So what happens if people mirror the court records? Do you have to be "served" with notice that what you publish is sealed? Even if they're sealed, this sealing should only have jurisdiction in the US, so if they're mirrored in other countries, they can stand. I would also argue that by FAILING to seal these documents before they were published, the lawyers have failed to protect their claim of a trade secret.
Since the court record will not compile without modification, it cannot be argued that it does anything other than communicate. Never mind that that's all the DeCSS code does -- communicate. After all, the DeCSS SOURCE CODE itself cannot DO anything. Contrary to misconception, the source code cannot copy or even playback DVD's. It is instructions on how to do this.
Even if making a bomb or making LSD is illegal, instructions on how to make a bomb or the chemical synthesis of LSD are protected speach. Of, course viewing a DVD "for home use only" is not illegal anyway, as the copyright notice on the DVD grants this authority.
If Microsoft hadn't been declared a monopoly, you might have a point. By choosing not to support rivals to the monopoly, you aide and abet the monopoly.
But, really, that's not even the issue. If they don't support linux with DVD players, fine. Just don't complain when linux reengineers your product to provide interoperability as is specifically (DAMN IT!!) allowed under trade secret laws and specifically (DAMN IT, AGAIN!!) allowed under section 1201(f) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Law:
1201(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING.--
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
I looked at the one DVD that I own (The English Patient) and it's copyright notice says "for home viewing only" as the _only_ restriction. Based on this, using DeCSS does NOT CIRCUMVENT THE ACCESS CONTROL, since you have PURCHASED HOME VIEWING ACCESS".
The DVD and movie industries want a form of "tying" that retroactively says "Oh, we MEANT you viewing on our sanctioned players".
The copying / pirating stuff is smoke and mirrors. It's about playback access. If they lose this, nobody will pay them for CSS anymore. GOOD, it's defective encryption protection that is properly valued as WORTHLESS.
Well there really are two answers: one cost for the folks who want to set up a router and another for the people who only want to talk to a router.
My guess is the radio unit for end user would have to be able to transmit and receive between 5 to 10 miles, just long enough to get to a nearby router. I bet cell phone technology could already do this pretty well, especially because it could be plugged in all the time, so replace the battery cost with multiplexing to up bandwidth. My guess is this is doable for $500 and if people started doing it noticably, Motorola or somebody would start to market a product for it and the cost would plummit.
The expensive part would be the wireless routers. Maybe the routers need to go 25 to 50 miles (long enough to get from town to town) and carry 100X the bandwidth. It would probably take special amplifiers to listen to faint signals that far away. Maybe some echo repeaters if you are for from anything. My guess (and it is a wild one) is that this could be done for $10K - $20K.
I realize this is a lot, but to get started you only need a handful of these heavy duty transmitters. I know people who have spent this on HAM radio. Also people could do it cooperatively. Furthermore, once towns can reach each other a critical mass can be reached pretty easily. Once you shake out an open standard, then maybe a company like CISCO releases their wireless router to compete in this market segment and a few companies and universities start playing and off it goes.
It may be a stretch, but it's not THAT far fetched.
you can get all 100+ decryption keys since where are only 2^16 combinations...less than a minute for decryption
Only 65536 = 2^16 Combinations!! That is truly, truly sad protection, if what you say is true. Can you provide a reference. I keep hearing things like this but nobody posts the source (pun intended).
if you loose this one case you loose the ability to reverse engineer which is the whole point of decss and this case
I disagree that losing this case destroys reverse engineering. For example, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically includes a reverse engineering "solely" for interoperability clause. Perhaps some people post DeCSS on www.DVD-rip-off.org with encouragement and instructions on how to commit copyright violations, and get told they have to stop by a court. That means they didn't qualify for the reverse engineering exception. It doesn't mean there is no exception.
Another exception under DMCA is for cryptography research. Somebody who was a credible cryptographer could publish a paper entitled something like "Weakness of the CSS playback encryption scheme" in a cryptography journal and include source code and it seems to me the DMCA 1201(f) would protect it. Of course just catching a glimpse of the unprotected key would not qualify as cryptographic research, but a demonstration that there were clever efficiencies that helped reduce the search space for a brute force attack WOULD be publishable.
Free speach in acadamia is a very strong force - for example, you can look up the synthesis for LSD in chemical journals.
Surely if enough grassroots voters got involved the government could be persuaded to set aside one frequency range for public use as opposed to corporate interest.
After all, CB radio and HAM radios have their frequency ranges. Surely governement could be lobbied to add one more to this list.
2. Stop using the products/services of the offending companies.Like Jon Katz and others (me too) have taken a stand against Amazon by refusing to buy books until the patent is dropped. And let those companies know why -- the easiest way to end a war is to show your adversary the benefit of co-operation over competition.
Really, open source DVD playback technology would open up new markets for DVD sales. Maybe a few would be pirated, but come on, most of use just want to watch legitimate ones.
I think we should revise results of the DeCSS distribution contest. Here's your bell ringer.
On a more serious note, it looks like this form of DeCSS is refering to.dll files and "Win98" and "WinNT". I think the linux decrypter is CSS-auth or something (do I have this right). Anyway, this would appear to me to disallow the "DeCSS is solely for interoperability with linux" arguement under the DCMA 1201(f)(3) reengineering for interoperability exception. Perhaps CSS-auth is ok but DeCSS is not;-] One more reason to use linux over windows.
It looks like everything depends on the five keys which are called in DeCSS by the names CSStab[1-5]. I propose a new contest: Obfuscated code to produce these keys.
I've heard it alluded to that subsequent to the original hack of the keys, a better understanding of the CSS methodologies has produced a more efficient key-producing algorithm that doesn't depend on any prior knowledge. Such an algorithm seems like it would meet the 1201(g) exception for cryptographic research. Can anybody provide more details on this?
This sounds like a technology breakthrough that is no doubt going to benefit people in rural areas, but what I really want is a solution to the "last mile" problem that doesn't require a monthly fee.
If wireless technology can communicate high bandwidth packet transfers, then what is stopping people from eliminating the middle man and communication directly with their neighbors? It seems like such technology could be combined with network routing technology to "liberate the internet".
What would change everything would be an independently owned backbone of network routers that communicate to each other over wireless broadband. Anyone who could cough up for the equipment could then become another node. If enough of these linked together end users would only need equipment strong enough to get the signal back and forth to this backbone (so they don't need the router part).
I'm talking about would sort of be a cross between CB or HAM radio and the internet. The "Amature Radio Support" in the linux kernal could be very close to liberating the internet backbones from corporate control.
the fact that at some point in history, some person found a natural resource, declared "this is mine," and proceeded, along with his descendants, to profit off of it.
Capitialism is successful because it is designed to reward people who GET OFF THEIR ASS. The proper response when you are concerned that the resources are being "found" by others is to mobilize and start competing to claim the rest. That is in some sense why "homesteading in the noosphere" is the notion that the open source movement embraces.
The problem, of course, is not that the free market exists, but rather that it doesn't exist: When governments allow it, corporations corrupt them. Suddenly, gevernement blocks others from legitimate "homesteading" in order to PREVENT compitition, free trade, and the exchange of ideas that will expose the "resources" the corporation has garned to not be so valuable after all.
The DVD companies, for example, seek to use the government to prevent people from exchanging the knowledge of how to demonstrate the worthlessness of their encryption scheme. A governement committed to capitalism and freedom would refuse to use its force to bolster such false valuations.
I hear a lot of whining here, but whining does not achieve things in the American political process.
This community IS A POWERFUL FORCE. Our support created billion dollar corporations that take marketshare from the biggest monopolistic corporate force there is. If we can compete in that arena, we can compete anywhere.
I think the Electronic Frontier Foundations is our political voice. We need to focus our political frustrations into constructive action that builds the EFF into the powerful lobby that it needs to be. It is worth noting that many of the most powerful lobbies in Washington are grassroots organizations. You need only consider the AARP and the NRA to imagine what the EFF could become.
In addition to grassroots support, the major companies that this community has created (Red Hat, VA, Andover, etc...) have an obligation back to us to visibly support for the EFF. Slashdot, you at least ought to put a banner up for them pro bono - they ARE advocates against your accusers in the CA DVD case after all.
THe 9th circuit basically said that it shouldn't matter if source code has the functional purpose of controlling a computer - if people are communicating to each other with it then it's protected. Since programmers value READABLE code, this should be a no brainer.
A few weeks ago, the 9th circuit upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the export ban on encryption based on 1st amendment reasons. The governement is appealing, so the ruling isn't in effect yet, and it is expected to go to the Supreme Court. The cental issue in the case is whether source code is "expression" in 1st amendment terms. The feds say it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens if people mirror the court records? Do you have to be "served" with notice that what you publish is sealed? Even if they're sealed, this sealing should only have jurisdiction in the US, so if they're mirrored in other countries, they can stand. I would also argue that by FAILING to seal these documents before they were published, the lawyers have failed to protect their claim of a trade secret.
Since the court record will not compile without modification, it cannot be argued that it does anything other than communicate. Never mind that that's all the DeCSS code does -- communicate.
After all, the DeCSS SOURCE CODE itself cannot DO anything. Contrary to misconception, the source code cannot copy or even playback DVD's. It is instructions on how to do this.
Even if making a bomb or making LSD is illegal, instructions on how to make a bomb or the chemical synthesis of LSD are protected speach. Of, course viewing a DVD "for home use only" is not illegal anyway, as the copyright notice on the DVD grants this authority.
If Microsoft hadn't been declared a monopoly, you might have a point. By choosing not to support rivals to the monopoly, you aide and abet the monopoly.
But, really, that's not even the issue. If they don't support linux with DVD players, fine. Just don't complain when linux reengineers your product to provide interoperability as is specifically (DAMN IT!!) allowed under trade secret laws and specifically (DAMN IT, AGAIN!!) allowed under section 1201(f) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Law:
1201(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING.--
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently
created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
Better yet, how about a boycott of ALL movies.
I looked at the one DVD that I own (The English Patient) and it's copyright notice says "for home viewing only" as the _only_ restriction. Based on this, using DeCSS does NOT CIRCUMVENT THE ACCESS CONTROL, since you have PURCHASED HOME VIEWING ACCESS".
The DVD and movie industries want a form of "tying" that retroactively says "Oh, we MEANT you viewing on our sanctioned players".
The copying / pirating stuff is smoke and mirrors. It's about playback access. If they lose this, nobody will pay them for CSS anymore. GOOD, it's defective encryption protection that is properly valued as WORTHLESS.
Well there really are two answers: one cost for the folks who want to set up a router and another for the people who only want to talk to a router.
My guess is the radio unit for end user would have to be able to transmit and receive between 5 to 10 miles, just long enough to get to a nearby router. I bet cell phone technology could already do this pretty well, especially because it could be plugged in all the time, so replace the battery cost with multiplexing to up bandwidth. My guess is this is doable for $500 and if people started doing it noticably, Motorola or somebody would start to market a product for it and the cost would plummit.
The expensive part would be the wireless routers. Maybe the routers need to go 25 to 50 miles (long enough to get from town to town) and carry 100X the bandwidth. It would probably take special amplifiers to listen to faint signals that far away. Maybe some echo repeaters if you are for from anything. My guess (and it is a wild one) is that this could be done for $10K - $20K.
I realize this is a lot, but to get started you only need a handful of these heavy duty transmitters. I know people who have spent this on HAM radio. Also people could do it cooperatively. Furthermore, once towns can reach each other a critical mass can be reached pretty easily. Once you shake out an open standard, then maybe a company like CISCO releases their wireless router to compete in this market segment and a few companies and universities start playing and off it goes.
It may be a stretch, but it's not THAT far fetched.
you can get all 100+ decryption keys since where are only 2^16 combinations...less than a minute for decryption
Only 65536 = 2^16 Combinations!! That is truly, truly sad protection, if what you say is true. Can you provide a reference. I keep hearing things like this but nobody posts the source (pun intended).
if you loose this one case you loose the ability to reverse engineer which is the whole point of decss and this case
I disagree that losing this case destroys reverse engineering. For example, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically includes a reverse engineering "solely" for interoperability clause. Perhaps some people post DeCSS on www.DVD-rip-off.org with encouragement and instructions on how to commit copyright violations, and get told they have to stop by a court. That means they didn't qualify for the reverse engineering exception. It doesn't mean there is no exception.
Another exception under DMCA is for cryptography research. Somebody who was a credible cryptographer could publish a paper entitled something like "Weakness of the CSS playback encryption scheme" in a cryptography journal and include source code and it seems to me the DMCA 1201(f) would protect it. Of course just catching a glimpse of the unprotected key would not qualify as cryptographic research, but a demonstration that there were clever efficiencies that helped reduce the search space for a brute force attack WOULD be publishable.
Free speach in acadamia is a very strong force - for example, you can look up the synthesis for LSD in chemical journals.
Surely if enough grassroots voters got involved the government could be persuaded to set aside one frequency range for public use as opposed to corporate interest.
After all, CB radio and HAM radios have their frequency ranges. Surely governement could be lobbied to add one more to this list.
2. Stop using the products/services of the offending companies.Like Jon Katz and others (me too) have taken a stand against Amazon by refusing to buy books until the patent is dropped. And let those companies know why -- the easiest way to end a war is to show your adversary the benefit of co-operation over competition.
Really, open source DVD playback technology would open up new markets for DVD sales. Maybe a few would be pirated, but come on, most of use just want to watch legitimate ones.
I think we should revise results of the DeCSS distribution contest. Here's your bell ringer.
.dll files and "Win98" and "WinNT". I think the linux decrypter is CSS-auth or something (do I have this right). Anyway, this would appear to me to disallow the "DeCSS is solely for interoperability with linux" arguement under the DCMA 1201(f)(3) reengineering for interoperability exception. Perhaps CSS-auth is ok but DeCSS is not ;-] One more reason to use linux over windows.
On a more serious note, it looks like this form of DeCSS is refering to
It looks like everything depends on the five keys which are called in DeCSS by the names CSStab[1-5]. I propose a new contest: Obfuscated code to produce these keys.
I've heard it alluded to that subsequent to the original hack of the keys, a better understanding of the CSS methodologies has produced a more efficient key-producing algorithm that doesn't depend on any prior knowledge. Such an algorithm seems like it would meet the 1201(g) exception for cryptographic research. Can anybody provide more details on this?
This sounds like a technology breakthrough that is no doubt going to benefit people in rural areas, but what I really want is a solution to the "last mile" problem that doesn't require a monthly fee.
If wireless technology can communicate high bandwidth packet transfers, then what is stopping people from eliminating the middle man and communication directly with their neighbors? It seems like such technology could be combined with network routing technology to "liberate the internet".
What would change everything would be an independently owned backbone of network routers that communicate to each other over wireless broadband. Anyone who could cough up for the equipment could then become another node. If enough of these linked together end users would only need equipment strong enough to get the signal back and forth to this backbone (so they don't need the router part).
I'm talking about would sort of be a cross between CB or HAM radio and the internet. The "Amature Radio Support" in the linux kernal could be very close to liberating the internet backbones from corporate control.
Am I dreaming?
the fact that at some point in history, some person found a natural resource, declared "this is mine," and proceeded, along with his descendants, to profit off of it.
Capitialism is successful because it is designed to reward people who GET OFF THEIR ASS. The proper response when you are concerned that the resources are being "found" by others is to mobilize and start competing to claim the rest. That is in some sense why "homesteading in the noosphere" is the notion that the open source movement embraces.
The problem, of course, is not that the free market exists, but rather that it doesn't exist: When governments allow it, corporations corrupt them. Suddenly, gevernement blocks others from legitimate "homesteading" in order to PREVENT compitition, free trade, and the exchange of ideas that will expose the "resources" the corporation has garned to not be so valuable after all.
The DVD companies, for example, seek to use the government to prevent people from exchanging the knowledge of how to demonstrate the worthlessness of their encryption scheme. A governement committed to capitalism and freedom would refuse to use its force to bolster such false valuations.
I hear a lot of whining here, but whining does not achieve things in the American political process.
This community IS A POWERFUL FORCE. Our support created billion dollar corporations that take marketshare from the biggest monopolistic corporate force there is. If we can compete in that arena, we can compete anywhere.
I think the Electronic Frontier Foundations is our political voice. We need to focus our political frustrations into constructive action that builds the EFF into the powerful lobby that it needs to be. It is worth noting that many of the most powerful lobbies in Washington are grassroots organizations. You need only consider the AARP and the NRA to imagine what the EFF could become.
In addition to grassroots support, the major companies that this community has created (Red Hat, VA, Andover, etc...) have an obligation back to us to visibly support for the EFF. Slashdot, you at least ought to put a banner up for them pro bono - they ARE advocates against your accusers in the CA DVD case after all.
THe 9th circuit basically said that it shouldn't matter if source code has the functional purpose of controlling a computer - if people are communicating to each other with it then it's protected. Since programmers value READABLE code, this should be a no brainer.
A few weeks ago, the 9th circuit upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the export ban on encryption based on 1st amendment reasons. The governement is appealing, so the ruling isn't in effect yet, and it is expected to go to the Supreme Court. The cental issue in the case is whether source code is "expression" in 1st amendment terms. The feds say it isn't.
Read more at the Electronic Frontier Foundation