Nevertheless, any program where people are rewarded for turning in other people for alleged misdeeds has a KGB aura to it, no doubt. But why should we be so suspicious if the misdeed is, in fact, A Bad Thing?
Perhaps you're unaware of this, but the IRS has a number you can call to turn in people who cheat on their taxes. I know they used to, (but am not sure if they continue to) pay a portion of monies recovered to the person who turned the cheat it.
Mind you, YOUR records better be pristine if you turn someone in, 'cause they're gonna audit you as well operating on the theory that if you hang out with Tax Cheats you might well be one as well.
But a Bounty is hardly a new concept for the US government.
Mitchell Baker, who identified herself as Mozilla's "chief wizard wrangler,"
It's "chief LIZARD wrangler", come on, even I know that. Project Gecko, Mozilla's a big lizard -- come on, why would she be wrangling wizards? Their pelts aren't even good for much of anything....
Re:CNN has a report on this.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 4
Okay, I read the CNN article, and I found one line particuarly interesting --
"He [Mark Litvack, the MPAA's legal director for worldwide antipiracy] added that there are authorized Linux-based DVD players on the market."
Is this accurate? Can anyone provide a link to a commercial or non-commercial Linux player authorized by the DVD-CCA?
I'd like to see some sort of file comparison feature on Napster. Have each file have an MD5 or some other file describing string. Each client lists that in addition to the filename and size and connection and the like. Then when you request a file your computer can not only try the one you requested, but also identical copies on other locations. This could serve to make the Napster protocol far more robust in the case of individual server overload or failure.
Seems like they have clear-cut statements about what each category filters, but they also have a disclaimer about non-responsibility for errors and omissions. For example, the Violence/Profanity category (listed below) sure doesn't seem like it should block a program unless you routinely use "unsigned int fuck" or something.
This might remove the possibility of a class action case from the users of the software, however it does save them from the websites they are incorrectly censoring. IANAL, but my recolection tells me that there are three critera for libel
1) You must know the information is false Mattel obviously knows that these sites criticizing them are not pornographic activities or anything else like this.
2) It must cause damage A portion of the web surfing population cannot get to this site, further this population is being told that they can't get to this site because it's run by racially intolerant pornographic satanic cults. If that doesn't harm their reputation I don't know what does.
3) It must be malicious This is clearly a case of retribution against a rival / competitor in order to damage them.
Not only does it look like they would have a case, they'd have a damn good case with a real good chance of winning.
If someone was to add DeCSS to a player and distribute it that way, the (IMO) would not be breaking the law.
Judge Kaplan disagrees with you. In his statement he claims (paraphrasing of course) that a program that circumvents access control whether it be for copying or playing on an "unauthorized" player are both equally illegal.
Of course, he's a twit in the pocket of the DVD Forum, so what do you expect from him?
Why can't we let two fucked up systems fight out our battles for us?
Why doesn't someone patent the CSS method? It's not currently patented, beause they didn't want to give out the information. Now why doesn't someone (other than the DVD-CCA) go ahead and patent it?
If the patent went through (which knowing those bozos at the patent office it probably would), wouldn't the DVD-CCA have to present evidence of prior art (read: source code) showing they created it first?
Wouldn't the prior art become part of the public domain after being introduced at a hearing? Regardless, while the patent would be being appealed it would be part of the public domain.
This is so frustrating. What can average joe's due to help? I've bought the OpenDVD t-shirt, but what next?
It's been said before, but it bears repeating: Join the EFF. Get a student/low income membership ($20), get a basic membership ($35) hell if you made big money on the Red Hat / VA Linux stock deals go all the way and get a visionary ($1000) membership. These guys are putting up the legal defense, and like it or not justice costs money in this country.
Let's remember that money isn't the whole deal, the more people the EFF can count as members the more clout it has with various government types. Who are you going to listen to, the group that says "well, we have a couple of members who show up every so often", or the group that says "We have 50,000 registered members." Size does matter.
Put simply, your best chance here is probably to have had a previous case on a similar subject decided in your favor. If the companies see that they can crush open-source projects like DeCSS they'll get bolder and do it as a standard business practice.
If however, DeCSS beats the DVDCCA and MPAA, most specifically if they beat them in a very public and somewhat humiliating manner, you may well see the companies thinking about who they sue before they sue.
Even better, if the Judge's ruling in one of these cases were to actually address the issue of reverse engineering and either implicity or explicity allow it you stand in very good shape.
So you stand to lose a lot with the DeCSS case, keep this in mind. Write editors of newspapers asking them to give fair and balanced coverage, organize a protest where it will get noticed by the media, and above all, BE POLITE! Don't do anything that would make everyone think we're a bunch of law-breaking freaks who deserve to what we get. This battle will be fought much more in the court of public opinion than any particular jurisdiction.
Disney owns ABC. If I'm not misaken they're a member of the DVD consortium. Doesn't mean they won't do an unbiased interview -- MSNBC has had some pretty fair reporting on the Microsoft antitrust case.
To make a long story short the 800 number is: 1-800-662-6797 why don't some enterprising Slashdotters call up the MPAA on their dime and let them know what you think of this whole "piracy" fiasco.
DeCSS was designed from the word go to bootleg CDs.
How do you know this? Are you privy to some information that none of the rest of us are? Did you perhaps ask the designers what their purpose was? The problem is that a great deal of this case hinges upon intent. What did the programmers intend? What is the intended purpose of this program? Do the owners of the websites intend for users to bootleg DVD's?
I highly doubt the original intent was to bootleg. With the current cost of media to copy the DVD to bootlegging appears uneconomical. It seems unlikely that a DVD bootlegging program would be created to utilize a a technology not already at market. If the intention had been to bootleg, why doesn't the program downsample and save at a lower resolution so the DVD can be saved on a CD-R? It's not that much more difficult than writing the DVD to disk. If the honest intent of DeCSS had been to pirate I think it would have been a far more functional program.
DVDs are copyrighted, you have NO right to make any copies of it EVEN for your own private use (this is not like VHS or CDs).
*IANAL* I'm afraid this is quite inaccurate. The DMCA specifically says that it does not invalidate the doctrine of Fair Use which states (in part) that you may make private copies for personal use of a product you own.
Whether you like it or not; agree or not. Today, right now, the law states you cannot make copies of DVDs. Period To create a tool that does so and/or to distribute it is illegal.
Again, wrong. To create a tool whose SOLE or PRIMARY purpose is to copy DVD's is illegal.
Not that I like the idea of degrading videos to start with, but here's an e-mail I got from Spectravision when I sent them a complaint about the waste that would be created:
Thank you for your comments. We have been sharing your frustration as the new reports have failed to report this product will be a recyclable. Just a drop the disc in the bucket next to the butter container and milk bottle. It also eliminates the car pollution of returning the movie to the store. avg. 10 miles and 1/3 gallon of gas.
We appreciate your concern.
SpectraDisc
Now this I don't understand. To my knowledge the metal center wouldn't allow for easy recycling.
On the other hand, most DVD players now allow for layering, with the first layer being on the metal disk, and the second layer being semi-transparent and actually in the plastic medium. This recyclable statement leads me to believe that they may well be doing away with the aluminum center alltogether and simply putting writing all the data to the plastic. This is all speculation, don't take my word for anything.
Hmm... I wonder what we'll do when DVD Audio comes out? Would it even be feasible to brute force it, say, over the Internet with a distributed processing project? I dunno... 128 bits. Is that even crackable?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Not now, not anytime soon.
In-depth answer: Consider the fact that distributed.net has spent over two years and is about 20% done on a 64 bit cypher. Consider that a 128 bit cypher is 18446744073709551616 times stronger than a 64 bit cypher. Of course, if they keep the same basic format there are about 400 correct answers, so it's actually only 46,116,860,184,273,879 times stronger than a 64 bit cypher. Still, it won't break to brute force.
I've glossed over a few facts in an effort to be brief, such as the relative computational complexity of the two alogrithms, but the argument still holds pretty well nonetheless.
Sure are first glance it sounds like a totally bullshit idea. But let's be honest, who hasn't burned something in the microwave because of ambiguious instructions like "heat on High for 3 to 6 minutes"?
If the Microwave showed a little bit of intelligence and took into account the wattage of the microwave when computing cooking time it could save a lot of guesswork when working with an unfamilar microwave or when cooking something you've never cooked before.
They've also released newer versions of the client which do some more checking on older data.
Um, no they haven't released newer versions. According to press releases they were going to release the new version (2.0) sometime last week, but it never showed up and nobody on the project ever said anything about it. The fundemental lack of respect or responses (which this is only one example of) from the team running seti@home is the reason I don't donate my time to it anymore.
the logo could be altered so that one can't see it anymore... and then you'd be back where you started.
You're missing the point. The logo would be put in by the company doing the manipulation. What would be the point to remove it? This system would require either some sort of regulation of voulntary participation.
Okay, whether we like it or not digital manipulation seems to be here and here to stay.
The bare minimum the networks should do is TELL us when they're digitally manipulating and image or a scene. Perhaps a logo at the bottom of the screen for any scene that involves digital manipulation. People should be aware that what they're seeing has been altered in some way.
Now with the advent of the Internet, I think that a more intelligent and ethical approach would be to have a page the viewer can go to and see some sort of streaming video containing the original and modified version. This way the viewer could see what he's missing. Allow the users to watchdog the industry, perhaps then people might have a little more faith in the evening news.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevertheless, any program where people are rewarded for turning in other people for alleged misdeeds has a KGB aura to it, no doubt. But why should we be so suspicious if the misdeed is, in fact, A Bad Thing?
Perhaps you're unaware of this, but the IRS has a number you can call to turn in people who cheat on their taxes. I know they used to, (but am not sure if they continue to) pay a portion of monies recovered to the person who turned the cheat it.
Mind you, YOUR records better be pristine if you turn someone in, 'cause they're gonna audit you as well operating on the theory that if you hang out with Tax Cheats you might well be one as well.
But a Bounty is hardly a new concept for the US government.
A) It's the X-Prize not X-Project
B) It doesn't have to be orbital, it only has to reach an altitude of 100 kilometers.
But what I want to see are the Digital Village PEOPLE!
Mitchell Baker, who identified herself as Mozilla's "chief wizard wrangler,"
It's "chief LIZARD wrangler", come on, even I know that. Project Gecko, Mozilla's a big lizard -- come on, why would she be wrangling wizards? Their pelts aren't even good for much of anything....
Okay, I read the CNN article, and I found one line particuarly interesting --
"He [Mark Litvack, the MPAA's legal director for worldwide antipiracy] added that there are authorized Linux-based DVD players on the market."
Is this accurate? Can anyone provide a link to a commercial or non-commercial Linux player authorized by the DVD-CCA?
Okay, what I'd like to see....
I'd like to see some sort of file comparison feature on Napster. Have each file have an MD5 or some other file describing string. Each client lists that in addition to the filename and size and connection and the like. Then when you request a file your computer can not only try the one you requested, but also identical copies on other locations. This could serve to make the Napster protocol far more robust in the case of individual server overload or failure.
What happens when the aliens monitoring our television transmissions from Alpha Centauri get this transmission.
I'm sure when they read what passes for an encryption code on earth, they'll surely come to the conclusion that there is no intelligent life on earth.
Seems like they have clear-cut statements about what each category filters, but they also have a disclaimer about non-responsibility for errors and omissions. For example, the Violence/Profanity category (listed below) sure doesn't seem like it should block a program unless you routinely use "unsigned int fuck" or something.
This might remove the possibility of a class action case from the users of the software, however it does save them from the websites they are incorrectly censoring. IANAL, but my recolection tells me that there are three critera for libel
1) You must know the information is false Mattel obviously knows that these sites criticizing them are not pornographic activities or anything else like this.
2) It must cause damage A portion of the web surfing population cannot get to this site, further this population is being told that they can't get to this site because it's run by racially intolerant pornographic satanic cults. If that doesn't harm their reputation I don't know what does.
3) It must be malicious This is clearly a case of retribution against a rival / competitor in order to damage them.
Not only does it look like they would have a case, they'd have a damn good case with a real good chance of winning.
If someone was to add DeCSS to a player and distribute it that way, the (IMO) would not be breaking the law.
Judge Kaplan disagrees with you. In his statement he claims (paraphrasing of course) that a program that circumvents access control whether it be for copying or playing on an "unauthorized" player are both equally illegal.
Of course, he's a twit in the pocket of the DVD Forum, so what do you expect from him?
Why can't we let two fucked up systems fight out our battles for us?
Why doesn't someone patent the CSS method? It's not currently patented, beause they didn't want to give out the information. Now why doesn't someone (other than the DVD-CCA) go ahead and patent it?
If the patent went through (which knowing those bozos at the patent office it probably would), wouldn't the DVD-CCA have to present evidence of prior art (read: source code) showing they created it first?
Wouldn't the prior art become part of the public domain after being introduced at a hearing? Regardless, while the patent would be being appealed it would be part of the public domain.
Anyone see any serious flaws with this plan?
This is so frustrating. What can average joe's due to help? I've bought the OpenDVD t-shirt, but what next?
It's been said before, but it bears repeating:
Join the EFF. Get a student/low income membership ($20), get a basic membership ($35) hell if you made big money on the Red Hat / VA Linux stock deals go all the way and get a visionary ($1000) membership. These guys are putting up the legal defense, and like it or not justice costs money in this country.
Let's remember that money isn't the whole deal, the more people the EFF can count as members the more clout it has with various government types. Who are you going to listen to, the group that says "well, we have a couple of members who show up every so often", or the group that says "We have 50,000 registered members." Size does matter.
*IANAL*
Put simply, your best chance here is probably to have had a previous case on a similar subject decided in your favor. If the companies see that they can crush open-source projects like DeCSS they'll get bolder and do it as a standard business practice.
If however, DeCSS beats the DVDCCA and MPAA, most specifically if they beat them in a very public and somewhat humiliating manner, you may well see the companies thinking about who they sue before they sue.
Even better, if the Judge's ruling in one of these cases were to actually address the issue of reverse engineering and either implicity or explicity allow it you stand in very good shape.
So you stand to lose a lot with the DeCSS case, keep this in mind. Write editors of newspapers asking them to give fair and balanced coverage, organize a protest where it will get noticed by the media, and above all, BE POLITE! Don't do anything that would make everyone think we're a bunch of law-breaking freaks who deserve to what we get. This battle will be fought much more in the court of public opinion than any particular jurisdiction.
Who owns ABC?
Disney owns ABC. If I'm not misaken they're a member of the DVD consortium. Doesn't mean they won't do an unbiased interview -- MSNBC has had some pretty fair reporting on the Microsoft antitrust case.
Jon needs to put the source code up on his monitor in the background while they're talking to him.
How secret could it be if several million people get it beamed to their TV's with the evening news?
So what you're saying is you want to make a Beowulf cluster of your brain?
Looking over the MPAA website I found the following:
The MPAA contact / reward program for turning in pirates
To make a long story short the 800 number is: 1-800-662-6797 why don't some enterprising Slashdotters call up the MPAA on their dime and let them know what you think of this whole "piracy" fiasco.
So what's to keep someone from making a compilable version of these court documents?
Just put all the excess text (lawyer-babble and such) into a comment block, and presto instant compilable court record.
DeCSS was designed from the word go to bootleg CDs.
How do you know this? Are you privy to some information that none of the rest of us are? Did you perhaps ask the designers what their purpose was? The problem is that a great deal of this case hinges upon intent. What did the programmers intend? What is the intended purpose of this program? Do the owners of the websites intend for users to bootleg DVD's?
I highly doubt the original intent was to bootleg. With the current cost of media to copy the DVD to bootlegging appears uneconomical. It seems unlikely that a DVD bootlegging program would be created to utilize a a technology not already at market. If the intention had been to bootleg, why doesn't the program downsample and save at a lower resolution so the DVD can be saved on a CD-R? It's not that much more difficult than writing the DVD to disk. If the honest intent of DeCSS had been to pirate I think it would have been a far more functional program.
DVDs are copyrighted, you have NO right to make any copies of it EVEN for your own private use (this is not like VHS or CDs).
*IANAL* I'm afraid this is quite inaccurate. The DMCA specifically says that it does not invalidate the doctrine of Fair Use which states (in part) that you may make private copies for personal use of a product you own.
Whether you like it or not; agree or not. Today, right now, the law states you cannot make copies of DVDs. Period To create a tool that does so and/or to distribute it is illegal.
Again, wrong. To create a tool whose SOLE or PRIMARY purpose is to copy DVD's is illegal.
Not that I like the idea of degrading videos to start with, but here's an e-mail I got from Spectravision when I sent them a complaint about the waste that would be created:
Thank you for your comments. We have been sharing your frustration as the new reports have failed to report this product will be a recyclable. Just a drop the disc in the bucket next to the butter container and milk bottle. It also eliminates the car pollution of returning the movie to the store. avg. 10 miles and 1/3 gallon of gas.
We appreciate your concern.
SpectraDisc
Now this I don't understand. To my knowledge the metal center wouldn't allow for easy recycling.
On the other hand, most DVD players now allow for layering, with the first layer being on the metal disk, and the second layer being semi-transparent and actually in the plastic medium. This recyclable statement leads me to believe that they may well be doing away with the aluminum center alltogether and simply putting writing all the data to the plastic. This is all speculation, don't take my word for anything.
EA's already jumped in, or at least Maxis who is owned by EA has. Simcity 3000 is being ported to linux by Loki.
Hmm... I wonder what we'll do when DVD Audio comes out? Would it even be feasible to brute force it, say, over the Internet with a distributed processing project? I dunno... 128 bits. Is that even crackable?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Not now, not anytime soon.
In-depth answer: Consider the fact that distributed.net has spent over two years and is about 20% done on a 64 bit cypher. Consider that a 128 bit cypher is 18446744073709551616 times stronger than a 64 bit cypher. Of course, if they keep the same basic format there are about 400 correct answers, so it's actually only 46,116,860,184,273,879 times stronger than a 64 bit cypher. Still, it won't break to brute force.
I've glossed over a few facts in an effort to be brief, such as the relative computational complexity of the two alogrithms, but the argument still holds pretty well nonetheless.
Sure are first glance it sounds like a totally bullshit idea. But let's be honest, who hasn't burned something in the microwave because of ambiguious instructions like "heat on High for 3 to 6 minutes"?
If the Microwave showed a little bit of intelligence and took into account the wattage of the microwave when computing cooking time it could save a lot of guesswork when working with an unfamilar microwave or when cooking something you've never cooked before.
They've also released newer versions of the client which do some more checking on older data.
Um, no they haven't released newer versions. According to press releases they were going to release the new version (2.0) sometime last week, but it never showed up and nobody on the project ever said anything about it. The fundemental lack of respect or responses (which this is only one example of) from the team running seti@home is the reason I don't donate my time to it anymore.
the logo could be altered so that one can't see it anymore... and then you'd be back where you started.
You're missing the point. The logo would be put in by the company doing the manipulation. What would be the point to remove it? This system would require either some sort of regulation of voulntary participation.
Okay, whether we like it or not digital manipulation seems to be here and here to stay.
The bare minimum the networks should do is TELL us when they're digitally manipulating and image or a scene. Perhaps a logo at the bottom of the screen for any scene that involves digital manipulation. People should be aware that what they're seeing has been altered in some way.
Now with the advent of the Internet, I think that a more intelligent and ethical approach would be to have a page the viewer can go to and see some sort of streaming video containing the original and modified version. This way the viewer could see what he's missing. Allow the users to watchdog the industry, perhaps then people might have a little more faith in the evening news.