Slashdot Log In
Jon Johansen's Answers to Your DeCSS Questions
from the fighting-the-goood-fight dept.
1) About the cops...
by ronfar
Did the arresting officers say or do anything that blatantly hinted that they were doing this because of pressure from the MPAA or the United States government? What kinds of questions did they ask during the interrogation? Were they looking for other
The MPAA filed charges and the police was forced to investigate. There was a debate program on TV [ Redaksjon 21 ] where judging from the district attorney's comments, she meant that there was no doubt that I was guilty [ and this was before they had actually started investigating ]. She also compared me with an old case where a guy had sold "pirate-cards" for decoding paytv channels, and had earned tens of thousands of dollars. Luckily the biggest inet/computer guru [ Gisle Hannemyhr ] was there too, and the district attorney and the MPAA's lawyer were left biting the dust. Just one thing: if the police actually had any competence, they wouldn't have brought charges against me, because they would have known that they're plain lies. During the interrogation they asked all kinds of questions. Every detail, no matter if it was important or not, was to be included. IMHO, the only reason they seised my computers was in order to try to track down the two other members of MoRE.
2) Support in Norway?
by cetan
Have you found any support from people (aside from family) in Norway? Has the public reaction to the arrest been favorable (i.e. in support of you) or negative?
The public reaction has been in support of me. Almost the entire norwegian press supports us. The norwegian computer community, "led" by Gisle Hannemyhr, also supports us. Several norwegian computer companies have sent their support [ and told horror stories about the police' computer competence ] and offered me jobs. Last Friday I accepted WAPFactory's offer. WAPFactory works with WAP and interactive/digital tv. They recently bought wap.com for 0,5 million USD
3)Question
by JamesSharman
Now you know about all the hassle that has resulted from your posting DeCSS, the arrest, the press attention etc.. If you could go back and change your mind about posting it, would you?
All the press attention has been quite a strain. There have been times where I disconnected my phone just to get some peace. I can't remember doing much homework last week. I do not regret posting DeCSS. It's very important that we stand up against these multibillion corporate interests who seek to dominate with their proprietary standards. It's in consumers interest to be able to make a free choice from whome or where to buy products. Last, but not least, I've never really "fought one" for Linux. I guess this is my way of getting back at Gates for those GPFs ;-)
4) Programming background
by jstepka
Where did your original programming experience
come from? I'm speaking in terms of your ability to reverse
engineer the encryption and apply the key in a
useful manner.
Well, first of all, the reverse engineering was done by our german member who wrote the decryption code. My programming days started when I was 11-12 years old. Started off with basic and then moved on to c, c++ and assembler. I've learnt a lot by working with others over the Internet. Greetings go out to all my friends in "you know which coding channels" ;-)
5)Why Windows?
by Kupek
I think that the charges you are facing is rather ridiculous, but I have to wonder: Why Windows? If the motive of you and the group you worked with was to have a DVD player for Linux, why release this program that works only under Windows?
While this was being worked on, Linux did not have UDF [ the filesystem used on dvds ] support. It was thus natural to implement it under Windows in order to test if it actually worked. [ Yes, I've used Windows, nobody's perfect
6) Is there a legal defense fund? Can I contribute?
by Anonymous Coward
It seems like the MPAA has just about unlimited amounts of cash, and I'm guessing you don't. Do you have somebody taking care of funding your defense (i.e., the EFF), or can I send some money to a legal defense fund for you?
The EFF is currently putting together a team of lawyers. It's hard (very hard) to get pro-bono lawyers in Norway, and whether they'll be picking up the bill themselves, or setting up a fund, has yet not been decided. Sorry for not being able to give any more specific info at this time. EFN [ Electronic Frontier Norway - "the norwegian EFF" ] have also been discussing whether or not they should set up a fund.
7)Public Reception
by Wah
In discussing this topic with "regualr people" (those folks who don't live and breath tech) I've found general support for the people and very little for the MPA(A).
What, IYHO, is the general reception you have felt about this issue? Have you been able to explain your position and have it understood? What are some of the stranger assumptions you have come up against?
It seems as if we've got strong support from the whole public, with a few exceptions. While many ordinary people do not understand the technical aspects of the case, they do understand that this is a "corporate interests vs. consumers"-fight. The biggest problem has been trying to explain non-tech people that encryption does not prevent copying.
8) A question of laws in your country.
by Vladinator
Are "Shrink wrap" agreements enforcable in your country, and are you as a 16 year old subject to contract law? In the us, 16 year olds cannot enter into a contract, I'm wondering if it's the same with you.
Shrink wrap agreements are enforcable only if they are in accordance with norwegian law. You have to be 18 years old to sign [ agree to ] a contract in Norway. Your right to reverse engineer can not be taken away by contract. License agreements during software installation, however, would not hold up in Norwegian court (AFAIK). Not like this is a problem anyway, just decompile the installation package and there you have the files.
9)What Should We Do?
by Syn.Terra
As is a (thankfully) usual reaction to such a blatant injustice, the Slashdot community (and many others) have been scrambling to figure out ways to help you and others prosecuted in the name of this whole DeCSS fiasco.
As one (if not the) most persecuted individual as a result of DeCSS, what do you think the rest of the supporting world should do to help you out? What should the people who want to help do, besides the obvious posting of the DeCSS source and the general badmouthing of the MPAA?
As many as possible should write their local newspapers [ + other media ] and inform them about this injustice. It's also important to get every computer professional to understand that this is a case of freedom of speech. If the MPAA wins this one, I think DeCSS will become the first computer program in the history to be declared illegal. Banning a combination of assembly instructions... Imagine that!
mvh/Regards,
Jon Johansen
jlj@linuxdvd.org
Martyr (Score:4)
Thanks for the informative answers.
What we shouldn't forget is that Jon is just one of the most highly visible scapegoats for the MPAA and their Police subdivision. We must help Jon with his fight, or it will be us, next.
If there's a fund set up for his defense, I will be one of the first to contribute.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
Point 9 (Score:4)
We can never win a fight if our side of the story is never heard, don't forget these people are scared of hackers they can't tell whose a hacker, whose a cracker and who is a cival rights fighter with a pocket protector.
sparkes
*** www.linuxuk.co.uk relaunches 1 Mar 2000 ***
Writing for support. (Score:5)
Smart Kid (Score:5)
I'm afraid to imagine what this whole DeCSS fight would be like if the one responsible for starting it was a 3133t cracker dude who's only goal is to fsck the system. Joe had the right motives, did it the right way, and we should all be thankfull that he is not buckling under the threat of punishment.
PS: I'm wearing my DeCSS source code shirt to work today, and if I have to explain it means one more time, I'm going to go nuts.
Finkployd
A DeCSS bedtime story (Score:5)
Feel free to distribute this or run it through any Perl scripts you have lying around.
--GnrcMan--
critical thinking (Score:2)
Basically, encryption is no different than 'security through obscurity'. If someone has figured a way through your obscurity, than tough luck!!!
Where are the other two? (Score:5)
Jon Johansen is one smart guy (Score:2)
Personally, I think Jon's best bet (after the EFF's fiasco in the US), is to study law and fight this himself. (Treat it like a computer problem! The output doesn't have to make sense, just the logic.)
I'd give good odds that, if he did that, he'd win. His comments here, and elsewhere, show that he's got a sharp mind (as if DeCSS didn't prove it).
Personally, though, if I'd got the entire movie industry out for my blood, I'd be asking for Asterix and Obelix. They may be fictional, but so are the movie industry's arguments, so there shouldn't be a problem there.
Mind you, I don't think Jon Johansen would say no to some of that potion, if anyone has the recipe. :)
Shame of it is... (Score:5)
Now, like most of you, I agree that it's a stupid law and that the MPAA is acting like pricks. Doesn't bear on the il/legality of what's being done, though.
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
But, no, instead, we have a bunch of ill-informed, self-righteous crackers who are not impressing the judges in any positive manner. At the rate things are going, MPAA will win and retain its right to tell you that you can't play back your DVD on unlicensed equipment.
Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be learned: maintain the high road.
--
Stenographic stories (Score:2)
Novel approach however what if I do something like this:
Once upon a time there was a little lizard and he crawled upon a piece of paper that said
"Dear GnrcMan
I will plan to attack torture, rape, and murder you on the 22nd on this month. Before that I will play subtle mind games with you until at such time you will fold and collapse from the strain. This is protected speech so there!"
As the lizard crossed the paper he started thinking about all the flies he would eat that day.
=========================================
Ok so it's a little extreme but it still is protected speech because it's totally fiction rigtht? Not that I don't think that your example is pretty much but you have to admit that it can eventually get problematic.
One final note; you probably should run that story through a word wrap or similar. This is something that will make it easier for people to "read" your story.
More at Stake than DVDs. (Score:3)
First off, the response to the ninth question is the most threatening to our rights. If one computer program is declared illegal, it will set precendent for large corporations with more legal power than software writers to be able to sue the software writers and make the software "illegal." This is a pretty clear violation of the 1st. amendment, possibly the 4th. amendment (which in this century has been interpreted to support a right to private use of certain things). Furthermore, it will enable large companies to smash software that is a possible source of competition. There is a lot more at stake here than just being able to watch DVDs in any format you want.
Also, what happened to Jon is very bad. Non-american law enforcement fell under pressure of the Movie Industry of America and arrested him. He's not even within our borders, and these guys can influence his arrest. The kind of influence they weild is pretty intimidating, and they can afford the kind of lawyers that can trick non-technical judges (read: most judges) into believing whatever they tell them.
This is a bad thing. The rights of consumers are being violated, and most consumers don't even know it. I actually think most people in the US have been duped to be on the Movie Industry's side.
Basically, it doesn't look good, but we still need to stand up for what we know the truth to be. Tell your families, tell all the NON-TECH people you know about how the Recording Industry is trying to screw over their rights by blocking software that could take them out of the loop of every movie/player ever made.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Re:A DeCSS bedtime story (Score:3)
Re:A DeCSS bedtime story (Score:2)
Public understanding (Score:4)
I find an analogy helpful: "Just because something's written in a foreign language you don't understand, doesn't mean you can't photocopy it."
I'd like to contribute to a defence fund too...
Re:Smart Kid (Score:2)
Please don't go nuts, calmly and rationally explaining our position to laypeople is the best way to garner widespread public support. Taking the "you're too stupid to understand it anyway" route, and getting frustrated hurts the cause, if you don't have time to advertise, don't wear a billboard.
More clueful, yes, but for how long? (Score:5)
And please don't try to tell me that the answer is more government regulation. Any sentence with "more government" in it is automatically evil
(Yes, I am aware that Slashdot is hardly the right place for this kind of discussion. If I have interrupted your daydreaming about chipping Natalie Portman's underwear off, forgive me.)
Re:Smart Kid (Score:2)
http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0130-flyer/
I've already passed out several at work and Have posted them at the school. I even got one of my buddies to take them to a Microsoft technology meeting that was being held on campus, and he ran out(of about 30!) of them.
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
Re:Stenographic stories (Score:2)
I know it needs to be word wrapped and spell checked, and I'm not even positive that there are no errant single quotes. (Writing without contractions is hard).
Everyone: Feel free to correct, improve, or update the story. I spent very little time making it, and there is much room for improvement in all areas, including plot and style!
--GnrcMan--
I think we have a winner here! (Score:3)
We are very lucky
First, the MPAA lawyers forget to seal the exhibit that holds the code to DeCSS, so _everyone_ can link to it _legally_. I cracked myself laughin at that!
Second, they choose the wrong country (a country that actually cares about privacy, consumer rights and freedom of speech) and the wrong guy (a teenager that didn't even do the reverse engineering himself!) for their crusade.
Third, they try to sue the whole internet and try to make linking (basically telling somebody where he can find something) illegal.
The whole thing is bound to backfire. People is starting to pay attention to the legality of country codes and a protection squema that takes away legal "fair use" rights from the user.
On top of that, the business model holliwood companys base their operations (selling content as opposed to content serving) is been questioned.
Holliwood's stupidity is infinite!
Actually at fault? (Score:3)
Re:Banning Bits (Score:2)
Oh, I'm pretty sure you can consider things like the Internet Worm, some of the more malicious/virulent viruses, etcetera as illegal already.
Actually, there is nothing at all illegal about them as long as you don't actually use it! You can post the source to the worm on your website without any fear of civil or criminal liability. You can feel free to deploy it on your own network. The same applies to any other nasty virus/worm out there. Nobody I know of has done time solely for writing and making the code available, only when they let it loose or give it to sombody knowing that they intend to use it maliciously.
Bring on the Stallman! (Score:2)
What can we do to fight. Take two. (Score:5)
Well, start here:
As you find things which can come into play (other court cases which help our cause, loopholes or interpretations in the DCMA, etc.) correspond (politely) with the EFF attorneys who will be the point men in the fight. Equip them for the fight. This includes financial support, if you can come up with it.
fight to free the deCss code. Send it to local media outlets (all types: newspaper, tv stations, radio). Make noise, people!!
Just because "it's the law" doesn't make it legal. (Score:4)
All we need is a friendly judge and POOF DMCA goes bye bye.
It is a perfectly valid response to a "bad" law.
In the US it was illegal to help slaves escape, good people willingly broke that bad law.
This is a BAD law. It doesn't protect copyright holders anymore than the "war on drugs" helps drug addicts. This is about MONEY, pure and simple. It's a law that gives a copany the ability to extort money from their customers with the US government acting as their hired gun in a legal shakedown.
It must be stopped, if we break this law enough and they haul us into court we will get a friendly judge who will throw the case out.
I'm not even going to get into jury nullification.
LK
Hmmm... (Score:2)
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.
----
Re:More clueful, yes, but for how long? (Score:2)
considering the hegemony of the US in the global media, how long will it last - how much corporate effort will it take to make it so that all you know is what AOL-TimeWarner-EMI-WhoEverElse tells you - all over the world? If
you ask me (and I know you didn't), this is a scary thought.
Someone has to gather and process the data. Specialist magazines are always out there. Did you know that most of the intelligence data that we currently have is actually compilations from standard news sources. If you really want to know something there is nothing stopping you from being able to just go there yourself.
And please don't try to tell me that the answer is more government regulation. Any sentence with "more government" in it is automatically evil
democratically elected or not. The real question is, are there any other means to try and preserve our freedoms from a certain group, that do not involve giving more power to another group that - history has taught us - will eventually
turn around to stab us on the back and push an even more opressive regime upon us? Or is it by definition impossible (Individualists unite! and all that)?
Just for kicks:
MORE GOVENMENT is a bad thing!
Governments can actually do a better job because they need to care about what their voters think. If I am say a monopoly I dosn't have to care about anyone because I am the only supplier. I think it is largely impossible because people have greed and avarice. All these things make it quite interesting to deal with. You would have to have a group of people who try to enforce anarchy and that will eventuall turn into a form of government.
Theoretically you could have metamoderation of government and a peer review process which could make it a little better. However the constitution of the US was largely created so that things like the Third Reich will not as easily happen against a unpopular and small group.
(Yes, I am aware that Slashdot is hardly the right place for this kind of discussion. If I have interrupted your daydreaming about chipping Natalie Portman's underwear off, forgive me.)
I am not really impressed by good ol' Natalie I can think of dozens of different models and cartoon characters who are better than her any day of the week
I think that it has revelence due to the nature of the beast.
Re:Shame of it is... (Score:3)
I am aware of NO law which dictates how I can "play back" the content of those media, or which allows someone else to dictate it to me. Copyright law dictates how I can or cannot distribute it, but I can project the book on an overhead or point my camcorder at it and display it on my 50-inch TV if I want to, and nobody can tell me not to. I can OCR the book in order to grep the text (archival copying is fair use). I can play a CD or an audio tape through anything that can read it. Ditto for a videotape. If I want to sample the CD or frame-grab and edit bits of the video, I can as long as I don't go beyond the bounds of fair use... and anything that does not transmit copies of the content to someone else or keep copies after I have sent the original to someone else is most assuredly fair use.
We're just out to get the use of what we've paid for, without illegal product tying to a list of "approved" players. This is about interoperability, fair use and the free market. We are on the high road. What other road could it be?
--
Heh... Økokrim made fools of themselves... again! (Score:2)
Økokrim (the part of the norwegian police force that is responsible for investigating economic crime (and computer crime) has something like 10 persons responsible for investigating computer security related cases like industry espionage through computers and such.
Norway _is_ a small country (4 million souls or something) but just ten persons responsible for all the computer crime investigation in Norway is... hmm... too little. There are many computers in Norway.
Besides, an article in the norwegian tech magazine "Teknisk Ukeblad" stated that only one or two of those persons actually have computer/information technology related education, the rest of them are normal police or "legal people"... I'm wondering if they did at all understand what they were embarking on when they started investigating this case...
Anyway, I have to agree with Jon, the lady from Økokrim really made a fool of herself when she appeared in "Redaksjon 21"! I enjoyed it!
-- Anders Morken (I forgot my password and I don't want the hassle of retrieving it...)
amrkenatonlinedotnospampleasedotno - go figure...
Re:Shame of it is... (Score:3)
Could you tell me which US law states this? In the RIAA vs. Diamond Rio case the 9th circuit court said
Now, in fairness, this case was not about the DMCA since no encription was envolved, but was it really the intention of the DMCA to completely reverse the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992?
Encryption/Copying and the Public (Score:5)
Most people are aware that they can password protect their MS Money/Quicken files so no one else can read them. They are also aware they can copy those files and move them to other machines. I explain that the situation is the same (if a litte bit more complex) with DVDs. Namely, the fact that the stuff on the DVDs is encrypted does not prevent the stuff from being copied. It is like copying a Money file. The encryption simply prevents people without approved players from viewing. In other words, I can view a bootlegged DVD on my Sony DVD player, but I cannot play a DVD I legitimately bought on my Linux box. The reason: the Sony player has the password, without DeCSS, my Linux box does not.
You could, of course, avoid technology all together. The fact that I do not speak Norwegian does not prevent me from copying books written in Norwegian. It just prevents me from knowing what they actually say.
Re:Where are the other two? (Score:2)
I have a problem with that argument. If the other members have chosen to remain anonymous, how can this poster know what their reasons are? Do they run legal risks? Are they employed in a situation where knowledge of what they did might get them fired from a job they want or need?
It is great when someone is willing to attach his name to an accomplishment, but without knowing why the others have not come forward, I find it difficult to criticize them for not doing so. Is it not more important what they did than who they are?
Re:A DeCSS bedtime story (Score:2)
Talk shows... (Score:2)
So if you have a chance, listen to people like Art Bell, Michael Medved (sp?), G. Gordon Liddy, Mike Gallegher, et al. and if an opportunity presents itself, try calling in. If enough of us try, even if we don't get on right away, it may push them to discuss the whole situation on the air.
One warning about G. Gordon Liddy, I tried to call about Mitnick one time and Liddy vetoed me, even though the program director wanted to put me on the air. I still don't know why. But he seems like he'd be willing to listen to this issue.
funtax
Re:A DeCSS bedtime story (Score:2)
your story is--it can be run through a Perl script and then compiled--and thus fails the test.
Actually, if you were to run it through the Perl script in question, it would not compile. Human intervention would be required in order to get a compilable file.
This brings up another muddy area. This story shows just how fuzzy the line is. In order for this to be compilable machine instructions, you not only have to run it through a perl script, but you have to manually make changes to the output of the script. You also must have another file present.
Where is the line? Who knows!
Another point: If you told the typical man on the street that you were being legally enjoined from distributing a computer program, I suspect the typical response would be, "so? That's piracy, right?". When you frame it within a story like this, it's easier for someone with no knowledge of computers to relate.
Pass out paper copies, announcing to each person you give the story to, "I may be breaking the law by giving you this story on this piece of paper. It contains a secret that the movie industry does not want you to see."
--GnrcMan--
Yeah! Take that! But keep entertaining us, ok? (Score:4)
The bottom line is that just about everyone--and 100% of people with web access--want and enjoy what multibillion dollar corporations produce. Movies. CDs. CPUs. You can't make a stand against giant corporations unless you're willing to do without them. "Oh, yes, we hate the corporate interest that drives anti-piracy measures for DVDs! But we love the giant corporations that pour money into action movies and million-dollar-an-episode animated TV shows!"
In the end, this protest comes out looking dumb. We've shown that we're not willing to stand for measures that keep us from pirating movies, but we most certainly still want hundreds of million of dollars to be poured into movies so we can pirate them.
If you're really against multibillion dollar corporations, then you should be buying all your music CDs from local indie bands. You should be running Linux (though I have no idea on what CPU). And you shouldn't be watching Hollywood movies or TV *at all*.
Nukes, deCSS source, and Tom Clancy... (Score:3)
Plans for nuclear weapons circulate the web quite regularly. And the physics textbooks you's need to suplament these are availiable at any (good) library. Except for obtaining the enriched uraniu or plutonium, a nuclear bomb could be built in just about any well equipped university!
And it's perfectly legal to tell people how. The actual implementation is the part that's illegal.
Or, take illegal drugs. The Anarchists Cookbook contains the recipe for making LSD. It sells in any well-stocked Barnes&Nobles. Certianly not illegal. I can buy the book, read the recipie, distribute if I want, and that's all protected by free speech. Only if I actually cooked up a batch of acid in a lab would I be in violation of the law.
Or pick locksmithing files, or phone phreaking howtos, or explosives howtos. All describe actions that would be illegal, but the description itself is protected free speech.
I can't see how the source code should be looked at any differently than the "how to make a nuke" or "how to make acid" files. These, and the source code, should all be protected. Only the actual nuclear bomb/LSD/compiled binary is an actual product that could potentially cause harm.
At least that's the only intrepetation that makes any sence to me.
Oh and Tom Clancy was never TOLD to change his books. You're probably thinking of two instances:
1)
In the preface to The Sum of All Fears, Clancy mentions that he has modified the nuclear bomb production process to be inaccurate. He did this of his own volition to satisfy his own conscience. The DoD did not force him to.
2)
After The Hunt for Red October was published, he was brought in to be debriefed by the navy. He had guessed so accurately in that book (on things like SOSUS and the operating patterns of fast attack subs chasing soviet boomers for example) that the DoD thought he might have had access to classified information. Clancy was able to demonstrate that he deduced his guesses from a wide variety of non-classified sources that had already been released to the public. Again, he did not edit his book to appease the DoD. In fact THFRO caught the DoD by suprise BIG TIME!
john
Re:Not a martyr (Score:3)
I bet MoRE spent more manhours on reverse engineering and then writing their own expression of the algorithm, than Xing spent writing their expression of the algorithm. I don't think MoRE has treated their competitor, Xing, unfairly. If Xing spent additional money buying a CCA license instead of reverse-engineering it themselves, then that was just a bad business decision. Too bad.
And if DVD CCA spent millions of dollars developing this 40-bit encryption algorithm, then they were defrauded and should complain to their programmers. I could have come up with something just as good for far less money. Heck, I could have just repackaged 56-bit DES.
And keep in mind that whatever effort DVD CCA spent on developing this algorithm was effort expended in bad faith intended to hurt consumers. It is in direct conflict with fair use.
What DVD CCA did may even be illegal. Some people have pointed out that the region encoding is illegal in some parts of the world. And there's definately some anti-trust issues regarding product-tying involved here.
If I were to spend a lot of time and money developing The Perfect Scam, and someone were to expose me and ruin all my work, would you jump in to defend me, and accuse the person who exposed me of spreading socialist bullshit?
Take a good look at who the crooks are, and whose rights have been infringed.
---
Re:Where are the other two? (Score:2)
-----
10,000 Eyes == 1,000 Virtual Lawyers?? (Score:5)
However, that got me to thinking... Could the EFF use some help in reviewing old cases/decisions that MIGHT be relevant? Could a junior legal researcher just throw up a few hundred case names that all of us (the 1,000 eyes) could "read up on" and try to distill the points in the case and the decision to a few paragraphs? Then rate that information as to how useful we *think* it might be? Would that help the EFF lawyers to pinpoint the cases they need to look at while forming their strategy for the DeCSS cases?
I hope a lawyer out there is reading this and can advise us all on how pratical (or useful) such a thing might be. Free/Open Source software has always prided itself on the idea that 1,000s of eyes on the source makes for better code. Why don't we use that same idea to place 1,000s of eyes on our own legal system to make it better?
I for one would be willing to look at a few hundred pages of case records, devote a weekend or two (or 10) in directed law research, if it will help. The MPAA will spend millions (conceivably) on legal fees, so a hundred lawyers can spend a 1,000 hours each on preparing its cases.
We can do them one better - 10,000 technically astute hackers putting in 100 hours each. Even if we are only 1/10th as effective, we'd match their efforts.
Is is possible to Open Source the Defense of DeCSS? Most of us are frustrated that we can't do anything directly to help besides mirroring the code. If the EFF can use a few thousand hands I think most of us are willing and able to lend them.
Boycott (Score:2)
Close. Boycott everything associated with the MPAA. That means:
With all that new free time: you should find plenty now free to write letters to editors, do a little clothes shopping [copyleft.net], talk to your friends and colleagues about the situation, send a contribution to EFF [eff.org], or maybe even join the Call to Action [2600.org].
Personally, despite a number of titles being on my wish list, I have neither purchased nor rented a single DVD since this started. Nor have I purchased or rented any tapes. Nor have I gone to any movies.
I wonder: do you suppose slashdot defaults to "flat" mode these days to improve its hit count?
Re:Where are the other two? (Score:2)
The lawsuit is bogus, why should they endanger themselves to satisfy hubris? Far smarter to have one guy be the stalking horse and let the other two continue to write the software we like.
Nothing the tech community does in regard to this case will ever make us look bad in comparison to the arrogance and stupidity of the MPAA.
Re:Shame of it is... (Score:2)
> that the copyright holder has the right to
> dictate the means of playback
Actually... Thats not entirely true.
There is debate over whether "Fair Use" covers
making personal copies of copyrighted works in
differnt mediums.
In fact, the question was so hotly debated that
it was decided that a law needed to be made to
clarify the issue wrt audio recordings. The
new law granted specific rights to make copies.
(of course...that new law was vague enough that
new debate came over whether it is legal to make
a copy for a friend)
The law is clearly vague on the issue of personal
copies and use.
> If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine,
> it doesn't have to and you can't legally do
> anything about it
Not necissarily. Again, this applies to audio and
I am unsure if it applies to other areas but...
copyright holders in some specific circumstances
are required to provide mandatory licencing..even
for distribution (usually it requires paying of
royalties) - of course...in this case that
may or may not be aplicable... IANAL.
> Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be
> learned: maintain the high road
Which begs the question...why is the legal high
road the only high road?
I, and others, believe that "when the law is wrong
it is right to break the law".
Your viewpoint is very legalistsic. You must
remember that not everyone is a legalist.
-Steve
Big Ordeal (Score:4)
I'm a healthy single guy with a good job but still some time on my hands so I would probably take the flack. However I can't say the same about the others. If I had a family with kids and/or a big time consuming job taking the flack would not be such a simple decision. It wouldn't just impact me but others who depend on me as well. For all I know I'm in a country that could react quite negatively toward such actions. Also if there is no legal defense fund or not a big enough one, it could get quite expensive too. It's hard to say why they're hiding, but I can't blame them.
Re:A DeCSS bedtime story (Score:2)
> his books because his informed guesses about
> certain top-secret weaponry were too accurate
> for the Navy's comfort...)
That fact disgusts me to no end.
I certainly hope he didn't change a word.
Or better yet I changed it...the tells all
about what he was asked to change in detail.
> For another, courts have sometimes drawn the
> line as to whether code is speech or not by
> whether it is machine readable.
I don't think JUST being machine readable is
a problem. In this case it IS a story and
source code.
I would think that is human readable enough to
be protected. The fact that it is machine readable
does not change the fact that it is a story and
is human readable "fiction".
Another way (Score:2)
Find a very large and unrelated text. At random intervals introduce "typos" which are the correct character shifted by the ascii code of the desired character (or, where this makes unprintable characters restrict your destination alphabet to printable characters). Given a sufficiently large text, the typos should be pretty unnoticeable on the whole, but if you know what you are doing you can rediscover the hiddend text. Or run an intelligent program with the output text against a dictionary, or original document, looking for typo's.
Does anybody have a large manifesto in which to hide the code?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Mood Music - Sued by the MPAA (Score:3)
by Justin Osborn
To the tune of: Back in the USSR by the Beatles
Reverse engineering that DVD
Hacking out the code last night
The cops came in and arrested me
Said I didn't have the right
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boy
Sued by the MPAA
Posted the source on my web page
They told me to cease and desist
The Slashdotters are so enraged
They won't stop 'til this case is dismissed
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boy
Sued by the MPAA
Well the MP double A is slow no doubt.
They're obviously out of their minds.
And John Valenti makes me pull my hair out
He's technologically blind
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boys
Sued by the MPAA
You can't get no DVD on your Linux box
It's ludicrous can't you see
They want you to pay them the big bucks
I deenctrypted for free
I'm sued by the MPAA
I gave the source code away boys
Sued by the MPAA
From one 16 year old to another, Go Jon!
Useful Link (Score:3)
Be prepared not to like what you read.
It appears that DMCA make simply "gaining access" to copyrighted material you already own illegal if it involves defeating technological protection measures. Note that this says nothing about having to make illegitimate copies.
There is a "reverse engineering" exception which might apply. I don't know, but I suspect that was slipped in to allow reverse engineering of file formats (e.g. to be able to read ms word documents). It is not clear whether this applies in the case of DeCSS, which allows you to gain access to copyrighted program material (albeit mainly useful for purposes most people would consider legitimate).
With regards to how this effects Norway, the technological protection method (TPM) parts are apparently laid out in Title 1, which implements the World Intellectual Property Organization Performance and Phonograms Treaty of 1996. If Norway is a signatory to this treaty, then the same rules apply there.
Frankly, as a US citizen, I think these measures are an affront to the spirit of our constitution (although given how far the technical niceties of the law are from the spirit of the constitution, DMCA may be literally constitutional while at the same time trampling on the intent of the Constitution). Congress is given a limited right to establish copyright to incent creators. While it would be absurd to say that DMCA is not in the interest of the members of the MPAA, it's also absurd to suggest that the MPAA members don't have sufficient incentive to create without it. And DMCA restricts ordinary users from using copyrighted material that any reasonable person.
For example -- suppose in a few years DVD is overtaken by a different optical disk standard. You can't buy an optical disk player that understands Css, and there is no software DVD player for Windows 2010. According to this unjust law, you cannot play your DVDs, even if you have a DVD compatible drive, because it would require that you work around Css.
We really need to get a congressional letter writing campaign going against this terrible law.
Jake Baker case demonstrates unprotected fiction (Score:3)
I think the real world answer is clearly not. The case of Jake Baker at the University of Michigan demonstrates this. Mr. Baker wrote a piece of sadistic "erotica" involving the eventual rape and murder of the woman in the story, and posted in in alt.sex.something-or-other. So far, protected speech, right? Wrong. The name of the "fictional" woman in the story just happened to be that of one of his classmates.
Somebody noted this, alerted Michigan authorities, and Mr. Baker was proscecuted for having issued a threat. Successfully too, IIRC.
Remember, even with the First Amendment free speech guarantee, free speech has never been held to be an absolute right in US law. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, slander and libel, obscenity, and death threats have never enjoyed protection.
Why the War is over (Score:4)
The DMCA allows copyrighted-content providers to encrypt their content to protect their property from unauthorized duplication. Notice that the law does NOT set any standards for the quality of the encryption, nor does it require it to be hardware or software. The DMCA makes it ILLEGAL to create anything that breaks this encryption for the purposes of copying. Again, no distinction is made between hardware or software.
My opinion on what MPAA's game plan was
It seems they had a four-pronged approach:
1.Some level of encryption to meet DMCA's definiton of encryption, and use of region codes to control DVD distribution.
2.Licensing of the decrypt-codes and region codes necessary to decode and play DVDs to DVD player makers.
3.Put the decrypt-codes and region codes on a specific track of authorized DVDs.
4.Getting all blank DVD makers to write all zeros to the track on the blank DVDs that would normally hold the decrypt-codes and region codes on authorized DVDs.
We all seem to be amazed at how relatively easy it was to crack the CSS. My opinion is that MPAA didn't care and probably expected it to be cracked eventually; their only concern is that it meet the definition of encryption in the DCMA. The use of region codes was just plain greed on the part of MPAA, and since it appears to be in violation of multiple international trade agreements, I expect they will go away at some point.
MPAA's MAJOR SCREW-UP
As we all know, you don't even need to decrypt the DVD to copy it, which is why MPAA didn't put much effort into the encryption scheme, IMHO. You can copy DVDs without decrypting them now, but since the decrypt-keys track is pre-written to zeros on all blank media, you can't play it on a DVD player. BUT, if you wrote the decrypt-code track to some pre-determined ALTERNATE track that wasn't written with zeros, and it was LEGAL to make players that looked for it on the alternate track, the whole scheme of pre-writing zeros on blank media would fail, without any violation of the DMCA, since the COPYING drive is not decrypting the source, and the PLAYING drive is not circumventing the encryption for the purposes of copying!! How did they plan to get around this? By licensing the DVD players, and as part of their license, prevent the DVD player makers from making players that look for the decrypt-codes on alternate tracks. And this is where MPAA's MAJOR SCREWUP comes in. They ASSUMED that anybody who would crack the CSS code would be motivated by profit, and would copyright their code and try to license it to player makers. Then, MPAA would go after the CSS crackers and stop them from licensing the cracked CSS code with the DMCA decryption laws. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM THAT SOMEBODY WOULD CRACK CSS AND PUT THE CODE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. With DeCSS in the public domain, there is nothing stopping DVD player makers from using the DeCSS code, and without the MPAA license, nothing to stop them from looking for the decrypt codes on an alternate track!! And nobody to stop from distributing the code.
So, in spite of MPAA's legal mumbo-jumbo, their real fear is that they will lose control of licensing DVD players, and therefor the ability to restrict DVD players from looking for de-crypt codes on an alternate track. So MPAA may have already lost the war. And this is why MPAA is now trying to put the Fear of God into anybody who has ever HEARD of DeCSS. The cat is out of the bag, they know it, and they are fighting for their very existence. If Jon had GPL'd the code, or any license that prevented commercial use (i.e.: DVD player makers), the only thing MPAA would probably be going after him for would be an agreement to NEVER sell or license the code or allow it's use in DVD players. I don't think the MPAA would scream much if Jon licensed his code, as long as it had the same provisions as the MPAA license. In fact, if Jon could still copyright his code, that might be his best bet for bringing this whole thing to an end.
Am I right?
Re:Can someone explain this Legalese? (Score:3)
That is, it is up to the court to determine the *intent* of the developer based on the developer's activities if the reverse engineering effort was done in order to properly achieve interoperability, verses the developer using the reverse engineering efforts to promote piracy.
Personally I find these sorts of distinction a little irritating, in that the court is left attempting to read people's minds to determine if a crime was committed or not. But it's not all that uncommon: most rape cases (for example) basically boil down to a "he said/she said", and factors such as what she was wearing and what he was drinking are used to assess the state of mind of the folks involved to determine if it was a rape or a misunderstanding. Or here in California, the difference between someone getting the gas chamber and someone getting 15 to 25 years is the "state of mind" of the murderer, often inferred by the type of magazines he read or the music he listened to. (That's the difference between premeditated homocide and the non-premeditated "heat of passion" variety.)
Unfortunately for the DeCSS folks, things like the logo "Masters of Reverse Engineering" at the bottom of the screen, or the web site www.dvd-copy.com proclaiming "How to find/trade FREE DVD Movies online" or the less skillful comments by folks here on
What is interesting in all of this, however, is that while the DeCSS code itself may go down the drain, it's quite likely that offshoots of the software, such as LiViD may wind up being found quite legal. That's because while the DeCSS program circulating around does little more than copy the VOD data to a hard disk, the LiViD software actually plays the movies. Thus, one could argue that even though LiViD makes use of the ill-gotten reverse engineering efforts of DeCSS, the intent of the developers of LiViD was to create a movie playback system which does fit within statue.
Further, even if all of the DeCSS stuff goes down the drain, we now have a roadmap on how to repeat the DeCSS effort in a way which would be construed as legal: by making sure that the intent of the development process is clearly outlined from the start to do nothing more than provide interoperability between Linux and DVD hardware on Linux boxes to play DVD movies.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the mantra: copying DVD movies is impossible because DVD burners don't hold enough data to copy a movie and because blank DVD-R disks have the CSS track prewiped to zero. But this is a week argument at best in that it is possible to play a naked