I know that Salon isn't exactly an outlet for the technologically savvy, but I'd have hoped that they would have at least gotten part of it right.
I'm talking about the quote:
".... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
In response to this, I emailed the author and the editors of salon. It's probably a lost cause, but education is our best bet.
You can reach the editors of salon @ http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/index.html
And the author of the article @ dcave@salon.com
Feel free to use or discard the following email.
Hello,
Slashdot recently linked to your recent interview with the head of the MPAA. The link is below:
In this article, near the top, is the following quote:
".... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
I have to take exception to this comment. The DeCSS code has *NOTHING* to do with being able to copy a DVD. The encryption on a DVD disk is such that you can make a bit for bit copy onto a hard drive, or another DVD and the movie and the encryption will be intact.
It's *STILL* cheaper to go out and spend $20 on a DVD than go out and spend money on a DVD-RAM drive that you can copy it to. In other words, you're not going to get ANY significant benefit from copying a DVD, wether you do it with or without the CSS Encryption.
The MPAA suit is about one thing, and one thing only: The control of CSS license fees. Every maker of DVD players has to license the technology from the MPAA (I believe). None of these companies has yet put out a DVD driver for the Linux (or any other unix derivative) operating system.
The Norwegian programmers reverse engineered a Xing DVD player to create code to do what the DVD players do in hardware. This allows people to watch the DVD's they LEGALLY PURCHASED on their linux box.
This isn't about piracy, this is about the right to watch the movies you've legally purchased on the platform you wish.
When a publication with the reach of Salon publishes that the DeCSS case is about copying, you further the cause and aims of the MPAA, who is trying to control the public audience, who is probably not aware of the lawsuit, except as one against "some hackers".
I would hope that you'd correct this mistake somehow, but unless it's public, I'm afraid it may be too late.
Maybe I missed something, but aren't attacks like this only possible when an ISP doesn't enable outbound packet filtering? i.e. just like they have incoming router rules saying they will accept packets for their domain (192.168.0.* as an example), can't they also have outbound routing rules that say I'll only xmit packets that originate from 192.168.0.* Is there a compelling reason not to enable this? Can we start some kind of movement to educate the ISP's that they need to do this? If most of the ISP's could do this, we'd be able to discriminate against the ISP's that dont on the BGP level (where you have to have an accountable routing address). Kind of like people used to block agis.com email because it was a spam haven. I'm certainly not an expert on this, can someone pick this idea apart? Thanks! Bill
Slashdot Mirror
I know that Salon isn't exactly an outlet for the technologically savvy, but I'd have hoped that they would have at least gotten part of it right.
t i/index.html
I'm talking about the quote:
".... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
In response to this, I emailed the author and the editors of salon. It's probably a lost cause, but education is our best bet.
You can reach the editors of salon @
http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/index.html
And the author of the article @
dcave@salon.com
Feel free to use or discard the following email.
Hello,
Slashdot recently linked to your recent interview with the head of the MPAA. The link is below:
http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/02/14/valen
In this article, near the top, is the following quote:
".... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
I have to take exception to this comment. The DeCSS code has *NOTHING* to do with being able to copy a DVD. The encryption on a DVD disk is such that you can make a bit for bit copy onto a hard drive, or another DVD and the movie and the encryption will be intact.
It's *STILL* cheaper to go out and spend $20 on a DVD than go out and spend money on a DVD-RAM drive that you can copy it to. In other words, you're not going to get ANY significant benefit from copying a DVD, wether you do it with or without the CSS Encryption.
The MPAA suit is about one thing, and one thing only:
The control of CSS license fees. Every maker of DVD players has to license the technology from the MPAA (I believe). None of these companies has yet put out a DVD driver for the Linux (or any other unix derivative) operating system.
The Norwegian programmers reverse engineered a Xing DVD player to create code to do what the DVD players do in hardware. This allows people to watch the DVD's they LEGALLY PURCHASED on their linux box.
This isn't about piracy, this is about the right to watch the movies you've legally purchased on the platform you wish.
When a publication with the reach of Salon publishes that the DeCSS case is about copying, you further the cause and aims of the MPAA, who is trying to control the public audience, who is probably not aware of the lawsuit, except as one against "some hackers".
I would hope that you'd correct this mistake somehow, but unless it's public, I'm afraid it may be too late.
Maybe I missed something, but aren't attacks like this only possible when an ISP doesn't enable outbound packet filtering? i.e. just like they have incoming router rules saying they will accept packets for their domain (192.168.0.* as an example), can't they also have outbound routing rules that say I'll only xmit packets that originate from 192.168.0.* Is there a compelling reason not to enable this? Can we start some kind of movement to educate the ISP's that they need to do this? If most of the ISP's could do this, we'd be able to discriminate against the ISP's that dont on the BGP level (where you have to have an accountable routing address). Kind of like people used to block agis.com email because it was a spam haven. I'm certainly not an expert on this, can someone pick this idea apart? Thanks! Bill