Fact: DeCSS circumvents CSS Fact: That is, currently (like it or not), illegal. Fact: The judge has no choice but to do easy math: 1+1=Defendents lose.
Fact: The defense has provided the most worthless witnesses, (one "Internet Expert" had no knowledge of OC48 or great capacity in use today, Corley claims he knows of no one today with a hard drive large enough to store a DVD movie (4 gigs). Another expert tried to testify (goaded by defense attorneys) that the internet simply cannot handle the burden of thousands of 650 meg DIVX encoded DeCSS ripped DVDs being exchanged (despite hard proof on usenet daily/hourly). Fact: The prosecution has only to make the most minimal argument, doesn't have to prove piracy, and has had more help from defense screw ups than it's own experts (which step by step show exactly how DeCSS is used bypass CSS (case proved) and then show how easy it is to make a DIVX movie and go into IRC and exchange it for another bootleg). Fact: The Livid "expert" probably did more damage to the entire case than did corely himself. He was even busted twice of lying in his deposition (was he lying then or lying now?) Fact: Corley is either lying or the most ignorant computer newbie on the block. He doesn't understand the most basic fundamentals of what he writes and claims he has no idea who almost anything he's involved in works. Fact: Corley claims their website crashes daily when it's log file gets too big (must be a common problem for unix based systems I guess) and so they simply removed the log file. Then when popularity increased, their hit counter caused their site to crash when it was being called too often so they removed that too. This way he can claim, "gee you honor, I have no idea if my for-profit website has received more traffic than ever in it's existance before" Fact: A perfectly legal, authorized DVD player for Linux will be produced by someone who took the time to apply and pay for the license and ANY possible defense based on "We linux users deserve to play DVDs for free" will evaporate.
Guess: The defense will lose and have no grounds for appeal which will be denied.
Look, it's really quite simple. DeCSS's primary purpose is to remove CSS protection so you can copy the VOB file and do what you will with it. The copy part is a subfunction. Look at it's name if you really need a clue. Read way way way back when it was first released as the author proudly proclaims it's for ripping DVDs. Visit the crop of new MPEG4/DivX sites that give very specific instructions with screen shots on how to use DeCSS (or newer, better iterations based on the same stolen technology) to rip a DVD, including menus and special features and how to compress them and how to make VCDs or standalone MPEGS/AVIs from them. To pretend this is not the case is to be utterly ignorant of the truth - I suspect you are being intentionally ignorant of these facts. And they are facts. When I can find for you dozens upon dozens of full lenght DVDs posted to alt.binaries.movies that proudly list "DeCSS" in their subject line your "for educational purposes only" reverse engineering claim goes no where.
I'm glad you printed out 1201(2) - anyone reading it and who has the balls to admit what we all know DeCSS does can now so very clearly see exactly what law was broken and how your claimed defense fails.
You are right about the two filings - I missed them, they were so minor. I stand corrected. However, all significant rulings have gone their way, I expect this to continue.
And, if you have ever been involved in depositions you'd recognize the behaviour in these depositions, Valenti couldn't have been better couched, he was perfect. He gave the defense NOTHING - and that is the ultimate best case scenario. A deposition is not admitable in trial UNLESS contradicted by something the same witness says in court. So, Valenti gave them nothing. They continue to flounder desperately looking for their angle.
I'm sure you didn't mention unconstitutional because you must realize it's not - and the judge has ruled and ruled again and again that it's not.
No, I don't work for any of them and I'm not trolling. I just am not a hypocrite and don't pretend that I expect everything in life to be free and given to me on a silver platter and every time someone running an alternate OS gets something I whine like a baby that Linux should have it for free!
DeCSS is designed to circumvent CSS - that's it. Nothing else. it's not an educational experiment, it does not even remotely quality for reverse engineering for education or review. Please do not try to insult us by pretending otherwise. DeCSS is designed to remove the CSS encryption, that's all it does, that's it's designed for purpose and exactly what it accomplishes. Bypassing the region code is a byproduct.
Oh, your point #4 is completely inaccurate, try actually reading the law, I have. MPAA can't? You mean, haven't yet - they've won every filing they've made and the defense has lost every one. Expect this trend to continue. Corely is a test case - unfortunately his representation is hopelessly outclassed, their depositions hover over useless territory and pick on old men outside of the focus of the case. They waste the courts time and anger the judge, I expect a quick trial. Next you'll be telling us Napster is not used to bootleg MP3s of copyrighted music.
I love it - what screen shot is provided? The Matrix. Um... gee, just how did they get that Matrix DVD image into DivX format? A little DeCSS help perhaps?
DeCSS + DivX is exactly what the MPAA has been talking about. You can rip a DVD into a very nice quality movie that can fit onto a CD and is easily downloaded from usenet after it's been RARed.
I wonder if there is anyone out there who still thinks DeCSS wasn't built for the strict purpose of ripping DVDs, just as Divx's only purpose is to make the ripped files smaller while retaining decent quality... ya know (wink wink) for all those legit movies you are copying (the ones YOU personally have the copyright to because you cannot even copy a DVD you own).
Of course, by the time the linux Divx playback is working, we'll be running mpeg-4 proper. alt.binaries.movies is the largest usenet group by a nice margin - and nothing but Divx encoded, DeCSS ripped DVDs. I think the MPAA will have no problem proving it's case...
Re:There is no one to blame: It's fiction.
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Oh really? Then explain why no one has been able to do it - despite EVERYONE trying (including frustrated ones trying to do DoS attacks on the keyservers). The version of events is incomplete and inaccurate, it's not a "sure, go ahead" that comes back from the master servers, it's an exchange of encrypted keys and unique messages. Like I said; it hasn't been done despite more attempt than any other game I know of. That's proof enough for me.
Does anyone know where we can find the actual text of this latest filing? A PDF would be prefered. I would like to see exactly precisely what the MPAA wrote as opposed to reading a quicky summary from a web magazine.
mySQL could not perform the TPC benchmark. Period. Never. It does not have the functionality. It's fast because it's a crippled subset of real SQL. Price/Performance? Did you actually READ any of the configs? The price of the OS and SQL software is almost meaningless in the totals. A difference of maybe 1%? Linux doesn't have a SQL server that can run in this class. Period.
There is a post that accurately reports that the boxes used to launch the recent DoS attacks were *nix boxes, not Windows boxes. It's slashdotted out of existance and then pulled.
ZDNet posts an article with NO proof or a shred of evidence (do you HONESTLY think that MS, after what's happened with the DoJ and how much is riding on W2K's release) would, whoops, accidently let anti-MS ZDNet get sight of an "internal memo" that exposes 63,000 "bugs" (I'll skip how even that is a huge deviation from what I, a programmer, consider a bug to be) just a week before release?
I know this is Slashdot, I know anti-MS is popular and I'll be moderated into hell but, I couldn't not write. Honestly people, you do not have to like MS to take a moment and use your brains and think: Gee, doesn't that sound incredulous? W2K was in public beta with 750,000 people and is currently used to run 10,000 web servers and IBM is rolling out 300,000 units in the next 6 months and it is already running huge huge e-commerce sites (on beta code originally!) AND NO ONE NOTICED 63,000 bugs? I'm sorry, but one itty bitty bug in IE and the slashdot has headlines, 63000 bugs in a system reviewed by 750,000 and... it takes a leaked internal memo for this to come out?
Please people - promote your choice of OS, piss on MS if you like - but to believe in such utter nonsense really destroys credibility.
My $.02 - you can moderate this down but you WILL be metamoderated l8r.
No, I didn't say default port and didn't mean that. BO2K on NT is pretty much non-existant; BO on Win9x machines, big deal, if it was there, how many Win9x machines are hooked up to big enough pipes (and not behind firewalls) to make a difference?
Good luck finding a NT box with BO loaded. Our security consultant's firm has been doing huge net searches for BO so they can then go in and advise the company (for a fee, of course) of the threat they didn't know they had... they can't FIND it. It's such an old story and detection and extermination for it is so common (BO2K could be detected and erased before BO2k itself was released) that I doubt you'll find any BO NT boxes out there to 'ploit.
14 Defendants contended that DeCSS was intended only to permit persons in lawful possession of copyrighted disks to play them for their own use on computers running under the Linux operating system rather than Windows. Tr.
Indeed, they suggested that this is the only possible use of DeCSS and that DeCSS does not permit the user to copy DVDs.
But the arguments are unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions.
Second, even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case.
============= Fair use does NOT give you the right to circumvent the access controls the copyright owner puts in place - the copyright owner OWNS the work, NOT YOU. You own the physical DVD disk but the copyright owner owns the data on it (movie, audio, whatever). The copyright owner can decide how you are permitted to access this data - it's the copyright owners right to do this. If an author decides you can only have it in hardcover then you are not allowed to reprint it in softcover just cause you want it that way - it's not yours to do with as you please.
Folks - no one is trying to take DVD playback away from Linux, they are just dictating the terms, they have that right. And you have the right to say "screw that" but you do not then have the right to break the law to circumvent them. That's it, that's all. It's not us vs. them. Windows has a DVD player ONLY because someone paid for the right - Linux could too if someone (think IPO million$) would pay for one too.
The judge NO WHERE says you canNOT play DVDs under Linux some day. He is saying that you cannot bypass the established way which is to pay for the license for a decryption key from the CSS JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS TO! That is the point to hammer home. Linux, like any other OS, can have a legal DVD player - someone just has to pay for the license. It's really that simple. The judge is NOT making playing DVDs you own illegal - just that you have to do it the legal way. That's it.
I continue to be suprised that all the bright people still don't get it.
No one is trying to prevent you from viewing DVD under linux!
Let me repeat: You CAN have a DVD player for Linux legally and with the full blessings of everyone in hollywood, at every studio and the MPAA and every attorney they could name.
The beef is: someone has to pay the license fee, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE USING EVERY OTHER OS ON THE PLANET!
That's it folks. It's as simple as that. If some IPO rich Linux developer(company) would just spend some of their money on the community instead of pocketing it and paid the license fee (like xing did, like everyone else did) then Linux too could have a fully legal DVD player too. Said developer(company) could give it away free too, nothing stopping that either.
So - really - get back to the basics. That's what it's really about.
Now - if you don't *like* that then you need to petition and yell and scream ABOUT it - but what you do NOT do is make things worse by screaming: we don't like it so we're gonna keep breaking the law until they change it!
Think about it, why would anyone want to prevent viewing DVDs under Linux? A larger audience for the product=more sale$ - these studios DO want you to view DVDs under ANY OS you'd like, (last repeat) they just want you to do so playing by the same rules EVERYONE ELSE does. Linux programmers & users are not exceptions to the law (whether you like a particular law or not).
Remember, protest, petition, boycott, make them change the law/rules you don't like. That is your responsibility and constitutionally confirmed right. But, you have NO rights if you choose to break the laws as they exist today.
Think: When is the last time you heard of a law changed cause everyone broke it? Linvocates are doing more harm than good when they call the judge and attorneys in these cases vile names on websites you KNOW will be admited as evidence. They are hurting all parties involved when they spam the source code on sites named in the very suit they are angry about.
If there is any non-bias at/. then this post will not be moderated away. No flamebait or trolling just wanna clear a couple of points up ALL using the provided story URL.
#1: The patch, released by Microsoft on Wednesday, repairs two different security bugs in Microsoft Index Server, the more egregious of which allows hackers to view files stored on a target Web server. Index Server is an add-on to Windows NT 4.0 and is built into Windows 2000 (in the form of Indexing Services).
As you can clearly see, these bugs affect an *add-on* product present in NT4 which became built-in to Windows 2000. This is not a W2K only bug which is how/. wants users to perceive it. That's not accurate or fair.
#2 The bug was discovered AFTER W2K went gold. They have released a patch for NT4 and W2K both that works right now for both. So, before W2K is released there is a fix. I don't know about you but as soon as I finish installing Windows I rush to Windows Update to bring me up to date fully (CDs get old fast). ANYONE installing W2K would/should run Windows Update and will be covered.
#3) You have to know the names of the files on the remote system before they can be viewed if the exploit existed. That's not exactly getting root here ya know?! Let's not overinflate the damage potential.
#4) The exploit itself was reported to MS promptly and fixed quick. The exploit is on the finders website and includes how to prevent the exploit from working. #1) you left the IISAMPLES directoy in place - stupid admin trick #323, delete or rename them before making the machine public and #2) you just disassocate.htw files until the patch can be applied.
Why don't we get a weekly update on Linux exploits and only bias pieces about MS problems?
Do you really think this member of MoRE, an admitted cracker, PAID for a CPP copy of W2K? His other machines are linux and freebsd - no $ here. THERE is your need for a major reality check. There were no localized versions for his country and CPP was only available in limited areas and he is not in one of them. I think it's MORE than safe to say it's a pirated copy.
I'm suprised it took the government THIS long to take him down. Countersuit? He won't have a suit left after they finish with him. It IS legal to reverse engineer there - but NOT for the purposes of using that info to steal intellectual properties, which he did.
CSS was not decoded, decrypted, or decompiled (at all) on linux. Xing DVD Player 2.03 did not encrypt its CSS decrytion key, so running a program that detects exactly what Xing is doing as it loads a DVD shows it using the key, once they had 1 key, they guessed at others. It was done on windows, for the purpose of releasing the CSS source in the attempt to get a linux DVD player. The reason was not to create a program to decrypt DVD video files for download. And as for all this crap about DeCSS, it was not the first program that was created that did that! DODs Speed Ripper (aka dodsrip) came out before DeCSS as a DOS proggie, it could decrypt almost all but WB DVD's, it was later fixed by the author of dodsrip, but before the new fixed version was released, DeCSS authors heard about it, their program already created but not released thinking that there was no point until the problem was fixed (something new to add). They somehow learned of the reason why it couldn't decrypt WB movies (they did not steal it) and released DeCSS. A Wired.com reporter heard of DeCSS and wrote an article, saying DVD encryption was cracked. This came out after numerous programs that already copied DVD's were out. DVD Rip could download the video files using an Xing exploit at a 1:1 ratio (still need to convert to mpeg-1). DVD2MPEG could load a dvd and using the Win98 DVD player capture each frame and immediatly encode into mpeg-1 at a 1:5-1:10 ratio. Panasonic MPEG-1 Encoder could encode MPEG-2 (DVD/VOB) into MPEG-1 using Intervideo and LSX filters at a 1:5-1:10 ratio (DVD2MPEG actualy uses Panasonic mpeg-1 enco. plugin, but with the plugin you dont need to download the vob to your hdd). There were even more then that. Now copying DVDs to VCDs is as simple as a owning a DVD-ROM, getting DeCSS or dodsrip, getting Panasonic MPEG-1 Encoder plugin and FlasK Encoder. With those things, you can download the DVD's VOB's with DeCSS or dodsrip, install the MPEG-1 encoder and hooke it up with FlasK, then using FlasK, get VCD/NTSC/PAL or a MPEG (nonVCD compliant) in as little as little as 10hours, total; speed and quality depends on the OS (win9x/win2k), the RAM and speed of your comp and other activities it was doing while encoding. For more info check out http://www.dvdpiracy.com , http://www.opendvd.org , #pcdvd on EFnet. You do need a DVD-ROM
We run Netware 4 and 5 at our shop and a few months back tried upgrading to Windows 2000. It was a nitemare and I'm sure glad we did it on a test subnet instead of the whole thing. Not only did W2k break the DNS servers we use externally but it's Active directory shit killed the NDS we had working. It was like a pervasive virus that just sucked up resources (saturated our 100 mb/s switches with replication data) and we started having login problems where none existed before! Amazing that this crap actually made it out of beta (or, hmmm, maybe it didn't!)
The Novell claims against this MS crap are legit and should be required reading for anyone considering ruining their existing network with this Windows 2000 crap!
now, if I can only get more of those netware boxes running linux... netware makes for a decent file/printer server but just sux when it comes to internetworking. Netware 5's IP support is weak, incomparable to any Linux implementation!
Novell's Claim: "Did you know that Windows 2000 DNS server will CRASH just about every non-Microsoft DNS server in existence? Only the very, very latest versions of BIND (which aren't widely deployed) won't crash when interacting with a Windows 2000 server."
Microsoft's Perspective: Microsoft recognizes the need to work well in non-Microsoft DNS environments and would not release a product that crashes in such a way. Moreover, Novell has not provided any factual evidence of these claims, and does not explicitly mention which versions of BIND may crash when interoperating with the Windows 2000 DNS Server.
Microsoft has tested Windows 2000 for DNS interoperability with the following:
Active Directory with BIND 8.1.2 Microsoft DNS (client & server) with BIND 4.9.7, 8.1.2 and 8.2
It is also important to note that the Internet Software Consortium (the developers of BIND) makes the following recommendation because of known problems with versions of BIND other than 4.9.7 and 8.2. (Refer to the ISC Web site):
"If you are running a version of BIND prior to 8.2.2 patchlevel 5, we recommend you upgrade to the current version for security reasons. If you cannot upgrade, we recommend you use BIND Version 4.9.7 rather than any lower 4.x releases. It is possible to obtain older versions of BIND; they are, however, provided for reference only and should not be used."
The judge actually said: "I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success" - that means the judge thinks there is no doubt that the plantiffs will win. PI's are not easy to get and especially against multiple plaintiffs like this.
In order to get a primilinary injunction you not only have to prove to the judge that you are being wronged and the law is broken but that you have a very high degree of probability that you will win the case! You have to give facts under oath and sworn statements to support it. The judge listens to both sides and very frequently the judge will decided that any damage done could easily be remedied by a money fine later so won't grant the PI - getting one means the judge is strongly convinced the case has merit AND will succeed.
You wrote: 3. plays them back over a unencrypted output ( the video/audio connections ), thus allowing me to copy them to any device that accepts video input e.g. my RCA VCR, my computer via my Pinnacle DC30 capture card, et. al.
Ever tried it? The output is protected by macrovision. Go ahead, record the output from your DVD on your VHS. Now, play it back (looked great while recording didn't it?) -- suprise. Garbage.
From a wired article: The developers of DeCSS, a Norwegian group called MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering) got a key by reverse-engineering the XingDVD player, from Xing Technologies, a subsidiary of RealNetworks.
You might notice that the XingDVD player has a license agreement. That license agreement VERY specifically makes it illegal to reverse engineer their program. http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/2 0000114-pi-eddy-dec/20000114-pi-eddy-dec -03.gif
The law was broken starting there. Next, it was used to remove encryption from DVDs so they could be played without using the licensed decryption system CSS. Whether you like it or not, that is how DVDs are supposed to be played.
To the person who commented that current DVD players might be covered by this injuction cause he stated that the output is unencrypted - anyone who's tried to videotape the output from a DVD knows that it's guarded by a macrovision type of system. You can view it but can't record it (without, again, a descrambling device designed to get around the copy protection).
DeCSS was designed to make it possible to bootleg DVDs easily. MoRE and Jon didn't deny it (until they were sued). Explain the sites like dvd-copy that very proudly yell out their bootlegging intentions? Come on people - you are just bitching because someone took away a pirating tool you wanted. This is like complaining when the satelite company EMPs yer bootleg DSS card. Or the cable company busts you for that "test" box.
Anyone claiming this is about freedom of speech has not clue 1 about what that means. The Supreme court made it clear, freedom of speech does not permit copyright violation, ever.
All I'm hearing is the cry of babies who can't bootleg movies for free. Is there ANYONE who would really stand up and honestly say: But, I'm so worried my DVD will become corrupted so I need to make a backup to my hard drive and for safety I think I'll post it in nicely rar'ed chunks to alt.binaries.movies so others will have it in case I lose it.
No linux player? Boo-hoo - pay the money to license the decoder like everyone else! You are not exempt.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact: DeCSS circumvents CSS
Fact: That is, currently (like it or not), illegal.
Fact: The judge has no choice but to do easy math: 1+1=Defendents lose.
Fact: The defense has provided the most worthless witnesses, (one "Internet Expert" had no knowledge of OC48 or great capacity in use today, Corley claims he knows of no one today with a hard drive large enough to store a DVD movie (4 gigs). Another expert tried to testify (goaded by defense attorneys) that the internet simply cannot handle the burden of thousands of 650 meg DIVX encoded DeCSS ripped DVDs being exchanged (despite hard proof on usenet daily/hourly).
Fact: The prosecution has only to make the most minimal argument, doesn't have to prove piracy, and has had more help from defense screw ups than it's own experts (which step by step show exactly how DeCSS is used bypass CSS (case proved) and then show how easy it is to make a DIVX movie and go into IRC and exchange it for another bootleg).
Fact: The Livid "expert" probably did more damage to the entire case than did corely himself. He was even busted twice of lying in his deposition (was he lying then or lying now?)
Fact: Corley is either lying or the most ignorant computer newbie on the block. He doesn't understand the most basic fundamentals of what he writes and claims he has no idea who almost anything he's involved in works.
Fact: Corley claims their website crashes daily when it's log file gets too big (must be a common problem for unix based systems I guess) and so they simply removed the log file. Then when popularity increased, their hit counter caused their site to crash when it was being called too often so they removed that too. This way he can claim, "gee you honor, I have no idea if my for-profit website has received more traffic than ever in it's existance before"
Fact: A perfectly legal, authorized DVD player for Linux will be produced by someone who took the time to apply and pay for the license and ANY possible defense based on "We linux users deserve to play DVDs for free" will evaporate.
Guess: The defense will lose and have no grounds for appeal which will be denied.
Look, it's really quite simple. DeCSS's primary purpose is to remove CSS protection so you can copy the VOB file and do what you will with it. The copy part is a subfunction. Look at it's name if you really need a clue. Read way way way back when it was first released as the author proudly proclaims it's for ripping DVDs. Visit the crop of new MPEG4/DivX sites that give very specific instructions with screen shots on how to use DeCSS (or newer, better iterations based on the same stolen technology) to rip a DVD, including menus and special features and how to compress them and how to make VCDs or standalone MPEGS/AVIs from them. To pretend this is not the case is to be utterly ignorant of the truth - I suspect you are being intentionally ignorant of these facts. And they are facts. When I can find for you dozens upon dozens of full lenght DVDs posted to alt.binaries.movies that proudly list "DeCSS" in their subject line your "for educational purposes only" reverse engineering claim goes no where.
I'm glad you printed out 1201(2) - anyone reading it and who has the balls to admit what we all know DeCSS does can now so very clearly see exactly what law was broken and how your claimed defense fails.
You are right about the two filings - I missed them, they were so minor. I stand corrected. However, all significant rulings have gone their way, I expect this to continue.
And, if you have ever been involved in depositions you'd recognize the behaviour in these depositions, Valenti couldn't have been better couched, he was perfect. He gave the defense NOTHING - and that is the ultimate best case scenario. A deposition is not admitable in trial UNLESS contradicted by something the same witness says in court. So, Valenti gave them nothing. They continue to flounder desperately looking for their angle.
I'm sure you didn't mention unconstitutional because you must realize it's not - and the judge has ruled and ruled again and again that it's not.
No, I don't work for any of them and I'm not trolling. I just am not a hypocrite and don't pretend that I expect everything in life to be free and given to me on a silver platter and every time someone running an alternate OS gets something I whine like a baby that Linux should have it for free!
DeCSS is designed to circumvent CSS - that's it. Nothing else. it's not an educational experiment, it does not even remotely quality for reverse engineering for education or review. Please do not try to insult us by pretending otherwise. DeCSS is designed to remove the CSS encryption, that's all it does, that's it's designed for purpose and exactly what it accomplishes. Bypassing the region code is a byproduct.
Oh, your point #4 is completely inaccurate, try actually reading the law, I have. MPAA can't? You mean, haven't yet - they've won every filing they've made and the defense has lost every one. Expect this trend to continue. Corely is a test case - unfortunately his representation is hopelessly outclassed, their depositions hover over useless territory and pick on old men outside of the focus of the case. They waste the courts time and anger the judge, I expect a quick trial. Next you'll be telling us Napster is not used to bootleg MP3s of copyrighted music.
I love it - what screen shot is provided? The Matrix. Um... gee, just how did they get that Matrix DVD image into DivX format? A little DeCSS help perhaps?
DeCSS + DivX is exactly what the MPAA has been talking about. You can rip a DVD into a very nice quality movie that can fit onto a CD and is easily downloaded from usenet after it's been RARed.
I wonder if there is anyone out there who still thinks DeCSS wasn't built for the strict purpose of ripping DVDs, just as Divx's only purpose is to make the ripped files smaller while retaining decent quality... ya know (wink wink) for all those legit movies you are copying (the ones YOU personally have the copyright to because you cannot even copy a DVD you own).
Of course, by the time the linux Divx playback is working, we'll be running mpeg-4 proper. alt.binaries.movies is the largest usenet group by a nice margin - and nothing but Divx encoded, DeCSS ripped DVDs. I think the MPAA will have no problem proving it's case...
Oh really? Then explain why no one has been able to do it - despite EVERYONE trying (including frustrated ones trying to do DoS attacks on the keyservers). The version of events is incomplete and inaccurate, it's not a "sure, go ahead" that comes back from the master servers, it's an exchange of encrypted keys and unique messages. Like I said; it hasn't been done despite more attempt than any other game I know of. That's proof enough for me.
If you examine the code you'll see that the JPG and JPEG files are deleted, yes, but MP2 and MP3 files are marked with the Hidden Attribute.
Does anyone know where we can find the actual text of this latest filing? A PDF would be prefered. I would like to see exactly precisely what the MPAA wrote as opposed to reading a quicky summary from a web magazine.
mySQL could not perform the TPC benchmark. Period. Never. It does not have the functionality. It's fast because it's a crippled subset of real SQL. Price/Performance? Did you actually READ any of the configs? The price of the OS and SQL software is almost meaningless in the totals. A difference of maybe 1%? Linux doesn't have a SQL server that can run in this class. Period.
There is a post that accurately reports that the boxes used to launch the recent DoS attacks were *nix boxes, not Windows boxes. It's slashdotted out of existance and then pulled.
... it takes a leaked internal memo for this to come out?
ZDNet posts an article with NO proof or a shred of evidence (do you HONESTLY think that MS, after what's happened with the DoJ and how much is riding on W2K's release) would, whoops, accidently let anti-MS ZDNet get sight of an "internal memo" that exposes 63,000 "bugs" (I'll skip how even that is a huge deviation from what I, a programmer, consider a bug to be) just a week before release?
I know this is Slashdot, I know anti-MS is popular and I'll be moderated into hell but, I couldn't not write. Honestly people, you do not have to like MS to take a moment and use your brains and think: Gee, doesn't that sound incredulous? W2K was in public beta with 750,000 people and is currently used to run 10,000 web servers and IBM is rolling out 300,000 units in the next 6 months and it is already running huge huge e-commerce sites (on beta code originally!) AND NO ONE NOTICED 63,000 bugs? I'm sorry, but one itty bitty bug in IE and the slashdot has headlines, 63000 bugs in a system reviewed by 750,000 and
Please people - promote your choice of OS, piss on MS if you like - but to believe in such utter nonsense really destroys credibility.
My $.02 - you can moderate this down but you WILL be metamoderated l8r.
db
Can you list the 63000? can you provide this internal memo? Can you prove it ever existed? don't talk without foundations
Most cable modem systems now employee upload throttles, like @home - 12.8k max upload
No, I didn't say default port and didn't mean that. BO2K on NT is pretty much non-existant; BO on Win9x machines, big deal, if it was there, how many Win9x machines are hooked up to big enough pipes (and not behind firewalls) to make a difference?
BO2K worked on NT - I should have said BO2K.
Good luck finding a NT box with BO loaded. Our security consultant's firm has been doing huge net searches for BO so they can then go in and advise the company (for a fee, of course) of the threat they didn't know they had... they can't FIND it. It's such an old story and detection and extermination for it is so common (BO2K could be detected and erased before BO2k itself was released) that I doubt you'll find any BO NT boxes out there to 'ploit.
14 Defendants contended that DeCSS was intended only to permit persons in lawful possession of copyrighted disks to play them for their own use on computers running under the Linux operating system rather than Windows. Tr.
Indeed, they suggested that this is the only possible use of DeCSS and that DeCSS does not permit the user to copy DVDs.
But the arguments are unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, defendants have submitted no evidence---as distinguished from unsubstantiated assertions at oral argument---to support these contentions.
Second, even if DeCSS wereintended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case.
=============
Fair use does NOT give you the right to circumvent the access controls the copyright owner puts in place - the copyright owner OWNS the work, NOT YOU. You own the physical DVD disk but the copyright owner owns the data on it (movie, audio, whatever). The copyright owner can decide how you are permitted to access this data - it's the copyright owners right to do this. If an author decides you can only have it in hardcover then you are not allowed to reprint it in softcover just cause you want it that way - it's not yours to do with as you please.
Folks - no one is trying to take DVD playback away from Linux, they are just dictating the terms, they have that right. And you have the right to say "screw that" but you do not then have the right to break the law to circumvent them. That's it, that's all. It's not us vs. them. Windows has a DVD player ONLY because someone paid for the right - Linux could too if someone (think IPO million$) would pay for one too.
The judge NO WHERE says you canNOT play DVDs under Linux some day. He is saying that you cannot bypass the established way which is to pay for the license for a decryption key from the CSS JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS TO! That is the point to hammer home. Linux, like any other OS, can have a legal DVD player - someone just has to pay for the license. It's really that simple. The judge is NOT making playing DVDs you own illegal - just that you have to do it the legal way. That's it.
I continue to be suprised that all the bright people still don't get it.
No one is trying to prevent you from viewing DVD under linux!
Let me repeat: You CAN have a DVD player for Linux legally and with the full blessings of everyone in hollywood, at every studio and the MPAA and every attorney they could name.
The beef is: someone has to pay the license fee, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE USING EVERY OTHER OS ON THE PLANET!
That's it folks. It's as simple as that. If some IPO rich Linux developer(company) would just spend some of their money on the community instead of pocketing it and paid the license fee (like xing did, like everyone else did) then Linux too could have a fully legal DVD player too. Said developer(company) could give it away free too, nothing stopping that either.
So - really - get back to the basics. That's what it's really about.
Now - if you don't *like* that then you need to petition and yell and scream ABOUT it - but what you do NOT do is make things worse by screaming: we don't like it so we're gonna keep breaking the law until they change it!
Think about it, why would anyone want to prevent viewing DVDs under Linux? A larger audience for the product=more sale$ - these studios DO want you to view DVDs under ANY OS you'd like, (last repeat) they just want you to do so playing by the same rules EVERYONE ELSE does. Linux programmers & users are not exceptions to the law (whether you like a particular law or not).
Remember, protest, petition, boycott, make them change the law/rules you don't like. That is your responsibility and constitutionally confirmed right. But, you have NO rights if you choose to break the laws as they exist today.
Think: When is the last time you heard of a law changed cause everyone broke it? Linvocates are doing more harm than good when they call the judge and attorneys in these cases vile names on websites you KNOW will be admited as evidence. They are hurting all parties involved when they spam the source code on sites named in the very suit they are angry about.
my $.02
If there is any non-bias at /. then this post will not be moderated away. No flamebait or trolling just wanna clear a couple of points up ALL using the provided story URL.
/. wants users to perceive it. That's not accurate or fair.
.htw files until the patch can be applied.
#1: The patch, released by Microsoft on Wednesday, repairs two different security bugs in Microsoft Index Server, the more egregious of which allows hackers to view files stored on a target Web server. Index Server is an add-on to Windows NT 4.0 and is built into Windows 2000 (in the form of Indexing Services).
As you can clearly see, these bugs affect an *add-on* product present in NT4 which became built-in to Windows 2000. This is not a W2K only bug which is how
#2 The bug was discovered AFTER W2K went gold. They have released a patch for NT4 and W2K both that works right now for both. So, before W2K is released there is a fix. I don't know about you but as soon as I finish installing Windows I rush to Windows Update to bring me up to date fully (CDs get old fast). ANYONE installing W2K would/should run Windows Update and will be covered.
#3) You have to know the names of the files on the remote system before they can be viewed if the exploit existed. That's not exactly getting root here ya know?! Let's not overinflate the damage potential.
#4) The exploit itself was reported to MS promptly and fixed quick. The exploit is on the finders website and includes how to prevent the exploit from working. #1) you left the IISAMPLES directoy in place - stupid admin trick #323, delete or rename them before making the machine public and #2) you just disassocate
Why don't we get a weekly update on Linux exploits and only bias pieces about MS problems?
Do you really think this member of MoRE, an admitted cracker, PAID for a CPP copy of W2K? His other machines are linux and freebsd - no $ here. THERE is your need for a major reality check. There were no localized versions for his country and CPP was only available in limited areas and he is not in one of them. I think it's MORE than safe to say it's a pirated copy.
I'm suprised it took the government THIS long to take him down. Countersuit? He won't have a suit left after they finish with him. It IS legal to reverse engineer there - but NOT for the purposes of using that info to steal intellectual properties, which he did.
CSS was not decoded, decrypted, or decompiled (at all) on linux. Xing DVD Player 2.03 did not encrypt its CSS decrytion key, so running a program that detects exactly what Xing is doing as it loads a DVD shows it using the key, once they had 1 key, they guessed at others. It was done on windows, for the purpose of releasing the CSS source in the attempt to get a linux DVD player. The reason was not to create a program to decrypt DVD video files for download. And as for all this crap about DeCSS, it was not the first program that was created that did that! DODs Speed Ripper (aka dodsrip) came out before DeCSS as a DOS proggie, it could decrypt almost all but WB DVD's, it was later fixed by the author of dodsrip, but before the new fixed version was released, DeCSS authors heard about it, their program already created but not released thinking that there was no point until the problem was fixed (something new to add). They somehow learned of the reason why it couldn't decrypt WB movies (they did not steal it) and released DeCSS. A Wired.com reporter heard of DeCSS and wrote an article, saying DVD encryption was cracked. This came out after numerous programs that already copied DVD's were out. DVD Rip could download the video files using an Xing exploit at a 1:1 ratio (still need to convert to mpeg-1). DVD2MPEG could load a dvd and using the Win98 DVD player capture each frame and immediatly encode into mpeg-1 at a 1:5-1:10 ratio. Panasonic MPEG-1 Encoder could encode MPEG-2 (DVD/VOB) into MPEG-1 using Intervideo and LSX filters at a 1:5-1:10 ratio (DVD2MPEG actualy uses Panasonic mpeg-1 enco. plugin, but with the plugin you dont need to download the vob to your hdd). There were even more then that. Now copying DVDs to VCDs is as simple as a owning a DVD-ROM, getting DeCSS or dodsrip, getting Panasonic MPEG-1 Encoder plugin and FlasK Encoder. With those things, you can download the DVD's VOB's with DeCSS or dodsrip, install the MPEG-1 encoder and hooke it up with FlasK, then using FlasK, get VCD/NTSC/PAL or a MPEG (nonVCD compliant) in as little as little as 10hours, total; speed and quality depends on the OS (win9x/win2k), the RAM and speed of your comp and other activities it was doing while encoding. For more info check out http://www.dvdpiracy.com , http://www.opendvd.org , #pcdvd on EFnet. You do need a DVD-ROM
We run Netware 4 and 5 at our shop and a few months back tried upgrading to Windows 2000. It was a nitemare and I'm sure glad we did it on a test subnet instead of the whole thing. Not only did W2k break the DNS servers we use externally but it's Active directory shit killed the NDS we had working. It was like a pervasive virus that just sucked up resources (saturated our 100 mb/s switches with replication data) and we started having login problems where none existed before! Amazing that this crap actually made it out of beta (or, hmmm, maybe it didn't!)
The Novell claims against this MS crap are legit and should be required reading for anyone considering ruining their existing network with this Windows 2000 crap!
now, if I can only get more of those netware boxes running linux... netware makes for a decent file/printer server but just sux when it comes to internetworking. Netware 5's IP support is weak, incomparable to any Linux implementation!
Novell's Claim: "Did you know that Windows 2000 DNS server will CRASH just about every non-Microsoft DNS server in existence? Only the very, very latest versions of BIND (which aren't widely deployed) won't crash when interacting with a Windows 2000 server."
t ins/novellpart3.asp
:(
Microsoft's Perspective: Microsoft recognizes the need to work well in non-Microsoft DNS environments and would not release a product that crashes in such a way. Moreover, Novell has not provided any factual evidence of these claims, and does not explicitly mention which versions of BIND may crash when interoperating with the Windows 2000 DNS Server.
Microsoft has tested Windows 2000 for DNS interoperability with the following:
Active Directory with BIND 8.1.2
Microsoft DNS (client & server) with BIND 4.9.7, 8.1.2 and 8.2
It is also important to note that the Internet Software Consortium (the developers of BIND) makes the following recommendation because of known problems with versions of BIND other than 4.9.7 and 8.2. (Refer to the ISC Web site):
"If you are running a version of BIND prior to 8.2.2 patchlevel 5, we recommend you upgrade to the current version for security reasons. If you cannot upgrade, we recommend you use BIND Version 4.9.7 rather than any lower 4.x releases. It is possible to obtain older versions of BIND; they are, however, provided for reference only and should not be used."
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows2000/news/bulle
of course, since this isn't a anti-MS lie it will be moderated down
The judge actually said: "I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success" - that means the judge thinks there is no doubt that the plantiffs will win. PI's are not easy to get and especially against multiple plaintiffs like this.
In order to get a primilinary injunction you not only have to prove to the judge that you are being wronged and the law is broken but that you have a very high degree of probability that you will win the case! You have to give facts under oath and sworn statements to support it. The judge listens to both sides and very frequently the judge will decided that any damage done could easily be remedied by a money fine later so won't grant the PI - getting one means the judge is strongly convinced the case has merit AND will succeed.
You wrote: 3. plays them back over a unencrypted output ( the video/audio connections ), thus allowing me to copy them to any device that
accepts video input e.g. my RCA VCR, my computer via my Pinnacle DC30 capture card, et. al.
Ever tried it? The output is protected by macrovision. Go ahead, record the output from your DVD on your VHS. Now, play it back (looked great while recording didn't it?) -- suprise. Garbage.
From a wired article:
2 0000114-pi-eddy-dec/20000114-pi-eddy-dec -03.gif
The developers of DeCSS, a Norwegian group called MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering) got a key by reverse-engineering the XingDVD player, from Xing Technologies, a subsidiary of RealNetworks.
You might notice that the XingDVD player has a license agreement. That license agreement VERY specifically makes it illegal to reverse engineer their program. http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/
The law was broken starting there. Next, it was used to remove encryption from DVDs so they could be played without using the licensed decryption system CSS. Whether you like it or not, that is how DVDs are supposed to be played.
To the person who commented that current DVD players might be covered by this injuction cause he stated that the output is unencrypted - anyone who's tried to videotape the output from a DVD knows that it's guarded by a macrovision type of system. You can view it but can't record it (without, again, a descrambling device designed to get around the copy protection).
DeCSS was designed to make it possible to bootleg DVDs easily. MoRE and Jon didn't deny it (until they were sued). Explain the sites like dvd-copy that very proudly yell out their bootlegging intentions? Come on people - you are just bitching because someone took away a pirating tool you wanted. This is like complaining when the satelite company EMPs yer bootleg DSS card. Or the cable company busts you for that "test" box.
Anyone claiming this is about freedom of speech has not clue 1 about what that means. The Supreme court made it clear, freedom of speech does not permit copyright violation, ever.
All I'm hearing is the cry of babies who can't bootleg movies for free. Is there ANYONE who would really stand up and honestly say: But, I'm so worried my DVD will become corrupted so I need to make a backup to my hard drive and for safety I think I'll post it in nicely rar'ed chunks to alt.binaries.movies so others will have it in case I lose it.
No linux player? Boo-hoo - pay the money to license the decoder like everyone else! You are not exempt.