After watching some some discussions elsewhere a couple of points become clear :
A) According to which country you are in the motive of the person doing the reverse-engineering may be very important. To me this seems utterly crazy - but lets just assume we have to live with it for a moment
B) The other key point (again only in some countries) is whether the person doing the work "agreed" to the licence terms on the Xing program as they did the work.
OK. So the above is daft. How can anyone actually prove in court the motives of the guy doing the hack? How can anyone prove they didn't read the licence agreement ( or that they did )?
------------
So why not :
1) Find ourselves a competent hacker(s) who, whilst they may be aware of the DeCSS, have never seen the source code or read the notes.
2) Get them to swear they've never seen it and that's they are doing it to enable an open-source DVD player to be written.
3) Lock them in a room with a computer and all the software/hardware tools they will need.
4) Take a disc image of the computer before they start work. Get this certified to the standards defined by a competent lawyer
5) Tell them what they've got to do. Give them as many clues as could be defended in court.
5) Tell them on no account are they to read or agree to the Xing software licence agreement.
6) Get some lawyers and witnesses to monitor the whole process. Maybe record the contents of the screen throughout.
7) Add loads of coke, pizza, chocolate etc.
8) Wait pateintly and eventually XING! we have a copy of the relevant trade secret that the DCD CCA are going to have one heck of a load of trouble with in court!
Apart from the fact that just maybe doing this would make a good case watertight - it could also (handled well) be excellent publicity which would very effectively counter the hatchet PR-job done by the DVD CCA.
Yes. It would be a stunt! - But it would be a stunt which would make the whole legal thing look as foolish and warped as it really is. And that must be an excellent thing!
Can someone explain to me exactly what right an organisation has trying to use a US court to tell non-US citizens what they can or cannot put on a web page which is not hosted within the USA or on a USA controlled domain name ?
Perhaps someone needs to point out to these lawyers that some bits of the world which aren't the USA take a very different attitude to IPR generally (eg many places have many to avoid the lunacy of software patents altogether thus far - even if some bits of Uncle Sam are now exterting pressure on us to change our policies)
I'll let the people in the US comment on the wrong and wrongs of this case under US law. But I hope those people named who are not in the US tell complainents exactly where they can stick their legal action.
Important fact number one:
Several countries named have decided both as a matter of principle and as a matter of law that reverse engineering of certain types similar to this are legal - whatever companies or other countries might wish.
Important fact number two:
Were the complainants to start legal proceedings in those countries they would have absolutely no hope of winning.
Important fact number three:
In the UK and in much of Europe - if someone launches a civil action against another person and they loose that civil action - then they are (almost always) made to pay ALL of the legal costs involved - *including* the costs incurred by the defendent. These costs in IPR cases are likely to be very high.
Important fact number four:
The UK civil courts have a very robust attitude to people trying to use their procedures in an oppresive manner. They have various powers to deal with organisations which cynically abuse legal process and have shown themselves (on occasion) to be willing to use them. These powers include forcing one side or the other to pay sufficient money into court to cover all the likely relevant costs if they loose, or declaring individuals "vexatious litigants" which means they cannot launch any civil actions without the prior permission of the court.
Important fact number five.
Some people in the UK, the EU and several other countries are already rather touchy on the issue of US courts attempting to exert their authority in other people's countries. Some such people are just waiting for an opportunity to show the US courts exactly where their jurisdiction ends. This looks like it might be a promising candidate.
I am posting from the UK so some of my terminology may need "translating" for the US Market.
Ordinary, Low Frequency (LF) Fluorescent likes do have noticable flicker which can certainly upset some (many?) people.
There are many ways of reducing the problem
1) In large installations the lighting should be wired such that each area is lit by lights on all three phases. This reduces the perceived flicker.
2) Where three phase power is not available you can buy "lead/lag" fittings with two tubes wired such that the flicker in each tube is out of phase. These are only available in small sizes and are hard to get.
3) The unpleasant effects do seem to be reduced if the you can bounce the light(s) off another surface
4) But the best solution is to use "High Frequency" Ballasts and tubes. This converts the incoming supply to DC and then uses a high frequency inverter to run the tubes. They offer lower weight and better efficiency than LF Fluorescents. The persistence of the phosphors in the tubes means that there is virtually no flicker present at any frequency.
HF fluorescents have a higher capital cost than LF fittings - but the difference has become much smaller recently. Twin tube fittings are usually cheaper per tube than single tube fittings. You can also get HF control gear which can be dimmed (commonly by a 1-10V DC control voltage).
The phosphors used also have an effect. Older tubes tend to obtain white by mixing of purple with a green/yellow. This gives appaling colouring rendering. There's a measure of this quality called "Ra" which you should be able to check for different types of tubes. An Ra of 40%-50% is typical for older type tubes. Modern tubes are available which use phosphors very similar to those used in colour TV tubes. These have an Ra of about 80%. The offer higher efficiency too. Many people the better "Quality" of light they give reduces the problems they have. These modern phosphors ( often known as "Trisphosphors" ) have a slightly longer persistence - although the difference in flicker levels is small.
You can get tubes with an Ra of almost 100% - but they are rare, expensive and innefficient.
Colout temperature is also important. For domestic environments it is worth getting tubes with a colour temperature of 2700K which is similar to that of incandescent bulbs. This allows different types of light source to "blend" better. Offices tend to use a colour temperature of 3500K or even 4000k - which produces a very tiring "blue" light.
If you are using HF lights then you can get tubes which offer slightly more efficiency. Such tubes must NOT be used in LF lights. If they strike at all the resulting light would be very flickery. It's usually OK to use LF tubes in HF fittings.
When tubes get old the light output starts dropping very fast. This is the time to replace them. as the light output drops the flicker will also being increasing. Most tubes are worn out long before they fail to strike reliably. New tubes frequently swirl for the first few hours of use.
Modern HF fluorescent lights are very much more efficient than other forms of lighting in theory. But in practice though Tungsten Halogen can rival them in many applications because because Halogen lights give a small, point source of light which is easy to control usin reflectors and lenses.
Fluorescents - especially HF types are not a very good choice for things like hallways and stairs which only require to be lit intermittently. This is because they take several minutes to warm up. They light almost instantly - but will only deliver about 5% of their light output, gradually rising to the full level.
Slashdot Mirror
After watching some some discussions elsewhere a couple of points become clear :
A) According to which country you are in the motive of the person doing the reverse-engineering may be very important. To me this seems utterly crazy - but lets just assume we have to live with it for a moment
B) The other key point (again only in some countries) is whether the person doing the work "agreed" to the licence terms on the Xing program as they did the work.
OK. So the above is daft. How can anyone actually prove in court the motives of the guy doing the hack? How can anyone prove they didn't read the licence agreement ( or that they did )?
------------
So why not :
1) Find ourselves a competent hacker(s) who, whilst they may be aware of the DeCSS, have never seen the source code or read the notes.
2) Get them to swear they've never seen it and that's they are doing it to enable an open-source DVD player to be written.
3) Lock them in a room with a computer and all the software/hardware tools they will need.
4) Take a disc image of the computer before they start work. Get this certified to the standards defined by a competent lawyer
5) Tell them what they've got to do. Give them as many clues as could be defended in court.
5) Tell them on no account are they to read or agree to the Xing software licence agreement.
6) Get some lawyers and witnesses to monitor the whole process. Maybe record the contents of the screen throughout.
7) Add loads of coke, pizza, chocolate etc.
8) Wait pateintly and eventually XING! we have a copy of the relevant trade secret that the DCD CCA are going to have one heck of a load of trouble with in court!
Apart from the fact that just maybe doing this would make a good case watertight - it could also (handled well) be excellent publicity which would very effectively counter the hatchet PR-job done by the DVD CCA.
Yes. It would be a stunt! - But it would be a stunt which would make the whole legal thing look as foolish and warped as it really is. And that must be an excellent thing!
After reading that list - I'm confused.
Can someone explain to me exactly what right an organisation has trying to use a US court to tell non-US citizens what they can or cannot put on a web page which is not hosted within the USA or on a USA controlled domain name ?
Perhaps someone needs to point out to these lawyers that some bits of the world which aren't the USA take a very different attitude to IPR generally (eg many places have many to avoid the lunacy of software patents altogether thus far - even if some bits of Uncle Sam are now exterting pressure on us to change our policies)
I'll let the people in the US comment on the wrong and wrongs of this case under US law. But I hope those people named who are not in the US tell complainents exactly where they can stick their legal action.
Important fact number one:
Several countries named have decided both as a matter of principle and as a matter of law that reverse engineering of certain types similar to this are legal - whatever companies or other countries might wish.
Important fact number two:
Were the complainants to start legal proceedings in those countries they would have absolutely no hope of winning.
Important fact number three:
In the UK and in much of Europe - if someone launches a civil action against another person and they loose that civil action - then they are (almost always) made to pay ALL of the legal costs involved - *including* the costs incurred by the defendent. These costs in IPR cases are likely to be very high.
Important fact number four:
The UK civil courts have a very robust attitude to people trying to use their procedures in an oppresive manner. They have various powers to deal with organisations which cynically abuse legal process and have shown themselves (on occasion) to be willing to use them. These powers include forcing one side or the other to pay sufficient money into court to cover all the likely relevant costs if they loose, or declaring individuals "vexatious litigants" which means they cannot launch any civil actions without the prior permission of the court.
Important fact number five.
Some people in the UK, the EU and several other countries are already rather touchy on the issue of US courts attempting to exert their authority in other people's countries. Some such people are just waiting for an opportunity to show the US courts exactly where their jurisdiction ends. This looks like it might be a promising candidate.
I am posting from the UK so some of my terminology may need "translating" for the US Market.
Ordinary, Low Frequency (LF) Fluorescent likes do have noticable flicker which can certainly upset some (many?) people.
There are many ways of reducing the problem
1) In large installations the lighting should be wired such that each area is lit by lights on all three phases. This reduces the perceived flicker.
2) Where three phase power is not available you can buy "lead/lag" fittings with two tubes wired such that the flicker in each tube is out of phase. These are only available in small sizes and are hard to get.
3) The unpleasant effects do seem to be reduced if the you can bounce the light(s) off another surface
4) But the best solution is to use "High Frequency" Ballasts and tubes. This converts the incoming supply to DC and then uses a high frequency inverter to run the tubes. They offer lower weight and better efficiency than LF Fluorescents. The persistence of the phosphors in the tubes means that there is virtually no flicker present at any frequency.
HF fluorescents have a higher capital cost than LF fittings - but the difference has become much smaller recently. Twin tube fittings are usually cheaper per tube than single tube fittings. You can also get HF control gear which can be dimmed (commonly by a 1-10V DC control voltage).
The phosphors used also have an effect. Older tubes tend to obtain white by mixing of purple with a green/yellow. This gives appaling colouring rendering. There's a measure of this quality called "Ra" which you should be able to check for different types of tubes. An Ra of 40%-50% is typical for older type tubes. Modern tubes are available which use phosphors very similar to those used in colour TV tubes. These have an Ra of about 80%. The offer higher efficiency too. Many people the better "Quality" of light they give reduces the problems they have. These modern phosphors ( often known as "Trisphosphors" ) have a slightly longer persistence - although the difference in flicker levels is small.
You can get tubes with an Ra of almost 100% - but they are rare, expensive and innefficient.
Colout temperature is also important. For domestic environments it is worth getting tubes with a colour temperature of 2700K which is similar to that of incandescent bulbs. This allows different types of light source to "blend" better. Offices tend to use a colour temperature of 3500K or even 4000k - which produces a very tiring "blue" light.
If you are using HF lights then you can get tubes which offer slightly more efficiency. Such tubes must NOT be used in LF lights. If they strike at all the resulting light would be very flickery. It's usually OK to use LF tubes in HF fittings.
When tubes get old the light output starts dropping very fast. This is the time to replace them. as the light output drops the flicker will also being increasing. Most tubes are worn out long before they fail to strike reliably. New tubes frequently swirl for the first few hours of use.
Modern HF fluorescent lights are very much more efficient than other forms of lighting in theory. But in practice though Tungsten Halogen can rival them in many applications because because Halogen lights give a small, point source of light which is easy to control usin reflectors and lenses.
Fluorescents - especially HF types are not a very good choice for things like hallways and stairs which only require to be lit intermittently. This is because they take several minutes to warm up. They light almost instantly - but will only deliver about 5% of their light output, gradually rising to the full level.