Enter DVD and CSS. The industry gets to pick how you read and write your own DVD's. Make the cost of recording software prohibitively expensive. Don't release recording software for Irix.
You don't have to use CSS to record a DVD if you don't want to... however, I don't know if the other pieces of recording software are similarly encumbered. Can you master your own DVD without infringing on patents? ----
If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, it doesn't have to and you can't legally do anything about it.
True, they don't have to license it. But I don't think it's clear that it's illegal if you just do it without a license. That's what the case is all about, right?
Regarding L33T crackers and such, there are people out there who are not helping in the least. Look no further than "DVD-Copy.com," one of the defendants in the MPAA case. "Trade movies with your friends on the internet!"
Nice move, buddy. Thanks for taking us down with you. ----
Read a bit about this one - the motion was filed at the last minute, before a 3 day weekend, (if I remember correctly.) I am fairly certain that the defense team was not even able to attend the hearing, but did it by teleconference (hence, no chance to show LiViD or anything). They requested a delay to prepare, and the judge denied it, telling the Suits that if they wanted a "runaway train on this one" he would give it to them.
I don't fault the EFF - they did the best they could in a seemingly hostile court. ----
Read the other documents on cryptome - the lawyers had no time to prepare, and had to attend the trial via teleconference. They asked for an extension, were denied, and then were chided by the judge for being unprepared.:/
Ok, with that out of the way, I think there are some serious problems with the defense.
1) DeCSS runs under WINDOWS, not Linux. Linux code was derived from it (or vice versa...) but this NEEDS TO BE CLEARED UP, because the argument that a Windows program helps play DVDs under Linux will never be substantiated. I probably WOULD argue that the (Windows) DeCSS code has no legitimate use - you can currently play DVDs under Windows, and there's no pressing need for a program like DeCSS.
2) So now, DeCSS and all similar programs (including Linux version) are under fire, because as the judge says, there is no evidence presented that shows anything about interoperability. The EFF *MUST* bring in the LiViD software to demonstrate in court, and then prove that it would NOT be possible without knowing how CSS works. The judge says that there is " no evidence of any commercially significant purpose" - but he needs to be taught about Free Software - if "commerically significant" is the key, then that sounds pretty strange. Reverse engineering is only legal if you profit from it...?!
Ok well I have to go back to work. Enough rambling.:/ ----
I like the special light thing, but even that sounds somewhat techno-scary. Try this on for size:
A book publisher chooses to only publish books in a rare, obscure language that very few people can read. Due to this, after you purchase one of these books, you must take it to a special person who will translate it and read it to you, in english.
Some smart fellow figures out this language, so that he can read his book curled up by the fire, rather than taking it down to the translation center. He also tells other people how to read the language, so that they can do the same. After all, they bought the book, right?
Meanwhile, the evil copyright pirates are taking these books down to the local copy shop, and xeroxing them like crazy, to sell on the black market. The details of the language don't matter one bit to them - their copies are perfect, and they don't have to understand what it means, since the copies can still be taken to the translater - they are indistinguishable from the original books.
Now - who does the publishing industry sue - the guys curled up by the fire, reading their books, or the pirates in the copy center....? Yup, you got it. The fireside readers get hauled into court. ----
If I were the EFF, I would start by submitting, and demonstrating, the software produced by the LiViD project for DVD playback. I would then ask the MPAA, under oath, if it would be possible to play back the DVD without the decryption knowledge - or if there is currently any other way to watch a DVD under Linux.
Then, I might try submitting a VCR tape of a movie, which was created by recording directly off a DVD.
Next, challenge the MPAA to do the same, only they must use DeCSS to produce a bootleg DVD which was created with tools and media which are readily available.
If DeCSS is such a boon to pirates, have them demonstrate, step by step, how it can be used. They can always seal the document.
Sure, they could show how you could downsample to a Video CD - at a significant loss in quality, analogous to a DVD -> VCR copy. ----
Havoc has a page online with errata for the book, an online version is available, and there's even a CVS version available. That's the power of an open publication license - I think it's great. ----
"preview what has to be done" just tells you which services it's going to restart (i.e. inetd) but it doesn't tell you which files it's editing (i.e./etc/hosts) ----
gecco, on sourceforge, looks interesting. It has a way to go, but it has a cool plugin architecture that should make it easy for various people to contribute to it, and make it a good all-around tool... ----
That's my biggest beef with Linuxconf - when I resort to using it because I don't know how to do it by hand, I would *really* like to have it tell me which file it's editing, at the very least - this would make it a good learning tool, as well as a good config tool.
I guess that's what you said. But I completely agree.:) ----
If I recall, someone did try to secure the rights to create a "sanctioned" Linux DVD player. They failed - I'm not sure if it was due to financial reasons, or because the DVD suits didn't feel that he was "worthy." If it was anything other than inability to meet financial obligations, I would think that the retelling of his story might help the defendants with their "interoperability" defense. ----
The circumstantial evidence, available mostly due to the various defendants' inclination to boast about their disrespect for the law, is quite compelling on both the issue of Mr. Johansen's improper means and that Defendants' knowledge of impropriety.
1) Stop taunting the lawyers. It pisses off the judges, and gets you nowhere. Calling the plaintiff's lawyers "cocksuckers" will not get you a sympathetic ear in court. Take a Zen attitude about the whole thing - respect your opponent.
Defendants make the additional argument that even if Johansen clicked on the license agreement, such an agreement contravenes Norwegian law. This Court is not well positioned to interpret Norwegian Law, and Defendant's own expert, even if this Court could consider expert testimony on a question of legal interpretation, states that the issue has not been conclusively decided in Norway. Defendants have not sufficiently supported their argument that the licence agreement, like the one at issue here, would be disallowed by Norwegian Law, although they may at some point be able to do so.
Defendant stated in passing at the hearing on Preliminary Injunction that issues of foreign law are questions of fact, however neither side has provided this Court with argument or authority on this point.
2) Read up on Norwegian law - this may actually provide some credibility to the original act of reverse engineering. A large part of this case boils down to the legality of the reverse engineering, and it's time to get those facts straight.
However, the Court refuses to issue an injunction against linking to other websites which contain the protected materials as such an order is overbroad and extremely burdensome. Links to other websites are the mainstay of the Internet and indispensable to its convenient access to the vast world of information. A website owner simply cannot be held responsible for all of the content of the sites to which it provides links.
3) Move your links to point to offshore repositories, for now. We can comply with the restraining order, and still have access to the code. Defiance will not help (see number 1, above).
Also - offer up the true pirates, those who wish to traffic in stolen, copyrighted material. Those are the people that they'd like to lump us all in with, and it's simply not accurate. It's time to make a clear distinction between the pirates and the programmers. ----
Sounds like the judge was on the side of the industry from the beginning, and was also not terribly competent in the technical department. A few quotes from a Wired Article:
"I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success," Judge Kaplan said in issuing his decision.
"Now really, Ms. Gross, I think it's a mistake for you to assume you're talking to a moron," said the judge, who pronounced Linux with a long "i" (the correct pronunciation is LIH-nix), and required a short briefing on the concept of linking.
In addition, the judge was exceptionally hard on the EFF lawyers:
The judge scoffed at these arguments and others, frequently interrupting Gross and Levy and chiding them for a lack of preparation. On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan had denied a request by the EFF legal team for a postponement.
This article also offers some insight into the way the trial went:
Judge Kaplan offered a speedy trial for the suit, "as early as next Tuesday if you want it," he said to MPAA counsel. "I would like this tried as soon as possible. I offer you a runaway train if that's what you want. My schedule is clear for this." Defendants' counsel requested a delay and the judge agreed to accept an application for an alternate date. [SNIP] The order and Judge Kaplan's decision should provide First Amendment advocates with a lot of tough meat to chew on. He seems to have to decided to try to put an end to overuse and abuse of the First Amendment for inappropriate defense of the indefensible, as he put it. He specifically ordered that links to sites which offered DeCSS be prohibited, even though Proskauer tried to get that changed in his order to prohibit only links to download DeCSS itself.
Too far down the message chain to be read, I suppose, but some of the defendants in this case were NOT smart about the whole thing, and hurt the cause, I believe. Take, for example "www.dvd-copy.com" which tells you "What you need to trade Moviez online" and "Bastard Greedy Companies - eBOMB their servers!" and "Yes, you can trade DVD movie files over the Internet . . . You can break the encryption on any DVD and allow users to copy the contents of a DVD onto the a [sic] hard drive or alternative media! Notice: The DVD Copy Control Association are cocksuckers!"
This doesn't help. Sounds like the judge never gave the defendants a chance (with comments to the plaintiffs along the lines of "I can give you a runaway train on this one, if you'd like" - see http://jya.com/crypto.htm ) but the quotes above are not the way to go. The whole argument is that CSS is not copy protection, that DeCSS is not intended for privacy, etc, loses credibility due to sites like dvd-copy.com. I actually *support* this type of action against people who are proponents of illegally trading copyrighted material on the DVDs, because it hurts legitimate organizations like LiViD. ----
That's an interesting tack, but I bet the search engine could argue "common carrier" status - that they have no control over what is included in their database. (Unless you pay them lots of money, of course...):) ----
System and method for displaying program listings in an interactive electronic program guide: Self explaining.
Isn't this data that's broadcast in the VBI (Vertical Blanking Interval - the time it takes for the beam to zip back up to the top of the screen)? Can you really broadcast something over the public airwaves, and then prevent other people from monitoring & displaying it? I hope not... ----
I've found George Lebl's Making application programming easy with GNOME libraries articles on IBM's site to be a really good introduction to Gnome programming. Maybe old hat for some, but as a beginning Gnome hacker, it was very helpful for me. Good info on Glib, and the 3rd article has a great example of using libXML to handle XML data files....
I think it's awesome that IBM hosts this information. Kudos to whomever made that decision at Big Blue! ----
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the period "." at the end of the name. Slasdot guys, shouldn't this be grounds for cancellation of an account..?
----
'nuf said - what motivates you to write for Slashdot? (You must answer without using the word "geek") :-)
----
Yup, there are already many on the market - or so I've heard...
----
Pretty cool ideas! One point, though:
Enter DVD and CSS. The industry gets to pick how you read and write your own DVD's. Make the cost of recording software prohibitively expensive. Don't release recording software for Irix.
You don't have to use CSS to record a DVD if you don't want to... however, I don't know if the other pieces of recording software are similarly encumbered. Can you master your own DVD without infringing on patents?
----
If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, it doesn't have to and you can't legally do anything about it.
True, they don't have to license it. But I don't think it's clear that it's illegal if you just do it without a license. That's what the case is all about, right?
Regarding L33T crackers and such, there are people out there who are not helping in the least. Look no further than "DVD-Copy.com," one of the defendants in the MPAA case. "Trade movies with your friends on the internet!"
Nice move, buddy. Thanks for taking us down with you.
----
Read a bit about this one - the motion was filed at the last minute, before a 3 day weekend, (if I remember correctly.) I am fairly certain that the defense team was not even able to attend the hearing, but did it by teleconference (hence, no chance to show LiViD or anything). They requested a delay to prepare, and the judge denied it, telling the Suits that if they wanted a "runaway train on this one" he would give it to them.
I don't fault the EFF - they did the best they could in a seemingly hostile court.
----
Read the other documents on cryptome - the lawyers had no time to prepare, and had to attend the trial via teleconference. They asked for an extension, were denied, and then were chided by the judge for being unprepared. :/
:/
Ok, with that out of the way, I think there are some serious problems with the defense.
1) DeCSS runs under WINDOWS, not Linux. Linux code was derived from it (or vice versa...) but this NEEDS TO BE CLEARED UP, because the argument that a Windows program helps play DVDs under Linux will never be substantiated. I probably WOULD argue that the (Windows) DeCSS code has no legitimate use - you can currently play DVDs under Windows, and there's no pressing need for a program like DeCSS.
2) So now, DeCSS and all similar programs (including Linux version) are under fire, because as the judge says, there is no evidence presented that shows anything about interoperability. The EFF *MUST* bring in the LiViD software to demonstrate in court, and then prove that it would NOT be possible without knowing how CSS works. The judge says that there is " no evidence of any commercially significant purpose" - but he needs to be taught about Free Software - if "commerically significant" is the key, then that sounds pretty strange. Reverse engineering is only legal if you profit from it...?!
Ok well I have to go back to work. Enough rambling.
----
I like the special light thing, but even that sounds somewhat techno-scary. Try this on for size:
A book publisher chooses to only publish books in a rare, obscure language that very few people can read. Due to this, after you purchase one of these books, you must take it to a special person who will translate it and read it to you, in english.
Some smart fellow figures out this language, so that he can read his book curled up by the fire, rather than taking it down to the translation center. He also tells other people how to read the language, so that they can do the same. After all, they bought the book, right?
Meanwhile, the evil copyright pirates are taking these books down to the local copy shop, and xeroxing them like crazy, to sell on the black market. The details of the language don't matter one bit to them - their copies are perfect, and they don't have to understand what it means, since the copies can still be taken to the translater - they are indistinguishable from the original books.
Now - who does the publishing industry sue - the guys curled up by the fire, reading their books, or the pirates in the copy center....? Yup, you got it. The fireside readers get hauled into court.
----
If I were the EFF, I would start by submitting, and demonstrating, the software produced by the LiViD project for DVD playback. I would then ask the MPAA, under oath, if it would be possible to play back the DVD without the decryption knowledge - or if there is currently any other way to watch a DVD under Linux.
Then, I might try submitting a VCR tape of a movie, which was created by recording directly off a DVD.
Next, challenge the MPAA to do the same, only they must use DeCSS to produce a bootleg DVD which was created with tools and media which are readily available.
If DeCSS is such a boon to pirates, have them demonstrate, step by step, how it can be used. They can always seal the document.
Sure, they could show how you could downsample to a Video CD - at a significant loss in quality, analogous to a DVD -> VCR copy.
----
For a good overview of what's available, try this page.
(although it seems to be down at the moment...?)
----
Sorry Havoc. Got carried away making links, not paying attention to what they pointed to. Argh. Great book in any case. :)
----
I read the article, and thought "and then there were 4" and went to post the comment, and ... bah. Stop thinking like me. :)
----
I think the Open Content License has been shown to work quite well. Take, for example, Havoc Pennington's GTK+/Gnome Application Development, released from New Riders earlier this year.
Havoc has a page online with errata for the book, an online version is available, and there's even a CVS version available. That's the power of an open publication license - I think it's great.
----
"preview what has to be done" just tells you which services it's going to restart (i.e. inetd) but it doesn't tell you which files it's editing (i.e. /etc/hosts)
----
gecco, on sourceforge, looks interesting. It has a way to go, but it has a cool plugin architecture that should make it easy for various people to contribute to it, and make it a good all-around tool...
----
That's my biggest beef with Linuxconf - when I resort to using it because I don't know how to do it by hand, I would *really* like to have it tell me which file it's editing, at the very least - this would make it a good learning tool, as well as a good config tool.
:)
I guess that's what you said. But I completely agree.
----
If I recall, someone did try to secure the rights to create a "sanctioned" Linux DVD player. They failed - I'm not sure if it was due to financial reasons, or because the DVD suits didn't feel that he was "worthy." If it was anything other than inability to meet financial obligations, I would think that the retelling of his story might help the defendants with their "interoperability" defense.
----
Blow by blow from the TRO:
The circumstantial evidence, available mostly due to the various defendants' inclination to boast
about their disrespect for the law, is quite compelling on both the issue of Mr. Johansen's improper means and that Defendants' knowledge of impropriety.
1) Stop taunting the lawyers. It pisses off the judges, and gets you nowhere. Calling the plaintiff's lawyers "cocksuckers" will not get you a sympathetic ear in court. Take a Zen attitude about the whole thing - respect your opponent.
Defendants make the additional argument that even if Johansen clicked on the license
agreement, such an agreement contravenes Norwegian law. This Court is not well positioned to
interpret Norwegian Law, and Defendant's own expert, even if this Court could consider expert
testimony on a question of legal interpretation, states that the issue has not been conclusively
decided in Norway. Defendants have not sufficiently supported their argument that the licence agreement, like the one at issue here, would be disallowed by Norwegian Law, although they may at some point be able to do so.
Defendant stated in passing at the hearing on Preliminary Injunction that issues of
foreign law are questions of fact, however neither side has provided this Court with argument or
authority on this point.
2) Read up on Norwegian law - this may actually provide some credibility to the original act of reverse engineering. A large part of this case boils down to the legality of the reverse engineering, and it's time to get those facts straight.
However, the Court refuses to issue an injunction against linking to other websites which
contain the protected materials as such an order is overbroad and extremely burdensome. Links to
other websites are the mainstay of the Internet and indispensable to its convenient access to the vast world of information. A website owner simply cannot be held responsible for all of the content
of the sites to which it provides links.
3) Move your links to point to offshore repositories, for now. We can comply with the restraining order, and still have access to the code. Defiance will not help (see number 1, above).
Also - offer up the true pirates, those who wish to traffic in stolen, copyrighted material. Those are the people that they'd like to lump us all in with, and it's simply not accurate. It's time to make a clear distinction between the pirates and the programmers.
----
----
Count me in.
----
Too far down the message chain to be read, I suppose, but some of the defendants in this case were NOT smart about the whole thing, and hurt the cause, I believe. Take, for example "www.dvd-copy.com" which tells you "What you need to trade Moviez online" and "Bastard Greedy Companies - eBOMB their servers!" and "Yes, you can trade DVD movie files over the Internet . . . You can break the encryption on any DVD and allow users to copy the contents of a DVD onto the a [sic] hard drive or alternative media! Notice: The DVD Copy Control Association are cocksuckers!"
This doesn't help. Sounds like the judge never gave the defendants a chance (with comments to the plaintiffs along the lines of "I can give you a runaway train on this one, if you'd like" - see http://jya.com/crypto.htm ) but the quotes above are not the way to go. The whole argument is that CSS is not copy protection, that DeCSS is not intended for privacy, etc, loses credibility due to sites like dvd-copy.com. I actually *support* this type of action against people who are proponents of illegally trading copyrighted material on the DVDs, because it hurts legitimate organizations like LiViD.
----
That's an interesting tack, but I bet the search engine could argue "common carrier" status - that they have no control over what is included in their database. (Unless you pay them lots of money, of course...) :)
----
System and method for displaying program listings in an interactive electronic program guide: Self explaining.
Isn't this data that's broadcast in the VBI (Vertical Blanking Interval - the time it takes for the beam to zip back up to the top of the screen)? Can you really broadcast something over the public airwaves, and then prevent other people from monitoring & displaying it? I hope not...
----
'nuf said.
----
I've found George Lebl's Making application programming easy with GNOME libraries articles on IBM's site to be a really good introduction to Gnome programming. Maybe old hat for some, but as a beginning Gnome hacker, it was very helpful for me. Good info on Glib, and the 3rd article has a great example of using libXML to handle XML data files....
I think it's awesome that IBM hosts this information. Kudos to whomever made that decision at Big Blue!
----