Difference: at some point, the government is accountable. Pinkerton is not, despite coming up with this venture, because no one gets to choose who runs it outside of an anointed few within the company. The government (yours or mine) isn't much better, but at least you can pick your poison.
What this ad for this group has to do with a company setting up a snitch line for kids to tell on each other, I have no clue. Sounds more to me like this is an example of why most companies should stay out of education, if anything - most have no business being so involved with the lives of kids as Pinkerton intends to with WAVE America.
From what I understand, CSS decoding is done partially in software under the dxr3. Creative has been unable to release enough information on the dxr3 for an open source driver, because the company that actually produces the dxr3 - Sigma Designs - can't or won't give up the necessary information, which apparently would include the CSS algorithm. Kind of a moot point now, but they have NDAs to abide by.
Interesting that Sigma would go from all-hardware on the dxr2 to hardware-software on the dxr3, and possibly other cards. You don't think this was done to block development of drivers that could reveal or get around CSS, do ya? Another moot point, considering how DeCSS was developed *coughXINGcough*, though doing it in software lets Sigma make changes as demanded by higher-ups.
I used B2K a few weeks back for a short audio feature. It works, I'll give it that. I have issues with the interface, however.
Some of the icons and widgets make no sense unless you dig through the documentation. The ones at the left side of each track are especially cryptic. As well, there's no place to store selections of video or audio, unless you open a second session or use other tracks for that purpose. Sometimes it felt like my fingers were dancing just to make sure tracks went where I wanted them to go. I'm considering writing my own documentation for the program. If I knew jack-all about C and programming, I'd work on the interface myself.
I can't say how well it works as a video editor. I suspect it works better for that purpose, although I still see problems with storing selections somewhere for later use. And there's still the issue of a cryptic interface. The software works fine, but some serious work needs to be done to make it intuitive.
I'm not even sure twice that much has been made off actual DVD sales! If characters like the ones in the MPAA can get away with throwing around numbers like this, they'd better start saying just where this piracy is coming from. If they don't tell John Q. Public, we will.
DVD has been out for...a little over three years.
DeCSS has been out for...eight months.
In that time, the number of DVDs pirated using the utility can probably be counted on my left hand, not counting my thumb. I sure don't see a wave of DVD piracy in warez channels - over the summer, I was more likely to encounter VCD piracy, for obvious reasons. Even that's died off now.
$2.5 billion.
If the MPAA is serious about this number and not just pulling a Clinton, and if they were really, really serious about cracking down on piracy, they sure as hell wouldn't be bleating about a little utility that people are more interested in using to watch their own, legally-purchased movies than to Screw The Man. They would be pushing the feds to put pressure on piraters in the US, and nations that turn a blind eye to piracy. I'm forced to conclude the MPAA is either made up of hypocrites (quite likely), or outright liars (damn near proven).
I just might whip out my old "Stop the MPAA" posters and start covering Toronto in paper. Publications that repeat this stuff are going to get letters. Hell, I might produce a short feature on the case - I've always wanted to get started in freelancing. After all of the crap we've been through, trying to link a questionable $2.5 billion to DeCSS put me over the edge. The Big Lie is being told. Are we going to answer it, or sit here, preach to the converted and get squashed?
Find those reporters now. A board, the Netstream 2000 from Sigma Designs, is supposed to have Linux support Real Soon Now. Linux support was announced in February. So far, drivers only exist for Win9X. Right now, however, there is *no "licensed" DVD support for Linux on the market.*
I don't think the dxr2 driver would count, since half of the development relied on reverse-engineering (the other half on what information Creative could provide on the Sigma-produced dxr2). Sigma's information indicates Linux support is coming, as well at NT4, but right now Win9X is the only option.
Re:CNN has a report on this.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
It's an out-and-out lie. Linux support for the Netstream 2000 from Sigma Designs was announced in February, and the board's been in development since before August of last year, but so far support only exists for Win9x. Linux support is coming Real Soon Now. Other than that, there are *no* licensed DVD boards that support Linux (unless you count the dxr2, thanks to reverse-engineering efforts and information provided by Creative).
Re:CNN has a report on this.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Trolling through the dxr2-devel mailing list archives...
The dxr2 driver was developed by reverse-engineering one of the drivers. Sigma Designs, which from what I understand manufactures the dxr series, couldn't release the hardware specs due to DVD-CCA NDAs. This is the same problem preventing them from releasing a software driver for the dxr3, since the CSS decoding is done in software on that board.
Re:MPAA's VP of Public Relations says: Sigma
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
That's great...if you don't have a decoder board yet, and you don't mind waiting a while.
What would his answer be for those of us who own cards like the dxr3, and still can't watch them in our favoured operating system? You have an e-mail addy I can send a polite message to? Put the question to him yourself if you get the chance?
The fact that you know the full name of a fictional character in a violent movie preaching a false religion marks you as an oddity that must be eliminated.
You will report to the nearest W.A.V.E. centre tomorrow morning for...re-education.
Include a copy of the GPL yourself, and mirror it. Note that you had to add the copy of the GPL to back up Jansson's claim in Unit1.pas, just to be fair.
Oh, and only mirror CPHack. The license on Skala's software is very questionable; Mattel may legitimately be able to exercise limitations on distribution of his cndecode.c and cph1_rev.c files. As for the essay, I'm not sure what to say. I'm not including it in my cphack.zip package, but I have it up for perusal on my site. This way, I'm only offering a properly GPL'd program; Mattel *cannot* revoke this license, no matter what they try. After reading through it, I seriously believe the GPL could hold up in a court of law.
Section one specifically requests that a copy of the GPL be included with the program. No copy was included with CPHack.
Also, keep this in mind:
The files written by Matt Skala, cndecode.c and cph1_rev.c were not GPL'd. hawk pointed out that they could be public domain, but they don't have the license revocation prevention of the GPL.
Now, Jansson's CPHack software *is* under the GPL. He did not include a copy of the license with his program; I've corrected that. I've also separated CPHack from the files Skala specifically wrote.
As for the essay...I've declined to include it in the archive, but a copy is available for your perusal on my site. If Mattel goes restriction-crazy and somehow considers that "redistribution", I'll keep a copy on a floppy shoved six miles up my ass - see if they try to restrict that, too.
(In this case, as I understand it, Mattel's position is that the authors of CPhack never had the rights to distribute their code in the first place, thus making any claim or issuance under the GPL bogus.)
Watch your pronouns; is "their" referring to Mattel, or Skala/Jansson? If the former, then unless someone smuggled out Cyber Patrol's source code, and either of the duo used it in their software, Mattel can't claim stolen code. The software is self-contained, and doesn't appear to use any CP code; the only interactions are with the cyber.not file, and the cyberp.ini file. If the latter, I still don't see what Mattel is bleating about. The encryption is even less effective as copy protection than CSS. If the cyber.not list is a piece of defective or just plain bad software, people have a right to know this. So what's the problem?
Look at it this way, if the GPL was that sort of shield, what's to keep someone from taking any code they don't own (like, say, the source for Windows 2000 or BSD) and distributing it under the GPL?
Because the license on the code they take isn't GPL in the first place. Now, if a piece of previously GPL'd code was taken and added to proprietary code, and the modified (let's say) Windows source were meant to be distributed/sold, then the whole source would be GPL.
To be really specific, an outsider could not steal the closed source, slip a chunk of the Linux kernel into the Windows kernel, and release the whole shebang under the GPL. If that occurred, the license change would be nullified by the fact that an illegal act was required to get the closed source in the first place. No court would even allow a code release in that event, and I think most of the community would agree that the GPL could not supersede the previous license.
OTOH, if a Microsoft programmer, working under the auspices of Microsoft (so that M$ can't just say it was a rogue programmer), knowingly used a piece of GPL'd code in the source code of a proprietary Microsoft program, that program would automatically be GPL. In this case, the GPL code has been "stolen" from the general public and hidden away. Credit for writing the code has been "stolen" from the original programmers who made it GPL (you think a proprietary software maker would credit the authors when just the credit would be glaring proof they knowlingly broke the GPL). I think a court would hold up the GPL under those circumstances.
And now for an interesting twist...search through all of the sources for "GPL" and "Skala". No license is mentioned in the two files that Skala wrote - cndecode.c and cph1_rev.c. Jansson wrote CPHack itself, and while he acknowledges converting some of Skala's C code to Delphi in Unit1.pas, he explicitly says "Released under the GPL" in the same file. Skala handed over his copyright. Someone claiming to be Eddy here says Eddy hasn't done so (yet). Therefore, CPHack itself may still be legit, and existing copies may remain so even if Eddy capitulates.
Also, being lazy, I haven't read the Wired article on the case; what's the word on the essay that came with cp4break.zip? I'd just love to see Mattel try to squash that. Hiding source code is one thing; just release the program under a non-open source license. Trying to suppress an essay, however, is quite another. Do I smell...a big honking loophole?
Well, that's nice, dear. Very nice. So we like freedom. That's great. But that's been said already.
And it should be said again. And again. And again, until humans in general really understand what freedom is. Even us "enlightened" Westerners don't understand what freedom really is; hell, I don't even profess to know it. People who escape from oppressive regimes can really appreciate freedom. We take relative openness and choice for granted. As revolutionaries on a new front - the ethereal, digital front - we'd better figure out what we want and what freedom is really fast, before bigger, stronger people impose limits that benefit themselves on the information world.
I really wish geeks would branch out some and start talking about the REST of what they believe.
Geeks are a pretty wide group; freedom of information could very well be the only thing we agree on. There's something of an agreement to disagree on everything else, but since information exchange and media make up greater parts of our lives than most people, I think we're pretty hard-core about keeping knowledge of any kind open and available. Everything else is debatable, and should be.
If we value freedom to market, do we value the rights of corporations over governments?
Don't individuals and mom-and-pop operations figure into capitalism? I would think we would value the rights of Joe User and Jane Programmer over both corporations and governments - without individuals, neither type of power structure can exist, much less thrive.
Could we get to talking about how these things play out, in concrete terms?
Sure. We need a common base to start from, though. Remember that we're spread across borders, subject to different laws, regulations, and environments. If there's one thing we can agree on, then we start developing ideas about how we can improve things from there.
Do we have a political voice? Not yet. Should we have one? Absolutely. How do we do it? Aren't we doing it now, in a million different ways?
We are people. We have different opinions, upbringings, ideas on how things work. Some have said that geeks can't have a voice, because we're such a diverse group.
I disagree. I can think of one thing all geeks value, and I'm sure that whatever else we disagree about, we can agree about this.
Freedom.
Freedom of information. Freedom of curiosity. Freedom of speech. Freedom to innovate. Freedom to distribute. Freedom to market. Freedom, freedom, freedom. It all comes down to freedom of knowledge.
Every web page we construct, every piece of code we write, every post we make to fora like Slashdot and the like, even every piece of software we mirror or link to is an expression of freedom on the new frontier.
We are grunts, as someone here said. But we are grunts with an unusual amount of power. We control the tools that the people in control rely on to get things done. We control the channels of communication at the lowest level. We work in the dark computer rooms, the back rooms, the IT departments of corporations, even among non-geeks in places like law firms, newsrooms, TV and radio stations, and anyplace else where information is transmitted and shared. We control the dials, buttons and keys that must be pushed to Get Information Out. If knowledge comes from information, and knowledge is power, then information is freedom.
As geeks, in the places we are, we have more control than we realize. We value freedom. We have control over one form of freedom (information). Thus, we have a duty to protect that freedom from all who would take it away for their own ends.
When we speak out against patents meant to take exclusive control over seemingly trivial processes, when we mirror a piece of software because a company is attacking the author, when we call out to expose lobbyists trying to shove through a law limiting everyone's rights over information but their own, we defend freedom.
And we don't just exist in one nation, but everywhere! Our major interests aren't just limited to one country - they are universal! Information is in every country; knowledge, available to anyone who wants it. As a group, we can make sure that is true into the future; we can take on those who would steal that right, anyplace they try. The socialists and communists of the past century tried to cobble together an International to represent workers' rights; meanwhile, an International of geeks preparing to defend freedom of knowledge is here, now, and we don't even realize it! If we wanted to, we could wipe out the Internet. Here. Now. A few people in the right places executing the right commands, and it's over. We have power; we have responsibility to those who use our systems, and responsibility to defend those systems from attack, physical and ideological.
We don't have to give ourselves a pretty name, or elect a governing body; indeed, that would go against everything we stand for. We can be individuals, acting as a group, to ensure that people can read source code, write opinions, even market software without being squashed by someone bigger and more powerful. We don't have to unite under a banner, or declare allegiance to someone. We just have to do what we're doing now, with the volume turned way up.
Write code. Read code. Mirror code when authority tries to hide it because they're scared of having something revealed. Send letters to newspapers. Call radio and TV stations. Ask embarrassing questions to politicians. Put up websites to offer software, information, or just to give your opinion. Do what you can to ensure information and truth flow freely.
We are geeks. We control the information. We value freedom of information. Thus, we have a duty to defend that freedom, anytime, anywhere, in any way deemed necessary. If we fail to defend the freedom to have an individual thought, or spread truth, then nothing is left.
So far, I haven't received any "cease and desist" letters for my mirror . Perhaps the Microsystems people haven't figured out how to e-mail me yet, or they're not willing to go after another Canadian citizen, or "the cheque's in the mail."
I know they've seen the site; four different computers from Microsystems accessed the mirror through Slashdot twice on Friday - once around 9:30 AM EST, the other around 1:30 PM. Ahh, the beauty of access logs...oh, and thanks to the guy at Qualcomm who downloaded cp4break.zip at 12:30 PM today - glad to know you're part of the conspiracy of light:)
C'mon boys - I didn't get my DeCSS attack lawyer letter. I want my letter!
Check out his "previous work". Screams "PHB" to me:
Coming from an end-user background, Mr. Longbottom brings together large organisation experience with extensive IT knowledge to cut through current"flavours of the month", ensuring clients concentrate on the technology required to support business needs.
Oh goodie. Somehow, "end-user experience" gives him the authority to declare Linux too insecure for use in a network...has anyone told him about OpenBSD, or is the IT department over at Strategy Partners tired of having to explain things to him?
I'm an end user myself. This guy just seems like the stereotypical "I'm a tech expert! I know how to change my background and use Windows!"-type "expert" that you read about once in a while over at TechTales.
I'm a radio/TV student at a fair-sized Canadian university, so I'm quite interested in having editing software for my Linux box at home. I downloaded BC2K a while ago, actually - just havne't had a chance to really use it until now (I'm in video year, and we can't edit outside of the school. Besides, I don't have the space, or the equipment.)
I'm going to try this to edit a feature for my radio journalism class. The interface leaves a bit to be desired - having to open two sessions to be able to edit stuff together is a drawback. Then again, I was taught on SAW and Video Action RT, so maybe I'm just spoiled:).
Results of the BC2K test will be available come Wednesday.
Incidentally...I've been able to almost get SAW working under Wine. Not consistently enough to be usable (this was under a late-99 version of Wine), but the first time I ran it I could load.wavs, edit, even playback! I actually got sound the first time! Not the second time...but it's worth testing again.
For the record, I just performed step one - wiping out all of my.mp3s and the Zip backups I kept from when I reformatted my drive (Sept. 4, the day I installed Linux:). I also proved the etheraeal nature of.mp3 when I almost wiped out.mp3 backups of some radio work I did over the summer. Fortunately, I hadn't wiped out the Zips by that point, so I still had one digital backup left.
Next, I'm going to.mp3 my fave CDs for my personal use, and ONLY for my personal use. I don't know when I'm going to perform step 2....when I get around to it, I guess.
First, if you have any illegal.mp3's - that is, any mp3s of copyrighted songs by artists you don't already own the CDs for - delete them from your system, especially if the same computer is your webserver. Just trust me on this...
Second, go find a site put up by an independent artist that offers some full songs or clips for download. Grab them, then politely ask the band if you can mirror them on your own site.
Third, if you get the OK, offer them for download. Hell, devote a small section of your site to independent bands. Offer links to their sites and the mp3s. Encourage visitors to at least follow the links, maybe buy a CD or two.
Fourth...when organizations like RIAA, CRIA, the German organization, and the like bitch and whine about "stolen music" and "artists' rights", bring up your own site, with music by indies which is perfectly legal to download, supporting indies' rights to promote themselves. And if blocking systems like the "Rights Protection System" are implemented anywhere, you and the bands can legitimately say their exposure is being blocked by big labels. Large companies do not like having a public image of squashing the little guy for their own profit, even if it's true.
This won't eliminate the issue of copyright violations of music by label artists, but you'll have retaken the moral high ground by having a working example of what we've been pointing to as a useful aspect of MP3 the whole time, along with backing up your own music collection.
Remember - do not offer any music for download that you don't have permission to mirror! I don't know how many bands would have issues with having the music they offer for download mirrored. Some, certainly. Still, it's worth a shot, as it would prove that the mp3 form of distribution can legally work to build exposure for an artist, or at least get some of their music out and about. It's also a good chance to tweak the attack lawyers and execs who try to make.mp3 look like crack cocaine.
DISCLAIMER: I haven't done the above...yet. I've become a bit more aware of digital distribution, copyright, fair use, and control issues. I may do the above soon, if this doesn't end up alongside the other 5000 ideas I come up with and forget about every day. It's certainly an attractive cause, though...especially after the visit by CRIA goons to my school...
If this is implemented wrong, or someone trying to set up this kind of blocking blows it, or some other godforsaken issue that no one considered about this kind of packet filtering shows up, Germany could end up blackholing or even completely blocking itself on port 80, or whatever else they plan to filter. I'm sure the Germans would just love that situation. The people who put that system in place, and who wanted/ordered it put in place, would have some fast explaining to do.
It's all supposition, but there are always RISKS...
May as well start putting up mirrors of the software now, before it gets banned and the authors get arrested for copyright infringement, or license infringement, or stupidity infringement, or some damned thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Difference: at some point, the government is accountable. Pinkerton is not, despite coming up with this venture, because no one gets to choose who runs it outside of an anointed few within the company. The government (yours or mine) isn't much better, but at least you can pick your poison.
What this ad for this group has to do with a company setting up a snitch line for kids to tell on each other, I have no clue. Sounds more to me like this is an example of why most companies should stay out of education, if anything - most have no business being so involved with the lives of kids as Pinkerton intends to with WAVE America.
From what I understand, CSS decoding is done partially in software under the dxr3. Creative has been unable to release enough information on the dxr3 for an open source driver, because the company that actually produces the dxr3 - Sigma Designs - can't or won't give up the necessary information, which apparently would include the CSS algorithm. Kind of a moot point now, but they have NDAs to abide by.
Interesting that Sigma would go from all-hardware on the dxr2 to hardware-software on the dxr3, and possibly other cards. You don't think this was done to block development of drivers that could reveal or get around CSS, do ya? Another moot point, considering how DeCSS was developed *coughXINGcough*, though doing it in software lets Sigma make changes as demanded by higher-ups.
I used B2K a few weeks back for a short audio feature. It works, I'll give it that. I have issues with the interface, however.
Some of the icons and widgets make no sense unless you dig through the documentation. The ones at the left side of each track are especially cryptic. As well, there's no place to store selections of video or audio, unless you open a second session or use other tracks for that purpose. Sometimes it felt like my fingers were dancing just to make sure tracks went where I wanted them to go. I'm considering writing my own documentation for the program. If I knew jack-all about C and programming, I'd work on the interface myself.
I can't say how well it works as a video editor. I suspect it works better for that purpose, although I still see problems with storing selections somewhere for later use. And there's still the issue of a cryptic interface. The software works fine, but some serious work needs to be done to make it intuitive.
But you can't beat the price:)...
$2.5 billion?
$2.5 billion???
I'm not even sure twice that much has been made off actual DVD sales! If characters like the ones in the MPAA can get away with throwing around numbers like this, they'd better start saying just where this piracy is coming from. If they don't tell John Q. Public, we will.
DVD has been out for...a little over three years.
DeCSS has been out for...eight months.
In that time, the number of DVDs pirated using the utility can probably be counted on my left hand, not counting my thumb. I sure don't see a wave of DVD piracy in warez channels - over the summer, I was more likely to encounter VCD piracy, for obvious reasons. Even that's died off now.
$2.5 billion.
If the MPAA is serious about this number and not just pulling a Clinton, and if they were really, really serious about cracking down on piracy, they sure as hell wouldn't be bleating about a little utility that people are more interested in using to watch their own, legally-purchased movies than to Screw The Man. They would be pushing the feds to put pressure on piraters in the US, and nations that turn a blind eye to piracy. I'm forced to conclude the MPAA is either made up of hypocrites (quite likely), or outright liars (damn near proven).
I just might whip out my old "Stop the MPAA" posters and start covering Toronto in paper. Publications that repeat this stuff are going to get letters. Hell, I might produce a short feature on the case - I've always wanted to get started in freelancing. After all of the crap we've been through, trying to link a questionable $2.5 billion to DeCSS put me over the edge. The Big Lie is being told. Are we going to answer it, or sit here, preach to the converted and get squashed?
Noperoonies, though I recall reading about the group in one of the Barry column collections...maybe it was Dave Barry Talks Back or something.
SENSE-of-HU-mour *clap clap clapclapclap*
What's with you wussies feeling sorry for that Atari 800 webserver? If it can't stand the hits, it should get off the 'net!
Screw sympathy - let's melt that f*cker down!
Find those reporters now. A board, the Netstream 2000 from Sigma Designs, is supposed to have Linux support Real Soon Now. Linux support was announced in February. So far, drivers only exist for Win9X. Right now, however, there is *no "licensed" DVD support for Linux on the market.*
I don't think the dxr2 driver would count, since half of the development relied on reverse-engineering (the other half on what information Creative could provide on the Sigma-produced dxr2). Sigma's information indicates Linux support is coming, as well at NT4, but right now Win9X is the only option.
It's an out-and-out lie. Linux support for the Netstream 2000 from Sigma Designs was announced in February, and the board's been in development since before August of last year, but so far support only exists for Win9x. Linux support is coming Real Soon Now. Other than that, there are *no* licensed DVD boards that support Linux (unless you count the dxr2, thanks to reverse-engineering efforts and information provided by Creative).
Trolling through the dxr2-devel mailing list archives...
The dxr2 driver was developed by reverse-engineering one of the drivers. Sigma Designs, which from what I understand manufactures the dxr series, couldn't release the hardware specs due to DVD-CCA NDAs. This is the same problem preventing them from releasing a software driver for the dxr3, since the CSS decoding is done in software on that board.
That's great...if you don't have a decoder board yet, and you don't mind waiting a while.
What would his answer be for those of us who own cards like the dxr3, and still can't watch them in our favoured operating system? You have an e-mail addy I can send a polite message to? Put the question to him yourself if you get the chance?
The fact that you know the full name of a fictional character in a violent movie preaching a false religion marks you as an oddity that must be eliminated.
You will report to the nearest W.A.V.E. centre tomorrow morning for...re-education.
Enjoy your new life as sheep.
Include a copy of the GPL yourself, and mirror it. Note that you had to add the copy of the GPL to back up Jansson's claim in Unit1.pas, just to be fair.
Oh, and only mirror CPHack. The license on Skala's software is very questionable; Mattel may legitimately be able to exercise limitations on distribution of his cndecode.c and cph1_rev.c files. As for the essay, I'm not sure what to say. I'm not including it in my cphack.zip package, but I have it up for perusal on my site. This way, I'm only offering a properly GPL'd program; Mattel *cannot* revoke this license, no matter what they try. After reading through it, I seriously believe the GPL could hold up in a court of law.
Section one specifically requests that a copy of the GPL be included with the program. No copy was included with CPHack.
Also, keep this in mind:
The files written by Matt Skala, cndecode.c and cph1_rev.c were not GPL'd. hawk pointed out that they could be public domain, but they don't have the license revocation prevention of the GPL.
Now, Jansson's CPHack software *is* under the GPL. He did not include a copy of the license with his program; I've corrected that. I've also separated CPHack from the files Skala specifically wrote.
As for the essay...I've declined to include it in the archive, but a copy is available for your perusal on my site. If Mattel goes restriction-crazy and somehow considers that "redistribution", I'll keep a copy on a floppy shoved six miles up my ass - see if they try to restrict that, too.
(In this case, as I understand it, Mattel's position is that the authors of CPhack never had the rights to distribute their code in the first place, thus making any claim or issuance under the GPL bogus.)
Watch your pronouns; is "their" referring to Mattel, or Skala/Jansson? If the former, then unless someone smuggled out Cyber Patrol's source code, and either of the duo used it in their software, Mattel can't claim stolen code. The software is self-contained, and doesn't appear to use any CP code; the only interactions are with the cyber.not file, and the cyberp.ini file. If the latter, I still don't see what Mattel is bleating about. The encryption is even less effective as copy protection than CSS. If the cyber.not list is a piece of defective or just plain bad software, people have a right to know this. So what's the problem?
Look at it this way, if the GPL was that sort of shield, what's to keep someone from taking any code they don't own (like, say, the source for Windows 2000 or BSD) and distributing it under the GPL?
Because the license on the code they take isn't GPL in the first place. Now, if a piece of previously GPL'd code was taken and added to proprietary code, and the modified (let's say) Windows source were meant to be distributed/sold, then the whole source would be GPL.
To be really specific, an outsider could not steal the closed source, slip a chunk of the Linux kernel into the Windows kernel, and release the whole shebang under the GPL. If that occurred, the license change would be nullified by the fact that an illegal act was required to get the closed source in the first place. No court would even allow a code release in that event, and I think most of the community would agree that the GPL could not supersede the previous license.
OTOH, if a Microsoft programmer, working under the auspices of Microsoft (so that M$ can't just say it was a rogue programmer), knowingly used a piece of GPL'd code in the source code of a proprietary Microsoft program, that program would automatically be GPL. In this case, the GPL code has been "stolen" from the general public and hidden away. Credit for writing the code has been "stolen" from the original programmers who made it GPL (you think a proprietary software maker would credit the authors when just the credit would be glaring proof they knowlingly broke the GPL). I think a court would hold up the GPL under those circumstances.
And now for an interesting twist...search through all of the sources for "GPL" and "Skala". No license is mentioned in the two files that Skala wrote - cndecode.c and cph1_rev.c. Jansson wrote CPHack itself, and while he acknowledges converting some of Skala's C code to Delphi in Unit1.pas, he explicitly says "Released under the GPL" in the same file. Skala handed over his copyright. Someone claiming to be Eddy here says Eddy hasn't done so (yet). Therefore, CPHack itself may still be legit, and existing copies may remain so even if Eddy capitulates.
Also, being lazy, I haven't read the Wired article on the case; what's the word on the essay that came with cp4break.zip? I'd just love to see Mattel try to squash that. Hiding source code is one thing; just release the program under a non-open source license. Trying to suppress an essay, however, is quite another. Do I smell...a big honking loophole?
Corrections welcomed
IANAL, but I play on one Slashdot...
'K Matt, since I know you read /. now, I have two questions for you.
1) Did you license cp4hack and all associated software under the GPL?
2) If you reply, at the moment you write the reply, has Eddy settled?
If Ed doesn't agree to hand over his copyright, it could create a honking big loophole for those of us running mirrors.
Also, did you hand over the copyright on the essay as well as the programs?
Thanks.
Well, that's nice, dear. Very nice. So we like freedom. That's great. But that's been said already.
And it should be said again. And again. And again, until humans in general really understand what freedom is. Even us "enlightened" Westerners don't understand what freedom really is; hell, I don't even profess to know it. People who escape from oppressive regimes can really appreciate freedom. We take relative openness and choice for granted. As revolutionaries on a new front - the ethereal, digital front - we'd better figure out what we want and what freedom is really fast, before bigger, stronger people impose limits that benefit themselves on the information world.
I really wish geeks would branch out some and start talking about the REST of what they believe.
Geeks are a pretty wide group; freedom of information could very well be the only thing we agree on. There's something of an agreement to disagree on everything else, but since information exchange and media make up greater parts of our lives than most people, I think we're pretty hard-core about keeping knowledge of any kind open and available. Everything else is debatable, and should be.
If we value freedom to market, do we value the rights of corporations over governments?
Don't individuals and mom-and-pop operations figure into capitalism? I would think we would value the rights of Joe User and Jane Programmer over both corporations and governments - without individuals, neither type of power structure can exist, much less thrive.
Could we get to talking about how these things play out, in concrete terms?
Sure. We need a common base to start from, though. Remember that we're spread across borders, subject to different laws, regulations, and environments. If there's one thing we can agree on, then we start developing ideas about how we can improve things from there.
Do we have a political voice? Not yet. Should we have one? Absolutely. How do we do it? Aren't we doing it now, in a million different ways?
We are people. We have different opinions, upbringings, ideas on how things work. Some have said that geeks can't have a voice, because we're such a diverse group.
I disagree. I can think of one thing all geeks value, and I'm sure that whatever else we disagree about, we can agree about this.
Freedom.
Freedom of information. Freedom of curiosity. Freedom of speech. Freedom to innovate. Freedom to distribute. Freedom to market. Freedom, freedom, freedom. It all comes down to freedom of knowledge.
Every web page we construct, every piece of code we write, every post we make to fora like Slashdot and the like, even every piece of software we mirror or link to is an expression of freedom on the new frontier.
We are grunts, as someone here said. But we are grunts with an unusual amount of power. We control the tools that the people in control rely on to get things done. We control the channels of communication at the lowest level. We work in the dark computer rooms, the back rooms, the IT departments of corporations, even among non-geeks in places like law firms, newsrooms, TV and radio stations, and anyplace else where information is transmitted and shared. We control the dials, buttons and keys that must be pushed to Get Information Out. If knowledge comes from information, and knowledge is power, then information is freedom.
As geeks, in the places we are, we have more control than we realize. We value freedom. We have control over one form of freedom (information). Thus, we have a duty to protect that freedom from all who would take it away for their own ends.
When we speak out against patents meant to take exclusive control over seemingly trivial processes, when we mirror a piece of software because a company is attacking the author, when we call out to expose lobbyists trying to shove through a law limiting everyone's rights over information but their own, we defend freedom.
And we don't just exist in one nation, but everywhere! Our major interests aren't just limited to one country - they are universal! Information is in every country; knowledge, available to anyone who wants it. As a group, we can make sure that is true into the future; we can take on those who would steal that right, anyplace they try. The socialists and communists of the past century tried to cobble together an International to represent workers' rights; meanwhile, an International of geeks preparing to defend freedom of knowledge is here, now, and we don't even realize it! If we wanted to, we could wipe out the Internet. Here. Now. A few people in the right places executing the right commands, and it's over. We have power; we have responsibility to those who use our systems, and responsibility to defend those systems from attack, physical and ideological.
We don't have to give ourselves a pretty name, or elect a governing body; indeed, that would go against everything we stand for. We can be individuals, acting as a group, to ensure that people can read source code, write opinions, even market software without being squashed by someone bigger and more powerful. We don't have to unite under a banner, or declare allegiance to someone. We just have to do what we're doing now, with the volume turned way up.
Write code. Read code. Mirror code when authority tries to hide it because they're scared of having something revealed. Send letters to newspapers. Call radio and TV stations. Ask embarrassing questions to politicians. Put up websites to offer software, information, or just to give your opinion. Do what you can to ensure information and truth flow freely.
We are geeks. We control the information. We value freedom of information. Thus, we have a duty to defend that freedom, anytime, anywhere, in any way deemed necessary. If we fail to defend the freedom to have an individual thought, or spread truth, then nothing is left.
So far, I haven't received any "cease and desist" letters for my mirror . Perhaps the Microsystems people haven't figured out how to e-mail me yet, or they're not willing to go after another Canadian citizen, or "the cheque's in the mail."
I know they've seen the site; four different computers from Microsystems accessed the mirror through Slashdot twice on Friday - once around 9:30 AM EST, the other around 1:30 PM. Ahh, the beauty of access logs...oh, and thanks to the guy at Qualcomm who downloaded cp4break.zip at 12:30 PM today - glad to know you're part of the conspiracy of light:)
C'mon boys - I didn't get my DeCSS attack lawyer letter. I want my letter!
Someone over at Linux Today was good enough to dig up info on Clive and post it in reply to the article over there:
Clive's bio.
Check out his "previous work". Screams "PHB" to me:
Coming from an end-user background, Mr. Longbottom brings together large organisation experience with extensive IT knowledge to cut through current"flavours of the month", ensuring clients concentrate on the technology required to support business needs.
Oh goodie. Somehow, "end-user experience" gives him the authority to declare Linux too insecure for use in a network...has anyone told him about OpenBSD, or is the IT department over at Strategy Partners tired of having to explain things to him?
I'm an end user myself. This guy just seems like the stereotypical "I'm a tech expert! I know how to change my background and use Windows!"-type "expert" that you read about once in a while over at TechTales.
I'm a radio/TV student at a fair-sized Canadian university, so I'm quite interested in having editing software for my Linux box at home. I downloaded BC2K a while ago, actually - just havne't had a chance to really use it until now (I'm in video year, and we can't edit outside of the school. Besides, I don't have the space, or the equipment.)
.wavs, edit, even playback! I actually got sound the first time! Not the second time...but it's worth testing again.
I'm going to try this to edit a feature for my radio journalism class. The interface leaves a bit to be desired - having to open two sessions to be able to edit stuff together is a drawback. Then again, I was taught on SAW and Video Action RT, so maybe I'm just spoiled:).
Results of the BC2K test will be available come Wednesday.
Incidentally...I've been able to almost get SAW working under Wine. Not consistently enough to be usable (this was under a late-99 version of Wine), but the first time I ran it I could load
For the record, I just performed step one - wiping out all of my .mp3s and the Zip backups I kept from when I reformatted my drive (Sept. 4, the day I installed Linux:). I also proved the etheraeal nature of .mp3 when I almost wiped out .mp3 backups of some radio work I did over the summer. Fortunately, I hadn't wiped out the Zips by that point, so I still had one digital backup left.
.mp3 my fave CDs for my personal use, and ONLY for my personal use. I don't know when I'm going to perform step 2....when I get around to it, I guess.
Next, I'm going to
Half-baked idea...
First, if you have any illegal .mp3's - that is, any mp3s of copyrighted songs by artists you don't already own the CDs for - delete them from your system, especially if the same computer is your webserver. Just trust me on this...
Second, go find a site put up by an independent artist that offers some full songs or clips for download. Grab them, then politely ask the band if you can mirror them on your own site.
Third, if you get the OK, offer them for download. Hell, devote a small section of your site to independent bands. Offer links to their sites and the mp3s. Encourage visitors to at least follow the links, maybe buy a CD or two.
Fourth...when organizations like RIAA, CRIA, the German organization, and the like bitch and whine about "stolen music" and "artists' rights", bring up your own site, with music by indies which is perfectly legal to download, supporting indies' rights to promote themselves. And if blocking systems like the "Rights Protection System" are implemented anywhere, you and the bands can legitimately say their exposure is being blocked by big labels. Large companies do not like having a public image of squashing the little guy for their own profit, even if it's true.
This won't eliminate the issue of copyright violations of music by label artists, but you'll have retaken the moral high ground by having a working example of what we've been pointing to as a useful aspect of MP3 the whole time, along with backing up your own music collection.
Remember - do not offer any music for download that you don't have permission to mirror! I don't know how many bands would have issues with having the music they offer for download mirrored. Some, certainly. Still, it's worth a shot, as it would prove that the mp3 form of distribution can legally work to build exposure for an artist, or at least get some of their music out and about. It's also a good chance to tweak the attack lawyers and execs who try to make .mp3 look like crack cocaine.
DISCLAIMER: I haven't done the above...yet. I've become a bit more aware of digital distribution, copyright, fair use, and control issues. I may do the above soon, if this doesn't end up alongside the other 5000 ideas I come up with and forget about every day. It's certainly an attractive cause, though...especially after the visit by CRIA goons to my school...
If this is implemented wrong, or someone trying to set up this kind of blocking blows it, or some other godforsaken issue that no one considered about this kind of packet filtering shows up, Germany could end up blackholing or even completely blocking itself on port 80, or whatever else they plan to filter. I'm sure the Germans would just love that situation. The people who put that system in place, and who wanted/ordered it put in place, would have some fast explaining to do.
It's all supposition, but there are always RISKS...
May as well start putting up mirrors of the software now, before it gets banned and the authors get arrested for copyright infringement, or license infringement, or stupidity infringement, or some damned thing.