Slashdot Mirror
DVD Hearing Today - Are You Ready to Rumble?
Leading up to Today's Hearing
- by Emmett Plant
Emmett Plant is Slashdot's newest author.
Monday, DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. filed for a restraining order in a California court. The targets of this cease-and-desist order were individuals and organizations who had made DVD decryption source code freely available on the net, by hosting the code themselves or linking to a website that did. Commmunity response has been fast and furious, with a deluge of Slashdot comments and submissions, and the immediate organization of Open Source community members to attend the hearing this morning.
Technically, the argument boils down to the issue of reverse engineering. Ideologically, the argument challenges the ideals of free speech, freedom of information, and the ability to innovate on behalf of computer users, hardware engineers and software developers all over the planet.
On Monday night, I spoke to a gentleman who had received the order just minutes prior, and although he didn't want his name mentioned, he provided with me with his thoughts.
"It should be legal when you've got people reverse engineering this kind of stuff. But a small minority in the business community want to lock down the information, citing that it's a trade secret. It's sort of like being busted in math class for passing answers around. [The code] is basically a mathematical equation that decrypts poorly encrypted DVD data. I support the free human right to freedom of thought. That's how civilization has gotten to where it is today, without lawyers heading innovators off at the pass."
Would he be willing to go to court to defend himself?
"Probably not. There are a lot of sites that are mirroring [the code], and they'll keep the program alive. I'll sleep easy at night knowing I did my part."
In many ways, the cease-and-desist only made it easier for people to get their hands on the code. As soon as the community heard about the order, many people posted the code on their websites as a sign of protest. Many community members have made the code available on overseas servers that don't face the possible legal repercussions associated with sites located in the United States.
Another interesting point of this case is that anyone who linked to a site that contained the information is also being held liable in the case. This is particularly frightening. This means that in the spirit of the cease-and-desist order, almost everyone on the web with a site that links to anywhere else falls into the legal maelstrom, as long as it eventually leads to a site with the code posted on it.
The legal ramifications of the case are extremely influential. The DVD CCA lawyers are fighting a battle against reverse engineering, an engineering process that enables the computer industry to utilize powerful tools like the IBM-compatible personal computer and countless hardware device drivers.
The hearing will take place this morning at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California.
----------
Funny and Sad at the Same Time
- by Hemos
The particularly humorous section of the lawsuit, at least for me, is that what they are trying to do is make linking illegal. That's right. Linking. Is. Illegal. Once we cross the the bridge of dictating what can and cannot be linked to, than we open ourselves up to a world of people being able to sue whenever something they don't want linked is linked. Without linking, the Web is dead.
----------
Shaky Legal Grounds
- by Michael Sims
The legal standing for the DVD companies is so shaky it's not even funny. The danger is that they can effectively paint the opposition as a bunch of crooks and the judge will feel that *justice* requires a ruling in their favor despite the law - that can be averted if the defense makes a strong competent showing tomorrow, presumably. The second danger is that they will inflict sufficient costs on the defendants that others will be dissuaded from doing even perfectly legal things. That can't be prevented.
----------
Planning to Join the Protest in Person?
The best source of information on how to help out at the Santa Clara County Courthouse is this page from Chris DiBona's Web site. It tells you where and when to be, what to wear, and what to expect. Worth reading even if you can't make it. Nice to know that Chris and others, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are doing a great job for all of us on this!
----------
Update by Emmett @ 1:20 p.m. EST:
Chris DiBona called me at 8:30 a.m. PST from right outside the courtroom, letting me in on the scene. The Open Source community has about 25 people there, as well as a lawyer or two of their own. The community members present are busy distributing the DeCSS source code on floppy disk as well as leaflet hard copy. No pictures will be taken of the interior of the courtroom, and there wasn't enough time to apply for the permit to record what happens inside.
Chris will be calling me as soon as they let out with up-to-the-minute information and notes from the community members inside the courtroom.
----------
Links to Other DVD CCA Stories and Sites
Boston Globe
Washington Post
Wired News
ZDNet
siliconvalley.com
Chris DiBona's excellent page
PZ Communications DeCSS Resource Site
CNN.com
Lemuria.org DeCSS Defense page
Dan Gillmor (SV.com columnist)
Santa Clara County Superior Court info
OpenDVD.org
EFF to the Rescue!
----------
Please send additional links to roblimo@slashdot.org so we can add them to the list. Thanks.
I can't make it there in person, is there someone I could email to show my support?
The difference between a trade secret and a copyright or patent is that a trade secret is not disclosed to the public -- but if it leaks, the owner is just SOL. If they're taking the position that their decryption is a trade secret, then they have no case.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
i can tell the location of another site to anyone and everyone i want ! I dont want that right to be taken away from me ........
nobody can win, but we could lose a lot.
I fear the outcome won't be favorable.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/363/business/We
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
Do they want this to be some sort of secret forever? Is it some sort of conspiracy? Like the virus in the X - Files movie? Red Team go! Red Team Go!
In my opinion, reading text, reading a book,
reading this web page is the same as reverse
engineering an executable program. Is reading
illegal?
If there was any possible way of gewtting to CA today (short of selling my soul), I would. But, unfortunatly, i am but one of the masses who live nortyh of the US border, yet know and understand that whatever these nimrods accomplish down there will unavoidable have an effect on our simmilar freedoms up here. Where can I contact the numerous organizations figting this sort of thing on a day to daY basis to show my support?
Way to go guys! I hope to see you on the 6 o'clock news, with a victory.
indierock / punkrock band photos and more... http://www.digitaldefection.net
As for the links, I'd compare that with passing round a list of names of people who pass around lists of pages. I'm sorry, but when you start to get -that- far removed from the source, WHATEVER justification there may have been for the original case is thrown right out the window.
Either that, or I deem the entire Universe guilty of conspiring to cause explosions, as a result of containing links to the Big Bang. If this case ends with sites like Slashdot losing, this case will be precident of links being sufficient to be proof of guilt. More than adequate for me to sue the cosmos for a few trillian dollars.
Anyone want to join in? I don't mind splitting the winnings.
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)
Listening to NPR this morning, I heard a very brief story about "DVD copying software" being posted on the internet and a "lawsuit being brought against dozens of websites". Two points here. First, DeCSS is not "copying software". Second a restraing order is not a "lawsuit". I think it is a pretty crappy tactic to pursuade the news media to report such things. I don't blame NPR, I blame the movie industry for feeding them the story in such a form. BTW, there was now mention of breaking encryption or Linux development, etc. It just sounded like all the posters were a bunch of pirates and thieves.
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
to have a look at this : http://www.sirius.com/~casp/welcome.html ..it may be possible to get it thrown out without a trial.
SLAPPs -- strategic lawsuits against public participation -- are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of
petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and
entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective
economic advantage.
This is a very frightening case. If this passes through, and reverse engineering is made illegal, then Richard Stallman's story (grrr, cant find
link on Gnu.org! anyone?) about how debuggers
will be allowed only in 'guarded research labs'
will come true alot faster than we'd like.
This is a monumentally important case for our rights to explore and investigate technology, and if we are stopped from doing so, only hackers will be doing it (and if you decide to do it, you are an instant hacker, and now a criminal). [I've given up on cracker/hacker debate, btw. I use words common folk can understand, since thats who Im preaching to.]
Unix and Linux has a long history of being hacked on and taken apart, and if it wasnt for this ability, I dont think we'd be where we are now with Linux.
We should all put in as much effort as possible to make people aware of whats at stake. I can imagine its only a few steps before you're not allowed to fix your own car! THen we'll have the general populace interested.
Math
A copy of the DeCSS software source code for linux and a zip file of the dll's for doze are available here for those interested: http://cubicmetercrystal.com/decss/ Fight for copyright / patent sanity. Perhaps once companies realize that strong arm tactics to silence information will not work on the net, all of these intimidating law suits will stop.
- What if the whole thin is legal in Norway?
- How can a copyright/patent infringement lawsuit issued in the USA can be enforced on a European defendent?
Thanks.I find the legal action being taken to be extremely frightening, but I wonder if this time the forces of evil have bitten off more than they can chew. How in the world can breaking encryption be illegal? Does anyone know of any US laws that prohibit the breaking of encryption? I know that it is illegal to COPY DVD's, but how is breaking the encryption illegal? That is like Uncle Sam saying that it is a felony to solve a mathmatical problem. No wonder our high school standardized test scores are so low. Juke Bug -Anonymous "Damn Firewalls" Coward "We're not stupid! We're law abiding citizens!"
at (816) 246 6160. you can't enjoy DVD without it.
why dont they just come out and tell people that
they can no longer be interested in black boxes??
it is in the spirit of the hacker to crave information
about that which escapes his understanding...
in this case, someone wanted to figure out how
the encryption worked, and they DID...whats so
illegal?
i'm so mad i could go in front of that courthouse
and pour hot grits down my pants in protest!
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Any thoughts?
=U= "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
I think that slashdot should put all the information in one handy location, so that we can all mirror it on our personal sites... What are they going to do? Sue the world?
--- eman I don't know what it does, but I like the blinking lights.
If DVD CCA doesn't point the finger at someone, then it must be their fault (which I believe it is). Just because you code and compile something, doesn't make it a trade secret. Someone else mentioned Coca Cola's secret formula. If you figure it out, you can use it. Reverse engineering is the same thing.
Didn't this once come up with a case of Ford against a Nissan or Honda. Where the Japanese company bought a Ford and dismantled it to find out how it worked. When Ford tried to sue, the judge ruled that they didn't do anything wrong. Since they bought the car, it was theirs to do what they pleased. I think this is the same thing.
Now as for linking. That is getting out of hand. If you do business on the Web, you should be prepared to be linked to. Altough, this is slightly different, But as for free speech, not being able to link to something is a definite form of censorship. Yes, you can complain about content, but how can you complain about someone else linking to them. IANAL, but if you hear someone that shows bootlegged movies, and tell someone about it, and if someone asks who is doing it, and you tell them, are you just as guilty at bootlegging the movie. Now you are not related in any way to that bootlegger, and did not profit in telling someone about it. You just shared information that you knew about.
Unfortunately, I'm in NY and won't be able to go. I would love to see this trial!
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Just a query - are they trying to ban mirrors of the actual binary code for DeCSS and the associated links to these sites or is it the underlying algorithm that is the target. If the injunction is against a specific binary application, then would publishing an "abstract" pseudo-code of the core of the binary engine be affected by the ban? If this was done then how long do you think it would be before many, many different implementations of the code in different languages started appearing on the web? Would it be necessary to start a new injunction against each one?
The only Good System is a Sound System
I can see dark clouds and hear an ominous rumbling of thunder in the distance. I have never seen Slashdot gear up for anything this way. Personally, it's freaking me out.
This is not a fight to be missed -- it is high time we stand up and fight the cold, faceless corporations with their harsh fluorescent-lit hallways who have been trampling upon the little person's rights for oh so long.
~tc
Folks,
I hate to rain on your parade, but if the court rules against the you, it could get very ugly very fast.
I would be very careful in any open comments on this issue, especially since lawyers representating the plaintiffs could be reading Slashdot.org. Any potentially damaging and/or slanderous comments could get the plaintiffs to ask for a court order for NSI to pull the registration of http://slashdot.org, and THAT will obviously have extremely ugly consequences.
In short, hope for the best, but don't do anything online here that will make a bad situation worse.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
" First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers"
Willie the Shake
...would be to print out the source code to DeCSS (and neatly bind it, if possible) like they did with the PGP code. It might illustrate more clearly to the judge that the censorship of non-copyrighted material is a violation of first amendment rights.
The judge will probably be highly intelligent, but non-technical. Having a concrete, readable example of what they're trying to censor may help put things in perspective, and bring out the first amendment issues (which I'm sure the corporate lawyers are going to try to gloss over).
// TODO: fix sig
There was a post made yesterday that I think sums the whole thing up really well. It said something about only wanting to be able to play a movie on a Linux box. Without the decryption code, we'd never be able to do that. Do you really think those DVD fellas would bother to whip something up for us linux users to use to play our DVDs? Probably not, and then it would cost you something if they did...which isn't quite in the spirit of the Linux movement. Another good point that I think I read was that did CD manufacturers start sueing the general public when CD-Rs came out? Not even that silly music association got involved. What makes the movie industry think its so important it can do whatever it wants? Just another reason to invest wisely on Wallstreet, buy your own island, and start anew. Of course we'd outlaw Microsoft products! =)
As someone else pointed out nobody is going to look good at this hearing and the web as a whole has a lot to lose. The thing that concerns me the most is the judge, most judges that I've seen are middle age or older. How computer literate and familier with the actual issues is the judge, does he even know what a link is? How can someone make a decision on this important an issue if he or she is not fully conversant in the technology involved. This whole thing is really frightening and the implications far too wide ranging.
- Robin
Based on what these lawyers seem to be arguing: If the contents of a link changed to something illegal, all the existing links would become illegal.
Were all search engines with links to challenged sites also mentioned?
How stupid is that? THEY are the ones who implemented a crappy encryption scheme. THEY are the ones who decided to delay DVD audio.
The DVD CCA has caused more harm to consumers than hackers EVER will. If anything, customers have benefited from the hacking of the DVD code.
Technically, the argument boils down to the issue of reverse engineering. :) it.
...without lawyers heading innovators off at the pass."
:) that the "underground" can fight back in this manner - corporate pigs may win the battle, but who is winning the war?
:(
:), I think this may be the chap here...... If it isn't, my apologies... Would the real Emmett Plant stand up...
And still, judges don't really understand this. If a car manufacturer A can take apart say, a competitor B's carburettor, they can reverse engineer it. There's nothing preventing them doing this, in reality, and no judge would hold this case up. Because there are _manufacturing_ considerations to making the carburettor. Exactly the same applies with software- you can see what it does, but you must still figure out how to "make" (pun intended
Ideologically, the argument challenges the ideals of free speech, freedom of information, and the ability to innovate on behalf of computer users, hardware engineers and software developers all over the planet.
Hmm, think you're pushing it a bit there about the whole planet. The USA is mostly a nice place, but there are other continents
Sadly, this is my impression of corporate America these days. If you can't win by market forces, crush them with your legal team.
There are a lot of sites that are mirroring [the code], and they'll keep the program alive. I'll sleep easy at night knowing I did my part."
Yep. And when one gets hit with the Cease & Desist, another will take it's place. I really hope this goes high profile. Once corporations get the message that when it comes to the net, winning in court is not absolute, then they may consider their legal actions more carefully. And I find it heartening (hey, I'm British, I always root for the underdog!
Another interesting point of this case is that anyone who linked to a site that contained the information is also being held liable in the case.
That scares the piss out of me. Where does it end? Say if I link to a site that links to a site with the contentious code, am I liable? Reminds me of a rhyme I was taught as a kid - "Big fleas have little fleas upon their back to bite them, little fleas have tiny fleas, and so ad infinitum...". Surely a judge somewhere _must_ realise the complete and utter stupidity of this... I think it's a plot by the lawyers... If they can sue everybody on the net, then everybody requires a lawyer...
Maybe the soothsayers are right... Maybe this is the armageddon coming for Y2K. A poor decision by the judge here could badly hurt the whole internet...
By the way, if you're wondering who this Emmett Plant bloke is (I doubt he's related to Egg Plant, but I bet he's heard that before...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
i read most of the legalese the other day, but didn't follow the 1000 or so messages here, so i'm wondering if someone can clear this up for me: why aren't the DVD people suing xing? that's where the breakdown in the trade secrets happened (decss supposedly happened because xing was negligent with their key & from my reading of the legalities of trade secrets, they're the ones negligent in letting it slip out -- they're the ones who signed the agreement, etc.) xing should be suing the decss authors because they "broke" the (bogus, imho) "no-reverse engineering" clause in their license. and that doesn't even start to get into the linking legalities issue...
Here are a few interesting links:
Tom Vogt's site - lots of info and links
OpenDVD.org - arguments against CSS
SJ Mercury article by Dave Wilson
Douglas
If the movie industry wins this hearing, I will dump my DVD.
Excuse me, fellows, but is Slashdot a member of The Press or not? Are these lawyers trying to suppress press activity in bothering Slashdot?
While we're divulging trade secrets, the coke recipe isn't too complicated. The only secret part are the flavors added to it (the "vegetable extracts" as they term it in Europe)...
And those are simple -- they're kola nut extract and coca extract. That's why all the other colas taste like Pepsi, not Coke. Coke is the only company allowed to use the coca plant extract. From my understanding, they purchase it from some company in New Jersey which has an exclusive arrangement with the US Government to import something on the order of 500 tons of coca leaves which are chemically processed to destroy the cocaine. The extract is sold to Coke in some exclusive arrangement.
So there you go, now we all know how to decrypt DVD's and make Coke.
Of course, when you say you can use coke's formula if you figure it out, that's not the case because no one else can import the coca leaves, or you rot in jail for the rest of your life.
And what about the status of reverse enginering. Remember the xing thing was reverse enginered in Norway. Aside from the question whether the reverse enginering of the xing player was legal or not in Norway, certainly (I may hope so) a court in the USA can't decide on that.
Anyways for the time being, my protest (and the DeCSS files) are also here.
How many of you really watch movies on your computer?
Maybe I am weird, but I would much rather have the comfort of my couch.
A quality DVD player is available nowadays at $300 dollars... is that outrageous?
While I fully support and side with the individuals being threatened here, I tend to think both sides are over-reacting. Obviously, pirated DVD's are not the advent of a social apocolypse as the industry claims... but neither is this quite the "fight to save our individual freedoms" as many on this site so loudly proclaim.
As someone pointed out yesterday: We could never watch VHS tapes on our computers... what is the huge deal!?
This is an excellent point - Surely, with all the "investigative work" the DVD CCA Lawyers did, they could have directed there web browsers to www.infoseek.com searched for "DeCSS" and found the same results as I did. Why is Infoseek not being hauled into court?
signature smigmature
- James
Every article I have read about this makes me grind my teeth. The DeCSS is always referred to as either a "DVD Copy Program" or a "DVD Pirating Program". Never is any mention made of the project to bring DVD to Linux. We all come across as a bunch of evil pirates out to destroy the All-American Movie Industry.
Here is a suggestion to put the Slashdot Effect to good use: everyone write your favorite media outlets. Tell them what this is really about. This has nothing to do with piracy, it has everything to do about freedom. The same freedom that allows them to publish their websites and newspapers.
I think the purpose of this legal action is to frighten everyone into submission. I don't think the DVD Consortium knows what they have stepped into, however
I can't be at the courthouse, but I am there in spirit anyway!
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
What makes no sense is the fact that these corp. idiots have no true understanding of what is happening here. This program was developed to help users play DVDs under Linux. There will always be a few who abuse it and will pirate DVDs. But do they honestly think that everyone is out to do that? I think the majority will still buy DVDs but its a shame these idiots think we are all here to pirate DVDs......
These fools will never understand it. They made it obvious with the restraining order....
- Just another linux user
I was wondering, with todays chemical analysis machines, could one not determine the exact formula for Coca Cola? Then if I gave this exact formula out, say to Pepsi, would I be held liable? I do not think this is the case. Anyone with any legal experience know different? Is there a law that says "Thou shalt not communicate trade secrets to the masses?" The fact that CSS was reverse engineered I think is not the problem, and I dont see how they can sue someone for posting the "formula" of a trade secret (freedom of speech?). Personaly I think this is too stupid for words, typical of technology phobic groups, insted of embracing the technology they try to stamp it out. Why not accept that CSS has been broken and use the same people to find a better encryption routine? Who do we have to send mail to? I want to write some letters or mails.
They are trying to bar sites that publish info about DeCSS? Isn't that suppression of freedom of press and/or freedom of speech (in the US at least)?
Links are the basic structural elements of the Web. No links, no web. So that takes care of the generality. If you publish information on the Web, you must expect to have links pointed at it. So the only remaining action can be for some infringement (copyright??) by the published material on the orginating site or sites. That doesn't look too strong, either, in this case. I hope the DVD manufacturers get nowhere with this -- I still haven't forgiven them for their stupid Region scheme, another utterly pointless piece of technology crippling which is a pain for this Region 1/2 commuter and his laptop.
This is disappointing, if only because it is doomed to fail. How many people here will change their computing habits if a decision were made outlawing DeCSS? Infact, how many people might start a development effort outside this country? The legal system is largely ineffective in dealing with this - witness the huge crypto debate. There is none: the world has crypto, and the US looks like a bunch of jackasses for trying to stop it. They didn't even put a dent in the flow of information out of this country. China isn't doing much better either - and they have thousands of firewalls and even more people dedicated strictly to censoring the internet. Information still gets out. There solution seems to be "kill anyone exhibiting independent thought online!" - history has, and will again, show that such tactics are ineffective.
This trial will be of no consequence to the community at large.... nothing will change except the amount of money exchanged over the matter. however, there is a question of moral obligation: should we help these people? Do we have an obligation to support people who risk their livelyhood to give us our freedom? This is, in my mind, the heart of this matter.
Having read the cover letter and the text of the complaint I was wondering if the DVD CCA peeps have cited themselves in their complaint for producing such an excellent resource for people like us who wish to mirror the source code and other material.
Thank you.
http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css/
We are not pirates, nor do we encourage the illegal duplication and/or distribution of copyrighted works. We are, however, citizens of a country based on the principles of personal freedom and trust of common man. We believe that it is morally and legally acceptable to have the right to manipulate digital media, media which we have bought and paid for, in the ways we see fit. We believe that it is within our rights, and is morally acceptable, to view and store this media in the ways we choose; be in on a DVD disk, our computer's hard drive or recorded to a VHS tape; from a hardware DVD player, the Windows operating system or the Linux operating system. These are the rights we are fighting for. We believe that the authoritarian acts of the RIAA and DVD CSS should not be stood for, they are immoral and unjust. We do not believe that anyone should be able to tell us that we can only view a movie from a computer which they have choosen, or save that movie only in the way they dictate. We also believe that if there is a tool which allows such freedoms, we should have a right to use it, to tell others about it and to distribute it. We do not believe that someone should be able to command that we cannot tell or distribute this tool simply because it is not within their corporate strategy.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Well, I have a radio show to do today, and though it is usually a music show, I think I will talke a bit of time out to RANT!
Anyone in the Cleveland area can tune to 91.1FM at noon. Anyone on the net can go to http://radio.cwru.edu/livefeed.html at 12EST.
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Do we actually fear speaking out against our government? I think many of us do, but we aren't supposed to.
These issues are vitally important. This is all about your and my *personal* freedom. It is important that we FIGHT if necessary to hold onto the freedom we know is right.
I'll step down from my little soap box for now. Just realize, there are plenty of us willing to get in some trouble for what we believe in.
I propose that we institute a full boycott of the movie industry, not just DVD, but VHS, theater, rentals and cable.
If they feel that they can play hardball with their customers over freedom of access, let us show them what THEY stand to lose by it.
I am starting immediately whether anyone joins me or not.
Dan Taylor
yeah i know, I can't spell.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Come on, guy, you can Troll better then that! Put some effort into it next time. At least mention hot grits!
although i'm sure no one here is running out and buying dvd products, i think a formal boycott of all dvd products (drives/players, discs, and anything else) is called for.
IMHO, one of the lamest pieces of "sci-fi" in existence.
it's ~1400 lines. post it to usenet, put it on guest books, mail a floppy to the court house.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
How many of you really watch movies on your computer?
That is not the issue here. The issues are:
- Can we legitimately try to implement such a player if we want to?
- Can we talk about that implementation?
- Can we link to it?
By posting about it here, by the way, you are covered in the restraining order. You just involved yourself in the legal fight.
Now do you understand why this is so serious?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The mirror list at http://www.humpin.org/decss/ is about twice the size of when this legal fiasco started.
Consider setting up a mirror! I emailed 'humpin@humpin.org' to tell them of mine. One advantage for me is I included the DVD code & mirror in my online class materials at UNC - hopefully this will be a more defensible position, if the poop hits the fan.
Give 'em Hell, Rob... counter sue for frivalous lawsuit. Make 'em eat that code and weap !!!
...but I still think it's a bad thing when a man is threatened with death for writing it.
In other words, it's about a point of principle. It's about making sure the precedents go our way. It's about speaking out for the DVD people so they'll be there to speak out for us, and establishing now that we want the freedoms they're trying to take away from us, whether we were going to use them for watching DVD movies or for something else.
In that sense it is precisely a fight to save our individual freedom and no scare quotes are needed. It's a little disturbing to see how rare understanding of the very idea of a point of principle is.
--
Xenu loves you!
Could someone post a transcript and/or summary from the hearing?
No.
They don't have a reasonable case or position. They can threaten - they are threatening, but the threat is much more of a bluff than a threat. If you back down the instant that someone says, "Boo", then what value does your right to speak up have?
Sincerely,
Ben Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
[I've given up on cracker/hacker debate, btw. I use words common folk can understand, since thats who Im preaching to.]
When I took my present job with a rural law enforcement agency which had basically zero computers and wanted someone to help them implement computerized systems (dispatch, case tracking, etc.), one of my deciding factors was that the newly elected Sheriff (who was, self-admittedly, computer illiterate) told me that he was well aware of the difference between the terms 'Hacker' and 'Cracker' and would do his best to respect the divergent terms and their associated pride/contempt.
If this sort of awareness is occurring in rural, isolated communities, now is NOT the time to 'give up'. Rather, it's the time to rejoice... and put a little more pressure on the media to use the terms properly.
Signed, A. Hacker
But that's pretty unlikely; the corporate takeover hasn't preceded that far yet. Of course, the bastards want us to fear that it could happen. They want us to be afraid to speak against them, lest we be crushed beneath high-powered legal teams.
In fact, this smacks so heavily of FUD I must question the poster's motives. Are you involved with one of the plaintiffs?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Hey, if someone makes Slashdot delete messages, doesn't that mean that they are assuming the role of "editor", and that they then become liable for everything said on Slashdot? Sorry if I sound confused, but I've been trying to actually listen to what the lawyers say...
Like most of the people in the world, I do not live anywhere near California. So I cannot go to the court house to protest it.
So, I want to know: Is there anything the rest of us can do to support the opposition to the repression of the DVD Forum? Can we start an Internet petition to indicate our support? Something along the lines of the Blue Ribbon Campaign of the EFF?
Are people contacting their local news agencies, and explaining why the DVD Forum is in the wrong?
Is there an address (snail mail) at the DVD Forum we can write to complain? (I want snail mail because email is ignored too easily.)
The DVD Forum will only win if this stays small. A hundred thousand angry consumers will fold them right quick.
We need to move on this, people.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Hmmmm. I was wondering when details about what's going on were going to surface.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm seriously sorry that I'm in the wrong country to be able to attend personally. Actually, I've been flicking from news site to news site periodically today and wondering why there's nothing new breaking. Of course, PST is somewhat behind GMT and all the key people were soundly asleep at the time. But I digress.
What I really wanted to chat about was the lack of media coverage so far. Obviously, there'll be details about who and what turn up at the courthouse itself later on, but I've not seen linkage on any front pages of any news sites so far. I'm just hoping that such a fundamental legal battle gets television coverage this evening.
Good luck for the proceedings and hopefully someone will have brought a nokia communicator or somesuch to enable them to give a slightly live feed of their 'notes' from the court room. Or isn't that sort of behaviour allowed over thar.
Cheers,
Dav Stott
I hope everybody realizes that if by some miracle they were to get an injunction the lawyers would be on the phone to ISPs today attempting to shut down the sites, and the linkers. Remember all those stories about ISPs that are easily bullied? Who cares about the jurisdiction of the courts-- if they get an injunction, it strengthens their argument to the ISPs. If they can keep this code in the underground indefinitely you'll never see a Red Hat distribution that includes a DVD player. I sure hope the EFF lawyers know their stuff...
--
314-15-9265
To shaft the A*holes, I will never buy a DVD player till they stop their "ENCORRUPTION"... I bet we are seeing something going the BETAMAX (Remember the SONY Betamax Video Player?) path. Let see...Long live free speech! Freedom to create something from anything!!!
Why do people always start off a statement with IANAL? It seems to me that we as a society have become dependant on lawyers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. When dealing with the very technical, aren't WE the ones who know "right vs. wrong"? WE are the ones who know what is best technically.
Now, imagine a government where all people were created equal. You didn't have a class of citizens that had "special powers" within the power structure that is the government. (talking about the lawyers here)
The internet is equalizing these powers by making information FREE and EASILY ACCESSABLE. There are going to be battles (like this DVD thing) between those who want to keep the freedoms of speech and information exchange we enjoy, and those with money and power who stand to loose it by free exchange of information.
My point? Don't be afraid to learn about, interpret and question law. The lawyers hold special power in government because the citizens let them. If smart people (like us programmers) learn how the system works, there is no reason we cannot deal with the system ourselves, rather than having lawyers as an "intermediary" between us and government.
Thank you, I'll step down now...
An article on this subject at EE Times mentions Slashdot and the debate over this hearing. The article also has some good links to the DVD CCA's arguments. You can read the article here
--
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
I think I will have to download a copy and put it on my website just to spite them. Good luck /.
I would Guess that that would depend in large part on what context the question was being asked in and which Judge was involved. For example would a site like /. fall under the laws in some states that say reporters don't have turn over names of anon sources? Maybe, It probably depends on which state you asked in.
Part of the problem is that since the web is so new the legal spaces around it have yet to be worked out.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Obviously, the vast majority of /. readers were unable to attend todays legal proceedings. Are there other ways in which we can participate? Basically, I'd like to write a letter to *someone* saying 1) I am a linux user 2) I want the ability to effectively use the DVD medium on my system 3) I feel that the suit being brought forward is wrong (for all the reasons already put forth here...I won't repeat them)
So, is there a person/congresscritter email/mail address that is appropriate? Ordinarily, I would say that letter writing campaigns are a waste, but in this case I think it could provide a show of force.
SuperID
How many of you really watch movies on your computer?...As someone pointed out yesterday: We could never watch VHS tapes on our computers... what is the huge deal!?
I watch movies on my computer. I happen to enjoy this, but that isn't the issue, nor is your point. The original point was, the technology exists to watch DVD movies on some widely used operating systems, and not on other widely used operating systems. Nor was there any indication that the 'authorized' producers of the decryption software were going to make one available for those unfortunates. So, a bunch of people who disagree that the wealthiest corporations (i.e., Microsoft, for a random example) should be given any more of an advantage, found a way to do a service for others like themselves, and decrypted the damn thing. I won't even go into the whole linking issue...anyway, I'm just saying that the fact that you don't watch DVDs on a computer is no reason to deny this to anyone else. Honestly.
------------------------
"Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and
Free speech does NOT mean you are free to say ANYTHING you want, ANYTIME you want, and ANYWHERE you want. There are limits to "free speech."
Slander and libel (forms of speech) are illegal. Perjury is illegal. Each of these term has a clear legal definition. Obscenity (a form of speech) is illegal (the trick here is getting a solid legal definition of what obscenity is). Inciting a riot (a form of speech) is illegal. I could go on.
What Ray said applies to anything you say anywhere, not just to this particular thread on slashdot. If you say something slanderous or print a libelous statement, you could be sued, and all your cries of "free speech" wouldn't mean squat.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
Are they named? That'd be way too funny. It was only up there for a coupla days, but long enough for a boatload of people to download it.
Ah, CNet, great distributor of contraband.
What you are suggesting is to play right into the hands of the Thought Police and self censor.
NOT WHILE THERE IS BREATH IN MY BODY!
The battle lines are being drawn for the last great struggle for freedom. The genie is out of the bottle, the internet has connected minds in a way that could not have happened previously in the history of humankind, and the Power is feeling very threatened indeed. They are attempting to put the genie back in the bottle, and kill the internet, kill the (dare I say it) freedom to inovate, the freedom to share and the freedom to think.
Use this freedom now to stop this madness from spreading, and start at home now, with your own thoughts.
This attempt, and a whole lot of WIPO must be resisted, and a large dose of Public Disobedience, coupled with strategic law suits, political lobbying and just plain old Writing Code is needed.
Stay strong.
Me, I'm pointing out this stupidity to the film companies. That industry has to realize the waste of effort involved in copy protection...anything science can do, science can duplicate.
It talks about the speed of current laws in relation to the speed of the internet and legal precidents.
Forget about the implementation. Let them shut down CSS. What really matters is the algorithm.
Get the algorithm described in a way that is easily implementable. They can stop one implementation, but they cannot stop everybody
from implementing the algorithm. Create a skeleton around with a clean interface, so anybody can plug-in an implementation of the CSS breaking code. We can then publish and pass around the algorithm. They can stop an implementation, but they cannot stop the distribution of algorithms!
Harvey Shapiro Sargoy, Stein, Rosen & Shapiro 1790 Broadway, 19th floor New York, NY 10019-1412 (212) 581-2222 (212) 581-2755 hshapiro@sargoy.com
Why don't we all just put DVD decryption documentation on CVS or some more obscure interface that the lawyers are too stupid to figure out?
TFTP comes to mind, but probably most firewall block it.
Maybe some protocol that only has a linux/unix clients. Does CODA allow for global sharing?
That way they can't see it and therefor it must not excist.
209.207.224.41, 209.207.224.42, 209.207.224.40 These three IPs are what I got when I resolved "www.slashdot.org"... Keep them safe, so if the bad people come, everyone can still discuss what to do about them! :-)
IIRC, the complaint talks about "improper" means or motives for the decryption. A trade secret is protected if reasonable measures are taken to protect it.
"The protection accorded the trade secret holder is against the disclosure or unauthorized use of the trade secret by those to whom the secret has been confided under the express or implied restriction of nondisclosure or nonuse. The law also protects the holder of a trade secret against disclosure or use when the knowledge is gained, not by the owner's volition, but by some 'improper means,' Restatement of Torts s 757(a), which may include theft, wiretapping, or even aerial reconnaissance. A trade secret law, however, does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is by starting with the known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture." (from Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., a 1974 Supreme Court case.)
Obviously, the DVD brigade wants to make what has been done an "improper means" under the law as opposed to "fair and honest means." (California Law is California Law, and as Professor Froomkin has pointed out, there may be any number of wierdnesses in it. YMMV.)
I don't know very much about DVD at all, but I could imagine that if I was given an audio CD that was encrypted, I could just read off a raw image and burn it to a fresh CD. Are DVD's somehow different?
from the PDF of the request for an injunction(http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227-mot. pdf)
PDF Page 8
"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 address, which provide "links" to other web sites which disseminate confidential proprietary CSS information:"
doe#60 www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547600297.
so sense deja is just a web interface for USENET are they in effect trying to control USENET?
i mean deja is the closest thing to a sue able entity related to USENET right?
Who do we contact?
Who do we snail mail or e-mail or phone?
DeCSS is NOT copying software. We need to let people know this. It is the first step in building software to play DVD's on OS's other than Windows.
There is no encryption scheme they can build that can't be undone. Nothing is 'uncopyable'. No code is 'unbreakable'.
Q - Why bother fighting the inevitable?
A - Because the people who developed the DVD Video format lied to 'hollywood' exec's and told them no one would be able to copy their 'oh so precious' DVD movies. Now they have to try to make that lie true.
In trying to make their lies true, they are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the world and say they have a right to make sure no one attempts to crack their encryption scheme. For any reason! They also want to be able to collect fees from software companies that wish to make DVD software.
Welcome to the capitalist machine.
As for their statement that DeCSS is for pirating DVD movies...
Did Einstien figure out atom-splitting so he could blow up Hiroshima?
-C
Trade Group Files Suit Against All Identifiable Posters of or Linkers to
Linux DVD Hack
EFF Assembling Legal Team to Defend Targets
The movie industry, through its recently activiated Digital Video Disc
Content Control Association (DVD CCA), a trade organization
controlling DVD patents, has filed a lawsuit in California against
dozens of people around the world. who have published information, or
links to information, about the DVD Content Scrambling System (CSS),
on the Internet. As many as 500 defendants could eventually be named.
The DVD CCA claims that the defendants are violating the association's
trade secrets and other intellectual property rights by posting the
source code of (or simply having links to other sites with the source
code of) a legally reverse-engineered means of decoding DVD discs. An
important hearing in the case has been scheduled for tomorrow, Wed.,
Dec. 29, 1999.
Tomorrow's hearing is on whether the judge should issue a temporary
restraining order against the defendants, who have been publishing
information about the DVD content scrambling system in various
locations in the US and worldwide. Any such order, if issued, would
only apply for a few weeks, while the parties argued in court about
whether a permanent injunction should restrict these defendants from
publishing this information for the duration of the court case.
It is EFF's opinion that this lawsuit is an attempt to architect law
to favor a particular business model at the expense of free
expression. It is an affront to the First Amendment (and UN human
rights accords) because the information the programmers posted is
legal. EFF also objects to the DVD CCA's attempt to blur the
distinction between posting material on one's own Web site and merely
linking to it (i.e., providing directions to it) elsewhere.
These defendant individuals have been publishing legitimate, protected
speech, including software, textual descriptions, and discussions of
the DVD CSS. This speech is in no way copied or acquired from the DVD
CCA's trade-secret documents. Copyrights do not give anyone any rights
in "ideas", only in the exact form in which they are expressed.
Trade-secret law only controls people who agreed to keep it secret and
have been told the secret; other people remain free to independently
discover the secret. The ideas being discussed and implemented were
apparently extracted by having an engineer study a DVD product
("reverse engineering it"), which is a legal activity that is not
restricted by any laws in most jurisdictions.
The DVD CCA is trying to shut these speakers down by starting with the
false assumption that reverse engineering is illegal. It is not. If,
for example, the DVD reverse engineering had been done in Santa Clara,
it would be legal under the 9th Circuit Court case Sega v. Accolade.
See also the 1998 US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provides
specifically in section 1201(f) that reverse engineering of an
copy-protection encryption system is legal for "interoperability",
which is why it was done in this case.
The case itself is organized as a "theft of trade secrets" case; it
doesn't use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and doesn't appear to
rely otherwise on copyright law. The root of the case is their
allegation that the original reverse-engineering of the DVD CSS system
was "improper" (paragraph 18), "unauthorized" (para. 20), "wrongfully
appropriating proprietary trade secrets" (para. 21), "unauthorized use
of proprietary CSS information, which was illegally "hacked" (para.
22). However, they provide no proof of these allegations, and they are
unlikely to be true. If the original reverse-engineering was legal,
which we believe is true, then the subsequent republication of the
information is also legal, and the case is merely a tool to harass
people exercising their legal rights.
EFF's interest in the case is to protect reverse engineering as part
of First Amendment protected speech. EFF legal counsel Robin Gross,
and pro-bono counsel Allonn Levy of Huber, Samuelson will be at Santa
Clara Superior Court tomorrow morning to represent at least two
defendants, Chris DiBona and Andrew Bunner. EFF co-founder John
Gilmore will also attend at the hearing tomorrow. EFF will at minimum
provide "stop-gap" defense to avoid a temporary restraining order
against the defendants. Following the hearing, EFF will assess the
situation and the level of our involvement.
EFF is committed to ensuring that individuals rights are protected,
and free speech is a fundamental right. It would be a poor public
policy to allow intellectual property owners to expand their property
at the expense of free speech -- particularly when the speech in
question elucidates how companies constrain the distribution of other
free expression.
The technology at issue here is the DVD Content Scrambling System
(CSS), a technical effort to prevent people who have legally purchased
a DVD from making completely legal copies of it for their own use. It
is legal ("fair use") for people to make personal copies of
copyrighted material available to them. (See, e.g., the Supreme
Court's 1984 decision in the "Betamax" case, Sony Corp. v. Universal
City Studios. In that case a movie studio was trying to have all VCR's
banned from the United States because of the potential to "pirate"
valuable movies -- just as in the current case they are attempting to
have all reverse-engineered decoders of DVDs banned. The Supreme Court
ruled that if VCR's have even a single non-infringing use, they cannot
be banned. It is clear that the reverse-engineered DVD CSS has a
non-infringing use, the viewing of DVDs on the Linux operating
system.) The underlying technology is for censorship, for control over
who can communicate what to whom. The DVD CSS prevents people from
making illegal copies -- and also prevents them from making LEGAL
copies, by preventing them from making ALL copies. The publishers are
trying to take away, by technical means, the rights guaranteed to
citizens under the copyright laws of many jurisdictions, including the
US.
The decoder source code at the center of the case, called "DeCSS", was
created (by third parties, not the defendants) to enable Linux
computers to utilize DVD drives and content, since the industry itself
failed to produce the necessary drivers for this operating system. DVD
CCA alleges rather unbelievably that the source code's real purpose is
to enable illegal duplication of DVD discs. The industry association
also misleadingly suggests that the DVD medium is simply a vehicle for
commercial content delivery, when in fact it is a read-write medium
intended to be used as computer storage by computer-using consumers,
just like hard drives or writable CDs.
We believe that the industry is mounting this legal attack merely as a
charade to discourage the widespread adoption of the legally
reverse-engineered information into popular open source software
programs. They knew that their "encryption system" was weak and that
it would not withstand scrutiny, so they kept it secret as long as
possible. Now that it's out in the open, they are wielding legal clubs
against anyone who attempts to write about it or use it, to delay the
inevitable. If they wanted to keep their information secret, they
shouldn't have made millions of copies of it and sold them all over
the world. Instead their tactics have been to follow the inevitable
disclosure by swift oppression, using large bankrolls to send lawyers
against little people. But the little people are part of the Linux
community and the Internet community, which have made billions of
dollars recently, and are not kindly disposed toward oppression.
More information, including case documents, is available at Chris
DiBona's site: http://www.dibona.com/social/dvd/index.shtml
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Show up!
If you're in the SF Bay Area and can make it to the hearing, consider
it "Netizen's Dress-Up Day" on Wed., Dec. 29. Meet at the front of the
Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 N. 1st St., San Jose, CA, at
8am PST, dressed sharp, to personally attend the DVD case hearing. It
is important that the judge see an unexpectedly large and intent
attendance. The hearing will begin at 8:30 in one of Departments 2, 9
or 12 (uncertain at this time).
We will follow the hearing with a press conference outside the
courthouse, and many attendees will do a group lunch at nearby Havana
Cuba Restaurant.
Watch the wheels of justice grind! Shake hands with the intrepid
lawyers who are working hard to protect our rights! Meet interesting
defendants risking a lot to excercise their rights!
Please make a positive impression on the judge. Don those expensive,
semi-formal duds. Show the court -- by showing up -- that this case
matters to more people than just the plaintiff and defendants.
Demonstrate that this decision will make a difference to society. That
the public and the press are watching, and really do care that the
issue is handled well.
We'll have to be quiet and orderly while we're in the courthouse.
There will be no questions from the audience (that's us), and no
photography there, but the session will be tape-recorded and
transcribed, and you can take notes if you like. Remember that courts
have strict security these days, so don't bring cameras, or even small
pocket knives unless you want them held by entrance guards while
you're in the courthouse.
We realize this is very short notice, and that only locals are likely
to be able to attend, but this case is moving rapidly toward filing
and there is nothing we can do to delay it.
For more information on this gathering, see:
http://www.dibona.com/social/dvd/plan/
DVD Copy Control Association
225 B Cochrane Circle
Morgan Hill CA 95037
EMAIL: john.hoy@lmicp.com
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I just set up another mirror at http://analyzethis.acmecity.com/triboro/90/ This is the warner bros web system. Interesting to see how long it lasts!
The DVD CCA people have picked up one of the best law firms in the business for this kind of thing, from what I have heard. People should not assume that they are stupid or foolish; the default assumption should be that everything is being done for a reason.
;)
Part of this can be seen in the hoops we defendants are having to go through. This sort of temporary restraining order is made to be used in cases where immediate damage is imminent unless the order is passed; this means that it can be rushed through the courts in rapid fashion. The notice of hearing was given only two days before the hearing itself. The hearing was set for 8:30 in the morning there, making it even harder for people acting on short notice to get there in time to defend themselves. This is compounded by the fact that some of the court offices there do not open until 9am; I have been trying all morning to get in touch with the Clerk of Court for reasons which I won't specify here, and have been unable to. Now, I will have to wait to act upon some advice I have received until *after* the hearing has started; and I will not even be allowed to be present in person, because of the short notice given.
Fortunately, we are receiving legal support from numerous people volunteering their services, including one prominent group whom I'll avoid naming here. People are bending over backwards to help us. But it will probably be a long road, as can be seen from the evidence I cite above.
I shall say no more now, to avoid letting something slip that I shouldn't. It's so much fun being under the gun.
I dunno, automotive-grade chips (-40/+105 C temperature range) would handle the steaming part just fine as long as they were cooled with water (and thus wouldn't exceed 100 C device temperature). The effect of bubbling coolant on the lens focus is another matter. ;-)
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Hah. In the age of global networks, my keyboard
is mightier than all the lawyers in the world.
Maybe they could sue the NSA. Since the CSS-tar
is on cryptome.org, their bot should have down-
loaded it by now.
There's one thing I learned in business class,
piracy is not a product problem, its a marketing
problem. If that's what they are concerned about.
If it's illegal to link to places which contain
the code, then don't do that. The code
can be overseas. Links to the code are also
overseas. People in the USA can just link
to overseas pages which contain links to the code.
-- You've got to get a hat if you want to get ahead.
Based on what these lawyers seem to be arguing: If the contents of a link changed to something illegal, all the existing links would become illegal. So, does this mean that I am automatically a narcotics felon if I happen to drive down a street that happens to have drug-dealers selling on the corners? Hrm, so much for "Life, Liberty etc" in the USA.
It is by caffiene alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire
They are attempting to redefine the meaning of "trade secret." This is better than anything in Alice in Wonderland.
Of course, we have a living law and a living Constitution. And most people believe the courts are the place to mold law to fit current circumstances.
You lose.
or you can be held liable. I suspect this is why people use the acronym.
There's yet another mirror (located in the Netherlands) at http://212.187.12.197.
Some 40 years ago, cigarettes were found to be carcenogous and a label was put on the pack saying they were harmful to your health. People ignored the fact and smoked anyways only later to sue saying they didn't know it was bad for them. They won. States sued saying that it cost billions in health care even though they made billions by taxing cigarettes. They sued. They won.
The Second Ammendment protects the right to ban arms, as in military armaments. After trying to nullify the Second Ammendment and failing, the executive branches, federally and locally, are now trying to sue the manufacturers out of business by claiming they make a defective product even though it does exactly what it was designed to do.
Everyone is now seeking to patent everything in sight regardless of how much it took to actually "innovate" it and blatently lying about how unique and "non-obvious" it was to come up with. Now everyone is sueing everyone else over patent infringement involving patents anyone familiar with the area could have thought up in minutes.
If you can't get your way via conventional methods, arm your lawyers and fire away at everything in sight. After all, what do the companies/government have to fear? All of their lawyers get paid whether they bring a case or not... They risk losing quite little in the hopes of winning big... I can't remember the last time I heard of a corporate lawyer being disbarred for bringing a false/misleading case. The corporations government can control public influence with their marketing budgets or by buying up their favorite media outlet( whether outright buying it or making enticing offers like an exclusive interviews). Not to mention our heading towards a plutocracy
Is this what we've come to? Have we become slaves to our corporate masters only to bow down to their orders? How many average people actually understand the gravity behind serious cases like this? Hell, depending on some polls, 20% more people think Clinton should have been impeached last year. A large part of the problem today is the general apathy of the public towards anything that doesn't affect their daily personal lives and the ignorace that the mass have because of their apathy.
How do we get the public at large to wake up and see what's going on around them if they don't care? How do we stop the lawyers from trampling over everyone's rights in sight? How do we remove the bias that the media inevitably has since they're owned by big corporations? What of the precidents these cases set? While important, protesting this single case is just fixing the symptom and not going after the real problem.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Lets boycott the CCA, the RIAA and the assorted other odious associations with similar names. Let us all agree to refuse to do any work for them and to refuse to hire anyone who ever has worked for them. Lets see how far they get with every tech person on the planet refusing to take a job with them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So decrypting information that a company wants to keep secret is now illegal? If I send information that I've rot13'ed and someone I don't want to read it rot13's it, can I sue them? Does that mean that I can post a zip file to an anonymous ftp site and specify that nobody unzip it and sue them if they do?
Basically, the consortium is trying to sue someone for creating a tool to read information that they own.
The European Union passed laws several years ago that explicitly _allow_ disassembly and reverse-engineering "to ensure interoperability" between systems.
Now, if this weren't a David vs. Goliath issue but a clash between European and American corporate behemoths, this might lead to a nice discussion on restraint of trade for the next GATT talks... -Martin
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
Admittedly, they encoded with a pitifully weak 40bit key, one which anyone, had we but known how pitiful it was, dedicated a few machines to cracking anyway. But in fact, Xing (which is why they keep turning up in the legal docs) left their decoding key accessible in their player software; MoRE didn't even 'reverse engineer' the code or crack the crypto. They just found they key laying around, effectively.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
OK. IANAL, however, as I said yesturday in response to the MP3 linking case on slashdot, here is my opinion:
(Remember to read throught the article on MP3 linking yesturday as that was very relevent to this too)
By uploading some code of some kind, be it mp3 instructions or whatever, I am "creating" content. When someone links to that content they are citing anothers creation or IP. However, it is widely accepted that I can write an article in a journal or newspaper (or whatever) that rerences another persons' work as a "link" - the kind that you would have in an appendix or footnote.
Surely linking is similar to this, I am citing a reference to another's work, just like I would in a book or other similar medium. It is rediculous to not allow *linking*.
Furthermore, if I reverse engineer some code, I am using my own computer and using my legal right to do whatever I want with my own computer. Surely since I bought the computer, it is perfectly acceptable for me to examine its inner functioning to see how it is working. If during this process I learn how a program works, well then that is just a side affect of me using my computer (my property) in a legal manner. This rediculous industry tactic of patenting and squashing all of the good ideas out of existance in favour of the "corporate way" is stifling growth and chocking a once much more open community. If the judge is reading this, for God's sake, have some sense and do the decent thing - don't let the "big boys" with the money take the candy away from the smaller boys just because they want to.
Jon.
http://www.jonmasters.org/
Interesting read. The CSS scheme itself is proprietary and must be kept secret in order to prevent DVD piracy, according to the complaint. Not to say they had a clear-cut case before, but it sounds like they're standing on really shaky ground when put that way. There's absolutely no way this could ever stand up in court as it is, unless of course, the judge is a complete moron... We'll see.
You're absolutely correct. The reason we say it is that lawyers have established for themselves the monopoly on getting paid to give legal advice, so IANAL means "I am not trying to give legal advice".
But, as you eloquently point out, what it REALLY means is "I'm going to let this elite determine the way in which I can express myself, and let them badger me into being timid about discussing fundamental freedoms."
So, as a previous offender, I hereby promise to stand up for my right to speak, and never use IANAL again.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Why can we not just copy an encrypted DVD verbatim. (I've heard that the writers don't currently support the necessary capacity)
Seriously, if we were after copying DVD's we would have drives of sufficient capacity and just copy over the encrypted movie.
What we want is to be able to read the movie.
From the complaint, pps. 45, 46, and 47, , for your convenience: "....The DeCSS program ... is a substantial derivation of confidential proprietary information which DVD CCA licenses pursuant to the CSS Agreement....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."
This case is not fundamentally about DVD, not about CSS, not about linking, not even about reverse engineering. This is really about the legitimacy of "shrinkwrap" software licenses, and IMO it should be treated as such.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
it seems the information age has sparked a tremendous new ideological debate. information wants to be free. the very nature and code of the internet says that information should be free. does art too want to be free? it is narrow minded to see this as simply an issue of open source vs. secrecy. the implications of unlocking music and motion pictures... or even books for that matter would cause a paradigm shift like no other in the world of creative arts. an artist, the creator of art, is and should be entitled to make a decent living if there is demand for her work. css was designed to protect the creative investment of artists, as well as the financial investment of the artists supporters, greedy as they may be. piracy is wrong. piracy cicumvents the means by which someone can make a living as an artist. the real question at hand is, where do we draw the line between art and information. whether he knew it or not, Carmack set the precident with his release of the Q1 source. He asserted that a program itself should be considered information, and the data used by that program is art. Art which should not be used without compensating its' creator for their hard work. a society is judged by the way they value art. the outcome of this lawsuit could very well change the way our culture defines art. brace yourself.
Alright, I'm pissed.
My name is splashed over a 20 page legal document stating this and that and that and a whole load of bullshit. DVD cracking will not cause a significant financial burden onto the consortium. They must think these underground crackers have immense resources to market and inform the average consumer of their ability to copy DVDs. Oh wait. People are already doing it anyway. It's called a VHS VCR and an RCA jack. Record -> Play.
What's worse is that since the letter was sent so late (2 days before the legal date!), I was financially unable to travel to Santa Clara, CA to attend said hearing. How the hell am I supposed to get to Santa Clara, CA in 2 DAYS?!!?!? FLy?!? and pay $700 for one-way since it is so close to the day I want to fly??
Second, I never received any hard-copy confirmation of my legal travesty. Hello? Isn't this law somewhere? What if my e-mail account was shut off for the duration of winter vacation? I probably would've had no idea that I might get a TRO against me. They're supposed to send this stuff through the USPS!!!!
Thirdly, I don't know WTF to do! I've removed the files off of my school's site per advice from a friend. And apparently, on the final draft, my name is still on the list of defendants.
Section 2 of DVD CCA vs. McLaughlin, et al. states : "2. The named defendants, and certain Doe defendants, continue their unauthorized posting of proprietary information -- which they either obtained by improper means or knew or should have known was obtained by others by improper means -- despite the fact that cease and desist letters were sent to their web sites demanding that such proprietary information be taken down from their sites..." If this was filed half an hour ago today, and I've had my site down since Tuesday, shouldn't I be exempt from the action?
I don't know what to do. Can someone with a legal background tell me what I _can_ do?
-- adraken
Actually, in Canada they are putting a $.50 tax on every 15 minutes of digital recording medium. This comes out to $2.50 per CD, which is roughly a 270% tax. This is supposed to go to the recording industry, but half is going to the government. -KillMeBoy
There is no way in hell this will happen.
Someone should get a hold of the ACLU. These people want to tear apart the constitution in order to protect their precious DVD encryption.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of, the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greviances"
This is, essentially, people excersising their freedom of speech, their first ammendment right.
I think a stronger argument is that you really don't need DeCSS to copy DVD's. This is what they are aledging by calling DeCSS "DVD Copying/Pirating Software".
You can copy the DVD by downloading the raw data from the drive to the hard disk. Don't need DeCSS for that. Need DeCSS to read the file.
If we had burners of sufficient capacity, we could just burn the raw image to the drive with the encryption entact.
What with Linux now being the official OS of the
People's Republic of China, and with DeCSS being
important to Linux, and with this case possibly
setting precedents that can figuratively
buttscrew the Open Source community...
How long is it until "Red China" starts
protesting these awful human rights abuses taking
place in the US of A? >:->
Heh heh heh heh heh...
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
Just thought I'd pass the following info along i found at
http://www.newswire.com.au/9908/copyri.htm
The passage of the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999
yesterday will allow software developers to reverse-engineer software
code in order to develop interoperable products, if the original developer
doesn't make interface information available. In passing the law, the
Federal Government has argued that making such activities illegal is an
impediment to Australian software developers.
Looks like what ever happens in the US, the code
would still be legal in Australia provided your allowed to link to it.
Just my $0.02
I'll wager that if the DVD consortium did nothing when DeCSS was released, that far fewer people would have it than do now. Am I wrong?
--
Information wants to be free.
the coke recipe isn't too complicated. The only secret part are the flavors added to it (the "vegetable extracts" as they term it in Europe)... And those are simple -- they're kola nut extract and coca extract.
You forgot neroli oil. Can't forget the neroli oil, as it has a subtle citrus(orange) flavor that is EASILY missed, unless you know that it's supposed to be there and you pay close attention to it.
It is by caffiene alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire
YAMS (yet another mirror site). http://everest.debian.net/dvd. Get the bits while they're hot. I'm not afraid of lawyers.
Andrew G. Feinberg
AltaVista, Yahoo, MSN, Netscape, Excite, and of course AOL all have links to this. All of these guys have money, and it's very probable that at least one of them won't obey this court order through sheer carelessness. Let's get ready to Sue!
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
To me the most important part of this case is that if the DVD CCA wins, then no official linux distribution will ever contain an open source DVD implementation. This could possibly be a major blow for opensource, with the claim that Windows has DVD support, out of the box. (While it really doesn't, but still it is easy to come by.) I would love to DVD fully supported in RedHat or Debian, but none of the distributions want to deal with DVD because of its legal implications. Already the dxr2 mailing list has had posts saying that RedHat will most likely not include the drivers due to their legal implications.
------ 24.5% slashdot pure
Gambling is illegal here in Utah. Does that mean I cannot have links to places in Las Vegas that mention gambling or host on-line gambling?
They can remove only the information in
USA (or in whatever country all that is
happening), just move the sites abroad and
smile.
---
Peace and code!
Not this debate again...
In the coder community, hacker means "one who codes in an excellent fashion", and a cracker is one who breaks security.
In the security community, a cracker is one who breaks copy protection, and a hacker is one who breaks into networked computers.
In the engineer community, a hacker is one who does crappy work.
While I respect ESR, but I believe that in banging his jargon on the heads of everyone else because that's the way he likes it he is just being stubborn.
He is a VERY smart guy, but not everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel...
Different groups have used different jargon. All are useful. Get over it.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
I understand that there are agreements on such issues between countries, however, I can imagine that they must include provisions for fairness of trials. And how can it be fair when the suing party files the suit in California, for example, and the defending party is in Austria? Besides, in criminal cases, I know that most countries won't extrade (sp?) the convict if he's a national.
This appears to primarily be about violations of the Digital Media Copyright Act, which makes it illegal to distribute, sell, or create software which breaks copy protection.
The arguments I see here don't seem to take that into consideration.
I get an itchy feeling at the base of my skull every time I see trade secrets mentioned in these discussions.
I went to look at The EFF's Announcement and they, too say that "The DVD CCA claims that the defendants are violating the association's trade secrets and other intellectual property rights...".
The distinguishing characteristic of a "trade secret" is that it is a secret! The only protections for trade secrets are that a company may require the signing of a non-disclosure agreement before giving someone access to information that contains trade secrets. All this does is provide a mechanism to penalise that signatory if by overt act or negligence on his/her/its part the information is disclosed and therefore no longer secret.
The "owner" of the secret information has a cause of action in this case against the party who violated the NDA, but it ends there. There are other mechanisms (copyright, patent) designed to allow information to be publicly disclosed but still protected. Once a company chooses to go the route of trade secrets, they have to accept that in the case of breech, they have no lasting claim on exclusive use of the information.
So, if the DVD CCA pushes this aspect of their case, they should fail miserably. As to their "other IP rights," they'd better have patents or be able to demonstrate copyright violation if they want to get traction.
A failure of the judicial system to uphold the partitioning of IP protection schemes that has been put in place (as would be the case if the DVD CCA prevails) would be a serious breech of public trust, and would have far-reaching implications for IP in the USA in general. Since much of law is based on precedent-guided interpretation, a judgement in favor of the DVD CCA would essentially destroy the old meaning of trade secret and install in its place a new tool that behaves like a trade secret until/unless illegally disclosed and then behaves like a combination of copyright/patent thereafter. Very dangerous, indeed!
I believe it was said elsewhere on Slashdot, but it bears repeating here: The only trade secret defendant the DVD CCA should be permitted to pursue is the company that did not take reasonable steps to keep the information secret (presuming that can be demonstrated).
perl -e 'srand(-2091643526); print chr rand 90 for (0..4)'
This would mean that emailing a friend privately with the http link and upon reading it would show an html link which when clicked on would take me to that site. The same could be said for someone receiving the email and posting it to a mail server and thus an archive (i.e News groups). That someone uses a "bot" to extrace all http links and summarizes the links which point to this site. In addition, if a write a summary article on "capital punishment" and my references are http links to the original articles at the ABC, NBC etc or a magazine, I'd be liable for providing a link to a copyrighted article. Since I can't use trademark logos without permission on my Web site, what If I provide a link to the 'ads' or a corporate web site which contains one. Would I be technically in violation of the using the trademark without permission. What if the links were put into a search engine vs. posting on slashdot. Would the search engine be in violation of storing the information and providing the info upon query? Yes I think. Thus a US site points to a site overseas with the word "DVD" and not DECSS. Then this overseas site provides a link to another site which contains the s/w overseas. Thus I'm not directly pointing to th s/w nor am I using the 'politically incorrect' word of DECSS to get to it. What if i use server redirection which is transparent to get to the s/w so that actual selection isn't needed. What if a select a web domain name of http://www.dvdsoftware.org that takes the user to the site to get it without actually selecting it. Give the source code to a minor which won't have to pay since they are a minor and I go to this minors web page to get the s/w. With the law coming thru the system for people having databases that contain information that someone else published and I just typed it in that this would be a violation of copyright; thus, if I provided a link, contained pieces of various DBMS data I'd supposedly be in violation of the copyright. Thus, no research could be done nor pushlished on the web due to being sued. What about on-line libraries that provide links to other libraries that contain electronic books. Although they may get an exception to the copyright law, but in my case if I download the electronic book (that's checking the book out using todays method) and email it to a friend who wants a copy to read or I put it on a CD or disk to give it to them, I'd be in violation of the copyright law. Even if I provided a Web link to this electronic book for others. What if I'm a collector of rare [computer] books which just happen to be in electronic form and I want people to come to my site since I have this hobby. Providing a linke would be supposedly in violation. Since the summons CONTAINS links which can be read by online browsers thus making them clickable links. These links just happen to point to my Web page. BTW, my web page is copyrighted. Thus, does this mean I can sue RIAA for providing a link in their court documents for linking to my copyrighted page!!!!! Hey! what goes around comes around. What about all those "cookies" that are put on my hard drive (although forced to give permission to buy the product); aren't they considered links which means my hard drive is copyrighted and proprietary data. Thus them probing my disk without my knowledge: isn't this considered infringement, deciphering my encrypted data ( although one could argue that no encryption is a form of NULL encryption) and then using it thus a violation of my copyrights? I could go on and on. Thus, the copyright for the movie industry is to narrowly focused for them and there would be whole industries that wouldn't exist since nobody would be allowed to link to anybody else.
DISCLAIMER
. . . Some of the articles on this World Wide Web site contain links to other resources on the Internet. Those links are provided as citations and aids to help you identify and locate other Internet resources that may be of interest, and are not intended to state or imply that WG&M sponsors, is affiliated or associated with, or is legally authorized to use any trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol that may be reflected in the links. . . .
jeff_C
What really pisses me off is that all of the articles linked to say it's about piracy. Now, sure DeCSS has made it much easier to make copies, but the main thing is I want to watch Matrix in linux, as do many others. This just another sign that patents are a Bad Thing. All patents should do is require atribution of original authors. Then we don't have to GPL programs anymore :) They all will be open source (unless they're kept secret and not patented). I have much more to say about my fully groked wrongness of patents, but i'm tired and recovering from a nasty cold.. so someone jump in :P
-- d'arcy poirot
Encrypted 'code streams' that are hardware decrypted on the fly inside the CPU something like how DVDs do it but with strong crypto. Debugging would become useless. Add in 'region coding' too and the future will look bleak indeed.
Has anyone noticed that the media keeps referring to those who wrote this software as "hackers?" Yes, this does meet our definition of hacker, but at the same time portrays them in a bad light. Last night I spoke to Mike Mussgrove, the Washington Post reporter linked above. His article is no better than any of them, even after we discussed the whole reason for the software existing. Even after we agreed that it was not for piracy but for watching DVDs with Linux, he only stated that at the end of his story after numerous references to "allowing people to copy DVDs" and "cracking the encryption that prevents piracy". How can we trust the media if they always spin the story against us?
Andrew G. Feinberg
Just tell the fucking lawyers and assfucking shitheads to go eat moms shit and spread the source code to decss and all the other shit like fucking hell damnit.
The underlying problem isn't in the laws that are currently on the books, if the laws were enforced with common sense things would work well. Lawyers on the other hand, their sole job and existance is to bend those laws or cloud the truth/law to the point that it is in their favor. and Alas, the seats our judges set on are filled with .... Lawyers! take a really close look at out judical/law system... it is nothing but an exclusive club for the furthering of corruption and thievery. The judges help the lawyers, the lawyers help the judges... Try and go into a court without a Lawyer... the judge will be instantly predejuce against you. (dont even try to tell me otherwise... I studied this closely at local and state levels)
if you're in a court, the highest bidder get's to buy the judge.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
is anyone out there willing to write a virus that will infect and disable dvd players?????that could put a serious dent in the companys sales of dvd players if they found one day that they put in this neat dvd and next thing you know dvd dont play no more
...nonsense in general, is that people will become more aware of the evil of their government, their press, etc. The powers that be have grown very rotten (perhaps they always were) and have mastered the art of maintaining control while convincing poor slobs they have 'freedoms'. (Oh boy.)
Hello: No one else, by definition, can GRANT you a freedom. A true freedom is assumed and seized. Anything else is merely a right, a granted priviledge. If you need someone else's permission then you are clearly not free. "Freedom Of Speech" is not a freedom. It is a (granted) right. (Or at least it pretends to be granted until you say something 'bad'.)
The internet has been uniting people and spreading knowledge in a way that threatens the control system. The control system will react more and more violently trying to regain balance. But this action will cause more reaction because people will have detected they are being controlled and will fight against that.
Encryption is another powerful tool. People think it keeps secrets. But its greatest use is SPREADING information. Huh? That's right. Encryption provides security, and with security people can speak more freely. DVD used encryption this way too - to spread their movies. But since they used it poorly and with the intent of limiting freedom, they have lost their security.
The system will fall. It's just a matter of time. But people will need to stand up for what they believe in. Cowards (anonymous or otherwise) lose their freedom quickly.
I do. I have a 12" TV, and a 21" monitor. Guess which one I use to whatch movies? By the way, 21", fixed sync, monitors are really cheap. My second hand one costed about 600 swedish crowns (1kr = 1/8 euro, I think)... A new "normal" 21" monitor costs about 8000 crowns. And of course, I can not afford a 21" TV!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
And if you've bought a new car recently, you hear such things as "You have to have the oil changed here, because the local grease monkey can't do it right without our company training" and "don't be tempted to give anyone a jumpstart - a power surge could destroy all your onboard computers causing thousands of dollars of damage".
Soon you won't even be able to lift the hood without the special company certified and distributed key. Reminds me of the special "case-cracking tool" Apple/Mac repair shops had to use to open the one piece beige toasters of yesteryear.
http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227.html
If you lika me like I lika you...
How they would prosecute that?
Moderate this down (-1, It's Too Late, Go Home)
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
This needs to be moderated up, and I don't have the points to do it right now...
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
At least, if the GPL is involved. :-)
The Courts need to be made aware of the true motivation behind this lawsuit, which seems to me to be about protecting the regionalization of DVD, and keeping a stranglehold on who is allowed to manufacture a DVD Player, and not about copying at all. After all, all it takes to copy a DVD is to burn the exact same bits onto another disk. But, then you'd need an approved player for it to do you any good. What DeCSS is doing is allowing anyone to manufacture a DVD player (most specifically in software, for Linux) without the permission of the Powers That Be.
This needs to be made clear. The reason that DeCSS is being targetted, is that it would destroy the monopoly on DVD playback Hardware and allow people to obtain DVD players that would play back DVDs made for any Region. This would, of course, force down DVD prices, as cross-region competition would be possible.
Had to comment...
This isnt the first time someone's been legally threatened for linking (actually that case in sweden was just thrown out) and im sure someone's brought this up before, but couldnt an unfavorable ruling here lead to some vicuously evil legal hacks? I mean, a recording industry exc with an ax to grind could then just go onto a site he doesnt like, anonymously post a link to DeCSS or pirated music or whatever, then sue the site for linking to it.
Of course, they could do that already- sure it prolly wouldnt have any legal standing, but the victimized site would prolly run out of money before they could convince a judge of this.
Anyway, is there anyone out there fighting for -sensible- net and IP laws in an organized way?
IMHO, IANAL, I Dont Really Know What Im Taking About So Just Ignore Me Please, The era of web anarchy seems to be coming to a close, or at least being pushed horribly deep underground, and the legal system thats shaping up right now doesnt look to be good for anyone (worth under 100 mil that is).. who out there is working not just to hold off the advance of ridiculous lawsuits, but advocate reform to ensure our liberties on the net, and perhaps simplify things a bit? I mean, issues of juristiction alone.. in a realm where physical location doesnt matter, what is legal depends on what country the server's in? geez.
three posts for the price of one!
wisconsin does not exist.
People will only wake up, I'm afraid, when it's far too late to do anything. It may be past that point now. Big business has such a foothold in government (even on the international level -- look at Chevron) and is so, so good at manipulation of the public, the media, and public officials now that the situation seems almost hopeless. How can people be made to know of what's really happening when they're conditioned to accept as canon what they read in the newspaper and see on the local and national news programs? Will they really believe the ramblings of some kooks on the internet, no matter how many of us there are? Hell, even I take everything on the Web with a grain of salt, and I consider myself an open-minded person. What the vast majority of people that will only ever put their faith the old-fashioned media?
The revolution will not be televised, because it isn't going to occur.
- 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?"
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Just to be different I thought I'd server up a tarball of the soruce via finger. Just finger css@darkcorner.net, pipe it to a file, edit out the top few lines, and untar it. Does that count as mirroring it?
-chris (gandalf@darkcorner.net)
...The DeCSS program ... is a substantial derivation of confidential proprietary information which DVD CCA licenses pursuant to the CSS Agreement....
This is why DVD CCA cares about DeCSS. They don't really care about copies of DVDs, or whether a few Linux geeks meddle with DVD content. They care that DeCSS hits them where they live: their licensing fees.
Admittedly I'm speculating here, since I have no particular knowledge of how the DVDCCA licenses that weak cryptosystem to the DVD player manufacturers and DVD content providers. But let's assume that they get some (per copy?) royalty - or certainly at least some annual licensing fee - from the manufacturers and media companies. Now appears on the scene compatible encrypting/decrypting software that is free of DVDCCA's encumbrances. Kiss those licensing fees goodbye.
The company is going after the hackers, web site owners, et alia now because (a) they're seen as a softer target and (b) to preempt any abandonment of licensing by their existing customers. You can bet that if they waited until clients started switching to DeCSS code to sue (possibly for violation of contract terms?) they'd have a much tougher time of it (or think they would -- I don't think this is going to be as easy as they thought).
I don't know if this angle has been considered by anyone yet, and the hearing is going on right now, but it helps to have a good idea of your opponents real goals when getting involved in something like this.
-- Alastair
OK, I'm going to stay out of the "linking" issue.
I had a long discussion with my dad on this subject, who works in the field of intellectual property. (Not a patent lawyer, but he deals closely with them and knows the laws.)
With respect to reverse engineering: Any reverse engineering of something obtained legally is legal, UNLESS you sign or otherwsie accept a contract saying you will not do so. Most likely the Xing player had such a clause in its shrinkwrap license.
Hence, the authors of DeCSS's actions were illegal.
Hence, anything resulting from their actions is tainted.
Still, the CCA's strongest case is against Xing for violation of an NDA. Two problems with this: Xing doesn't have much money, for one.
The second is that the law covers measurable damages (Xing pays $x, where x is the amount of damage the release of the information did.), AND it covers what are called "irreparable damages" - As to what they can do to Xing if Xing is found to have caused irreparable damage, I don't know. But if the CCA shows DeCSS as an example of Xing causing such damage (CCA tried to repair it with this order and it didn't work), Xing's ass is grass.
As to the naming of foreign nationals in the suit: It is legal. You can sue someone in absentia for breaking one of your laws. There may not be anything you can do to punish said person, but you can do it. (Note: Your'e toast if you lose such a case and later set foot in the States. Of course, the CCA probably won't notice your entry for a case like this.)
How to get DVD under Linux, if all the information is legally tainted, then?
It depends on the wording of the CSS NDAs. NDAs often have a clause that disclosure is allowed once the information becomes public knowledge, even if the existing knowledge is tainted. So there's a chance that another company can legally release CSS information now. (In fact, Creative may have done this. I know their Dxr2 drivers had some CSS-related files - did these include the full algorithm, and did they originate in any way from DeCSS? I'm pretty sure the Dxr2 does CSS in software...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"Good" has connotations that are inaccurate in this context. "Good lawyers" do pro bono work for EFF. :-)
Directive 91/250/EEC approved May 14, 1991 contains explicit provisions (look for "Decompilation 1", the document isn't formatted nicely) stating that reverse engineering is absolutely legal when done:
So, it seems that reverse engineering that XING player in order to ensure interoperability with Linux was perfectly legal (in EU), and all the obscurity called for by DVD CCA was just a means to make it difficult for anyone to exercise this right.
As for all European Directives, 91/250 had to be accepted by the various national parliaments before becoming effective. The Italian variant of the directive, D.Lgs. 29/12/92 n. 518, is quite explicit on this respect (see Art. 5, modifications to Art. 64-quater -- in Italian!); I don't know about Norway, though.
Moreover, any contractual clause seeking to limit the rights to "observe, study, and test the software in order to understand its working principles" are deemed void by the law, so even calling that the original license agreement prohibited reverse engineering should not be a valid defense line. This, obviously, holds for Europe. I doubt an US court has any jurisdiction on the people writing DeCSS...
As a mather of fact, even the usual DVD players for windows, can be used to decode/decript the movies and create unencrypted files.
If that software/hardware players are sending the movie to the PC graphic cards, then the movies can be grabbed frame by frame and stored on a disk file. Later, it's just a question of compressing it again: to MPG or AVI.
Even if the software/hardware players don't let you grab the images at a higher software level, it's very easy to write a new graphic card driver, or change an existing one, and use it to store direct video streams to a file.
This would be perfectly legal, since the software that is decoding the movie is fully authorised and licenced.
As a mather of fact, this would be a very nice feature for a graphic card.
If there are any persons reading this, that work for any graphic card manufacturer (or know such persons): think about including such a feature in your future drivers.
This would be a "most wanted" feature!.
If your hard disk doesn't have enough bandwidth to store real time uncompressed video streams, just use a RAID 0 with several drives to increase the bandwidth.
On the other side, it's very simple to create a small application, that includes a DVD-Player COM object, that plays the same movie several times, but each time it plays only a small part of the movie, small enough to fit in the memory.
Just compress that small portion, save to disk, and go back to the COM Video object, to get the next portion...
Another solution is this: redirect the output of the Graphic card's direct video drivers, directly to a hardware video compression card.
CNN Link: /TECH/ptech/12/28/dvd.crack/index.html
t ml?chkpt=zdnntop
http://www.cnn.com/1999
ZDNet:
http://ww w.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2414488,00.h
These actually are not bad stories.. They don't say what NPR did (that DeCSS is a means of "copying" DVD's and so on). Instead, mostly they say that the suit is BS, since they're nailing sites that reported the news. Not bad reads.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I am pleased to see major newspapers such as the Boston Globe devoting coverage to the DVD industry's attempt to supress the "DeCSS" program, and am particularly pleased that you have personally taken the time to become familiar with (and even particiapte in) the Slashdot forum.
However, I feel that it is rather unfortunate that you have overlooked one of the principal sources of interest in this decryption tool by writing an article that treats the dispute as being between the industry and an alliance of online libertartians and would-be DVD pirates.
As I'm sure you saw when reading Slashdot, much of the interest in decrypting DVD's comes from those who would like to be able to watch legally purchased movies on personal computers running linux and other alternative operating systems. Particularly in an age when our government is taking Microsoft to court for allegedly abusing its Windows monopoly, there is a strong need for a complete set of applications, including a software DVD player, which will make it possible for alternatives like linux to succesfully compete. But even as makers of previously windows-only products like accelerated video cards and software modems are starting to release linux drivers for their products, the DVD industry has shown no interest in writing or authorising a linux-based player application.
Hence it falls to the technical community to create the tools for playing DVD's by the traditional and legally validated method of reverse engineering for interoperability. I won't deny that there are those who would like to use these tools to make illegal copies of DVD's (or maybe even the legal backup copies which the industry wishes to deny them) but the simple fact is that there are no popular, affordable removable mass storage systems on the market today which can reasonably be used to copy and distribute the data from DVD's. As anyone who tried to download the short, limited resolution Phantom Menace trailer will realize,clandestine online distribution of full-length high-quality movies is still several years in the future. Given the reasonable prices of DVD movies, piracy is simply not attractive or practical at present to any degree which realistically threatens the income of movie studios.
What is within today's technology, and possible thanks to the reverse enginering of CSS, is a simple player application which will let personal computers play DVD's under Linux the same way the do under Windows. This is not something of benefit to pirates and cyber libertarians, rather it is a tool that promises to let law-abiding users like you and I enjoy the use of built-in DVD drives without giving up our right to freely choose any operating system we want.
This is the precise reason why I and so many other Slashdot readers and Linux users have downloaded the source code for the Linux version of DeCSS.
Chris Stratton
This is what had to be done with SSH. Why not make this the de-facto standard way of handling crap like this?
My point being: it's not illegal, apparently, to *download* the software in the U.S.
- 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 imagine if ppl can write DVD drivers they will add options that the company doesn't want them to have. Oh well. They are buying acess to the info on the disk. As long as they do not copy and redistribute the copy, or brodcast it, or pirate it, i see no harm. Since DVDs do hold such massive amounts of data and there are other ways to pirate movies already, I assume this lawsuit is not about fear of a DVD piracy movement. I think it must be about being able to use DVD's in some manner that the ppl making the DVD players and DVD's don't like. What way is that?
Hmm, I have noticed a striking resemblance of this fight to the fight against MP3's. Here is a thought. One reason I like MP3's is that I can hear my music in a new way from a form that I chose without repurchasing the same music over and over again. It was tiring buying the CD of the tape of my favorite LP. I legitmately own at least 3 copies of some songs. I had a few cassette tapes break and had to buy second copies. I hated that.
But, if i duplicate my CD's, I have a backup in case one is scratched. I can also use my computer to transform the music into the format du jour. I don't pirate. I do have MP3's of songs on CD's that I own. I make certain those CD's and those MP3's are not playing at the same time. Nothing illegal about what i do, but it does keep some of my money in my pockets and out of the makers of CD's and tapes, etc.
As it stands now, If companies quit producing players and drivers for Windows, DVD's could become as useless as an 8 track tape without a player. I am sure at one point Windows will change enough that the current players/drivers won't work. They can then sell us our old favorites again if they choose. They can also choose to not sell us those favorites so that we are prompted to look into the new offerings.
If however, we know the algorithm, we can make new players and we can change the format to suit the current formats, whatever they may be. We don't have to repurchase what we already have bought rights to. There is a strong motivation to have DVDs instead of VHS tapes. DVDs have more info and less degradation over time, like CDs. But how much better can the next format really be? I doubt it will be good enough to make me shell out another $10-$30. Not if i can still play what i have.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
If many of the sites named on the restraining order did nothing more than link to sites that posted the code, how far does this go? I was just on cnn.com and their site had a link to 2600.com. If 2600.com is named on the restraining order, why not cnn.com?
Just how big are the core bits of DeCSS? I remember when the "Munitions T-shirts" with a perl implimentation of DSS came out (Still have mine) some guy went so far as to tatoo the code on his body.
:)
I'd love to see them put a restraining order against someone's tatoo
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
ABC News has a similarly slanted story on the DVD lawsuit.
Read the article, and then go complain about it.
Finding God in a Dog
If Deccs is open source code for decrypting and playing disks, I would think that all you have to to is add two statements--open file and write--to convert it to a copying program. Unless I'm missing something? So I think it is reasonable for the DVD people to be very concerned about the source code, but it seems like they are also trying to suppress **reporting** about it. If the judge doesn't squash that immediately, he needs to go back and read the 1st amendment...
What if I had a link to a page that changed the content of that page to include a link to the DeCSS. Would that include me as a defendant in this case also.
Any search engine that had a link to a page with this content also would be considered a defendant also right?
So theroetically pretty much everyone can be a defendant in this case if you keep tracing back to everyone who links to your page and then links to that page and the page that brought you there etc.
So if linking is illegal then the whole concept of the internet must be illegal so I say go right to the start of the pesky internet and sue Al Gore, inventor of the internet.
----------------
Read the complaint carefully - it tries to get around the "it's a trade secret once it's out you're SOL" argumnet by claiming that the defendants were under a license from Xing (presumably a shrink-wrap) that included a clause prohibiting reverse engineering - thus they attempt toextend the trade secret to at least one of the named defendants - presumably all the rest are 'criminal conspirators'
I know it's been done alot already, and I'm probably to late to make a difference, but you can find decss here, tastefully mirrored from cubicmetercrystal.com.
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
I thought that disputes between parties in different states were supposed to be resolved in Federal Court. Lawyers in the crowd, please enlighten me on this.
Then spread the IP address of /. They can't "0wn" the IP address!
"UNLESS you sign or otherwsie accept a contract saying you will not do so" ...except that clause is probably not valid in Norway. Most countries in the EU explicitly permit reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes. So if it's illegal in Norway than somebody just needs to re-reverse-engineer it somewhere else.
For instance lawyers cannot be made to testify about conversations with their clients. That is not generally true. For instance a number of priests are today in jail because they refused to repeat what was said in confession.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Let's see if we can wrap up the essential arguments.
Here's what the DVD CCA claims:
The DeCSS writers used Xing drivers, thus agreeing to a license agreement that specifically forbids reverse engineering, to illegally break into the encryption scheme, thus making DVDs copyable. Since the only reasonable use of DeCSS would be to copy DVDs, they have acted against the DMCA prohibition on devices that circumvent copyright protection. Further, the defendants that provided sites and links were providing those sites and links for the sole purpose of encouraging the circumvention of copyright protection, also in violation of the DMCA.
Did I miss anything? Does the DMCA also stipulate situations under which TROs must be issued on *suspicion* of violation?
Here's the defense argument:
1. The Xing license agreement is not enforceable, as it asks every member of the general public to effectively participate in a non-disclosure agreement, as it was not explicitly negotiated during the purchase, and as it consigns rights one-sidedly to Xing. This license should thus not prohibit reverse engineering.
2. The action of cracking the encryption scheme is reverse engineering, not theft of trade secrets, as the DeCSS writers were not privy to any information not available to any consumer of the DVD player. Reverse engineering has been repeatedly upheld as a fundamental means of ensuring competition, and as inducement to patent.
3. Once the reverse engineering had been accomplished, the trade secret had been revealed, and any claim to ownership of that secret forfeited, so no one who disseminates DeCSS is guilty of industrial espionage, either.
4. Although DeCSS itself was written for copying DVDs in Windows, the secrets obtained (the cracked encryption scheme) and disseminated (as source?) by the DeCSS writers, makes it possible for the first time to *use* DVDs under Linux, which is a legitimate, non-copying use of the technology. Thus, any TRO should not prohibit use of the encryption scheme for driving DVD players in Linux.
5. Most of the defendants were largely interested in the legitimate Linux-player use of the technology, as the logistics of storing, trading, and "printing" DVD images currently makes it inconvenient for a casual copier, and unprofitable for any would-be pirate. Thus, these defendants should not be punished or restrained from disseminating the technology.
6. The untested DMCA prohibition on creation of a copyright-circumvention device is a breach of the precedents of fair use, which allow copying for purposes of backup and convenient use, and should not be enforced.
7. Some defendants only reported on these technologies and the means to obtain them. As these defendants' acts were in keeping with their broader editorial goals, any restrictions on their actions would constitute undue restraint on press activity.
8. Some defendants only provided an unedited public forum for discussion of these technologies, and cannot be held accountable for the expressions of participants in the forum.
In short, the DeCSS authors had the right to reverse engineer, the right to make a copying device, the right to make it possible to create a Linux-based player, and the other defendants had the right to disseminate these technologies, derive other technologies from them, provide infomation about them, and harbor discussions of them.
Did I miss any arguments here?
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
slime-sucking bottom-feeders get in on this?
This was already discussed on the livid-dev list, but you are 100% correct. A bit-for-bit copy of an "encrypted" DVD (such as Hong Kong factories are churning out for $5) will play anywhere the original would. All CSS does is prevent you from PLAYING the actual MPEG2/AC3 data or converting it to another format. It is not "copy proection" in any way, shape, or form; it is simply a mechanism to force authors/builders of players to pay big money to the DVD Forum's member companies.
Do you plan to set up IP blockades of whole nations (an act of war)?
I am not a prolific poster, or very eloquent when I type, but I would have to say that we need a new web. We need to return to the days when corporations and businesses had a minimal prescence on the net. Something that US Law cannot touch or any other country for that matter.
I don't think that it would be to challenging to create a new set of protocals and browsers that are technically superior to the html protocol and somehow limit corporate prescence. Corporations deserve a voice but they have to much control and power over the government (USA, specifically).
They don't have encryption on VHS. I can copy any movie that I rent (I don't though). This legal action is a blatent power move to gain more control over people and what the watch and when. If the US government sides with the DVD group, I would say that we (those in the US) live in a Fascist nation. Putting the rights of corporations before citizens, is just that. Fascism. This is not democracy.
Corporations have too much power.
So it's not about trade secrets, but about a government approved monopoly?
But even then, I'm in the Netherlands. This US law doesn't apply to me. Then Coca Cola is shit outta luck if I use their recipe and become a big softdrink manufacturer?
That's the problem with the internet right now. It's anarchy. There's no limitations and only a few minor laws. Who said linking is illegal? Absolutely no one. So, they shouldn't have a case, right? Wrong.
First of all, they must legally prove that DeCSS is a direct infringement on their trade secret rights. If they can't prove that, then there's no case as far as linking goes. But what if the the case goes in favor of CSS?
From a judicial point of view, this is the United States, and the United States has a right to regulate commerce (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3). Guess what? The judicial branch is meant to uphold the laws created by the Legislative branch, and believe me, if they find an infringement, they're going to put an end to it ASAP.
As Hemos said,
Once we cross the the bridge of dictating what can and cannot be linked to, than we open ourselves up to a world of people being able to sue whenever something they don't want linked is linked. Without linking, the Web is dead.
Well, the judiciaries are going to picture the internet just like the regular world (even though it's not). And they're going to see it like this: perhaps you're driving a car, and you drive your friend who's planning on robbing a 7-11 to the 7-11 store. Legally, it's aiding in a crime, and is subject to punishment. If someone is the "middleman" between a drug purchase, even if the middleman only directs the buyer to the seller, it's still aiding in the purchase of illegal substances. Case in point: if you're aiding a crime, you're part of the crime.
So, the true question is...is it a crime?
I recall a case here in Finland that ruled the 'void warranty if opened' labels useless on computer cases, because it is required from the end user to open the case in order to install new hardware.
//ville
WHEN are you guys going to wake up and realize that NO ONE IS PLAYING BY THE RULES. They pretend to follow rules just to blindside the most daft. When the rules can't be bent the way they want, they rewrite them or make excuses in legalese.
Do you really think those with power will use their own system to harm their own interests? Hello? When was the last time you saw a snake bite itself? Once in awhile perhaps, but it learns fast to avoid that state machine condition.
What happened with the Japanese car company is completely irrelevent. They do whatever they want. This isn't a company suing a company, this is a group of individuals versus the vested interests of the rich and powerful.
Whoever is more powerful will win.
wake.... up.
Good morning.
Go to http://mmadb.no/hwplus/ and grab the LiViD CSS source tarball is (the last link on page). This is a matter of free speach, not free beer.
He lied his ASS off in front of millions of witnesses (all of us) and what *PUNISHMENT* did he receive. Zippo. Zilch. Oh, he was impeached... (looks around)... he's still in office, his powers have not been reduced, NOTHING HAPPENED. It's still business as usual.
Is it okay to import coca leaves to Holland?
How about a spot of civil disobedience?
Let's all mirror the information about DeCSS, including press releases, source code, and the little Windows executable. Put it on every web site and FTP site you can, and sit back to watch the fun begin.
Do not meddle in the affairs of literary critics, for they are boring and quick to verbosity.
I'd like to first say that Stallman makes some excellent points in the essay section of this web page. Freedom of information is important, and present copyright laws appear to be curtailing that freedom. However, the fiction portion of this web page is, at best, drivel.
Fiction, by definition, does not require a plot, but it usually helps. Stallman has chosen the genre, yet takes advantage of none of the benefits of fiction, namely: emotional interest in the characters, and tension as those characters struggle. Instead we are treated to what is almost a laundry list of potential crimes and their consequences, all leading up to the glorious "Tycho Uprising" and the ensuing freedom of information. Because, as we all know, information wants to be free. (Sorry, I had to work that in somewhere.)
Dan solves his problem with a little mini-revolution, freeing a tiny portion of information to be shared between himself and his future wife. Touching, but we'll never know. Stallman moves on to the next item on the list. FBI, Microsoft Support, Central Licensing, now on to "the administrators" and potential expulsion. But the punishment is fitting for the crime, or rather the society. Lissa and Dan will not be expelled, but denied access to the information they need to graduate. This is a nice touch. Our future society recognizes the importance of access to information, yet, paradoxically hoardes it where it cannot be used.
In this single detail, Stallman underscores the dilemma society has long been faced with: the interests of the individual at the expense of the society. Nameless faceless corporation (hint: M$) and its fat cat CEO (hint: BG) get rich by hiding information and selling it back to us in cheap (as in quality) maintenance releases. Long suffering society pays this extortion fee just to be able to write emails to Grandma.
The fiction, sadly, is not faithful to the complex reality it attempts to abstract. Stallman reduces the problem to simple black and white. He paints a dismal picture of life in 2047 (and with the robots taking over the world in 2084, there isn't much time!) and then offers the nice pat happy solution of the Tycho Uprising. (I like the name he chose. The data from Tycho Brahe's work allowed other astronomers to draw conclusions about our solar system before the invention of the telescope. An excellent case history of free information benefitting society at large. Though Tycho didn't exactly suffer.)
He hits on some interesting points, but the stilted attempt at science fiction masks the logic and insight. Nothing is lost (and much gained) by skipping the "story" altogether in favor of the Author's Note
Someone needs to (re?)write a virus/worm that will distribute DeCSS all over the place so then it's pointless to try to stifle it! That, or just spam it to everybody...
This is form the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act
''(2) 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 a technological measure that effectively con-trols
access to a work protected under this title;
''(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or
use other than to circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
or
''(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in cir-cumventing
a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title.
''(3) As used in this subsection--
''(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work,
or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair
a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner; and
''(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to
a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation,
requires the application of information, or a process or a treat-ment,
with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access
to the work.
''(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 techno-logical
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 cir-cumventing
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.
''(2) As used in this subsection--
''(A) to 'circumvent protection afforded by a technological
measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating,
or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
''(B) a technological measure 'effectively protects a right
of a copyright owner under this title' if the measure, in the
ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise
limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this
title.
Slither
"If you are not paranoid then you are not paying attention." -Sky Cries Mary
I don't know about Trillian's monetary status, but I don't think she'd appreciate having any of her money taken as the result of a law suit. So, I'll take no part of that. However, maybe a few Altairian dollars....
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I buy (that means paid for, authorised to view by the movie vendor, unlimited private home viewings, get it yet?) DVD imported from the US, the UK, and Japan. I need DeCSS to view the movies. When the burners and blank DVD media get cheap, and they will like CDR did, I will reburn the movies onto DVD-R media after stripping the crypto out so they can play on my stand alone player.
People are politically inactive because they are lulled into a false sense of security. Our economy is great, etc. The corporations that make all the money don't give a shit who or what they hurting as long it is making their wallets fat.
Mpeg hardware cards have tv out jacks; and I
plan to put a VGA-compatible LCD in my truck
which would do a great job with DVD's.
Mark
All of these produce the same effect; however, only type two is a direct link. The others will ultimately result in you having the same information. So, how do we decide which of these functionally equivalent forms is the illegal one?
And to ask a broader question, where the hell do they get off trying to ban reverse engineering anyway? If it weren't for the reverse engineering of computer technologies, the California economy would still be where it was was in in 1977.
--
This is not my sandwich.
one man says:
I'm new here but I hear you've got a big crack problem.
second man:
Yeah, It's all over. There's a lot sold around 12th and Main.
first man:
You're busted.
1000 SlashDot sigs
That is a very frightening belief, my friend. If I don't have the right to determine whether something is wrong, who does? Do you hold that power? Does some sleepy official in a courtroom somewhere who does not really care about the piece of paper he/she is reviewing? Is it an international forum of philosphers? Is this solely in the hands of a divine entity whom I apparently cannot understand? I don't know, so I believe I have the right to find out. Explain to me why I don't, please.
Number two, your comparison between "Nazi" Germany and DVDs is not only stupid, it's in incredibly bad taste.
That is your opinion, and I respect it. However, my opinion is that it is a bad idea for legal bodies to set precedents along these lines. Denying me the ability to find out about this DeCSS tool infringes on the right I believe I have. The fascist government of Germany prevented the vast majority of its citizens from determining the truth of what was going on with its treatment of people who were Jewish. I believe that treatment was wrong and I would have liked to be able to investigate it, had I been a German citizen at that time. This is an extreme example of what could happen if the "right" I illustrated was taken away.
No one has the "right" to watch DVDs on Linux.
According to the U.S. law I am familiar with, they do, if they can reverse engineer it. I wouldn't call it a fundamental right of being human, though.
True enough. Let me add two more for the record: (c) People would not leap to conclusions based on a small amount of information and (d) people would grasp that "moderation" concept.
As the .sig says, feel free to ignore my opinions if you don't like them.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
CNN has set up one of their polls. Let them know what you think.
http://www.cnn.com/19 99/TECH/ptech/12/28/dvd.crack/index.html
Pork is not a verb
Since wearing the algorithm on a T-shirt is free speech, the following can be done. 1). Take a picture of a a person (such as yourself -- better yet a computer generated fake person) and morph the T-shirt onto this person along with the algorithm. 2). Since it is too expensive to make the T-Shirt in a manufacturing envrionment to get the algorithm, place the morphed picture onto a Web site with the title "Exhibiting my free speech". However, don't provide a link to the site by clicking on the picture. 3). All the person to download the image a print the image containing the algorithm for coding. Here is a better way Number 1. a) Instead of putting the algorithm onto the T-shirt that is morphed, place on the T-shirt the network address "http://www.dvdsw.org". Then do all the steps above instead of the algorithm. Here is an even better way Number 2. Since [political] cartoons have been defended as free speech by the Supreme Court - because they are political; and since this is a political free speech thing do this. Create a political cartoon of the DVD industry with the algorithm or http link on the T-shirt which is on the cartoon character. Then put this image on the Web for download and printing. Any above the steps are perfectly legal and there isn't a damn thing RIAA can do. BTW, lets buy RIAA out and put them to rest.
I'm not a lawyer, and I wish one would clear all this up -- When I was taking CS courses, we were told that 'reverse engineering' is actually illegal. As such, companies like AMD, etc which 'copied' the Intel code could only do so with 2 teams: Team 1 would inspect the product and write down everything they could find. Team 1 would then sit down with Team 2 and explain in as best detail as possible what they found, and Team 2 would then create a new product based on what they were told. Not sure how this would apply to the DeCSS issue, but I keep reading "reverse engineering is legal" and was sure I heard otherwise. Regardless, if this *is* the case, it should be fairly simple to follow the above approach and make a legal version...
I propose a new acronym:
IANASM
I am not a smart man.
eg.
IANASM, but I do know what love is.
IANASM, but maybe Bill Gates isn't so bad.
IANASM, but I prefer the GPL because I don't want this software I've created to ever becom proprietary.
IANASM, but I believe the benifits of BONOBO (sic? IANASM) are worth the extra wait.
IANASM, and therefor, I still use Windows exclusively.
An alternative would be TWBMDB.
This Will Be Moderated Down But
TWBMDB I prefer the BSD license. It's more free.
TWBMDB I like KDE. I prefer the OO approach to the desktop.
TWBMDB I like karma and I don't care if you don't.
an internet petition is pointless. Who are you going to be petitioning? The DVD forum? the film association? why would they care? any petition would be operated and signedby consumers. The DVD forum and the film association have made it abundantly clear by everything they do that what consumers want does not matter one iota to them. And why should it? They have a monopoly. If the consumer wants a decent-quality copy of The matrix, there is no alternate source. Therefore whether the consumer likes or is directly hurt by any actions of the DVD forum is completely irrelivant.
Following the blue ribbon campaign is a _much_ better idea, but should be done along slightly different lines: instead of placing a simple GIF image on all pages, place the GIF image _and_ a copy of the DeCSS source on all pages. Think about it. Set up the "ribbon" so that underneath it is a link "download DeCSS from this mirror location", and have it mirrored on that server along with the webpage.
If this got any amount of support, it would make the efforts of the DVD forum to prevent people from having the right to the free speech (source code) of _describing_ how to go about performing the action of decoding CSS-- not doing it themselves, not distributing a tool to do so, but _describing_ the method-- pointless. If a sufficiently large number of people are mirroring the CSS code in an organized manner- and in the process linking back to some page explaining _why_ the DVD forum has no right to complain-- they will be powerless.
The DVD forums only weapon is to put people in court knowing that the other side cannot afford the expense of hiring a lawyer and being placed in court, that simply being sued is more effective than losing a lawsuit. But if the number of defendants is sufficiently huge, then the DVD forum will be unable themselves to handle doing this to all of them.
What this problem needs is visibility to the general public, not a large show of support. People-- people in general, not just slashdot readers-- need to know _what_ the DVD forum is doing and _why_ it is wrong. If we as a community do _anything_ about this, it must be something to get this issue into the light, to make it visible so that the legal system cannot any longer ignore the ability of corporations to win any battle simply by threat of lawsuit.
start shit.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
guys, /. but if any of the guys concerned want to send me a copy of the injunction (restraining order) I'd be interested to see how shaky their legal grounds are. It is not as clear cut as some people here think, the issues are broad and revolve around the extent to which an innocent third party can be restrained from publishing research.
/. or net!)
for the most part I lurk on
The position in the UK is different to an extent in the US from the UK but I may be able to provide some input/advice.
Any takers?
(sorry if the info is already published - I dont have time to rest of
Dave
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
I had a friend who owned a body shop and he was bitching about this.
Basically they are trying to make it so expansive to gather all the tools that even smaller body shop / mechanic shop owners cannot fix your car (forcing us to use the manufacturer's licensed body shops/ mechanics).
Whatever happened to companies like Harley. All you needed to fix anything on one was a pair of pliers and an allen wrench.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
For those of us who can't be there in person, does somebody have the number of a San Jose radio station (Preferably one covering the protests) we could call to show our support.
lsmvcprm.com, Tools for geek power
News.com has a particularly poor story here. I sent this e-mail to the writer of the story, the department editor and the editor-in-chief:
I have to say I'm extremely disappointed in the one-sided, prejudicial nature of the story run on News.com today, "Coalition sues to bar distribution of DVD cracking tool" Did you do any research aside from ripping from the DVD CCA's materials? Ordinarily I respect your site as a source of reliable news, but the treatment of this story makes me doubt your credibility as an unbiased source of information.
I would point out particularly the paragraph where you state:
"The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to stop the sites from providing access to DeCSS, which the lawsuit alleges relies on proprietary information extracted from the DVD Content Scrambling System. Based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which passed last October, it is a crime to create, sell or distribute technology that could be used to break copyright-protection devices."
Note, however, that in your own story on the DMCA linked to in the paragraph above, it is stated that:
"The law does permit cracking copyright protection devices in order to conduct encryption research, for the purpose of product interoperability, and to test computer security systems."
Is News.com aware that the software at issue is claimed to be the result of a reverse-engineering project to allow DVD players to be developed for the Linux operating system, which falls under "the purpose of product interoperbility", and not, as your story wonderfully implies, for the wholesale piracy of DVDs? Don't you think that such a claim warrants coverage in what is claimed to be a "news" story, and not just the wholesale copying of a press release from the DVD CCA?
Please try to at least make an attempt to get the other side of the story:a in
http://eff.org/effector/HTML/effect12.04.html#m
Sincerely,
Michael Knepher
I got an auto-respond e-mail from the writer saying she was on vacation, but the department editor e-mailed me a message saying, "We're updating the story." So don't be shy about contacting news outlets and pointing them to resources like the EFF statement. Be reasonably polite and stick to the point.
Simple senario:
Some guy's standing outside a bank, saying he'll tell you (if you want) the combination to the safe in the bank. You say you want it, and he gives you the combination. You go inside the bank, use the combination to open the safe, and you take the money. Who's at fault?
First of all, the guy stealed from the bank (obviously). He's definately at fault. Now, the big question is what about the guy who had the combo to the safe?
Here's the legal standpoint: if the guy passed around the combination with knowfull intent that it would be used to rob the bank, he is involved in the crime and is therefore part of the guilty party.
So, was the crypto found with knowfull intent that it would be used for illegal purposes? I don't know, but in most hacks, that's the case, especially when the key is made public and passed around the internet.
Yes, it was quite ignorant that the key was left open with very light encryption, but even so, the fact that the key was encrypted means that CSS had no intent of showing this off to the public, aka, a trade secret. Legally, forcefully breaking an encryption is the same as theft (aka breaking into) when it comes to trade secrets, patents, and copywrites. I'm sorry, but it looks as if things are weighing towards CSS.
Hehe, I get it.. we're playing AvroMania now!
IANAL
I'm Another Nearly Annoyed Lemming
Play Avro At OpenVerse
You are a threat to free speach and must be SILENCED!
Fish! LipHo
the source code has also been posted at www.geocities.com/corporatemindcontrol
I've watched DVD on TVs and on computer monitors.
It seems to me that the resolution and colour on computer monitors is better. Anyone have statistics to back this up?
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
The person who posted the code in Norway was a minor. He's not even competent (in the legal sense) to enter into a contract (such as an EULA). As a result, he can disavow the contract at any time.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The usual industry solution to muddled claims of "trade secrets" (and copyright, BTW) is to run a clean-room exercise. Now, as I understand it, CSS is so insecure that a brute-force crack based entirely on published (as in indisputably legit hardcopy) data would only take hours to days on modest hardware, and once one key is available all keys are readily obtained.
Kewl.
What say someone undertakes exactly that? Work up the brute-force crack code in a clean room, then be prepared to actually crack the sucker right in open court or at least before witnesses. Publish the keyfinding code right in the Court's own transcript. Let 'em censor that!
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Actually, I didn't even know about it. I just thought the whole coca leaves thing was interesting... and a very non-widely-known fact.
So now we're even closer to the recipe... Pretty soon even the soft drink companies will quake at the mention of Slashdot!
and
Case Hinges on Reverse Hack
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Go here: http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227-help.html For a long good list of links to get DeCSS
This is not a case of reverse engineering! Reverse engineering is where you take something created and break it apart to find what it's made out of. If I owned a Pizza shop and had a recipe for a pizza of mine, and someone from another company ordered my pizza, found out the ingredients, and made his own pizza with the same ingredients, that's reverse engineering.
The key was encrypted. It was forcefully broken. Encryption is just like a safe. If it's broken into, it's forceful intrusion, not "reverse engineering".
Quit whining about "but it's like making a math problem illegal!" That's a bunch of bullshit. Encryption isn't a simple "math problem." If someone broke into a bank safe by logically figuring out the combination, can he say it's just a simple "math problem" and walk away scott free?
You will not find the spin you want from the TimeWarnerTurners, ABCDisneys, and Viacoms of the world because they are precisely the people behind the DVD consortium. They are content producers on a mammoth scale, and they control the major news outlets. Conflict of interest? Sure, but you'll never see THAT reported.
/. so regularly - even the narrow demographic it attracts provides a greater spectrum of opinion (via the comments) than one EVER sees from the traditional "media outlets" (hence the term, OUTLET).
This doesn't excuse the Washington Post or NPR getting it wrong (given that they're both quasi-independent newsgathering organizations, not owned by the same parent companies as the large studios), but how often do you see them seriously take a different viewpoint on a given story vis-a-vis CNN or ABCNews or MSNBC?
That's why I come to
I wonder what Noam Chomsky would have to say about this...
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
It is quite humorous to me that the injunction has the URL of all the links they could find. The injunction itself is guilty of linking to CSS source-code. Am I (or whoever drw is) guilty because I linked the injunction, which links to many mirrors? Is Alta-vista, yahoo, or the search engine of your choice guilty for linking the mirrors OR injunction? Are slashdot and other news sites guilty of linking? This is so funny! If you need to find a mirror, the first site I picked out of the injunction was still up and running. Injunction
If we had burners of sufficient capacity, we could just burn the raw image to the drive with the encryption entact.
This is not true. The drive will not physically read all of the sectors present on the media until it has been authenticated. The resulting files are encrypted with no means to derive the key necessary to decrypt them.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I had the fortune to talk to Chris DiBona through email the other day. I feel confident that nothing harmful will come out of this case. After the overwhelming support these people have seen come out of the open source community and especially Slashdot in general, it seems hard to fathom how we can - through normal logic - lose this one.
:\. :-)
Date sent: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:07:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Chris J. DiBona"
To: Nick Disabato
Subject: Re: DVD ordeal
Logic has little to do with the Law. That said, it's probably on our
side this time. This is just very expensive lawyers who are used to going
after idiots and getting thier way. I'll make them eat thier words.
chris
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Nick Disabato wrote:
> I'm sure you got emails like this from a lot of people today, but you and all
> the other people who have been targetted like this have my full support. I
> have DeCSS on my hard drive currently and I'm pondering posting it on my
> site, nickd.org. Unfortunately, I don't want to get into any major legal battles
> at the moment (hey, who does?)
> I, like what seems to be all of slashdot *g*, find this entirely out of line on
> the part of the movie industry. If this case is won by them, it very well could
> represent a major step back in the advancement of open source and it also
> could set a precedent for major corporations to rule our lives even further.
>
> I found this little tidbit of info on 2600.com's site today and I thought it was
> a very sensible explanation of what's going on. You can find the full
> statement at http://www.2600.com/news/1999/1227.html . Best of luck at
> the courthouse. Us geeks are rooting for you.
>
> "It never ceases to amaze us how those supposedly in command of
> technology are hopelessly lost when it comes to real world correlation. Or
> maybe it's more sinister - perhaps they are counting on a court system
> which will buy into their corporate slant and hang the rest of us out to dry
> without stopping to realize that none of it makes any sense.
>
> "DVD encryption was cracked. That is a fact. And all of the legal papers in
> the world will not erase that fact. But the DVD industry believes they can do
> exactly that, through intimidation and wasting valuable court time and
> probably millions of dollars that will be paid by the consumer in the end. If
> they get their way, they will actually continue to use an encryption
> algorithm that has been proven inferior. Where is the logic in this?"
> --
> Nick
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
I'll bet their lawyers will likely use it to contrast the concept of linking to a DeCSS-hosting address as legal but wrong and actually hosting the link, which they'll try to fashion as less legal and more wrong.
I'm surprised they're trying this in liberal California, I can only assume that their law interpreters have found an exploitable loophole in CA law.
First of all, I think a petition would be useful as a PR attack.
.gif in every cache of every browser that saw it would provide the DVD CCA with another defendant to worry about.
But more importantly, IIRC, the deCSS source is pretty tiny. GIFs have those fantastic comment blocks available through any decent editing software. So why not start distributing gif files with the deCSS source code stuck in them? Half the people who possessed the GIF would be unaware, and every
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
"There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone. "
"Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them. "
Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships."
"Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets."
"By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep markets at bay. "
"Companies make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are protecting less against competitors than against their own market and workforce. "
"Paranoia kills conversation. That's its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies. "
"As markets, as workers, we wonder why you're not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language. "
"Maybe you're impressing your investors. Maybe you're impressing Wall Street. You're not impressing us."
"If you don't impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Don't they understand this? If they did, they wouldn't let you talk that way."
"We have better things to do than worry about whether you'll change in time to get our business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom?"
No Zen is good zen
The source code has already hit the worlds USENET groups. Are they going to file charges against EVERY SINGLE USENET SERVER carying alt.*???
(See the link under recently completed)
ufdraco
I would really like to see this come out to where thousands of people where charged for giving their opinions.
We need to have a techno revolution..
You can give up your rights of opinion and speech, roll over like a dead dog and play silent and look the other way. I would be proud to be one of the names on this list.. coward.
Heres two.
This puts slashdot at three (or more)
Come get me DVD.
Come get H L Mencken too.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
Yes, this is perfectly true, but it would allow DCCA (or whoever the appropriate entity is) to sue Xing for not protecting the information given to them as required by the license. I don't believe it would apply to the people who read and reverse-engineered Xing's unprotected CSS implementation.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
I do not own a TV, VCR, or stand-alone DVD player. My computer is my universal entertainment appliance. It is my answering machine, TV, DVD player, web surfer, and gaming system.
Where are my moderator points when i need them?
region coding is /completely/ separate from CSS. the region code is stored unencrypted on the disk, and a player is supposed to read that and determine whether or not to play.
I think their efforts backfired big time. Instead of scaring the daylights out of anyone even thinking of posting and/or distributing the "crack", there seems to be MORE people willing to distribute it now. :)
At least, that's how I feel. I'm setting up a site now that will host the program. I'm sure there's a lot more people out there who are doing the same.
And the nice thing is, the more people who do it, the harder it will be to stop all of them.
BTW, if anyone is having problems finding a site to download it from, email me and I'd be more than happy to provide you with it
I don't know if it's legal, but that's not the point. The point is that if it's only legal for Coca Cola then that's stupid. I thought law was supposed to be equal for everyone.
So if I want to start a cola company in the USA and I want to use this particular recipe that uses coca leaves, I can't because only CocaCola is allowed by law to do that?
Put the mirror in Russia, Pakistan, India or China and then we'll se who will be smart. Nuclear weapons rock.
Here the link to that article.
Good point...
OTOH, a contract is a contract, no matter where it is signed or who signed it. It's kind of iffy in this case...
Now if someone goes and reverse engineers a hardware DVD player (it might be possible...) - THAT would be legal.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Well slashdotters, welcome to the revolution. Im glad that you all decided to tune in.
We as proponants of the open source movement are in for a struggle to free information. The DVD issue that we are presented with here (while it does have underlying effects: linking, free speech, reverse engineering vs. trade secret) is one a small step in the struggle to make information and knowledge free. I just wanted to wish those that are actually in the muck of things the best of luck.
As a community there is nothing that we can't do.
eric.mericle
If someone broke into a bank safe by logically figuring out the combination, can he say it's just a simple "math problem" and walk away scott free?
That is a terrible analogy, in order to 'break into' a bank, requires physical trespass. Cracking an encryption code does not require any sort of physical entry. Despite all of the mumbo-jumbo on license agreements, most people who buy CD's, videotapes, DVD's, etc, believe that they physically own the media when they buy it. Telling people they can't do a brute force crack of encryption keys on a DVD they own is like telling someone who buys a bank building that they can't open up the bank vault.
Your analogy is also weak by the point that if someone physically removes valuables from a vault, the owner physically loses them. In the case of DVDs, if someone cracks the code on a DVD they own so that they can view the contents, it is not denying the owner of anything. The owner would only lose if someone who owned a DVD gave a copy of the contents to someone who would otherwise have paid for them. While cracking DVD encryption may technically make that easier, it certainly is not a necessary outcome of it, nor is it the only way that such a 'theft' can occur.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-DVD-Copying -Suit.html
The fact is that lawyers do have special powers within the structure of the US government. I gave one example of a right that lawyers have. And this right is fundamental - you won't see Congress lightly trying to repeal this right. In fact the right is (unlike your other examples) not even an explicit law - instead it comes from centuries of common law. In other words lawyers have a right here that is granted to lawyers by the practice of law outside of the normal legislative channels that are responsible for the other rights you list. Isn't that special?
Incidentally law is one of three basic branches of the government of the USA. Therefore special rights with regards to the law are special rights with respect to the mechanisms of government. The operation of the law *is* part of the action of the government.
So you can continue your list if you wish, but I don't think a single element on there is in the same ballpark as client-attorney privilege.
Cheers,
Ben
PS +1 given up because this is getting off topic.
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Number one, you don't have a "right" to determine whether something is wrong.
That is a very frightening belief, my friend. If I don't have the right to determine whether something is wrong, who does? Do you hold that power?
Bravo! Absolutely. I always have to right to determine if I believe something is wrong or not. That is one of the core principals of being an adult is about. Children are told what is right and wrong. Adults reason out why something is wrong or not. I don't know about you, but I'm an adult. Anyone who tries to tell you you can't decide for yourself what's right and wrong is deranged, stupid, or selling you something.
I just got back from the hearing. During the hearing I did a head count. There were 40 individuals in the spectator area of the court-room, and it appeared (from conversations, T-shirts, etc.) that all were showing support for the good guys. In addition, there were a gaggle of lawyers for the DVD-CCA (I counted five, but they were flitting about so much it is hard to be sure), two lawyers for the defendants (one from the EFF), and one named defendant.
The judge said he'd try to make his decision by this afternoon. Keep your fingers crossed.
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
As is just about every other country with an intelligence agency. Why should it be legal for our country to break encryption anytime they darn well please? Why are "they the people" better than "we the people"?
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
> Reverse engineering is where you take something created and break it apart to find what it's made out of.
Which is what they did to the software DVD players.
> The key was encrypted. It was forcefully broken.
Uh? Why do you believe this? What is so special about encryption?
> Encryption is just like a safe.
No, a safe is private property. You don't leave your safe out on your front lawn for anyone to fool with. The DVD player makers, on the other hand, WANTED to sell TENS OF MILLIONS OF COPIES of DVDs and DVD players, and distribute them to as many people as would buy them. They in essense were giving their "safe" to anyone who would pay.
> Quit whining about "but it's like making a math problem illegal!"
The CSS algorithim is a purely mathematical formulation. The DVD consortium wants to make it illegal for this piece of mathematics to be published.
Note that this is purely because CSS is so weak that you don't even need to obtain any of the secret keys to decode a DVD-- you can 'brute force' the keys in less than a second.
Now, if they had used a good encryption algorithim, it would have taken millions of years of computer power to accomplish this task.
> If someone broke into a bank safe by logically figuring out the combination, can he say it's just
> a simple "math problem" and walk away scott free?
Again, a bank safe is private property. When the thief opens it, he can take something that does not belong to him.
On the other hand, when I use CSS to decode a DVD, I get to watch something that I already OWN and HAVE PAID FOR.
...and while you're at it, moderate me down :)
One of the most amusing assertions from the plaintiff's lawyers was that DeCSS could only be used for copying -- of course, we use cp for copying, not DeCSS. ;)
_Deirdre
If I read the injunction correctly, some of the defendants are not US Citizens, nor US residents...
How can this filing be relevent to them? Surely there should be a filing in each defendants own country?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
So as a Canadian citizen, if I buy 10 blank CD-ROMS, $25 is for the "piracy tax". If I use these 10 blanks for computer data and *not* to pirate music, does this give me the right to pirate 2 used music CD's?
The drive will not physically read all of the sectors present on the media until it has been authenticated.
That is only true for consumer units. Professional units can read/write anywhere on the disk. The content had to be put there somehow in the first place.
The upshot is, the consumer gets no fair use, and the professional pirate just has to be sure to sell enough bootleg copies to make back the $30,000 cost of a professional unit (unless it's stolen).
try a Usenet news group... to which it's already been posted, I beleive... no sense in using offensive or illegal means to acheive what can be accomplished perfectly using polite and legal means.
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
http://www.google.com/search?q=slashdot+faq&sa=I
So is that a link? Bwahahahaha.
(it's supposed to be sa=I'm feeling lucky but just 'I' works for now).
I could set up a similar thing too e.g. a link engine. Say John Doe creates an account and submits things like "John Doe's Homepage" so if you go to
www.linkengine.com/johndoehomepage/
it takes you to
www.tripod.com/blah/
And if John Doe moves to geocities he can change it to redirect to www.geocities.com/johndoe/1234
What do you think of this extension to linking?
Cheerio,
Link.
Sorry to say, it may be as bad as you say. Just the passing of the DMCA, the allowance of software patents, and the auctioning of the wireless spectrum speak to that.
But...
Actually, I think there's a race going on, and it's quite an interesting one, between the free and nimble and the big and powerful:
Access to global communications has made it possible to disseminate information, evade censorship, and achieve impressive results with decentralized orgnizations, but...
That same technology has made it possible to send a unified message to everyone in the world, to wield power with greater reach, to consolidate power more thoroughly, to deliver the resources of power to tackle greater obstacles and enemies, and it has allowed the well-situated providers and enablers of the technology to become the most powerful.
Access to capital markets and market information has empowered individuals to hold greater sway over corporations, and has made it possible to directly translate damage to a company's reputation into financial damage. Also, concerns over profitability and growth potential has caused large companies to shatter themselves into networks of independent, competitive suppliers. But...
The leveling of barriers to foreign ownership and investment have made creation of worldwide conglomerates possible, and the capital market's demand for market share has driven unprecedented acquisition. And the development of the virtual corporation has made intellectual property the most vital, all-powerful, asset of large corporations.
Global trade provides unprecedented access to markets by the smallest companies, but it allows unprecedented abuses by the largest.
It's an odd paradox: the awesome potential unleashed by decentralized cooperation and communication is making powerful central institutions even more powerful and centralized.
The question is: will the most powerful use their power to change the rules in the middle of the game, or will they refrain from killing the goose that lays the golden egg long enough to become powerless?
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
No, and you're a moron, too.
You're reading the message out of context, and you're confusing "rights" with "freedoms" (or at least that's what it appears you back-slapping bozos appear to be doing.)
"I have a right to determine what is wrong."
No one gives you a "right" to this. You're *free* to determine (for yourself) what's right and what's wrong. That's fine. Rights are not the same things as "freedoms" -- nor are rights the same thing as moral judgments.
But if you decide killing people is not wrong -- and you go ahead and kill someone because, well, you're an adult and you exercised your freedom to kill someone, well, you're gonna face the consequences, period.
It's the same thing with DVDs and Linux. There is no "right" written anywhere that says you have a "right" to play DVDs on Linux.
I too am sick of the erroneous stories in the mainstreem media, so I went back to CNN and found a link to post a reply to their story. I selected "Error" as the type of reply, to indicate that their article contained incorrect information, it is below:
Your online story titled "Hundreds of defendants named in lawsuit over DVD hacking" contains erroneous statements.
The first, and most important, is that the DeCSS program does NOT "break the encryption on almost any DVD and allow users to copy the contents of a DVD onto the user's hard drive". Any user can copy the contents of any DVD onto a hard drive. The DeCSS program allows the user to READ the encrypted DVD data. The purpose of this program is to allow OpenSource DVD software players to be written. Just as the fact that 'some' people may drive drunk and kill innocent pedestrians, doesn't mean that all drivers should have their cars taken away - just because 'some' people may use the DeCSS program along with others to illegally duplicate DVD movies, does NOT mean that all users should have the ability to view a DVD on the computer of their choice removed/restricted.
Second, it should be noted in the story that reverse engineering both hardware and software are considered perfectly legel in many instances. In fact, the CSS encryption was done so in Norway, where this practice is currently legal. This makes the CDA statement that the encryption was cracked via "improper means" rest solely on the validity of the Xing Player's license agreement. The validity of which must be argued in Norway, not California, USA.
The story as written, grossly misrepresents the facts of this matter, and leaves readers under the false impression that it is a bunch of Video Pirates being sued. This is clearly NOT the case, and should NOT be inferred in a story on any reputable news site.
Thank you for your attention,
Michael S. Oski
I would encourage all others to send similar, polite and consice, responses to any media outlet they find misrepresenting the facts of this case.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Just add to the [Reply to This | Parent] line, e.g.,
[Reply to This | Mod Up | Mod Down | Parent]
You could refuse unless cookies were enabled, and limit repeats using an encrypted cookie. Otherwise someone will write a mod 'bot, or act like one, probably.
Regardless of the number of laws and restraining orders and judgements one acquires. The item in question will still be legal somewhere on the planet. Can we agree on this? And since a site in Brasil/Taiwan/Nauru whatever is *just* *as* *readily* *accessible* as any other, how can the DVD consortium have any *reasonable expectation* of stopping distribution of DeCSS and its ilk?
/. posting can prevent the extraterritorial application of IP law where permitted. Conduct, even though it may have been legal abroad, may result in an action or criminal cause domestically in many cases. This is a deep and complex body of law -- do not try to do this at home. Though the data may live abroad, always ask this question, where's the beef?
No number of asterisks in a
At the end of the day, you can move your data anywhere in an instant, and serve it from anywhere you like. Nevertheless, serving that data into (or exporting it from) the U.S. (and its damned hard to avoid doing that) creates a basis for liability if jurisdiction can be obtained, whether by treaty or otherwise. If any of your property or body (the beef) lives in the U.S., they'll have you for lunch.
There is quite a bit of case law in copyrightland, in particular, concerning whether a defendant can be liable for authorizing infringing activity abroad from some transaction (like a phone call) made from inside the U.S.
EVERY scenario in this arena is highly law- and fact-dependent, and there are some things that can be done that may avoid liability or criminal responsibility. But most people don't want to export their meat (and any property they'd want to keep) as well as their data. Failing to do at least that, it would be highly foolish to undertake any such conduct without solid advice of counsel. And even if you did, it would still be a fine idea to get advice to make sure you are liability- and responsibility-clear.
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
FUCK YOU! AHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH FUCK YOU! YOU ARE A FUCKING LOSER! YOU DESERVE TO BE THROWN IN JAIL WITH THE REST OF THE BOOTLICKERS!!! HAHAH!
Now what's slanderous or libelous in expressing my opinion that the lawyers in this case are a bunch of fucking fools who will hang every free man from the highest pole if they merely follow their rational best choice, rather than respect MY INALIENABLE RIGHTS which include SPEECH TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY AND YOU ARE FUCKING TREASONoUS BASTARDS WHOM THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE BANISHED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fucking smart aleck.
These fuckers are way overreaching and it's about time some judge bitch slaps them back into reality. If your point was that you can get in real trouble for what you say, you failed to make it.
How in the name of HELL can they even GO FORWARD with this hearing while the documents were only E-MAILED to the defendats?????? Since when is an E-MAIL legally binding ? I know that unless i am delivered the note IN PERSON or vial USPS/mail it is spam and only spam. I could have very easily considered it a PRANK and pressed the allmight "D" in my pine! What the HELL IS GOING ON here???
When the DVD industry released The MATRIX on DVD and FAILED, no - NEGLECTED to inform the thousands of DVD Player owners that the flik might not even play on their players ... AND THEY KNEW WHY ...where was all their high and mightyness then??? I say screw em all! Send DeCSS.ZIP to everyone and anyone! Flood the web with copies of it. What are they going to do, sue us all?
When the DVD industry released The MATRIX on DVD and FAILED, no - NEGLECTED to inform the thousands of DVD Player owners that the flik might not even play on their players ... AND THEY KNEW WHY ...where was all their high and mightyness then??? I say screw em all! Send DeCSS.ZIP to everyone and anyone! Flood the web with copies of it. What are they going to do, sue us all?
Well how about this...
All the sites that are hosting it can encrypt
the deCSS with strong crypto
Since its encrypted they cant prove its the deCSS.
If the lawyers crack the crypto (well, steal the key), sue them for reverse engineering
Sigh.
I wasn't talking about legislative rights. I was talking about being a functioning human being. Sure if I decide killing people is a great idea, and go on a killing spree. That's a 'Bad Thing'. And since it against the law, you will be locked up/executed/whatever for it. But I have the right to do this anyway, no one can take it away, and no one can grant it. There is a large difference between making a decision in my mind about how I feel about something, and picking up a gun and blowing away.
Every day you make moral judgements all by your lonesome. Some people get all there rules by adhering to a religious code, other's read kant, whatever.
There is no "right" written anywhere that says you have a "right" to play DVDs on Linux.
Actually it would seem to me that the fair use clause would apply here. I own the disk, no one said I had to use their exclusive players to look at it. Of course there's no constitutionally protected right to 'watch dvd's on linux'. But there is no damn reason I should not be able to (except corporate greed/stupidity).
Amoung people close to me, I tend to give a lot of medical advice. They take it as useful because I was a bio major in college, worked with a vet for a while and have had enough health problems of my own. But they also know that I'm not a doctor, or even a med student and take what I say under that advisement. When I give any advice or claim any info which falls under what I think of as "trade knowlege" I either explain why I'm qualified to say it, or make it clear that it is only meant to stimulate discussion, not as solid fact.
...will work for Chick tracts...
That comment was a little out of place, however
I agree totally. I am sitting in front of a
17 inch screen 16 hours a day -- and their are 2 things I really enjoy doing that get my mind off of computers. 1 is reading books and 2 is watching movies...It would have to be a pretty damn good movie in order for me to sit in front of my computer and watch.....Thus I spent $229 for a new DVD player -- for the freedom to watch a movie outside of my "cold" office environment.
DeCSS, though, does not contain any copyrighted code - it contains an independently developed implementation of CSS, and a 40-bit key that unlocks current DVDs. You can't copyright those five bytes.
The situation here is analogous to that faced by the developers of Wine - they aren't hacking individual applications, they're reverse engineering the overall system in order to bring about interoperability. The difference is that the CSS code can also be used to facilitate piracy (though DVD piracy is uneconomical). It has a legitimate use, though, and is therefore IMHO legally protected.
Yes, this is perfectly true, but it would allow DCCA (or whoever the appropriate entity is) to sue Xing for not protecting the information given to them as required by the license. I don't believe it would apply to the people who read and reverse-engineered Xing's unprotected CSS implementation.
"A trade secret law, however, does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is by starting with the known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture."
Xing accidentally disclosed the trade secret by not properly securing it. The cat's out of the bag. True DCCA may be able to sue Xing for allowing it to happen, but do you really think that Xing intentionally made those mistakes? Besides the courts can't really stuff the trade secret back into the bag and make everyone forget what they know. They are screwed (DCCA). If they wanted real protection they should have used a real encryption protocol and patented it. That would have given them what, 17 years, of protection where they had a real legal basis for bringing suit against those that illegally used it. NOT that I support software patents at all, but that gives you an idea of how idiotic I think DCCA is.
"I have a right to determine what is wrong."
No one gives you a "right" to this. You're *free* to determine (for yourself) what's right and what's wrong.
Ah! So that is the nature of your distinction! I don't place that much symantic difference between rights and freedoms, so I misinterpreted your statements. I gather that you regard rights to be granted by an entity such as a government, whereas I regard them as stated in the Declaration of Independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Free Advice #7: You have to be very patient with "morons" and explain thoroughly what you are talking about, or they start calling you names and miss the point of everything you just told them. I try to follow my own advice, but sometimes I fail.
In light of your symantic scrutiny, I amend my comments about rights to freedoms for you. People are *free* to reverse-engineer DVD for Linux if they want. People are *VERY FREE* to determine for themselves the differences between right and wrong.
But if you decide killing people is not wrong -- and you go ahead and kill someone because, well, you're an adult and you exercised your freedom to kill someone, well, you're gonna face the consequences, period.
Precisely. I never said that actions were without consequences.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
My thought is this, If the DVD CCA has a web site, they would have to have alink on it somewhere. Maybe it would lead to a deCSS site?
DeCSS 1.21b and a livid snapshot available here.
Heck, you could just use your TV-out port on your video card and record it directly to VHS. Are we going to make coaxial cable illegal, then, too?
I think you got it backwards. People have rights even if no governments exist at all, inaliable rights. Assuming this, people typically organize to protect these rights, this is freedom. I may have a right to my property, but if someone takes it away anyhow I have no freedom.
Isn't it funny how a year ago we were all shunning DIVX and praising DVD as the almighty movie format? Funny how things have changed in recent times.
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
I think I agree. They accessed the crypto key somehow, and most licence agreements disallow disassembly, which I presume was used at some stage in the process. Anyone using the crypto key could therefore be handling stolen intellectual property, so they may be able to make a case. Telling someone where drugs can be acquired has many precedents for convicton, so if all the above are true, then slashdot may have a lot of maintenance work to do.
The key was encrypted. It was forcefully broken.
No, I don't think it was, someone forgot to encrypt their key.
So there's a chance that another company can legally release CSS information now. (In fact, Creative may have done this. I know their Dxr2 drivers had some CSS-related files - did these include the full algorithm, and did they originate in any way from DeCSS? I'm pretty sure the Dxr2 does CSS in software...)
Apparently Creative hasn't released the same DVD decryption algorithms or keys. I found this in the "css.h" file in Creative's source code:
"And now, a quick note about CSS and this software: Although this program permits playing of encrypted DVDs, there are no "CSS secrets" contained in it, and none were used in it's construction. No decrypted keys/data are handled by this program AT ANY TIME. The DXR2 card does all the CSS decryption on-board, in hardware. All this program does is permit the exchange of *encrypted* keys and *encrypted* data between the drive and DXR2 card's hardware. The authors are NOT connected, in any way, with any of the "software CSS decryption" programs out there, and *DO NOT* endorse their use in any way. Piracy is a crime! Just wanted to make that ABSOLUTELY CLEAR."
Good thought, though.
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
I guess they just want a set-top cash cow that happens to have bits delivered on plastic instead of cable.
But public interest demands that there be some open channels available.
There should be a counter-suit in the public interest to require public access to the DVD channel of media distribution. Selected lockout is acceptable. Total lockout or priceout is not acceptable. There should be a free way to produce free DVDs, while leaving room for appropriate protection (not including lockout of fair use) of copyrighted material.
Remember that DIVX was a even worse format! Although I am certian that if it had succeded there would be a DeDIVX decoder available now or soon. The fatal flaw of the DVD CCA was in not providing a solution that was truly cross platform and needed to be broken to make a Linux DVD player.
<This .sig left intentionally blank>
The sheer irony will be if the gov lets this thing slide, making decryption illegal. After all, this is the same government that is whining and complaining that they need a way to break our encryption, remember?
You assert an Internet petition to show support would be worthless. I don't agree. Now, I don't think a simple petition is going to make all our problems go away. But it will serve to do a number of things. For starters, it will give *us* an idea of just how many people actually do care. Such a number is useful in discussions and debates. Any movement to sign a petition will likely raise public awareness -- always a good thing.
Furthermore, a strong showing of support through such a petition might help our cause. It would be useful evidence if "harm to consumers" is a factor in the court, as it sometimes is. If we get a large enough response, it may get some attention in the industry. Large companies do not like to lose customers, and if they see a large amount of consumer awareness and concern, they may reconsider things. You raise the point that the DVD Forum holds a monopoly; a large consumer movement may bring anti-trust scrutiny to bear on the DVD Forum, and that is the *last* thing they want.
Do I know for sure that a petition will cause these things to happen? Of course not. But I think such a petition gives you a good return on very little investment, and would be worth trying.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
This is irrelevent, because 1) that's not what it's about; and 2) if the US government makes exceptions for big corporations, so could the Dutch. Not that I think they should...
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
a contract is a contract, no matter where it is signed or who signed it
If it is an EULA accepted by a minor, it is voidable by the minor or his/her parents/guardians. I note that the person to first post DeCSS was a minor.
I'm also not sure that it can be proved that the code was derived by disassembling the Xing driver.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I was at the hearing this morning but I had to return to the office. It's possible that the judge may have issued his decision on the TRO by now but I'll hear the results online like the rest of you. The EFF made a much stronger-sounding case as far as I could tell - citing precedents and pointing out that it's an issue of reverse engineering and freedom of speech, not a trade secret case. (Of course, DVD CCA says it's entirely a trade secret issue and nothing else.) EFF also pointed out how the DVD CCA's claims were *all* hearsay with no first-person confirmations, which was not challenged (nor conceded) by DVD CCA.
At least on those grounds alone, I think there was not a sufficient case made for a temporary restraining order. But it's hard to know how a judge is going to think. People were sounding pretty upbeat when we went to lunch. Andy Bunner thanked the people who showed up for their support.
Reporters were present from EE Times, Wired, KCBS Radio (SF) and probably others. About 40 geeks were present, many/most of whom undoubtedly wouldn't even be up at 8AM much less arriving in downtown SJ if it weren't this important.
Software is worthless if the traditional value system is used. Cost is determined by supply and demand. With digital information, supply is practically limitless, and therefore no matter how much demand there is, the cost becomes zero.
Software licenses are a completely artificial means of keeping the equation balanced. Since you need a license to use the software, and the producer controls the supply of licenses, there is now a non-infinite supply.
There are many problems with software licenses, however.
* Is the producer guilty of price fixing, since they are manipulating supply in order to control the price to the consumer? (Rhetorical question. There've been specific laws to allow software licenses)
* Does a mouse click on a button that says "yes", witnessed by nobody, have the same legal ramifications as a signature by that person or even handwritten initials? Furthermore, the boxes to read the license are often much too small to comfortably read anyhow. Does that invalidate them? Americans with Disabilities Act anyone?
* If you hack the binary install script to change the license before ever running the install script, and agree to a license that you wrote that says "You may do whatever you want with this software", are you still bound by the original license? It is possible to do this without even reading the license.
* Then there's the whole thing about licenses being too broad and one sided, like
"You may not let anyone else ever even think about using your licensed copy of this software. This software comes with no gaurantee that it will work at all. If it doesn't even come close to doing what it's supposed to do, tough luck! We reserve the right to terminate your license at any time for any reason we deem necessary and not refund your money. By using this software, you agree that we own your eternal soul, even if you're an atheist."
* What if I use my friend's computer to reverse engineer some software he installed? I never agreed to the license agreement. What if I did it without even asking him?
* Isn't it impossible to prohibit reverse engineering? It's a natural human thought process. It's part of our survival instinct to try and figure out how things work. "Hmmm, that little rock seems to be holding that big boulder in place. I better not pull that little rock out or the big boulder will crush me."
I wish Dave Barry was technical. He could have a field day with this issue (and he's got lots of readers).
I'm sure there are many other legal quandries surrounding software patents. IANAL.
So, if you didn't use software licenses, you'd need some other way to make money from the software. The natural reason to pay for software (with coding/debugging help in the case of Open Source software) is to reward the devloper(s) and encourage them to keep up the good work.
The judge understood EFF's objections on ground that it's already all over the Net but agreed to have it sealed at least temporarily. Some people in the gallery thought that showed favoritism but I think it was the only decision he could make that wouldn't immediately result in an appeal by the DVD CCA. Judges try to be cautious about "reversible" decisions.
At the bottom of this page is the set of three DVD files. Note the .au domain. Nothing in the US. Enjoy. (Please ignore the rubble, this copy was put up rather hastily.)
I don't know where you guys are comming from, but open your eyes for a sec...
No, a safe is private property. You don't leave your safe out on your front lawn for anyone to fool with. The DVD player makers, on the other hand, WANTED to sell TENS OF MILLIONS OF COPIES of DVDs and DVD players, and distribute them to as many people as would buy them. They in essense were giving their "safe" to anyone who would pay.
And guess what? The contents on a DVD are private property! The publishers of DVDs pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars for that private property. They need to make a profit, because they're offering a service! You don't think some people put their safes on the front lawn? What about grocery stores and clothing stores? They place their products right in front of your face, even some of it in front of the store. It's their property, and like you said, they want to "distribute them to as many people as would buy them." But just because it's there doesn't mean you can take it for free! That would be stealing property!
Now of course, everyone argues that you're not stealing the property when you just break the key, and to clarify, I do agree with this:
In the case of DVDs, if someone cracks the code on a DVD they own so that they can view the contents, it is not denying the owner of anything. The owner would only lose if someone who owned a DVD gave a copy of the contents to someone who would otherwise have paid for them.
I have to agree here. It's right in saying that the owner would lose if someone pirated the DVD by cracking it. But that's the whole argument. Visit a few of those web sites, and you'll see stuff like "F*** the Feds! Copy all you like!" I got a friend over at our local college who just downloaded from someone The Matrix. And that's exactly CSS's argument! Most of the people who are downloading the program are doing it in order to make copies. The intent's there, and because there's "willfull intent," the crime is there.
Again, a bank safe is private property. When the thief opens it, he can take something that does not belong to him.
Yup...and "when the theif opens" the DVD, "he can take something that does not belong to him"... copyrighted material.
CCA is trying to prevent making any copies of DVDs, legal or illegal.
;). Besides that, she would be able to take her movies on tape with her anywhere (DVD players aren't ubiquitous yet, VCRs are.) We'd have a perfect digital "source" so that if a tape is broken or wears out (when you have kids this happens all of the time), all we have to do is buy another blank tape and make another copy.
I thought it was interesting that on the EFF web site (http://eff.org/effector/HTML/effect12.04.html) they noted that the CSS also prevented making perfectly legal "fair use" copies of DVD's. Could the DVD CCA itself be sued (class action suit?) for infringing on consumers' right to make "fair use" copies?
I should be able to to make copies of DVD's to videotape so that my 4 year old daughter can use the tapes (no way am I going to let her near a DVD disk/player--and we don't call her little brother Bam Bam for nothing
I would even pay a few extra bucks for DVD over VHS for kids movies just to be able to do this. But if the DVD industry decides they want to be hard-assed about it and not allow consumers to make perfectly legal "fair use" copies, I would not feel bad at all using a DeCSS or a similar tool to make legal fair use copies.
Why arn't they named in the suit? They are linking as well.
Ohh.. i forgot.. they have money.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Learn to use paragraphs dude. I want to see some cogent, well-organized reasoning, not The Autumn Of The Fucking Patriarch.
AFter watching the EFF for a while, I have finally decided to join based on this case. They seem to have decent insight into what cases are important in setting policy, and have a very good response time to such cases. If nothing else, I just spent $35 in the hope of DVD software for Linux ;-)
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
>> DVDs is not only stupid, it's in incredibly bad taste.
> [whining deleted]
Four words, dude:
Godwin's Law. You lose.
Early news, but nothing substantial. See: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33336, 00.html
Hi all. I just got back from the hearing in San Jose. There were about 35 of us in a courtroom with 56 seats. The dvd lawyers seemed quite suprised by the turnout. I brought a bag of 60 floppies which included decss, the source, the letter, and pointers to various online news articles (including /.). Everyone got a floppy (or three), including the dvd guys. The dvd lawyers got a few laughs when they requested that one of the floppies be entered in to evidence, SEALED. Apparently they didn't want copies of the floppy available from the county clerk, as that would surely bring about the ruination of the movie industry. Paper printouts were also circulated and were entered as evidence, again sealed.
The judge said almost nothing during the hearing once the procedural bits were taken care of. He'll send his ruling to the lawyers on both sides sometime this afternoon.
There were a couple reporters at the hearing. Chris Oakes from Wired showed up early and sat through the hearing. His story is here. He misspelled my name though, it's Salsbury. I also chatted for some length with Deborah Kong from the San Jose Mercury. I explained the difference between bit-for-bit copying and decryption and why decryption is not necessary for piracy. Her article will probably be in tomorrow's paper.
There was also a reporter from kcbs 740, I don't remember his name.
After dinner we had lunch at the Habana Cuba. Mmmm, bananas and sheep.
##############################
BTW: I forgot my bag of floppies and a blue jacket in the back of someone's car when we went to Habana. If you find it, please email me at stickman AT altavista DOT net. We can arrange a mutually convienent place to meet, like the hearing on the 14th.
##############################
Ryan
Consumers will not buy products which are obviously a bad deal for the consumer.
And we have ample evidence of this in the DVD realm in the form of DIVX.
The fact of the matter is, most consumers of DVD's don't really give a shit about this decryption thing. The only people who do are the software pirates, and since they don't buy product at all, their boycott has zero impact.
And personally to me, the software pirates have *HURT* me by causing the industry to delay the introduction of DVD-Audio. I've been waiting for that for two years now, so I'm kind of pissed.
In fact, I think today I am going to go out purposefully and purchase a DVD and in so doing announce my boycott of the silly software pirates.
Save a copy of this web page now!
We have just been informed that the DVD Copy Control Association is seeking a restraining order against us (named as "Doe 28") for distributing DeCSS and linking to pages that distribute it and linking to pages that link to pages that distribute it.
Section 48 of this request states that we supposedly "have received notice through the MPA and refused to remove the information at issue". This is absolutely false! We have never received any such request (from the MPA or anybody else for that matter) and we obviously were not given the opportunity to refuse! Either Jared Bobrow needs to go back to law school or the DVD CCA needs to get a new firm. This is the kind of sloppy work that could get an important document thrown out.
Here is a 2600 story on this.
Explanation on legality of this information
The software (source as well as binaries) offered on this site can be freely redistributed because it was published under the GNU General Public License. The purpose of this software is not illegal copying of DVD disks. It is meant to provide information necessary to be able to program a DVD player for Linux. To do this, the CSS system needs to be incorporated in the player. Recently the (very weak) DVD content scrambling system was deciphered, freeing the way for a Linux DVD player. The CSS system is not a copy protection system, since it does not prevent copying of the disk. Writing information about the way an encryption scheme functions is completely legal. The source code and binaries on this site are completely legal too, since they contain no code from the DVD consortium or its members. The sources and programs on this site were written by third parties using clean-room reverse engineering methods which are (ready?) completly legal.
Attention www.rhythm.cx was hosting a list of mirrors for these files. That list of mirrors has been replaced with a page reading "This site has been taken down for legal reasons." Here's what the maintainer put on the site the day it was shut down:
NOTE (Thu, Nov 11, 12:17pm EST): I've recently been informed that a law firm which is likely to be one that would try get these mirrors taken down has been visiting this mirror site as well as others. With that said, there is a possibility that I may have to remove this site in the near future because like everyone else, I can't afford to go to court to fight it. Luckly, it seems fairly unlikely that any law firm will ever be able to get rid of all these mirrors at this point (there are currently 41 in 8 different countries and this list is growing every day). However, I have only seen very few mirror _lists_ like this one anyplace. If anyone has the resources, it might be wise to mirror this list of mirrors as well so that the right people will still know that these mirrors exist.
Here is a 2600 story with more details on how rhythm.cx was shut down.
Current Mirrors Last updated: Wed, Dec 29, 3:14pm EST
Numbers are only for the maintainer's convenience
Much thanks to this site for listing mirrors of the mirror lists.
This site contains some good technical documentation as well as more source code that the DVD consorium's lawyers would rather you not see:
http://crypto.gq.nu/
Semi-broken Mirrors
(These mirrors sometimes work and sometimes don't)
http://joe.to/storage/files/decss.zip
ftp://eris.giga.or.at/pub/hacker/crypt/ DVD/
http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/files/D eCSS.zip and http://gullii.stu.rpi.edu/dvd/f iles/css-auth.tar.gz
http://www.discordia.de/decss/DeCSS.zip and http://www.discordia.de/decss/css-aut h_tar.gz and http://www.discordia.de/decss/LiVid.tgz
Broken Mirrors
(These are listed here for the notification of the people who run them)
http://members.theglobe.com/avoiderman/css-auth.t
ftp://mikpos.dyndns.org/pub/cssdvd.zip
ftp://195.115.63.44/pub/DeCSS.zip
http://home.c2i.net/buddha9/
http://frodo.campus.luth.se/~iocc/tip.html
http://home.t-online.de/home/skinner01/decss.zip
http://freeweb.digiweb.com/business/avoiderman/
http://www.hack.b3.nu/
Mirrors shut down by The Man
(A moment of silence, please.)
http://www.rhythm.cx/dvd/css-auth.tar.gz and http://www.rhythm.cx/dvd/DeCSS.zip
http://dvdcracked.tvheaven.com/index.html
http://home.worldonline.dk/~andersa/download/DeCS
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10079-100-14
http://www.theresistance.net/files.html
http://cryptome.org/dvd-css.htm
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dchan/css/
http://caspian.twu.net/dvd/
http://mclaughlin.orange.ca.us/~andrew/
ftp://134.173.94.44
/*
* css.h
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains declarations common to more than one CSS program#
*
*/
#ifndef CSS_H
#define CSS_H
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
Tables defined in csstable.c
*/
extern byte CSSvarients[32];
extern byte CSSsecret[5];
extern byte CSSmangle0[256], CSSmangle1[256], CSSmangle2[256];
extern byte reverse[256];
/*
Debug functions defined in cssdebug.c
*/
void print_tab( byte const * b, int len);
#endif
/*
/* 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
* Copyright (C) 1999
* Derek Fawcus
* Mark Roberts
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
#include
#include "css.h"
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
/*
* 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, byte *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
int val;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
* initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s[0] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[s[4]] > 17) ^ (lfsr0 >> 14) ^ (lfsr0 >> 13) ^ (lfsr0 >> 5);
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 > 1);
o_lfsr1 ^= (lfsr1 >> 9) ^ (lfsr1 >> 12) ^ (lfsr1 >> 15);
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
#if (CSSDEBUG & 2)
fprintf(stderr, "lfsr0=%08x lfsr1=%08x\n", lfsr0, lfsr1);
#endif
} while (--len > 0);
}
/*---------------------------------------------
If this was C++, these would be inline functions
*------------------------------------------------
#define MANGLE1(bs,ip,op) \
in = ip; out = op; bp = bs; \
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = in[i]) { \
index = bp[i] ^ in[i]; \
index = CSSmangle1[index] ^ cse; \
out[i] = CSSmangle2[index] ^ term; \
}
#define MANGLE2( bs, ip, op) \
in = ip; out = op; bp = bs; \
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = in[i]) { \
index = bp[i] ^ in[i]; \
index = CSSmangle1[index] ^ cse; \
index = CSSmangle2[index] ^ term; \
out[i] = CSSmangle0[index]; \
}
/*
* 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, const byte *input, byte *output)
{
byte cse, term, index;
byte temp1[5], temp2[5];
byte bits[30];
const byte *in;
byte *out;
byte *bp;
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[i] = input[5 + i] ^ CSSsecret[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1[0]);
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nBits: ");
print_tab( &bits[0], 30);
#endif
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = CSSvarients[varient];
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
MANGLE1( &bits[25], input, &temp1[0]);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr"\nRound 1: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[20], &temp1[0], &temp2[0]);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 2: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE2( &bits[15], temp2, temp1);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf( stderr, "\nRound 3: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE2( &bits[10], temp1, temp2);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 4: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[5], temp2, temp1);
out[4] ^= out[0];
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 5: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
MANGLE1( &bits[0], temp1, output);
#if (CSSDEBUG & 1)
fprintf(stderr, "\nRound 6: ");
print_tab( &out[0], 5);
#endif
}
/*
* 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.
*/
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->b[0]);
}
/* 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->b[0]);
}
/* 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->b[0]);
}
#ifndef CSS_AUTH_H_
#define CSS_AUTH_H_
#include "css.h"
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);
#endif
/*
/* __linux__ */
/* DVD specific ? */ /* DVD specific ? */
* css-cat.c
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus.
*
* Released under version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Decode selected sector types from a CSS encoded DVD to stdout. Use as a
* filter on the input to mpeg2player or ac3dec.
*
*/
#include
#include
#if defined(__linux__)
# include
#endif
#include
#include
#include
#include "css-descramble.h"
static struct playkey pkey1a1 = {0x36b, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a1 = {0x762, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b1 = {0x36b, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a2 = {0x2f3, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey2a2 = {0x730, {0x2c,0xb2,0xc1,0x09,0xee}};
static struct playkey pkey1b2 = {0x2f3, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey1a3 = {0x235, {0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0}};
static struct playkey pkey1b3 = {0x235, {0x90,0xc1,0xd7,0x84,0x48}};
static struct playkey pkey3a1 = {0x249, {0xb7,0x3f,0xd4,0xaa,0x14}};
static struct playkey pkey4a1 = {0x028, {0x53,0xd4,0xf7,0xd9,0x8f}};
static struct playkey *playkeys[] = {
&pkey1a1, &pkey2a1, &pkey1b1,
&pkey1a2, &pkey2a2, &pkey1b2,
&pkey1a3, &pkey1b3,
&pkey3a1, &pkey4a1,
NULL};
static unsigned char disk_key[2048];
static unsigned char title_key[5];
static unsigned char sector[2048];
unsigned long sectors = 0;
unsigned long crypted = 0;
unsigned long skipped = 0;
int do_all = 0;
int do_video = 0;
int do_ac3 = 0;
int do_mpg = 0;
int verbose = 0;
int keep_pack = 0;
int keep_pes = -1;
#define STCODE(p,a,b,c,d) ((p)[0] == a && (p)[1] == b && (p)[2] == c && (p)[3] == d)
static void un_css(int fdi, int fdo)
{
unsigned char *sp, *pes;
int writen, wr, peslen, hdrlen;
while (read(fdi, sector, 2048) == 2048) {
++sectors;
if (!STCODE(sector,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xba)) {
fputs("Not Pack start code\n", stderr);
++skipped; continue;
}
if (do_all)
goto write_it;
pes = sector + 14 + (sector[13] & 0x07);
if (STCODE(pes,0x00,0x00,0x01,0xbb)) {/* System Header Pack Layer */
peslen = (pes[0x04] 0 && writen 32)
usage_exit();
++keep_pes;
break;
case '1': case '2': case '3': case '4':
case '5': case '6': case '7': case '8':
do_ac3 = c - '0';
++keep_pes;
break;
case EOF:
goto got_args;
default:
usage_exit();
break;
}
got_args:
keep_pes = (keep_pes > 0) ? 1 : 0;
return optind;
}
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
int ai, fd;
char titlef[12];
if ((fd = open("disk-key", O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open disk-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, disk_key, 2048) != 2048) {
perror("can't read disk-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if ((ai = parse_args(ac, av)) >= ac)
usage_exit();
strcpy(titlef, "title");
strcat(titlef, title);
strcat(titlef, "-key");
if ((fd = open(titlef, O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
perror("can't open title-key");
exit(1);
}
if (read(fd, title_key, 5) != 5) {
perror("can't read title-key");
close(fd);
exit(1);
}
close(fd);
if (strcmp(av[ai], "-") == 0)
fd = 0;
else if ((fd = open(av[ai], O_RDONLY)) == -1) {
fputs("can't open VOB file ", stderr);
fputs(av[ai], stderr);
perror("");
exit(1);
}
if (!css_decrypttitlekey(title_key, disk_key, playkeys)) {
close(fd);
return 3;
}
un_css(fd, 1);
fprintf(stderr, "Total %lu, skipped %lu, crvid %lu\n",
sectors, skipped, crypted);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
/*
;len > 0; len--) fprintf(stderr, " 0x%02X", *b++);
* Copyright (C) 1999
* Derek Fawcus
* Mark Roberts
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
#include
#include "css.h"
void print_tab( byte const * b, int len)
{
for (
}
This is the letter I sent. And yeah, after I wrote it I realized it was a Reuters wire story, but maybe they'll keep it in mind regardless.
The article is long on the viewpoint of the DVD industry, but makes little attempt to cover the side of the defendants in this case and paints the authors of "DeCSS" as criminals knowingly attempting to "destroy the market for DVD-based products". And, considering the quotes from some of the intellectual-property lawyers in your article, I'm wondering how much some of your sources actually know about the facts of the case.
-----
"Their unchecked illegal activities will chill future technological innovation in the motion picture, consumer electronics and computer industries and discourage other industries from making their content available to the public in new formats," the [filing for an injunction]said.
-----
The DVD CCA's complaint is rather ironic, considering that similar technology breakthroughs in the past have not "chill[ed] future technological innovation in the motion picture [and] consumer electronics [...] industries". How much has the motion picture industry been harmed by the relatively easy ability to copy VHS videocassettes? (A technology, incidentally, that was similarly attacked in the past as allowing for widespread pirating of movies. Judging from record sales of the movie "Titanic" on videocassette, I have to wonder just how many pirated movies the average American has on his video shelf?)
-----
"There's a lot of issues that go into something like this, like freedom of speech and all that, but those freedoms are limited when you know what you are doing is wrong and you're hurting people," said Ronald Coolley [...]
-----
Why does Mr. Coolley believe the authors have intentionally harmed the DVD industry? The authors never stated that their intent to facilitate pirating; the "DecSS" program was written to allow computers running the Linux operating system to be able to play DVD movie discs.
The ability to reverse-engineer technology (analyze or disassemble technology to determine how it works) is not illegal in the U.S., if the reverse engineering is being done to insure product compatibility. This ability is even protected in recently-passed Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
-----
"They have to make a statement," said Claude Stern, an intellectual property attorney with Fenwick & West. "All those companies that have major amounts of content can't afford to have some moron hacker post something because he thinks it's cool."
-----
Assuming that Mr. Stern is using the term "hacker" to describe someone who breaks into computer systems (a term many computer professionals and enthusiasts have replaced with the term "cracker") potentially to steal confidential information, then he also misunderstands the situation -- although he unintentionally got the term right for what the authors actually did do.
The authors did not steal any proprietary information from Xing Technologies or anyone else; they analyzed and attacked the encryption on the disk itself. Even if Xing Technologies had not erroneously left their key unencrypted, the weak encryption used meant that it was only a matter of time before the authors found a valid key by brute-force checking every possible combination. (The authors stated that, once they found a valid key, they had enough information to find several dozen others.)
It is my hope that your reporters will, in the future, make a better effort to discover and accurately report the facts.
Jay (=
/*
, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b, , 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b, , 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f, , 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91, , 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75, , 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95, , 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11, , 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f, , 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b, , 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb, , 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f, , 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1, , 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15, , 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5, , 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71, , 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus / M Roberts
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css.h"
#include "css-descramble.h"
#define CSS_DEBUG 0x00
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
int i;
byte k[5];
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[ im[0] ] > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
int val;
unsigned int lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24);
lfsr1 = (reverse[SALTED(0)] > 12) ^ (lfsr0 >> 4) ^ (lfsr0 >> 3) ^ lfsr0;
o_lfsr1 = ((lfsr1 >> 14) & 7) ^ lfsr1;
o_lfsr1 ^= (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr1 > 8) ^ (o_lfsr0 >= 8;
#if (CSS_DEBUG & 0x10)
fprintf( stderr,"lfsr0:0x%08x lfsr1: 0x%08x o_lfsr0:0x%02x o_lfsr1:0x%02x\n",
lfsr0, lfsr1, o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1);
#endif
}
}
#ifndef __css_descramble_h_
#define __css_descramble_h_
struct playkey {
int offset;
unsigned char key[5];
};
extern int css_decrypttitlekey(unsigned char *tkey, unsigned char *dkey, struct playkey **pkey);
extern void css_descramble(unsigned char *sec,unsigned char *key);
#endif
#include "css.h"
2 1,0x24,0x25,0x30,0x31,0x34,0x35, A 1,0xA4,0xA5,0xB0,0xB1,0xB4,0xB5
8 D,0x0F,0x8E,0x0A,0x8B,0x09,0x88, 9 5,0x17,0x96,0x12,0x93,0x11,0x90, B D,0x3F,0xBE,0x3A,0xBB,0x39,0xB8, A 5,0x27,0xA6,0x22,0xA3,0x21,0xA0, E D,0x6F,0xEE,0x6A,0xEB,0x69,0xE8, F 5,0x77,0xF6,0x72,0xF3,0x71,0xF0, D D,0x5F,0xDE,0x5A,0xDB,0x59,0xD8, C 5,0x47,0xC6,0x42,0xC3,0x41,0xC0, 4 D,0xCF,0x4E,0xCA,0x4B,0xC9,0x48, 5 5,0xD7,0x56,0xD2,0x53,0xD1,0x50, 7 D,0xFF,0x7E,0xFA,0x7B,0xF9,0x78, 6 5,0xE7,0x66,0xE2,0x63,0xE1,0x60, 2 D,0xAF,0x2E,0xAA,0x2B,0xA9,0x28, 3 5,0xB7,0x36,0xB2,0x33,0xB1,0x30, 1 D,0x9F,0x1E,0x9A,0x1B,0x99,0x18, 0 5,0x87,0x06,0x82,0x03,0x81,0x00
C 5,0xC6,0xC3,0xC0,0xC1,0xC2,0xC7, 1 5,0x16,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x12,0x17, 2 5,0x26,0x23,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x27, 3 5,0x36,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x32,0x37, 0 5,0x06,0x03,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x07, D 5,0xD6,0xD3,0xD0,0xD1,0xD2,0xD7, E 5,0xE6,0xE3,0xE0,0xE1,0xE2,0xE7, F 5,0xF6,0xF3,0xF0,0xF1,0xF2,0xF7, 4 5,0x46,0x43,0x40,0x41,0x42,0x47, 9 5,0x96,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x92,0x97, A 5,0xA6,0xA3,0xA0,0xA1,0xA2,0xA7, B 5,0xB6,0xB3,0xB0,0xB1,0xB2,0xB7, 8 5,0x86,0x83,0x80,0x81,0x82,0x87, 5 5,0x56,0x53,0x50,0x51,0x52,0x57, 6 5,0x66,0x63,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x67, 7 5,0x76,0x73,0x70,0x71,0x72,0x77
2 D,0x1D,0x3D,0xCB,0x2B,0x1B,0x3B, A D,0x9D,0xBD,0x4B,0xAB,0x9B,0xBB, E D,0xDD,0xFD,0x0B,0xEB,0xDB,0xFB, 6 D,0x5D,0x7D,0x8B,0x6B,0x5B,0x7B, 2 5,0x15,0x35,0xC3,0x23,0x13,0x33, A 5,0x95,0xB5,0x43,0xA3,0x93,0xB3, E 5,0xD5,0xF5,0x03,0xE3,0xD3,0xF3, 6 5,0x55,0x75,0x83,0x63,0x53,0x73, 2 9,0x19,0x39,0xCF,0x2F,0x1F,0x3F, A 9,0x99,0xB9,0x4F,0xAF,0x9F,0xBF, E 9,0xD9,0xF9,0x0F,0xEF,0xDF,0xFF, 6 9,0x59,0x79,0x8F,0x6F,0x5F,0x7F, 2 1,0x11,0x31,0xC7,0x27,0x17,0x37, A 1,0x91,0xB1,0x47,0xA7,0x97,0xB7, E 1,0xD1,0xF1,0x07,0xE7,0xD7,0xF7, 6 1,0x51,0x71,0x87,0x67,0x57,0x77
9 0,0x50,0xD0,0x30,0xB0,0x70,0xF0, 9 8,0x58,0xD8,0x38,0xB8,0x78,0xF8, 9 4,0x54,0xD4,0x34,0xB4,0x74,0xF4, 9 C,0x5C,0xDC,0x3C,0xBC,0x7C,0xFC, 9 2,0x52,0xD2,0x32,0xB2,0x72,0xF2, 9 A,0x5A,0xDA,0x3A,0xBA,0x7A,0xFA, 9 6,0x56,0xD6,0x36,0xB6,0x76,0xF6, 9 E,0x5E,0xDE,0x3E,0xBE,0x7E,0xFE, 9 1,0x51,0xD1,0x31,0xB1,0x71,0xF1, 9 9,0x59,0xD9,0x39,0xB9,0x79,0xF9, 9 5,0x55,0xD5,0x35,0xB5,0x75,0xF5, 9 D,0x5D,0xDD,0x3D,0xBD,0x7D,0xFD, 9 3,0x53,0xD3,0x33,0xB3,0x73,0xF3, 9 B,0x5B,0xDB,0x3B,0xBB,0x7B,0xFB, 9 7,0x57,0xD7,0x37,0xB7,0x77,0xF7, 9 F,0x5F,0xDF,0x3F,0xBF,0x7F,0xFF
byte CSSsecret[] = {
0xE2,0xA3,0x45,0x10,0xF4
};
byte CSSvarients[] = {
0x00,0x01,0x04,0x05,0x10,0x11,0x14,0x15,0x20,0x
0x80,0x81,0x84,0x85,0x90,0x91,0x94,0x95,0xA0,0x
};
byte CSSmangle0[] = {
0x00,0x81,0x03,0x82,0x06,0x87,0x05,0x84,0x0C,0x
0x18,0x99,0x1B,0x9A,0x1E,0x9F,0x1D,0x9C,0x14,0x
0x30,0xB1,0x33,0xB2,0x36,0xB7,0x35,0xB4,0x3C,0x
0x28,0xA9,0x2B,0xAA,0x2E,0xAF,0x2D,0xAC,0x24,0x
0x60,0xE1,0x63,0xE2,0x66,0xE7,0x65,0xE4,0x6C,0x
0x78,0xF9,0x7B,0xFA,0x7E,0xFF,0x7D,0xFC,0x74,0x
0x50,0xD1,0x53,0xD2,0x56,0xD7,0x55,0xD4,0x5C,0x
0x48,0xC9,0x4B,0xCA,0x4E,0xCF,0x4D,0xCC,0x44,0x
0xC0,0x41,0xC3,0x42,0xC6,0x47,0xC5,0x44,0xCC,0x
0xD8,0x59,0xDB,0x5A,0xDE,0x5F,0xDD,0x5C,0xD4,0x
0xF0,0x71,0xF3,0x72,0xF6,0x77,0xF5,0x74,0xFC,0x
0xE8,0x69,0xEB,0x6A,0xEE,0x6F,0xED,0x6C,0xE4,0x
0xA0,0x21,0xA3,0x22,0xA6,0x27,0xA5,0x24,0xAC,0x
0xB8,0x39,0xBB,0x3A,0xBE,0x3F,0xBD,0x3C,0xB4,0x
0x90,0x11,0x93,0x12,0x96,0x17,0x95,0x14,0x9C,0x
0x88,0x09,0x8B,0x0A,0x8E,0x0F,0x8D,0x0C,0x84,0x
};
byte CSSmangle1[] = {
0xC4,0xCD,0xCE,0xCB,0xC8,0xC9,0xCA,0xCF,0xCC,0x
0x14,0x1D,0x1E,0x1B,0x18,0x19,0x1A,0x1F,0x1C,0x
0x24,0x2D,0x2E,0x2B,0x28,0x29,0x2A,0x2F,0x2C,0x
0x34,0x3D,0x3E,0x3B,0x38,0x39,0x3A,0x3F,0x3C,0x
0x04,0x0D,0x0E,0x0B,0x08,0x09,0x0A,0x0F,0x0C,0x
0xD4,0xDD,0xDE,0xDB,0xD8,0xD9,0xDA,0xDF,0xDC,0x
0xE4,0xED,0xEE,0xEB,0xE8,0xE9,0xEA,0xEF,0xEC,0x
0xF4,0xFD,0xFE,0xFB,0xF8,0xF9,0xFA,0xFF,0xFC,0x
0x44,0x4D,0x4E,0x4B,0x48,0x49,0x4A,0x4F,0x4C,0x
0x94,0x9D,0x9E,0x9B,0x98,0x99,0x9A,0x9F,0x9C,0x
0xA4,0xAD,0xAE,0xAB,0xA8,0xA9,0xAA,0xAF,0xAC,0x
0xB4,0xBD,0xBE,0xBB,0xB8,0xB9,0xBA,0xBF,0xBC,0x
0x84,0x8D,0x8E,0x8B,0x88,0x89,0x8A,0x8F,0x8C,0x
0x54,0x5D,0x5E,0x5B,0x58,0x59,0x5A,0x5F,0x5C,0x
0x64,0x6D,0x6E,0x6B,0x68,0x69,0x6A,0x6F,0x6C,0x
0x74,0x7D,0x7E,0x7B,0x78,0x79,0x7A,0x7F,0x7C,0x
};
byte CSSmangle2[] = {
0xC4,0x24,0x14,0x34,0xCE,0x2E,0x1E,0x3E,0xCD,0x
0x44,0xA4,0x94,0xB4,0x4E,0xAE,0x9E,0xBE,0x4D,0x
0x04,0xE4,0xD4,0xF4,0x0E,0xEE,0xDE,0xFE,0x0D,0x
0x84,0x64,0x54,0x74,0x8E,0x6E,0x5E,0x7E,0x8D,0x
0xCC,0x2C,0x1C,0x3C,0xC6,0x26,0x16,0x36,0xC5,0x
0x4C,0xAC,0x9C,0xBC,0x46,0xA6,0x96,0xB6,0x45,0x
0x0C,0xEC,0xDC,0xFC,0x06,0xE6,0xD6,0xF6,0x05,0x
0x8C,0x6C,0x5C,0x7C,0x86,0x66,0x56,0x76,0x85,0x
0xC8,0x28,0x18,0x38,0xCA,0x2A,0x1A,0x3A,0xC9,0x
0x48,0xA8,0x98,0xB8,0x4A,0xAA,0x9A,0xBA,0x49,0x
0x08,0xE8,0xD8,0xF8,0x0A,0xEA,0xDA,0xFA,0x09,0x
0x88,0x68,0x58,0x78,0x8A,0x6A,0x5A,0x7A,0x89,0x
0xC0,0x20,0x10,0x30,0xC2,0x22,0x12,0x32,0xC1,0x
0x40,0xA0,0x90,0xB0,0x42,0xA2,0x92,0xB2,0x41,0x
0x00,0xE0,0xD0,0xF0,0x02,0xE2,0xD2,0xF2,0x01,0x
0x80,0x60,0x50,0x70,0x82,0x62,0x52,0x72,0x81,0x
};
byte reverse[] = {
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xC0,0x20,0xA0,0x60,0xE0,0x10,0x
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xC8,0x28,0xA8,0x68,0xE8,0x18,0x
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xC4,0x24,0xA4,0x64,0xE4,0x14,0x
0x0C,0x8C,0x4C,0xCC,0x2C,0xAC,0x6C,0xEC,0x1C,0x
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xC2,0x22,0xA2,0x62,0xE2,0x12,0x
0x0A,0x8A,0x4A,0xCA,0x2A,0xAA,0x6A,0xEA,0x1A,0x
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xC6,0x26,0xA6,0x66,0xE6,0x16,0x
0x0E,0x8E,0x4E,0xCE,0x2E,0xAE,0x6E,0xEE,0x1E,0x
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xC1,0x21,0xA1,0x61,0xE1,0x11,0x
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xC9,0x29,0xA9,0x69,0xE9,0x19,0x
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xC5,0x25,0xA5,0x65,0xE5,0x15,0x
0x0D,0x8D,0x4D,0xCD,0x2D,0xAD,0x6D,0xED,0x1D,0x
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xC3,0x23,0xA3,0x63,0xE3,0x13,0x
0x0B,0x8B,0x4B,0xCB,0x2B,0xAB,0x6B,0xEB,0x1B,0x
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xC7,0x27,0xA7,0x67,0xE7,0x17,0x
0x0F,0x8F,0x4F,0xCF,0x2F,0xAF,0x6F,0xEF,0x1F,0x
};
Hot off the press (from Robin Gross, the EFF's counsel on the case):
The judge has denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. More to come soon.
/*
* A noddy program for getting and printing some info from the
* DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include
#include
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include
#include
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int GetASF(int fd)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
ai.type = DVD_LU_SEND_ASF;
ai.lsasf.agid = 0;
ai.lsasf.asf = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai)) {
printf("GetASF failed\n");
return 0;
}
printf("%sAuthenticated\n", (ai.lsasf.asf) ? "" : "not ");
return 1;
}
int GetPhysical(int fd)
{
dvd_struct d;
int layer = 0, layers = 4;
d.physical.type = DVD_STRUCT_PHYSICAL;
while (layer 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
GetASF(fd);
GetPhysical(fd);
GetCopyright(fd);
return 0;
}
headers = css-auth.h css.h
..;tar cvf css-auth.tar $(dist-files) )
tstdvd_objs = tstdvd.o css-auth.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
validate_objs = validate.o css-auth.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
cat_objs = css-cat.o css-descramble.o csstable.o cssdebug.o
all: tstdvd reset dvdinfo css-cat
tstdvd: $(tstdvd_objs) $(headers)
gcc $(tstdvd_objs) -o $@
css-cat: $(cat_objs) css-descramble.h css.h
gcc $(cat_objs) -o $@
validate: $(validate_objs) $(headers)
gcc $(validate_objs) -o $@
clean:
-rm -f *.o css-cat tstdvd validate reset dvdinfo
dist-files = css-auth/COPYING css-auth/README css-auth/Makefile \
css-auth/css-auth.c \
css-auth/tstdvd.c css-auth/dvdinfo.c css-auth/reset.c \
css-auth/css-cat.c css-auth/css-descramble.c \
css-auth/csstable.c css-auth/cssdebug.c \
css-auth/css.h css-auth/css-auth.h css-auth/css-descramble.h
dist:
(cd
This source package does two things.
/path/to/dvd/device
/path/to/dvd/device
/path/to/dvd/device /mount/path/video_ts/vts_01_1.vob
/path/to/dvd/device
/dvd/video_ts/vts_01_[1-9].vob|css-cat -v1P -|mpeg2player -vob -f -
.key in the sources to .key1/.key2
a) It contains code to perform the css authentication protocol,
allowing locked sectors on the DVD disc to be accessed.
This also allows us to read the disc key and title keys.
b) It contains an implementation of the css decryption algorithm,
so that we can watch DVD's.
Also included are some test programs to wrarp around the above code
blocks so that something usefule can be performed.
The programs included are tstdvd, reset, dvdinfo and css-cat.
tstdvd can be used to unlock the disc (saving the disk key) and
to extract the title keys. usage is:
reset
This will reset all AGIDs that the drive has given out. This
can sometimes be useful when something goes wrong.
tstdvd
This will authenticate the device and save the disk key into
a file in the current directory called "disk-key".
(mount the dvd somewhere)
tstdvd
This will reauthenticate and then read the title key for
the chosen vob file, saving it in a file in the current
directoy called "title-key".
Do the above title key extraction for each title on the disc,
renaming the title-key files to title1-key, title2-key etc.
dvdinfo
Displays some info from the physical and copyright pages. This
includes the region limits on the disc, its encryption status,
and the authentication status.
css-cat [-t title-no] [-m mpeg-audio-no ] [-vPpm12345678] vob_file
This will decrypt the selected vob file and send to stdout. It
needs the files "disk-key" and "titleX-key" to be in the current
directory. The default title-no is one, so by default it will look
for "title1-key".
The options select what will be sent to stdout. By default, nothing
will. The m option is not yet coded, the v option selects video, the
numbers select the appropriate AC3 stream.
It will normally extract the selected stream from the enclosing
Program stream, thus giving an elemental stream. However if the K option
(or more than one stream) is selected then the data will be left inside
the PES packets, allowing a subsequent demux program to determine the
data type.
I tend to use:
cat
NOTE: To use the above you need to have a kernel which incorporates the
DVD ioctls. This can either be the original patch by Andrew Veliath
or Jens Axboe's patches. If using Andrews versio of the patches,
you'll have to change the use of
(the places are quite easy to find).
Jens site is www.kernel.dk
Changes:
Patches have been applied to use the OpenBSD headers, so maybe it'll
work.
There a some more keys included. It should now be able to decrypt
all titles currently on the market. I think the last two keys can
be removed. Someone with 'The Matrix' please test and get back to
me.
Mpeg audio streams should now be extractable when filtering, this is
untested.
It now copes with System headers in the Pack layer (those 0x000001bb
start codes).
The command line options have changed between the last version and
this one - pay attention.
/*
* A noddy program which tries to reset all AGID's on the DVD-ROM drive.
*/
#include
#include
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include
#include
static int fd;
#define DVD "/dev/cdrom"
int main(int ac, char **av)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
char *device = DVD;
int i;
if (ac > 1)
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd 0) {
printf("unable to open dvd drive (%s).\n", device);
return 1;
}
for (i = 0; i 4; i++) {
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof(ai));
ai.type = DVD_INVALIDATE_AGID;
ai.lsa.agid = i;
ioctl(fd, DVD_AUTH, &ai);
}
return 0;
}
/*
/* Host data receive (host changes state) */
/* Host data send */
/* Returning data, let LU change state */
/* Returning data, let LU change state */
/* Init sequence, request AGID */
* tstdvd.c
*
* Example program showing usage of DVD CSS ioctls
*
* Copyright (C) 1999 Andrew T. Veliath
* See http://www.rpi.edu/~veliaa/linux-dvd for more info.
*/
/*
* If supplied with one parameter it gets the disk key and
* saves it to a file. If supplied with a second parameter
* (a LBA) then it gets the title key for the supplied LBA.
*
* When getting the disk key, only the first 10 bytes of it
* are printed. The whole key is written to the file.
*/
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#if defined(__OpenBSD__)
# include
#elif defined(__linux__)
# include
#else
# error "Need the DVD ioctls"
#endif
#include "css-auth.h"
byte Challenge[10];
struct block Key1;
struct block Key2;
struct block KeyCheck;
byte DiscKey[10];
int varient = -1;
void print_challenge(const byte *chal)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i type) {
case DVD_LU_SEND_AGID:
printf("AGID %d\n", ai->lsa.agid);
ai->type = DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE;
break;
case DVD_LU_SEND_KEY1:
printf("LU sent key1: "); print_key(ai->lsk.key); printf("\n");
if (!authenticate_drive(ai->lsk.key)) {
ai->type = DVD_AUTH_FAILURE;
return -EINVAL;
}
ai->type = DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE;
break;
case DVD_LU_SEND_CHALLENGE:
for (i = 0; i hsc.chal[9-i];
printf("LU sent challenge: "); print_challenge(Challenge); printf("\n");
CryptKey2(varient, Challenge, &Key2);
ai->type = DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2;
break;
case DVD_HOST_SEND_CHALLENGE:
for (i = 0; i hsc.chal[9-i] = Challenge[i];
printf("Host sending challenge: "); print_challenge(Challenge); printf("\n");
break;
case DVD_HOST_SEND_KEY2:
for (i = 0; i hsk.key[4-i] = Key2.b[i];
printf("Host sending key 2: "); print_key(Key2.b); printf("\n");
break;
default:
printf("Got invalid state %d\n", ai->type);
return -EINVAL;
}
return 0;
}
int authenticate(int fd, int title, int lba)
{
dvd_authinfo ai;
dvd_struct dvds;
int i, rv, tries, agid;
memset(&ai, 0, sizeof (ai));
memset(&dvds, 0, sizeof (dvds));
GetASF(fd);
for (tries = 1, rv = -1; rv == -1 && tries [title_path]\n");
exit (1);
}
device = av[1];
fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK);
if (fd 0) {
perror(device);
exit(1);
}
if (ac == 3) {
lba = path_to_lba(av[2]);
title = 1;
}
authenticate(fd, title, lba);
close(fd);
return 0;
}
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
Copyright (C) 19yy
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) 19yy name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.
Someone had suggested Slashdot might have their
registration pulled as a result of court action.
I think the geeks among us with control over
their own name servers could easily remedy that.
How? Point your DNS servers to ns1.andover.net,
ns2.andover.net, and ns3.andover.net. Make your
server a secondary for slashdot.org, pulling
updates from those servers. No court or corporation could then prevent you from having
access to Slashdot!
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
It's on dibona.com's front page.. He says he's gonna have his notes up soon.. But WE WON!
Now, looking forward to the 14th...
So much money to earn in courts :) I wish I was a lawyer :)
If linking to illegal content was truly illegal, then couldn't the laywers that are prosecuting these people be held accountable for providing information to getting DeCSS? After all, in their cease and desist (sp?) notice, they were linking. If you read their notice, it clearly states that some of the later web sites are linking to other websites that had it... hrm! Let's sue these bastards!
The bigger issue is who is defending these guys?
With all of the lawsuits floating around these days, we're yet again faced with THE major dilemma for open source projects - inadequate legal representation.
It doesn't matter what is right and what is wrong.
If the open source community does not have the ability to defend itself against the myriad of legal attacks that it is bound to face in the near future - then open source is already dead as a mainstream development environment.
The court systems of most countries, not just the US, will never be technically adept enough to make informed decisions by themselves. The plaintiff makes a legal argument as to why a particular decision should be made, the defendant provides the counter argument, and the judge makes a decision based upon the facts before him/her and prior rulings of court.
Can this happen where open source developers are the defendants? I just can't see a situation at the moment where open source developers can adequately state their case against large well-funded companies and organisations...
From all of the comments here, I can only assume that this case SHOULD be thrown out immediately, and yet there is still a large amount of doubt about the outcome... what will happen with those cases where the plaintiffs case, while wrong, actually contains an ounce of merit?
And further, what of the situations where the plaintiff NEEDS to be the open-source developer/project etc.
Any thoughts?
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
Somebody needs to send a barrage of e-mail to ABCNews letting them know that they got the story all wrong about the DVD trial today.
www.opendvd.org stated that the motion was DENIED. I am happy that the system STILL exists BY the people and FOR the people....
Many organizations are running into this problem, through the Internet there are no borders. What may be a death sentence in one country may be perfectly legal in another. National Laws are being laughed at. And it is the whole globalization challenge again. Organizations, companies and nations have to realize there is a big blue planet we all live in, and that in the end, unless something must remain secret for the public good, it is going to come out...no encryption is unbreakable, esp. when the human factor comes into play. All it takes is one lone protestor in a government or company that feels that something shouldn't be secret, and suddenly, it is in the public domain.
All groups must consider how their actions will be interpreted in other countries, esp in regards to electronic information. And we need watchdogs to prevent others from hiding vital information from us.
That is the challeng ofthe next 20 years...and it may come down to the old Cyberpunk battle of Hackers on one side, and MegaCorps on the other.
I hope not. But then again, I retain some sense of optimizism about the highest primate inhabitants of this planet.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Chris DiBona just posted to the SVLUG mailing list that the TRO has been rejected:
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 17:14:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "Chris J. DiBona" <chris@dibona.com>
To: "Derek J. Balling" <dballing@yahoo-inc.com>
cc: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: [svlug] Re: DVD
X-Alternate-URL: http://www.svlug.org
X-Mascot: penguin
X-OS: Linux svlug.svlug.org 2.0.30 #3 Thu Aug 14 14:47:34 PDT 1997 i486
unknown
Just heard that the TRO was quashed. PAss it on!
Chris
--
Linux Community Evangelist, VA Linux Systems
http://www.valinux.com
President, Silicon Valley Linux Users Group
http://www.svlug.org
Grant Chair, Linux International.
http://www.li.org
Co-editor, Open Sources
http://www.dibona.com
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> Have you heard anything about what, if anything, the judge decided?
> What
> happened after court was adjourned, since I had to head off to work? I
> saw
> KCBS there interviewing Rick, et al, out front, but was in too much of
> a
> hurry to get to the office to really stick around...
>
> D
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Derek Balling
> 408-530-5062
> Technical Yahoo Do You
> Yahoo!?
>
--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo@svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
see http://www.svlug.org/mdstuff/lists.shtml
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
IIRC, you can produce an unecrypted DVD and it'll play anywhere -- no CSS needed.
...
... but what makes them think the hackers agreed to the EULA??
But, CSS'less DVDs will lead to completely-CSS'less DVD-players. And last time I checked, the industry doesn't want that to happen. After all, if people stopped needing CSS decryption ability, then the DVD consortium wouldn't be getting their fees from members.
Obviously they have no legal standing for that though
But, back on topic -- it seems like the DVD people are saying the hackers improperly got their IP. Why is reverse engineering imporper? Because Xing's EULA said so
If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to *run* the software, but does it say anything about not reverse-engineering it??
Or more generally, what happens when you don't agree to an EULA??
--Wuzoe
I'm a nice person. People like me.
Actually a petition is a great idea. And to be sure everyone understands the issue, include the source code right in the petition. Let them try to stop the distribution of a petition, while they're violating all the other civil rights anyway.
that's a Reuters article. ABCNews is just posting whatever they get from them.
Anyway, TRO rejected! Another victory for common sense!!!
That's true. There's nothing those people fear more than people getting together and doing stuff FOR FREE.
That word terrifies them to the core of their (lack of a) soul.
And in golfing circles, a hacker is someone who aerates the fairways with his iron, cuts his ball to ribbons and scores in triple digits.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
How about the DVD DeCCS articals that appeared on slashdot, and the slashdot articals on the movie industry's responce?
Linux DVD One Step Closer
DVD for Linux: an Interview With the Developers
LinuxDVD CSS Decrypt - Source Available
Watching DVDs in Linux HOWTO
Why DVD Encryption Crack was a Cinch
Post-Hacked DVD: Where to Go?
Legal Actions Against Linux-DVD authors
Activist Defends DVD Hack
DVD Hack Delays DVD Audio
Pioneer Releases DVD Audio Sans New Encryption
DVD CCA Applies for Restraining Order
And, for good measure, this one:
DVD Hearing Today - Are You Ready to Rumble?
...if everyone is apathetic and does nothing, or allow themselves to be intimidated. This kind of thing happened a lot in the past, but now with the internet, Slashdot, and other "virtual communities", plus groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the "little guys" have the ability to organize, fight back, and respond quickly, something not possible before the internet. I think the DVD lawyers are being blindsided by these new phenomena; otherwise they might have thought twice before taking this to court.
I would imagine Coca-Cola applied for a special import license, which probably stipulates that the coca leaves are only to be used for certain legal purposes. Nothing stopping anyone else from applying for and getting the required import licenses. If the law only allowed Coca-Cola to do this, it would be unconstitional.
The answer to the first question depends substantially on the particulars of each circumstance. There are complex issues of conflicts of law, jurisdiction, applications of treaties and conventions and the like that cannot be summarized quickly or answered in the abstract.
In partial answer to your second question, WIPO's home page has a list of WIPO-administered treaties, including Paris and Berne, and seperately a very up-to-date list of ratification status of such treaties. Regrettably, these lists include just about every place where you might want to locate the beef.
Still there as of 07:39 EST Dec. 30 Thanks
You may be in the wrong here on two points:
1. The content was not decrypted in the ordinary sense, but it was assisted by the fact that one of the player makers forgot to encrypt their key. So it was partly negligence on the side of that maker, who did sign an NDA.
2. This is NOT like breaking into a bank's safe. The data is right there on a CD you have purchased with your money and which you now own. This is more like a safe company installing a safe in your house, and you opening it and fiddling with the lock in order to change the key, then publish the knowledghe which may or may not also be used to break into those safes. Point is, you didn't break into anyone's property, not in the physical nor in the "site cracker" sense. You broke into your own property.
I think the private safe analogy is a better one to be using when discussing the issue, and when explaining it to others.
Remember the hostage that was killed in Kandahar lately? all he did was 'look at the terrorists'. If it anything you don't want anyone to look at, with naked eye, spyglass or gdb, don't show it, don't let it out, don't use it in anything publicly available such as DVDs.
How could they not be against region locks? Or is the WTO just in favor of exploiting market inefficiencies, even if you have to create them yourself?
-- ;-)
Happy MM
Then again, the licence agreement may never have been part of the equation. If I buy a CD, and just start dumping it out as hex and/or disassembling the contents, have i broken the licence agreement that I haven't read yet? I am not making a copy for backup purposes, but I am copying their copyrighted material. Then again, reverse engineering for interoperability purposes is allowed. Oh well, the DVD lawyers semed to be floundering, and the EFF (which i just joined) lawyers seemed to know their stuff. Go to it, EFF!