There isn't such a thing as an unlicensed DVD player. It doesn't limit their sales. See that DVD logo on your player, thats the license.
If you choose not to buy region 2 disks, your loss. I buy whichever region has the best version at the best price, and there are titles where R2 has the better versions in the same way that R1 has advantages for other titles. But I wouldn't say that out loud too much.
"Warning: For sale or rental for private home viewing in the USA and Canada only".
If you want to do something about it... start your own movie industry.
Trade secrets can be licensed. This, from the POV of the content producer ensures that region locking and macrovision is implemented in the player. The reverse engineering argument only holds if you do the reverse engineering right, and you don't gain access to information which may contaminate your reverse engineering effort. The Xing element confuses this for the case.
You are licensed to watch the DVD, on a licensed player. That's the missing element.
Distribution is a use; it's a specific use which is controlled by most licenses. A license can allow you to freely distribute or not distribute at all. The GPL is built to force complete distribution with nothing hidden.
"Approved" players are the ones which *license* a DVDCCA key and comply with the player requirements laid down. And you say licenses are irrelevant? The license on a DVD allows you to play it back on a DVD-compatible player, not any player but one which bears the logo and complies with the spec.
DeCSS is a fiasco. Bad reverse engineering practices and badly thought through legal defences are what's helped contribute to this fiasco.
I don't have a problem with seeing DVDs played on Linux or anywhere else, but if you're going to try and do it, Gnu-idealism is about as an effective a weapon or strategy as a damp haddock.
You could take the stream across from a Windows system, or have you never come across this thing called "networks"?:) The problem with the Windows version is that it weakened the case severly. If people are going to reverse engineer with a purpose, they need to be aware of the legal bear pits... I'm not bringing up piracy because it's a red herring.
You've purchased a license to play that copyrighted material on licensed players.
You're ability to make a copy of a purchased work isn't inhibited (as people regularly mention here) as CSS does not prevent bitwise copying (though BackupaDVD kits don't exist yet)
If you want to alter the movie... well CSS doesn't stop that...
The DVD you buy is a carrier for a stream; you've bought it with a license to play it on licensed players. Now, you physically own the carrier, you are licensed to access the contents, but it's the player licensing which is the missing element.
You could own a box identical to a cable decoder and plug it in and watch programming. But you aren't licensed to watch that programming...
And licensee's thereof? Oh, right, so that's "Everyone's a monopoly"...
Microsoft is a *single corporate entity*. That's what makes it a monopoly.
No code is required to be licensed AFAIR for the DVDCCA; you license a key and the license includes a set of responsibilities to implement to comply with the specs.
You'll be telling me that the ISO is an evil monopoly of standards next.
The GPL is a *license* which uses copyright. The license says different things from other licenses, but the combination of a license and copyright is exactly what is being railed against. Distribution is a *use* of a copyrighted work. Look at a typical copyright statement.:)
Your column has an error. CSS is an access control system not a copy protection system. Region coding is a seperate mechanism from it.
What CSS prevents you from doing is playing DVD's on an unlicensed player. The license requires you to implement features in the player, like region coding and Macrovision (why no fuss there eh)...
You've omitted that DeCSS was also release on Windows (and in a binary not source form).
Kaplan gave an opinion on law for the injunction; there is no open and shut case on code as free speech and the context of the code *has* to be taken into account.
The rest of the article is just "What if's..." which are very nice by of little relevance to the current issues.
But, just to pick up on one... what if music was distributed on line for 50 cents an album. Would that give you the right to give it to your friend for nothing? If the rights of the artist are to be respected, then the transaction means you just paid 50 cents for your right to play that music. Ponder the mechanisms available to protect that artists right.
Finally, you do the case no good whatsoever by encouraging people to copy copyright material and run "warez" servers. But then who needs to be sensible and help the current case along.
When you test a proof of concept, you don't need to release it. But it was released (and a lot of archives contain only the Windows binary and no source, so not really making information available).
And all you need to do is pull the encrypted stream onto Linux as a file and then use a Linux DeCSS to test it.
The defence of "It's on Windows to test the code" is very weak.
Next, of "informed one", there's absolutely nothing to prevent me from playing my DVD's backwards on a licensed player. Access control does not prevent "fair use" of copyright materials. It controls *access*. "Fair use" BTW, does not cover works in their entirity, so unless you want to watch movies and skip the last half hour, you are on dubious ground.
BTW, a case can be made for economic harm to legitimate licensees of the decryption technology. Think of it like oooh cable descrambling. You can do it, but it's hardly a *right*.
And hell, someone's got to go against the party line.... The party line seems to be what gave us the sloppy EFF defence in court.
Why do you need a new format? Just don't encrypt the stream. The firmware change is simply then "If no valid key, assume an unencrypted stream and try and play it". Minor firmware change.
Now then, where you going to find your content? And what's the point of buying a player which in "ethically pure" mode plays nothing?
Blah Blah Blah DMCA is bad Blah Blah Blah Vague accusations of corruption Blah Blah Blah free speech Blah Blah Blah Zzzzzzzzzzzz.........
And the sin of omission award goes to... the "not mentioning that DeCSS runs on Windows".
And the paranoid creativity award goes to... "the MPAA want to track your every move, control where and when you can view materials, and prevent you from sharing your knowledge with others."... If anyone knows where this tracking functionality is in CSS, write to/dev/null.
And while we're here...
'I opened this column with a quote from Jack Valenti: "If we have to file a thousand lawsuits a day, we'll do it. It's less expensive than losing control of your creative works." As you can see, this was a bit of a slip. He's not talking about copyright infringement. He's talking about control--specifically, control over the uses made of lawfully obtained, copyrighted material.'
This is a classic. Condemning the control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material... This'll be the same Bryan Pfaffenberger who advocates the GPL, (http://www.gnome.org/mailing-lists/archives/gnome -list/1999-October/0081.shtml) and probably thinks that the GPL's control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material is ok.
But then this kind of confusion can be expected when you look at his bibliography.....
You can't reverse engineer to circumvent, you can to interoperate. DeCSS circumvents.
Just because others have circumvented the mechanism (and there aren't that many because you're confusing access and copying) isn't a license to circumvent.
And how many times do you want to ignore the Judge pointing out that CSS is an access control system and that access control is protected under the DMCA? The case brought was that under the DMCA, the tool circumvented the access control mechanism. It does. The Judge was also plaing that he understands that bitwise copies may be made but that this is no defence against the access control circumvention charge.
It's a bit unfair to complain that a L&F spec guide doesn't cover the practical issues; it isn't meant to and there are plenty of practical Swing books popping up... I'm just flipping through Swing and it looks more like what you are after.
BTW, the threading issue is simple; you don't!:)
(You despatch a worker to service the display if you have any suspicion that there'll be multiple calls on the UI).
So the stack trace is deep... and this means what... oh I know. You do all your processing inline on the back of the events, and you probably also drove the UI from other threads without a SwingWorker...
Slow's been handled... Buggy takes time (and two years ago, Swing was pretty new so one wonders if you expect perfect 1.0's) and leaky... well that's typically the coders fault for not cleaning up listeners and a profiler/memory tool will track that.
I'll use Swing thanks. It works here because I don't expect magic bullets for no work done.
The GPS is there to tell the system where it is. The speed limits vary by location, so the GPS can tell the car if it's on a motorway or a suburban road and select the appropriate limit.
The problem with installing transmitters in the road is that you have a double installation (in the road and in the cars) and some smart arse will pop a couple of bogus ones in to slow up roads or kill the limit.... And anyway the road transmitters could be recievers and they could be logging where you are anyway.
There's no back channel on GPS. Just because there's a sattelite doesn't mean that you can be tracked.... it just means you know where you are... or in the case, the car does, the driver probably doesn't.
Yet your example is nothing to do with year versioning....
>Mom: Yea, our office has the Microsoft 5.2 >Me: Mom, that's the operating system, What word processor? >Mom: Word? yea..we use Word. Word Perfect 3.2. >Me: Is that Word, or Word Perfect? >Mom: I don't know, it's the one with the little squiglies.
Yup, zip to do with year versioning and more to do with your Mom not discriminating between OS and Apps... which is something that you'll find MS happy to encourage.
Year versioning, with sub year versions could be useful but it does cause a problem when you want to major new release at the end of the year after previously releasing an update at the start of the year... Which version gets dibs on the year? Or does they become... 2000 and 2000plus?:)
Axiom of version numbers : Any version numbering scheme must be different for different versions.
Axiom 2 of version numbers : What marketing badge as the product name (even with a number) does not relate to the version numbers the developers use in the source code control system or in the actual code.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the Memory Stick is used in the StickMan player. This is the Vaio Clip.
There isn't such a thing as an unlicensed DVD player. It doesn't limit their sales. See that
DVD logo on your player, thats the license.
If you choose not to buy region 2 disks, your loss. I buy whichever region has the best version at the best price, and there are titles where R2 has the better versions in the same way that R1 has advantages for other titles. But I wouldn't say that out loud too much.
"Warning: For sale or rental for private home viewing in the USA and Canada only".
If you want to do something about it... start your own movie industry.
Trade secrets can be licensed. This, from the POV of the content producer ensures that region locking and macrovision is implemented in the player. The reverse engineering argument only holds if you do the reverse engineering right, and you don't gain access to information which may contaminate your reverse engineering effort. The Xing element confuses this for the case.
You are licensed to watch the DVD, on a licensed player. That's the missing element.
And so nobody thought of presenting this as evidence in court....
Was is a startup, or was it a shell?
Details please!
Distribution is a use; it's a specific use which is controlled by most licenses. A license can allow you to freely distribute or not distribute at all. The GPL is built to force complete distribution with nothing hidden.
"Approved" players are the ones which *license* a DVDCCA key and comply with the player requirements laid down. And you say licenses are irrelevant? The license on a DVD allows you to play it back on a DVD-compatible player, not any player but one which bears the logo and complies with the spec.
DeCSS is a fiasco. Bad reverse engineering practices and badly thought through legal defences are what's helped contribute to this fiasco.
I don't have a problem with seeing DVDs played on Linux or anywhere else, but if you're going to try and do it, Gnu-idealism is about as an effective a weapon or strategy as a damp haddock.
No, the firmware change requires an a disk with no CSS scrambling done to it initially and a player which accepts an unscrambled disk and plays it.
:)
Now, while you are splashing in the swamp...
You could take the stream across from a Windows system, or have you never come across this thing called "networks"? :) The problem with the Windows version is that it weakened the case severly. If people are going to reverse engineer with a purpose, they need to be aware of the legal bear pits... I'm not bringing up piracy because it's a red herring.
You've purchased a license to play that copyrighted material on licensed players.
You're ability to make a copy of a purchased work isn't inhibited (as people regularly mention here) as CSS does not prevent bitwise copying (though BackupaDVD kits don't exist yet)
If you want to alter the movie... well CSS doesn't stop that...
The DVD you buy is a carrier for a stream; you've bought it with a license to play it on licensed players. Now, you physically own the carrier, you are licensed to access the contents, but it's the player licensing which is the missing element.
You could own a box identical to a cable decoder and plug it in and watch programming. But you aren't licensed to watch that programming...
And licensee's thereof? Oh, right, so that's "Everyone's a monopoly"...
Microsoft is a *single corporate entity*. That's what makes it a monopoly.
No code is required to be licensed AFAIR for the DVDCCA; you license a key and the license includes a set of responsibilities to implement to comply with the specs.
You'll be telling me that the ISO is an evil monopoly of standards next.
Except that would only have teeth if you accepted UCITA.... B)
:)
When you're in a hole... stop digging.
The GPL is a *license* which uses copyright. The license says different things from other licenses, but the combination of a license and copyright is exactly what is being railed against. Distribution is a *use* of a copyrighted work. Look at a typical copyright statement. :)
Your column has an error. CSS is an access control system not a copy protection system. Region coding is a seperate mechanism from it.
What CSS prevents you from doing is playing DVD's on an unlicensed player. The license requires you to implement features in the player, like region coding and Macrovision (why no fuss there eh)...
You've omitted that DeCSS was also release on Windows (and in a binary not source form).
Kaplan gave an opinion on law for the injunction; there is no open and shut case on code as free speech and the context of the code *has* to be taken into account.
The rest of the article is just "What if's..." which are very nice by of little relevance to the current issues.
But, just to pick up on one... what if music was distributed on line for 50 cents an album. Would that give you the right to give it to your friend for nothing? If the rights of the artist are to be respected, then the transaction means you just paid 50 cents for your right to play that music. Ponder the mechanisms available to protect that artists right.
Finally, you do the case no good whatsoever by encouraging people to copy copyright material and run "warez" servers. But then who needs to be sensible and help the current case along.
When you test a proof of concept, you don't need to release it. But it was released (and a lot of archives contain only the Windows binary and no source, so not really making information available).
And all you need to do is pull the encrypted stream onto Linux as a file and then use a Linux DeCSS to test it.
The defence of "It's on Windows to test the code" is very weak.
Next, of "informed one", there's absolutely nothing to prevent me from playing my DVD's backwards on a licensed player. Access control does not prevent "fair use" of copyright materials. It controls *access*. "Fair use" BTW, does not cover works in their entirity, so unless you want to watch movies and skip the last half hour, you are on dubious ground.
BTW, a case can be made for economic harm to legitimate licensees of the decryption technology. Think of it like oooh cable descrambling. You can do it, but it's hardly a *right*.
And hell, someone's got to go against the party line.... The party line seems to be what gave us the sloppy EFF defence in court.
So you aren't even going to license the decryption to anyone who does want to read it? You aren't controlling access, you are preventing access.
Why do you need a new format? Just don't encrypt the stream. The firmware change is simply then "If no valid key, assume an unencrypted stream and try and play it". Minor firmware change.
Now then, where you going to find your content? And what's the point of buying a player which in "ethically pure" mode plays nothing?
Now, can you prove a monopoly?
You will need to show that a group, wanting to produce a Linux DVD player, formally approached the DVDCCA for a license and were refused.
Or did no one even think of asking?
Blah Blah Blah DMCA is bad
/dev/null.
e -list/1999-October/0081.shtml) and probably thinks that the GPL's control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material is ok.
Blah Blah Blah Vague accusations of corruption
Blah Blah Blah free speech
Blah Blah Blah Zzzzzzzzzzzz.........
And the sin of omission award goes to... the "not mentioning that DeCSS runs on Windows".
And the paranoid creativity award goes to... "the MPAA want to track your every move, control where and when you can view materials, and prevent you from sharing your knowledge with others."... If anyone knows where this tracking functionality is in CSS, write to
And while we're here...
'I opened this column with a quote from Jack Valenti: "If we have to file a thousand lawsuits a day, we'll do it. It's less expensive
than losing control of your creative works." As you can see, this was a bit of a slip. He's not talking about copyright infringement.
He's talking about control--specifically, control over the uses made of lawfully obtained, copyrighted material.'
This is a classic. Condemning the control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material... This'll be the same Bryan Pfaffenberger who advocates the GPL, (http://www.gnome.org/mailing-lists/archives/gnom
But then this kind of confusion can be expected when you look at his bibliography.....
You can't reverse engineer to circumvent, you can to interoperate. DeCSS circumvents.
Just because others have circumvented the mechanism (and there aren't that many because you're confusing access and copying) isn't a license to circumvent.
And how many times do you want to ignore the Judge pointing out that CSS is an access control system and that access control is protected under the DMCA? The case brought was that under the DMCA, the tool circumvented the access control mechanism. It does. The Judge was also plaing that he understands that bitwise copies may be made but that this is no defence against the access control circumvention charge.
BTW, the threading issue is simple; you don't! :)
(You despatch a worker to service the display if you have any suspicion that there'll be multiple calls on the UI).
So the stack trace is deep... and this means what... oh I know. You do all your processing inline on the back of the events, and you probably also drove the UI from other threads without a SwingWorker...
Slow's been handled... Buggy takes time (and two years ago, Swing was pretty new so one wonders if you expect perfect 1.0's) and leaky... well that's typically the coders fault for not cleaning up listeners and a profiler/memory tool will track that.
I'll use Swing thanks. It works here because I don't expect magic bullets for no work done.
And that USB port on the PS2 takes a frikkin keyboard...
:)
It's not funny if it's clueless.
Woosh! Point missed.
Linux does not need open source to be used.
Linux does need to be open source to be developed.
The GPS is there to tell the system where it is. The speed limits vary by location, so the GPS can tell the car if it's on a motorway or a suburban road and select the appropriate limit.
The problem with installing transmitters in the road is that you have a double installation (in
the road and in the cars) and some smart arse will pop a couple of bogus ones in to slow up
roads or kill the limit.... And anyway the road
transmitters could be recievers and they could
be logging where you are anyway.
There's no back channel on GPS. Just because there's a sattelite doesn't mean that you can be tracked.... it just means you know where you are... or in the case, the car does, the driver
probably doesn't.
Yet your example is nothing to do with year versioning....
:)
>Mom: Yea, our office has the Microsoft 5.2
>Me: Mom, that's the operating system, What word processor?
>Mom: Word? yea..we use Word. Word Perfect 3.2.
>Me: Is that Word, or Word Perfect?
>Mom: I don't know, it's the one with the little squiglies.
Yup, zip to do with year versioning and more to do with your Mom not discriminating between OS and Apps... which is something that you'll find MS happy to encourage.
Year versioning, with sub year versions could be useful but it does cause a problem when you want to major new release at the end of the year after previously releasing an update at the start of the year... Which version gets dibs on the year? Or does they become... 2000 and 2000plus?
Axiom of version numbers : Any version numbering scheme must be different for different versions.
Axiom 2 of version numbers : What marketing badge as the product name (even with a number) does not relate to the version numbers the developers use in the source code control system or in the actual code.
When you install the Xing player, you are presented with the license agreement in the
installation process.
Ignorance is no defence.
Just pressing "I agree" without reading is no defence.