--- > First, anyone notice that the Wired article acts > as though LinDVD is already available, as opposed > to vapourware? --- Actually, I'm miffed at more than that in this Wired story. Not only did they mislead the reader into thinking that LinDVD is available, but:
1. I believe they mis-characterize DeCSS when they say it is a utility "that copies a DVD movie disc... to a computer hard disk." Yes, the unencrypted movie can be saved to a hard disk, but DeCSS isn't doing that. It is just doing the decrypting. (I've never used it, but this is how I understand it to work. Am I right?) Either way, Wired is certainly sucking up to the MPAA when they only frame the functional definition of DeCSS as "copying" and exclude "playing." 2. In describing LinDVD as "a legal player for Linux" they imply that DeCSS is illegal. Right now, its legality is still up in the air. The MPAA thinks it should be illegal, the rest of the world does not. The judge will decide whether it is or not. Right now, LinDVD is the only *authorized* player. DeCSS is simply not authorized.
However, I did have to smile at the quotes from Jack Valenti, president and CEO of the MPAA. Anybody with half a clue can see he doesn't understand a blinking thing about today's technology or about the implications of it. (Implications, of course, other than putting money into his pocket.) Talk about a cow needing to be put out to pasture...
--- > However, in this case, 2600.com is linking to > sites that have software which was deemed illegal, > yes, ILLEGAL by a court, under the Digital > Millennium Copyright Act. 2600.com has been --- I disagree with this statement as well as what Wired's story said about DeCSS's legality. Right now, DeCSS is in limbo. The MPAA believes it to be illegal, the rest of the world does not. It's legality will be decided by that court come December. Until then, the only correct statement concerning DeCSS is that it is "unauthorized."
--- > stopped, by court order, from posting the software > on their site, and are circumventing it by linking > to it. Whether we like it or not (and I hate it), > this is just a sneaky way around a court order > (i.e. providing access to material banned by said --- As many other posters have pointed out, 2600 is in full compliance with the court order. This is no more "circumventing" or "sneaking" than a court order saying I may not distribute X. It is not circumvention or "sneaking" to tell people, "Sorry, I cannot give X to you. Go see Bob." Second, the material is not "banned." There is just an injunction against a list of people to not publish it. Until you are listed as one of them, what you do with it is your business.
Slashdot Mirror
---
> First, anyone notice that the Wired article acts
> as though LinDVD is already available, as opposed
> to vapourware?
---
Actually, I'm miffed at more than that in this Wired story. Not
only did they mislead the reader into thinking that LinDVD is
available, but:
1. I believe they mis-characterize DeCSS when they say it is a
utility "that copies a DVD movie disc... to a computer hard disk."
Yes, the unencrypted movie can be saved to a hard disk, but DeCSS
isn't doing that. It is just doing the decrypting. (I've never
used it, but this is how I understand it to work. Am I right?)
Either way, Wired is certainly sucking up to the MPAA when they
only frame the functional definition of DeCSS as "copying" and
exclude "playing."
2. In describing LinDVD as "a legal player for Linux" they imply that
DeCSS is illegal. Right now, its legality is still up in the air.
The MPAA thinks it should be illegal, the rest of the world does
not. The judge will decide whether it is or not. Right now,
LinDVD is the only *authorized* player. DeCSS is simply not
authorized.
However, I did have to smile at the quotes from Jack Valenti,
president and CEO of the MPAA. Anybody with half a clue can see he
doesn't understand a blinking thing about today's technology or about
the implications of it. (Implications, of course, other than putting
money into his pocket.) Talk about a cow needing to be put out to
pasture...
---
> However, in this case, 2600.com is linking to
> sites that have software which was deemed illegal,
> yes, ILLEGAL by a court, under the Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act. 2600.com has been
---
I disagree with this statement as well as what Wired's story said
about DeCSS's legality. Right now, DeCSS is in limbo. The MPAA
believes it to be illegal, the rest of the world does not. It's
legality will be decided by that court come December. Until then, the
only correct statement concerning DeCSS is that it is "unauthorized."
---
> stopped, by court order, from posting the software
> on their site, and are circumventing it by linking
> to it. Whether we like it or not (and I hate it),
> this is just a sneaky way around a court order
> (i.e. providing access to material banned by said
---
As many other posters have pointed out, 2600 is in full
compliance with the court order. This is no more "circumventing" or
"sneaking" than a court order saying I may not distribute X. It is
not circumvention or "sneaking" to tell people, "Sorry, I cannot give
X to you. Go see Bob."
Second, the material is not "banned." There is just an
injunction against a list of people to not publish it. Until you are
listed as one of them, what you do with it is your business.