites, at the below addresses, which provide "links" to other web sites which disseminate confidential proprietary CSS information:
I'd really like to see this as a poll...
please?
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Macrovision has been around forever and a day. If that's indeed what it is there are macrovision 'removers' out there
Blech. Signatures.
How can some of the people named in the suite answer the call to court if they aren't even in the State of California? I hope someone in California can show up and represent their interested....
The hearing will be at 'the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, State of California, on December 29, 1999, at 8:30 a.m.'
It is impossible for the hearing to go ahead with fair consideration and representation on this date, on account of all the defendents being fully occupied getting ready to prevent the collapse of western civilization through the millennium bug. And no geeks ever get up before midday anyway.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
How is a encryption key a Trade Secret? This isnt a list of instructions or the secret forumla to Pepsi!
.vob is perfectly legal.
Also Decrypting a DVD doesnt copy software. Decrypting the
Side note ---
I could convert DVD's to VCD's long before decss.
(Only for my own personal dvd's, thank you...)
31. Before allowing their copyrighted motion pictures to be used on the DVD format, the motion picture companies insisted on a viable copy protection system to prevent users from making copies of the motion pictures. Such protection is necessary to prevent copying from discs that are rented or borrowed and, more importantly, to prevent broader scale piracy through widespread transmission of these motion pictures over the Internet and widespread distribution of "pirated" discs in competition with the authorized prerecorded discs.
Essentially what they are saying is DVD would be dead if it had no copy protection. The movie companies who own the copyright on these things won't use DVD at all if there's no copy protection. Plain and simple. No copy protection, no Matrix on DVD.
I'm not agreeing with them, though. So don't flame me. They just have a point.
Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.
72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A
why is the date listed on the service for dec. 28th 1999?
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
two years ago, People who run linux had to pay the microsoft tax when they bought an off the shelf computer (compaq/HP/PB). Had to keep windows on it to play any games. (There were _no_ games for linux.) We fixed this problem. The commercial market (ID/GTi/LOKI) saw linux as a market.
It is a market.
the cd market didn't get pissed off when we figured out how to listen to cds on our 1x cdroms from back in da day. they didn't file a restraining order when we wrote open source libs and apps to do so. They didn't badger us to take down our web sites, and stop distributing this knowledge.
The dvd industry doesn't seem to give a fuck.
They dont care that the vast majority of us dont have dvdRAM drives, dont have the nessisary inet connection to distributed the movies, and dont want to take their profits. The linuxDVD project is NOT to assist in the pirateing of DVD movies.
It is a project to help linux gain openSource DVD capabilities.
WE JUST WANT TO WATCH A MOVIE!
UNDERSTAND?
I ask everyone. who runs to the store and buys an audio cd, goes home and plays it? I do.
I even rip it(*naughty*) to my computer so I dont have to look for the damn thing every time I wish to play it. I dont have any mp3s for which I dont have the cd.
If the cdda format was encrypted, would it be illegal to write open source software to play it?
If I go buy a dvd drive. it comes with software.
that software can decrypt the dvd data to play.
I can record that window's contents to an mpeg file, and watch it in linux. Is that illegal?
I dont think so.
Can I read the contents of my computer's hardware, after all, I paid for it, and find out how to write software to read dvds, decrypt the data, and watch it in linux?
sure.
When I go out and buy a SB live I get mp3 ripping software. I can listen to this on my computer. in my car. anywhere. I can even invite my friends over to listen too!
why cant I write software that decodes dvds and watch them on my computer?
watch them in the back of my conversion van?
watch them anywhere infact, without buying a microsoft product?
This is just another situation where MS has the high ground.
everyone please support the linux DVD project.
email your congressmen.
email the poor guy who has to deside on this case.
lets let everyone know that we arn't a bunch of software pirating losers to cheap to pay for an operating system, or a movie for that matter.
Thanks for takeing the time to read this drawn out post.
PimpSmurf
"LOOK LOOK! I'm being oppressed." --monty python
Stupid people do stupid things... Smart people outsmart each other... --System of a Down
Gee, I really wasn't that interested in this
whole DeCSS mess. As a working programmer, I've
got better things to do.
But now I'm interested in downloading the code.
And I'm interested in learning the decryption
algorithm.
Wouldn't have happened if they hadn't started
using heavy handed tactics.
I was reading through the manual to one of loki's games, and in the end, the authors asked for people to boycott copy-protected software. Their argument was that people had a fixed budget to spend on software, and if no one else was doing copy protection, then the users would pay for the software they liked the best. However if stuff was copy protected, the copy protected stuff would get paid for first.
However one key point is from this is even without copy protection, a good chunk of the population still pays for the digital media that they like.
I suspect that most people would willingly cooperate with a company that shows that it respects and trusts its customers far more than a company who forces everyone to conform through heavy handed power trips.
I guess these corporate types haven't read "The evolution of cooperation" by Robert Axelrod which does a good job of proving that (as long as there's a good chance of a future interaction) the best strategy is to respond in the way that they treated you. On the whole people do tend to respond in the way they're treated... so as the megacorporations continue to try and amass power and exploit the population, eventually the people will get fed up and react. (Think seattle and the WTO)
The only remaining question is how long untill we've been stepped on long enough that we finally act?
Nobody's pirating DVD's...the damn things are 5-6Gigs.
--GnrcMan--
So why don't we patent it? After all, it is possible to get a patent on a procedure, such as windowing, that has been in existance long before you claim to have invented it.
Since we are not suppossed to know how this is done we can claim that there is no legitmate way we could have found this as an example of prior art.
Then, one we have the patent we can sue them!
I love America.
No Zen is good zen
I'm sure we could make a legal argument to a jury that this big corporation is out to screw over the little guy and that the only way to keep this from happening more and more often would be to award substantial damages (Say, $500 Million or more) for the misuse of the legal system.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This was original leak from the offending software come. The DVD CCA makes no reference to a patent or other legal protection to their algorithms.
I'm a not lawyer, but I don't see where the people who redistributed this software agreed to any kind of license agreement with DVD CCA. The whole basis of their case is that it hurts their industry.
immortal stealth (too lazy to dig up slashdot login)
Taken from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science:
Seems to me (and I'm NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV) that the programmers were completely within their rights here. What really jumps out at this letter at me is that NOWHERE do they reference an actual patent number that I could look up. If they did, I'd be able to pick it apart a bit more; I can only assume that they intentionally left this out of the document because they're hoping a judge isn't smart enough to ask for it. I would think that if the patent helps their cause, they'd certainly quote it or reference it. My understanding of their letter is that they have their panties in a knot over illegal copying and distribution. The fact is, none of these defendants has been accused of either copying or distributing DVD movies. To quote the letter again:
Two things about this scare the living hell out of me. First, this business about "the DeCSS program allows users to illegally pirate the copyrighted motion pictures contained on DVD videos": Sure, it makes such things possible. At the same time, one can mix fertilizer, black powder and some other goodies together such that one could blow a building to hell. A camera makes it possible for one to observe you in the shower. A photocopy machine makes it possible for one to distribute damn near any document. But nobody's sueing Miracle Grow. Nobody's sueing Kodak. Nobody's sueing Xerox. See, the fact that Product X enables one to achieve a nasty objective DOES NOT make Company X liable. This has been established time and time again in the court system. And it holds, so long as Product X's primary purpose is NOT to assist in achieving the nasty objective. The software in question IS NOT written to aid in copying DVDs. It's NOT written to aid distributing illegal copys. It's primary objective was to make DVD's playable on Linux. Quite legal, if ya ask me.
Now, the second thing that really worries me here is that they're going after people who were NOT distributing the software. There are sites on that list who just LINK to the software, or a site that distributes it. Hasn't at least one prior ruling already said that this is a legal activity? If it's not, God help Google, and any other search engine out there. Or anyone who links to anyone who links to the software. And so on.
I'm also completely unsure if this program is anywhere near the stuff used by the licensed friends of the DVD CCA. If they're totally different, and don't make use of the same proprietary algorithms, etc, the case has just grown exponentially weaker. Me thinks that if these guys get shot down, someone oughta rewrite the program such that it doesn't use anything from Xing except the key - and whoops, that can be brute forced in a matter of weeks once a non-proprietary algorithm implementation is in place (see distributed.net efforts w/weak encryption cracking).
Anyways, I highly encourage these defendants to pull together and find a decent defense attorney (anyone out there who is one, and reads slashdot...?), and make sure that DVD CCA doesn't force them to bend over and take this...
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
which they either obtained by improper means or knew or should have known was obtained by others by improper means
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but the above quote from the letter is very likely the key to their case. Even those IP cases are now pretty much wars of attrition, where whoever can afford to keep fighting wins, Trade Secrets aren't protected unless you can show that they were obtained from the original company. If I independently discover a method of, e.g., organizing a database, another company can't force me to stop using it unless they can show that I got the idea from them. (Well, unless they patent it).
--Kevin
Hey wow, I BOUGHT The Matrix with my cold hard cash. Gee, what a great coaster it makes because I can't VIEW the damn thing in Linux. Pull your fscking head out of your ass, the whole reason this STARTED was so that people could view DVD's.
I imagine that if CD's were just being released today (as in, new tech) and they used some very poor crypto tech and they could only be played in Windows, then people would be cracking it so they could play the CD's they bought. Piracy happens. Trying to deal with it this way is DUMB.
Had players for Linux been released, I'll bet you any money that the DVD crypto crack would have gone forward with FAR less momentum. Some people would still want to crack it for a thrill, some would in the name of writing an open source player, and some in the name of piracy. However, the number of people in said categories is FAR less then the number of people who just want to PLAY THE DAMN THINGS.
Pirates DO suck. But we aren't pirates any more then a person who makes some mp3s of his own CDs (not distributing them) so that all his music can be in one long playlist instead of swapping CDs. The fault is not in the hands of people who wanted to gain fair use of their purchases, it is in the hands of the people who didn't allow fair use (and used shoddy crypto too). Note that this does not justify piracy. Nothing does. But this is NOT a pirate tool, and that's the last time I'm going to say it.
- T
If need be I will upload as well, so tell them to take my name down as well.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Is this going to affect all implementations of MPEG2 and VOB file formats? Are MPEG2 and VOB decoders forever going to be the sole territory of private corporations? "any proprietary property or trade secrets relating to the CSS technology" is pretty vague.
if you view source, the CSS code on that page is a good 1/3 of the page...
.doc to .rtf to .html instead
oh wait... i figured out the problem (honestly, i've never noticed this before)
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document
meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"
meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"
nice easy conversion i'm sure... too bad it's hard as hell to read, thanks to the converter... shoulda went
- 8Complex
http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~marsie/ I told some friends to, CSS is _DEAD_ .
The paranoid side of me tends to think there might be some astroturfing going on here, but then again, it's probably just the usual parade of trolls with too much time on their hands.
You might as well urge people to boycott Coke :-) I felt like responding since a few people have suggested a boycott would be a good way to `fight the cause'. I think the DVD people would want nothing more than for the very people most interested in having the DVD `secrets' to completely lay off any involvement in their industry. Then they can continue to impose their barmy controls over it.
They know and we know the market is not going to be threatened by having an open-source player; the technology is just too darned good for anybody (industry or users) to just junk, and it'll be a while before anybody has sufficient resources to keep an vast collection of pirate DVDs (and even so, how much did tapes hurt the music industry...?).
Their revenue is assured (from their vastly more numberous consumers) whether a few assorted geeks revert to VHS or not. But I'd say in general, geeks like technology their way. Here we've got an opportunity to have it our way, and we've got the means to get around whatever dim legal muzzles are imposed. CVS mirrors, encrypted PPP tunnels... whatever it takes. We've got the technology, we've got the brains. Let's not just roll over in some misguided `protest' when we can have it our way.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I posted the css-auth source - sorry. I suppose they better update their list :) css-auth.h ---------- typedef unsigned char byte; struct block { byte b[5]; }; extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key); extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key); extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key); css-auth.c ---------- /* * Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus * * This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL, * read the file COPYING for details. * */ /* * These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before * calling engine() to do the main work. * * The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of * the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to * try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it * actually adds anything to the security. * * The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied * parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and * the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised. * * The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first * (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter. * * Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the * code table driven in order to improve readability. * * Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even * abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining * the nature of the reordering it has to do. */ #include "css-auth.h" typedef unsigned long u32; static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output); void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key) { static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8}; byte scratch[10]; int i; for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i) scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]]; engine(varient, scratch, key); } /* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that * 4 -> !3 * 3 -> 4 * varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits * 1 -> 2 * 0 -> !1 */ void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key) { static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2}; static byte perm_varient[] = { 0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d, 0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d, 0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05, 0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15}; byte scratch[10]; int i; for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i) scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]]; engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key); } /* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that * 4 -> 0 * 3 -> !1 * varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits * 1 -> 2 * 0 -> 3 */ void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key) { static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9}; static byte perm_varient[] = { 0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e, 0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c, 0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f, 0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d}; byte scratch[10]; int i; for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i) scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]]; engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key); } /* * We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to * generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams * are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final * sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that * 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer. * * The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of: * x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1 * * The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of: * x^15 + x^1 + 1 * * I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus * represent maximal-period LFSR's. * * * Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in * bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's * are implemented in bit reversed order. * */ static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, struct block const *s) { u32 lfsr0, lfsr1; byte carry; /* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the * initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from * the seed, we ensure that a bit is set. */ lfsr0 = (s->b[0] b[1] b[2] & ~7) b[2] & 7); lfsr1 = (s->b[3] b[4]; ++output; carry = 0; do { int bit; byte val; for (bit = 0, val = 0; bit > 24) ^ (lfsr0 >> 21) ^ (lfsr0 >> 20) ^ (lfsr0 >> 12)) & 1; lfsr0 = (lfsr0 > 16) ^ (lfsr1 >> 2)) & 1; lfsr1 = (lfsr1 > 1) & 1) combined = !o_lfsr1 + carry + !o_lfsr0; carry = BIT1(combined); val |= BIT0(combined) 0); } static byte Secret[]; static byte Varients[]; static byte Table0[]; static byte Table1[]; static byte Table2[]; static byte Table3[]; /* * This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations * one the same theme depending upon the choice in the * varient parameter (0 - 31). * * The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into * a 40 bit output. * The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of * the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed * by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number * generators. */ static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output) { byte cse, term, index; struct block temp1; struct block temp2; byte bits[30]; int i; /* Feed the secret into the input values such that * we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then * generate the bits to play with. */ for (i = 5; --i >= 0; ) temp1.b[i] = input[5 + i] ^ Secret[i] ^ Table2[i]; generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1); /* This term is used throughout the following to * select one of 32 different variations on the * algorithm. */ cse = Varients[varient] ^ Table2[varient]; /* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each * of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite * similar. */ for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = input[i]) { index = bits[25 + i] ^ input[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; } temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0]; for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) { index = bits[20 + i] ^ temp1.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; temp2.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; } temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0]; for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) { index = bits[15 + i] ^ temp2.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; temp1.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index]; } temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0]; for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) { index = bits[10 + i] ^ temp1.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; temp2.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index]; } temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0]; for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) { index = bits[5 + i] ^ temp2.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; } temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0]; for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) { index = bits[i] ^ temp1.b[i]; index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse; output->b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term; } } static byte Varients[] = { 0xB7, 0x74, 0x85, 0xD0, 0xCC, 0xDB, 0xCA, 0x73, 0x03, 0xFE, 0x31, 0x03, 0x52, 0xE0, 0xB7, 0x42, 0x63, 0x16, 0xF2, 0x2A, 0x79, 0x52, 0xFF, 0x1B, 0x7A, 0x11, 0xCA, 0x1A, 0x9B, 0x40, 0xAD, 0x01}; static byte Secret[] = {0x55, 0xD6, 0xC4, 0xC5, 0x28}; static byte Table0[] = { 0xB7, 0xF4, 0x82, 0x57, 0xDA, 0x4D, 0xDB, 0xE2, 0x2F, 0x52, 0x1A, 0xA8, 0x68, 0x5A, 0x8A, 0xFF, 0xFB, 0x0E, 0x6D, 0x35, 0xF7, 0x5C, 0x76, 0x12, 0xCE, 0x25, 0x79, 0x29, 0x39, 0x62, 0x08, 0x24, 0xA5, 0x85, 0x7B, 0x56, 0x01, 0x23, 0x68, 0xCF, 0x0A, 0xE2, 0x5A, 0xED, 0x3D, 0x59, 0xB0, 0xA9, 0xB0, 0x2C, 0xF2, 0xB8, 0xEF, 0x32, 0xA9, 0x40, 0x80, 0x71, 0xAF, 0x1E, 0xDE, 0x8F, 0x58, 0x88, 0xB8, 0x3A, 0xD0, 0xFC, 0xC4, 0x1E, 0xB5, 0xA0, 0xBB, 0x3B, 0x0F, 0x01, 0x7E, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0xD9, 0xAA, 0xB8, 0x3D, 0x9D, 0x74, 0x1E, 0x25, 0xDB, 0x37, 0x56, 0x8F, 0x16, 0xBA, 0x49, 0x2B, 0xAC, 0xD0, 0xBD, 0x95, 0x20, 0xBE, 0x7A, 0x28, 0xD0, 0x51, 0x64, 0x63, 0x1C, 0x7F, 0x66, 0x10, 0xBB, 0xC4, 0x56, 0x1A, 0x04, 0x6E, 0x0A, 0xEC, 0x9C, 0xD6, 0xE8, 0x9A, 0x7A, 0xCF, 0x8C, 0xDB, 0xB1, 0xEF, 0x71, 0xDE, 0x31, 0xFF, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x5E, 0x07, 0x69, 0x96, 0xB0, 0xCF, 0xDD, 0x9E, 0x47, 0xC7, 0x96, 0x8F, 0xE4, 0x2B, 0x59, 0xC6, 0xEE, 0xB9, 0x86, 0x9A, 0x64, 0x84, 0x72, 0xE2, 0x5B, 0xA2, 0x96, 0x58, 0x99, 0x50, 0x03, 0xF5, 0x38, 0x4D, 0x02, 0x7D, 0xE7, 0x7D, 0x75, 0xA7, 0xB8, 0x67, 0x87, 0x84, 0x3F, 0x1D, 0x11, 0xE5, 0xFC, 0x1E, 0xD3, 0x83, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x29, 0xF6, 0xC7, 0x15, 0x61, 0x29, 0x1A, 0x43, 0x4F, 0x9B, 0xAF, 0xC5, 0x87, 0x34, 0x6C, 0x0F, 0x3B, 0xA8, 0x1D, 0x45, 0x58, 0x25, 0xDC, 0xA8, 0xA3, 0x3B, 0xD1, 0x79, 0x1B, 0x48, 0xF2, 0xE9, 0x93, 0x1F, 0xFC, 0xDB, 0x2A, 0x90, 0xA9, 0x8A, 0x3D, 0x39, 0x18, 0xA3, 0x8E, 0x58, 0x6C, 0xE0, 0x12, 0xBB, 0x25, 0xCD, 0x71, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x64, 0xC6, 0xE7, 0xFB, 0xAD, 0x94, 0x77, 0x04, 0x9A, 0x39, 0xCF, 0x7C}; static byte Table1[] = { 0x8C, 0x47, 0xB0, 0xE1, 0xEB, 0xFC, 0xEB, 0x56, 0x10, 0xE5, 0x2C, 0x1A, 0x5D, 0xEF, 0xBE, 0x4F, 0x08, 0x75, 0x97, 0x4B, 0x0E, 0x25, 0x8E, 0x6E, 0x39, 0x5A, 0x87, 0x53, 0xC4, 0x1F, 0xF4, 0x5C, 0x4E, 0xE6, 0x99, 0x30, 0xE0, 0x42, 0x88, 0xAB, 0xE5, 0x85, 0xBC, 0x8F, 0xD8, 0x3C, 0x54, 0xC9, 0x53, 0x47, 0x18, 0xD6, 0x06, 0x5B, 0x41, 0x2C, 0x67, 0x1E, 0x41, 0x74, 0x33, 0xE2, 0xB4, 0xE0, 0x23, 0x29, 0x42, 0xEA, 0x55, 0x0F, 0x25, 0xB4, 0x24, 0x2C, 0x99, 0x13, 0xEB, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0xC9, 0xF9, 0x63, 0x67, 0x43, 0x2D, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x07, 0x60, 0x89, 0xD1, 0xCC, 0xE7, 0x94, 0x77, 0x74, 0x9B, 0x7E, 0xD7, 0xE6, 0xFF, 0xBB, 0x68, 0x14, 0x1E, 0xA3, 0x25, 0xDE, 0x3A, 0xA3, 0x54, 0x7B, 0x87, 0x9D, 0x50, 0xCA, 0x27, 0xC3, 0xA4, 0x50, 0x91, 0x27, 0xD4, 0xB0, 0x82, 0x41, 0x97, 0x79, 0x94, 0x82, 0xAC, 0xC7, 0x8E, 0xA5, 0x4E, 0xAA, 0x78, 0x9E, 0xE0, 0x42, 0xBA, 0x28, 0xEA, 0xB7, 0x74, 0xAD, 0x35, 0xDA, 0x92, 0x60, 0x7E, 0xD2, 0x0E, 0xB9, 0x24, 0x5E, 0x39, 0x4F, 0x5E, 0x63, 0x09, 0xB5, 0xFA, 0xBF, 0xF1, 0x22, 0x55, 0x1C, 0xE2, 0x25, 0xDB, 0xC5, 0xD8, 0x50, 0x03, 0x98, 0xC4, 0xAC, 0x2E, 0x11, 0xB4, 0x38, 0x4D, 0xD0, 0xB9, 0xFC, 0x2D, 0x3C, 0x08, 0x04, 0x5A, 0xEF, 0xCE, 0x32, 0xFB, 0x4C, 0x92, 0x1E, 0x4B, 0xFB, 0x1A, 0xD0, 0xE2, 0x3E, 0xDA, 0x6E, 0x7C, 0x4D, 0x56, 0xC3, 0x3F, 0x42, 0xB1, 0x3A, 0x23, 0x4D, 0x6E, 0x84, 0x56, 0x68, 0xF4, 0x0E, 0x03, 0x64, 0xD0, 0xA9, 0x92, 0x2F, 0x8B, 0xBC, 0x39, 0x9C, 0xAC, 0x09, 0x5E, 0xEE, 0xE5, 0x97, 0xBF, 0xA5, 0xCE, 0xFA, 0x28, 0x2C, 0x6D, 0x4F, 0xEF, 0x77, 0xAA, 0x1B, 0x79, 0x8E, 0x97, 0xB4, 0xC3, 0xF4}; static byte Table2[] = { 0xB7, 0x75, 0x81, 0xD5, 0xDC, 0xCA, 0xDE, 0x66, 0x23, 0xDF, 0x15, 0x26, 0x62, 0xD1, 0x83, 0x77, 0xE3, 0x97, 0x76, 0xAF, 0xE9, 0xC3, 0x6B, 0x8E, 0xDA, 0xB0, 0x6E, 0xBF, 0x2B, 0xF1, 0x19, 0xB4, 0x95, 0x34, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x37, 0x94, 0x5D, 0x7B, 0x36, 0x5F, 0x65, 0x53, 0x07, 0xE2, 0x89, 0x11, 0x98, 0x85, 0xD9, 0x12, 0xC1, 0x9D, 0x84, 0xEC, 0xA4, 0xD4, 0x88, 0xB8, 0xFC, 0x2C, 0x79, 0x28, 0xD8, 0xDB, 0xB3, 0x1E, 0xA2, 0xF9, 0xD0, 0x44, 0xD7, 0xD6, 0x60, 0xEF, 0x14, 0xF4, 0xF6, 0x31, 0xD2, 0x41, 0x46, 0x67, 0x0A, 0xE1, 0x58, 0x27, 0x43, 0xA3, 0xF8, 0xE0, 0xC8, 0xBA, 0x5A, 0x5C, 0x80, 0x6C, 0xC6, 0xF2, 0xE8, 0xAD, 0x7D, 0x04, 0x0D, 0xB9, 0x3C, 0xC2, 0x25, 0xBD, 0x49, 0x63, 0x8C, 0x9F, 0x51, 0xCE, 0x20, 0xC5, 0xA1, 0x50, 0x92, 0x2D, 0xDD, 0xBC, 0x8D, 0x4F, 0x9A, 0x71, 0x2F, 0x30, 0x1D, 0x73, 0x39, 0x13, 0xFB, 0x1A, 0xCB, 0x24, 0x59, 0xFE, 0x05, 0x96, 0x57, 0x0F, 0x1F, 0xCF, 0x54, 0xBE, 0xF5, 0x06, 0x1B, 0xB2, 0x6D, 0xD3, 0x4D, 0x32, 0x56, 0x21, 0x33, 0x0B, 0x52, 0xE7, 0xAB, 0xEB, 0xA6, 0x74, 0x00, 0x4C, 0xB1, 0x7F, 0x82, 0x99, 0x87, 0x0E, 0x5E, 0xC0, 0x8F, 0xEE, 0x6F, 0x55, 0xF3, 0x7E, 0x08, 0x90, 0xFA, 0xB6, 0x64, 0x70, 0x47, 0x4A, 0x17, 0xA7, 0xB5, 0x40, 0x8A, 0x38, 0xE5, 0x68, 0x3E, 0x8B, 0x69, 0xAA, 0x9B, 0x42, 0xA5, 0x10, 0x01, 0x35, 0xFD, 0x61, 0x9E, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x9C, 0x86, 0xED, 0xCD, 0x2E, 0xFF, 0xC4, 0x5B, 0xA0, 0xAE, 0xCC, 0x4B, 0x3B, 0x03, 0xBB, 0x1C, 0x2A, 0xAC, 0x0C, 0x3F, 0x93, 0xC7, 0x72, 0x7A, 0x09, 0x22, 0x3D, 0x45, 0x78, 0xA9, 0xA8, 0xEA, 0xC9, 0x6A, 0xF7, 0x29, 0x91, 0xF0, 0x02, 0x18, 0x3A, 0x4E, 0x7C}; static byte Table3[] = { 0x73, 0x51, 0x95, 0xE1, 0x12, 0xE4, 0xC0, 0x58, 0xEE, 0xF2, 0x08, 0x1B, 0xA9, 0xFA, 0x98, 0x4C, 0xA7, 0x33, 0xE2, 0x1B, 0xA7, 0x6D, 0xF5, 0x30, 0x97, 0x1D, 0xF3, 0x02, 0x60, 0x5A, 0x82, 0x0F, 0x91, 0xD0, 0x9C, 0x10, 0x39, 0x7A, 0x83, 0x85, 0x3B, 0xB2, 0xB8, 0xAE, 0x0C, 0x09, 0x52, 0xEA, 0x1C, 0xE1, 0x8D, 0x66, 0x4F, 0xF3, 0xDA, 0x92, 0x29, 0xB9, 0xD5, 0xC5, 0x77, 0x47, 0x22, 0x53, 0x14, 0xF7, 0xAF, 0x22, 0x64, 0xDF, 0xC6, 0x72, 0x12, 0xF3, 0x75, 0xDA, 0xD7, 0xD7, 0xE5, 0x02, 0x9E, 0xED, 0xDA, 0xDB, 0x4C, 0x47, 0xCE, 0x91, 0x06, 0x06, 0x6D, 0x55, 0x8B, 0x19, 0xC9, 0xEF, 0x8C, 0x80, 0x1A, 0x0E, 0xEE, 0x4B, 0xAB, 0xF2, 0x08, 0x5C, 0xE9, 0x37, 0x26, 0x5E, 0x9A, 0x90, 0x00, 0xF3, 0x0D, 0xB2, 0xA6, 0xA3, 0xF7, 0x26, 0x17, 0x48, 0x88, 0xC9, 0x0E, 0x2C, 0xC9, 0x02, 0xE7, 0x18, 0x05, 0x4B, 0xF3, 0x39, 0xE1, 0x20, 0x02, 0x0D, 0x40, 0xC7, 0xCA, 0xB9, 0x48, 0x30, 0x57, 0x67, 0xCC, 0x06, 0xBF, 0xAC, 0x81, 0x08, 0x24, 0x7A, 0xD4, 0x8B, 0x19, 0x8E, 0xAC, 0xB4, 0x5A, 0x0F, 0x73, 0x13, 0xAC, 0x9E, 0xDA, 0xB6, 0xB8, 0x96, 0x5B, 0x60, 0x88, 0xE1, 0x81, 0x3F, 0x07, 0x86, 0x37, 0x2D, 0x79, 0x14, 0x52, 0xEA, 0x73, 0xDF, 0x3D, 0x09, 0xC8, 0x25, 0x48, 0xD8, 0x75, 0x60, 0x9A, 0x08, 0x27, 0x4A, 0x2C, 0xB9, 0xA8, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x73, 0x62, 0x37, 0x16, 0x02, 0xBD, 0xC1, 0x0E, 0x56, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x14, 0x5F, 0x8C, 0x8F, 0x6E, 0x75, 0x1C, 0x07, 0x39, 0x7B, 0x4B, 0xDB, 0xD3, 0x4B, 0x1E, 0xC8, 0x7E, 0xFE, 0x3E, 0x72, 0x16, 0x83, 0x7D, 0xEE, 0xF5, 0xCA, 0xC5, 0x18, 0xF9, 0xD8, 0x68, 0xAB, 0x38, 0x85, 0xA8, 0xF0, 0xA1, 0x73, 0x9F, 0x5D, 0x19, 0x0B, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x33, 0x72, 0x39, 0x25, 0x67, 0x26, 0x6D, 0x71, 0x36, 0x77, 0x3C, 0x20, 0x62, 0x23, 0x68, 0x74, 0xC3, 0x82, 0xC9, 0x15, 0x57, 0x16, 0x5D, 0x81};
...it can be a misappropriation of trade secrets if they had no access to any trade secrets when they were in fact reverse engineering the encryption.
_Deirdre
The DVD association did not create a Linux client and have no desire to do so. So Linux people set about trying to create a Linux client just like they try to for every other closed-source device out there. Step 1 is to break the encryption so you can read the bloody DVD.
As mentioned by someone else, copying a DVD is not worthwhile at today's storage costs so piracy is hardly an issue (for now).
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
And even that is not illegal in most countries, AFAIK. So, if no illegal acts were committed, what ground do these lawyerks have to stand on? I say let them eat their suit and suits and begone forever. It will be a better world without them.
[phew... had to get it out of my system...]
--frank[at]unternet.org
So, whose going to organize some sort of a showing in Santa Clara on the 29th? I'm willing to drive up from LA to be there, and show support...
--Mark
Why you say you no bunny rabbit when you have powder puff tail? --The Tasmanian Devil
Not only that, but since nothign prevents you from making a bit-by-bit copy of the original, encrypted DVD which can then be played by existing software and (if you managed to put it on another DVD) hardware, cracking the DVD is only good for either A) converting it to another format, or B) playing it (just a specialized form of A where the target format is a video stream). Anyone who can manage the 6-8 GB storage requirements can pirate DVD w/o DeCSS.
I don't think there's anything devious going on here - sounds like there's just some problem with your VCR or your connection to it.
I went to Radio Shack and spent 20 bucks on an RCA to RF converter. It takes the 3 RCA inputs (video, and L/R sound) and outputs RF which can go into my television. The picture quality is fine, although I'm not making use of the s-video at all. None of this ever touches my VCR. In fact, what I have is:
DVD player RCA out -> amplifier RCA in
amplifier RCA out -> converter RCA in
converter RF out -> TV
Not great, but it'll hold me over until I have the $$ to buy a new television set.
SEAL
I have that problem too. It turns out that the X10 DVD-Sender has a coax output, and it uses it beautifuly. I bought mine for the sole purpose of outputting it to an older tv. You also get a nifty RF Remote for controlling your computer from across the house (and freaking out relatives)
.sigs in here
-Tim
.sig: Nobody but us
you saw him repressing me didnt you?
come see the violence inherent in the system!!
I suspect the situation is more complicated than that, but IANAL, so I'd appreciate if someone would punch some holes in this particular part of the case.
(It occurs to me as I write this that a violation of Xing's license agreement is Xing's business, not DVD CCA's, so they might not have standing. Is that how it works?)
MSK
They gona try to hit you up for httpd logs? To bad crond cleans them once a week...right? :)
I have to return some videotapes...
> In the case of the program crackers, reverse
:)
> engineering. (but is it really illegal to know
> what the processor
> knows? I mean, you *own* the damn processor
> after all!)
You would think that you own yourself... but people have patents on the genes inside you. I really dont understand this myself... and while I should.. I am afraid for my mind to be warped enough to do that... I would never be sane again
-- SJS smooge at smoogespace dot com
here , here, here , here , here
here , here , here , here , here , here (not source, just a readme), here , here , and here , Not to mention the mirror lists here , and here
Now, am I breaking the law by pointing to them? ;)
_________________________
As has been said countless times already, this isn't about piracy. The issue is that we want to be able to view these movies in Linux, instead of having to use Windows or MacOS.
Yes, you could easily hook up a VCR and tape the output from a DVD player. You can do that today with a standard VCR and one of the many commercial home-theater DVD players. You can copy a movie you rent at BlockBuster with two VCRs. You can make tapes of music tapes or cd's (or, if you have a cd-writer, make a digital copy of the cd directly.) the industries don't seem to care about that; they just want to make sure that there is no open-source, freely available implementation of their standard.
I will remind you, though, that their "standard" isn't open; you need special permission to write an application that will decode a DVD disk/movie, and cannot divulge any information (especially their stupid and easily calculated encryption key). And, presumably, you need to give them good money to get the info you need to write an app.
If I wanted to pirate a movie from DVD right now, I'd buy a DVD player down at Fry's, rent the movie at BlockBuster, wire up my home theater, play the movie and record it on my dandy VCR onto a high-grade tape, and voila! I have my own copy of the movie. However, I want to be able to take a DVD with me on a business trip, and play it on my linux notebook. Why should I have to install Windows (and suck up about 500-800 megs of disk space) just to play a movie?
I used to think printing on on Unix sucked. Then I figured it out. Printing on Unix *does* suck. Like a Kirby.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If /. is already mentioned in the email, then why doesn't it go a step further and also mirror the source code? I'm sure that Andover.net is *much* better equipped to fight a legal battle than these individuals are :-)
/. many people, myself included, wouldn't know what was going on re. this issue at all...)
(Note: this is NOT meant in a negative way. If it wasn't for
Wow. Now where, oh where are all those web pages going to find lawyers. Especially the /. article at #57... Should I worry? I read it, am I an accomplice?
Let's all make like the Navaho code talkers or the Homeric poets and memorize the source code. Come on everyone, grab a hald dozen lines and a sequence number.
Seriously though, what on Earth will these poor lawyers do about all the over-seas defendants?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
you are trying to say i can look at nothing, but it's clearly a gray area or no one would be able to look at MS word/excel files and render the data from them.
so, you blanket statement is further from reality than my right to look at the registers on my machine however i choose, whenever i choose.
in fact, before you are so fast to yap and ship at my post, at least on major was considering legalizing reverse engineering -- not just protocols and commands, but *reverse engineering* -- the disassembly of code.
think before you post. your response is fairly small minded.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
As i remember, Download.com had a copy of this software on their website. I wonder why they haven't been added to the list of "Defendants". Kind of makes you wonder what's going on here.
.sig
-Tim
.Sig: Bah, no
There are technological solutions to these attempts at bullying. See http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/eternit y/, for example.
[
Chris Dibona and myself (and hopefully others!) are planning to meet at the courthouse at 8am. Chris' page for this is at: http://www.dibona.com/social/dvd/index.shtml ... Hope to see you there! D
Did Rob have to remove them?
Or is something more insidious at work here?
Bleh!
Folks who got the letter might want to take a look at this. It isn't pretty.
Ah yes... Retardovision. THIS IS RETARDED! I have to now go blow $30 to $60 to make this DVD player work with my older -- but otherwise perfectly ok --television!
They should provide a Macrovision neutralizer, or RF converter, with every box, on request. Of course, the RF conversion reduces the quality of the video signal. And people buy DVD for the... better video and sound quality (among other things).
On another note... Best Buy really, actually sells a Macrovision defeater?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
ASCII text that has been corrupted/miscreated by windows programs often have "smart quotes", a MS extension to the standard character set. On non-windows systems, these render as question marks.
A simple example of embrace and extend
Chris DiBOna
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
29. DVD CCA is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Doe defendants 55 through 72 operate Internet web sites, at the below addresses, which provide "links" to other web sites which disseminate confidential proprietary CSS information:
disseminate information.
Interesting words those.
analogus with teaching? free speech?
If I am typing a message and say:
"I heard someone made a linux DVD player"!=disseminating information
but if I say:
"I heard someone made a linux DVD player"==disseminating information
Looks like they're outlawing linking. Someone better call Tim Berners Lee.
_________________________
Dammit Esinum! I BOUGHT "The Matrix". I still can't watch it under Linux. Seems all these stupid-ass lawsuits are getting in the way of letting technology prosper...
Remember way back when the VCR was first released, they were claiming that if the VCR came out, the film industry would be dead in 10 years... Hasn't happened. Its the exact same thing for DVD's..
They are just an opportunity to make more money.
Does that mean you will hand out free CD's with the code at the courthouse steps? That would be very *ballsy*
How about DVD-ROM's? That would just be cool.
Information just wants to be free. Just look at all the effort we go through to hold it in.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
The source is: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/09/1342207.shtm l
Story numbers: 244, 269, 270, 247, 248
251, 252, 253,254, 255, 256,
257, 258, 261,and 262
_________________________
The relevant software has almost certainly already been released as a shell archive in one of the binary newsgroups on Internet news. This offers an interesting little technicality: currently the list of defendents is biased, unfair and discriminatory by virtue of being incomplete by several dozen million names (all those potentially in possession of the software). Quite apart from such failings, the prosecution is utterly misrepresenting the extent and scope of its case; if the true scope were to become clear, the case would almost certainly collapse instantly.
Furthermore, to present a non-discriminatory action, the real list of applicable defendents would have to be read out in full (that's the procedural step that would make a restraining order apply to the people in question). And if the complete list were to be read out in court, it would take years to do so, so this is going nowhere fast.
How hilarious.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
DVD piracy isn't even cost-effective. What we seek to facilitate is fair use - namely, being able to play the damn things.
Actually, no. I'm in it to protect my rights under the consumer act to keep a backup copy of my DVDs so that I can keep the original safe from harm and protect my investment in the goods they sell me.
DeCSS provides a mechanism to do this.
They say it allows pirates to illegally copy movies?
Any system that allows the consumer to excercise his right to make a backup copy will also allow pirates to make illegal copies.
Legislating against systems that allow copying will not stop piracy, nor will it even slow it, because the pirates are not interested in the law and are for the most part unreachable by the law.
This is almost as bad as the anti-gun lobbying that swept North America and left its citizens cowering in the corner waiting for some thug to waltz up and rob them.
Or didn't you notice the recent legislation trends that just happen to step on the rights of a few people here, a few people there...
You never care until it's you who they're beating up.
Did you know that right now in Canada it is illegal to say or write anything that can be construed to offend anyone based on race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, income level, language, culture, political views, and a few other things I've forgotten.
Not only that, but it doesn't actually matter if what you've said is true or not.
Fortunately, I no longer live there, and so I can safely say that the commie mutant scum has infiltrated alpha complex without fear of retribution from the Communist Party of Canada.
Don't think you're immune fron this kind of thing. They'll get around to you eventually.
Is there someone in the Bay Area (I don't live there, otherwise I would) who can organize a presence at this hearing?
32. Without the commercial music companies' copyrighted content for music recordings, there would be no viable market for computer CD drives and CD players, as well as the related computer chips and software necessary to run these devices and, thus, there would be no CD music industry.
Gee, if music CDs ever could be copied then the music CD industry would just fall apart. Oh, wait. We're doing that. Companies are even selling consumer CD copiers. Did the music industry fall apart and I didn't notice?
Well, based on what's on MTV right now I guess it did fall apart. :-)
I was really thinking about and still may.. (chances have went down a lot...) a DVD player. Had 80 spare bucks and my g400 has a mpeg2 decoder on it etc. Question is does it do any good for just one person to not buy one?.. I can tell my co workers who just wouldnt care about the issue nor take the time to study it probably.. since DVD is cool and probably 'needed' that extra protection so evil hackers couldnt steal them etc. etc. etc. *sighs* How can anyone with a CS degree be so happily oblivious?...
I was around when Gibson released the deliberately-overpriced objet d'art from whence sprang the term "information wants to be free". (And I got my copy of the poem within two days, woo-hoo!)
But speaking of source... Having seen the Gibsonian maxim utterly devastate the Cult of $cientology - an "all balls, no brains" dinosaur which was designed in the 1950s in such a way that it could never have the capacity to adapt to changes in its informational environment, I'm looking forward to seeing it wreak similar havoc on those who wish to shut down distribution of DeCSS.
You see, unlike the Co$, the DVD CCA just might be smart enough to come up with a way around what they perceive as "the problem of free information" that doesn't involve the futile game of whack-a-mole that so characterized the Co$ battle.
Whatever they come up with, I doubt they'll succeed. But how the DVD CCA fails to control the spread of DeCSS could well be as instructional for those of us who study memetics as the failure of the Co$ to control its sekrit skript00res.
(Of course, for sheer entertainment value, nothing could equal watching the Co$ repeatedly bash its head against the non-levitating brick ashtray of the Internet, but hey, I'm trying to learn about information warfare, not just laugh at organizations that Just Don't Get It :-)
I was gunna ask that myself..
SB.
So conversely, things that can be used for a good purpose should be used for any purpose. Chalk one up for Natalie Portman.
- Hemos linked to an
- announcement about Derek Fawcus ending his involvement with DeCSS (itself a dynamically generated, user-content discussion forum)!
In neither place is or ever was DeCSS available. Neither place is or ever was a list of mirrors where DeCSS could be obtained!The second link is another discussion thread where Jon Johansen says that he has taken the source down!
Never mind the issue of copyright... look on the bottom of any Slashdot page:
- "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
- Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-99 Andover.Net."
Slashdot is the only instance I've bothered to look into in depth, but even this one is a gross waste of the court's time and resources. It's harrassment of a community, and I wish we -- as an entire community -- could get up in arms and have a 'DVD refund day.' Like that's going to happen any time soon!(The highlight is obviously mine. I felt it necessary for the short-attention-span lawyers' benefit.)
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
I would love this cookbook solution as well. I'm thinking of buying a Linux box for use a a combo firewall/MP3 player and if I can work DVD playing into that, it would be just great. I haven't bought any of the components yet, so now's the time for me to get it right. Anyone have The Answer?
(P.S. I'm technically competent, but Linux bores the hell out of me and I don't want to get too deep into the details. This is an appliance that I want to put together, not a hacking box. That's what my Amiga is for. :-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What about the stories in the press about this, and the reporters who did research on it? Shouldn't all those activities be stopped?
Maybe those lawyers should also examine the contents of the safes at Coca-Cola to ensure that the Coca-Cola company does not have any DVD-related trade secrets recorded.
Whenever I see the term 'reverse-engineering' I think of the talking paperclip, the mdi interface, and are-you-really-really-sure dialog boxes. These misfeatures illustrate real reverse engineering.
RYan
Thanks to previous warnings in this forum, I can say that I have both decss.zip and livid_tar.gs on my home and work systems. Take those two away and they can be found elsewhere as well. I can guarantee that even if my pseudonym is discovered, there will be other copies where "I don't seem to remeber..." would take effect (if Reagan can use that, so can anyone). Multiply this by the thousands and anyone can see the futility of what they are trying to do.
No legal proceedings can ever put the cat back in the bag now that its out.
It's definitely close enough for Valley residents to picket, if you can get a half-day off work, and if it should come to that.
mole
-jhp
(who probably will be there)
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
This is absolutely incorrect. In many countries, including the US, reverse engineering is explicitly protected as legal.
Ever heard of Compaq?
Remember this comment from the holloween document?
I'm not paranoid. I do not think it likely that MS is directly behind the CCS mess as an attack against Open Source projects. On the other hand, I doubt MS is unhappy to see our struggling with DVD.
I would have bought a DVD drive a while ago, but I refuse to let windows touch my hard drive again.
... Since its still very possible for someone such as myself (Not that I would ever do such a thing), to get a pirated movie.
As someone pointed out, at the moment, its pretty damn difficult to actually COPY a DVD onto another DVD. Since the hardware requirements are very large. However, if I wanted to start distributing DVD movies, I'd just go buy a DVD player for my TV, and plug the video/audio out into my PC, and start capturing. Sure I loose quality, and also the neat things about DVDs, but if its just the movie I want, its fine.
People who buy pirated movies rarely do it for the high quality, the large number of pirated video cds are copied from demo disks with those nice symbols that float around the screen and words that scroll along the bottom. Ethier that or from someone sitting at the back with a tripod and video camera (or even worse, as one of the ID4 pirated copies was, someone at the back HOLDING a camera, and laughing alot)
By trying to keep the actual algorithm and keys secret, they can only try to achieve 2 things
1) Control of who can make DVD players, and what it costs to make them.
2) Pirating the actual entire DVDs (not just the movie on it) is difficult (but as case in point, not impossible).
If I recall correctly, this all started because an authorized DVD player maker accidentaly left the encryption keys unencrypted (I don't recall the specifics). If I were the DVD people, I'd be more concerned with suing this company than, as many people have stated, trying to close the barn doors after the horses have escaped.
Lets face it, no matter what they do, unless they someone get every country in the world to execute anyone found with pirated DVDs (mmm, world domination by MS is probably how that'll be achieved), its going to be impossible to stop DVDs, or any movie from being pirated. The most they can achieve is stopping mass-pirating by underground companies setup to pirate, and even then, as I outlined above, you can STILL get the actual movie, with no reverse engineering required.
Finding the distributors of anything pirated would be, in my guess akin to hunting down drug distributors. Except there is a $10,000 reward for information about big time piraters (atleast in New Zealand), but I don't recall any kind of reward for information about drug distributers (except maybe a lighter sentance for yourself :))
In the end, all the big companies can, and will end up doing, is trying to convince the public that pirated stuff is bad, and you should pay retail. And also trying to hunt down those big time piraters.
In regards to this restraining order, it will achieve nothing but hurt a few dozen people, and in the pirating world, unless that dirty dozen are big time distributors, it will achieve nothing.
I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove' is under 4GB. Don't get pissed at the CCA, fighting this kind of thing is their job, their only job. Rates of increase in average available bandwidth and available storage will make DVD pirating plausible in a few years. Remember back when CDs came out? Who's got room to copy a WHOLE CD? If you can watch it, you can copy it. The best they can hope for is to give you a quality trade off, but don't bet on that lasting long either.
See that "Preview" button?
>>THE FACT THAT INFORMATION IS JUST AN INANIMATE CONCEPT ELUDES ME APPARENTLY
Apparantly that's not all the eludes you.
1. It's always been possible for pirates to do a bit by bit copy of DVD media. However DVD-RW and DVD-RAM media are too expensive to make DVDs worth pirating. A DVD movie sells for $20, DVD-RAM & DVD-RW media is in the neighborhood of $30 (US) and it's a losing proposition to make copies that cost more than the originals.
2. Hydrogen is just as inanimate as information, however it too wants to be free. Have you ever heard of hydrogen "creeping"? If not look it up.
Come on AC, don't disappoint me come back with a "Don't try to confuse me with the facts, I know what I know" arguement.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
. . I laughed so hard at that comment, I spit milk on my monitor! lol
_________________________
Ah ha...elsewhere in this massive thread, it looks like Chris DiBona is meeting with others at 8 AM tomorrow. Here's more info.
This refers to THEFT of trade secrets. It doesn't apply to secrets that are "being
readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.".
This trade secret was obtained through proper means - reverse engineering. A legitimate and legal activity. It was not obtained through espionage, theft etc etc.
I'm not aware of any recognition of a "legal notice" being able to be delivered by email. Has anyone verified that this is not a forgery?
everybody knows it already! i can name 100 sites not on the list anymore.
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
--
And Justice for None
OK, they're trying to sue over distribution of this CSS decoding stuff for DVD. Fair enough, I'm no lawyer so I'm in no real position to reliably comment. However, as stated in many a comment, quite what does this company think it's trying to do by attempting to sue people in other countries ? Since when has that been possible. For proof, just think of the Spanish trying to get hold of General Pinochet from the UK and the problems there.
Also, there's that big list of sites that link to sites with the alleged dodgy data on them... how come there are no search engines there... if slashdot has a link on it and it threatened, then why shouldn't altavista or yahoo ?
As far as I'm concerned, a link is a link is a link. There are no 'special-case' links in which one site can post a link and another not, surely... except in the obvious case of files and bandwidth which requires no explenation.
So, let the bastards sue. If they ever come to the UK they'll get what's coming to them 'cos they'll have to pay *everyones* legal fees when they lose.
It looks like we could make two points at once here if we could win the case. Several people have pointed out the the blowhards case rest on the fact that Xing software was hacked in opposition to the license agreement. Well is that license agreement worth the paper its printed on?
Really, a piece paper with illegibly small print is stuck somewhere between the pages of a manual within a shrinkwrapped box. I pay for a box of software, and thus conclude an agreement. I get software, you get money. I get home and low, you have decided that I also must stand on my head and clap three times. Balderdash. After you have my money, you can't make any more stipulations to the contract.
They claim that the hacker knew or should've known that they were prohibited from reverse engineering Xing's software. The hackers should just say, "Nobody said anything about this restriction before I paid for the software." Case closed.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Before allowing their copyrighted motion pictures to be used on the DVD format, the motion picture companies insisted on a viable copy protection system to prevent users from making copies of the motion pictures. Such protection is necessary to prevent copying from discs that are rented or borrowed and, more importantly, to prevent broader scale piracy through widespread transmission of these motion pictures over the Internet and widespread distribution of "pirated" discs in competition with the authorized prerecorded discs...
CSS is proprietary technology that was developed to provide the protection demanded by the motion picture companies against unauthorized copying of their copyrighted material.
So their assertion is that this encryption is not (as one might reasonably assume) for a small group of manufacturers to hold onto a market and prevent generics from getting in on it (unless they join the little "non-profit" club to get the right - wonder what the dues/requirements are for being in on this) but rather something they absolutely had to do and have to keep proprietory, or no studios will let them make DVDs of their movies and the entire DVD technology industry will collapse. (Because the movie studios will be so much happier to go back to VHS, which is easy to pirate.)
Now, not to be entirely paranoid, but this sounds like BS. Studios put their movies on DVD because they want to sell them. I'm having a hard time envisioning how a DVD could be easier to pirate than a VHS tape, so why would the studio care more than the manufacturer about the proprietory strength of the encryption?
And can you get in trouble for lying on a summons, or does it have to be a deposition to count? ;->
...will work for Chick tracts...
There is no obligation on plaintiffs to be "non-discriminatory" in who they sue. It suffices that they sue wrongdoers. If there are more who are left out who owed duties to the sued defendants, they can implead them (defendants turn around and force others in to the case). But if you are part of a gang that beats up Bob, and Bob sues just you, it's no defense to your liability to say that you were part of a gang.
Of course, suing people who are not guilty is a big no-no: "If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party." Cal. Civ.Code 3426.4.
I'm not a California lawyer, and california law has all sorts of strange wrinkles. Plus, the complaint raises a claim for "misappropriation of trade secrets" which sounds like it may have some common law component as wall as a statutory aspect(??). But here, in any case, is an arguably relevant statute, Cal Civil Code sec. 3426.1:
If the above is the law that applies, and if the person who reverse engineered and disclosed had a contractual obligation NOT to, and if the named defendants knew or should have known these facts and if the court has jurisdiction over them, then and only then this statute suggests the judge may grant the injunction.Please don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that outcome, just reporting. I should also note that sec. 3426.2(a) says that injunctions must be lifted if someone demonstrates that the "trade secret has ceased to exist" and that sec. 3426.2(b) says that "If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited."
All that aside, an injuction against "linkers" as opposed to posters would seem to me to be outrageous. But there is a little bit of (ugly) precedent floating around....
Final point: while showing up in numbers can't hurt, it would be a lot better if one of the free software groups could get a lawyer down there and attempt to appear either as an intervenor or as a friend of the court. Much more likely to have some effect. Spectators are not allowed to talk in court.
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I have a blog.
OOopps.. It slipped!p
Gee mr lawyer people, please dont try and sue me..
IM NOT EVEN IN THE US.. http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4360/decss.zi
What is up with these corporations, thinking they can use a US court to try and get cease and desist orders placed on _Foriegn Nationals_??
No too mention having them show up in the US in less then 2-3 days time?
Ludicrous..
My email addy? should be easy enough.
You're right, a good reading of the injunction makes clear that they're not defending the terrible copy protection in the dvd mechanism. However, this has a lot to do with recent changes in the U.S. copyright laws, I recommend that folks read H.R. 2281 - The Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Library of Congress has an easier to read summary online.
What it really comes down to is that the defendants were informed that they should have removed the offending materials and refused to do so (it's right at the top... of the injunction right beneath the 69K of MS-XML.) They can't touch the guy who wrote DeCSS because he complied upon notification of transgression.
If you haven't yet actually read anything about the DMCA, you'll find the WIPO/Title I sections useful in understanding what they new laws have to say about reverse engineering of the sort used in DeCSS. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization, and Title I is the U.S. Congress ratifying general new international agreements about intellectual property. Read Educause's summary, particularly the section on: "Prohibitions on Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures ."
Pratik Dave .edu sites. Since we're (academic sites == service providers) monetarily culpable if we don't take "prompt" action upon notification, seems like someone at rpi dropped the ball.
ps: Given the specific burden of proof placed upon service providers and their DMCA agents given by the DMCA, I'm especially shocked that some of the defending sites were
This part doesn't take effect for a few months, but see if you don't find it the slightest bit relevant (and frightening):
''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
60.www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547600297
They can't be serious.
Are you sitting down?
Way doen at the end of this document they have the following language:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
[SNIP] restraining Defendants, their officers, directors, principals, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert, combination or participation with any of them either directly or indirectly, singly or together, from making any further use or otherwise disclosing or distributing, on their web sites or elsewhere, or "linking" to other web sites which disclose, distribute, or "link" to any proprietary property or trade secrets relating to the CSS technology and specifically enjoining Defendants, its officers, directors, principals, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert, combination or participation with any of them either directly or indirectly, singly or together, from copying, duplicating, licensing, selling, distributing, publishing, leasing, renting or otherwise marketing the DeCSS computer program and all other products containing, using, and/or substantially derived from CSS proprietary property or trade secrets;[SNIP]
This doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell!
_________________________
See http://www.hrrc.org/betamax.html
That covers the entire decision. The rest of the
site has a lot of related material to home recording, although not to fair use of DVD's you bought.
Geeze... slashdot.org/articles/99/11/09/ 1342207.shtml is on the list too...
With all the millions of dollars Redhat and VALinux have received from going public, maybe it would be a good idea if they started to step behind developers in things like this. They have the money. Maybe they could help the people who have the brains, but not the money to help improve things like DVD in Linux? I think it would be a great idea if these companies could help out projects that are being burdened like this.
The dying wails of these business dinosaurs sinking ever deeper into the tarpits of technological obscelescence are music to my ears.
IANAL, But I would think that this plea must fail because of the shear fact that granting an injunction would do nothing to stop the distribution of decss.
How are they going to prevent somebody in Afganistan from setting up a cron job that posts the source to rec.movies every Friday?
When this many worms are out of the can, you really are out of luck. There isn't a can big enough to put them all back.
This brings whack-a-mole to a new level. You have one bat, and there are 100 million holes.
Depends if your country has an extradition treaty with the US. No treaty, you're safe...until your local government decides to prosecute. Jesse
Please dont ... Slashdot is a great place for bouncing around headlines of 'news for nerds' and for associated discussion (though that part is slowly falling to pieces), but as far as 'reporting' you suck more than Commodore's marketing department.
Anyone one who has even the remotest connection with any conventional news media should be discusted at the stuff that you guys come up with - I would be very supprised if the combined tallents of the slashdot crew could pass an Introduction To Responsible News Gathering and Production.
Please dont even bother trying to pass off as reporters, or as news generators. You have a great medium - the editorial remarks included in your main page will take away from any content you may produce and any illconceeved content you may produce will take away from ligitimate focus of this site.
If you want to hire an /experienced/ reporter to do this kind of stuff please do - but the drivle youve so far demonstrated you produce is crap. There is more to news production that you have yet grasped.
Once you have a certain amount of influence, you can extort 'protection money' from any wealthy company or family for the safety of said entity. Donate to a 'charity' that is a front, and you are safe - it looks good on the books until you're discovered. The investigators in this case believe this has happened very often with this person, and claim to have evidence of such.
Why is everyone getting such a hardon over this? I support the anti-DVD CCA people just for the sake of being on the side of free speech.. but really. Why is there such a big issue with people wanting to watch it on their Unix boxes? I can't watch VHS video tapes on my computer.. there just isn't an drives for it (that I know of). Why would I want to watch DVD's on my tiny 17" monitor when I could go out and get a really nice $200 DVD player and watch it on my bigscreen? The ONLY reason I would really want this is if I had a DVD-RAM drive that I could copy these DVD's with. Go to blockbuster, rent a DVD, copy it, and then take it back.. that's exactly what I do sometimes with VHS tapes and it is no harm to anyone. It is all personal use and played in my home.
I am the original poster of this story; what I had originally done was to remove those files from my website pending the outcome of the hearing. Due to the mammoth support here, I have put them back and put a notice on the front page of my website informing all visitors of what is going on. I urge you to visit my site at http://www.devzero.org now and get the software while you still can. Like someone said in a previous comment, it's like playing bop-a-mole. They may get me and 70 others, but hundreds more will be distributing by then.
And yes, I am on the East coast, and will not be able to be at the hearing. Anyone and everyone who is within range, GO, please, and make your voice heard.
This is about intellectual freedom, not "copyright infringement" or violation of trade secrets.
I'm waiting to see a couple of the big dist's start including DVD abilities. Once the code is on the hdd's of a few million people it gets really hard to get it back. Sue the world and hope the world doesn't file a class-action back at you. May as well speed the process up.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I am an individual who was distributing DeCSS and Livid from my website to prevent the corporate interests from snuffing all our intellectual freedom. Who are you? :)
That was very convient - thank you Mr Lawyer.
for i in `grep gz$ legal-info.txt`; do
wget http://$i
done
There, lovely! - didn't have to go searching or anything.
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
I don't get it. Do they really claim to be worried about piracy? We're talking about four freaking gigs of data! It's far cheaper to buy the DVD than it is to buy storage for that much data. Is that economic fact likely to change in the next few years, before HDTV DVDs replace the current ones? Can't they just revise their security measures for the next iteration of the format?
I suppose they might be worried that bootleggers will rip the video from DVDs, and sell knock-offs in foreign markets. But heck, that will happen anyway. Do they really think that criminalizing the knowledge of their flawed security measures is going to prevent bootlegging?
I'm an arrogant prick? My website is pathetic? At least I have the courage to stand by my convictions, *and* to use my identity in a public forum. Want to discuss things like a rational human being, or are you going to continue to hurl insults at people from behind the fence?
Coward.
You may recall that as part of the treaty implementation, Congress outlawed "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected [under U.S. Copyright laws]". (This was H.R. 2281, passed at the end of the last Congress, now Public Law 105-304.) Specifically, Congress added Sections 1201-1205 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code (the title generally dealing with copyrights). Section 1201(a)(1)(A) contains the general prohibition quoted above; it won't take effect until next year.
Much of the debate about copyright protection systems, and when it would still be legal to circumvent them, centered on interoperability and encryption research. In fact, there are carve-outs for both activities within Section 1201:
Finally, perhaps some of the lawyers can comment as to the differences between this situation and the "release" of other proprietary crypto algorithms, such as RC4. Wasn't RSADSI (holding the proprietary/trade secret RC4 algorithm) in the same situation when "Alleged-RC4" was posted to the net as DVD CCA finds itself now with CSS?
--bal
I believe that the views expressed on Slashdot deserve more of a voice than the archives of a web site... here is their chance. The following are the articles which I have found on Slashdot which go along this theme:
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
I still remember a case about reverse engeniering of console games (nintendo or something) made by accolade (but I'm not sure)...but the idea was similar. Some guys (accolade?) reversed some part of the code of a game console ROM to be able to produce games for that console.
The console's company sued the game company and the game company alleged "Fair Use" and won.
The best way to do this would be to prey upon these lawyers' apparent willingness to name Doe parties who they do not know to positively be actual, descrete, US-law-bound human beings. If one were to set up an autonomous agent which would open free website accounts (a la geocities, angelfire, etc.)and set up download sites featuring the LiVid and DeCSS source code . . . Well, you could certainly tie the lawyers up, trying to hunt down and sue a John Doe which just ends up being a lone perl script running from a free shell account.
Again, food for thought, snacks for synapses.
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
New! Break the "Law" here!
Cheers,
Chris Morgan
ftp://ftp.foon.net/pub/decss
-- when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
Gross negligence suit, anyone?
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
This is a REALLY cool idea that deserves more discussion. Show up with a duffle bag full of floppies with the DeCSS source code.
Be prepared for some VERY pissed off lawyers.
Unfortunately, I am nowhere near California. Otherwise, I would be cranking out floppies right now.
You see, when the DVD manufacturers came up with CSS, their goal was not to protect the intellectual property contained on DVDs; rather, they were establishing an ironclad grip on the entire DVD market.
This debate is rightly focused on issues of free speech and openess of hardware specifications, but there is another BIG issue that isn't getting much air time: how the heck did we get into a situation where our mass removable storage systems are being designed by the recording industry and movie industry? What is all that encryption hardware doing in there and why does it make my computer work better? To put this another way, why are we being served up hardware that was designed in the best interests of people who aren't us, and why do we accept that?
This kind of market inversion is the same thing that has forced the spectaular rise of the open source movement. Owners of proprietray, closed source, defacto standard software systems ground us under their foot for so long that we had to react. Now what we need is a similar, open hardware movement. Sure, there are problems that are harder - designing hardware requires expensive equipment. Manufacturing it requires even more expensive equipment. But it's not like it used to be - prices are coming down. Money for open projects is abundant. So please, lets have a high-density ROM disk design that's designed according to our needs, not those of the RIA.
I want it to be a smaller format - 5 1/4 should have gone out with 5 1/4 disks, sucks for laptops and won't fit in your pocket. I want it to have current densities - in other words, even higher than what DVD offers. I want it to be completely free of any hardware that isn't directly connected with making it work better and/or cost less.
Who will design my dream ROM disk for me? Who will bankroll them? Who will manufacture it? How would we make it hit critical mass so laptop manufacturers will use it? (hint: make it cheap)
DVD was a bad idea right from the start and still is. Take out the "V", all I want is the Digigital and Disk
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Isn't it strange how a member of L0pht (the group that testified before congress) is now being sued. I wonder if the fact that he is considered a valuable expert by the government will play a part in the dismissal of this lawsuit.
31. [...] the motion picture companies insisted on a viable copy protection system
:-) Oh wait, maybe it's the lawyers who form the viable copy protection scheme.
:-) The DVD audio delay smells like a deliberate over-reaction, and one with little economic cost to either the industry or consumers. If the industry is truly worried, they should discontinue new video releases until a (what do they call it? Oh yeah, here are the words) "viable copy protection system" is in place.
Demonstrably false, if they're referring to CSS.
32. Without the motion picture companies' copyrighted content for DVD video, there would be no viable market for computer DVD drives and
DVD players [...]
I'll give them this one. DVD without motion pictures would be like the Internet without Al Gore.
50. Information posted on Defendants' web sites establishes that they are fully aware that, in posting or 'linking' to the DeCSS program, they
are wrongfully appropriating proprietary trade secrets. For example:
[...]
(b) Defendant Baugh acknowledges that 'I may very well be sued'.
(c) Doe defendant 14 challenges: 'I have the money to go to court. Your call[;]'
[...]
(e) similarly, defendant Jones explains 'Listen, lawyers, and those you represent: This is none of your concern. The horse has been let out[;]' mocking the 'trained weasels you call lawyers[;]'
In other words, the following actions are admissions of guilt:
- 50(b) you write that someone may sue you
- 50(c) once sued, you are willing and able to defend yourself
- 50(e) you point out the obvious
54. [...] the 'hack' [...] has already had a very serious adverse effect on consumers [...] in that the introduction of [DVD audio] has been delayed.
Well yes. I had planned to phase out my CD collection by January, and now that won't happen.
On October 11, 1996, President Clinton signed "The Economic Espionage Act of 1996" into law. The theft of trade secrets is now a federal criminal offense. This is a major development in the law of trade secrets in the United States and internationally. The Department of Justice now has sweeping authority to prosecute trade secret theft whether it is in the United States, via the Internet, or outside the United States.
/. could orgranize a protest and some smart people are trying to do so, the date is far too late for anything major to be planned. I only can hope that they lose this case...
Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret. The conversion of a trade secret is defined broadly to cover every conceivable act of trade secret misappropriation including theft, appropriation without authorization, concealment, fraud artifice, deception, copying without authorization, duplication, sketches, drawings, photographs, downloads, uploads, alterations, destruction, photocopies, transmissions, deliveries, mail, communications, or other transfers or conveyances of such trade secrets without authorization.
The Act also makes it a federal criminal offense to receive, buy or possess the trade secret information of another person knowing the same to have been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without the trade secret owner's authorization.The definition of a "trade secret" in the Act generally tracks the definition of a trade secret in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act but expands the definition of a trade secret to include the new technological ways that trade secrets are created and stored.
The term "trade secret" means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.
I am not a lawyer and have no plans to be one, but reading the above and doing some research seems to me that the DVD makers can screw the defendants that are in the US partially. Yes, DVD is wrong on this, but they can still kill the people that tried to make Linux support for DVD.
IMO DVD is going to lose a lot of potential customers and hopefully get bad publicity. What should be done is someone that knows a columist/newsman at a major station is to give this case publicity. If CNN were to get the info for a story on this from us rather than the DVD people they might actually get thier story right (see etoy vs etoys fiasco)
We also ought to patent the decrypter programs or GPL them if they are not already. DVD does not have a patent on its encryption algorithm as far as I am aware. Could some one reply with the feasibility of this option. As for me, I will be busy distributing the decoder via Hotline (www.bigredh.com - if its warez, its hotline) and uploading it to every webserver I find. (I have a far amount of spare time on my hands... so alot of people gonna get deCSS). While
Once I was a drone - Now I am an Engineer
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
The point is there are just way too many of us.
I looked at this site...seems pretty hokey to me, check out this page. I'll quote from it:
Windows and Unix still have the Command Line Interface hiding behind their very thin veneers of a GUI, and so they want to pretend that Mac computers are less powerful because they don't have the same thing. The flaw in their logic is that Macs do, they just don't know it.
The primary CLI function is to find files based on typed in parameters - files with "x" in the name, created after a certain date, of a certain type. The Mac's find dialog has this behavior (and more), is easier to work with than a CLI, and in many ways much more powerful. So I consider the find function the primary CLI.
so aparently, the Mac has a CLI because it has a find dialog!?
I'm sorry, I realize the Mac isn't a bad machine. It's quite good for certain purposes (the PPC is a good chip!). But that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Since when has the primary function of a command line interface been to find files? (shaking my head). That pretty much blows the credibility of that site out of the water.
--GnrcMan--
they claim that the market will "dry up" now..well i would like proof! to make such a claim, won't the lawyers have to *proove* that this will and currently does have an effect on the DVD market?
if i were one of the people going to court, i would ask this. i would really like to know...enlighten us lawyers!
bye,
-jimbo
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I got your dvd hack right here
Enjoy all.
By visiting the above link, you affirm that you will use the information contained within to the best of your ability for any purpose you see fit. Violators will be shot.
Finkployd
Here's another place to download the stuff.
Check http://www.2600.com for details
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
According to the dirty old man in "Catch 22", (which I just re-read thanks to recent publicity on /., thanks guys, great read.) the saying is that it's "better to live on your feet than die on your knees." It really makes much more sense this way!
-- Metalhead.
Bang the head that doesn't bang!
Try Activestate for your download. The clipboard module can easily be used to write a convenient utility to demoronize your html.
:-)
Oh right, and take a look at The Perl Power Tools. Put a few of those in your path and it may do something for your sanity.
OTOH you could just install Linux and look innocent...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Hey everybody, name your mirror directory structure such that when they summon you they have to put:
m ent/and/we-have-no-legal-grounds-to-do-t his-to-these-people/dvd-source.txt
... and operates an Internet Web Site addressed as http://domain.com/lawyers-suck/and/this-is-harras
Get your burners, and burn copies of decss to :)
a CD, stick them in jewel cases with just
the label _DVD_Decoding_Software_, and drop them
off in malls, schools, and other high-traffic
(ideally commercial) areas all over the country.
Don't stick your name on it, and you have a way
to help fight IP without disclosing your name
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Sorry, I am a bit confused here.. does it not seem right that the DVD CCA would encourage the creation of DVD playing capabilities on other platforms? It would lead to and increased market for DVDs, and for Linux. I would not be sitting here with this nice box running a crappy (Windows) OS if I could have my DVD's under Linux. My suspicion is that secretly, the DVD CCA and Microshit have a conspiracy going... the CCA gets a little *investment* from big brother MS and helps them keep their monopoly with DVD on the desktop.
How many file systems even support a file in the 4 gig range, what about 6 gigs, or 8 gigs. Dosen't Ext2/3 Max out at 2 gigs?
It's interesting to note, having the dubious distinction of being the first listed on this restraining order application, the activity to my web site has taken a sharp increase. More people have downloaded the program from my server today than in the last 30 days! I suppose I have the law firm to thank for that. "Thanks!"
Andrew Thomas McLaughlin
I mean, many of us actually went so far as to provide real websites, email addresses, and other identifiers. Guess we wanted to be really hard to identify.
/. to identify, for instance, Chris Dibona. Oops, I just posted a link to a link, perhaps I should link the code directly. Ack, perhaps an email would help them. Whoops, that is an anonymous address, ah well, if they ask me at that address I will be willing to give them a more direct contact. (Hint, I live in New York City.)
I somehow don't think that any questions need to be asked of
My point? The USA was founded on the idea that citizens have the right to protest unfair legal actions. Posting code and links here is a form of protest. Protesters usually don't mind being identified, after all if they cannot be identified, what is the point of having protested?
Right.
They can claim the law is on their side. They can claim that the algorithm was secure. They can claim that what I did is unfair to them.
That doesn't make them right.
Another example. Sign a lease for an apartment in New York City. It says that your landlord can enter any time. In fact that is false, no matter what the paper says, that is a right you cannot sign away. But they are allowed to try to convince you that you have signed away that right, even though you have not. And you are free to tell them to get lost.
Well guess what?
I don't think they have a case.
Even if they did, I do not agree with the substance of their position and would not agree with the laws that they could possibly have the case under.
And if forcing the point brings DVDs to Linux sooner, well so much the better.
Regards,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547600297
Somehow, the clams' (Church of Scientology's) "secret" scriptures ended up posted on the Web. Eventually they sued. Result: the court filings became the prime source for their super sekrit scriptures...
... for putting all those handy links into their own court document?
Silly me, I always heard DVD stood for Digital Versatile disc.
Pinheads.
Chris DiBona
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
from the complaint: This proprietary technology, including trade secrets, is currently being licensed by DVD CCA, as the sole duly authorized licensing entity for the CSS technology.
Is this "technology" patented? Nobody stole the code itself. They just re-implemented the algorithm, so copyright isn't an issue (not directly anyway). Every DVD on earth contains the keys, no trade secrets there. If no patents are involved, what need is there for licensing?
The list of "defendants" fills me with pride to be an american. Call out the honor roll!
California!
Dundas Valley, Australia!
Georgia!
Somewhere, Germany!
Indiana!
Kansas!
Maryland!
Minnesota!
New York!
Oklahoma!
Oxford, England!
Pennsylvania!
South Carolina!
Val de Marne, France!
Wedel, Denmark!
and last but not least, the cheese capitol of the world, Wisconsin!
There are some states in the list that I don't recognize, but I'm sure they're swell!
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
First of all the software first reverse-engineered was not encrypted.
Secondly the encryption algorithm they were supposed to use was weak. If they don't use a strong encryption algorithm, then how ascertainable is it?
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Howdyho!
DVD marketers and lawyers can muck with the system for as long as they want. The fact remains that as long as one cannot write to a DVD, there will be a substantially smaller market than for writeable media. If Jimbob can't write his porn to DVD, or Grandma can't create a christmas home video, they're not likely to give up these abilities to attain better video quality. Their NTSC/PAL televisons can't really do much better with it anyway.
One has only to look at VHS vs. Laserdisc for a fair precedence. Laserdisc video was higher quality than VHS (and DVD for that matter, since there was no compression) but it never really went mainstream. Most people could care less about the "superior" quality of the LD and DVD formats. Have a good look at a projection screen sometime, note the spotty color registration and lack of brightness. Despite these shortcomings, people still buy them because it's a (relatively) cheap way to get a large screen when compared to a direct CRT of the same size.
Getting back to the point, until a system with all the capabilities of the previous technology and a few substantial benefits arrives, they aren't going to completely supercede current formats. One can still purchase prerecorded audio cassette tapes for instance. Would this be the case if CDs were as easy and cheap to write to? Probably not.
I'd like the DVD CCA to answer this simple question: How many people are going to belly up for both expensive DVD readers and cheap VHS video recorders? Further, are those people as likely to "pirate" as those who have two VCRs and a stack of blank tapes? Not bloody likely. Are DVD owners in the majority? No, and they won't be for a long time, if ever. DVD will continue to be a niche market until we can either write to and copy them, or they are superceded by better technology. The industry has to realize and embrace this simple fact before VHS will go away and the real money will be made. You have to give a little if you want to take a little, and they currently aren't giving an inch.
Mr. Hankey
GPL: Free as in will
I set up a foreign mirror of the offending program. I want to see them come find me and spank me on my own turf...
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
Deja.com is Doe #60. Seriously. Read the cease&desist letter.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
My suggestion to Chris DiBona:
If indeed there is a rally tomorrow at the Santa Clara Courthouse, print the sourcecode for DeCSS on a few thousand flyers and hand them out. (Gotta love that First Amendment!) --unx
entering a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions, enjoining and restraining Defendants, their officers, directors, principals, agents, servants,employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert, combination or participation with any of them either directly or indirectly, singly or together, from making any further use or otherwise disclosing or distributing, on their web sites or elsewhere, or "linking" to other web sites which disclose, distribute, or "link" to any proprietary property or trade secrets relating to the CSS technology ... (my emphasis)
IANAL - but they want to try an nip any widespread mirroring in the bud before they lose control (I think they have already) - however this pretty much includes anyone in the US who might want to set up a mirror. I suggest that offshore mirrors pop up in as many different places as possible - this forces their lawyers to have to work on many many fronts (very expensive) - and whan/if they come after you raise a public stink and quietly shut your site - if for every site they shut 10 more rise up in protest they can't win. I've watched the same techniques used successfully with the scientology vs. the net brush war over the past few years.
I nominate the broom from the sorcerer's apprentice as the official team mascot.
Reading the complaint I think that it's going to be VERY important to impress on the judge at the very beginning that NONE of the defendants were bound by the trade secret because they were not lisencees of it in fact you need to pull into court the people who did license it and put it out in such a format that it was easy to crack.
I beleive the thing will play out (my guess): an attempt for a temporary restraining order this week (something the judge is probably inclined to grant if he sees probably cause - raising 1st ammendment concerns might derail this) followed by an attempt at a judgement that the alleged trade secret theft occured (might take a year or more and could result in the temporary injunction being made permanent) followed by a penalty phase to assess any damages. A jury trial in Silicon Valley on this issue could be a real hoot (to get a jury the defendants will have to prove that there is some matter of fact in the complaint that must be decided - if it's just arguing about the law then the judge will decide)
As a (somewhat silly) aside - given that info about DeCSS was posted to slashdot this injunction might be read as prohibiting anyone from linking to slashdot at all .... depends on how vindictive the lawyers on the other side are.
I would love to see a test case for linking as a 1st amendment right - this might make a wonderfull test case (or maybe not given that the other side probably has way too many lawyers).
In the first place, anyone can make a bit-by-bit copy of a DVD and sell/give it to his neighbors to play. THAT is piracy. No "illegal" decryption required; all your neighbor needs is a DVD player. Simple as that.
No, what is going on here is simple: they want to force people to use only certain products for *viewing* DVD movies. THAT is ridiculous. There's a thing called "Fair Use" that trumps copyright: I can make a copy of anything I own for my own personal use: like backing up software so that I can preserve a copy, or recording music off the radio for my own personal use. They can't stop this. It is fully legal.
So let's review: pirating a DVD would involve making copies of one's own DVD and passing them to friends/neighbors/customers for free/fee.No decryption is required for this at all, anymore than you would need a video camera or recording studio to make a copy of a VHS video or music CD.
Decrypting a DVD is NOT unethical unless done for unethical purposes -- and since it's not even necessary for purposes of pirating, it's obvious that what is really at issue is NOT control over DVD content but profiting from sales of DVD players.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something -- probably a DVD player.
It's not that I disagree with your point... it's just that I think you forgot the Linux and the BSD communities (which there is heavy overlap between the two) are fighting on the same side here. DVD support for both OS's are lacking, thanks to the short-sightedness of some "industry leaders". Complaining that BSD isn't mentioned here says that the complainer is more concerned about getting air-time for [insert favorite OS here] than the actual issue involved.
Instead of venting here, why not channel that energy to a positive direction? E-mail the DVD CCA and let them know what you think. If you want the voice of BSD heard, then speak up and let them know that you don't like their policies. Write the message from the perspective of a potential customer. Money does talk, you know. There are probably quite a few Linux "bigots" screaming bloody murder over this. Good for them. The great news is that The BSD folks can do the same. This has the side benefit of helping tip the scales of justice towards good (open hardware specifications) rather than evil (copyright laws that hinder rather than spur innovation) by providing a united front between the different OS's.
Go out there! Do something! Being bitter helps no one.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
here ya go: http://ananke.hack.pl, another small mirror of that. enjoy.
--- d'oh
and wondered about the non-metric (thus certainly non-ISO) language there. A 5-inch DVD-ROM won't even fit into my Toshiba notebook's drive! A quick Google search for dvd diameter shows the standard diameter to be 120mm, not 5 inches. Indeed, the third link (as of a few minutes ago) was to Compaq's DVD-ROM and had 4.7 inches right in the summary, no additional clicking required for the non-DVD-owning public! On my calculator, 120/25.4 is about 4.7244 which is closer to 4.5 than 5.0.
Would bringing a "live" DVD drive to the courthouse help, I wonder? (No, I'm not volunteering, I'll be in Washington state that day.)
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Moderate this up !
_________________________
2. US anti-drug laws go after them, no more problem. They'll get more time than a murderer..
BTW: I grabbed the source from signal11. If you want a copy, remove the bad advice from my email address, and ask. Happy Mole Wacking this Armagghedon.
Jeff
This needs to:
50. Information posted on Defendants' web sites establishes that they are fully aware that, in posting or "linking" to the DeCSS program, they are wrongfully appropriating proprietary trade secrets.
Not so. It only establishes that the defendants possess or know of information relating to (ex-)trade secrets. It does not establish wrongfulness, nor does it establish knowledge of a trade secret per se, merely knowledge of the means for bypassing a trade secret.
It does establish an awareness of a hyperlitigious society (say that six times fast!). In this vein, I think the DVD CCA should be countersued in a class action for frivolous and malicious prosecution.
Of course, this is an easy thing to say from behind the safety of my keyboard here in Australia, but OTOH Oz is also a signatory to many extremely dangerous UN and quasi-UN agreements, including WIPO. I think a good place to start would be to write your pollies asking them to UN-sign WIPO (and every other UN mousetrap agreement you can tie in), and point to this fiasco as a reason.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you happen to be French, relax, France has extradition treaty with the US but they don't do it with French citizen. OK, you won't be able to visit US during your life, but there's always a McDonald around that will taste just like it (yuck !!)
> You cannot eat the food you bough cause you need a license" ?
Already been done.
GPL: Free as in will
I went to http://www.DVDCCA.org/ to see what they had to say, and according to their site they will close on Dec 24, 1999 and reopen on jan 3, 2000 this leads me to think something isn't right. On this same note the document being dated Dec 28, 1999 while the people recieving it are getting it on Dec 27, 1999. Add to the fact that in order for this to be a *legal* document it must be Signed and Dated by the witnesses and the author, and/or in some cases a person regocnized by the state to do so. Further more an email can't be legally signed (yet). All in all I would call this a scare tactic. I could be wrong on any or all of these points but this is how I understand the law to apply to legal documents.
the law is easy to understand. lawyers just don't want you to know it! after all, they're making the big bucks! you think they'll tell you the secret to success?! of COURSE NOT, because it'd ruin them!
51. [...] Without such copy protection, the motion picture companies would not have allowed their copyrighted motion pictures to be available in this new digital video format. [...]
Hey, does this mean that future digital media will not carry movies unless they also have shoddy protection schemes? (-:
Analogue media have no serious protection schemes, so I guess movies can't be made available on those, either. It's not terribly difficult to do a digital statistical analysis on multiple playings of an analogue medium (e.g. VHS tape(s)) and closely approach the quality of DVD.
I think what should be really frightening for the movie people is that the price per meg of hard drives is steadily and inevitably dropping to the point where it is becoming cost effective to copy four or five DVD-quality movies onto a sub-20GB hard drive rather than buying originals.
As storage technology breakthroughs like the 140GB multi-layer multi-wavelength CDs become cheaply writeable, the cost per meg is going to get ridiculously low. This taken together with oddments like removable caddies for standard hard drives is probably what the movie people really have in mind, so they're frantically trying to stomp out leaks in their system now.
Sadly for their cause, stomping hard and thoughtlessly on a fire often spreads the fire rather than extinguishing it. Read a few of the messages above, if you don't think this is happening to DVD rippers while you wait.
OTOH, and in practical terms, if they had bothered to release software (a black box tool that could be used by applications as mpg123 is by many MP3 players) to do the actual decoding on a wide variety of systems (Linux, Solaris, *BSD, BeOS, who else?) there would have been much less incentive to to break their scheme.
Instead, they were stingy, hoping to only put in the effort to cover the one or two most popular systems thus making their cries of "pirate" seem rather pathetic and self-serving.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Find hundreds of free web space providers using freewebspace.net.
(this applies to the US only) By using a court order to say that one cannot link to another site on the Internet is 100% illegal, as you cannot block free speech. If this action is taken, I would file a complaint with the ACLU and get your rights protected. x-empt
Ever need an online dictionary?
Full Ruling
Hacker News Network coverage of Ruling
well hmm, x-empt (lvhc at urban-a (dot) net)
Ever need an online dictionary?
In my local Tower Records, there's usually a bin of free AOL CDs and diskettes by the door. I suggest that you go to your local Tower Records or similar DVD-reseller, and request permission to leave a box of your "free DVD-player for non-Windows users" by the door. Tell them the truth - that 99% of DVD players are for Windows, and Linux users (maybe they've heard of Linux while restocking the magazine racks?) are out of luck unless they get these disks. It's all true, right?
How pathetic. In America, not even the Feds pretend they control the Internet... and big business thinks they can scare us into doing their bidding? Fuck 'em. Post anywhere and everywhere. Make your own mirror site. Post the URL all over USENET. Put the URL on fliers and drop off handfuls at your local book and computer stores. Go to your offices and schools and spread the word, the source, and the binaries. ;) And tell your geek friends to fo the same thing. It's time for a good old fashioned grassroots nonviolent protest.
(For those of you interested in violence, put the binaries on CD-ROM and throw the CDs at people like sharp frisbees.)
There's a part of everyone that loves protest. The key is finding a just cause. For movie lovers and geeks alike, this is our Quest, at least until Slashdot posts something else to rile the public.
--
I like to watch.
Yes!! Dude, that rocks! Finally, a use for my collection of free AOL diskettes!
In my local Tower Records, there's usually a bin of free AOL CDs and diskettes by the door. I suggest that you go to your local Tower Records or similar DVD-reseller, and request permission to leave a box of your "free DVD-player for non-Windows users" by the door. Tell them the truth - that 99% of DVD players are for Windows, and Linux users (maybe they've heard of Linux while restocking the magazine racks?) are out of luck unless they get these disks. It's all true, right?
How pathetic. In America, not even the Feds pretend they really control the Internet... and big business thinks they can scare us into doing their bidding? Fuck 'em. Post anywhere and everywhere. Make your own mirror site. Post the URL all over USENET. Put the URL on fliers and drop off handfuls at your local book and computer stores. Go to your offices and schools and spread the word, the source, and the binaries. ;) And tell your geek friends to fo the same thing. It's time for a good old fashioned grassroots nonviolent protest.
(For those of you interested in violence, put the binaries on CD-ROM and throw the CDs at people like sharp frisbees.)
There's a part of everyone that loves protest. The key is finding a just cause. For movie lovers and geeks alike, this is our Quest, at least until Slashdot posts something else to rile the public.
--
I like to watch.
Is anyone organizing a fund? Defending this properly will cost money. I'll start the pot with $10k. Paging Eric Raymond and any VA Linux millionaires..
I believe that even the Digital Millenium Copyright Act protects reverse engineering in the name of software support.... http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ legislation/dmca.pdf
Ever need an online dictionary?
What has struck me as a little odd from the beginning of the DVD encryption thingy, is that (at least in some country's) you have, as the buyer of a audio or video carrier like a VHS tape or an audio CD, the right to make 1 copy of it for your own puposes (like backup in case of your original going bad). Just like all that software CD-ROMS that try to keep you from making a copy, isn't the fact that they use encryption on that DVD illegal? Now I can't make a backup for my own purposes !!!
Of course, that just goes to show how idiotic the whole issue is. If only more people in the legal/judiciary professions had half a clue...
One question - no matter it is trade secret or patent, how effective will the court be, if they have to silence the ENTIRE WORLD?
Some people may have been served court-papers designed to seal-their-lips, but think of this - we are all in the Net, and the more the court tries to seal-lips, the more of us will TALK TO OTHERS about the matter, and the more injunctions handed down by the court, the LOUDER we will talk about it.
Can the court punishes THE WHOLE WORLD?
Of course not.
Let them try, and let them find out that they can no longer use the same-old-routine to step on other people anymore.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
In my humble opinion (IMHO) -
Given: The sole existence of for-profit corporations is to make profits for stockholders.
Given: Corporations seldom look further into the future than quarterly or semi-annually.
Given: Corporations take the clear-cut approach to consumer resources (milk the market dry, then find another market.)
Then: Cooperation is unacceptable because it does not foster the highest amount of return possible within the shortest period of time.
Furthermore, Corporations are collections of humanity, but the collective efforts of the company are inhumane. This is typically due to the dilution of "commonly accepted" ethics and leadership. The legal department does not view the author of DeCSS as a person, but as a threat to revenue figures. The motives and merits of this person's actions are not considered.
Drug companies are often great examples of this. While they have a justifiable need to recoup costs associated with drug research, it is often questionable whether their pricing structures are truly reasonable to the consumer in the end. This goes back to the capitalist vs. socialist argument. I think that capitalism is a fine idea, as long as it is tempered with "commonly-accepted" ethics.
A capitalist society can be beneficial to humanity if, and only if, the participants subscribe to and uphold commonly acceptable ethics. This is to counter the general tendancy of capitalism to shift resources in the direction of a smaller group of people, at the expense of a larger group of people. As long as our society is financially-driven rather than driven by merit (a la Star Trek), we must continue to apply some negative pressure in the form of ethics and compromise in the name of socialism. This does not require mandates, just a less monetary-centric view.
To complement this, I've been reading the "Beggars" series of books by Nancy Kress. The first, "Beggars in Spain" illustrates an alternative view of societal drivers which, while not being the plot of the story itself, does lend itself to further thought. If nothing else, the books have been highly entertaining.
So to make my point clear -
The DVD consortium can not be reasoned with.
Our society is too litigous, trapped in a tunnel-vision directed primarly by greed. The only answer to this problem is to continue breaking down walls that business builds. Our justices are either too decrepit or too corrupt to protect us. Civil disobedience is the only acceptable answer - until we ourselves, or our children, effect positive change.
Be quiet, not silent!
-b-
DeCSS is simply a way to either view or copy DVD. The only reason DVD was delayed is the industry.
It's like the torturer telling his/her victim: confess.. if you do, we let you go.. it's all in your hands, the only one keeping you here is you.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I read the list of defendants, and a few of them aren't living in the USA. How can they be sued in a US court? As an Australian, I'm subject to Australian law, not US law. Or have I missed something obvious?
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
The reason Slashdot works so well as it does lies in its democratic ways:
* People send in suggestions to stories.
* People choose to respond to stories and other posts.
* People are given temporary moderator access.
* People choose to moderate posts.
All this means freedom to the people. Slashdot is a medium by the people for the people. But you have some "proprietary" chains in the string too:
* Creators
* Story posters
* Permanent moderators
For Slashdot these are the weakest links in the chain. That doesn't mean they haven't done a good job, but they can't compete with the rest of the world. (As a side-note, very few people can. Kasparov obviously can.)
But they are nonetheless important, since they keep Slashdot from drifting off course. Even though we have to tolerate mistakes and ego-trips from their part from time to time.
News from Slashdot is extremely biased and put on the "edge" at times. But at least there's a proper system (karma) on here to rectify the situation when it occur, putting matters in balance. This lacks in professional media, thus obscuring such "problems".
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The FTP server in question doesn't accept anonymous transfers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oooohhh, you could hand them out like party favors... Meanwhile, I'm going to try to get a chain mail started about a boy whose dying wish is to watch DVD's on Linux. All he needs is for you to forward this source code to 10 of your friends. Bill "MoneyBags" Gates will then use his email tracking program to award you with $10,000, and donate large sums of money to LiViD, to help them in their task, and to make that little boy's dreams come true...
/*
css-auth.h
----------
typedef unsigned char byte;
struct block {
byte b[5];
};
extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
css-auth.c
----------
* Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
|
| Etc.
|
Time flies like an arrow;
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
This is a list of all the mirrors posted to slashdot so far, as well as from a few other places. Most of them are unverified.
. gz c ss-auth/css-auth.tar.gz g z t h/ a r.bz2
By the way, if you decide to mirror these youself, be sure to mirror the css-auth program (especially source code!) and not the decss.exe program, as the source is much more useful than the binary.
Without further ado, the list:
ftp://cm-d0415.resnet.ucsc.edu/pub/css-auth.tar
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~f.vanwaveren/
http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/deCSS/css-auth.tar.
http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/mycroft/css-au
http://www.eyrie.demon.co.uk/derek/dvd/css
http://livid.on.openprojects.net/css-auth-0_4_t
http://www.cgocable.net/~jdionne/css/
http://members.home.com/christopherlee/dvd/
http://ananke.hack.pl
http://24.108.23.121/DeCSS
http://members.xoom.com/freedecss/
http://63.225.181.97/decss
http://www.bard.org.il/~marc/dvd
http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css/
http://earnestdesigns.com/dvd
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/lacroix/584
http://members.tripod.com/donotsueme/
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/lacroix/584
http://members.tripod.com/donotsueme/
http://www.geocities.com/donotsueme/
http://donotsueme.homepage.com
http://www.homestead.com/donotsueme/index.html
http://donotsueme.freeservers.com/
http://www.angelfire.com/punk/donotsueme
now.. if you tie this story together with some other carzy ass stories that has run on /. lately. apply this to the threat mail: the links to slashdot and/or any other entities are illegal - sue them the use of the name slashdot and any other entity has not been authorized - sue them shapiro is an ugly name -sue him for psychological damages now where is my DeCSS IPO?
... provided they have agreed to keep the secret. If somebody who has NOT entered such a contract with the secret's owner figures out the secret (by himself, with no "guilty knowlege" obtained from someone else who violate such a contract), he is under no obligation to remain silent.
Patents give a government-enforced limited-time monopoly in return for disclosure of the invention. (They exist to encourage the development and disclosure of such ideas.)
Trade secrets can last longer, but they last only as long as the secret is kept. After that they pop like a bubble. The only thing left once the cat is out of the bag is a legal claim against the person who let it out - IF he obtained the secret in violation of an agreement or from an agreement violator.
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer yadda yadda...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
But did they reverse engineer the Xing player in order to retrieve that first key? I would argue that they did NOT, since the key was plainly obvious in the first place.
Whether a judge would buy that or not... well, your guess is as good as mine. But in any case, I think the attack against DECSS is out of line. If these lawyers want to use Xing's license agreement as the focal point of their attack, then I think it could very well backfire on them.
Best regards,
SEAL
I see that they usually mention full URLs in the injunction order. How about everyone changing a few letters of the URL?
Can't hurt can it?
Roger.
I like the "whack-a-mole" term. Too little, too late ;)
One can put some on business cards, different bunch on each card. Heck, tattoo them on your forehead! Will a court restrain you from meeting people face to face, or order you to remove the tattoo?
Moderate this down (-1, Silly)
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
Piracy happens.
It happened with cassette tapes.
It happened with computer programs.
It happened with VHS tapes.
It happened with audio CDs.
It's happening with DVDs.
Yet all of those things are still being sold. Why? Because the profit still greatly outweighs the detrimental effects of piracy.
I think the issue most people here have with this whole DECSS battle is that the DVD Consortium is attempting to use technology to circumvent fair use. In their eyes, ALL copying is illegal, regardless of the purpose. The RIAA is the same way with MP3s.
Well, unfortunately for them, that's not in line with the law in the United States. If I buy a CD, or DVD, or whatever, and I want to make a backup (or anything covered under fair use), then I'm not breaking the law.
I'm so sick of seeing news items like this because each one presents more evidence that the law in the U.S. is on the side with the most money. Irritating in the extreme. Cease and Desist or we'll bleed you dry (even if we don't have a case).
Blah.
SEAL
If memory serves, they couldn't legally protect their intellectual property, i.e. the content. (Hang on that doesn't sound quite right...) At best, they could only add some sort of protection and make it illegal to break that.
In one sense, all this legal biz is legit, albeit horribly misguided. The owners of the content want to control as much as possible what happens to their content and that does mean getting legal at any threats to their control. The misguided bit is, of course, that they think they need this control. The DVD format was delayed a year or two because Hollywood wanted something like this, BTW. It was the same story with those accursed region codes.
Wade.
that would be cool
Well, yes and no. Licensed dvd decoders force Macrovision on you, so recording the output from your dvd decoder doesn't work any better than recording the output of another VCR. In other words, they thought of that.
Remote Selector et al will disable Macrovision and allow you to do precisely what you describe, but I imagine the DVD CCA has the same complaints about disabling Macrovision as it has about cracking CSS.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Again: :>
What jurisdiction does a californian court hold over citizens of another country?
I think I'm gonna buy my own island somewhere and make being Bill Gates illegal and SUUUEEE!!!!
If you're not, there's always a bed here in if you need to flee the country.
Of course, here is Australia, so it's probably not the best place to come, but the offers there, anyway.
You did not yet install Debian on dad's peecee?
Well, before DVD was even realeased, I'd decided not to buy into it. My thought process was simple, "it's the purest example of trying to force closed standards down peoples throats." VHS profited by being open, any company could make VHS w/o paying this hefty fee, and the standard was open to all. Not so with DVD, this time the big boys want the pie all to themselves. /.'ers to help form such a standard, open and honest.
After seeing this, I, as well as my entire company, has decided on boycotting DVD entirely. We were planning on using DVD for our products, but with these events, the fact that DVD was not an "open-standard" as originally promiced, and now them attempting legal trickery to gain whatever they want, we are now seeking an alternative to DVD. Someone else on this list mentioned making an open-standard to compete with DVD, yet brought up the high cost in hardware development. My company (a start-up, but we're willing) would be happy to put our money where it's mouth is, and I'd challenge any other corporate/entrepeneurial
Let us become the VHS to DVD's Betamax.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
from the summons:
A good set of facts, thanks.
What you didn't mention though was how the court would view an attempted action where the number of restrained defendents would have to be in the millions to achieve the desired effect. Isn't the law sensible enough to note that, on this basis alone, the action is pointless?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Give this idea a couple of points.
Flyers, T-Shirts - hell, hire an airplane to write the code in the sky with smoke.
http://www.geocit ies.com/ResearchTriangle/Station/3492/index.html
this site has no real topic, just some random files, one of which happens to be DeCSS.zip
Many think that this whole legal fubar is doing nothing more than give the whole story lots of publicity. True enough, here are some numbers to back it up (number of clients per day):
December 22nd: 37
December 23rd: 38
December 24th: 27
December 25th: 24
December 26th: 47
December 27th: 33
December 28th: 1230, and still counting!!!
So why the heck is anyone using these things?
;) MP3 collection so to me it is a lot more useless then my Yamaha 4-2-6
I like a movie as well as the guy next door, but it always have seen rather odd to me that we must have a special purpose/not so special purpose apparatus to view vid on our comps.
Sure it was a nice push to the sales of vid, but it was doomed to fail. There is no record button for my grandmy to use, so that rules out the video replacement.
It doesnt store my open source
My SCSI ultraplex 40x player can perfectly play MPG's. Or dvd rippoff's for that matter.
So what added value is there for DVD? An itsy bitsy better display on the telly? A few less silver disks for 1 movie?
And as a trade off, im using highly restricted, highly dangerous (what if I move to belgium? will my DVD player still work?) "intellectual property protected" (what the heck IS that anyways? I cannot have an idea similar to yours?)
And I cant record with it. So its bound to make things more expensive for me. Im backing up all my CD collection on wav and MP3. Im really sick and tired of scratching yet another 20$ disk.
I just want a massive recording device, and yes, it would be nifty if it did vid and compdata and the software was for sale on that.
But is has to record.
Hugs SlashDread
Browse /., linux today, lwn.net, and others; find "clued" journalists. Then drop them a line letting them know what's going on: just a link to chris dibona's site would be good.
Let the press know our side ASAP!!!!
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Once the knowledge protected by a trade secret becomes public (by legal or even illegal means) it is no longer a trade secret. This fact has been verified by a respected patent lawyer with a JD. Therefore, the only way that a trade secret remains intact is by it truly remaining secret. If by any means (including reverse engineering) it becomes public knowledge, then the trade secret ceases to exist.
For a good primer on current US intellectual property laws, head over to my old EE professor's web site at:
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~kort um/ee302/lecture/IP/
The PDF version of the lecture is available at:
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~k ortum/ee302/lecture/IP.pdf
This lecture was recently written by a patent lawyer, so I would definitely assume that it is timely and accurate.
I never said the find dialog wasn't powerful. What I said is that Mackido has made a statement which is laugably incorrect: The primary CLI function is to find files based on typed in parameters
That's wrong...and after looking through the rest of the site, it is rife with technical inaccuracies and half truths. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with the Mac, but that site is FUD, pure and simple. And I won't put up with FUD from the MS, Linux, or Mac camps.
--GnrcMan--
How would this work? BTTV cards ($80?) receive television signals, rescale them, and stuff them into a window in real time with little intervention by the CPU. A DVD decoder card could do the exact same thing.
News is the right forum for this kind of thing. Periodically send the code out in a shell archive to a binaries newsgroup, and the lawyers won't have any fixed point at which to aim their actions.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
You never know... if you look you might even find a copy of the source code there, too..... VBG.... I do like the "Page Title", though!
Perhaps they should summon themselves?
Only send nice, well reasoned letters, of course:
DVD Copy Control Association
225 B Cochrane Circle
Morgan Hill CA 95037
EMAIL: john.hoy@lmicp.com
From: http://www.dvdcca.org/contact.html
Here's mine: http://defiance.darktech.org/decss/
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
i'd be interested in talking to anyone who had a problem with it and couldn't get around it within a day.
;)
No you wouldn't...they'd be dumb as a rock.
--GnrcMan--
So that's okay, right?
What are you, some kind of lawyer?
If I recall correctly, the EFF is looking for a plaintiff specifically on the DVD reverse engineering issue. I suggest those involved get in touch with them and look into the possibility of coordinating a counter attack on the DVD Forum. I suspect if this ever went to trial with a reasonably well financed plaintiff, the DVD Forum would stand to lose allot of clout when their licensing terms become unenforcable.
This is about intimidation -- the DVD Forum has allot more to lose in a trial than a plaintiff does.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"The Letter" refers to Digital Video Disk, whereas it was made clear a million times while DVD was being popularized that DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disk.
Doesn't this squash their first-round application on a technicality? (I bet the law firm made the cockup.)
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
http://www.sarahandcasey.com/decss
--GnrcMan--
css-auth.h
/*
/*
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
/* This shuffles the bits in varient to make perm_varient such that
/*
/* In order to ensure that the LFSR works we need to ensure that the
/*
/* Feed the secret into the input values such that
/* This term is used throughout the following to
/* Now the actual blocks doing the encryption. Each
----------
typedef unsigned char byte;
struct block {
byte b[5];
};
extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
css-auth.c
----------
* Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
* These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before
* calling engine() to do the main work.
*
* The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of
* the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to
* try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it
* actually adds anything to the security.
*
* The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied
* parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and
* the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised.
*
* The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first
* (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter.
*
* Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the
* code table driven in order to improve readability.
*
* Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even
* abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining
* the nature of the reordering it has to do.
*/
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output);
void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(varient, scratch, key);
}
* 4 -> !3
* 3 -> 4
* varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> !1
*/
void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d,
0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d,
0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05,
0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key);
}
* 4 -> 0
* 3 -> !1
* varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> 3
*/
void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e,
0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c,
0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f,
0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key);
}
* We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to
* generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams
* are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final
* sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that
* 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer.
*
* The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of:
* x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1
*
* The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of:
* x^15 + x^1 + 1
*
* I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus
* represent maximal-period LFSR's.
*
*
* Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in
* bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's
* are implemented in bit reversed order.
*
*/
static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, struct block const *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte carry;
* initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s->b[0] b[1] b[2] & ~7) b[2] & 7);
lfsr1 = (s->b[3] b[4];
++output;
carry = 0;
do {
int bit;
byte val;
for (bit = 0, val = 0; bit > 24) ^ (lfsr0 >> 21) ^ (lfsr0 >> 20) ^ (lfsr0 >> 12)) & 1;
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 > 16) ^ (lfsr1 >> 2)) & 1;
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 > 1) & 1)
combined = !o_lfsr1 + carry + !o_lfsr0;
carry = BIT1(combined);
val |= BIT0(combined) 0);
}
static byte Secret[];
static byte Varients[];
static byte Table0[];
static byte Table1[];
static byte Table2[];
static byte Table3[];
* This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations
* one the same theme depending upon the choice in the
* varient parameter (0 - 31).
*
* The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into
* a 40 bit output.
* The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of
* the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed
* by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number
* generators.
*/
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output)
{
byte cse, term, index;
struct block temp1;
struct block temp2;
byte bits[30];
int i;
* we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then
* generate the bits to play with.
*/
for (i = 5; --i >= 0; )
temp1.b[i] = input[5 + i] ^ Secret[i] ^ Table2[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1);
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = Varients[varient] ^ Table2[varient];
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = input[i]) {
index = bits[25 + i] ^ input[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[20 + i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp2.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {
index = bits[15 + i] ^ temp2.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp1.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index];
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[10 + i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp2.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index];
}
temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {
index = bits[5 + i] ^ temp2.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
output->b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
}
static byte Varients[] = {
0xB7, 0x74, 0x85, 0xD0, 0xCC, 0xDB, 0xCA, 0x73,
0x03, 0xFE, 0x31, 0x03, 0x52, 0xE0, 0xB7, 0x42,
0x63, 0x16, 0xF2, 0x2A, 0x79, 0x52, 0xFF, 0x1B,
0x7A, 0x11, 0xCA, 0x1A, 0x9B, 0x40, 0xAD, 0x01};
static byte Secret[] = {0x55, 0xD6, 0xC4, 0xC5, 0x28};
static byte Table0[] = {
0xB7, 0xF4, 0x82, 0x57, 0xDA, 0x4D, 0xDB, 0xE2,
0x2F, 0x52, 0x1A, 0xA8, 0x68, 0x5A, 0x8A, 0xFF,
0xFB, 0x0E, 0x6D, 0x35, 0xF7, 0x5C, 0x76, 0x12,
0xCE, 0x25, 0x79, 0x29, 0x39, 0x62, 0x08, 0x24,
0xA5, 0x85, 0x7B, 0x56, 0x01, 0x23, 0x68, 0xCF,
0x0A, 0xE2, 0x5A, 0xED, 0x3D, 0x59, 0xB0, 0xA9,
0xB0, 0x2C, 0xF2, 0xB8, 0xEF, 0x32, 0xA9, 0x40,
0x80, 0x71, 0xAF, 0x1E, 0xDE, 0x8F, 0x58, 0x88,
0xB8, 0x3A, 0xD0, 0xFC, 0xC4, 0x1E, 0xB5, 0xA0,
0xBB, 0x3B, 0x0F, 0x01, 0x7E, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0xD9,
0xAA, 0xB8, 0x3D, 0x9D, 0x74, 0x1E, 0x25, 0xDB,
0x37, 0x56, 0x8F, 0x16, 0xBA, 0x49, 0x2B, 0xAC,
0xD0, 0xBD, 0x95, 0x20, 0xBE, 0x7A, 0x28, 0xD0,
0x51, 0x64, 0x63, 0x1C, 0x7F, 0x66, 0x10, 0xBB,
0xC4, 0x56, 0x1A, 0x04, 0x6E, 0x0A, 0xEC, 0x9C,
0xD6, 0xE8, 0x9A, 0x7A, 0xCF, 0x8C, 0xDB, 0xB1,
0xEF, 0x71, 0xDE, 0x31, 0xFF, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x5E,
0x07, 0x69, 0x96, 0xB0, 0xCF, 0xDD, 0x9E, 0x47,
0xC7, 0x96, 0x8F, 0xE4, 0x2B, 0x59, 0xC6, 0xEE,
0xB9, 0x86, 0x9A, 0x64, 0x84, 0x72, 0xE2, 0x5B,
0xA2, 0x96, 0x58, 0x99, 0x50, 0x03, 0xF5, 0x38,
0x4D, 0x02, 0x7D, 0xE7, 0x7D, 0x75, 0xA7, 0xB8,
0x67, 0x87, 0x84, 0x3F, 0x1D, 0x11, 0xE5, 0xFC,
0x1E, 0xD3, 0x83, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x29, 0xF6, 0xC7,
0x15, 0x61, 0x29, 0x1A, 0x43, 0x4F, 0x9B, 0xAF,
0xC5, 0x87, 0x34, 0x6C, 0x0F, 0x3B, 0xA8, 0x1D,
0x45, 0x58, 0x25, 0xDC, 0xA8, 0xA3, 0x3B, 0xD1,
0x79, 0x1B, 0x48, 0xF2, 0xE9, 0x93, 0x1F, 0xFC,
0xDB, 0x2A, 0x90, 0xA9, 0x8A, 0x3D, 0x39, 0x18,
0xA3, 0x8E, 0x58, 0x6C, 0xE0, 0x12, 0xBB, 0x25,
0xCD, 0x71, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x64, 0xC6, 0xE7, 0xFB,
0xAD, 0x94, 0x77, 0x04, 0x9A, 0x39, 0xCF, 0x7C};
static byte Table1[] = {
0x8C, 0x47, 0xB0, 0xE1, 0xEB, 0xFC, 0xEB, 0x56,
0x10, 0xE5, 0x2C, 0x1A, 0x5D, 0xEF, 0xBE, 0x4F,
0x08, 0x75, 0x97, 0x4B, 0x0E, 0x25, 0x8E, 0x6E,
0x39, 0x5A, 0x87, 0x53, 0xC4, 0x1F, 0xF4, 0x5C,
0x4E, 0xE6, 0x99, 0x30, 0xE0, 0x42, 0x88, 0xAB,
0xE5, 0x85, 0xBC, 0x8F, 0xD8, 0x3C, 0x54, 0xC9,
0x53, 0x47, 0x18, 0xD6, 0x06, 0x5B, 0x41, 0x2C,
0x67, 0x1E, 0x41, 0x74, 0x33, 0xE2, 0xB4, 0xE0,
0x23, 0x29, 0x42, 0xEA, 0x55, 0x0F, 0x25, 0xB4,
0x24, 0x2C, 0x99, 0x13, 0xEB, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0xC9,
0xF9, 0x63, 0x67, 0x43, 0x2D, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x07,
0x60, 0x89, 0xD1, 0xCC, 0xE7, 0x94, 0x77, 0x74,
0x9B, 0x7E, 0xD7, 0xE6, 0xFF, 0xBB, 0x68, 0x14,
0x1E, 0xA3, 0x25, 0xDE, 0x3A, 0xA3, 0x54, 0x7B,
0x87, 0x9D, 0x50, 0xCA, 0x27, 0xC3, 0xA4, 0x50,
0x91, 0x27, 0xD4, 0xB0, 0x82, 0x41, 0x97, 0x79,
0x94, 0x82, 0xAC, 0xC7, 0x8E, 0xA5, 0x4E, 0xAA,
0x78, 0x9E, 0xE0, 0x42, 0xBA, 0x28, 0xEA, 0xB7,
0x74, 0xAD, 0x35, 0xDA, 0x92, 0x60, 0x7E, 0xD2,
0x0E, 0xB9, 0x24, 0x5E, 0x39, 0x4F, 0x5E, 0x63,
0x09, 0xB5, 0xFA, 0xBF, 0xF1, 0x22, 0x55, 0x1C,
0xE2, 0x25, 0xDB, 0xC5, 0xD8, 0x50, 0x03, 0x98,
0xC4, 0xAC, 0x2E, 0x11, 0xB4, 0x38, 0x4D, 0xD0,
0xB9, 0xFC, 0x2D, 0x3C, 0x08, 0x04, 0x5A, 0xEF,
0xCE, 0x32, 0xFB, 0x4C, 0x92, 0x1E, 0x4B, 0xFB,
0x1A, 0xD0, 0xE2, 0x3E, 0xDA, 0x6E, 0x7C, 0x4D,
0x56, 0xC3, 0x3F, 0x42, 0xB1, 0x3A, 0x23, 0x4D,
0x6E, 0x84, 0x56, 0x68, 0xF4, 0x0E, 0x03, 0x64,
0xD0, 0xA9, 0x92, 0x2F, 0x8B, 0xBC, 0x39, 0x9C,
0xAC, 0x09, 0x5E, 0xEE, 0xE5, 0x97, 0xBF, 0xA5,
0xCE, 0xFA, 0x28, 0x2C, 0x6D, 0x4F, 0xEF, 0x77,
0xAA, 0x1B, 0x79, 0x8E, 0x97, 0xB4, 0xC3, 0xF4};
static byte Table2[] = {
0xB7, 0x75, 0x81, 0xD5, 0xDC, 0xCA, 0xDE, 0x66,
0x23, 0xDF, 0x15, 0x26, 0x62, 0xD1, 0x83, 0x77,
0xE3, 0x97, 0x76, 0xAF, 0xE9, 0xC3, 0x6B, 0x8E,
0xDA, 0xB0, 0x6E, 0xBF, 0x2B, 0xF1, 0x19, 0xB4,
0x95, 0x34, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x37, 0x94, 0x5D, 0x7B,
0x36, 0x5F, 0x65, 0x53, 0x07, 0xE2, 0x89, 0x11,
0x98, 0x85, 0xD9, 0x12, 0xC1, 0x9D, 0x84, 0xEC,
0xA4, 0xD4, 0x88, 0xB8, 0xFC, 0x2C, 0x79, 0x28,
0xD8, 0xDB, 0xB3, 0x1E, 0xA2, 0xF9, 0xD0, 0x44,
0xD7, 0xD6, 0x60, 0xEF, 0x14, 0xF4, 0xF6, 0x31,
0xD2, 0x41, 0x46, 0x67, 0x0A, 0xE1, 0x58, 0x27,
0x43, 0xA3, 0xF8, 0xE0, 0xC8, 0xBA, 0x5A, 0x5C,
0x80, 0x6C, 0xC6, 0xF2, 0xE8, 0xAD, 0x7D, 0x04,
0x0D, 0xB9, 0x3C, 0xC2, 0x25, 0xBD, 0x49, 0x63,
0x8C, 0x9F, 0x51, 0xCE, 0x20, 0xC5, 0xA1, 0x50,
0x92, 0x2D, 0xDD, 0xBC, 0x8D, 0x4F, 0x9A, 0x71,
0x2F, 0x30, 0x1D, 0x73, 0x39, 0x13, 0xFB, 0x1A,
0xCB, 0x24, 0x59, 0xFE, 0x05, 0x96, 0x57, 0x0F,
0x1F, 0xCF, 0x54, 0xBE, 0xF5, 0x06, 0x1B, 0xB2,
0x6D, 0xD3, 0x4D, 0x32, 0x56, 0x21, 0x33, 0x0B,
0x52, 0xE7, 0xAB, 0xEB, 0xA6, 0x74, 0x00, 0x4C,
0xB1, 0x7F, 0x82, 0x99, 0x87, 0x0E, 0x5E, 0xC0,
0x8F, 0xEE, 0x6F, 0x55, 0xF3, 0x7E, 0x08, 0x90,
0xFA, 0xB6, 0x64, 0x70, 0x47, 0x4A, 0x17, 0xA7,
0xB5, 0x40, 0x8A, 0x38, 0xE5, 0x68, 0x3E, 0x8B,
0x69, 0xAA, 0x9B, 0x42, 0xA5, 0x10, 0x01, 0x35,
0xFD, 0x61, 0x9E, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x9C, 0x86, 0xED,
0xCD, 0x2E, 0xFF, 0xC4, 0x5B, 0xA0, 0xAE, 0xCC,
0x4B, 0x3B, 0x03, 0xBB, 0x1C, 0x2A, 0xAC, 0x0C,
0x3F, 0x93, 0xC7, 0x72, 0x7A, 0x09, 0x22, 0x3D,
0x45, 0x78, 0xA9, 0xA8, 0xEA, 0xC9, 0x6A, 0xF7,
0x29, 0x91, 0xF0, 0x02, 0x18, 0x3A, 0x4E, 0x7C};
static byte Table3[] = {
0x73, 0x51, 0x95, 0xE1, 0x12, 0xE4, 0xC0, 0x58,
0xEE, 0xF2, 0x08, 0x1B, 0xA9, 0xFA, 0x98, 0x4C,
0xA7, 0x33, 0xE2, 0x1B, 0xA7, 0x6D, 0xF5, 0x30,
0x97, 0x1D, 0xF3, 0x02, 0x60, 0x5A, 0x82, 0x0F,
0x91, 0xD0, 0x9C, 0x10, 0x39, 0x7A, 0x83, 0x85,
0x3B, 0xB2, 0xB8, 0xAE, 0x0C, 0x09, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x1C, 0xE1, 0x8D, 0x66, 0x4F, 0xF3, 0xDA, 0x92,
0x29, 0xB9, 0xD5, 0xC5, 0x77, 0x47, 0x22, 0x53,
0x14, 0xF7, 0xAF, 0x22, 0x64, 0xDF, 0xC6, 0x72,
0x12, 0xF3, 0x75, 0xDA, 0xD7, 0xD7, 0xE5, 0x02,
0x9E, 0xED, 0xDA, 0xDB, 0x4C, 0x47, 0xCE, 0x91,
0x06, 0x06, 0x6D, 0x55, 0x8B, 0x19, 0xC9, 0xEF,
0x8C, 0x80, 0x1A, 0x0E, 0xEE, 0x4B, 0xAB, 0xF2,
0x08, 0x5C, 0xE9, 0x37, 0x26, 0x5E, 0x9A, 0x90,
0x00, 0xF3, 0x0D, 0xB2, 0xA6, 0xA3, 0xF7, 0x26,
0x17, 0x48, 0x88, 0xC9, 0x0E, 0x2C, 0xC9, 0x02,
0xE7, 0x18, 0x05, 0x4B, 0xF3, 0x39, 0xE1, 0x20,
0x02, 0x0D, 0x40, 0xC7, 0xCA, 0xB9, 0x48, 0x30,
0x57, 0x67, 0xCC, 0x06, 0xBF, 0xAC, 0x81, 0x08,
0x24, 0x7A, 0xD4, 0x8B, 0x19, 0x8E, 0xAC, 0xB4,
0x5A, 0x0F, 0x73, 0x13, 0xAC, 0x9E, 0xDA, 0xB6,
0xB8, 0x96, 0x5B, 0x60, 0x88, 0xE1, 0x81, 0x3F,
0x07, 0x86, 0x37, 0x2D, 0x79, 0x14, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x73, 0xDF, 0x3D, 0x09, 0xC8, 0x25, 0x48, 0xD8,
0x75, 0x60, 0x9A, 0x08, 0x27, 0x4A, 0x2C, 0xB9,
0xA8, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x73, 0x62, 0x37, 0x16, 0x02,
0xBD, 0xC1, 0x0E, 0x56, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x14, 0x5F,
0x8C, 0x8F, 0x6E, 0x75, 0x1C, 0x07, 0x39, 0x7B,
0x4B, 0xDB, 0xD3, 0x4B, 0x1E, 0xC8, 0x7E, 0xFE,
0x3E, 0x72, 0x16, 0x83, 0x7D, 0xEE, 0xF5, 0xCA,
0xC5, 0x18, 0xF9, 0xD8, 0x68, 0xAB, 0x38, 0x85,
0xA8, 0xF0, 0xA1, 0x73, 0x9F, 0x5D, 0x19, 0x0B,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x33, 0x72, 0x39, 0x25, 0x67, 0x26, 0x6D, 0x71,
0x36, 0x77, 0x3C, 0x20, 0x62, 0x23, 0x68, 0x74,
0xC3, 0x82, 0xC9, 0x15, 0x57, 0x16, 0x5D, 0x81};
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
> The lovely thing is, as a defendant, there is federal legislation that says I can request a change of venue to my own local jurisdiction which they cannot (generally) refuse
Very interesting!
Do you have references/links, so I can look this up for myself?
Cheers
Why picking on schoolteachers is so popular these days is beyond me. Would you like to be a cat-herder, I mean a public-school teacher? I happen to know a schoolteacher personally, so I am more sympathetic. Also, I'd bet money that the average of all slashdot posters, including not just all those chronic misspellers but also the Natalie Portman fans, are fifteen IQ points above the norm. Lot of programmers in that bunch, and it takes mucho brains to hack.
Your "illiterates" were brought up post-literate by TV. Who needs to read when you've got TV? Everything worthwhile that a corporation can do with a book or a magazine (that is, propaganda or advertising), TV does so much better. Because TV is completely one-way! They talk, you listen. They act, you stare.
But what is this article about? A technology for playing TV shows. As a matter of principle - Hell, as a matter of simple self-preservation for the "Linux community" - slashdot readers should fight the DVD CCA sharks, but I'd way rather defend Larry Flynt's right to sell his disgusting magazine, than help spread yet more more more TV.
Anyway misusing "to beg the question" is miscomprehension of an idiom, not either a spelling nor a grammar error. Just thought I'd be fussy; no offense intended, don't take it personally.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
And I also can't really speak to the merits of the charge of misappropriation of trade secrets. Note that trade secrets as an area of law is largely defined at the state level, so you'll need to look into California law.
Having said that, there is some case law in the 9th circuit (which includes California) that may be positive.
Although the charge is misappropriation of trade secrets, it seems that the underlying complaint is an enablement of violation of copyright. If this underlying complaint can be answered then the misappropriation is harmless.
I argue that the defendants have a right to possession of the DeCSS software under section 117(a) of Title 17 of the US Code. Briefly, that section of law limits the exclusive right of copyright holders of software; owners have the explicit right to make backup copies for their own archival purposes.
This was has been tested in case law, and unfortunately I don't have my law books handy, but a case in the mid-eighties concerned a maker of a disk-copying software sued by a maker of copy-protection software. The defendant successfully argued that since owners have a right to back up software, and they could not do so without his (or similar) product, his product was legal.
This is the tricky step: DVDs contain software and data. I argue that the right to backup software extends to the entire disk, including data. As a broader claim, we can fall back on fair use; since DSS stops us from fair use of the movie, we have a right to employ software that gives us back those rights.
This theory is discussed in Lessig's excellent book _Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace_. A legal theorist (not related) named Cohen says that we have the right to hack copy-protection schemes that violate fair use. This is known as the Cohen Doctine.
VERY interesting that they are acknowleding STATE CITIZENSHIP.
BILL OF RIGHTS
ARTICLE XVI
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Cheers
here's the in-depth dvd faq: http://www.videodiscovery.com/ vdyweb/dvd/dvdfaq.html
it answers pretty much most of the questions that concern the standard dvd players
...sie sind nicht grün
So, let us summarize this:
This is just too obviously bogus. Evidently they are only trying to spread FUD.
They might have had a case against Derek Fawcus, although even that seems dubious. Now that he retracted, they have no case against anyone.
E pur si muove!
This entire situation only makes sense if the DVD people want DeCSS distributed. Now they can use this as an excuse when they tell the public that their old DVD players are now useless and they have to buy new ones with whatever new copy protection scheme they come up with. They can try to blame everything on the evil "pirates" and avoid the adverse public reaction.
... syphilis in a fraternity house. (i'm in one, so don't get all worked up, it's a joke :) I know everyone hates the evils of chain emails, but think of how fast this information could be spread to people who otherwise wouldn't know that CSS can be defeated. Who the hell are the lawyers going to pin it on then? (send it to 15 people because it's actually useful) You can even expand it to include things like ICQ (because unless you forward this msg, you're going to be kicked from the system). j
AMEN!
They SHOULD have been shut out of the American marketplace altogether for that one.
Just FYI to anyone who is concerned about this discrepancy. The search that should be used is: this one.
The DMCA was ratified by the 105th Congress, and not the current 106th. Thomas' default search turns up the wrong h.r.2281 if you're searching the wrong Congress.
Pratik Dave
ps: Did anyone besides me notice that they used the former term of art, "Digital Video Disc" rather than "Digital Versatile Disc?"
it was on two cds, not exactly DVD quality, but it was still very high quality (for vcd).
spoo
http://domain.com/any.lawyer.who/quotes.this.url/g ives.permission/for.his.residence.to.be. searched/any.bootleg.audio/video/tape.found/nullif ies.legal.and.moral.standing/dvd-source. txt
Did you know Diet Coke actually has quite a few calories, they just print 0 on the can and pay the false advertising fine every year.
Do the Evolution
But did they reverse engineer the Xing player in order to retrieve that first key? I would argue that they did NOT, since the key was plainly obvious in the first place.
;) Just looking at a hex dump of a file can be considered reverse engineering.
Was it? Just because something is not encrypted doesn't make it equivalent to "plainly obvious" (unless of course it was in a separate file marked "decrypt.dat".
I believe the prior^^ poster had a good point, though -- the DCMA expressly permits reverse-engineering for the purpose of making software interoperable with other programs. Although in this case it was the data format that was RE'd, it was done to permit the use of DVDs with Linux, which I would argue was a legitimate commercial* endeavor.
* Can OSS be considered "commercial", if it's free (as in beer)? Does the GPL secure "commercial" rights, or does there explicitly have to be some pecuniary consideration?
Just junk food for thought...
plato.nebulanet.net:88/css/
They may be able to claim copyright on the set of keys or the datatables used in the code if they were lifted from any program. What needs to happen now is someone needs to generate a new way of finding and storing keys as well as building the needed table.
it wouldn't have anything to do with your sexual organ, would it?! and i'm not even from "oz"
hmmm I dunno....
As a person whose Tax dollars pay for the US
government to research things...I have no problem
with it.
In fact...I am pissed that the technology wasn't
released to the public. Afterall...we paid for
the research, we should get to know about it and
all of how it works.
Secrets are for private individuals and corrupt
regeimes.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
http://kesagatame.tripod.com
http://www.angelfire.com/pokemon/decss
Fight the power.
And everyone who is capable of downloading it, please, if it is possible, mirror the files somewhere else. Geocities, angelfire, tripod, xoom, your ISP, whatever. Stupidity is a demon we _can_ overcome.
Levine
I suppose your expert English skills are what lead you to this conclusion? Maybe you should be more concerned with the spelling and grammar of your own work rather than whining about someone elses. Some examples of your literary prowess:
"discusted"
"tallents"
"illconceeved"
"ligitimate"
I could go on, but you get the point. I'll close with a quote from you:
"There is more to [editing] that you have yet grasped."
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
You divided by zero in your third-from-last step.
X-Y=0
;-)
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
email me.
-- 100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST. "The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'" Free Kevin,
The only stipulation is that you give the opposing party 24 hours notice so that they have a chance to come in to speak on their own behalf. The clerk thought that parhaps any John Does (or named defendants) could walk in on some later day and ask for an emergency lifting of whatever order what granted in this first meeting.
Paragraph 21 seems to be another case where our own bad manners cause us trouble:
Energy: time to change the picture.
Surely the best way to fight such things is the wa Gandhi did. If everyone of us uses "illegal" software, then there's no way for them to fight us all. Another way is boycotting DVD manufacturers.... As with Amazon, the problem lies in the people, who are both ignorant and careless about these problems, unless they go out in the main newpapers... Well, I guess we can all boycott DVD proprietary technology (not just players, remember propietary DVD decoding SW & HW already paid their fee for licensing the patent..) as well as we are boycotting Amazon. Saludos, Hugonz
2. Try to get help from the ACLU, PEN, and other free-speech organizations. (EFF is probably a non-starter nowadays.)
3. Someone who understands the algorithm, but hasn't looked at the Xing code, should write up how DVD encryption works and publish it. Write a good journal article, submit it to Cryptologia and maybe some IEEE or ACM journal. Include enough detail to implement the algorithm. Critique it. Send the article to USENET sci.crypt as well. That should deal with the trade secret issue.
If we don't deal with this crap, we're going to end up with machines as closed as a Nintendo. That's what the SMDI coalition wants, as discussed on Slashdot a few weeks back. Already, to get the Windows logo on PC hardware, the manufacturer has to have a "licensed DVD decoder". If this doesn't get dealt with, it could kill Linux on the desktop, because Linux won't be allowed to play audio or video media.
I am not a video expert, but there do seem to be some problems with MPEG compression...I have DSS, which I believe uses mpeg compression, and there are times (especially explosions) when the flames become fairly pixelated. Nothing extreme, but it is enough for me to notice. Does anyone else know what I am talking about? I know I am not the only one out there who has heard about the problems with representing motion using MPEG compression
Not so with VHS, either. VHS was developed by JVC in reponse to Sony's refusal to license the Beta format in an effort to keep the home video market to itself. Like Beta, there is a set of specifications that a manufacturer must license from JVC and meet before selling VCRs bearing the VHS mark.
VHS is so ubiquitous because unlike Sony, JVC understood that inexpensive licensing on a large scale was the key to making the format the success that it is. It's for that reason the (technically superior) Beta format is now used exclusively by the broadcast and video production industries.
What about open source hardware design?
It will need more people, but I think we may be reaching a stage where we as a collective would be capable of at the very least designing such a thing. (building it is another story)
The only thing getting in the way as best I can tell are a few good opensource development tools. Is anyone aware of any virtual simulation environments of real world devices that are available? Basically something that can be used to test designs (at least the mechanics).
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
From The Letter:
"Defendants' actions threaten the financial stability of this new digital video format for viewing movies and other images -- which has thus far been well received by the consuming public."
- Seems to me that enabling the use of DVD with Linux would _increase_ the DVD market - since now more of us would be able to view them. We'd end up buying _more_ DVDs.
Also, from paragraph 38 - "The CSS Agreement mandates that licensees provide the proprietary CSS technology at issue only to the strictest minimum number of licensee's employees who require access to the information, beginning with only three employees and expanding beyond three only upon notification to the licensor of the names of the additional employees. Licensees who violate these requirements are subject to liquidated damages in the amount of $1 million per violation (with a cap based on profits made from the sale of licensed products). "
- This sounds like they should be going after the company who didn't encrypt their key properly (Xing), rather than the people who cracked it.
And even scarier is paragraph 47 - "On information and belief, this proprietary information was obtained by willfully "hacking" and/or improperly reverse engineering software created by CSS licensee Xing Technology Corporation ("Xing"). Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which specifically prohibits reverse engineering. "
- The last sentence says it all. "Xing's software is and was licensed to users under a license agreement which specifically prohibits reverse engineering."
Let's read that again "...licensed to users under a license agreement..."
I don't know about the specific DVD disk they used, but none of the DVDs _I_ bought ever had an EULA.
It sounds to me as if CCA are trying to nail people for violating a nonexistant license agreement.
|0|4
=====
Does steel wool come from iron sheep?
reverend lola
the titanium sheep
provider of steel wool
Since I normally am pretty calm, I wanted to break from the norm today. My goal is to use at least 30 explitives in my explaination...
What the fuck is wrong with you assholes who cannot figure out that this fucking awesome hack was done not to fuck you over. God forbid anyone fuck *you* over. It is about *us* getting fucked over all the fucking time! We are sick and tired of having to fucking play by *your* rules all the time and wait for *you* to decide when you fucking feel like releasing a player for Linux. (9)
This is about fucking freedom of choice. I don't give a fuck if you are afraid of pirating. I give a fuck about *me* being able to use *MY* (get this, I have legally purchased several fucking DVDs! *even some non-fucking ones*) DVDs. I want the ability to play *MY* DVDs on my Linux boxes. I am sick and tired of having to boot into a fucking Microsoft product to watch "The Matrix". (15)
These are *MY* fucking DVDs and I can do whatever the fuck I want with them, as long as I don't give copies away to people. If I want to use my DVD's as nipple rings, I can - and you can't do a fucking thing about it! (18)
Have you guys had your fucking heads in a hole the past year? Open Source fucking works! People just want choices. If I feel like changing part of a product that I fucking own, and then post instructions to tell others how to do it too, I should not have to worry about some fuckhead coming along and hitting me with a fucking lawsuit. (23)
So, in fucking conclusion. You can bet your fucking sweet ass that the hack will show up on my website. If they close it down, then fuck you very much. Show me some fucking *proof* that *my* posting instuctions to help others has caused others to pirate DVD's and cheat those who deserve the money out of it. (27)
Fuck, I need another fucking paragraph to complete my fucking quest for 30. (30)
I really do hope that the DVD pricks are listening. If they'd like an edited version, I could probably come up with one when I am not so pissed about my fucking RIGHTS being trampled upon!
Fuck you very much.
Brent (Perlguy)
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me
(Yes, some bytes from table2 are used in a couple of other places, but in those places, they are just xor'ed with constant bytes from other tables that are only used once...so those other tables can just be changed to contain the xor'ed values).
Basically, if you take css-auth.c, and use it as the basis to write a spec for what css-auth has to do, and then optimize that spec and give it to someone to implement, they will end up with something that looks nothing like css-auth.c.
I assume that the DeCSS authors didn't optimize because they wanted to document exactly what the code they reverse-engineered was doing.
However, can anyone explain why that original code wasn't optimized. We aren't talking anything deep here...these are trivial optimizations.
My guesses: (1) perhaps it was an attempt to obfuscate, to make it more confusing to reverse-engineer, or (2) the hashing used in css-auth (I say hashing rather than encryption because engine() is not one-to-one) is not just from DVD but is used in something else and they just copied that implementation, and that something else makes more use of those tables in such a way that it does make sense to have four tables.
Anyone have the real story?
If breaking encryption is illegal, then most of the world's intellegence agency's must be in real trouble.
Why even bother encrypting at all if it's illegal to copy it? By encrypting the product your just drawing attention to yourself.
Is it not a "good thing" when your encryption is cracked and therefore the weakness is brought to your attention.
If the License Agreement says that reverse engineering is illegal, then why when I run a DVD don't I have to agree with the license? Is it another one of those License Agreements that bind's the purchaser without his knowledge? Or do I have to try to hack it to find out that I'm not supposed to?
I'd still probably watch DVD's if I had to agree to the license every time. I probably wouldn't even copy them.
It's a question of your right of ownership, when you buy media is it yours? Are you licensing the use on the media you bought? Are you 'renting' use of the media? Can you make a backup? Can you attempt to transfer the information to another media type? Can you transfer to another media type only if you own the original player and the transfer machine, and the new-media-type player?
Basicly what I'm saying is do you own the information, the media, or the use?
Hey, I'm a Luxembourger
I know this is probably going to fall victim to Late Post Syndrome(TM), but here goes.
/. for the past day or so has convinced me that this entire thing is absurd. It would certainly do the same to any other judge or jury. Anyone who argues at the courthouse, consider beginning your argument with a quote from Slashdot! The people who talk on this are incredibly intelligent, talented writers; most of the time, their opinions are unheard in the general public. This is your chance.
If you do see this, please moderate it to just a 2 or a 3 just so as many people as possible can see it. That's all I ask. Thank you.
Everyone who is going to the courthouse: print out a copy of this page on Slashdot. I know it seems crazy, but have your threshhold set to 3 before you do it. That's still over fifty very good, insightful things people have said.
What I've seen on
Make their opinions heard.
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
It doesn't take much of a assembly programmer to de-complie a binary, and peek inside. Sure it may take a few weeks to map everything out. But really, to me Binary's are source code. Just because not everyone knows how to translate, (basic math) doesn't mean that they didn't send it out OpenSource anyway. I can't beleive they are even trying to pull that crap. I hate this country.
"What do you do with the mad that you feel when you feel so mad you could bite?" - Mister Rogers
I live in a small apartment. While I want to rent movies from time to time, there isn't much on television that interests me. Why should I waste money (and more importantly, space) on a television, good sound system, and 'console' DVD player, when I've already got a PC with a fast processor, good A/V capabilities, and a DVD-ROM drive?
If you've got plenty of space and money to burn, I guess a big home theater system is worth it. But for those of us who like to keep things simple, DVDs on the desktop make sense.
DVD will be the next betamax player, because of the recording industry. Look at the new layered optical ROMs coming out now. The new ROMs hold much more than a DVD and I doubt anyone will make the mistake of another CSS.
If you can uncrypt it to watch it you can make copys from your S video out or even frame capture. I guess DVD is about as useful as a 5.25 floppy with all the ~100 titles anyway.
Death to DVD! Don't buy any DVDs or DVD players, and encourage others not to buy. You make a vote with every dollar.
If the recording industry is going to act like a baby over new formats, then they will get trampled on the way to the road of new technology. It happened with MP3s... It happened with VCDs... Now DVDs will die before taking off...
- Citizen #67facb2
http://hellstunas.org/~wench/decss
And if anyone's interested, 2600 is maintaining a registry of mirrors at:
http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227-hel p.html
Good luck, all.
Leilah
~ Leilah
In order to not completely fragment the progress of the dvd decypher code, how about putting a cvs repository on a server residing in a country which is untouchable by U.S. laws? Another alternative is to have the files spread across different servers and unified with cvs, but I don't think that has been done yet. So which country is immune?
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
-Legion
It's become a sad day when companies deal with either their own or others' incompetence by resorting to legal means. Corporations have large legal budgets, and the mere threat of a lawsuit is so expensive for individuals to counter that nowadays filing a suit is the equivalent of a gag order, whether the suit is warranted or not.
What is more, judges who are by and large ignorant of the issues at play make things worse by issuing warrants and injunctions which play right into corporations' hands, and ruling in ways which make their competence questionable at best (e.g. eToys).
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the limited amount of legal relief which so-called "tort reform" promised is far, far from being sufficient, and as such have not diminished the use of legal means as a weapon used by companies against individuals and other companies.
TAE
My sig is too lon
Look in that statement, there charging members.ZOOM.com lol that guy got off easy, "Sorry judge I don't own THAT website."
LOTE/Klown
SpamMan
It seems to me as if this whole argument is based on the "fact" that the original crack was done against Xing technologies' software, which "prohibits reverse engineering". Does this not hinge on whether or not EULAs are enforceable?? AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong), EULAs are _not_ enforceable, since they state something like since you opened the box and are running the install program, you have obviously agreed to the following....
...) Yeah, I know it's open, but I had to do that to view the agreement... What do you mean I can't return opened software!?!"
:) )??
Of course you are free to return the **unopened** software package to the retailer for a full refund... "Uh.. Yeah.. I wanted to return this software because I don't agree with the EULA... (... explanation to clerk what the heck an EULA is
So the defendant's major fact basically gets nullified since EULAs are not enforceable?? Am I making a logical mistake here (can you spot the fallacy
TheJet
P.S. Keep in mind that IANAL, so my comments amount to little more than raving lunacy as far as the US Justice system is concerned...
The "Top 10" Reasons to procrastinate:
10.
That's simply because that "good chunk" are the people who do not have high-speed net access or CD burners. Go take a look at the hard drive of a local college student. You will see gigs of illegally obtained mp3s and software.
In addition to the net access you speak of, college students also have more time than money. Is someone who is working a full-time job (which generally leaves one with less spare time and energy than being a student does) and making good money going to be as likely to expend effort on pirating music and software as a student? I doubt it. Those college students you refer to probably wouldn't have bought the CDs or software they're pirating, anyways, so this can't really be counted as lost sales.
Very few people have enough respect for the work that goes into software, music, etc. to pay the artist when they don't have to. Companies know this and they obviously must implement copy protection.
I'm not convinced the lack of respect you cite is prevalent: I think you'll have a hard time finding examples of widespread individual (i.e. non-organized crime) piracy, except among populations like the college students you mentioned earlier: plenty of spare time, little disposable income.
But even if it is: Why attack this problem by assuming the worst of people and thus attempting to force them (in a top-down manner) to pay for music/software/whatever, via a combination of copy protection and law? Why not take a more bottom-up approach and try to educate them about the work that goes into making good music, convince them that they *ought* to contribute to the artist if they enjoy his music? Do you also believe that it is only the laws against murder and theft that prevent most people from committing those crimes?
Finally, I'd like to point out that music (and professional composers) existed long before CDs. Bach never sold a single CD, tape, or phonograph in his lifetime, but despite this, somehow managed to feed himself and his family. In order that good music be created, artists must be able to make a living at it. But the means by which this is accomplished is up for grabs - it need not be through control of the music's physical distribution, as it (mostly) is currently. Artists could be funded by wealthy patrons, or employed by religious institutions (or secular ones, I suppose). They can compose soundtracks to movies, or collect royalties from radio stations and dance clubs that play the music. They can take a 'shareware' approach: post music for free download on the web, and then solicit relatively small donations from a large number of listeners.
No, this isn't so much about labor organizing into unions, this is much more important. This is about the freedom to create and diseminate information. From what I've been reading, the program was created without knowlege of the original encryption scheme. I'm no lawyer, but isn't it legal to create a program? And didn't this same thing happen when people were building and selling little boxes to descramble cable signals? I seem to remember that it wasn't illegal to make or sell the boxes, just to use them.
The movie industry is not going to come crashing down because a few people might use the program to decode a DVD movie. I know I'm just waiting to fill up a few hundred gigabytes of disk space for a few movies! DVD's are cheap. If they make them cheaper more will sell. Most people know what is right and wrong, and as long as the movie makers don't price their titles so high as to encourage pirating there won't be any pirating.
I do think that it is very important that security "features" of all types be constantly tested and attacked to improve all types of security.
"Free Information Zone!" This is the battle cry of the new Millennium!
They can't kill ya cook ya and eat ya.
Often I find myself amazed at the lack of good judgement found throughout the world.
Grab it here.
-- mikeDOTd
The DVD CCA isn't Government, and hence not hampered by details like the First Amendment.
how about posting the css-auth code in random guest books around the world? just to increase the number of locations...
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
There are reasons why I can post the code which aren't discussed openly yet.... but they will be if anyone wants to file legal actions against me
http://xempt.darpa.org:81/decss/
Ever need an online dictionary?
Netcraft reports that the DVD CCA site is running Apache 1.3.3 with PHP 3.0.5 on BSD/OS.
I trust that everyone will use that information only in constructive and helpful ways.
a mirror of http://livid.on.openprojects.net's cvs of the linux dvd drivers is available via anonymous ftp at ftp://wodin.eburg.com/pub/cvs/dvd
As you may be aware, on December 27, 1999 an action was commenced by DVD CCA, which is a trade association and the sole licensing entity for DVD technology. This action was brought to enjoin certain web site owners from alleged "misappropriation of trade secrets" licensed by DVD CCA and for alleged damages incurred. The allegations contained within the complaint are far reaching in that they allege, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement. A hearing has been scheduled for December 29, 1999, at the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara to determine if a temporary restraining order should be granted against the named defendants. I am an attorney licensed to practice in New York in addition to being president of PZ Communications, Inc., the owner of The Ultimate DeCSS Resource Site. (http://www.pzcommunications.com/decss/main.htm). Our site has been named in the lawsuit under our Vice-president's personal name (Glenn Rosenblatt) and we are greatly offended by the position that the plaintiff has taken in this matter against not only our site but against all defendants and the repercussions that it will have on the entire Internet. We shall be filing response papers with the court on September 29, 1999, via fax, in opposition to the request for the temporary restraining order. Additionally, I have spoken directly to Jared B. Bobrow, Esq., attorney for the plaintiff regarding the numerous legal issues in addition to being in contact with several attorneys whose area of expertise are Internet law and copyright matters. It is both my opinion and the attorneys with whom I have spoken that there is no merit to these claims. I am concerned that there are serious legal issues at stake, most importantly that of an "open Internet" where there can be the free decimation of information and ideas without unlawful control. It is the intention of PZ Communications, Inc. to set up a legal defense team to fight this and any other related lawsuits and to act as the primary resource site in all matters related to this litigation. As a result we have set up several pages on our site devoted entirely to this issue in addition to a forum for all involved to communicate directly with regard to this issue. In the event that you are interested in contacting me with regard to this issue you may do so at petezippy@aol.com as I am more than willing to discuss all aspects of this matter. Thank you, Peter L. Katz, Esq. President, PZ Communications, Inc. The Ultimate DeCSS Resource Site http://www.pzcommunications.com/decss/main.htm
proprietary information ... which they either obtained by improper means or knew or should have known was obtained by others by improper means
I hope they can prove this allegation of "improper means" in court. Now tell me, if these claims are proven to be false, do the defendants have a case for a suit against the organisation for defamation?
Defendants' posting of the proprietary information licensed by DVD CCA on their web sites has caused the illegal pirating of the motion picture industry's copyrighted content contained on DVDs. Defendants' actions threaten the financial stability of this new digital video format for viewing movies and other images.
I hope they can prove these allegations as well.
The "caused the illegal pirating" allegation could be difficult for the plaintiffs to prove if the defendants have a good lawyer. This charge is the online equivalent of suing a handgun manufacturer for injuries caused by the handguns they make - the toolmaker is not liable for harm caused by the tools they make because they have no control over how the tool is used.
The "financial stability" bit is also interesting. Businesses in general fail to grasp one simple fact: making a profit yesterday and making a profit today does not give a business the right to expect to make a profit tomorrow.
I hope that those involved can pool their resources and hire someone in California to represent them. I also hope that the lawyers for the plaintiffs have proof of valid service for each of the defendants. Is service by e-mail treated as valid service by the courts in various countries these days, considering that it is really easy to forge e-mail? I thought that all legal documents of this kind still had to be sent by registered mail or served by some sort of process server or similar person.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, etc etc etc.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Story at Wired
Story at Zdnet
Story at Cnet
I thought Wired and ZDNet were good. Cnet only seemed interested in the DVD CCA had to say. As usual ZDNet has a place to post responses. Go to it!
http://everest.yooniks.org/dvd. come on, sue me.
Andrew G. Feinberg
Please don't get mad at me, as I have not read every post on this yet, but upon a brief glance it appears that the debate is, in part, over the 'rights' a DVD user has to the DVD. Okay, fair enough. Taken straight from the letter...
The proprietary technology is not accessible to unlicensed third parties because it is either incorporated in hardware devices -- chips -- or made tamper resistant if distributed in the form of actual software. Both forms of distribution are such that the proprietary technology cannot be viewed by non-licensees.
The licensees they refer to, BTW, are people (or companies, more accurately) who paid US$10k in order to obtain the specs and hardware/software to decode everything so that they can do their own little thing, manufacture DVD players, etc.
So, then, how does the author of this 'crack' program (I use the term hesitantly) manage to, well, 'crack' DVD without the associated hardware or software required? Two answers.
1. He was given the software/hardware by a licensee illegally. In this case, the CCA have a legitimite case. However, this is not what happened.
2. The proprietary technology was not as proprietary as the CCA had hoped. The encryption was bad, and it took a relatively short amount of time for the tech-saavy among us to adapt the DVD to their needs. Like anything else in the open source movement, they posted their accomplishments for the world to share. Things spread like wildfire, it seems.
I'm not going to get into my views on this issue - that if I buy something, I have every damn right in the world to do whatever the hell I want to do with it (I enjoyed the 'if I buy a brand new BMW, there's nothing BMW can do to prevent me from slicing it's roof off, gutting it and using it as a flowerbed, can they?' argument someone said above) or that if the company is unwilling to spend the time/energy to create decent encryption, they have no ground to stand on when that weak encryption breaks.
How about this - Acme Company produces Acme Brand Widgets. These widgets only function when attached to Acme Brand Power Stations, because their plug only fits Acme Brand Power Stations. And in the guts of every Widget is a standard power plug, hidden behind some wires, with a little sign taped on it - "Do Not Use Unless Licensed".
I'd like to see any Judge that ruled in favor of Acme company if they took everyone who used the 'encrypted' power plug to run their widgets to court. I'd smack him around a little.
Levine
So, should we ban xerox copiers? digital cameras? video cameras? scanners? tape recorders? pens and pencils? (that's how copying books originally were done!) cd burners? floppy disks? audio tape? ... and as long as we're on a banning binge.. ... maybe we should just ban laws, then nothing illegal would be happening.
Cars? (perferred in nearly 100% of driveby shootings) Alcohol? Sex? (think of how much violence is related to sex...) Guns?
I've read the complaint and these guys are serious - please understand your potential liability before you post download links or otherwise offer to help distribute this material.
Just because these people are only asking for injunctive relief at this point is no guarantee that they won't come back to these defendants or does later if they can demonstrate damages. The complaint makes it clear that the Plaintiff is willing to monitor web sites such as slashdot and make note of nicknames or other identifying information and offers to distribute this material. If Plaintiffs subpoenaed your information from slahdot pursuant to a lawsuit, they would be compelled to provide it. Your posting on slashdot could and would be used to demonstrate your knowledge of the circumstances of the case and your malicious intent in offering to distribute the material.
All of you that "have the money to withstand a lawsuit" are the ones that are most likely to replace a "doe" in a future pleading.
Unless you have been involved in litigation, it is nearly impossible to imagine the effect it will have on your life.
It is an individual choice for each of you how you are going to repond to this matter, but please make an informed choice. Decide if this is really the battle you want to be involed in and if you are willing to be subjected to the civil litigation process for this cause.
Your Pal,
Bill
CNN has the story (mostly giving one viewpoint), and there is a discussion forum which has not a single message about this. Remember: keep it civil (the CNN discussions are a usually moderated).
:-)
PS If you read the article, notice the URL - they use dvd.crack instead of dvd.hack
if they even attempt to take down sites you can
just mirror it on thousands of others,
so whats the big deal ?
Here is an article that Wired just posted on this, that mentions this slashdot discussion.
2 16&mode=thread
And here's the letter I sent to John Hoy of the DVD CCA:
To: john.hoy@lmicp.com
I've recently heard that the DVD CCA has decided to attack people with lawsuits
who decide to post on their website the code used to decrypt DVDs.
I believe this is an extremely misguided action by the CCA that will not
acheive any intended purpose. DeCSS is typically used by users of operating
systems where DVD is not officially supported to be able to make use of DVD on
those systems. If anything, the added support for those systems will increase
the sales and popularity of DVD as a media.
This is not a piracy issue. DVD writeable disks are prohibitively expensive,
and the 5+GB size of a typical DVD movie makes PC-based storage impractical if
not impossible for most people.
Further, the use of a lawsuit to try to suppress the free exchange of
information and ideas between people is ludicrous in the context of the
Internet and will not work. For every site that is suppressed, many more will
be created with identical info. If you don't believe me on this point, I invite
you to view a discussion on this topic at slashdot.org:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/27/194
Of the ~900 people that have posted comments on this topic, a substantial
portion, if not a majority, will be copying the "prohibited" code and/or
posting it on other websites. Others, like myself, who have not posted comments
but are following the discussion, will similarly feel compelled to oppose this
wrongful action.
It is my hope that the CCA realizes the futility of this type of harassment of
individuals working to provide DVD usability for alternative operating systems
and instead works with us to provide DVD support, which will only benefit DVD
as a whole.
Well the "funny" thing is that only the worst US food chains have settled in Europe, mostly McDonald / KFC / Pizza hut. I guess it is mostly because they fill a gap in the "very cheap" food market.
I work for a company that, among other things, produces DVDs. One of my colleagues made the interesting point that CSS is not protecting DVDs from being copied. You can still make a perfectly good (digital) copy of a DVD, because the bits are not protected by CSS.
The real copyprotection is in the Macrovision part of the DVD specification. Macrovision is a scrambling technique that makes analog copying of DVDs impossible. (Unless you happen to have a 'signal enhancer' or other Macrovision defeater, of course.) This is the reason that some other guy could not use his VCR to generate a RF signal.
Macrovision also states in a letter that was sent to various DVD production companies that the whole CSS thing will not increase piracy overmuch, as it is not feasible to copy entire images to harddisk or DVD-RAM (which has 'only' 2.5 Gb) or DVD-R (because the cost would be too high, DVD-Rs are quite expensive).
The real reason that there is CSS is to prevent DVD production houses from using eachother's techniques in their own productions, giving competitors in this field an unfair advantage.
Just to put things a bit in perspective.
Ronald
Ronald van Loon
This e-mail is not legally binding, as the legal authorities in many countries (including the US) do not recognise e-mails as legal documents. The e-mails contain demands (the withdrawl of information on the web) with mennaces (the threat of legal action).
"Demands with Menaces" (the legal term for blackmail) is a very definite crime. If the co-defendents were to jointly file a counter-suit, what would the odds of winning be?
(IAMAL, but it seems to me that proving both the demands and the menaces, outside of any recognised legal framework, can be easily shown.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret.
Aye, there's the rub. deCSS was originally created to allow playing DVDs under linux and other non-supported OSes, was it not? If the trade secret holder has no apparent intentions of supporting those platforms, then writing a player on them can't be construed as injury.
Also, the internationalisation only goes so far as dealing with countries which have an extradition agreement with the US. They can't prosecute someone from, say, Cuba for distributing deCSS.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Again, keep in mind I'm not a California lawyer, so this is quite suspect, but...
I read it to mean that mere reverse engineering of a legally acquired copy, e.g. on the open market, is not actionable. The "extra" bit that might make the suit potentially valid is if there was a direct contractual obligation not to disclose on the part of the recipient.
Which makes you wonder what happens when states start passing laws like former-UCC 2B-now-UCITA which (last time I checked) lets them impose no-reverse-engineering clauses on consumers...
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I have a blog.
Yeah I'm definitely going to get in trouble for this hahaha
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
This seems to have been done enough times.
Why doesn't someone patent the technique
of issuing frivolous lawsuits and injunctions
as a mathod to restrain free trade and
exchange of "obvious" encryption or flawed
encryption techniques.
The Patent Office seems in the mood to issue
patents for just about anything these days.
Wouldn't a self perpetuating palandrome of a
lawsuit be a wonderful achievement? Just imagine
we could call it a "lawsuit bomb" and tie up the
courts for years.. perhaps with luck the legal
system will collapse under its own weight, or have
to commit serious "self" impose surgery to excise
such banal activities and "immunize" itself
from brain dead measures from unqualified lawyers.
Wow.. maybe lawyers will be required to pass an
I.Q. test before taking the bar exam..
One can dream can't they?