If it's contract law, that's fine, but only if there is a contract. A customer should have to read and understand a contract in order to purchase a DVD with extreme penalties for non-compliance with the terms. No shrink wrap licences either.
The point I'm trying to make is that in the absence of a binding agreement it is eminently reasonable that I may use a legally obtained copyrighted work for any private means I choose and that I may sell that work if I give up my entire ability to view the original or any significant derivatives. Because this is eminently reasonable and indeed legal, any restrictions on the technology which enables me to exercise my freedom should be viewed with extreme scepticism. --
Wait a second. There are jobs, but your friends don't want them, because they don't just want a job. They want a job in a particular subfield in a particular place.
That doesn't sound like a job shortage, but a brains shortage. If your friends are any good they can move from a place with bad prospects to a place with good prospects. Or they can take a real but unsatisfying job and look for a better one on the side, like the rest of humanity does.
then why are maids who barely speak English making more than twice what any of my friends with EE degrees make? Because they work in a place that needs them doing a job that needs to be done. The lesson. Learn a skill set that is needed in a part of the country that needs it.
And by the way, what was your point. You complain about a job shortage, then complain that you "had" to hire an immigrant for too much to fill a position. Well, which is it. Are immigrants bad because they take your jobs or bad because they cost too much when you can't find an American to fill your job. --
I'm all for INS reform and efficiency, but I'm not for open borders.
Why's that? Because I'm a selfish bastard. In the US we enjoy a a high standard of living based on a morally repugnant history of extreme exploitation of human and natural resources and I'm not about to give it up by expanding the pie. During our expansion, we used cheap labor from wherever we could get it, especially immigrants to build infrastructure and manufacturing. As we enter an increasingly service economy, the need for such cheap labor to spur growth has diminished significantly. It is far more efficient in a global economy to exploit immigrants before they emigrate by building production facilities in their country of origin.
What we still need in the US are highly skilled workers. I don't care where they come from and I don't care if they "take my job." Frankly there is no such thing as "taking my job", except perhaps in extremely highly specialized fields which are in decline anyway. H-1B is bad not because it takes away jobs but because it creates an artificial market where the worker is not free to persue the best salary in presumably the most productive position.
Don't think of the US as a benefactor. We never have been an never will be. Think of the US as the Microsoft of the world. We have extreme monopoly powers which we exploit for phenomenal profits and control. Everybody hates us, even our "partners." We're living high on the hog now, but we'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes (except esr of course, since he has a gun). --
As one who is experiencing the hell that is Adjustment of Status on a first hand basis, let me tell you that it truly sucks. I am a natural born US citizen, and my wife is Chilean. We were married 2 1/2 years ago and hope to finish her Adjustment of Status in about 5 months (of course 2 years ago they said 1 year). As far as Green Cards go, marriage to a citizen is the simplest option. There is no security check or per country quotas, but it takes forever (although less than H1 apparently). She can work without restriction in the meantime, thankfully, but needs to reapply yearly. She can't leave the country without special permission, even to visit a grandfather who had a heart attack recently (not sick enough). We have spent all told about 48 hours on line at the INS, travelled 400 miles on LA freeways, and spent $600 on paperwork. We would gladly have spent more if it meant the process would go any faster.
On the INS website, you can see the lie inherent in their claim of having too large a workload. Their workload has remained roughly constant for the last 3 years, but the backlog has increased substantially.
Why does it take so long? The answer is partly that those who are against legal or illegal immigration don't support steps that would make the INS more efficient and (god forbid) friendly. That being said, the fault is mostly borne by the INS itself.
It is a beauracracy which was left behind by reengineering and the computer revolution. I have not seen a single computer at the main INS office in LA. Proof of payment is a cash register receipt, correspondence is often hand written and hand stamped. The receipt letter for the Adjustment of Status (hand written) refers to a "Crate #" and I have no doubt that there is indeed an actual crate involved.
The INS website has some half-assed proposals for restructuring it's operation, but none go nearly far enough. I think the document processing of the INS should be privatized. A company like EDS would be happy to streamline and automate the data collection and verification part of the application process, leaving only the decisions to the INS. In fact I believe that the immigration part of the INS should go to the State Department, which already handles visas and does a decent job, leaving the border patrol and adjudication in the hands of the Justice Department. --
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but does that mean you can mirror my site even without my permission?
IMNSLO (in my not-so lawyerly opinion) most web sites are fully protected under current copyright, since they contain creative work. The distinction is that it is the creative work (writing, graphics, layout etc), and not the filesystem structure, nor the uncreative data contained within that is copyrighted. Database protection laws, if enacted, might protect those things as well.
So you probably have recourse if someone is mirroring your site without permission, although caching to improve network performance is generally allowed. You might have a case if someone is taking uncreative data and repackaging it, but probably not under copyright law.
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but does that mean you can mirror my site even without my permission?
IMNSLO (in my not-so lawyerly opinion) most web sites are fully protected under current copyright, since they contain creative work. The distinction is that it is the creative work (writing, graphics, layout etc), and not the filesystem structure, nor the uncreative data contained within that is copyrighted. Database protection laws, if enacted, might protect those things as well.
So you probably have recourse if someone is mirroring your site without permission, although caching to improve network performance is generally allowed. You might have a case if someone is taking uncreative data and repackaging it, but probably not under copyright law.
There are a number of publically known encyrption algorithms that are thought to be uncrackable in the lifetime of the universe even given substantial amounts of money and specialized computers. The practical limit on encryption is not the availability of an algorithm, but the ability to generate and secretly store a key of sufficient length and randomness and keep the plaintext of the data from being recorded or transmitted elsewhere.
Decrypting is not easily done, even if the data was encrypted with a relatively bad encryption algorithm. If the algorithm is not known, decrypting a single message is nearly impossible. If the algorithm is known and it is reasonable secure still huge amounts of expensive computer time and analyst time must be spent on the problem.
That's not to say that the government couldn't have broken Mitnick's encryption. They may not have been trying too hard, since they could get a conviction without it and decrypting information is expensive and time consuming, and may not have had the expertise, since most of the really good cryptanalysts in the government don't work for the FBI. But Mitnick clearly would have known of unbreakable encryption methods, and if he was disciplined enough, he very well might have used them. --
rc5 uses very little if any FPU. In fact x86 and PowerPC cpus are better for rc5 than MIPS. From The distributed.net RC5-64 FAQ
Why are Intel and PowerPC computers so much faster than other platforms?
Integral to the mathematics of the RC5 algorithm are 32-bit rotate operations. For whatever reason, the designers of the x86 and the PowerPC architectures decided to implement the rotate function as a hardware instruction. Many other CPUs do not have built-in hardware rotate instructions and must emulate the operation by (at the very least) two shifts and a logical OR. This handicap is why many non-Intel and non-PowerPC computers run RC5 slower than one might expect based on real-world benchmarks. It is also the main reason why the RC5 clients are a poor benchmark to use in determining the speed or performance of a particular CPU.
Why isn't my computer with an FPU faster than mycomputer without one?
RC5 involves a large number of integer additions, rotates and XORs. It doesn't require floating point calculations and won't, in general, benefit from them. There has been quite a lot of recent discussion on whether or not it might be possible to boost keyrates (on x86 architectures at least) by taking advantage of the fact that there are separate pipelines for integer and floating point instructions. (We leave it to the reader to figure out how to do floating-point XORs and rotates!)
Currently none of the Bovine clients attempt to make use of FPUs and we believe any use of the FPU will result in slower clients rather than faster ones. At least one bright person has suggested this is notnecessarily the case and indeed he may be right. If anyone can develop an RC5-64 core that takes advantage of the x86 FPU for an overall client speed boost we would be very interested in hearing from them! If you are interested in looking into it the x86 core code is available and can be downloaded from http://www.distributed.net/source/.
SGIs are indeed very nice for image processing, but that has as much to do with their memory model, graphics hardware, bus speed, and other architecture considerations as the CPU itself. Seti doesn't stress the memory nearly as much as real image processing does and obviously doesn't use graphics hardware so it isn't a good benchmark for real use either.
I don't think SGI is going to loose their grip on the high end of image processing any time soon, but the low end keeps getting better with faster memory busses, better graphics boards and of course faster CPUs. For many purposes, SGIs are a luxury that is increasingly hard to justify. --
(*)can somebody confirm that this is actually true for the US?
Yes the USPS has to deliver first class letters to every postal address in the US for the same price, which may not neccessarily mean home delivery in rural areas where people may live a mile or so from their mailbox (I'm not sure the limit). --
Copyrights have been extended an average of about 1 year per year since 1962. The latest extension, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act of 1998 extends corporate copyrights to 95 years, retroactively. Since the stated purpose of copyrights in the constitution is to encourage the production of art and science by giving a monopoly for a limited time, retroactive extensions are IMHO unconstitutional. The current extension madness seems designed to make sure that Mickey never enters the public domain. --
Making a secure multi-user Unix box is difficult with any Unix. It requires a good clean start, perferably professionally audited, with as few services running as possible, as few setuid programs as possible, and as draconian as possible restrictions on the access and activities of users as possible. Then add robust monitoring of critical system files and users activities and be constantly vigilent to spot any abnomalities and apply security patches when vulnerabilites are discovered.
This is a job for a professional, and since you are asking for help in this forum, you would be wise to pay for some professional assistance. If you do not wish to do this, at least follow these steps:
Start with a minimal install of a Linux you are comfortable with. RedHat is probably ok if you use the latest version and keep up with patches. I'd consider using OpenBSD for this kind of server since it's more secure by default, but it's not better if you don't know how to administer it properly. The only visible services you should need are ftp, apache, and sshd. That means no sendmail, nfs, linuxconf, talk etc. Edit/etc/inetd.conf and comment out every line except the in.ftpd line. Edit your rc scripts and disable all nonessential services. Check yourself with nmap. Don't install X or gnome/kde since they tend to have security problems. If you must have X (or even if you don't), make sure that you don't have any setuid programs on the system. You can find them with find . -type f -perm ++s -print
In fact, you can gain a little peace of mind by running the command chmod -R o-rwx * Which will remove normal user read, write, and execute permissions from every file and directory. Then reinstall the ftp daemon because otherwise people won't be able to list their files etc. Other things may break. Add things back as needed. For instance if you allow CGI scripting, you would need to give execute permissions on/usr/bin/perl.
If you use wu-ftpd (default with RedHat) then add '/./' (that's slash dot slash) to the end of their home directory path in/etc/passwd. This will lock their ftp sessions in a chrooted jail.
Secure apache with appropriate configuration. I don't recommend allowing CGI scripts, but if you do, at least use cgiwrap
Now that you have everything setup, freeze everything except/var. This could mean, minimally, using tripwire or something of that nature to monitor file changes, but it is a very good idea to use a read only (hardware read only is the best) file system.
Log the heck out of user activity, preferably onto a box that is not connected to the internet. Read Bugtraq religiously and follow your distributions security lists.
And finally, get help, really. Paying somebody upfront, even if it is only to review your actions and policies is a very good idea. --
(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.
The 1201(a)(1) only protects copyrighted work. When the first CSS protected DVD work is no longer copyrighted, it will probably be legal to distribute DeCSS since it will then have the legitimate commercial use of decrypting public domain DVDs. This will occur in around 2090. The chances of DVDs still being playable then seem slim.
Even worse, congress seems bent on extending Copyrights indefinitely. Disney can't loose the copyright on Mickey after all. Copyrights have been extended retroactively (how's does retroactive copyright promote art?) at an average rate of one year per year since 1962. So if you think that DMCA is unconstitutional on time grounds, read Opposing Copyright Extension and be prepared to get really mad. --
Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA (the section used to sue the DeCSS distributors) explicitly is not about copying but about access control. Obviously there is a big difference, since copy protection is the entire historical purpose of copyright law, not access protection.
Private fair use puts some reasonable limits on copying, but private access to legally purchased copyrighted materials is a fundamental right and the DMCA restricts it by making the tools to achieve that access illegal. --
The Library of Congress is empowered to study only particular aspects of the affects of 1201(a)(1). This is not a forum to attack other bad aspects of the copyright law, such as the length of copyrights, and it emphasises actual and expected harms to yourself. The form of submission and the exact questions are explictly laid out in the RFC
Other resources you might want to consult are. The text of the DMCA itself. Relavent sections are 1201(a)(1) (the section under review),and sections 1201 (c),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j) (exceptions to the section under review).
As the questions in the RFC make clear. Personal experience as a copyright producer, distributor, or consumer is the most valuable. Actual harms, such as not being able to view a DVD under your chosen operating system are valid are probably the most persuasive. Try to come up with monetary costs of compliance. Like "it would cost me $100 for Windows + $50 worth of harddrive space + $X for a DVD viewing program to view my legal DVD's on my computer without using a program contravened by 1201(a)(1)". Note that inconvenience in and of itself is not at issue.
Use as many other examples as you can think of, variety is the spice of life. Security information is another major issue. Notwithstanding the relief granted by 1201(j), 1201(a)(1) seem to prohibit sites like rootshell and bugtraq which may not be able to freely post reverse engineered security information because it facilitates infringment. --
It's not removing the bolts that's illegal, it's the hacksaw.
It's not you doing the illegal thing by watching what you've purchased. That is protected under fair use and common sense. You are also permitted to make archival copies for personal use.
It is the person who writes or distributes the program which makes it possible for you to access what you have purchased in a way not authorized by the copyright holder that is illegal.
Yes it's perverse, you have every legal right to perform an activity but the tools to do that activity are illegal. That's why I believe this provision is unconstitutional. Not only are the rights of free speech by the authors and distributors of DeCSS infringed unfairly, but as a direct consequence the ability of a consumer to exercise her rights is taken away. --
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
The key is authority of the copyright holder, which the DVD manufacturer has under licence. --
If a DVD is a computer program, than any data file is a computer program. Interestingly, computer program is not defined in this section.
I think however, that (2) might apply, but only if we can claim we are interoperating with the DVD writing software. Again a bit of a stretch. If legal DVD writing software exists, it is a much better argument.
A better bet might be to say that breaking CSS allows us to write a program which creates DVD files readable by software DVD players and then LiViD allows us to write software which reads those same files.
I think the best bet would be to have the whole damn section declared unconstitutional and start over. --
Slashdot Mirror
If it's contract law, that's fine, but only if there is a contract. A customer should have to read and understand a contract in order to purchase a DVD with extreme penalties for non-compliance with the terms. No shrink wrap licences either.
The point I'm trying to make is that in the absence of a binding agreement it is eminently reasonable that I may use a legally obtained copyrighted work for any private means I choose and that I may sell that work if I give up my entire ability to view the original or any significant derivatives. Because this is eminently reasonable and indeed legal, any restrictions on the technology which enables me to exercise my freedom should be viewed with extreme scepticism.
--
Wow.
--
Wait a second. There are jobs, but your friends don't want them, because they don't just want a job. They want a job in a particular subfield in a particular place.
That doesn't sound like a job shortage, but a brains shortage. If your friends are any good they can move from a place with bad prospects to a place with good prospects. Or they can take a real but unsatisfying job and look for a better one on the side, like the rest of humanity does.
then why are maids who barely speak English making more than twice what any of my friends with EE degrees make?
Because they work in a place that needs them doing a job that needs to be done. The lesson. Learn a skill set that is needed in a part of the country that needs it.
And by the way, what was your point. You complain about a job shortage, then complain that you "had" to hire an immigrant for too much to fill a position. Well, which is it. Are immigrants bad because they take your jobs or bad because they cost too much when you can't find an American to fill your job.
--
Sure, like you could do that.
--
They used to give out SSNs much more readily. My wife got one on a F1, but they stopped that recently.
--
It's 2 1/2 years and counting here, but at least the immigrant can work (if not travel) during the application process.
--
Fine, call it indentured servitude.
--
I'm all for INS reform and efficiency, but I'm not for open borders.
Why's that? Because I'm a selfish bastard. In the US we enjoy a a high standard of living based on a morally repugnant history of extreme exploitation of human and natural resources and I'm not about to give it up by expanding the pie. During our expansion, we used cheap labor from wherever we could get it, especially immigrants to build infrastructure and manufacturing. As we enter an increasingly service economy, the need for such cheap labor to spur growth has diminished significantly. It is far more efficient in a global economy to exploit immigrants before they emigrate by building production facilities in their country of origin.
What we still need in the US are highly skilled workers. I don't care where they come from and I don't care if they "take my job." Frankly there is no such thing as "taking my job", except perhaps in extremely highly specialized fields which are in decline anyway. H-1B is bad not because it takes away jobs but because it creates an artificial market where the worker is not free to persue the best salary in presumably the most productive position.
Don't think of the US as a benefactor. We never have been an never will be. Think of the US as the Microsoft of the world. We have extreme monopoly powers which we exploit for phenomenal profits and control. Everybody hates us, even our "partners." We're living high on the hog now, but we'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes (except esr of course, since he has a gun).
--
As one who is experiencing the hell that is Adjustment of Status on a first hand basis, let me tell you that it truly sucks. I am a natural born US citizen, and my wife is Chilean. We were married 2 1/2 years ago and hope to finish her Adjustment of Status in about 5 months (of course 2 years ago they said 1 year). As far as Green Cards go, marriage to a citizen is the simplest option. There is no security check or per country quotas, but it takes forever (although less than H1 apparently). She can work without restriction in the meantime, thankfully, but needs to reapply yearly. She can't leave the country without special permission, even to visit a grandfather who had a heart attack recently (not sick enough). We have spent all told about 48 hours on line at the INS, travelled 400 miles on LA freeways, and spent $600 on paperwork. We would gladly have spent more if it meant the process would go any faster.
On the INS website, you can see the lie inherent in their claim of having too large a workload. Their workload has remained roughly constant for the last 3 years, but the backlog has increased substantially.
Why does it take so long? The answer is partly that those who are against legal or illegal immigration don't support steps that would make the INS more efficient and (god forbid) friendly. That being said, the fault is mostly borne by the INS itself.
It is a beauracracy which was left behind by reengineering and the computer revolution. I have not seen a single computer at the main INS office in LA. Proof of payment is a cash register receipt, correspondence is often hand written and hand stamped. The receipt letter for the Adjustment of Status (hand written) refers to a "Crate #" and I have no doubt that there is indeed an actual crate involved.
The INS website has some half-assed proposals for restructuring it's operation, but none go nearly far enough. I think the document processing of the INS should be privatized. A company like EDS would be happy to streamline and automate the data collection and verification part of the application process, leaving only the decisions to the INS. In fact I believe that the immigration part of the INS should go to the State Department, which already handles visas and does a decent job, leaving the border patrol and adjudication in the hands of the Justice Department.
--
IMNSLO (in my not-so lawyerly opinion) most web sites are fully protected under current copyright, since they contain creative work. The distinction is that it is the creative work (writing, graphics, layout etc), and not the filesystem structure, nor the uncreative data contained within that is copyrighted. Database protection laws, if enacted, might protect those things as well.
So you probably have recourse if someone is mirroring your site without permission, although caching to improve network performance is generally allowed. You might have a case if someone is taking uncreative data and repackaging it, but probably not under copyright law.
--
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but does that mean you can mirror my site even without my permission?
IMNSLO (in my not-so lawyerly opinion) most web sites are fully protected under current copyright, since they contain creative work. The distinction is that it is the creative work (writing, graphics, layout etc), and not the filesystem structure, nor the uncreative data contained within that is copyrighted. Database protection laws, if enacted, might protect those things as well.
So you probably have recourse if someone is mirroring your site without permission, although caching to improve network performance is generally allowed. You might have a case if someone is taking uncreative data and repackaging it, but probably not under copyright law.
--
Actually it was an EDS ad, and EDS, unlike .coms actually makes real money doing real work.
--
There are a number of publically known encyrption algorithms that are thought to be uncrackable in the lifetime of the universe even given substantial amounts of money and specialized computers. The practical limit on encryption is not the availability of an algorithm, but the ability to generate and secretly store a key of sufficient length and randomness and keep the plaintext of the data from being recorded or transmitted elsewhere.
Decrypting is not easily done, even if the data was encrypted with a relatively bad encryption algorithm. If the algorithm is not known, decrypting a single message is nearly impossible. If the algorithm is known and it is reasonable secure still huge amounts of expensive computer time and analyst time must be spent on the problem.
That's not to say that the government couldn't have broken Mitnick's encryption. They may not have been trying too hard, since they could get a conviction without it and decrypting information is expensive and time consuming, and may not have had the expertise, since most of the really good cryptanalysts in the government don't work for the FBI. But Mitnick clearly would have known of unbreakable encryption methods, and if he was disciplined enough, he very well might have used them.
--
SGIs are indeed very nice for image processing, but that has as much to do with their memory model, graphics hardware, bus speed, and other architecture considerations as the CPU itself. Seti doesn't stress the memory nearly as much as real image processing does and obviously doesn't use graphics hardware so it isn't a good benchmark for real use either.
I don't think SGI is going to loose their grip on the high end of image processing any time soon, but the low end keeps getting better with faster memory busses, better graphics boards and of course faster CPUs. For many purposes, SGIs are a luxury that is increasingly hard to justify.
--
(*)can somebody confirm that this is actually true for the US?
Yes the USPS has to deliver first class letters to every postal address in the US for the same price, which may not neccessarily mean home delivery in rural areas where people may live a mile or so from their mailbox (I'm not sure the limit).
--
Read the very informative page Opposing Copyright Extension.
Copyrights have been extended an average of about 1 year per year since 1962. The latest extension, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act of 1998 extends corporate copyrights to 95 years, retroactively. Since the stated purpose of copyrights in the constitution is to encourage the production of art and science by giving a monopoly for a limited time, retroactive extensions are IMHO unconstitutional. The current extension madness seems designed to make sure that Mickey never enters the public domain.
--
Making a secure multi-user Unix box is difficult with any Unix. It requires a good clean start, perferably professionally audited, with as few services running as possible, as few setuid programs as possible, and as draconian as possible restrictions on the access and activities of users as possible. Then add robust monitoring of critical system files and users activities and be constantly vigilent to spot any abnomalities and apply security patches when vulnerabilites are discovered.
/etc/inetd.conf and comment out every line except the in.ftpd line. Edit your rc scripts and disable all nonessential services. Check yourself with nmap. Don't install X or gnome/kde since they tend to have security problems. If you must have X (or even if you don't), make sure that you don't have any setuid programs on the system. You can find them with
/usr/bin/perl.
/etc/passwd. This will lock their ftp sessions in a chrooted jail.
/var. This could mean, minimally, using tripwire or something of that nature to monitor file changes, but it is a very good idea to use a read only (hardware read only is the best) file system.
This is a job for a professional, and since you are asking for help in this forum, you would be wise to pay for some professional assistance. If you do not wish to do this, at least follow these steps:
First of all read the linux security HOWTO.
Start with a minimal install of a Linux you are comfortable with. RedHat is probably ok if you use the latest version and keep up with patches. I'd consider using OpenBSD for this kind of server since it's more secure by default, but it's not better if you don't know how to administer it properly. The only visible services you should need are ftp, apache, and sshd. That means no sendmail, nfs, linuxconf, talk etc. Edit
find . -type f -perm ++s -print
In fact, you can gain a little peace of mind by running the command
chmod -R o-rwx *
Which will remove normal user read, write, and execute permissions from every file and directory.
Then reinstall the ftp daemon because otherwise people won't be able to list their files etc. Other things may break. Add things back as needed. For instance if you allow CGI scripting, you would need to give execute permissions on
If you use wu-ftpd (default with RedHat) then add '/./' (that's slash dot slash) to the end of their home directory path in
Secure apache with appropriate configuration. I don't recommend allowing CGI scripts, but if you do, at least use cgiwrap
Now that you have everything setup, freeze everything except
Log the heck out of user activity, preferably onto a box that is not connected to the internet. Read Bugtraq religiously and follow your distributions security lists.
And finally, get help, really. Paying somebody upfront, even if it is only to review your actions and policies is a very good idea.
--
(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead.
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
--
The 1201(a)(1) only protects copyrighted work. When the first CSS protected DVD work is no longer copyrighted, it will probably be legal to distribute DeCSS since it will then have the legitimate commercial use of decrypting public domain DVDs. This will occur in around 2090. The chances of DVDs still being playable then seem slim.
Even worse, congress seems bent on extending Copyrights indefinitely. Disney can't loose the copyright on Mickey after all. Copyrights have been extended retroactively (how's does retroactive copyright promote art?) at an average rate of one year per year since 1962. So if you think that DMCA is unconstitutional on time grounds, read Opposing Copyright Extension and be prepared to get really mad.
--
You can often run a self extracting executable through unzip to uncompress the data.
--
Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA (the section used to sue the DeCSS distributors) explicitly is not about copying but about access control. Obviously there is a big difference, since copy protection is the entire historical purpose of copyright law, not access protection.
Private fair use puts some reasonable limits on copying, but private access to legally purchased copyrighted materials is a fundamental right and the DMCA restricts it by making the tools to achieve that access illegal.
--
The Library of Congress is empowered to study only particular aspects of the affects of 1201(a)(1). This is not a forum to attack other bad aspects of the copyright law, such as the length of copyrights, and it emphasises actual and expected harms to yourself. The form of submission and the exact questions are explictly laid out in the RFC
Other resources you might want to consult are. The text of the DMCA itself. Relavent sections are 1201(a)(1) (the section under review),and sections 1201 (c),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j) (exceptions to the section under review).
As the questions in the RFC make clear. Personal experience as a copyright producer, distributor, or consumer is the most valuable. Actual harms, such as not being able to view a DVD under your chosen operating system are valid are probably the most persuasive. Try to come up with monetary costs of compliance. Like "it would cost me $100 for Windows + $50 worth of harddrive space + $X for a DVD viewing program to view my legal DVD's on my computer without using a program contravened by 1201(a)(1)". Note that inconvenience in and of itself is not at issue.
Use as many other examples as you can think of, variety is the spice of life. Security information is another major issue. Notwithstanding the relief granted by 1201(j), 1201(a)(1) seem to prohibit sites like rootshell and bugtraq which may not be able to freely post reverse engineered security information because it facilitates infringment.--
It's not removing the bolts that's illegal, it's the hacksaw.
It's not you doing the illegal thing by watching what you've purchased. That is protected under fair use and common sense. You are also permitted to make archival copies for personal use.
It is the person who writes or distributes the program which makes it possible for you to access what you have purchased in a way not authorized by the copyright holder that is illegal.
Yes it's perverse, you have every legal right to perform an activity but the tools to do that activity are illegal. That's why I believe this provision is unconstitutional. Not only are the rights of free speech by the authors and distributors of DeCSS infringed unfairly, but as a direct consequence the ability of a consumer to exercise her rights is taken away.
--
The key is authority of the copyright holder, which the DVD manufacturer has under licence.
--
If a DVD is a computer program, than any data file is a computer program. Interestingly, computer program is not defined in this section.
I think however, that (2) might apply, but only if we can claim we are interoperating with the DVD writing software. Again a bit of a stretch. If legal DVD writing software exists, it is a much better argument.
A better bet might be to say that breaking CSS allows us to write a program which creates DVD files readable by software DVD players and then LiViD allows us to write software which reads those same files.
I think the best bet would be to have the whole damn section declared unconstitutional and start over.
--