Slashdot Mirror
DVD Hearing Victory: We Won - For Now
Open Source community members breathed a sigh of relief at 4:50 PST today, as Santa Clara Judge William J. Elfving rejected DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.'s request for a restraining order.
Robert Jones was Defendant #15 in the filing, and he shared his thoughts after hearing the decision:
"It's good to hear that some sort of sanity won today. I'm sure we're all very appreciative to the EFF and everyone else who showed up to help and advise. I wish to personally thank, especially, all the lawyers who volunteered their advice and services pro bono to the defendants. There is still the hearing on the 14th, so the war is far from over, but the first battle has been won."
In the middle of the day, SVLUG President Chris DiBona called in, letting us know what happened after the courtroom's doors opened this morning:
"The courtroom opened up, we all filed in. we had about 50 people in there, two reporters inside, two waiting outside. [The Plaintiffs are] claiming it's a trade secret thing. They're claiming that to get the Z-key, they had to click on a license agreement. There's no reason why that's true. They inserted their arguments and they said that the hacker in Norway had to use the player, sign the agreement, and therefore it's an illegal thing. There's a law on the books in California that says if you publish a trade secret that is known to be stolen, or could only become available through theft, you have an obligation not to continue with the distribution of the trade secret."
Daniel Silveira, a student at San Jose State University, was also in the courtroom. He said:
"The expression on the judge's face looked rather enlightened when the point was made that you don't need the encryption key in order to make illegal copies of movies or DVD discs."
According to an E-mail we received from Defendant Andrew Bunner, there is no question that Allon Levy, Robin Gross and the rest of the team from the Electronic Frontier Foundation made major contributions to the good fight, but this was a strong community effort. Some of the characteristic playfulness of the community came through during the plaintiff's testimony; when the plaintiff's attorney tried to assert that DeCSS's only purpose was to promote piracy, the gallery laughed out loud.
Hopefully, the community will be able to stage yet another fantastic show on January 14th, the day slated for the hearing during which the DVD CCA will try to get a permanent restraining order preventing Web sites from publishing information about DeCSS.
The time between the recess and the judgment trudged on, as concerned Open Source community members everywhere waited impatiently. Many were hoping for a decision earlier in the afternoon, especially those in Europe who were staying up late to hear the decision.
Fortunately, those who went to sleep before the Judge made his decision will wake up to good news tomorrow. The never-ending war for the recognition of free speech in source code has won a battle today, while championing the efforts of Open Source aficionados the world over.
To be continued January 14th...
Heh heh. I brought the floppies. I made 60 copies using the many aol, ms office, and macintosh disks I've accumulated over the years. I was mentioned in the Wired article (yippee). I'll show up on the 14th with even more disks. Email me interesting articles that you want included. My address is stickman AT altavista DOT net. The courtroom is small, only about 50 seats. Let's fill it on the 14th! And the rest of the floor, and the lobby, and the street below. :)
Ryan Salsbury
You have the right idea, but your example won't work. On a computer, the first step in CSS is the player/disk authentication handshake. They exchange crypto keys. Without doing so, the drive won't send the vob data to the player application.
If you try to copy a DVD to files on the hard drive, the DVD drive will report a read error and not send any data.
However, stand-alone consumer DVD players don't do the player/disk authentication handshake. There's no need as its assumed the data path between the drive and the decoding hardware is secure. You could, with a little hardware hacking, intercept the data stream between the consumer player's drive and it's decoding hardware and copy THAT to make a bit-for-bit copy of the DVD contents.
-Legion
I do not think that anyone is pretending that copying [both legal and non] is occurring of almost everything, to include books, music, movies, and for that matter ideas. And could someone use the utilities that we have been discussing to aid in those pursuits? Yes.
But that is not the point of the argument; copies will be made weather by this manner or by some other method. The point is [or should be] that us fortunate few who have been blessed with access to this wonderful world of technology, make a good 'world' for those who will follow. I do not want 'my internet' to be ruled by companies that will determine for use what is fit content and what is not. I do not want to bow down to someone who will dictate what LEGAL material I may have on my web page and what I may not. And heaven forbid that I allow someone to tell me what I may and what I may not LINK to! I am proud to be in a community that feels that we have a level of responsibility that comes along with our good fortune. And that is why I have opted to join those who will make this information available. And with a bit of luck and determination we will prevail in the long run.
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
The fact that an entire contract (EULA) is void because of a single illegal clause (no reverse engineering) opens up many opportunities. 8-)
...
...
For example, without a EULA, I can legally copy and resell the software
But, as someone said, "void where prohibited"
--Wuzoe
I'm a nice person. People like me.
The words that follow that statement are not law. They are not legally binding. But I still believe that this is truth: that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
In general, legally-guaranteed rights are not subject to contracts. Many neighborhoods here in Phoenix, Arizona, are deed-restricted with wording along the lines of "you may not sell this property to those of Spanish blood, or to Negros, or Irishmen." This is a contract that is agreed to when you buy the property, and that before the passing of various civil rights laws was enforced regularly. But a contract cannot be enforced if it violates the Constitution or the laws of the United States of America, such as the 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press as was exercised by Slashdot's editorial staff when they posted links to the DeCSS program.
We once had an institution in this country called slavery. It was legal. Most slaves had been legally sold to slavers under the laws of their home country, and the slavers then legally re-sold those slaves to landowners in the Americas. I mention this fact to go one step further than the legalistic argument, which is to say that there ARE rights granted to us by our Creator, and among those are freedom of speech and of thought, freedoms which are being violated every day via "contracts" in which we voluntarily enter servitude in exchange for a livelihood. I could be working for twice the money today if I were willing to sign contracts granting my employer ownership of all ideas and software written while I am in their employ (even ideas thought at home, and software written at home, on my personal time). I will not do that, thus I work for small businesses that are grateful for quality people (grateful enough to overlook my refusal to sign such contracts) but which cannot afford to pay real money.
Enough meandering. But the point is this: That laws and contracts which violate the rights and freedoms granted to us by our Creator exist, and that we are right and just when we protest and try to overturn these laws and contracts, whether they be deed restrictions which prevent Hispanics from buying houses in choice neighborhoods, or a frivolous lawsuit intended to impede free speech on the Internet.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
This is not unusual. Corporations regularly infringe upon our rights either by buying legislation that grants them rights at our expense (usually under the guise of "tort reform", insurance companies love this, they want us to have no legal recourse if an incompetent doctor kills a loved one, for example), or directly, by refusing to give people jobs unless these people agree to give up all rights to their thoughts and speech (by which I mean those employment contracts that give your employer the rights to all ideas and software that you come up with during your term of employment -- even those ideas thought at home, and software written at home).
Unfortunately, it appears that business interests have managed to brainwash the majority of Americans into believing that giving up their rights is in the best interests of the country. This reasoning reminds me of the reasoning of Southern politicians during the 1950's, when they raved and ranted that the rights of states were more important than the rights of the people who lived in those states. Except today, it's the rights of corporations that are held as being more important than the rights of the people who work for those corporations and the rights of the consumers who buy products from those corporations.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Why do you say it's unlikely that a data format could be copyrighted or patented? I don't assert that doing so would be good, but I see no reason why, under the present system, it couldn't be done.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
There is nothing usefull to do with the darned program!
Playing DVDs under Linux/*BSD/et al isn't useful?
Because a copyright is on the "expression" of an idea, while a patent on on the idea itself. You can copyright code, but not the algorythm contained therein. I would consider the format an idea and not an expression ( IANAL) and would expect that would prevent the copyright from being usefull.
.h header file that defines the structure and names of the parts, but anyone reverse engineering the structure could use their own names and header file without infringing
You could copyright a
dave
Repeat after me: Post ex facto
IANAL, (even though I hate to say it)
but, I think most eula's say that the liscence is non-transferable, or if transfered to someone else, they must accept the eula. This is why I think EULA's are generally flawed -- under most of them, using your friends software is illegal! 8-)
The point I'm trying to make (or rather, explore) is, that if the whole linchpin of the case is reverse-engineering == bad because of EULA, then the DVD CCA is already fighting an uphill battle. 8-)
If someone can post Xing's EULA and/or better explain how legal it is in Norway, I would be grateful.
--Wuzoe
I'm a nice person. People like me.
- 1920 Public Opinion 27 Aug. 195/2 - During one of these the oppressor, possessed of place and power, imagined in his hybris, that he might extend his arm across the ocean.
- 1929 Encycl. Brit. XXII. 53/1 - Themis is the servant or companion of Zeus... Her opposite is Hybris, insolent encroachment upon the rights of others.
- 1949 Horizon Aug. 87 - Hybris means believing that you are a god, i.e., that you cannot suffer; pride means a defiant attempt to become a god.
- 1969 Commonweal 22 Aug. 524 - America, like all earlier empires, is going to march to the brink of hybris and plunge in.
The reason for the confusion is that the Greek letter upsilon was sometimes transliterated into the Latin character set as a "u", sometimes as a "y". Thinking of words like "hygiene", "chyme", "neophyte", "hyacinth", "phylum", "psychology", "physics", "gynecology", and "halcyon", and you'll see why "hybris" is not an unreasonable spelling.I note that the citations for "hubris" extend back only through 1884.
Well...we lucked out with a bright judge. Tons of judges are political appointees or ran for office, and are often as bright as a single mini Christmas-tree bulb.
There's an old lawyer joke:
Q: "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 80?
A: "Your Honor"
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
I wrote an editorial on this subject entitled, By Reading This Article, You Agree to Subscribe to This Magazine for 25 Years , detailing why shrinkwrap "agreements" are legally and ethically indefensible. No one should take such documents seriously.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
That was a good thing to do.
It would be great if someone could organise lots of T-Shirts (or ties?) with the code printed on them.
Great idea - and if NP is to be the subject, I suggest The Professional.
I don't believe the defense is claiming that it won't happen, but rather, the point of their software isn't to make it happen. As they noted, it was already possible to pirate dvds without their program, and that the primary use of their program is to view DVD content. Pirating the content would be pretty useless if you didn't have a means to play it, unless you intended to sell it. In the same way, a vcrs primary purpose isn't necessarily to pirate rented movies, though they are used as such fairly often. If someone kills a man, no matter what the object, it was the man, not the object that did the killing. Maybe we should find out what leads to the murder rather than banning the knife that was used in the killing? Just my opinion.
That's true, but the way I see it, the Open Source community tends to be the die-hard geeks who are early adopters. I suspect that it is often *us* who make or break a product in it's early stages.
DVD is at the critical point where it's starting to make it into homes of the non-techno-elite. The last thing they want is the situation where geek A tells all of his non-geek friends not to buy DVDs.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Very, very good points. This was the first time I had heard of the programmers actually having to install the application and accept a EULA. Then again, maybe the DVD CCA knows something that the rest of us don't.
I've gotta wonder if their restraining order is denied, will they go after Xing in any way? I'm sure they would have a case if they showed that the unencrypted key on the Xing disk was because of Xing's carelessness-- which it very well could have been. Or even if there are any kind of "penalties" or such written into the license agreement between the dvd consortium or whatever and the licensee. That would be some interesting info to know...
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
So expect a Federal lawsuit to be filed shortly after January 27.
Damn, I just can't sit back and use those moderator points with important points being muddled. Freedom is precisely the point. Big, dumb corporations want to make reverse engineering illegal with their vapid shrink wrap and click through "so-called licenses". It isn't that far from trying to surpress intellectual curiosity. I can understand a person possibly being unhappy with the idea of his hard work being misappropriated. But if that is the case then try to regulate the economic act, not the intellectual act of tinkering.
No, the point is that it is the coperations right to make money, but not in exchange for the freedoms of society.. duh.
I was one of those who woke up early, donned nice clothing, and showed up. Wonder if it helped.
I paid my $65 today to join the EFF today, and I would encourage everyone else who is able to do the same.
As I was reading about this yesterday and today, it hit me how much the EFF has actually done for the internet community as a whole. From the CDA to DeCSS, the EFF has provided pro-bono legal support for a wide variety of online issues.
Join now. It is the least we can do to say thanks for the way they have supported us in the past.
Don't say "rip it bit-by-bit". That's a hax0r term for "steal, pilfer, rip-off, pirate". It makes us look bad. Try "copy" or "back-up" instead.
Point taken; however, the thought I was trying to articulate was "if pirates want to illegally copy DVDs, they can make a bit-for-bit copy and burn a bunch of knock-off discs with no loss in image quality". So it kinda fits.
Jay (=
In solidarity from Tokyo,
Aladdin Sane
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. [H.S.T.]
I had gotten into an argument with Jon Johansen of MoRE fame, about this very issue on the Sigma Design's Newsgroup. At first I contested that this was not the same as bypassing the CSS. After several exchanges with him, I realized that capturing the Direct X stream would do exactly that. This technique really opend my eyes. It could take any software decoder that uses Direct X, and turn it into a CSS work around for making MPEG copies of a DVD.
Anyone who pays attention to the VCD sceen knows that DVD Ripping to VCD has been common for some time now. This is accomplished using the program DVDRip. DeCSS isn't any better than that. DeCSS really doesn't promote pirating at all. The decrypted VOB still retains multiple audio streams. The potential pirater would still need a way to rip the video and audio streams from the VOB in order to convert it to MPEG1.
DVDRip should be a much greater concern to the MPAA than DeCSS. I think that they are just upset that their "trade secrets" were so easily rendered useless.
Time flies like an arrow;
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
Heres a suggestion,
we promise to give back their secret decoder ring if they promise to stop Monopolising Software development within the M$ arena and to provide support for a wider range of software standards. Better Drivers, Decoders and GPL source Code to boot.
....ooops I just realised I was living in Fairly Land.
Mind you
(cost of Developing Support within Linux pro-DVD Community = Cost of tacking Linux pro-DVD Community to Court.)
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
I am like 10,000 KM from where you are, so obviously "showing up" in the courtroom is a little bit troublesome for me. I am tremendously pleased for all of you who have gone there to express your support for the Open Source movement, and thanks to all the lawyers from EFF as well, as they have taken their valuable (and sellable) time off to help the Open Source community.
Thanks to all ! Hopefully with all your help, we will have a victorous years ahead !!
Happy New Year !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Tom, I get the feeling I may have already made this point before and if so I apologize for repeating myself. The specific WIPO law being cited by the CSS lawyers has a provision that clearly says that reverse engineering for the purpose of compatibility is NOT to be considered illegal. It's their damn law but it still says they can't use it in this case (of course everything is more complicated than four sentence paragraphs). So even if it is not an essential freedom it is something the framers of this nasty law recognize.
It sounds to me like the algorithm is just an extremely lame, well-known algorithm. Put it this way, nothing ground breaking crypographicly speaking that would allow it to be patented. Even if they had a patent, which they don't I can't see it holding up.
The freedom to use things we paid for in ways we want?
I admit, I did at first agree with you - I didn't think it was correct to say it was restricting our freedom.
The more I think about it, though, the more I think it is at least somewhat about freedom.
Firstly, we should be free to link to sites run by others, and if their material is found to be illegal they should be prosecuted, not us.
Secondly, if I buy something, I should be free to do what I want with it (within certian bounds - not injuring other, for instance). I admit this might be a little contravrsial, but I think I have at least something of a point here.
...and they struck out, against two EFF lawyers with nothing but 48 hours to prep and a strong sense of justice.
This is exactly why community based actions, including open sourced software, are so successful:
1. People want to help. There is no incentive to help a multi-national "machine". But individuals feel like they can make a difference in situations like this, so they do.
2. When people do help, they can make all the difference in the world. This is personal empowerment at its(thanks d betamax) best, for example, this comment from Rick Moen:
Credit goes to Bay Area Linux activist Deirdre Saoirse for noticing that the plaintiff was getting away uncontested with claiming that DeCSS was a tool for copying DVDs (which it isn't) as opposed to playing them.
Deirdre got the attention of defence attorney Robin Gross, during a court recess, and made sure they understood the very vital point that DeCSS has nothing to do with DVD copying, which was possible (but uneconomical) before DeCSS was written using other tools entirely. The defence team then explained this to the judge, who was visibly surprised by the news.
The plaintiffs may well have lost the day, right there.
When is the last time you heard of an individual stepping forward like this for a corporation? Open source isn't just about free software, it's about personal empowerment!
--GnrcMan--
VHS tape is not really an issue though. There are video and decoder cards with video-out that make copying anything to VHS very easy. You can also do that with regular entertainment system players, you don't even need a computer much less DeCSS for that.
DVD-ROM drives are not able to do bit by bit reading of a DVD-video. I think the block size for DVD is something like 2234 bytes but the DVD-ROM drive only gives you 2048 bytes. The rest is somehow used for the crypting and stuff.. Consumer DVD players i think can read the whole block.
So CSS was only created to stop binary copying from DVD-ROM drives, or home cpoying not latge scale piracy.
You're right about the moderation thing, but that doesn't mean I agree with you. Why does it matter what the Founding Fathers or Adam Smith would say? Smith, in particular, got a lot of things very wrong, in my opinion. Just because these men were influential doesn't mean they are beyond reproach. I've got a lot of respect for the Founding Fathers, but the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are flawed. As for the Wealth of Nations, don't get me started....
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
You really want to look here for answers to your questions. To be brief, region codes prevent movies from being played in markets where they aren't released yet. You can get codefree DVD players that will play any DVDs. There's a copy-protection scheme called Macrovision which prevents recording onto VHS by messing with the automatic gain. Not all disks have it. It too can be defeated, either by disabling in hardware or software the code which turns it on, or by using a device which cleans the signal.
We're worried about the large-scale pirates, who have the special hardware to write the special sectors on the disc. They can make illegal copies, even if we, the legitimate buyers of DVD's can't make our own archival copies.
court proceedings on DVD disk? :-)
1) I do not own any DVD related devices. As a result, I cannot pirate anything related to this DVD junk. I just find it humorous to make that assertment.
2) I have put the files back up at http://www.d.umn.edu/~dchan/css/. The Weil guys got it wrong in section 20. (heh)
3) We better have an even better showing on January 14th. If they thought that this was incredible, they should be surprised come the 14th and we have every major media outlet in the nation out there plus 400+ supporters littering the concrete with source code.
"David M. Chan, an Individual;"
-- adraken
now, honestly, do enough people disagree with me that the television is the devil incarnate for me to be flambait? that was offtopic at best.
Aha! A relic of the classic DOS utility, fakecd. Fakecd basically fooled games that required their CD in the drive into working without it. Same concept as your proposal, certainly. And although I have not a shred of device driver development experience, I'm almost positive this technique (or something similar) could be used to fool DVD player apps into looking at a file as the DVD itself. Anyone out there with the knowledge/interest for something like this?
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Specifically, well, yes. And that isn't a very important freedom.
However this is a use of the more general freedom to reverse engener. A quite important freedom. Not as importnat as some (say the freedom to bear arms, or to speak your mind), but not a pidly little pissant freedom, like say the freedom to pick your nose in public.
Replying to my own post - duh. Here's the official Macrovision site, wherein they make no secret of the fact that their technology is for copy-protection:
Macrovision Corporation
Further, download and read the "Macrovision Analysis of the Recent DVD ``DeCSS'' Hack", where the company writes:
Macrovision Analysis of the Recent DVD ``DeCSS'' Hack
Rather interesting, no?
Boy, was I glad that the injunction didn't come down.
As I said earlier, if the injunction was enforced, the consequences could have been too ugly to contemplate. It could have given the DVD CCA lawyers carte blanche to start going after individual web sites with a vengence, and its effects on Slashdot.org could have been a bit on the terrifying side.
Given the unfortunate experience of the Church of Scientology versus several web sites and the etoy.com versus eToys.com controversy, I was extremely concerned what could have happened to Slashdot.org if the injunction went into force.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
When the Nazis came for Gypsies,
I did not speak up, for I was not a Gypsy;
when they came for Jews,
I did not speak up, for I was not a Jew;
when they came for homosexuals,
I did not speak up, for I was not a homosexual;
and when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak up for me.
-- German pastor, Martin Neimmeller
you'd better get worked up...
if you need more hints:
- it is not about DVDs
- even if it were, sooner or later you will have DVD (so you will be influenced by what's happening today) [unless you get lucky and die...]
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
IANAL, but I believe standard copyright law would still apply. I don't agree to a EULA when I buy a paper book, but I can't make 100 Xerox copies and sell them.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
... is not possible. This means that the issue of creating an alternative program for reading some data in _propertiary_ format is perfectly legal in Europe - there just isn't possible to sue over formats/algorythms etc.
The issue of linking was not directly addressed in the judge's decision to deny. Even if the judge later rules in state court our secondary links cannot be enjoined, that is not enough of a victory.
I propose a countersuit in federal court on behalf of the defendants and others who wish to join. It would specifically raise free speech rights by pointing out that the threatening letters have caused ISPs to remove service of the defendants and thereby had a chilling effect on their speech on the Internet. Newspapers and other media who have likewise mentioned URLs or made links (IEEE, New York Times, SJ Mercury News, Slashdot, etc.) need to join this suit.
The reason for the countersuit is that the law is now a mess. One judge in Utah issued a restraining order against the Lighthouse Ministry for allowing a bulletin board member to mention the URL of an Australian site that contained material allegedly violating U.S. copyright of a Utah publisher. However, both the Salt Lake Tribune and the New York Times included either links or printed the full URL of the same site.
As Carole E. Handler and Craig A. Guthery pointed out in 1998, at http://www.kayescholer.com/podium/print/publicatio ns/carolehandlercyberspaceart icle12-98.html, the legal status of linking, deep linking, making links inside frames, and so on, desperately needs to be clarified.
Raising this countersuit in federal court against the DVD CSS lawyers would have the good effect of allowing the Supreme Court to decide this important issue. We can't hope for a better chance than this one to raise it. We need to establish the rights of Internet publishers to free speech just as much as the print publishers. Otherwise the lawyers will be back at us with another expensive case. Let's take the initiative now that we smell victory!
What is more important is where all this is leading, and to understand that you need to look at it from the perspective of a content creator, not a consumer. There may be an argument that consumer rights mean being allowed to keep personal copies- there's also an argument that it's as silly as trying to make a copy of your toaster- either way, it is not a major issue, it's a smallish financial hassle if you have to buy multiple instances of a product for whatever reason.
From the perspective of a content creator, we are rapidly moving towards a world where I (a musician) have no access to the popular media formats at all, unless I go through the DVD or recording industry. This, not the consumer angle, is a serious, serious problem.
I'd just made this point in another thread so with your pardon I'll simply copy over the relevant points...
There was a time when access to the media (vinyl records, reel-to-reel tape recorders) was pretty costly and inaccessible, but it was strictly a matter of price- if you bought the gear, you were good to go, you could try wrestling with other players for distribution and sales just like you were an equal citizen.
Then it was cassette multitracks and the Philips cassette taking over from records. Suddenly, every musician in the world was flooding record company agents with tapes. Most were ignored- but I'll tell you, I've walked down the street and heard a random car drive by with a tape I've produced blaring out the windows. It's a hell of a feeling, that is. You get to produce art that is _used_ and enjoyed by people. At the same time, if you get tapes from stores, they are taxed and the industry's cheap bulk tape is not- below a certain level, you'd have the deck stacked against you financially. (After posting this I was reminded that in Canada there's a stiff tax on CD-recordable blanks for just the same reason. This is not history, this is now and it continues to get worse)
Then it was the CD. At first this was just as forbidding as the vinyl record to produce- you'd pay a lot to get digital mastering done, you'd have to buy CD pressings in lots of 500 or 1000: but startlingly, the technology advanced to where we can now press CDs on our computers just like making cassette tapes one at a time. Anybody who's had a dual cassette deck running for days making 20 copies of their album will recognize what this means. And again, there's the desire by the industry to tax this- purportedly to recoup losses from not selling you the same music 6 times, but also effectively handicapping 'unauthorized' artists and putting a spoke in the wheels of anyone trying to get a competing organisation started. We've come a long way from when you could save up to get an LP mastering lathe and try to be a record company, haven't we?
And now we have DVD. Now we have an increasing emphasis on 'security'. Whose? Well, considering that the direction is toward a world where script kiddies can still copy anything they want, but you can't legitimately start a record company and distribute media without either coughing up millions to a conglomerate for a 'security key', or pirating one for original material and being liable for stealing that key, we are talking about security for monopolists.
We're not talking about the script kiddie being unable to copy the Matrix and never have been- who will prosecute, the same ones who arrested you for making a mix tape for the car? Instead we're talking about a very intentional spoke in the wheels of anyone who wants to be in the business of media. It doesn't affect you, the script kiddy- or even you, the consumer. (you're out maybe 20 bucks in the worst case, having to buy an extra copy of the Matrix. Oh horrors, call Reuters and MSNBC.) It affects anyone who wants to produce original content, or distribute it, or help people do that. It's a roadblock- the ideal end situation here is to have all the DVD players require truly uncrackable encodings that only licensees have access to.
People hear things like that, follow the logic, and then mysteriously can only see how it affects them as consumers. But the direction is clear as day, and there are certain implications I'm spelling out here.
My question is, what exactly gives the recording/movie/etc industry (who are not a government the last I heard) the right to openly, upfront and with the approval of society, set up a situation where anyone wishing to make media for the public can only go through them, or be forced to become a licensor by spending a comparable amount of money for a security key normally sold to huge corporate conglomerates?
I hope this answers some of your questions, Tom. You're right that it seems a lot of fuss to make just to get to watch The Matrix on a linux box, or make a backup of it. But it's not really about consumer rights at all- the real damage is done by delivering control of the media itself over to the corporations, who then withhold access to media.
As far as I know it is still possible to produce non-CSS DVDs, ones with no encryption, and play them on mainstream consumer decks. For how much longer will that be true?
Exactly... ANYONE can be called in for the gusto, but its important to remember two things:
1.) Linux is the "hip new happening thing"... that has a certain value in the court of public opinion
2.) Linux users tend to be more willing to DO the types of things we're talking about. Sure, anyone could be called as an expert witness (and if their testimony is relevant, they SHOULD be), but the Linux community probably will be more readily available to offer up speakers than, say, the Windows community.
Why would I say that this is not *desirable*? Of course it is. I desire a lot of things to run on my Unix systems that don't. But to pin the banner of freedom on it, as though it were some Bill of Rights thing, like the right to free association or freedom of religion or freedom of the press--well, I just don't understand.
The lawyers aren't hunting on their own...
:-)
They have sufficient budjects to hire skilled IT personnel who can detect false links quite fast. This is from my own experience
--
Leonid S. Knyshov
Network Administrator
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
...so we can view it on our Linux machines using DeCSS
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
It's not what they say that they say
Huh? I can't understand.
No comment at this time
How about the freedom to link to things without being held liable?
How about the right to "fair use"?
The freedom to reverse engineer?
The freedom from EULA's you must agree to AFTER the transation to purchase a program has been made?
The freedom from rediculous EULA's at all?(I mean, give me a break.. you paid for this crap, and you should have certain liberties with it, especially ones the courts have already granted..)
The EFF evidently thought this case had enough potential to set precident to throw togeather a legal team in 24 hours for a preliminary hearing that hardly has any impact on the actual trial, so I assume they think there's a lot to lose here also.
Also, Tom, I believe we should call all attempt to take away our liberties as such, and not reserve such words for "big things", lest they take away so much only a very few "big things" are left.
Call all your freedoms as they are, and you should be able to enjoy them much longer....
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
There's a VERY good chance of them going after Xing.
I mentioned this in a post to the previous DVD CCA fiasco article:
If the CCA can claim that "irreparable harm" was done by the CCA's slipup, they can REALLY nail Xing. (In what way, I'm not sure... Didn't get that far in my discussion with my dad.)
Otherwise, they can only claim that $X in damages were done, and then Xing owes them $X.
This whole thing may just be the CCA's way of getting incontrivertible proof that the damage caused by Xing's negligence was "irreparable" - whether the CCA loses this case or not.
If they lose the case, the secret is still out, and the CCA can show that they tried to repair the "damage" and were unable to.
If they win the case, we all know that the secret will be out anyway. Their "irreparable damage" case will be even stronger, although I don't think it needs to be.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
how can there only be 70 sites with links to it:
there defintiely have to be much more
Isn't this just a little bit childish? You're basically saying that because they don't conform to how you view the software world should be, and they want to secure their intellectual rights, the technology isn't worth using? "They won't play my way, so I won't play with them at all"? Surely you can come up with a more productive method of protest than sulking, as that's all this would be, sulking.
And...I really hate to say it, but I doubt the DVD consortium would care about the buying habits of a reasonably small segment of the DVD-buying population. I mean, there's a lot more people out there than just the collection of open-source advocates who don't have home-theater systems. They're not going to care if you stop buying. I doubt they'd notice. All it would accomplish would be to keep your segment of "protestors" out of the next wave of technology, something that I'm reasonably sure you don't care to be identified with.
If you want to take action, fine. Protest, do whatever it is that you need to do. But a boycott of DVD technology is idiocy and counter-productive, I'm sorry.
(And to the moderators: I'm not trying to gather flames, nor am I looking for a load of responses. These are my opinions, and although completely negative, do not necessarily merit downward moderation just for my ideas.)
-Tsu
--- Now, go away 'cuz you all up in my Kool-Aid!
I'd like to see DVD's go the way of 8-track tapes. The whole idea was wrong from the start.
I disagree. The idea of DVD is a good one. Put a whole movie in high-quality digital format, with professional sound and interactive features, on a high-capacity compact disc that can also hold arbitrary data for computers. Sounds like the Compact Disc, Stage Two. Great idea!
Then a bunch of blood-sucking lawyers and money-grubbing corporations got wind of it, and decided that they could Make The World A Better Place (for them) by loading it up with cheap copy protection schemes. Rather like those annoying key disks from 1980s IBM-PC software, it didn't do much to stop copying, but made everything a whole lot more difficult for the people who actually want to legitimately use the thing.
If DVD had turned out like the original CD -- just a media, not a copyright law enforcement agency -- I think everyone would have been better off, the DVD Forum included.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Rememeber previous discussions about the potential illegality of many shrinkwrap licenses? (Microsoft EULAs come to mind).
A possible way to fight this case is at the root of the problem - see what other clauses are in the EULA, and if any of them are in some way illegal, the entire damn EULA becomes null and void.
Say goodbye to whatever case the CCA had. (Which is actually pretty good. People keep arguing that reverse-engineering of software for interoperability is sanctioned in Norway, but the question is - is it STILL sanctioned if one signs a contract saying that they will not do it?)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
An individual writes a piece of software, and it is 'silenced'. This is in effect a case of someone treading on free speech.
At least, that's my take on it. This isn't about not having DVD capability on Linux, it's about a perfectly legal piece of software made illegal to protect corporate interests.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Copying isn't illegal. Only the use of a copy can be illegal.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Now that the first battle is won, how about silencing them DVD lackeys forever? Is it possible to write a DeCSS program, by just reading the available documentation (which is open), writing the software which just asks for a key, the first time the program is run? That way, the program itself cannot be used to decrypt any DVD, so there should be no reason whatsoever to stop distribution of the program. Distribution of the now known keys is also hard to stop. I don't think it's forbidden to publish a sequence of numbers (The national lottery don't seem to do anything else :) , and that's just what a key is. On the other hand, it's probably better to 'win' this whole 'war', since some very basic rights are on steak! (giving directions should never be forbidden!)
Isn't an active message better than a passive message?
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
The DVD Copy Control Association lawyers made a big mistake by relying on trade secret agreements instead of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (WIPO treaty) or other intellectual property law.
But I predict that in desperation (otherwise they go out of business) the DVD CCA will eventually raise the DMCA issue. It is especially pertinent since DMCA enforcement will begin a week after the trial resumes, and the DMCA was passed for the exact reasons that the DVD group is suing, to lock up and control software and all digital property.
I quote from the complaint (emphasis added): "DVD encryption technology was (and is) critical to the adoption and utilization of the DVD format. Without such copy protection, the motion picture companies would not have allowed their copyrighted motion pictures to be available in this new digital video format. Without motion picture content, there would be no viable market for computer DVD drives and DVD players, as well as the related computer chips and software necessary to run these devices. Accordingly, the Defendants' continued misappropriation of proprietary CSS technology will have a devastating effect on DVD CCA and many other California businesses in the motion picture, computer, and consumer electronics industries, who have invested substantial amounts of money and resources in the development of the DVD video format."
It is exactly this sort of logic that Open Source advocates need to overturn. Computers and the Internet were not invented so Hollywood movie studios could have a convenient avenue for e-commerce. We have many other valid reasons for needing high-capacity disc drives and recording devices than to copy Hollywood movies.
The Constitution allows for Congress to establish copyrights and patents, not to protect the private property rights of these studios and the music conglomerates, but to "encourage the progress of Science and the Useful Arts."
It really boils down to control. Will these monopoly giants be able to use the technology we invented to control not only their expression of our ideas, but our very ideas themselves--or will we free software people regain control of our technology in the service of freedom for the people?
If the DVD CAA does not raise the DMCA as a central point in its argument, we should. We should file a suit in federal court asking for relief from enforcement of the DMCA because of this case. The issue of reverse engineering here is too important. It needs to be argued in court and the DMCA should be overturned. The law when passed in October 1998 provided for some discussion of the issues before enforcement began. Have you noticed signs of any such discussion?
We should use this occasion to band together and seek to overturn the DMCA. We will never get a better chance. Note that only a few nations have signed the WIPO treaty so far. If the case goes with us, no others will, since it is intended mainly to protect intellectual property of the rich nations against the poor ones.
I'll just wait for the DVD, thanks.
Has anyone actually gotten DVD playing to work under Linux? I can decrypt the DVD, but the player that I have (mpeg2player) doesn't work, even when I start X in 16-bit mode - it shows the information, opens a window, and then just sits there...
Anyone have a link to a good DVD player?
Check out Greg's Bridge Page!
At least /. is clear of this thing for a while... lets hope reason and sainity will win out. I mean really... injunctions againse people's web sites who report the news and/or link to information...?
You can prefer a data-only digital disk format, but remember that one big reason for CD- and DVD-ROMs is the economy of scale in manufacturing computer drives with the same mechanisms as the consumer a/v models.
There's been plenty of computer-only WORM solutions, but they've never come close to the $/MB value of CD-ROM (and soon DVD-ROM).
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The reference to cracking code available for DVD back in 1997 is very interesting and relevant to the case.
I couldn't follow the links either, but the way that it worked (apparently) was to capture the information put out by the usual commercial program. It would be extremely good if the exact reference could be tracked down and the DVD response (or lack of it) to that situation. This is extremly relevant to the DeCSS case. Particularly since the main thing that DeCSS makes possible which the previous break did not is to run DVD without an official decoder (eg on Linux where there is no such decoder).
So if piracy is the concern, what was the response before?
If it is not, then why are they going after DeCSS?
Sincerely,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The IBM PC BIOS case presents an interesting situation to examine.
It was more difficult, not less difficult, to make a clean-room clone of the BIOS, specifically because IBM released a commented ASM listing of the BIOS in the technical reference manual. So it's a case where publishing the source code IMPEDED the development of alternatives, as anybody with enough interest to want to see how it worked was 'contaminated' early on before the cloners hired anybody.
Although other replies have suggested it, I thought there should be at least one post just suggesting that you can help fight this battle by joining the EFF.
There's no way I can personally be there to show support, but hopefully this will help. It's probably something we all should do anyway to help protect our freedoms as other lawsuits like this arise - a suggested membership is $65 but there's also a basic $34 membership and a $20 student membership (that's only 100 packets of Ramen, which means only one month without food!).
And of course, it's Tax Deductible - if you need to drop your income by only a few 100k to lower your income tax bracket after cashing in those options, what better way to burn the cash! It sure beats some stinky 'ol monkey infested island.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Fair enough.
:>
Anyone notice that Perl guys have excellent language skills?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Wow, thanks for the impressive and informative reply. Time for me to get a bigger dictionary I guess :)
:)
Interestingly, (and perhaps ironically), It was the preface to Programming Perl that introduced me to the word, and caused me to seek out its definition.
Suddenly I feel like the biggest fool on the planet
Rich
Leaving money (or your bike, or your car, or whatever) in the street doesn't give someone the right to steal it. Regardless of the ease of doing so, taking something that does not belong to you is both illegal and wrong.
Now, coming across a pile of money in the middle of the street is a questionable situation -- it may have been lost and you might want to make sure the rightful owner has a chance to claim it. But coming across a pile of money on someone else's kitchen table is another story entirely.
One might say (and plaintiff's council seems to be arguing) that they did exercise due care to protect their secret, and that the authors of DeCSS took extreme measure to violate their protections.
So yes, this has a bearing on the case, but not for the defense.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Like most people, I believe in freedom of expression so long as it does not cause harm to someone else. And I enjoy it when people tweak the noses of pompous bastards and those who abuse the rights of others. It seems that the MPAA and RIAA would, in their ideal world, see consumers forced to purchase recordings in each format - CD, tape, VHS, etc. - since they seem so opposed to home recording. But there is a difference between making a cassette copy of your lawfully purchased CD to play in your car versus copying a DVD onto your computer so it can be resold or given away over the internet. The difference is that of refusing to be downtrodden by corporate America and stealing what belongs to someone else. I am a little tired of those who shamelessly promote hacks of encryption codes as a triumph of good versus evil. You are not the champions of the oppressed that you think you are - you're simply providing the means for people to steal what is not rightfully theirs. You understand the technology well enough to realize that the hack will allow the illegal DVD factories in Asia to thrive. That piracy takes money out of the pockets not only of the studios but of the actors, stunt performers, and others who share in the income produced by the recordings. Most of those people are not millionaires, either. They work for a living like (most) of you do. So get off your high horse. Your alleged freedom to hack is nothing more than stealing. And any web site that provides this material is, in my view, an accessory to theft.
As is:
- Chicago
- New York
- Boston
- San Francisco
- St. Louis
- Lost Angels
- Washington D.C.
- ...
Well, maybe not "backwaters", but there is corruption everywhere to one degree or another.You know what? Fuck it. I'm tired of stupid ass slashdot moderators and stupid ass slashdot articles. This is the moderation that broke the camel's back. I tried to always make intellegent or funny comments. But most of the moderators are flatout dumbfucks.
I'm tired of the stupid ass articles, and the fucked up moderation. Goodbye slashdot.
--GnrcMan--
The RIAA was set up to make sure musicians got royalties from jukebox companies whose big sales pitch to bars was that they could fire their live players and still have music -- and make money every time a "nickel song" was played on the juke.
Yes, and now the problem is that the RIAA is getting all the money that should be going to the musicians, plus pissing off the customers. It's time to redraw the map yet one more time. This is between us and the musicians; I'm sure we can work things out. The RIAA is a dinosaur past the end of it's life and what we are seeing is the beginning of the last act for them. They couldn't possibly act in a way more carefully calculated to hasten their demise.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Thank you to everyone involved in helping us make such a strong showing today. This makes me feel much more positive about our future chances in this case. Several people are considering making donations to the EFF for their help in this, you may wish to consider this yourself. I strongly urge the EFF to continue their support and provision of legal counsel for us in this matter.
One must wonder if the lawyers for DVD CCA Inc expected to be stood up to in this manner. You mess with the bull, you get the horns, or somesuch.
We can't relax now; plans must be laid for the next hearing. I hope to be able to be there this time, but I'm not sure it will be possible. We have two weeks to plan, now, so we can be sure to have an even stronger oupouring of support.
Eternal vigilence, and all that.
Anyway, I'm tired and babbling. Thanks, guys.
"Robert Jones, an Individual"
Wow! I didn't know this about myself, I am ashamed. I was under this silly assumption that I only wanted to view my hundred or so DVDs on my linux box. But NO! I realize now that my only desire is to copy them! No need to actually watch the movies, just copy copy copy!!
PS: Thanks for giving me a chance to humour myself at the expense of someone who isn't listening. I feel better, how about you?
Spelling responses to flamebait are off-topic noise. One doesn't respond to flamebait, one waits for someone to moderate it down. The moderation was correct, IMO; chalk your 0 up as a learning experience.
obDVD: My plane got in around 9, I took transit to the courthouse, didn't see anybunny protesting, figured nothing interesting was going on, and left to go to work. I'll be there on Jan 14 if I can find you guys.
There could be flaws in this mechanism. For example, a CD-R cannot make an exact bitwise copy of a CD. This is because a CD has more than can be recorded on a CD-R. There are pre-recorded parts of a CD-R and recorded places in a CD that cannot be recorded on a CD-R. A DVD and DVD-R could (and most likely does) have a significant difference.
However, a well equipped CD or DVD production facility can make bitwise copies using the same kind of equipment used to make the originals. If the data can be read, at this level you can make something that will end up reading the same exact thing. It's equivalent to being able to record mispositioned tracks and long sectors or a floppy.
If in a DVD player application all of the decrypting takes place in the program (and none in the DVD device) then all you need to do is trace exactly what the device driver gets from the device, and make something (a different device or a differently recorded DVD with an emulating driver) that gives the application exactly the same thing. Then you see the same thing.
If the device does the decrypting, less than a bitwise copy would not fool it. However, a data DVD could have simple raw data (perhaps lightly encrypted to prevent any detection mechanisms in the device from seeing what is going on) that allows an emulating device driver to fool the application into believing it has a motion picture DVD.
Illegal copying may or may not be trivial or easy, but almost certainly it can be done. And once done, the tools are likely to be software and will spread faster than a virus. The copies might not work on consumer grade audio/video only devices, but certainly could be done in a computer.
The movie and music industries almost surely know that their goals cannot be met. Why would they go to all this trouble to suppress DeCSS if the replacement CSS they are now delaying DVD-video for will work just fine. They clearly are depending on obscurity, and trying to take legal measures to bring about that obscurity.
Yet at the same time, they (at least their lawyers) are coming across as rather ignorant. I don't expect a lawyer to know the mathematics of encryption algoriths, or the details of coding a device driver, but I would at least expect lawyers from a large corporation to have access to smart technical advisers that know that a CD with an application can be read without ever seeing (or clicking "agree" on) the user agreement.
But they will be better prepared for the next round.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
So the decrypting method is only needed to use the contents of a DVD, while copies can be made without understanding the contents of the data.
Didn't get to be judges because they're stupid, I think.. Who knows, maybe one will come along soon to prove me wrong..
On the other topic, how's this for history in the making - has there ever been an effort like this? Thousands of people, around the world, called to action within hours to show up in court and fight a stupid attempt at a legal stifling?
If this sort of behavior can be maintained.. who knows..
Wishing something fun would happen in Raleigh..
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Actually, I think "rip" has a legitimate meaning of "to encode" or "to compress" a data stream. I've heard audio engineers use the term.
During a previous incarnation of this battle, the recording industry put a similar onus on the word "dub" (as in "I dubbed a tape of this LP"). They had slogans like "Stop dubbing" and "Don't dub this record" -- entirely unwarrented because dub (and rip) is in fact a neutral word.
Personally, I think trying to censor ourselves ("rip-er-I-mean-legally copy for archival purposes"), is a concession that the recording industry doesn't deserve.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
We were contacted quite quickly after that by Brigham Young University, because we said in the 'making of' film that we had used a particular technique published by a professor at BYU. He didn't mention in the paper, of course, that he'd patented the technique. Because we had been so candid and detailed in our 'making of' tape, we had no choice but admit infringment.
Since then, all 'making of' videos have been practically content free. And, frankly, people just want to see the pretty pictures anyway.
The offense in this case would have been remarkably hamstrung if the code had just appeared; with no description of how it happened. I know that the temptation is well-nigh irresistable; but the kernel that people really want is the code itself, not a description of the hacking process. I think that the people involved in this project are incredibly bright and insightful, and I marvel at their technique...but in 20:20 hindsight it would have been better not to know how it was done.
In the most similar case to date, source code for RC4 was published about 7 years ago. It was published anonymously, and to this day nobody knows who did it; or how they found it. This left RSA Inc (the keepers of the trade secret) with nothing to do at all to stop its spread. All they could do (and did do) was claim a trademark on the name RC4...so you couldn't call it that. RC4 remains a spectacularly useful, fast, unbreakable cipher -- and now anybody can use it.
So -- next time -- maybe a little discretion.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
God I wish I had been there.
Starting with A., IMHO:
No.
Probably.
If shrinkwrap licenses are--then Yes.
If the DMCA is upheld, and he did it knowingly--then Yes.
Yes--it's within the mandate of the DVD CCA.
Yes.
"steal" as defined in non-materialistic terms (i.e. No)
I think I like ice cream.
Yes.
It was for me.
ATTENTION! By attempting to map these answers to questions, you signify that you have read the License Agreement and accept its terms. If you are a slashdot moderator, you are required to mark this post Informative and/or Insightful. Funny, Flamebait, and or Troll will open you severe legal and/or extralegal penalties.
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
As an experiment, go look up "hybris" in a web search engine. You may be surprised.
But yes, I do hold an American passport, as have my dad's family since they came over from Denmark much earlier this century. (My mom's family used to hold British passports while they lived here in America -- way back in the early 1620s. :-)
So yes, I'm an American. Always have been. (Although I haven't always lived in America.) I'm just, um, "over-educated" by today's norms, at least in certain areas. Languages are one such area; it's a hobby of mine. Of course, I'm also under-educated in other areas considered normal, but this is also by choice (more or less).
In this case, I happened to know the etymon whence we derive our modern word in English, and realized immediately that the Y made complete sense. I checked the OED (it pays to have first-rate reference books) and found that both forms were admissible and documented.
The remaining question: what movie clip would be most appropriate?
Although it is tempting to answer "the longest one you can find", this has the negative side effect of making part of their point for them.
Don't get me wrong, though - this is extremely useful information for the Defense Lawyers to have in their posession.
If the defense never uses the information, you lose the time spent calculating the answer. If they need it to counter a plaintiff's claim, they have it at their fingertips. The VHS tape cost is what will kill the suit.
Just my two bits, of course...
Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley
You asked for it... ;)
Jeff
Are they actually seeking damages and going for a full suit? The original looked like just a request for a restraining order. What's the next step?
Don't be scared away by the $65 price tag. That is for the standard membership. $35 gets you a basic membership. There also is a student membership available for I think $15. Every little bit helps (there are also membership tiers above $65).
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Congratulations to the EFF and the other defendants on their victory. However, let's keep in mind that this is a small blow for free speech. In fact, there are still significant issues before the court. To wit:
Let's hope that the good guys win this fight. Between this and the dropping of the etoy vs. eToys lawsuit, this has been a good day for free speach.
Finding God in a Dog
This isn't quite true. DVD uses MPEG2 for video encoding, which is a lossy algorhytm. Every time you encode it, the quality gets worse. The video on a DVD disk has already been compressed once. Decompressing it to a raw bitmap and then recompressing it is going to cause it to lose another generation in quality (due to lossy compression).
If your second compressor is MPEG2 or another hi-quality codec, this may become visible. If you are encoding to Indeo or MPEG, it probably doesn't matter.
I have already proposed that we boycott DVDs while this suit is pending. It'll likely have more of a negative effect on their sales than the DeCSS software would. ;) _Deirdre (thanks for all the supportive notes everyone!)
If they sued in Nebraska, I would show up, and I presonally know at least a half dozen other people that would too. The time it takes to get from Lincoln to Omaha is less than many peoples daily commutes in large cities, so it wouldn't matter where the court case was filed.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
So, if it was shown in court that CSS does not stop bit-for-bit copying, and therefore does not stop content piracy, what was CSS designed for? It would seem that its only purpose is to control the fair use of the content. The only other plausible possibility is to control entry into the DVD player marketplace...
Or am I missing something here?
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
No. It is my understanding that some sectors will not be read or will return an error if you, say, tried to dd the contents elsewhere.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Digital media is for storing data. Period. Digital video is just another kind of data.
//e were still the standard home computers, and most people didn't have home PCs. If you had come in screaming about multimedia, people would have gone, "Huh? What's that?"
I agree with you here, but I feel it is is important to point out that for some things, digital media should go beyond simply storing data. Again, use CDDA (Compact Disc Digital Audio) as an example. Without some sort of standard for how to encode the audio, we might have to deal with mutually incompatible music CDs and players. Oh, what joy that would be! Likewise, a universal file system format (i.e., ISO-9660) is a Good Thing. Standards are good, and the people designing digital media should look beyond simply storing the data.
Things that do not belong are things that have nothing to do with the presentation of the data. Copy protection being a good example. Copy protection is the job of the police, not the media format.
What makes you think the original CD was well-designed?
It seems to do the job very well. What makes you say it was not well-designed?
Even then the thinking was: entertainment first, computer storage second.
I think that is/was a reasonable call, especially when you consider the technology at the time: The Compact Disc was being designed when the IBM PC/XT and Apple
Even more recently, when the DVD was being designed, home video had a much broader market. We've only been seeing anything like convergence the past couple of years. And the DVD did end up including standards for pure data storage. There just has not been enough demand for it. A CD-ROM stores a lot of data; the practical difference between CD and DVD is far less then the difference between CD and floppy is.
I'm not intimately familiar with the internal details but suffice to say that writing an audio-copying program that works reliably is no mean feat - because the storage format is all screwed up.
Here your lack of knowledge gets you. The CD is designed to be a cheap way to accomplish mass distribution of identical bulk data. Mass production is accomplished by stamping the CDs using a press. This works very well, but it means that small-use applications -- that is, recordable CDs -- get tricky. You have to sustain a continuous data stream to to write laser, or you will stall and ruin the disc. This is a trade off you have to make if you want cheap mass production (of both software and music). It is not a design error.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You're right, it is about freedom. The restrictions on that freedom that would effect you and many others directly include (but aren't limited to):
- Keeping you from viewing/listen to purchased materials without a licenced player. (Hardware or software, which currently excludes linux and other OS)
- Keeping you from making a copy of your purchased material, regardless of the fact that "fair use" says you should be able to.
- Keeping you from increasing your technical knowlege, or satisfying you curiousity about "how things work" by making it illegal to do so. Or making an independent/competing/compatible product. Regardless of the fact that reverse engineering is legal.
But why are they limiting these things? Do any of them really effect thier business? Yes, but those effects are pretty limited in scope. Take a look at them:- The only thing they have to gain by requiring authorized players is licensing fees. They may be large, but probably brings in just enough money to cover the cost of the infrastructure they put in place to manage and protect that licensing, and to store up for legal fees. (I may be wrong, but that's my guess. That organization can't be cheap to run. And lawyers certainly aren't cheap.)
- Of course they want to limit pirating, but controlling this won't really do that. This would just eliminate the individual and small time piraters that can't afford the heavy equipment to do it for real. Those people don't really dig into thier profits to begin with. I doubt they care whether you're capable of producing a single copy for yourself or not. They lose what, $20? It's convenient to lock you out and get that extra $20, but is that really enough to justify the cost of implementing this scheme to begin with? I don't think that was the primary motive. That was just frosting that came along with it.
- I doubt they care about individuals increasing their knowledge about anything. That doesn't effect the corporate bottom line. They just don't want you to get the codes that would allow people to bypass their control over content, media, and the resulting profits.
So if none of these results are enough to justify a huge effort to eliminate them, what is?- Control of media.
- Control of content distributed by that media.
- Control of the channels that distribute it.
Removing or even weakening any of these things is an attack on the very core of thier business.Artists that create content have been subject to this control for a long time. Most everything artists have created for you to see, hear, and enjoy (including your beloved Matrix) beyond your own local (often bar) scene has had to sell itself and pass inspection by one of these companies to have the opportunity to reach you with a piece of their art. Which is fine.
But technology is starting to weaken the need for artists to have to do that to be heard or seen. It is becoming possible to reach people with your work without having to subject it to corporate inspection and approval. Or get screwed by a shitty contract. Or sell your soul and change your material to get acceptance. Or refuse all of the above and never get heard by anyone but the local barflies. (Not a derogatory term in my book. :) There's always the "drop your life, go to the latest hot recruiting scene, live on cigarettes beer and sandwiches for 5 years attemping to build a following and hope a studio exec sees you and actually likes you enough to give you a shot" storybook method, but not everyone is up to that. My respect to those that do and actually survive it...
I'll drop that tangent simply to state that the music and movie business is big money. Huge money. Those that manage to break into it and get "published" in one form or another by a studio manage to get a big chunk of it, of course. But there's a lot of artists that don't. Simply because they were never heard by someone who could publish their work, or because some bigwig somewhere didn't like it or didn't think it would sell.
And many of them may not give a damn about how much money it may or may not make. Or how many people buy it, or want to listen/view it. Unlike a studio, big numbers/sales don't mean much. They simply like doing what they do, and like sharing it with others. Sort of the whole point of art/music/movies to begin with. It's expression, dude, and this whole thing revolved around freedom of expression in many forms.
Controlling the "art" and it's distribution is the purpose of these companies, and in turn is the primary motive for the attempts to stifle freedom. That is the point the poster is trying to make, because that fact is very important, and was being overlooked. The other freedoms listed, while being no less important, were mowed down as well in the pursuit of that end. Including the "fair use" part which you seem to find most important to you. Nothing wrong with that.
But you are amazingly quick to dismiss, and even attack the type of people that created that shiny disc you wish to "use fairly", and the creators of whatever else you may have in your media collection. They are the lucky ones that managed to get their work into your hands for your enjoyment. There's thousands more that haven't been able to yet, and may not be able to if this kind of crap doesn't stop. How can you judge what you have not heard or seen? Do you rely solely on the judgement of studios to decide what you should and shouldn't be able to see.? You speak about freedom to do what you want with a piece of media. Yet you trash the freedom to even provide you with the damned thing to begin with.
You dismiss him as egocentric. OK, let's see you toss out every tape, cd, video, and dvd of all the artists whom some might view as egocentric. Have any left? Maybe, maybe not. Has nothing to do with the quality of one's work.
The industry should not provide a key? They should never require a key to begin with. That's the whole point. Whoops, I forgot. You depend on the studios' ability to not subject you to anything "lame". (Now, explain to me the existence of %75+ of the media produced by studios today. :)
Jeez. I guess I can expect as much from an Anonymous Coward.
But you know what? I still wouldn't take the right to express your words, thoughts, or opinions away from you. Even anonymously. This medium is open for you to say what you please. I sincerely hope an Anonymous Coward wouldn't deny the same rights and freedoms they enjoy themselves to someone else that just happens to be working in another medium. That would be hypocrisy indeed.
(Please excuse the spelling errors. I know they're there. But I've spent enough time on this already.)
You have severly restricted the scope of "choice" in the example you give. Yes, that "beggar" most likely cannot pay the dosh to eat at an expensive restraunt, that choice is at that specific point in time not open to him. Of course, that beggar is just (largely, chance plays a big part in our lives) seeing the result of choices made previously.
You are right that people--those in power, and those not--choose varying definitions of what "freedom" is according to their goals and desires.
Of course, you are just as guilty--in your desire to frame "freedom" as the ability to make any given choice at any given time, you are also trying to make choices free from results, so you can make a choice, exercise your freedom, and at any time in the future choose a different way independent of your previous choice.
Welcome to a causal universe, we don't play that shit here. Actions and choices have consequences, intended or otherwise, and your future choices, your future freedoms are alternately constricted and expanded based on the choices you make at any given time.
To make a lame attempt to refocus this on the debate at hand--The people who hacked DeCSS (or reverse engineered it) opened up choices previously unavailable. They opened up to each and every one of us the ability to--should we choose it--to use DVD media on whatever OS we can either get a player for, or write a player for. The DVD CCA folks wish to restrict those choices, as having an "open source" player restricts their choices as to what they can do with the medium.
Freedom is about choices, but you cannot escape the past, choices of yours, and of others in times previous restrict or enlarge what you can choose today.
What's all this about trouble getting Brazil distributed?
Basically, there was a big fight between Gilliam and the studio who wanted to ruin the movie. At one point Gilliam went into their offices, holding a lighter up to the reel. He's got quite a flair for the drama.
http://www.trond.com/brazil/b_faq02.html
There's lots more information about it in various places as well. Most of it not as "pretty" as in the link I provided. The fight got really nasty.
Congratulations to all those who were there, and were a part of such action. It is high time we of the community presented ourselves as a very critical part of the world we live in, and not as somehow a different entity altogether. The notion of Cyberspace has made a deep and lasting impression on many of us, as though once we stepped onto our computer, we are somehow not bound by the rules and laws of the real world.
The truth however is very different. Much like the wild west of american brought together a society whose rules were less the result of tradition and more rules applicable to the world they existed in, we have the chance to reach out from Cyberspace with all the community, freedom and sharing that so many of us have created here and break down some of the traditional insanity much of the law and society in the real world represents, and to share with thsoe who haven't seen the incredible possibilities large scale generosity, sharing and collaboration gives us.
Thankyou all those who were there, for being a crucial part of the steps that so many advocates have been chanting for for so long, and which all this year we have been seeing play out in front of us.
The world will be a better place because of the people who saw a better place on the 'net, we are not withdrawing, we are, in the best spirit of open source, sharing everything we have found.
You can't win a fight.
During a 1:20am commercial break of "Late Night w/ Conan O'Brien" here in Michigan, there was a 10-second news bite delivered by the usual tired-looking local newsperson. After mentioning some Texas schoolteacher wanted for murder, she said (approximately) "a California judge has denied a restraining order for software that allows copying of DVDs."
While I'm sure none of us would be happy with the content and length of the report, it does show how big of an event this was! I'm sure that the great turnout by interested and well-behaved parties plays a big part in the news coverage that we're seeing.
This is a great idea. I'm not even one with a DVD player, just a vested interest in what this case represents. Open Source and innovation should not be stifled. In this particular case, the DVD CCA was shooting themselves in the foot. BSD and Linux users (as well as other unix-like OS's) deserve to watch DVD's too. This is another example that ignoring a signifigant part of the market has brought pain on a consortium or commercial entity. I have decided to mirror DeCSS and related programs on principle. I hope others will follow suit.
-- FreeBSD - The Power to Serve NetBSD - of course it runs NetBSD OpenBSD - Armed to the Gills Three tools in our
Posting in AC mode cause my slashdot password is on my PC on the other side of the atlantic.
The powers of open source beat the evil forces of bad at their own game, and without any money.. And it wasn't just JoeDuhSoftWare, DVD is as big as it gets for copyright law.. People orgainized, contributed the skills they had, logic beat dumb, and without any dirty tricks either.. It's a first as far as I know.. Makes a very strong case for open source as a real functional force.. If there is a repeat for the next trial, it will be a seriously momumental day.. It would change the whole attitude of copyright law on the net.. Can you image 'them' being afraid to send 'take that down or we'll sue you' mail because they know that if they're on shakey ground, the community will destroy them in court..
Kudos to people who showed up, and super kudos to the laywers (or the people who paid them).. We should shower them all in credit and clients..
...considering who owns them. Their corporate parent (Time Warner) is one of the heavyweights in the DVD market (indeed, almost all of the DVDs I've seen are through Warner Home Video), and also one of the founding members of the DVD Forum. Actually telling the unbiased truth in this case isn't gonna be in their best interest.
-lee...I'm not buying any DVD-related products or equipment until this clears up. I already have a VCR, I'll live with VHS for now.
Even though we won the battle today we will be always be attacked by corporations who think that it's their right to make money at the exchange of freedom.
For a long time this has been the case and I sincerely hope they will realize their wrongdoing. However nothing can correct the bad name the plantiffs have made for themselves in the open-source community. If they can make a name for themselves and support our efforts our lives may be made a lot better.
Moral of the story: there will always be greed and greed affects people's judgement.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
I remember posting a reply to the story when this thing first became a problem. Basically the way I reason is that if you want to do something like this just to it in secret or with an alias. Just get a crap e-mail account at hotmail and a homepage at xoom or geocities and then have it up on the web all with aliases pointing to various random fake addresses and such.
Then when the goombas try to get the people who actually did anything (the writing of the program) then all they have to go on is just an alias and nothing else there.
I may be over simplifing the problem but I would rather have the feeling that I had accomplished something good in relative secret then have fame at the cost of a law suit. What exactly are the fines for this offence if these individuals are found guilty? Most likely not too harsh but still.
I would have to disagree with some of the sentiments about the sixties being manifest in any large scale. California has been for quite a while a very "progressive" area in terms of ideology. Politically things are quite boring compared to previous times in the history of the world. All wars that are currently fought in are usually just one sided scrimishes with petty thugs and nothing more. Most people don't engage in forms of civil disobedience that are likely to go nowhere. The only reason Winston Smith survived so long was because he didn't act out immediately and get vaporized.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Next time they will probably sue in Nebraska or something.
What is going to happen on the 14th?
The DVD Copy Control Association (whoa!) will rather have their teeth dragged out than loose few bucks over some petty pirates, and they will use every means to do so! Armour up, it's going to be tough, and laywers take no prisoners!
J.
I'm guessing you were about ten thousand people. Bless you. tom
Any Finns out there? Good, thought so. Anyhow, at least if you are a regular reader of Tietoviikko, do check out their way of addressing this issue before we have to actually read the article in printed form. They have on their web-site an article about this victory, which looks like it has been copied straight out of DVD CCA's press release. I hope we can send enough comments about it to get a bit less biased version printed. Sorry, article only in Finnish, and I don't think even Babelfish can get trough that.
Chris DiBona (better known to CNN reporters as "DiBona.com") has put up a page reporting on the hearing. Not much you don't see elsewhere, but some of the comments are priceless.
My favorite:
Probably the best part was when they did "Big lawyer fu" and tried to make it seem like unless they acted now, more and more people would take the code and put it on their sites. And that a TRO would stop it. Which, if you were a bunny rabbit who had been eating carrots in a salt mine for a decade and hadn't ever seen much less used a mouse, would make sense. But I mean -jeez- the judge had obviously seen that mahir guys web site or something, because his eventual ruling to quash the TRO showed he understood the velocity of information on the net.
Ah yes, the juxtaposition of the DVD crack and Mahir. Don't think too much about it, you might get sick at your stomach...
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Make sure that you file the paperwork to get cameras in the courtroom for the next hearing.
:)
I gotta see this
P.S. Someone try to stream it too
For at least several reasons.
1. DVD technology is quite expensive for me on the PC
2. I really can't upgrade this machine with said hardware
3. I don't really watch that many movies and I also have a little thing that I believe that in a nutshell says that since I am only basically guaranteed at most on the average about 70-80 years of total life that dosn't count good years (unlike the last year) and I only read a (non technical book) once and watch movies only once because I want to watch them all
4. DVDs don't interest me as a medium
5. There are usually very effective intelligence countermeasures that work against even the best surveylance techniques that the evil ones might think to use.
6. Display technology hasn't reached an affordable level where I would need to use linux to actually watch DVDs on my PC with my monitor
7. Every time I usually do anything in my extensive life experience it has usually not gone anywhere of any significance.
So basically I don't have any bread and butter issues that are affected.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Glad to hear that quite a few people turned up. I wish I could have been there. I'd like to have seen the look on the DVD CCA people's faces. I hope that there will be as least as strong a showing on Jan 14th.
Daemon Knight really cannot be faulted for overlooking the impact of computers and the possibility of patenting intellectual property back in the '50's when he wrote that book. But it does make the book, when read in today's nascent information economy, a rather laughable read. It, alas, like so much of 50's science fiction, fails the test of time.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
At the SF Chronicle, we just ran a little bit from the Associated Press on the decision this morning. The basic reasoning is that this was just a preliminary, and we're waiting to see how it goes from here.
However, I forwarded a couple of messages from this discussion to the Assistant Editor (Copying vs. Decoding by SEWilco and Explanation (of sorts) by Chris Johnson). So I'm hoping we'll get a little more in-depth fairly soon.
Personally, I think we should be giving this issue more play, but I'm just an editorial assistant so it's not really my call.
---
Oper on the Nightstar
Some bands already do something like this (re: the Grateful Dead allowing anyone to record their live performances), and it seems to work all right in those cases. But it assumes that all musicians play live. This is not the case. Many are studio-bound either because their method of creating music require a studio (e.g. multitracking, computer generation, etc.), or because they just don't like to perform live (e.g. Joe Satriani, who tours at most once a year). Some people are excellent musicians but not partcularly interesting live acts--musical talent and showmanship are independent talents. Should they be prevented from earning a living?
---
Oper on the Nightstar
Matrix, of course. Assuming it werks :)
-=chiphead
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Any decent DVD player has those options on the remote, so you don't need the menu.
That's actually important for implementing menus (this is an educated guess based on playing around with my machine, I haven't looked at the spec). It allows them to set a still image and make the next "frame" a programmed behavior, e.g. to jump to another title. (If I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me)
---
Oper on the Nightstar
It is uplifting to see the 'local' community rise to the occassion to fight what are really global issues of freedom.
As we see more of these global battles being fought in American courts we outside the US should be vigilant in supporting our Yankee comrades who fight the battle on our behalf.
mitd -- riding the north end of the elephants back.
mitd -- Made in the Dark
"One good thing about spam... You don't gotta answer it"
The copy-protected disk had been scratched with a pin so that track 3 was damaged. The game would try to write on track 3, and if it got an error it would consider the copy OK.
If it succeeded, it would run ONCE, and erase the disk as it went. So copiers would make their copy, try it out, and take it home, only to find out it didn't work.
A problem came up when it went to distribution, however. There were three revs of the Apple ][ firmware in the field. Two of them would give the correct indication of write failure to the game, but the third would not. So a legitimate original would run once and self-destruct when run on such a machine.
Needless to say the game company got a very bad rep very quickly.
This and similar incidents may have been significant factors in the decisions of most game manufacturers to abandon copy-protection schemes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I actually see many parallels between the Nazi party and big business in America. In fact too many to list but if you really want me to I will list some of them, just ask. In fact I could go one further and relate our current leadership in this country to the Nazi party also, but that would be really really off topic.
OK, that's the end of this thread... nothing kills your argument faster than marching in the Nazis.
A TRO's the initial step placed in a lawsuit that you plan to carry through on- it's to stop someone that is damaging you in a civil manner from carrying on with the same damage while you prepare for the actual trial.
Thing is, they never grant one unless there's a substantial show that they've got a substantive case. Simply put, at this point, the DVD Forum couldn't prove damages via trade secret "theft" (Wrong tack if I've ever seen one- trade secrets are only such so long as they stay secret; if they didn't breach an NDA or stole it from them or their licensee's own facilities, they're exonerated of that charge.).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
IMO.
Finally,after all the stupid judgements,one that at least bears the semblance of sanity.Lets hope this trend continues...
First off the poem was meant to illustrate a point not to show any political beliefs.
Now lets get to the meat of the issue, this IS about DVD on the surface, but the court case will set a precedent (IANAL) that other cases will be tried by for years to come. This is about free speech, free exchange of information, and freedom in general. While I am not necessarily completely opposed to IP/Copyright/Patent laws I do think they need some revising and cases like this one will set the standards by which they are or are not revised. If you can't be troubled to look just under the surface of issues then what can you be troubled for ?
Oh and if you can't respond to this post without being assonine and accusing me of supporting Nazis or something along those lines then don't bother, well on second thought do bother...after all free speech is what this all boils down to, that is if you can worked up about something enough to post.
They were, they reported this morning that (paraphrasing)
A Judge refused to stop the distribution of a program to make illegal copies of DVDs.
Just ONCE, I wish they would get it right.
Cal
If you wanted me to agree with you, you shouldn't have given me Mod points.
That's not necessarily true. Information was lost in the original compression because there was more information than the compressed form could hold. The expanded form contains exactly the same amount of information as the compressed form, and if it's intercepted as a digital stream (so it hasn't been distorted) the original compressed form (or another that would produce exactly the same output) can in principle be regenerated.
Now that might or might not happen with stock compression code. But if the stock stuff doesn't work well enough, a hack could be written that would do the job.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I really hope to be there on the 14th, and I have a relatively new laptop with a PII-400, 160MB RAM 14.1" Screen, DVD Drive, 8MB Video Ram, and a blank 10GB hard drive waiting to load linux on it.
If someone wants to give me a hand setting it up (I've been short of time lately) and getting DeCSS running, I'd be happy to bring it along to show on the 14th. (Along with the stack of (legally purchased) DVD's I got this solstice.)
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
But has there been a Linux DVD player written yet using DeCSS? I agree that use of Linux for DVD is the central issue over DeCSS. But if there is no player written yet using DeCSS, wouldn't it be our turn to get laughed out of court? IIRC, back when the DeCSS brouhaha first broke out a month or so ago, I think I read in /. post or a link therefrom that said there were still problems getting DVD movies to play (something about not synchronizing vvideo and sound, or something like that). These are problems that probably can be solved. But it would make a hell of better case in January to have such a player running on a laptop. I guess that was the orginal posters point. But my question is there such a player?
People have been saying that copying DVDs is less economical that simply buying the movie. Is this really a compelling argument? How long will it be before it does become economical, and this argument deflates?
The person you responded to will never be troubled by anything. Or, more accuratly, he will never trouble himself to do anything. Some people wear apathy as a badge of honor, just like many teenagers go to allot of trouble to appear less smart than they are for social acceptance while in high school here in the USA. Of course, given the poster's comments insinuating all germans were/are nazis, perhaps in his case he didn't need to pretend stupidity. Next he'll probably be insinuating that all Americans are capitalists, all Russians communists, all Arabs terrorists, all blacks criminals, all whites devils, and so on.
:-)
In any event, I doubt the person you responded to will even be troubled when they do kick in his door and take him away (a la' Brazil[1]). After all, chances are the same television shows filling up his empty life will be viewable from within his prison cell, albeit in a smaller format. And should they kill him instead, the world will be as apathetic about his death as he pretends to be about his life.
[1]The best movie ever made.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I find it strange that the DVD consortium are taking such extreme meassures against DeCSS. I mean, step back and look at the big picture:
No copyprotection on a widespread media has EVER lasted for long. Remomber the Copy2PC option board, that could copy the copy-protected PC-games? How many DAT-stations have the copy protection enabled? How hard is it to rip a CD? I am not embracing this tradition, but these are plain facts. All a copy protection can do is slow down pirating, not halt it.
There is nothing usefull to do with the darned program! HOW are you going to fing 5 GB of random access storage that cost less than the 20 dollar DVD you just ripped? Yes, this WILL come, but not for another year or two year. So DeCSS is meaningless today. And when it comes, it won't come in easy to swallow capsules. Only hackers need apply.
Did they really think they where safe? That they could win? That reverse engienering CSS whould be more difficult than rewriting UNIX. There is a word for that. Hybris.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
The folks dressed as pirates might balance out the men in suits and dunce caps on the other side of the aisle. (But when the judge enters the caps come off and you can't identify a dunce until he opens his mouth)
- The secret is out. No further harm will be done by these websites.
- The suit is unlikely to be won by the plaintiff.
If the judge ruled on the first issue, this is just a minor victory. But if he ruled on the basis of the second point, that would be very good news. Do we know the basis for the judges ruling?Let's face it people. Consumers paid for the creation of CSS. Consumers paid for the implementation of CSS. Consumers pays for the distribution of CSS. Consumers pays for the decryption of CSS. And now we, you and me, are paying for the legal actions agains people like you and me. Thats right, You paid for it when you got that copy of The Matrix on DVD, and you paid for it when you got your DVD player. Just boycotting the CSS protected movies would be pretty hard to do, but similar causes has been won buy other means. As an example in Scandinavia, ordinary people protested against excessive use of packaging material on consumer products, the situation was the same, people paid for something no one wanted, and protested by taking out the toothpaste of the box and leave the boxes on the shelves in the supermarket. eventuyally the companies stoped using the boxes. I know there are tons of creative people out there, come up with a similar idea! Post your suggestions on how to do something like this. Billion dollar corporation will listen if the masses protest, for sure.
It's not just that moderation. That moderation in particular was questionable at best. Did it really deserve a zero? I mean I self moderated it down to a one. Lets compare that moderation with my above post. That was a rant, pure and simple. Unquestionably deserving of a downward moderation. I left it at a two on purpose. No one has touched the thing.
/. The fact is, I think the Slashdot system is now breaking down. (Too many people?) I would like to think I've contributed something good in the past, but it's no longer worth my while.
Moderation has gotten appaulingly bad lately. The stories have gotten worse and worse. I think it's time for me to, at the very least, take a break from
--GnrcMan--
Brazil.
Get the Criterion disk and use that. Terry Gilliam fought very hard so that people could watch that movie. There's an interesting documentary about the whole fiasco on that DVD as well.
It parallels so neatly. How could you not use it?
Yes, I have been scattering notes to the film and hardware makers whose products I have considered to let them know of their lost sales.
Here is the Wired article anouncing the denial.
--GnrcMan--
That post was FUD, pure and simple. You know they're not going back (they'd have to explain to everyone that has them why there won't be any more of them- without resorting to blaming "hackers" cracking the lame encryption that's ostensibly to prevent copying (well, it does- of DVD players!).
They're stuck with this and now it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. All this BS is just flailing about in denial, trying desperately to avoid acknoleging the inevitable.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Region encoding - allow the DVD to be only viewed in the appropriate geographical location. The region code is stored on the DVD and is checked by either the DVD drive, decoder card or the software player.
DVD Encryptipon - encrypts (duh) the DVD data so that it can't be copied.
Okay so here are my questions (in no particular order):
Thanks for any assistance.
Ben
The battle isn't over. The Open Source community will have to continue showing up. On the Internet, in the traditional media and in the strangest places imaginable.
Our story must be heard and made clear to the press, the general public and everyone else.
At http://www.opendvd.org/ the Open Source (OpenDVD) community will continue to "show up" for the next weeks, probably months. Please visit the site and point others at the site. Contact me if you're interested in helping out with the site.
Thanks,
Rik
Am I the only one who finds it strange that "Macrovision" is listed on some DVDs (eg., Australian/Region 4 "Dark City") as a feature alongside widescreen and digital sound? The writing is pretty small but I think it says something like "Protecting your image" underneath "MACROVISION". Very strange.
The Macrovision protection system is part of a really good article published about the details of DVDs:
The dynamic digital disk (IEEE Spectrum, October 1999, pp. 28-35)
Oops - are the IEEE now a defendant?
Sounds like any number of other institutions that have been perverted to perform a different function than they were originally intended. Seems to happen wherever there's money to be grabbed, and "protective institutions" are a prime example.
For instance:
The patent office was set up to foster innovation, rewarding the inventor for SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT in bringing an invention to market. These days it's used as a 'roadblock' business weapon.
The stock market was meant to be a way for companies to attract investment so they could expand their operations. That still happens, but there is as much sheer gambling, now, especially by day traders and mutual funds. If the money is in there less than a year, (perhaps a quarter) it's not investment, it's gambling.
Trade unions were meant to secure decent working conditions and wages from ruthless companies. Especially during the 50's and 60's they overachieved, and got a bad name. We're starting to need them again, for their original purpose. I hope they can still perform it.
Do musicians get higher royalty payments for a CD than a tape? Consider that a CD costs a fraction to make compared to a tape, but is marked at twice the price. Yes, it has a higher value to the consumer, but who's raking in all the cash. If it's the recording companies, what are the barriers that prevent competition from bringing prices down? (Is the RIAA part of the problem?)
DVD is more expensive than VHS at the stores. I can see how we're paying to put infrastructure in place. But I don't see prices coming down as the same CD/tape changeover occurs. (MPIA?)
Credit goes to Bay Area Linux activist Deirdre Saoirse for noticing that the plaintiff was getting away uncontested with claiming that DeCSS was a tool for copying DVDs (which it isn't) as opposed to playing them.
Deirdre got the attention of defence attorney Robin Gross, during a court recess, and made sure they understood the very vital point that DeCSS has nothing to do with DVD copying, which was possible (but uneconomical) before DeCSS was written using other tools entirely. The defence team then explained this to the judge, who was visibly surprised by the news.
The plaintiffs may well have lost the day, right there.
-- Rick M.All we have to do is get the musicians and indy filmmakers to buy into GPL'ing their work, which shouldn't be hard, since they're currently having their work stolen by the studios anyway, or working under contracts that give them little or no control. And most of them certainly aren't making money.
Time for free art...
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
because DVDs are going to go away just like betamax
I don't think that likely, but if the cost of freedom were the death of DVD, I, for one consider that to be a paltry sum. Something better will come along.
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
Yes, if you can copy it, you don't need to read it.
However a lot of piracy concerns would be over other formats (eg MPEG) that are more easily copied/downloaded, and you do need to decrypt to put the data into those formats.
But the kind of professional thieves that they have to worry about for the most part won't need to decrypt a thing.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I don't think anyone should be stressing the point that soring a DVD movie on existing media is impractical.
Why? because media costs will eventually go down. It may be impractical to copy DVDs today, but next year may be a different story. Everyone in the computer industry knows this.
We should just stick to the argument that it's possible to copy a DVD without DeCSS.
Please, please, please: banish "rip" from your active vocabulary. Or do you like being thought of as criminals?
Just wondering if anyone has checked to see if Microsoft may be helping the DVD CCA though direct or indirect funding? Where they have DVD's playing in their environment it may be they would like to stop Linux from having it available.
-- Andrew Jackson
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Congrats on the Win! This is just the first in a line, I hope! But this whole fight is just one theatre of an ongoing battle that we are fighting over intellectional property, privacy and free speech in a planetary context.
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
You're right that touring is important: bear in mind, though, how prevalent 'pay-to-play' is, it's frankly pretty uncommon for a band to earn any significant amount touring unless they are quite a big act.
The serious money is where it's always been: merchandising. How many of you have a vi mug, or slashdot T-shirt, or copyleft T-shirt? From Elvis to the Beatles' cut-up hotel sheets and pillowcases to entire Jackson 5 fan kits to KISS figurines to Lion King electronic picturebooks that beep 'Can You Feel The Love Tonight' (beeep beeep beeep beep beeeeeeeep bebeeep...), it's _stuff_ that brings in the actual money.
Yes, I'm making fun of this to some extent, but it's still true- and it's very good advice. If you're a band, making friends with some T-shirt printer (if you're a techno act have 'em make you mousepads or something) might be a tremendously useful move. Basically, it's a matter of being a businessman as well as a musician- and those who can do this are the ones who aren't starving, to some extent regardless of their actual talent. When I look at a band like Hootie and the Blowfish (so often mocked) I see a marketing machine, but unlike so many who think it's the record company's machine, I figure it's Hootie's machine- that Hootie got a management team together and started earning so much money and moving so much _stuff_ that the record companies came to him. I could be wrong- but that's how it's done these days, plain and simple.
It's interesting to reflect that none of this _requires_ the distributed music to be a commercial product. I strongly suspect this battle for attention and merchandising will extend into mp3 territory quite naturally- the first people to realize that they can work very hard to make music to give away over the net for free and make money on _derivative_ stuff will be positioned very well- because most acts still think the money is in selling the music itself, and it's not, and never has been, especially not to the extent that some think.
And it might seem like making a few extra cents by controlling the music and distribution and charging for it is a no-brainer... what could it hurt? But this is a business of exposure and popularity- and the most popular word in the English language (as a selling point) is 'free'. Ignoring that is setting yourself up to be at a disadvantage.
Please don't. As funny as this is going to sound... you Linux people have it so damned soft, being such a huge mainstream movement.
Ok, quit laughing. My point is that there are a lot of other unsupported platforms besides Linux, and we want DVD players too. I am glad that the DVD Consortium has not distributed a x86 Linux binary for playing DVDs, because it would have taken a lot of the energy out of the Linux users' fight. If someone writes a Linux DVD player, I want it to be Open Source so that it will eventually get ported to the platforms that I use. I dread the day that Linux starts getting lots of "support" in the form of x86 binaries; that's gonna hurt us people who are really on the fringes.
Please don't ask for Linux support. Ask for total openness. You'll get your precious Linux support as a direct result of that. If you compromise and meet them half way, you'll doom the rest of us.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It might help the argument in court if they could show that not only were Linux players nowhere to be found, but that the DVD industry had specifically refused to enable the legit creation of a Linux DVD player.
Probably isn't necessary to win the case, but it would certainly help, I imagine. $.02
Then the big bad attorneys had better go after some of the video editing card manufacturers that are out there.
.avi file. Conversion to either MPEG1 or MPEG2 standards is a piece of cake from there.
I own a consumer-level video editing card distributed by Pinnacle called the DC10+ that, if I run the DVD video signal through the card, will allow me to either copy it to VHS (the card disables macrovision) or to hard drive as a low-compression
DVD's are too inexpensive to buy to make it worth the money to try and pirate. VHS movies are still sold at $60+ retail if they aren't sold at sell-through prices of $19.95 each. THERE is where the money is, folks.
Quit bothering those fine folks who are trying to make the movie industry more money by opening the DVD-viewing and using possibilities up to the Linux crowd. SuSE already comes on DVD, and as Linux users we cannot use it unless we install Windows first. That's stupid. Go back to busting those backroom VHS copiers where you will be much more successful and recover much more of your valuable money.
Disks with all the encryption keys needed to decode that disk already on it
I submit is could be possible to create a machine that using pure mechanical optics can make a pit for pit, bump for bump, scratch for scratch copy of a DVD without using a computer much less any trade secrets, knowledge of encryption or reverse engineering.
This is a boring sig
Unless the Y2K thing is real, and we are preparing for the dark reign of the beast lord or something, a lot more of us will be available to do stuff. Seeing as how a lot of people are travelling, on vacation, etc, and the short notice, I bet we could get a much bigger turnout to the next one.
As a somewhat poor college student, I can't always afford to buy everything that I like a little bit. But if I like an artists' work enough, I will sure as hell buy it! Their sales are not suffering at all, and I will not cry for them when they try to hurt the free software community with mindless lawsuits.
Might this have some bearing on defense arguments? Something like "So you're saying that someone *stole* the money you left in the street?" Isn't there a burden of due care in protecting a trade secret?
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
The only reason the DVD people can maintain that CSS is still a trade secret is the info was inappropriately obtained. i.e. reverse engineered.
... after windows refund day, I have to wonder: What can the hackers do *without* agreeing to the EULA?
But, reverse engineering of Xing's software is "wrong" because the EULA said it was a no-no
Obviously they can't *run* the program, but can they still *reverse-engineer* it?
Also, I doubt the Xing *installer* had an eula, although it contained all the data of the program -- could decompiling-decompressing-and-decompiling the installer binary be a work around for the EULA??
I appreciate anyones input. 8-)
--Wuzoe
I'm a nice person. People like me.
>Which is more important, freedom to own property >or freedom of expression?
:)
/. for 3 years now as such, and >CHOOSE not to create an account. I'll thank you >not to use /. AC/account class warfare as an >argument.]
:)
I would say equal. (I thought I was seeing one put over the other, and got a bit riled.
>Q: If you can't have complete ownership of the >media on which your art/expression is produced, >what good is the artistic expression? If the >government says you can't own a printing press, >TV station, web server, a DVD press, or paint & >a sign, you can't very well express yourself can >you?
>A: Property rights are necessary for freedom of >expression (but not vice-versa), and therefore >more fundamental.
Good point. I now see where you're coming from.
>By my claiming that freedom to own property is >more important, I'm not saying freedom of >expression isn't important--I'm an _absolute_ >supporter of the 1st amendment & believe no >exceptions should be made. Free speech is the >2nd most important freedom.
I'll concede that. It would be pretty tough to play a bass (or anything else) if I wasn't allowed to own one. Or any of the peripheral equipment. Recording media would be a moot point, since there would be nothing to record. Except possibly me screaming unintelligible tirades against those that took my equipment away. I actually had about half of it ($2000 worth) stolen about a year ago, so I can definitely relate to that idea.
>However, studios have a right to own property, >also, and to say that they can't produce >encrypted media player is to deny that right.
Of course they have that right. They can produce whatever they want. But they shouldn't be able to keep anyone from doing what they want with it once they buy it. Or from using the full technical capabilities of said device/medium. Including recording capabilities. If one doesn't require encryption for their own material, (be it copies or original material) they should not have to become a licensee for it. (Either by going through a studio, or buying incredibly expensive licenced equipment to do it with.) You can now, but is there a guarantee it won't change? (At the rate they have been going, who knows. Look at DAT. It's a horribly expensive medium, simply because of the royalties squeezed out of both the players and media by the industry. They pretty much killed it as a consumer item before it even started, which I think they intended. (By recording industry, not the manufacturers. Perfect digital copies, way before CD-R and computer-centric methods were feasible for general public. They didn't like that too much.) Now it's very slowly dying out, except in pro recording studios. (Thanks to pro-level hard disk recording, both in computers and stand-alone devices. If you want to spend 1G+ on a recording device, and don't plan on building a professional studio around it, you might as well spring for the DAW.)
>On the other hand, when I purchace a DVD player, >I own it and can & should be able to reverse >engineer it.
I think we all agree on that one.
>On another tangent, I DO think that there should >be an antitrust investigation into the >entertainment conglomerates. I think that this >is what your post was refering to--not that they >are trying to deny property or free expression, >but that they are engaging in anticompetitive >tactics.
Sort of. From the point of view of the industry, it would be anticompetitive. In the sense of not allowing artists to compete with them by cutting them out of the picture and doing what they do on their own.
Which, from the artists point of view, is equivalent to limiting freedom of expression. (You can't distribute this to people without going through us.)
Which shows a fundamental difference between the two. The industry views it as pure business, and sees it as competition. Artists (not all, but many) view it as art, and see it as a first amendment issue. Go figure.
>You'll hear no argument from me, but freedom >from monopolies is a far, far less necessary >freedom than that of property or speech. As is >evidenced here, if we are fully able to exercise >our freedom of property to RE DVD keys, and can >exercise our freedom of speech to release the >code, all the tactics of the industry are moot.
Well put.
>Other points:
>* The Matrix was the example from the original >poster. I would have said Pi.
:)
>* You want to use the exact same technologies as >in a DVD? One acronym: MPEG. You can press your >own unencrypted DVDs which will play in any >player. >>>You've created your entire argument >around the incorrect assumption that you need >the keys to make a DVD, BUT YOU'RE WRONG
You've probably guessed by now that I'm no expert on either video or DVD, and come more from the audio side of things. I'm extremely grateful that CDs, CD-ROMS, CD-R, audio tape, digital workstations, file formats, and MP3 all work as freely and interchangeably as they do. I'M nervous about DVD-Audio coming down the pipe. But...
Neither I nor the original poster said that content on DVD couldn't be distributed in that fashion right now. In fact, the first actually stated that it could be done currently. I just didn't bother repeating it. But they expressed concern (and I agreed) that given the level of respect for basic freedoms being displayed in this case, that it may not always be true.
He/(She? I dunno) feared that since:
a. The majority of the "authorized" content is in encrypted form
b. The only unencrypted material would be viewed by the industry as "unauthorized copies", "pirated material" or "self-produced non-studio content"
c: That the ability to play unencrypted content in mainstream stand-alone players could be removed in the near future as another "we're going to get around protected freedoms using technology as a cover" tactic.
Whether doing so is technically viable or not, I have no clue. But I hope not. And knowing that it isn't would ease a lot of the fears of both me and the original poster. (If you know, by all means pass it on!)
>[I am the AC to which you replied, BTW. I've >been posting to
My apologies, and I'd like to state that that was not my intention. (I'm a firm believer in the existence of "AC", and do not view it as a separate class. In fact I sometimes question the automatic difference in posting level between accounts and AC's, given the fact that just as many account users are simply noise-makers as AC's, and the best comments come from either or.) I find the account convenient for keeping settings, and finding replies to my (infrequent) posts. That's about it. (BTW, I'm not exactly a newbie here either. I was AC for a long time, and switched when the "account features" became tempting enough. I'm just one of the quieter ones, I guess.)
I was trying to paint a sort of comparison between the ability to put content on a particular medium without going through an authorization (i.e. recording one's own material on DVD without studio intervention) and the ability to post anonymously on slashdot.
Mix that very clumsily-worded comparison with a bit of:
a. Typical flamer rage (At the DVD thing, not you or your post. Not something I succomb to very often. Or am proud of after the fact.)
b. A real touchy button (The idea of content control, and seemingly dismissed in your first post... but very well reassured in the second)
c. Being a bit irked (Well, yes, at you, for dismissing something you've never heard or seen as lame. Another button of mine. He very well could be doing some of the best stuff we've ever seen. Some of the best artists are unknown before death, everyone knows that. But then again, he could really suck rocks. We don't know. And I tend to go off when artists are put down without even seeing thier work.)
And it tainted my post pretty bad, I have to admit. I repeat the apology.
But... it did get you to answer, and IMOHO I think your second post was much more valuable (and explains what you meant more clearly) than the first, so maybe some good came out of it in the end.
That's what Slashdot is for, right? Hacking out not just technology, but our own ideas and opinions with the aid of/interchange with others to learn things and get a clearer view of the world around us.
(How's that for a confusing, schmoozy-assed closing!)
the quote has nothing to do with nazis, it does not compare big business to nazis! read the quote! it shows, on a fairly extreme example, that you need to care about thing that are not directly influencing you. the nazis are just a random circumstance in this quote!
and while we're at it, how many people died because of tobacco industry? industry knowing that tobacco kills... and hiding the results of research etc...
the thread is obviously a zombie:-) dead but walking...
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
DVD CCA's arguments seem to hinge rather pivotally on the license "agreement" that accompanys the Xing player. CCA states that, in order to be able to use the software, you must become a party to an "agreement" that, among other things, forbids reverse-engineering.
Interesting. Anyone know the legal force the shrink wrap EULAs have in Norway? The information could very probably have been gleened there by some means that might be illegal here.
Another more general question is the responsibility that a EULA licensee has to enforce the terms of the EULA on others who use his equipment. For example, since the DeCSS author (if I recall) is a minor, probably the computer was bought by his parents, who are presumably bound by the EULA, if it has any force at all; however the minor was not part of this trasaction -- in fact minors cannot enter into contracts in most places.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Alas!
This, ladies and gents, is the ugly face that all too often shows up when legitimate enterprises are confronted by activists. They seem like vandals and rogues. We're going to have to work very hard to distance ourselves from these people's image. An "it's ok to steal from the rich people" (im)morality is not going to enamour free software or free information movements to the power establishments.
A 'demonstration' of how to copy a DVD, complete with a source DVD (The Matrix or something popular) and the appropriate hardware to copy it to a blank DVD disk, as well as a commercial DVD player and TV.
Actually, even better would be a demonstration of how to copy the DVD using the display driver hack mentioned elsewhere, if the software can be found.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Awaiting the 14th...
I have much to write about this topic, but I'll say this much for now:
;-), but the ones I spoke to were genuinely interested in why so many people were converging on their usually much quieter workplace and on the issues that we were there to support.
The DVD Consortium sent in a serious legal strike team...and they struck out, against two EFF lawyers with nothing but 48 hours to prep and a strong sense of justice.
This is amazing.
When I say a serious legal strike team, I'm talking two lawyers flown in from New York, a local lead counsel, and a senior counsel that didn't even speak--she showed up, looked important, and charged a couple hundred bucks an hour. These guys didn't mess around--their level of preparation was astounding, and they attempted to turn every action of the Open Source community against us. Fortunately, their arrogant use of more than a few smoke and mirrors / straw man tactics was likely seen for what it was.
We don't know yet why the judge ruled the way he did--the ruling basically consisted of three large X's through the plaintiff's proposed order and a blunt denial of any such order.
Most interesting thing of the day? Can't tell you. Second most interesting thing of the day? We won over the sheriff's department. I'm serious--not only were they immensely cooperative(though they did request us to move when we were creating a fire hazard by sheer numbers
This was a good day, people. If you plan to come on January 14th, be civil--we stood in marked contrast to the disturbingly insistent lawyers for the plaintiff, and shined beautifully.
A great time was had by all.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
People have already suggested a DVD boycott. Allow me to repeat this proposal, and lay out my arguement for such a boycott.
I'm aware that a boycott would not affect our legal standing on this matter. However, let us consider that DeCSS was created, in the first place, as a step towards a DVD driver for Linux. With this lawsuit, the DVD people are essentially telling us, "We don't want the Linux business."
If they don't want our business -- to the point where they'll sue us for trying to enable ourselves to get their business -- why the hell should we support them?
There's another principle at stake here though: while the content of DVDs, and the hardware, is (and should be) covered by copyright, the format of a DVD is currently a closed standard. In computer terms, it's closed source, and proprietary. If you consider a DVD player to be a dedicated computer, then a DVD player violates open source. To be consistent, we should keep away from this closed source standard.
Therefore, I suggest that we stop using DVD's immediately; not purchase any more DVD's; not purchase any DVD players; sell DVD's and DVD players that we have, or return them to the store or manufacturer; and simply not use any DVD technology, period, until they
Comments? Questions? Rude remarks?
Finding God in a Dog
http://www.xenoclast.demon.co.uk/main.ht ml jtjm
It's good to see principles win over fear and uncertainty. We should be celebrating; but we should also remember that the war is just beginning.
At last count, just a bit shy of 200 mirrors of the code were up. We need to double that, and then we need to double *that*. The more copies there are, and the harder the owners of those copies are to track down, the less significant any one site becomes and the more futile legal action becomes. 20 individuals are easier to sue than 2000.
If you create a mirror, remember we are still under battle conditions. Things to remember:
1. Unless you have the resources and willpower to make a personal political stand (i.e., show up in court if it comes down to that), post via a "free" web site rather than your own ISP, and make it as hard to backtrack to you as possible. We need wide distribution, not martyrs.
2. Post both the CSSDVD code and the LIVID package code, if you can. Pack them in .ZIP format so that they can be easily read cross-platform; if you can include the Postscript file detailing the algorithm, do that as well.
3. Mirror the most recent list of mirrors. This is most important; many people still don't know where to find the code. By internetworking lists of mirrors, the code becomes that much more public. A very recent list of mirrors can be found at www.humpin.org/decss/ .
These guys are taking this very seriously. We won this time, but the main thing we gained was time. Let's make good use of it.
Defendent #46, just another AC.
Can temporary restraining orders be appealed? Can they also be appealed by the plaintff if they are denied?
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
"If you plan to come on January 14th, be civil--we stood in marked contrast to the disturbingly insistent lawyers for the plaintiff, and shined beautifully."
One way to make a favorable impression on judges, legislators, law enforcement, and other authorities is by not living up to the stereotypes we've all been exposed to for years.
Just ask anyone from Seattle who tried to raise serious, rational objections to WTO policies and practices a few weeks ago. Acting like an unwashed and out-of-control wacko plays right into the hands of our opposition. Acting like a civilized human being is more likely to get your argument heard where it counts.... as long as the aforementioned wackos aren't drowning you out, that is.
This preliminary hearing was an excellent case in point.
Perhaps for the hearing on the 14th the 'our' lawyers should be provided with a linux laptop that plays DVD's thanks to DeCSS code to show the judge.
(bonus points for also bringing a typical Windows one that tends to give a blue-screen-of-death every time you touch a player control during the movie - as several of the ones I tested did)
And in the might be good but would require thought department, how about a personal backup copy of the DVD on some current technology media, such as 60 zip disks or even 10 CD-roms to show the fallacy of the piracy argument. Along with the sales receipt for the far cheaper bonafide DVD.
The remaining question: what movie clip would be most appropriate?
I have to admit, I've known about the EFF for a while, and while I agreed with what they were trying to do, for one reason or other I was never, I dunno, impressed enough by what they were doing to get involved.
:^)
This victory changed my mind. I guess this was an issue that I cared enough about, and one that I thought for sure the 'bad guys' were gonna squash us here, too, but they didn't. I just took the plunge and joined EFF, and made a $500 donation besides. [don't worry, I won't starve
They are doing good work, they are doing important work, and they need and deserve our support. You don't have to give big $$ - heck, student memberships are only $20 (== 1.5 large pizzas.) And they have lots of ways you can help by donating time, or getting involved in letter-writing campaigns, etc.
Get involved. It affects us.
-(--
Please try to grow up enough to admit that. Now, whether you condemn or condone these acts, I leave to you. But they do occur. Stop hiding from that fact.
So I really don't see this as a big victory.What bothers me is what steps are the DVD-CCA going to take now; Lobby to ban reverse-engineering? Switch player formats and leave everyone with DVD players S.O.L.? Press on with more frivolous lawsuits targetted at developers who can't afford court battles? Allow linux players to develop on their own or develop a proprietary linux player? Change licenses so that we are no longer buying the actual DVDs but instead permission to watch the DVD, meaning we can't do whatever we want with them (of course they'll have to change it for VHS to)?
Another question I have is "What's up with a countersuit?", the DVD-CCA's entire case is based on the supposition that cracking the algorithm enables pirates to copy DVDs. We all know this is not true...firstly pirates can pirate DVDs with a bit for bit copy and not worry about the encryption, secondly the primary purpose of DeCSS was to play DVDs which is not illegal (that's why MP3 players, cassette players and CD burners are legal) and there's plenty of precedent on DeCSS's side. Does this mean DeCSS will now be available on the original site?
When we discussed this at lunch, I realized there was more. For Andy Bunner, the one defendant who was able to attend on such short notice, we were a morale boost he really needed. And he was thanking people at lunch just for showing up.
Looking forward to the January 14 hearing on the permanent injunction, I think our support has strengthened EFF's credibility.
But did we have an effect on the judge's decision? In an ideal world, one would hope a judge should be 110% impartial to such influences. And Judge Elfving may have been that impartial. But if it's possible that we contributed in any way, then our presence added some power to EFF's well-researched presentation. After all, as several people there pointed out, there isn't usually much attendance for a hearing on a temporary restraining order!
So let's make sure to be there again on January 14 at 1:30PM.
Like the title says. CNN seems to pick up a lot of /. stories. So CNN reader(s), PLEASE pick this one up and write a concise, clear article about our views and why we are doing this. The more people who know what is going on and why, the better our chances are. I guess this would apply to everyone else as well (C|Net, ZDNet, Wired, etc.)
Skippy
"False modesty is the refuge of the incompetent." - The Stainless Steel Rat
Now, we haven't gotten to Knight's endgame--copying people--but as increasingly large sectors of our world becomes infinitely copiable, some of the same issues begin to apply. I doubt whether I've read it in twenty years, but I think I'm going to see whether I can't dig it up.
OK, let me see if I understand the facts and law here correctly... please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. This could be the basis of a comprehensive defense.
1. Given sufficient resources, the data stored on a DVD can be copied to hard drives or DVD-RAM discs. However, this raw data is in encrypted format, and it is useless without being decrypted.
2. Ignoring media incompatibilities (i.e. "stand-alone players can't play data stored on a hard drive"), these copies can be played using commercial DVD players (stand-alone players or computer software) because these commercial products include the appropriate decryption mechanisms.
3. No member of the DVD CCA has produced DVD player software for Linux. As such, the open source community began developing open source DVD player software for Linux. In order to play these DVDs, though, they needed to decrypt the data. This decryption portion of the overall project was known as DeCSS.
4. Following a traditional Unix/Linux programming habit, the DeCSS code is "modularized" -- it can be run without the DVD player running. A side effect of this modularization is that it becomes extremely easy to save the unencrypted movie data to your hard drive, rather than just show it on your monitor/speakers.
5. DeCSS developers used published information to learn the encryption algorithm used on DVDs. However, the encryption keys were considered "proprietary" by the CCA, and not published or previously disseminated to the public in their raw form.
6. Xing Technology Corporation was licensed by the DVD CCA to ship software to decrypt and play DVDs under Microsoft operating systems. Xing was under a non-disclosure agreement, barring them from sharing the encryption keys with third parties.
7. Standard practice is to encrypt the encryption keys, to prevent users from copying the keys from legal, licensed applications. However, Xing departed from standard practice when they shipped their DVD-playing software with the encryption keys in their raw format.
8. Users of Xing software entered into a "shrinkwrap license agreement" which prohibited "reverse engineering."
9. Certain users of Xing software found the raw encryption keys within the Xing product. They may or may not have breached their agreement with Xing when doing this.
10. Given this one key, it was extremely simple to find many other keys. These additional keys were found by examining the code on a DVD. DVDs do not require you to enter into a "shrinkwrap license agreement" before using the disc.
Given these facts, the DeCSS people seem to have generally acted ethically, and should be in pretty good standing legally. Potential legal issues therefore include:
A. Should "finding the raw encryption key" be considered "reverse engineering"?
B. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act says reverse engineering is legal for purposes of interoperability. Given the above facts (and the conclusion that DeCSS was therefore designed for interoperability), was it outside of Xing's authority to prohibit this type of reverse engineering? If this is inside Xing's authority, then (for example) Microsoft also has the ability to prohibit Corel from reverse engineering Word file formats to enable WordPerfect to read Word files.
C. Users of Xing software were not asked to agree to the license until after the transaction was completed. Is this even legal?
D. Assume that Doe #200 did not directly participate in the reverse engineering, was not an licensee of the Xing product in question, can he still be prohibited from posessing or distributing keys obtained via reverse engineering?
E. Is anyone other than Xing allowed to pursue this lawsuit? It seems that the only contract the DVD CCA had was with Xing, and the only contract the users had was also with Xing. Under this logic, the DVD CCA should be suing Xing, and Xing should be counter-suing the users of their product who performed the reverse engineering.
F. Are the encryption keys "trade secrets"? Are they "stolen"?
What do you all think? Have I forgotten anything? Will this summary of facts and legal questions be useful to anyone?
Ryan
the word "freedom" is portably the most abused word ever spoken. freedom
is something that most people think about positively. so every spin doctor
and every regime however restrictive and evil will try to define the word
"freedom" in a away that suits their needs.
some commonly agreed definition of freedom is that personal freedom ends
there where the freedom of the other person begins. that means i am allowed
to do anything i want as long is i do not hurt the freedom of others to do
what they want.
i would say that this is come kind of common denominator to what freedom
should mean. fully using this kind of freedom is not an ethical thing to do.
one does only need to care for his own pleasure.
good people will not go to the bounds of this definition of freedom. they
will help their neighbour. that is they will give up something to make other
peoples live more happy. that means they make good use of their freedom.
a definition that goes further (in this case closer definition) takes into
account that freedom means choice. choice to do something. where the beggar
on the street would have in principle the right to eat at an expensive
restaurant he does not really have that choice because he has not enough
money to do so maybe he has not even enough money to eat at all. so his only
choice is to starve. that is not very much of "freedom".
this is where the concept of "society" comes into the game. no single
person stole any money from that beggar and left him in that position where
he has no freedom. still our society collaborately took away his freedom
somehow. this is why we (well at least some of us) agree that the majority
of people should limit their freedom a little (e.g. poor one at least have
enough freedom to live). how do we maximize the total amount of freedom. it
depends on how we measure it. does it increase the total freedom if we are
giving some super rich person the freedom to buy 3 yachts instead of 1? or
is does it increase the total amount of freedom more if we give 50 people
the freedom to live and eat?
so i am not sure why you are so upset about the fact that someone here
questioned the "freedom to make money". that freedom is a freedom but i do
not think it is the most important freedom. making money at the cost of
other peoples freedom? at the cost of polluting environment? at the cost of
free speech?
anyway. i used perl a lot but i guess i will use my freedom to switch to
python instead. i do not like the attitude of certain perl developers.
greetings from vienna, austria.
mond.
Won't help.
The target audiences of DVD are:
You.
Your non-technical friends/family/cow-orkers.
Hardware manufacturers
We took delivery of a little HP 9000 server, no video card whatsoever. What's it got? DVD! Why? So HP can (in a year or two) cram 10x the data on a disk, and stop sending out so many!
You refusing to buy a copy of Star Trek won't help...but if you feel strongly about it, send me a list of what you've got and I'll make you an offer.
Meow.
P.S. 'The Matrix' looks GREAT on DVD.
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
I could be wrong, but when I heard about this case, I automatically assumed the reason they don't want you to decrypt DVDs is not because they're afraid you'll copy the DVD bit for bit, but because they are afraid you will decode it, encode it in some other format, and save it to a CD-ROM (ala VCD). Is this even part of the case at all? There are DVD rips all over the internet, which is what it seems like they would want to stop.
Posted by yintercept - "...science...[is] the study of the 'divine creation.' "
Hybris isn't a word AFAIK (And my dictionary knows for that matter) I belive the word you're looking for is "hubris."
Rich
is there (or will there be) a working dvd player for a demo to be shown at the next hearing. a perfectly legal dvd playing on a perfectly legal laptop. good publicity. i would vote for episode I except for the barrage of natalie portman references sure to follow.
The MPIA was formed to keep theaters (and other businesses) from showing illegally copied movies. Movie piracy was once as rampant as software copying is today.
Intellectual property disputes are not new. I bet prehistoric storytellers fought over who the rights to tell which sagas. ;-)
- Robin
IANAL, but I don't think these types of legal agreements are binding on minors.
:)
Good incentive for teenage hackers I guess
Hollywood made their intentions clear today: Your computer no longer belongs to you, but to the corporations that provide "content" for it.
Today, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Judge William J. Elfving presided at a preliminary hearing in the case of the DVD Copyright Control Association versus... well, everyone. The judge heard arguments to determine if a Temporary Restraining Order should be imposed on the entire Internet forbidding the dissemination of the now-famous DeCSS decryption code.
I woke up this morning at 06:10, an abhorrent waking hour for a software geek. I then proceeded to do something which, if you know me at all, is completely out of character: I put on dress slacks, shirt, and a tie. I hadn't tied a tie in several years, so it took a couple of tries before I got it right. The drive to the courthouse in San Jose was amazingly uneventful. Highway 101 southbound during rush hour is ususally a complete mess.
I was one of the first to arrive at the courthouse. After having my bag X-rayed and depositing my set of screwdrivers with them, I found myself joining a growing group of people waiting for the court offices to open so that we could find out to which courtroom the case had been assigned. Some of the people present were well-known names to most Slashdotters, including Bruce Perens and John Gilmore. I imagine we were a bit of a conundrum for the law enforcement officers present, no doubt used to parades of well-dressed lawyers who, unlike us, know exactly what to do and where to go.
At 08:15, the offices opened, and counsel for the plaintiffs filed their complaint, which was assigned a case number. We then made our way to courtroom two on the second floor, awaiting the doors to open. By the time the doors opened, we numbered about thirty people. Plaintiff's counsel pretty much kept to themselves, while we made a slight racket talking to each other. One individual (don't know who) started passing out copies of the DeCSS code, both in printed form and on repurposed Microsoft Office setup floppies. One such set was handed jovially to plaintiff's counsel.
Interviews were also being conducted by, among others, a reporter from WiReD Magazine, and Tracy Romine for KCBS radio.
Eventually, the doors opened, and we all became quiet as church mice and filed into the courtroom. Once counsels for both sides were ready, Judge Elfving was announced and entered, and court was in session.
Appearing for the plaintiffs were three lawyers from the law firm representing the DVD CCA. Appearing for the defense were two lawyers from the EFF. Of the fifteen or so named defendants and the 500 John Does named in the DVD CCA's complaint, only one appeared in court, summons in hand, whom the EFF were representing.
The hearing was to hear the filing of the complaint, and to consider imposing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which would forbid everyone named in the complaint (basically the entire Internet) from further distributing the DeCSS code. If imposed, this order would be effective until the date of the next hearing, at which will be considered imposing a much longer-lasting Preliminary Injunction.
The first order of business was to set the date for the next hearing, and the dates for the filing of notices, papers and arguments prior to that hearing. The next hearing to consider the Preliminary Injunction will be at 13:30, 14 January, 2000.
Finally, we got to oral arguments for and against imposing a TRO. At this point my report gets hazy, as I didn't start banging out notes until after the recess. Basically, plaintiff's counsel repeated the main thrust of the complaint arguing that, if left unchecked, irreparable, serious harm would befall the DVD CCA, numerous Silicon Valley firms, the movie industry and, presumably, the American way of life. Counsel also produced the copy of the DeCSS code which he'd been handed earlier, and asked that it be admitted into evidence, and requested that its contents be sealed. This request drew polite laughter from the gallery. The Judge nevertheless agreed to the request, in the interests of not prejudicing the case, and admitted the exhibits and sealed them.
EFF counsel then began, and proceeded to characterize this case as hinging on freedom of speech. They drew upon numerous citations, including a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that code is speech. Defense made note of the fact that, in free speech cases, prior restraint of speech is presumptively invalid unless extraordinary circumstances are present.
The EFF also noted that the true original source of the DeCSS code is not known, therefore characterizations about its origins are speculative. Plaintiffs assert that it was obtained illegally; defense asserts there's no evidence or inference to that effect.
The EFF then went on to debunk the plaintiff's claim of irreparable, serious harm. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that sales of DVD discs, DVD players, and DVD encryption licenses have suffered due to the release of DeCSS. Defense made the revealing statement that DVD discs may be copied without the use of DeCSS.
Defense also drew notice to a similar case in Chicago concerning door locks being reverse-engineered by locksmiths; the lock manufacturer attempted to sue for theft of trade secrets, and lost.
Plaintiff's counsel then rebutted the EFF's arguments, claiming that this case had nothing whatever to do with free speech; that in no way were the plaintiffs seeking to quash discussion about this case. They asserted that this was a clear-cut case concerning misappropriation of trade secrets, and that all they claimed they were interested in was halting further dissemination of their trade secrets. They asserted that all parties "know, or should have known," that the DeCSS code was obtained illegally.
DVD CCA's arguments seem to hinge rather pivotally on the license "agreement" that accompanys the Xing player. CCA states that, in order to be able to use the software, you must become a party to an "agreement" that, among other things, forbids reverse-engineering. If the "agreement" is binding, then the Xing keys were extracted in violation of it, and thus the DeCSS code is illegal. (I wrote a long editorial on the subject of shrinkwrap "agreements", and why they are ethically and legally indefensible. It may be found here.)
The plaintiff then went on to assert that, if a TRO was not granted, a campaign would ensue on the Internet to spread the DeCSS code as far and wide as possible, until it finally reached the hands of an "innocent person" who could not reasonably be shown that they "should have known" the code was illegal, at which point CCA's trade secrets would be lost forever.
The EFF took the floor again, and cited the recent cryptography case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was found that computer code is speech, and thus protectible under First Amendment auspices. They reasserted that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the disputed material was obtained improperly.
EFF also made the point that the Xing player may be inspected and analyzed without ever seeing the "license" that purports to govern its use. CCA tried to claim, "Hacking around the license is itself improper," but the EFF lawyer corrected him, saying, "I did not suggest hacking was employed."
Finally, Judge Elfving retired to his chambers to consider the arguments, and court was adjourned.
Our group filed out of the courtroom, and eventually ended up in the courtyard outside. There were some members of the press conducting additional interviews, including Tracy Romine of KCBS radio, who interviewed Bruce Perens, John Gilmore, and also snagged a soundbite from me.
Most of the group then wandered off to have lunch at a Cuban restaurant selected by Chris DiBona, which I couldn't find, so I settled for the nearest Hobee's for a very late breakfast. Afterwards, I headed back to the courthouse, made another trip through the metal detector (they didn't take my screwdrivers this time), and went upstairs to courtroom #2 to see if there were any new developments. No one knew if the judge had rendered his decision yet, so I sat down in the hall and started to write this report.
As I did so, at around 14:30, Judge Elfving walked past. I asked if he had rendered a decision on the TRO yet. He said he was still studying the issues and would have a decision by the end of the afternoon.
Sometime later, Dan "Karma Whore" Kaminsky ( :-) ) walked up, and we got to chatting about the case, the Internet, the nature of digital media and its social and economic implications, the legitimacy of shrinkwrap "licenses", and so on. Around 16:30, we were joined by a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, and asked us about what had brought us there.
Dan focused on his desire to play DVDs on his Linux box, asking the question, "Why shouldn't I be able to do that? More important, why should a movie studio have the power to tell me I can't do that?"
I preferred to focus on preserving the freedom to explore. "I taught myself about computers by taking apart other people's stuff, understanding how it works, and using that knowledge to build new stuff. I have a good job today because I had the freedom to make those explorations and gain the knowledge and skills I now have. They're trying to tell me that's illegal. I don't buy it."
The reporter also asked what possible reason, other than copying, could there be for DeCSS to exist? I tried (probably unsuccessfully) to draw a parallel to that neato display hack, Cthugha. Since the images generated by Cthugha are the direct result of the copyrighted digital data coming off the CD, are the generated images therefore covered by the same copyright? Since the publishers of the CD didn't explicitly grant the right to use their CD in this particular way, does that make it illegal, or even unethical, to do so?
While we were discussing this, around 16:30, one of the court employees emerged from the judge's chambers and informed us that the request for the Temporary Restraining Order had been denied. We got a brief look at the document issued from the judge. No reason was given for the denial; it was simply the proposed order written by the plaintiffs, with the TRO sections crossed out, effectively turning it into a notice as to when the next hearing would occur. Judge Elfving was unavailable for comment.
And thus ended an unusually long and interesting day. The San Jose Mercury reporter left, and Dan and I parted ways. I headed home and finished this report. Traffic on Highway 101 was, once again, astonishingly good for five PM.
The next hearing is at 13:30, 14 January, 2000. It's a Friday afternoon. I expect the session to be packed.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Oh, ok; maybe not. :-)
If the contract is null and void in the applicable jurisdiction, which would be the case if the EULA violated local law in any way, then reverse engineering would be fully sanctioned. This would be the case if an overreaching EULA (is there another kind?) declared incautiously that reverse engineering would ALWAYS be illegal, regardless of local law.
Dodging this case is the point of apparently tautological "void where prohibited" clauses.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
The data has to be decrypted before you can put it in another format. But as you point out, you don't necessarily have to know how that was done... :-)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Try picking up Virus of the Mind by Richard Brodie and giving it a read. When you think of ideas and algorithms and such as merely replicators who are involved in a complex evolutionary dance, it's hard to see why anyone would think they could control the spread of these replicators.
The analog would be to make it illegal to have sex. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to weigh the implications.
Better yet, I'll just leave sex itself as an exercise for the reader, period. :)
...was selecting Santa Clara County, California as the venue. They couldn't have picked an area with more open source and Linux advocates willing to turn out. If I hadn't had to be at work, I would've considered being a fly on the wall myself. I wonder if they'll learn from this and file their next action in friendlier territory somewhere, either some backwoods or perhaps near Hollywood.
What does freedom have to do with anything?
It has everything to do with it.
It's about the freedom to use the material that I purchased myself in any way I see fit, according to the "fair use" principles of copyright law.
It's about allowing third parties the freedom to create superior-yet-compatible products. (Since this code is freely available, and hopefully will remain so, what is to stop someone from creating a quality DVD player that doesn't implement Macrovision or region codes or any other unreasonable nonsense?)
The DVD consortium, at the behest of the movie companies whose bottom lines are hardly suffering because of rampant piracy, is attempting to deprive me of freedoms that I would have with any other media.
To be honest, until the original Slashdot article announcing that DVD encryption had been broken, I didn't even know they'd bothered to encrypt it! I figured that people would eventually be able to rip the DVD bit-for-bit anyways, so it was an exercise in futility.
The reason it never occured to me was because I am an honest person; I tend to buy commercial copies because I like the better quality. I mean, I have every episode of Babylon 5 on tape (taped off of TNT; we're talking about almost 60 videotapes) yet I'm buying them again on VHS, and I'll probably buy them yet again when/if they release them on DVD!
The real criminals are the ones who want to be able to charge extortionate prices for their "intellectual property" -- an ironic name, when you consider it being applied to such things as BASEketball and The "Da Da Da Da" song featured in Volkswagen commercials -- and continually lobby the government to keep their so-called "property" from its rightful place in the public domain.
Jay (=
A 'demonstration' of how to copy a DVD, complete with a source DVD (The Matrix or something popular) and the appropriate hardware to copy it to a blank DVD disk, as well as a commercial DVD player and TV. Keep receipts, to show that the cost is "X dollars" where X is significantly higher than the SECOND receipt, that being for the cost of buying the DVD at Fry's. You might be able to get DVD production houses (ones that bill out their time and such) to loan the hardware, since the long-term benefit to THEM is that the price on future hardware will probably go down if the DVD industry doesn't get to charge huge tithes for the "trade secrets".
To contrast that, we have a Linux machine, which we use DeCSS (on that same movie whatever it is), to "make the DVD disc usable."
The practical upshot of which is:
Now, as I understand it, there is currently no means of directly streaming through the CSS-encoded data watching it in real-time. A coder I am not, but this is definitely something we should, as a community, devote some time to having ready to fly in two and a half weeks.
The psychological factor of us "simply wanting to play the DVD we just bought at the store" and showing what it was intended for can (and will) go a LONG way, I think.
Some things I think did NOT do us any favors today:
I'm sure there are other things we should do, and I'm certain people will add them, but I think this represents a good starting point. We did great today, but this is a minor skirmish in what will probably be a moderately sized war.
mmmm lets see....
/dev/hdd /mnt/dvd
on my mate ash's machine (ide DVD),
udf patchs in kernel:-
smount -t udf
now I can access all data on the disk, no?
*** down under (the oppresive thumb Mr GOV.au) ***
Aha, now that's funny.
But, as funny as it is, it just seems wrong to me. Although you certainly have the chance of using some kind of loophole like that to get out of a EULA, I have a feeling most judges wouldn't let it pass. Also, at least to me, it would seem wrong for the open source community to come together on such a grand scale to fight a noble cause.. and then not do so in a noble manner, rather than lowering ourselves to the kind of thinking and tactics that the DVD CCA seems to be doing.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Another mirror of DeCSS is here:
http://nickd.org/decss
Hope you guys find this helpful.
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/