MPAA Sending Out DMCA Demand Letters 281
[Aside: The strategy here is fairly clear: file suit against a few individuals who can be characterized as "hackers", "copyright pirates" or whatever the appropriate derogatory term is today, wait until that story hits the press, then use a search engine and the whois database to locate and send scary letters off to hundreds or thousands of other sites which post or link to the LiViD code.
The MPAA realizes, of course, that they cannot file suit against everyone who has posted the css-auth code. So for the suits that it does file, it's important to pick people who call themselves "hackers" and can be characterized as thieves to the court, whether they've actually committed any offense or not. Thus they chose defendants such as 2600.com rather than more "respectable" individuals.]
Everyone Lawful Citizen Should Help Out (Score:1)
Abuse of process! (Score:1)
Mattel [sorehands.com] has been doing this with me! Mattel entered a countersuit because I posted the information about my lawsuit [sorehands.com] against them (mostly against companies they bought) on my website http://www.sorehands.com/mattel. Mattel entered a countersuit on libel, but when challenged, they dropped it. At the motion for summary judgment on Tuesday (1/18/00), Mattel moved to dismiss their coutnersuit. They claimed it was to let "the people involved to get on with their lives. I think they didn't want the judge to evaluate the facts and whack them. If they really wanted to drop it, they could have long before that.
Lawyers and companies always write "obey or die" letters. If it is a lawyer giving what can be construed as advice, they lawyer could be sanctioned.
RSI injured geek wins against Mattel, again! [sorehands.com]
DVD piracy IS possible without decryption. (Score:1)
Note that I've only just started looking into this so I may be wrong
You're wrong. Or, more precisely, you're incompletely informed.
please feel free to correct me.
Consider this the correction. The anti-copy key sector pre-embossing technique you describe assumes and depends on two things:
- The blank media was purchased from a "legitimate" MPAA approved manufacturer who obeyed the rules and pre-writes the sector reserved for the keys.
- The DVD copying hardware also obeys the rules and refuses to either read or write the decrypt key sector when copying a DVD.
The last time I was in Hong Kong, I purchased a copy of "Titanic" for about $5 US (I refuse to pay more for this movie, but my girlfriend loves it). It came in a plain jewel case, was the complete english version (including the no-copy warning at the beginning), and had an obviously photo-copied label in chinese, so I can only assume that it's a pirated copy. Thus the anonymous post. I don't want to get a letter from the MPAA lawyers too. The disc works perfectly on my girlfriends United States only DVD player. Obviously, somewhere out there is a source of blank DVD media that allows writing on the key sector, and a DVD recorder that can read and write that sector. Otherwise this disc could not exist.The CSS 'protection' scheme on DVD's (and all other distribution control schemes like it) depend solely on everyone involved being 'nice' and playing by the rules. The Digital Millenuim Copyright Act was created to force everyone to play by those same rules whether they like it or not. So for now, it should be pretty difficult to find blank DVD media and DVD recorders in the US that don't play along with the CSS rules. Don't think for a moment, though, that people in other countries will abide by these restrictions, DMCA or no. It's self delusional to believe nobody outside the US can make completely blank DVD media (including a blank key sector) or figure out how to make a recorder that can burn a full DVD (including the key sector). There are a lot of very clever people in China, and it is well within their abilities to do so. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the blank DVD media used in MPAA approved DVD's is manufactured in China already.
I think it's pretty irresponsible of the opendvd people to knowingly (this assumes they read their feedback email account) misrepresent the facts in this way -- especially to the media.
But they are not misrepresenting anything. They are completely correct. It is very possible to copy an encrypted DVD without ever decrypting it. There exists no physical reason preventing the copying of DVD's regardless of what encryption scheme is used on them. The IEEE article on DVD only list a set of guidelines for manufacturers creating blank DVD media and recorders that will negate the possibility of copying DVD movies, but only if those 'cooked' blank discs and recorders are used to make the copies. If you can get a supply of uncooked blank DVD disks and a non-MPAA approved recorder, you can copy all the DVD movies you want. And my girlfriend has a copied disc to prove it.
Re:Here's another idea. (Score:1)
Explain to them also that until the MPAA improves its behavior, you won't be going back to Suncoast Video to buy any more DVD's or other films.
Even better, beg, borrow, or steal a camcorder and film yourself as you return the DVD's and explain why. Then send copies of the tape to every local news station and news paper. Local news programs just love this sort of thing, and if they haven't been put to far under the heel of the MPAA and the companies it represents, they just might broadcast it. That will get the message out to the DVD buying couch potato public much better than any /. thread.
How long would it take? (Score:1)
WRONG. (Score:1)
The primary purpose of the LiViD software is to play dvd under linux. Not to pirate. Not to copy. The fact that encryption was bypassed is secondary. It does not define the purpose of the program. If playing could be accomplished without breaking encryption, it would be. Saying the LiViD software is illegal is like saying microwave ovens should be illegal because their primary purpose is to roast live infants and kittens. It's just stupid. Sure, it's an unpleasant possibility with a microwave. As is copying with the software in question. But that's not its primary purpose. So long as the court is kept straight on this point, all shall be well. I hope
--
Please, no... (Score:1)
Let's just set up "Slashmark--News for Lawyers. Stuff that's argued forever."
Also, anyone else here think lawsuits for linking to "blah" is lame? Can I sue a search engine yet?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Please, no... (Score:1)
Nah. I don't want PBS to sell out any more than they already have. I was pissed when they changed the Sesame Street intro to be more "hip". There are just some things in life you don't have to change. (But I'd happily have advertising on PBS if they didn't have to change *that*.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Please, no... (Score:1)
Look up Patent Stories...
0 TiVo Sued for Patent Infringement by Hemos on 03:24 PM January 20th, 2000 EST 135
1 Dolly Cloning Method Patented by Hemos on 12:06 PM January 20th, 2000 EST 71
2 Geoworks Demands Royalties For All WAP Apps by Roblimo on 10:42 AM January 20th, 2000 EST 187
3 PTO's New DNA Guidelines by Hemos on 11:24 PM January 12th, 2000 EST 149
4 Xerox Wins Prelim Patent Ruling Against 3Com by Hemos on 03:51 PM January 11th, 2000 EST 328
5 Uruguayan SuSE Reseller Trying to Trademark Linux by Hemos on 09:07 PM January 6th, 2000 EST 217
6 Is H.R.1907 Patent Reform that We Want? by Cliff on 03:00 PM January 6th, 2000 EST 291
7 Google (Patent Pending) by Roblimo on 05:24 AM December 27th, 1999 EST 288
8 The IP Lawyers Strike Back by Hemos on 10:30 AM December 24th, 1999 EST 200
9 Feed Magazine Commentary on Patent Insanity by Roblimo on 04:23 AM December 24th, 1999 EST 85
Hmm. Three of them today. Rather unusual. And it looks like the usual culprits are Hemos and Roblimo. Those bastards!
Hey, a "bite me" defense would be cool. Nice handle, by the way.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Please, no... (Score:1)
Don't preach to the choir, preach to the masses.
Or, possibly, the world can't be going to hell faster than slashdot is, because we'd be there already. Geez.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:People Like you MAKE ME SICK (Score:1)
Because
Re:Where have you been? (Score:1)
Umm, storing it on standard hard drives is even more expensive than storing it on writable DVDs. As for making VCDs, that results in quality loss. If you're going to do that, just connect the video in on your VCR to the video out on your DVD and tape away!
--
Re:Do I misunderstand the whole thing? (Score:1)
DVD, with its dramatically increased storage capacity, is expected to drive a revolution in multimedia software applications and movies. However, motion picture owners have been reluctant to embrace this exciting new medium until reasonable steps to deter casual home copying are in place. The studios have been concerned that the quality and reproducibility of the DVD may result in innumerable illegal copies being made by casual home users, leading to a loss
of revenue.
The motion picture and consumer electronics industries, later joined by the computer industry, have developed and negotiated a plan for limiting home copying. It includes a scrambling algorithm known as the "Contents Scramble System" or "CSS." It relies on a combination of content scrambling, key encryption, conditional access, and licensing terms to enforce a set of design rules. In order to receive the keys and algorithms needed to access the content, manufacturers must commit that systems which incorporate these keys and algorithms will meet these design rules.
Without having to read too carefully I think it is clear that what CSS is designed to prohibit technologically is what has previously been known as fair use. It has NO impact on professional pirating. Their shell game is to point at and loudly complain about pirating but the technology is designed to reverse the perceived losses they sufferred in Sony vs Universal Pictures in the Betamax decision.
Re:Please, no... (Score:1)
If Hemos was being bothered by the pesky beating heart of his murder victim under the floorboards he would surely have been better advised to have his house burn down.
Hmm. Anyone seen Rob recently?
Regards, Ralph.
Not perjury, but fraud, intimidation, extortion (Score:2)
On the other hand, it could be construed as legal advice, and offering intentionally deceptive legal advice would be fraud.
Just once I would like to see someone get sued for damages caused by one of these frivolous intimidation legal letters or lawsuits.
Here's another idea. (Score:2)
If you haven't yet taken those two movies out of the shrinkwrap, why not take the back to Suncoast Video and get your $65 back. And while you're doing that, take the opportunity to explain to the clerk behind the register (and possibly the manager of the store) exactly why the MPAA's actions have influenced you to get your money back. Explain to them also that until the MPAA improves its behavior, you won't be going back to Suncoast Video to buy any more DVD's or other films. This will mean lost sales for Suncoast Video, and you'd better believe that if enough people start doing this, the word will get back to the MPAA and the distributors. Actual countable lost profits will be a much stronger message than just a few people sending in letters vowing to stop buying DVD's. They'll start listening when they actually see the money slipping out of their grasp.
DMCA Constitutionality Challenge - go EFF! (Score:2)
I was happy to see in the Wired article that the EFF is planning to use the case filed in NY and CT as an opportunity to challenge the legality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in court. We've seen a number of stories on /. where the DMCA was used as a tool to intimidate defendants who don't have a lot of money and who may not have "popular" causes. Many of them have been very similar to the demand letter linked above - vague and questionable accusations followed by very heavy legal threats from a high-powered lawyer. In some cases lawyers have even preemptively threatened web sites (I'm thinking Lucasfilm and Star Wars DVDs here) when there were no cases of infringing materials to be found. These actions are in clear violation of the DMCA (which requires plaintiffs to describe exactly where the offending content is located at, and forbids requesting anyone to police their site for such content before it appears there), but lawyers are apparently happy to only bring up the parts of the law that are convenient for them.
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the DMCA is overturned and we return to a more normal policy on copyright, the better. It isn't as if normal copyright law wouldn't be sufficient in cases where there really is illegal copyright infringement. The only difference the DMCA makes is that it encourages suits to be filed quickly and against a large number of targets, in hopes that threatening legal wording and the untested nature of the law itself will scare the accused into submission.
LoC seeking Anti-Circ feedback by Feb 10, 2000 (Score:2)
The fact that the anti-circumvention statute is not yet effective was mentioned in a CNI-Copyright response this morning, with a pointer to the Library of Congress feeback page at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc .html [loc.gov].
The Copyright Office is first seeking written and reply comments from interested parties in order to elicit information and views on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by the prohibition against circumvention of access control technologies. Persons interested in submitting comments should consult the November 24, 1999 notice of inquiry published in the Federal Register. Further background on this rulemaking may also be found in the notice of inquiry.
Comments are due February 10, 2000
Unfortunately, Andy's overlooked the fact that the NY & CT cases are based both on 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(b)(1) & (2). Reverse engineering applies only to the Norwegian minor who cracked the DVD CSS algorithm. The plaintiffs in the New York and Connecticut cases are charged with violations of 17 USC 1201(b). There is no grace period for violations of this portion of the statute.
other interesting section though, 1201(c)(2):
There is an(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17 /1201.html [cornell.edu])
What does this mean?
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
Copying DVDs is trivial given either an open-source DVD player or a reeingineered sound/video driver which allows interception of the datastream on its way to your monitor and speakers.
The difference between the two methods is that the DVD player approach is one step closer to source, and nominally provides a higher-quality clone of the original material. However, if the economics of bootlegging are favorable, quashing DeCSS will not protect the movie industry against the purported threat.
The fact remains that the economics of pirating DVDs are overwhelmingly unfavorable to producing cheap knock-off disks. Archival space, duplicating equipment, blanks, and transmission time are currently cost-prohibitive -- it's easier to spend the 15 bucks on a legit version.
This case is not about piracy and bootlegging of content, it's about manufacturer interest in closing out competitive replay technology, especially free technology for which no cost-recapture is possible. The rest of the rhetoric is simply hot air.
What is extremely aggregious is the perversion of copyright law to something which has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement. The legal threats against those who link to DeCSS code is removed from piracy by:
That is SEVEN degrees of seperation from real economic damage. Hello!?
The fact is that what is being called a copyright infringement is, while a technical violation of copyright law, in no way whatsoever actually infringing the copyright of any DVD in existence.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
In all seriousness, as the movie industry enters an era where production costs are made cheaper through use of computers (if not now then in two years) and duplication and distribution costs are an order of magnitude cheaper (quiz: how much merchandise as VHS tapes can you fit in a truck? Now, how much as DVDs?), wouldn't a real free market _have_ them take a serious blow in the form of competition doing the same thing at the _real_ profit margins of the industry? Apparently the actual breakeven costs of DVDs are nearer three dollars, as the modified 'disposable' DVDs are being suggested at such a price, and all the copying and transportation costs are a tiny bit higher than regular DVDs due to an additional process.
The movie industry _should_ take a serious blow to their pricing structure. It is foolish to argue that they should be protected from capitalism- look at what the opposite condition did to the computer hardware industry! Sure things have been a bit tough for computer hardware makers, but huge progress was made. Why shouldn't there be huge progress in the movie industry? What gives them the right to rot happily on piles of money? Let them fight it out in the marketplace like normal people.
I don't think anyone here would mind... (Score:2)
Here's an idea. (Score:2)
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: ATAPI device hdd:
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: Error: Illegal request -- (Sense key=0x05)
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: Media region code is mismatched to logical unit -- (asc=0x6f, ascq=0x04)
Jan 20 20:18:03 heroine kernel: The failed "Test Unit Ready" packet command was:
Yeah, big threat to the movie industry here. Good luck getting your DVD's decrypted. You ever wonder if they're just trying to generate publicity for DVD? The same kind of publicity that caused every college student in Sweden to write an mp3 encoder.
Re:WRONG. (Score:2)
Irrespective of whether LiViD is illegal, the law clearly tries to ban software which enables legitimate and legal activity. That is why it is wrong, and I hope unconstitutional.
--
When is a computer program not a computer program (Score:2)
I think however, that (2) might apply, but only if we can claim we are interoperating with the DVD writing software. Again a bit of a stretch. If legal DVD writing software exists, it is a much better argument.
A better bet might be to say that breaking CSS allows us to write a program which creates DVD files readable by software DVD players and then LiViD allows us to write software which reads those same files.
I think the best bet would be to have the whole damn section declared unconstitutional and start over.
--
Re:The law is scarier than the lawyer (Score:2)
The key is authority of the copyright holder, which the DVD manufacturer has under licence.
--
Re:WRONG. (Score:2)
It's not you doing the illegal thing by watching what you've purchased. That is protected under fair use and common sense. You are also permitted to make archival copies for personal use.
It is the person who writes or distributes the program which makes it possible for you to access what you have purchased in a way not authorized by the copyright holder that is illegal.
Yes it's perverse, you have every legal right to perform an activity but the tools to do that activity are illegal. That's why I believe this provision is unconstitutional. Not only are the rights of free speech by the authors and distributors of DeCSS infringed unfairly, but as a direct consequence the ability of a consumer to exercise her rights is taken away.
--
Read the first letter (Score:2)
--
Follow-up (Score:2)
Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
In the last few months, there seems to be a lot of animosity on Slashdot against the MPAA. But is this animosity really deserved?
The MPAA is trying to protect their industry. An open-source DVD player means that a player that *copies* DVD's is trivial. This is what the MPAA doesn't want. I don't think any of us really want that, because if everyone goes and gets pirated DVD's, the movie industry takes a serious blow.
So what is the MPAA to do? Are they to just stand back and watch as their domain gets trampled on by the likes of us? No, they are doing the only logical thing at the moment -- they are standing up for themselves. Okay, granted, they don't have much of a case here. But that isn't the point. The point is that they can make their stand on the issue clear, that they will not stand for piracy. I think almost anyone would do the same thing in their position.
Of course, the real solution is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better DVD, one that is more difficult to crack, this time. Then provide Linux/FreeBSD software so the Linux community won't be reduced to having to figure it out for themselves. Would any of this really be much of an issue if it weren't for that?
Re:MPAA = Movie Pseudo-pirating Assault Associatio (Score:2)
Common Carrier (Score:2)
----
Let's All Confess (Score:2)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am in posession of the css-auth code, the supposedly-illegal DVD decrypting programming code. I hereby turn myself in.
Respectfully,
Waldo L. Jaquith
"You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar." - Arlo Guthrie [arlo.net]
Re:Let's All Confess (Score:2)
-Waldo
Don't laugh. It's happened to me. (Score:2)
This actually happened to me. A person who shall be un-named (but I know who it is, and he is on my permanent shit list) sent emails to the dean of a school I went to, complaining that I was sending him harrassing emails and making obscene posts to a newsgroup. The dean recieved a lot of these emails, who were signed with a pseudonym (with NO contact information). The Dean tried contacting me at a Groupwise address that I never used, and made no attempts to contact me by any other means (even though he obviously had my home phone number, knew I had a mailbox with the department, could have used any of my other email addresses, &c.) He shut down my email service on all accounts for 24 hours as a result. He claimed that he would eventually revoke my email service, but that never happened. Eventually it came down to a shouting match between the dean and the department sysadmin.
I have very fond memories of that institution and I recommend it highly. But even in the best of institutions, there will occasionally be idiots in charge. Those are the people you need to watch out for.
TOYWAR [toywar.com]!!
Re:Data Haven? (Score:2)
See Netscape Directory [netscape.com]'s entry for more info.
Don't know how the whole UK dependency thing would work out, but it sure seems attractive.
I just want to launch a satellite with a fat linux box and some heavy bandwidth.
Re:Read the first letter (Score:2)
Did anyone else notice that the letter was directed to the service provider, not the account holder? This is another example of trying to cut someone off upstream without any proof of wrongdoing, or even understanding of the issues...
DMCA is self-contradictory (Score:2)
The DMCA is self-contradictory in this way. It's not OK to distribute something that decrypts a copyrighted work, but it is OK to write something that decrypts a copyrighted work if it's for the purpose of interoperability. Eh?
In talking with Robin Gross about this bill she told me that it's pretty typical of Congress and the President to pass unconstitutional legislation and then leave it to the courts to decide.
Re:"lied under oath"? "committed perjury"? (Score:2)
Usually, any document submitted as evidence in court must be authenticated, meaning that a human being whose credibility the factfinder is able to evaluate says "yes, I wrote that document." Just submitting the document alone isn't enough. However, in some circumstances, courts will accept a document (called a "declaration" or "affidavit") that contains language equivalent to what the witness would have said if he or she were in court.
No, it doesn't make any sense -- why doesn't the witness then have to authenticate that document? -- but it's a practical solution to a stringent legal requirement, especially if it's a routine matter you're testifying to, or if the witness has been (for example) killed in a terrible accident before he had a chance to testify.
So, to sum up, attorneys frequently put that boilerplate language on just about anything that might someday be submitted to a court (particularly when written by a legal assistant). But until it's really offered in lieu of court-sworn testimony, it's not subject to perjury laws.
Re:I want my, I want my.... (Score:2)
A problem, for today. (Score:2)
In the past, many laws have been made to protect business, various trademark, patent, copyright, and other IP related laws, as well as much business law. One thing that has usually (certainly, not in all cases) permeated these laws is the idea that 'non-commercial, free things done by individuals are usually *exempt* from these laws, or the concept that the law should not inhibit progress, only protect someone to a *reasonable* extent.
A good example of this would be the DHRA, (digital home recording act)... you know, the one the RIAA threw a fit over with the Diamond RIO.
When the DHRA was being drafted, it was *insisted* (not by the riaa, but by others on the committee) that personal, home computers be exempt from it's restrictions, as something as simple as music copy protection should *not* be able to hamper the technology.. ie: had this not been a clause, it could have been illegal to make a computer that could deal with digital audio, period! So it made sense.. it served it's purpose for a while.
Now.. we have this dreaded DMCA. I hated it before it was drafted, and passed, and I sure hate it now. The problem is.. it says that anyone making a device/method/whatever that has a primary purpose of defeating a technological mechanism used to prevent copies is illegal. It is exempt, if it has a *commercial* purpose other than that. So.. in one way, they have a very valid claim about the DVD stuff.
OTOH... we must twist the words in our own favour. The primary purpose of this software, though it could, and most likely will, be easily used to *copy* video off dvd, is to allow the OSS community to develop DVD player software, and to get access to the data for *whatever reason they want*.
The problem, of course, is that even if it's purpose is to enable us to make a DVD player... the primary purpose of the code being linked to *IS* to defeat the CSS scheme, nobody can really argue that, and the CSS scheme is the copy protection mechanism.. or so they say.
Re:The DVD encryption does nothing to hamper pirac (Score:2)
Can joe average with his 'puter copy DVD? No.. he doesn't have the gear. Can he copy the movies if he has DeCSS? YES.. he can...
Does Joe have something that can hold 2.4gig+ of data? Sure he does.. a HD! (I just bout a 30 gig drive.. that's enough for... 10 2.4gig movies?, my drive was $300.. that's what.. $30/movie, for permanent, fast storage? COOL!
Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction (Score:2)
Seriously folks.. I'm not one for disobedience... but I can see it coming, this is just the tip of the iceberg. People are damn well going to do what they *want* to do, and not let the politicians and lawyers push them around.
Are we going to stop working on DeCSS? no...
Re:Where have you been? (Score:2)
But why the hell should they CARE about the home user making a copy or three? The real people they ought to care about are those commercial outfits that actually have writers capable of making a whole DVD, making and selling true bootlegs by the thousand.
They need to get their priorities straight.
Re:...The law... (Score:2)
Trade secrets do not have legal protection from anyone outside the company. All trade secrect laws deal with employees leaking information, NOT outside individuals or companies reverse engineering products.
HTH
"lied under oath"? "committed perjury"? (Score:2)
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but as a general rule I don't get out the old swearin' bible and swear myself in every time I sit down to write an email.
lawyers "believe, in good faith" on command (Score:2)
Anyway, he'd have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he, indeed, "damn well knew it."
If the law firm is competent, they'd hire a lawyer for these notices about whom they could establish a reasonable possibility of stunning stupidity.
Something else to consider... (Score:2)
they want to control how you view the DVD, but
they really want to control the means of distribution.
That's right, this is more about not allowing independent film makers the ability to press their own DVD's that can be read by 'open' players or even 'closed' players using the reverse engineered crypto keys. The MPAA controls who can use those keys on the DVD and in the DVD drive, open the keys, and anyone can now author DVD content and the MPAA does not get a cut of the profit. That's what really drives them to send out all the threats. They are on the verge of losing control of the media and distribution channels. This is why they want audio to go to DVD, they get control again, they lost it with CD, any artist can cut a CD now for not much more than the studios pay. But when the artist promotes with MP3 and direct sells the CD, they get all the profit, not some middleman. These people dont give a rats arse about Linux or PC players, its about the control of distribution.
Re:Problem -- do they feel threatened? (Score:2)
Note that the MPAA never has to even threaten a search engine for this to happen. They just have to sue a site that doesn't have questionable information on it, but links to a site that does (like, say, Slashdot?). If they do that successfully, the precedent can then be used by anybody to beat search engines senseless.
At any time, any computerized search engine can link you to hundreds, if not thousands, of sites with illegal content. The content is out there, and the sites link to everything.
Interestingly, there is already precedent the other way to protect search engines. It's the phone book. Any major metropolitan phone book consists of hundreds of links (phone numbers) to known felons. Imagine a parent suing the local Bell for posting the phone number of a local pedophile? I think not (egad, I hope not).
Re:They follow the path $cientology went.. (Score:2)
Re:LoC seeking Anti-Circ feedback by Feb 10, 2000 (Score:2)
Karsten is quite correct on this point. (Nice catch, K!) Regrettably, 1201(b) was the basis for the NY court's granting of a preliminary injunction this afternoon. I understand the opinion is expected to issue shortly.
other interesting section though, 1201(c)(2):
There is an(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
What does this mean?
Whatever the judges tell us, Kar; Whatever the judges tell us. Most likely, it means that the elements of a claim under section 1201 will not be used to suggest that the failure to be liable under 1201 means a failure of liability otherwise. (Sometimes, a lawyer will argue that two statutes must be read together --we say in pari materia--, and there was concern that this section might affect the independent causes of action for infringement.
Re:...The law... (Score:2)
I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude people have to the law when posting the DeCSS source. I bet most of the people didn't consult a lawyer before the distribution of software they should have known violated copyright law.
I'm confident that the DVD consortium will argue that "Sure, so you decoded it for interoperability. But you didn't protect the trade secret when you distributed the working code. There's no free speech issue here. Fair Use law doesn't cover the breaking of trade secrets."
A reasonable judge should be able to see it this way....
And that's where the folly is in your logic. A reasonable judge could rule against DeCSS -- *GASP* -- finding that it is fine to reverse engineer the CSS for interoperability, just as long as reasonable steps were made for protecting what the defendents should have know what was a "trade secret".
Reasonable steps might be that the DeCSS was distributed as a complete pre-compiled DVD player rather than an open-source program that exposes the inner-workings of CSS.
Re:A great response letter (Score:2)
Agreed.
While it may or may not have been the most wise or prudent response that could have been written, I think we're all in agreement on one thing - for responding to an MPAA demand letter with accusations of perjury, this guy's proven that he doesn't merely have brass balls, but that he actually goes "clank" when he walks down the street :-)
Re:Something else to consider... (Score:2)
The mpaa doesn't get a cent from people who create dvds...
the DVD Group, run by toshiba I believe, DOES. they get that from players sold.
The DVD CCA issues for the DVD Group keys, which are subsequently sent to members of the DVD Group, so they can include the keys on their DVDs.
The MPAA only wants to control access. And this they do with the crap that is CSS.
The only thing keeping the judge from telling the MPAA and the like that DeCSS is a) the DMCA, and b) the judge's likely ignorance about the way the net operates...
Oh brother... (Score:2)
Nevermind the fact that this information can be used to PLAY dvd's too...
"and constitute an infringement of copyright by offering goods or services which are primarily designed to circumvent technological protection measures"
Too bad it isn't trying to circumvent the protection measures than it is trying to show the owner the real data... (ie: the movie)
"We would also request that you advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating this site."
Translated: We want to sue someone. Give us his name or we sue you.
I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law"
Translated: I'm being paid a bunch of money to think whatever my "boss" wants, so I think that anything which has CSS involved in it is bad.
"this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification"
Translated: They can pay us more than you can.
"We thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested so that the illegal infringing activity can be stopped."
Translated: Be scared of us, or we'll sick more lawyers on you.
"Please telephone or write to me if you have any questions."
Translated: We want more stupid quotes to send to media outlets; it also makes for a good laugh on Friday afternoon.
-----
If anyone actually looks at the website in question, you'll find it is a rather well written "paper" describing how CSS works. It can almost be considered an academic paper...what kind of precident would this be setting...
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
They arn't sending out letters to people saying "dude, it's cool and all that you figured out how our stuff works, but would you mind taking it down -- we don't want to lose support for the DVD standard". They are sending letters to people saying "You insolent peon, you dare to determine the magic behind our standard! DIE! DIE! TAKE IT DOWN!" Generally a letter of the latter kind isn't well received.
The MPAA has already stated that they arn't trying to prevent the big "pirates" -- you know, the ones that make real box covers and reproduce the orginal art -- the ones reponsible for the largest percentage of lost revenue. Instead, they are going after the common person.
My counter arguement to the "every pirating dvd's" arguement is the VCR. How many people do you know make bootleg copies of VCR tapes? Maybe 1, if that? Heck, how many people do you know that borrow cd's and burn a copy of it onto another cd? It doesn't happen as often as the MPAA wants you to think.
The MPAA won't have it's domain trampled on. They are acting like a schoolyard bully, shaking people down for lunch money. They don't have much of a case? THEY HAVE NO CASE. They havn't patented the method of CSS encryption on DVD's -- they claim it is a trade secret (at least in another case). The "paper" they are trying to take down is an original work by someone who figured out how it worked. They can NOT claim ownership of that work, as far as I know.
My understanding of law is as follows: If an item has an illegal use, as well as a legal use, it is permitted to distribute said item because it has a legal use. That is why farmers can buy fertilizer. That is why people can buy rifles. That is why you can buy a sports car that has 320 horse power. See my point?
Re:The law is scarier than the lawyer (Score:2)
The point to be made is that this CSS software, while certainly capable of removing the encryption for numerous illegal actions, is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose" of playing back a DVD movie on systems other than Windows.
If they (MPAA, RIAA, DVDCCA, et. al.) are so concerned about piracy, duplication, etc. then why is Philips allowed to make a dual deck CD-R and Go Video several dual deck VCRs -- which, I might add, will duplicate MacroVision intact with zero distorion.
Re:The law is scarier than the lawyer (Score:2)
The CSS software does not fall to this clause either as its "commercially significant purpose" is in allowing a broader audience to view their DVDs -- I can play back my DVDs on an AlphaBook, for example. (In this context, it is irrelevant that the software is free.)
(C) makes it illegal for me to sell (as it were) you the software if I know you are only going to use it to break the copy protection. Thus, it would be illegal for me to sell you a plasma torch if I knew you were going to use it to break into a bank vault -- sortof like the laws preventing gun stores from sell you a gun if they know you're going to go out and shoot someone. [This is the only clause that has any merit -- weak as it is.]
Re:Sounds like it's time for a class action suit (Score:2)
Despite the unwillingness of Matrox [matrox.com] to say anything about their DVD add-on [matrox.com] (which uses the Vaddis III), significant progress has been made in supporting it. (That's all I've done on the weekends for last month or so.) There's still alot of work to be done, tho'. At this point, I'm not concerned with CSS as I'm working with unencrypted VOBs from a "DVD" screen saver that came with the drive -- "tiny", simple, and self-contained.
Eventually, DVD CCA will have to come to some agreement towards (non-windows) licensing of CSS. Should they refuse to allow non-windows (non-x86) playback, then there certainly will be a legal backlash -- anti-competitive, monopolistic, etc. I hope they are thinking about these things. Personally, I'd much rather the decoder hardware handle the CSS crap (read: waste of time.) As I understand, RPC-2 allows for CSS key transfers directly between the decoder and the drive so CSS then becomes almost nothing at all. (Of course, that maybe in reference to set-top hardware.)
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
Conversly, some stuff is outlawed that does have significant legal use. Take the 'Slim-Jim'; a tool for opening the locked doors of older cars. I own one, and have let numerous people back into their locked cars, most of them running during the winter. Ironically, most police officers carry one as standard equipment and every time I have reminded an officer of this the response ran something like 'Yeah, like I'm going to be breaking into cars.' The local police cheif refused to believe they were illegal until two deputies and the dispatcher confirmed it for him.
What is or isn't illegal seems to be a product of 'who pushed what with how much money'. The Slim-Jim was outlawed after a sizable push from the Big-Three back in the early seventies. No one has pushed the explosives issue yet; You can't purchase a large enough quantity at one time to do any real damage, and the only retailers that still carry explosives also carry Yellow-Baird plow trowels, StorBarrel grain silos and know their customers.
While you're at it: (Score:2)
"I will never work for your company, nor will I, in any management position, hire any person who worked for your company in any technical capacity after the first of Feb. 2000."
Re:They follow the path $cientology went.. (Score:2)
I think it is sad that they even tried to comply to the US goverment in this case.
/Thomas (Swedish).
Are we criminals? (Score:2)
Then we should ban floppy disks, zip-drives, CDRW-burners, printers, scanners and yes, even pen and paper. They can all be used for pirating and stealing intellectual property (eg. DVD movies).
I thought it was the criminal act or intention beyond reasonable doubt (plans, hiring criminals etc), that was illegal. The last one is pretty important against Warez and Cracker sites, but that doesn't stick against fair use. I think watching your newly bought DVD on Linux is fair use within a good range.
The movie/media industry knows this, they're not stupid. However, they see themselves as big and strong, yet terribly vulnerable to pirating. They're paranoid and want to have a stranglehold at the market to relieve their fear. The little legal grounds they have for ammunition is the EULA of the Xing-player, which forbids reverse engineering. But everyone knows EULAs targeted at mass-production will never stick in court, as people are left with very little choice. Usually the EULA appears during install. Well after the purchase, and there's no negotiation. Besides, there are ways to bypass the EULA during install before consenting to it.
This is all a ploy to limit our freedom, so an old boy's club can have monopoly on DVD-player licenses. And to give the movie-industry a false sense of security. If we as people don't stand up to this, they're going to eat our hand, foot and whatever's left of us. The whole incident is yet another proof that security through obscurity just doesn't work that well. Humans have an ugly tendency to underestimate eachother, and a terrific sense of competition.
- Steeltoe
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
Nope, it wouldn't have. But, they've got no one else to blame but themselves.
When the DVD drives started mainstreaming, Linux users starting asking the obvious question - "Is there a client for Linux?" When the answer came out, Linux developers started doing what they do EVERY STINKING TIME - they try to write one!
It was publicized and talked about. No surprises -- no mystery -- no underhanded ploys -- an entirely predictable response.
SOOO, if you know it's going to happen and you want to keep it under control, you head it off. You write a player and release it in binary form only (precedence: the RealPlayer solution -- also, the 3DFx approach). That pacifies most (but not necessarily all; in which case, it bolsters your piracy arguments).
However, they pulled a Titanic; they said it was unsinkable. They underestimated the capabilities of the Linux crowd. They weakened their case by INTENTIONALLY ignoring a segment of the computing community. They brought this on themselves
Is what they are doing understandable? Yes, in a "I robbed a bank because I was hungry" sort of way.
Does it mean what they are doing is right? NO
My letter to the MPAA and their lawyers: (Score:2)
All of the money I would have spent on purchasing DVDs will now go to the EFF defense fund.
I will also make sure that everyone I know learns the facts, in spite of your attempts to deceive the general public through the media ("Hackers Crack DVD Encryption in order to Pirate" etc, etc). I will persuade them not to purchase anything DVD until you submit a public apology. In general, your attempts to "protect" DVD have only harmed it. Yes, I am only one person, but there are many more like me and we will fight you.
Erick Waldchen
ps. I suggest you take a history class on VCRs. The movie industry was outraged at their invention, claiming they would somehow hurt box-office sales. Now video cassettes are one of the biggest cash cows for the industry. I suggest you stop alienating the people who would support DVD the most: computer geeks.
--------
Re:Read the first letter (Score:2)
I hereby state that I have a good faith belief...
The laywers always have a way out...
Re:Rules under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (Score:2)
they have no choice but to pull the site immediately. The DCMA mandates a procedure
for accusing someone of violating copyright on the 'net, and the first part of
the procedure is that, upon accusation, to pull the site.
That sounds an awful lot like what happened to etoy.com at the behest of a certain toy vendor by everyone's favorite, NSI. The only problem with that comparison is, in the case of using the DMCA against sites linking to DeCSS or information about said stuff, there are a hell of a lot more gophers to whack with the rubber mallet, to use a really, really bad metaphor.
The sites will get pulled. Then the person whose site it is gets to ask forclarification, which must be supplied by the MPAA lawyers. Basically, proof of the
copyright violation must be presented to the ISP. At that point, the ISP will either
put the pages back up or keep them down permanently.
I'd liken this to, say, a publisher shutting down some periodical or cutting off all printing and distribution of some book or other because there's simply the question of its legality - the only difference here is that our lawmakers passed too restrictive a law. They'd have never allowed such measures for printed material, but somehow, they fail to understand that the 'Net is just another medium, albeit a newer and potentially more powerful one.
The other thing that bothers me about that, though, is that it would seem that all this could happen outside the view (subsequent jurisdiction) of a court. Am I wrong on that count?
The DCMA is a draconian instrument; designed exactly for this kind of suppression of speech."Draconian" is damned right - although given time, I think the courts will take care of the constitutionality of the various icky sections of the DMCA for us - assuming, of course, that they don't make the same old-fashioned assumptions. It'll suck in the meantime, though...
I want my, I want my.... (Score:2)
I want my, I want my, I want my DVD
So MPAA won't write no code for linux,
let me tell ya - that really was dumb
If they won't help us to watch our movies,
I don't think CSS will last too long!
We got to hack these OSS programs,
GPL code, X, artistic, BSD
We got to code these programs for linux
We got to watch these DVDeeeeeees
See this little hacker down in copenhagen,
he's been working all through the night.
This little hacker got his DVD working,
This little hacker put it on his website.
We got to hack these OSS programs,
GPL code, X, artistic, BSD
We got to code these programs for linux
We got to watch these DVDeeeeeees
Here come the lawyers writing scary emails
and filing lawsuits against our friends,
because their clients are stupid and greedy
But they can't stop us no matter much they spend.
because:
We got to hack these OSS programs,
GPL code, X, artistic, BSD
We got to code these programs for linux
We got to watch these DVDeeeeeees
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:2)
The MPAA is trying to protect their industry. An open-source DVD player means that a player that *copies* DVD's is trivial. This is what the MPAA doesn't want. I don't think any of us really want that, because if everyone goes and gets pirated DVD's, the movie industry takes a serious blow.
While I would have to agree with your use of terminology in that any player does have to read the disk (obviously) in order to play it, and said reading could be considered a copy if you leaned hard on your dictionary, it's not really the point of the project to crack the DVD for the sole purpose of copying DVD disks. From what I've read, the folks who hacked the format were trying to build an OS player. Of course, it is possible to make use of the information gained for nefarious purposes, but I fail to see how anyone is harmed by my gaining the ability to play The Matrix on my *nix box. (Not that I have a DVD player yet.)
It seems to me that the movie industry is attempting to tar all of with a broad brush of criminality. They see the hits taken by the record industry from MP3s and the thought sends shivers down their jelly-like spines. What they don't seem to take into account is the evidence that mp3s have actually spurred many people who haven't bought a CD in ages to purchase CDs based on songs that they've downloaded doesn't seem to register anywhere. I know several people who generally don't purchase CDs who have done exactly that. (The market for audio recording is heavily skewed towards the younger audience as they apparently have the disposable ca$h for such things and don't have to generally worry about such things as Food, Rent, and Clothing.) I own a sh!tload (a technical term) of CDs and albums. Most of them were purchased a decade ago, with sporadic purchases since.
Sorry to wander over to the audio industry when I'm actually concerned with the attempts at controlling the video market. The fact that there is a huge difference in file size between a 4MB mp3 and a 2GB or so movie doesn't seem to phase them either. I sure as hell am not going to download a 2GB file to watch a movie. Blockbuster rents the things, why do I need to waste my time when I can have it to watch quicker by running down the street and plunking down a couple of buck$?
Finally, their notion that copying DVDs is inherrantly evil is specious anyway. Most of my LPs have only been played once or twice. I generally have taped them so I could listen to them without having to worry about damaging the origionals. If the tape wears or breaks, I cut a new one. Right now I'm doing the same thing with MP3s. It saves wear and tear on my investment, and I appreciate this. Right now I've got 4GB or so of my CDs on my hard disk. Not a single one is pirated. I own it all. If there is anything wrong with this, I'd like to know what it is.
Zeugma rambles on...
Re:Please, no... (Score:3)
Ever since CmdrTaco was murdered and Hemos took over, things have pretty much been going down the tube, as evidenced by Mr. Bates's obsession with legal stories. Of course, this probably has to do with his flunking out of law school more than anything, but normal adults usually get over such things.
Not so for CmdrHemos. Far from being content with being the number #2 injun on the totem pole, Jeff Bates concieved of a plan to destroy the only thing between him and the ability to lie to and decieve thousands of guillible Slashdot readers: his old friend Rob Malda.
It was with murder in his mind that he crept into the bedchamber wher CmdrTaco lay aslumber. Using the lantern he had carried, he slowly opened it slightly to admit but the smallest ray to fall on Old Man Malda's evil eye. But suddenly, he had the feeling that Rob was awakened, so he lay upon him with many blows, killing the feeble old gimp. Burying him under the floor, Bates laughed as his dirty work was complete, thinking that it was the perfect crime, that there was no evidence, no motive.
But he hadn't planned on the beating of the old man's heart. The thump, thump, thump from the floor inspired in Mr. Bates a madness like none other. Even when the Holland PD detectives descended upon the geek kompound to investigate, Hemos knew he was surely loosing his grip. As the chief inspector was replacing his teacup on the coffee table, prepearing to leave, Bates suddenly flew to his feat, like a living oak growing from the desert. It was I that done killed Him, t'was I. He confessed all at once.
Jeff 'Hemos' Bates was hanged the next day at the old county courthouse, and his body was left to rot and be torn at by vultures, a monument to a misspent life.
Let this be a wanring to you, my brothers and sisters! If you kill someone, eat their vital organs so they can't haunt you later!
Wasn't that nice... (Score:3)
Looks like I found a new address for "marketing research" site registration...
css-descramble.c (Score:3)
* css_descramble.c
*
* Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
*
* Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
*
*/
/*
* Still in progress: Remove the use of the bit_reverse[] table by recoding
* the generation of LFSR1. Finish combining this with
* the css authentication code.
*
*/
#include
#include
#include "css-descramble.h"
typedef unsigned char byte;
/*
*
* some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
*
*/
static byte csstab1[256]=
{
0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e
0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e
0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a
0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98
0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c
0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c
0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18
0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a
0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e
0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe
0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a
0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8
0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c
0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc
0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78
0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa
};
static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=
{
0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08
0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a
0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c
0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e
0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41
0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53
0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77
0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a
0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88
0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe
0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac
0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3
0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7
0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5
};
static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=
{
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24
};
/* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
*/
static byte bit_reverse[256]=
{
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94
0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92
0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96
0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95
0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93
0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97
0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f
};
/*
*
* this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
*
*/
static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
byte k[5];
int i;
lfsr1_lo = im[0] | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = im[1];
lfsr0 = ((im[4] >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
combined = 0;
for (i = 0; i >1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];
key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
}
/*
*
* this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
*
* tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
* dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
* 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
* pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
*
*
* use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
*
*/
int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
{
byte test[5], pretkey[5];
int i = 0;
for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);
memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);
if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
break;
}
}
if (!*pkey) {
fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
return 0;
}
css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);
return 1;
}
/*
*
* this function does the actual descrambling
*
* sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
* key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
*
*/
void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
{
unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
unsigned char o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
#define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])
lfsr1_lo = SALTED(0) | 0x100;
lfsr1_hi = SALTED(1);
lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) >8)&0xff] >16)&0xff]>24)&0xff];
sec+=0x80;
combined = 0;
while (sec != end) {
o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>
o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7)
lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0>= 8;
}
}
More refs -- Lasercomb, copyright, and patent (Score:3)
Among related legal cites, there's a case Lasercomb America v. Reynolds involving allowable licensing conditions in which licensing terms were overturned by the court. Though the scope -- licensing, not copyright -- is different, the conclusion is of interest. Essentially, patent-like protections from deploying technology are not attainable without resorting to patent protection itself.
Quoting from http://www.richmond.edu/~jolt/v1i1/l iberman.html [richmond.edu]:
{96} Overreaching occurs where a license agreement places
impermissible restrictions on the licensee's activities relating
to the licensed software. Under such circumstances, the license
agreement may be invalidated in whole or in part. Common issues where
overreaching takes place are prohibitions on reverse-engineering
coupled with copying of the program, and non-compete clauses which
are anticompetitive.
{97} Often overreaching occurs where the licensor is trying to
contractually obtain patent-like protection for licensed software
without meeting the rigorous requirements of patent law. It
also occurs where the software sought to be protected contains
functional elements unprotected under copyright law, and where
reverse-engineering is the only method available for the licensee to
understand how the licensed software works to achieve compatibility
with other components of its computer system.
One wonders if the same logic might be applied to copyright law itself.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:Please, no... (Score:3)
Until the courts start agreeing with you emphatically that lawsuits for linking are "lame", and the plaintiffs of nuisances suits are punished, we will need to keep reading about these cases on Slashdot. Public attention to the absurdity of these cases is the one of the factors that has the potential to stop them.
--
Re:Here's an idea. (Score:3)
1) wrong-region disc in a region-locked drive
2) attempting to use a dvd-rom drive that hasn't had it's firmware "cold-booted" by usage on a Windows machine (don't laugh, it's true for certain very brain-dead drives)
3) incorrect or no DVD-ROM kernel patch from www.kernel.dk (the January 8, 2000 version against 2.2.14 is known to work well on a lot of drives, but if you have an oddball one email Jens Axboe and he can likely sort you out).
-Ian (not a LiViD coder, I just enjoy their work)
Another interesting theory (Score:3)
Let's just for kicks say there is no deCSS and/or CSS wasn't feasably breakable. So I open up my DVD player and solder a few jumper wires from the data pins of the MPEG2 decoder chip, wire them up in some bizzare way to a computer, and press play. There we go. Decrypted DVD.
Look, MPAA. The assembly language code for deCSS is pretty much present in the BIOS or some other form of firmware inside of every DVD player ever made. Why don't you go sue every DVD player manufacturer? Why don't you go sue yourselves?
Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction (Score:3)
Um.
Here, let's have a quick demonstration:
THE DVD CCA'S LAWYERS ARE COCKSUCKERS.
There. In all capitals,too. Since I'm making vulgar remarks about those lawyers, I must obviously intend to break the law. (Ok, ok, poor argument, but I couldn't resist.) In fact, I believe that the DVD CCA's lawyers may actually be very nice (if misguided) people. Making these sorts of comments about them may be rude, vulgar, in poor taste, or any number of things, but, as far as I can tell, it only demonstrates a dislike of the DVD CCA's lawyers (or, in my case, the desire to make a point). Though I must admit, I certainly don't like the cause the DVD CCA's lawyers represent.
From what I can tell from this report, though certainly seems like Judge Kaplan is not a disinterested party. I'm not saying that the MPAA is paying him off or anything like that; maybe he's just offended by the implications of the pseudonym "Emmanuel Goldstein", maybe he doesn't like the way the defendants look, or maybe he happens to worry that DVD piracy means that he might have to pay a little extra for his DVD movies. Whatever the reason, he seems to harbor a severe bias against the defendants, which would make him exactly the wrong judge to try this case.
From what I've read above, it seems to me that Judge Kaplan is looking for any excuse he can find to weaken the defendants' position and strengthen the MPAA's. Admittedly, it's possible that the defense could have had a poorly presented case, but I expect that they most likely had an excellent case, so hearing that he constantly gave the defense's lawyers a hard time demonstrates that he really didn't care what the defense had to say. It seems he had made his decision before the hearing had even started, and he just wanted wrap them up quickly because, as far as he was concerned, it only served to make his decision official.
If Judge Kaplan rejects the EFF's application for another date, there will be no doubt remaining in my mind (unless somebody can give me an excellent argument otherwise) that he couldn't care less about reaching a fair decision in the case, and is just going to give the MPAA whatever it wants if that's what works best for him.
It's incidents like this that shake my faith in the US legal system. Well-informed, fair, impartial judges are essential to its functioning, and if Judge Kaplan is what he seems to be, he's exactly the kind of judge that the system can't have.
And a disclaimer: I can't pretend to know anything about courtroom proceedings, and my information about the case is certainly biased. I've attempted to compensate for this, but who knows if I've succeeded or not. I trust someone will let me know if I'm way off base.
Re:...The law... (Score:3)
MPAA = Movie Pseudo-pirating Assault Association (Score:3)
"We have received information that at the above address there have been offers to provide instructions on defeating DVD encryption so that illegal copies of DVDs can be made."
Did the MPAA copyright the procedure for cracking their own encryption scheme? If not, I don't see how this relates to anything. I would think that providing instructions on building bombs would fall into the same category (illegal) if what the MPAA twits are asserting is true.. and it isn't.
They go on to say:
"offering goods or services which are primarily designed to circumvent technological protection measures"
Technological protection measures, eh? Well, I think that the sad part is that they have a much better case than they would've if the friggin' DMCA wouldn't have been passed. Nonetheless, this particular individual didn't even links to DeCSS; the notion that white papers on encryption technology could be illegal is quite startling.
These people suck.
However, they were kind enough to provide us with their e-mail address and phone number. I suggest that we NOT harass them, as this would only make their case seem stronger: "a bunch of out-of-control punk computer warriors are trying to destroy the motion picture industry".
Don't paint the wrong picture of the defendants in this case.
Excellent example ... (Score:3)
This letter is an excellent example of what should happen when lawyers attempt to strongarm people into coersion. I've encountered lawyer-like behavior many times in which a strongly worded letter with much mumbo-jumbo (by that I mean: things common people may not be familiar with) is used with the intent to scare into submission.
I thank my parents for insisting that I read, read, and read some more as a youngster. My vocabulary is sufficient to see through many such lawyer-like letters and at times sufficient to respond in much the same fashion.
Its awesome that someone isn't just folding and pulling their site down, instead responding and calling their bluff. Bravo.
I concur with all that's written in the letter and I commend the force with which the language is used. Excellent.
-Brice
DMCA Provisions Not Yet Effective! (Score:3)
Does anyone know how these prospective plaintiffs propose to get around this language?
A great response letter (Score:3)
Surely, considering the buzz surrounding Linux and Open Source these days, going after an OS project is bound to be a bad PR move, isn't it?
Re:Get the Search Engines involved? (Score:3)
If the search engine/directory service can convince a judge that they are an innocent disseminator, then they should be home free.
Re:Get the Search Engines involved? (Yes!) (Score:3)
Instead of linking to sites that have DeCSS info, why dont we just link to the Yahoo, Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, etc results for relevent search items? If they go after anybody for this, they couldn't without getting the search engines, too, right?
Another not-so-great idea, brought to you by... me.
Re:The law is scarier than the lawyer (Score:3)
Read further down in that section.
Is a film on DVD a 'computer program' within the sense of the act? If so, (and I think that a case can be made that it is) then it is legal to circumvent the copy protection for the purpose of interoperability with other soiftware (the Linux operating system).
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Problem -- do they feel threatened? (Score:4)
This is a good idea, though there's one immediately apparent problem: Just because a party has the right to sue doesn't mean they have the obligation to sue. MPAA can pick its fights. It hasn't yet picked on the search engines. Rather, they've attacked a handful of loosely organized and likely poorly defended individuals. It's easier to establish a favorable precedent this way.
Though the search engines might be considered possible legal targets based on their actions, their ability to muster legal resources makes them less likely to be considered feasible litigation targets. If this is how the search engines perceive themselves, they're likely to see little direct motivation to get involved in the current cases.
Methinks we need to do some marketing to the search engines.
Or more pointedly, archives such as Remarq and Deja, who directly hold copies of the alleged infringing content.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Legal reference -- anti-circumvention analysis (Score:4)
The DeCSS/DVD case revolves around a little-known and recently (Oct, 1998) enacted bit of copyright law known as 17 U.S.C. 1201 [cornell.edu], Circumvention of copyright protection systems
There is an excellent review and analysis of this law by Professor Pamela Samuelson [berkeley.edu] of the University of California, Berkeley. Her paper Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised [berkeley.edu] , published last year, takes a long look at the law, its history, and many, many problems. I recommend it strongly to anyone, legal community or lay, who wants an understanding of the problems of the law. Samuelson also presents some of its weaknesses, which may be helpful in developing a legal defense in the California, New York, and Connecticut cases.
It's a long read (40 pages), give it a shot. From the introduction:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA") prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures used by copyright owners to control access to their works. It also bans devices whose primary purpose is to enable circumvention of technical protection systems. The Clinton administration proposed these anti-circumvention rules as implementations of U.S. obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. However, the DMCA?s provisions are significantly broader than the treaty required. They violate the Administration?s stated goal of only imposing "predictable, minimalist, consistent, and simple" regulations on the budding digital economy.
Although Congress heeded some concerns of digital economy firms by crafting certain exceptions to authorize legitimate circumvention, those exceptions are overly narrow and shortsighted. They should be supplemented by a more general "other legitimate purposes" exception. The DMCA's anti-device provisions are, moreover, overbroad and unclear, especially on the question whether it is legal to develop a technology necessary to engage in a privileged act of circumvention (e.g., a fair use). Either Congress or the courts will be forced to constrain the reach of the anti-device rules so as not to undermine Congressional intent to preserve fair uses and so as not to harm competition and innovation in the information technology sector. Finally, though the DMCA provides for a study of one class of potentially harmful impacts of the anti-circumvention rules, this study needs to be broadened to consider the full impact of this unprecedented legislation.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
DoS through Lawyers (Score:4)
Perhaps the MPAA is teaching us about attacking not the technical but the administrative infrastructure!
Think about it: Spoof an email from a major law firm, claim that a certain individual has been writing harassing emails from a given account, attach utterly forged harassing emails, and watch the target account get dropped like a rock.
Do that to the phone company, you'll get ignored. Do that do a small ISP, you'll *still* get ignored. But do that to any ISP with a division between engineers and management, and your target is toast.
Thanks, MPAA! You've just taught me a beautiful new technique for denying internet service to targets who talk about things I don't want to hear about. I guess you're just the greatest hackers of all.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
SIMPLE SOLUTION: embed deCSS in gcc (Score:4)
The CSS functionality will then clearly not be the primary purpose of the product, and the massive worldwide commercial significance of gcc equally clearly invalidates the other clauses.
How long did it take lawyers to draft the Act so tightly?
Rules under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (Score:4)
The sites will get pulled. Then the person whose site it is gets to ask for clarification, which must be supplied by the MPAA lawyers. Basically, proof of the copyright violation must be presented to the ISP. At that point, the ISP will either put the pages back up or keep them down permanently.
The DCMA is a draconian instrument; designed exactly for this kind of suppression of speech.
thad
They follow the path $cientology went.. (Score:4)
Unfortunaly few inviduals got quite badly financially harmed during that time (it's not a good idea to try to fight against an army of lawyer without education even if the case seems to simple) so if you want to join the fight, it might be a good idea to check out what went wrong..
Anyway, let's start a bet how long it will take before those CSS-documents can be found from Swedish parliament
WWW.XENU.ORG [xenu.org] - Read how the cult of $cientology was beaten in the same kind of game!
V.
.signature not found
Fighting a losing battle (Score:4)
Re:"lied under oath"? "committed perjury"? (Score:4)
notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that this law firm is authorized to act on behalf of the owners of an exclusive rights which are being infringed as set out in this notification."
Italics are mine. This is where they swear that they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Then they state they are purguring if they are not telling the truth.
*shrug*
The law is scarier than the lawyer (Score:5)
I'm afraid the law is more perverse than the lawyer in this case.
From the Connecticut suit [mpaa.org] by the MPAA[emphasis added]
Thats right. Making or distributing program/device/whatever that's only purpose is defeating encyrption on copyrighted material (no matter how weak the encryption or whether the end user has full rights to perform such encryption) is against the law. This is a part of the copyright law enacted in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. [loc.gov]
The DMCA was enacted precisely to allow weak protection schemes like CSS to be feasible since it criminalizes selling or distributing anything which breaks it. I hope that this provision will be struck down by the courts since it undully restricts free speech by the author and distributor of the decryption program and restricts fair use by the consumer who otherwise has wide latitude to do what he wants privately with legally obtained copyrighted material.
--
Dear MPAA, (Score:5)
Every time I read about your pressure/scare tactics regarding the deCSS program I get more vocal about the subject. People around me who never knew anything about it receive an introduction, complete with description of your strong-arm tactics and bogus claims. You see, I feel that by virtue of spending this significant amount of money on something as non-essential as movies, I should have every right to view them on whatever player I choose. Even if that player is on a PC running Linux. Or OS/2. Or Be. Anything!
At first, I thought maybe you'd pull your collective heads out and look around at who is paying your salaries. (That would be we, the movie-going, DVD-purchasing public.) But it seems apparent that your would rather be wrong and have your way than admit you are wrong and satisfy your customers. Be warned that you are going to receive a wave of bad publicity, the likes of which you have never seen. If you think you are immune to the pressures of the public, please review the results of the last Major League Baseball strike. Or the NBA strike. Yes, you can piss on the fans. But the fans can piss back, and there are more of us.
Please keep in mind that your pursuit of the casual viewer is severely misguided, and poses the greatest threat of all to advances in video technology. Don't blame us, for we have flocked to the stores to spend millions of collective dollars on these movies. You would be wise to invest these dollars in advancing the technology, not suing the customers. You have a chance to get it right. I'd suggest you start appreciating us instead of beating us up.
Sincerely,
A customer.
Introducing a New Conspiracy Theory... (Score:5)
NB: To paraphrase Dave Barry, I swear I am making this up.
It's fairly evident that someone within the motion picture industry has taken it upon themselves to attempt to disrupt meaningful discourse on the issues by spamming Slashdot with large, irrelevant posts. Already there's a megabyte of spam on this topic.
It's interesting that this is precisely the same tactic employed by the Scientology cult way back when, when it spammed USENET groups in an attempt to drown out criticism of the cult's harassing, deceptive, and illegal activities.
It's even more interesting to observe that, if the movie industry finds itself compelled to resort to such juvenile, cowardly tactics, it must be because they recognize the fundamental indefensibility of their position. If their position had any merit, they would engage in meaningful discourse with the rest of us, rather than resorting to peurile antics.
Further proof of their foolishness, methinks.
Schwab
Re:Legality of their claims is not the issue (Score:5)
Copying DVDs was already possible before DeCSS. 2600 had a program back in 1997 that slurped up the data downstream from a decoder. And of course, Macrovision defeaters are readily available, so making a single analog copy form the video signal (then then making a billion perfect digital copies of that) is really quite easy. If you're really worried about the ease of piracy, DeCSS doesn't change things very much.
Also, you seem to be making the assumption that their fears of piracy somehow make it justifiable for them to make it hard to copy DVDs. Consumers have the right (legally and morally) to make copies of the stuff they've bought. If you've ever had a scratched Anthrax CD or a mangled Robotcop VHS tape like I have, you'll understand why. So in even attempting to inhibit copying, they were dealing with consumers in Bad Faith. Part of their business model is that they want to sell the same content to a single consumer multiple times. Why else would there be an interest in metered viewing and rentals?
When someone has such despicable motives, then their cries of "We're only trying to perpetuate the same old injustices that you should be used to" aren't likely to bring many tears to my eyes, unless they are tears of laughter.
Sorry, but copy protection just isn't a legitimate response to fears of piracy. The software industry learned that a long, long time ago. I have programmed closed-source commercial software for the last 13 years. While I admit that much of the revenue comes from custom hourly work, a very significant portion of it also comes from sales of the software, and if sales dried up due to people making illegal copies of my work, it would hurt me badly. Yet I don't even consider implementing copy protection in my software. The very idea is ludicrous.
They should prosecute pirates. They should leave people who make "dual use" tools (which could be used for piracy) alone.
If their problem is with piracy, then they are definately not making their stand clear. It looks to me like they are taking a stand against consumer rights.
This would be a horrible and unjust "solution" although I fear that something like this might actually work from their point of view. I'm a little afraid that the Linux-x86 community would sell out and accept a DVD-player binary and leave the rest of the minority platforms to rot. Somehow I doubt that they would provide a binary for Linux PPC, and Linux Alpha, and Linux-ported-to-some-other-CPU, and HURD, and BeOS, and QNX Neutrino, and especially my beloved Amiga.
For media, open standards are the only acceptable solutions as far as I'm concerned. DVD isn't an open standard, but it looks like it's well on its way to at least becoming a documented one. :-)
---
Re:MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction (Score:5)
From the POLITECH mailing list ... looks like the MPAA have themselves a "hangin' judge" and know it.
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:14:40 -0500
To: declan@well.com
From: John Young
Subject: NY Court Grants MPAA Preliminary Injunction
Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan today granted a preliminary injunction against three defendants sued by the Motion Picture Association of American for offering the DeCSS DVD descrambling program on the Internet.
At a three-hour preliminary hearing today in the Southern District of New York, arguments were presented for MPAA by its counsel, Proskauer Rose, and for the defendants, Shawn Reimerdes, Roman Kazan, and Edwin Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein, by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Attorney Katz. EFF's attorneys, Robing Gross and Allon Levy, participated from its California offices by way of teleconference.
Judge Kaplan rejected every argument, point by point, made by the defendants and firmly endorsed, point by point, the claims of MPAA made under provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for protecting intellectual property.
A clear link with made by this federal case with the California case by the plaintiffs and Judge Kaplan. MPAA counsel argued that the suit was reluctantly filed in response to widespread, global posting of DeCSS in response to the California suit. The judge agreed that this backlash warranted a preliminary injunction to prevent "irreparable harm" to the copyright holders, among other justifications which he elaborated in a lengthy statement on the case, its opposing arguments and law governing copyright and the First Amendment.
Judge Kaplan will issue a final written version of his statment and order early next week. Upon completion of his verbal statement he signed and presented to counsel his order for the preliminary injunction.
Defendants Reimerdes and Kazan were present during the hearing, Corely was not.
Judge Kaplan offered a speedy trial for the suit, "as early as next Tuesday if you want it," he said to MPAA counsel. "I would like this tried as soon as possible. I offer you a runaway train if that's what you want. My schedule is clear for this."
Defendants' counsel requested a delay and the judge agreed to accept an application for an alternate date.
During the hearing it became clear which way the judge would rule. He repeatedly urged defense attorneys to get on with their argument, hectored them and lectured them on the law. He had earlier refused an adjournment in the hearing to allow the defense more time to prepare responses to the suit.
Defense papers of Roman Kazan apparently were not properly submitted to the court in time to be considered. Judge Kaplan refused to allow late submission and dismissed the need for more time, saying, "these rapid schedules are customary in preliminary injunction cases, there was plenty of time to respond. I am obliged to rule on what the court has."
Judge Kaplan stated there was a clear intent to break the law as indicated by vulgar remarks on Reimerdes' Web site. For emphasis on this point he repeated them as if with distaste on three occasions during the hearing: "the DVD CAA lawyers are cocksuckers."
There was a single reporter was at the hearing in Judge Kaplan's chambers, Jeff Howe with the Village Voice, two observers from Cryptome, and the MPAA public relations representative, Ken
Frydman, who distributed a pre-prepared victory statement from Jack Valenti, President and CEO of MPAA:
"Judge Kaplan's ruling represents a great victory for creative artists and consumers everywhere. I think this serves as a wake-up call to anyone who contemplates stealing intellectual property."
Cryptome asked Judge Kaplan after the hearing if he would answer questions. He said he does not speak to the press. We couldn't explain that's not us.
We asked chief attorney for MPAA, Jon Baumgarten of Proskauer Rose, for comments. He said no, statements will have to come from MPAA public relations and that he would be briefing that office shortly.
We spoke with Shawn Reimerdes and Roman Kazan about their views of the hearing. What they said is what Jeff Howe will tell in another forum, tomorrow I believe.
...The law... (Score:5)
(a) Violations regarding circumvention of technological measures.--(1)(A)No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. (Oct. 28, 1998)(
...
Sounds bad... but wait!
(c) Other rights, etc., not affected.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies,
limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.].
...
(f) Reverse engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a
person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of
that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program
that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program
with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person
engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do
not constitute infringement under this title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.].
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent
protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and
analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary
to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement
under this title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.].
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means
permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in
paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the
purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with
other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
title [17 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.] or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term "interoperability" means the ability of computer
programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information
which has been exchanged.
(g) Encryption research.--
(A) the term "encryption research" means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws
and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these
activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption
technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and
(B) the term "encryption technology" means the scrambling and descrambling of information
using mathematical formulas or algorithms.
(2) Permissible acts of encryption research.--
It continues on that research must actually be research and not some guy in his basement pretending to do research while trying to hack the latest and greatest in order to steal the work..
The way I read this is that DeCSS source, css-auth, etc are all legal if they are being used as a tool for interoperability. If they are being used for pirating movies that yes they are illegal.
IMHO this leaves DeCSS in a wierd position because it used to be posted more of a pirating tool then an interoperability tool. But DeCSS, css-auth, LiViD stuff, etc are now being used primarily for interoperability. A reasonable judge should be able to see it this way....
Hope this helps...
--Mark
MPAA Won Preliminary Injunction (Score:5)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - January 20, 2000
Contact:
Rich Taylor or Phuong Yokitis
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
202/293-1966
Emily Kutner
MPAA
818/995-6600
John Stodder
Edelman Public Relations
323/857-9100
MPAA's Valenti Hails New York Federal Judge's Ruling Shutting Down DVD Hackers
as "Major Victory" in Battle against Digital Piracy
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (January 20, 2000) - In a major victory for copyright protection, the motion picture industry today celebrated a federal judge's ruling that will force a group of New York-based Internet hackers to stop the posting of software that allows illegal copying of DVDs.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York late this afternoon granted a request by the major motion picture studios for a preliminary injunction against operators of Internet sites that posted an unauthorized de-encryption formula on their sites. This software was developed to hack the DVD encryption system.
The judge's order means three New York defendants, Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley A/K/A "Emmanuel Goldstein" and Roman Kazan, must immediately remove the de-encryption formula from their Internet sites or face contempt of court.
"Judge Kaplan's ruling represents a great victory for creative artists, consumers and copyright owners everywhere. I think this serves as a wake-up call to anyone who contemplates stealing intellectual property," said Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America. "This ruling also means that when Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, it gave the creative community a powerful tool to defend our rights."
Additional information on this case may be found on the MPAA web site at www.mpaa.org.
# # #
Copyright Press Releases
----
Rajiv Varma
Get the Search Engines involved? (Score:5)
If it enters common law that you cannot link to a site containing "illegal" material without being sued to death, it is only about two lawsuits away from them being under a constant barrage of lawsuits. I think having a well known name like Yahoo on our side increases our chances of coming out of this intact. Whatever you might think about the search engine companies, they should care about this. They might not be willing to touch this case for fear of bad publicity, but it would certainly make some more people stop to think instead of assuming that the MPAA must be right because we've heard of them.
B. Elgin