DVD CCA Emergency Hearing to seal DeCSS 460
Anonymous Coward writes "The DVD CCA notified the defense lawyers on Tuesday that they
are seeking an emergency ex parte motion to seal Hoy Exhibit
B, which has been up at John
Young's Cryptome for days, and was mentioned on Slashdot on
Monday. This will be heard at an emergency hearing at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 26, at
the usual Santa Clara County Courthouse in San Jose, in Judge
Elfving's court. If you're reading Slashdot before breakfast
and you're near San Jose, it's time to come on down!"
NO IT IS NOT (Score:3)
No, No, NO, It is not 'fairly easy' to do that. The DVD drives you buy for home use cannot read the tracks that store the keys in a 'normal' way. Only when playing back a movie, and only the key that corrisponds with the only player. Also, DVD-writers will not be able to write to those sectors. It *isn't* posible, and it never has been. Why do you people persist I stating this? Just beacuse some guy on TV couldn't articulate it dosn't mean it isn't true... *gah*.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Trademark law vs. trade secret law... (Score:3)
You're thinking of trademark law, not trade secret law. IANAL, but as far as I know, the only trade secret laws apply to employees and other people or entities that have legitimate access to the secret. They can be prosecuted for revealing the secret. In this case, trade secret law could possibly be applied to Xing, since they were not careful and left their key unencrypted which made DeCSS possible (or at least easier). That probably violated an NDA or three. Other than that, once the secret is out, it's not a secret anymore. The DeCSS guys didn't reveal any trade secret, Xing did. They just took advantage of Xing's mistake, and they did it in a legal way since even the DMCA allows you bypass security measures in order to achieve interoperability. That's why this whole case is such a crock. But that won't stop it from happening. There's too much money behind it for it to stop.
contact the MPAA: email and snail mail (Score:2)
Someone asked up above about how to contact the MPAA; I thought (aiiiiieeeeeee) that we might want to use the following addresses:
1) hotline@mpaa.org
According to the MPAA, this address is to be used for notifying them of video pirating operations. I should think we're justified in using it; after all, we lot are "pirates", every last one of us, if the MPAA is to be believed.
2) Snail mail. No, really. I'm going to write this evening. If your penmanship eats it, use this as an opportunity to beta test WordPerfect 2000. Write to:
Motion Picture Association of America
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
(818) 995-6600
Re:No More Games (Score:2)
One problem. They are picking and choosing a handful of posts from hundreds and claiming the handful to be representative of the "attitude of the community".
I hope the defense counters that one with the multitude of informed and supportive posts (and the ones correcting those that the defense is using) that actually were posted.
MPAA's try at intimidation (Score:3)
Obviously the MPAA wants to intimidate others so there will be no DeCSS for their next encryption. I don't think that they will succeed though, because so many people have to know how to implement decrytion to build a player that the information will leak sooner or later, because of some carelesness. So the question is only via which channels the next DeCSS will be distributed. The decision to sell some Linux player for DVD's would probably help more, since then there is much less motivation to implement and distribute such a program.
The second reason for going to court is probably to test the leagal grounds and set some precedent. In my opinion this makes the current case very important, because many other cases might be influenced by the outcome of this one.
Is a "clean room" DeCSS possible ? (Score:2)
If it could be proved that it is possible to create a program such as DeCSS without reference to Xing or any other player involving a license agreement, then AFAIK all the MPA arguments involving copyright and trade secrets become almost totally irrelevant,especially if one can write a paper plus code detailing how it was done.
Where do Xing figure in this ? (Score:2)
Regards
Mark Roberts
Re:Clip & Save (Score:2)
Har! Let's see them club us and take us to jail for wearing forbidden clothing!
# Really die? (Y/N)
# Ok, so you don't die.
# You survived that attempt on your life.
Why is everything last minute (Score:5)
Re:Too fast -- too slow -- just right? (Score:5)
You may choose to take the position that anything that is done by MPAA concerning the lawsuit is unconcionable -- this is a common view in this community. However, going ballistic over routine motions will simply get you ignored as one who "always cries wolf" when you go ballistic over the real ones.
Assume for the sake of the argument that the subject matter *WAS* a trade secret. If so, having the court files containing the subject matter (if indeed it did contain the subject matter) laid open to the public is a grievous technical error that should be immediately corrected.
The motion was routinely made and probably will be routinely granted. I can't think of any meaningful defense to this motion(particularly since a P.I. was already granted) except, perhaps, that the declaration does not contain subject matter claimed to be secret. In that case, no more than a few hours notice is necessary to prepare the appropriate papers and to appear for hearing.
And no, I'm not defending the plaintiff's position. I'm not fond of what they are doing either. I'm just saying it would be best for the credibility of the committee to call a spade a spade and save their vitreol for the really bad stuff.
There is an amazing power in the advocacy of making concessions. If you give to others what is theirs, particularly before the Court, then when you do ask for things, the Court sits at attention. If you oppose EVERY motion, and gainsay EVERY argument, you will eventually get tuned out. This is particularly true when, looking at things practically and objectively, you can't win the motion.
Unless facts and California public records and trade secret law is substantially different from the reports, it is time to say, "Your honor, assuming their allegations were true, of course this motion must be granted -- the fact that they let this happen is proof, indeed an admission, that this plaintiff doesn't take reasonable precautions to preserve secrecy of that information, and that is why we must ultimately prevail on the merits. But for the record, we do not oppose this emergency motion."
To win in disputes like these, you have to stay very cool, you have to judge the judge, and you have to stay credible. I am reminded of an excellent story about the New York case in which West Publications tried to keep others from making a database with citations to legal materials in West Reporters, using page numbers. After West's lawyer argued at length (well over the allotted hour), the exhausted Judge turned to the defendant and a hero lawyer said something like the following:
"Your honor, the plaintiff claims copyright protection of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and so forth in sequence. We find this an astonishing position and have nothing to add to our briefs."
He then did the most important thing a lawyer can do -- "he sat down." He knew when it was important to speak, and when to shut up. Interestingly, that lawyer won that case with that brief argument, when several other lawyers (including a friend of mine who handled a case in Minnesota on the same issues with a different defendant) failed on the same issue.
Stay cool! Direct your rage appropriately. Ignore the silliness when they overreach and it doesn't matter, or look for ways to use your advantage at another time. Then, when it is right, use it to best effect. Advocacy is much more effective that way.
petition against the treatment of Jon Johanson (Score:5)
Re:This is comedy! (Score:3)
Re:Legality of DeCSS (Score:2)
The CSS encryption apparently exists to prevent people from copying DVDs illegally. DeCSS exists to allow people who have legitimately purchased DVDs to view them on their PCs running Linux. There is absolutely nothing illegal about this. Perhaps DeCSS could be used to make digital copies that could in turn be transmitted to other people, but that doesn't really matter as it isn't its primary purpose or the purpose intended by its creators. I could stab you in the eye with a hunting knife, but that doesn't make hunting knives illegal. Sure, stabbing and cutting is their primary purpose, but you should not use them in an illegal way. If someone buys a DVD, they have every right to convert the data contained on it into a format that is useful to them. Even the DMCA explicitly states this.
Can I sue the DVD CCA? (Score:2)
Now, the DVD CCA says I can't do that.
They are trying to outlaw a valid use of items I bought and paid for. Items I want to use within the terms of their licenses. It's like if Oral-B got the courts to rule that I couldn't use their toothbrushes to clean car parts.
They are trying to make the money I spent a waste. So, do I have any rights -- can I not seek some kind of reparations?
Devils Advocate (Score:2)
On the other hand, someone could, in theory use DeCSS to copy a movie into MPG or ASF format. The quality would suck though, so it's not really an issue. After all, no one has really made a fortune copying CDs onto cassettes, because of the quality and feature loss.
Re:Ohio was made a state 150 years ex-post-facto (Score:2)
That much is right, but your example is somewhat mistaken. The only thing which constitutes an ex post facto law is one which either (1) criminalizes an action which was done before the law was enacted, or (2) increases the penalty for such an action.
These would be examples of ex post facto laws:
Grandfathering is not required by the ex post facto prohibition. In the example you gave, it would be perfectly legal for the state to require anybody practicing after [whenever] to have 500 hours of training, irrespective of whether they'd been practicing before that. They just can't prosecute you for practicing before [whenever] without those 500 hours of training.
I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer--don't rely on this advice.
Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data (Score:2)
I hope this gets moderated up, because a lot of people have the same idea - and it's won't actualyl work because of this.
Re:MPAA (Score:2)
Motion Picture Association of America
15503 Ventura Blvd
Encino, CA 91436
RICO and punishing the real miscreants (Score:2)
Director of NASA (Score:2)
Your advice is good, and perhaps more pertinent than you be believe it to be.
Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data (Score:2)
Can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in Switzerland, region-free players are routinely available at no extra cost. Region 1 (US) DVDs are also routinely available in the stores.
What's sad is that this means that some uninformed people are going to end up buying US DVDs and not be able to play them on their Region 2 devices when them they get home. The customer is not always right.
What's fun is that I can now order DVDs from the states and see films before they've even opened here (takes time to add the German & French sub-titles I guess.)
What's odd is that I am even allowed to buy DVD from the states. For too many products (PC software, accessories, gadgets, etc.) that I'd like to order off some US-based website I see the smallprint Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.. If The Man can stop us filthy Europeans buying so many products from the US then why not DVDs too?
Not complaining, not requesting, just wondering.
Regards, Ralph.
Re:Closing already public record data? (Score:2)
Since the court record will not compile without modification, it cannot be argued that it does anything other than communicate. Never mind that that's all the DeCSS code does -- communicate.
After all, the DeCSS SOURCE CODE itself cannot DO anything. Contrary to misconception, the source code cannot copy or even playback DVD's. It is instructions on how to do this.
Even if making a bomb or making LSD is illegal, instructions on how to make a bomb or the chemical synthesis of LSD are protected speach. Of, course viewing a DVD "for home use only" is not illegal anyway, as the copyright notice on the DVD grants this authority.
WIndows or not, doesn't matter... (Score:2)
Using it for playback in Winblows would be illegal because there are already software DVD players for Winblows available.
Actually, it would be legal to do it in Windows as well. It doesn't matter if other players are available or not.
Sure about that? (Score:2)
Perhaps, but who stole what? (Score:2)
Now, on to your points...
One, the recording industry isn't going to release the movies unless they think the format provides some method of limiting or reducing pirating.
Explain, then, why they still release movies on VHS, which has no effective copy-protection (yes, there are a few methods, but all are easy to defeat). Or why the recording industry releases unprotected CD's. Because piracy doesn't do them nearly as much damage as they'd like the public to think, and they know it. That doesn't mean it's right to pirate, but it also means that unreasonable measures such as CSS are not justifiable on the grounds of antipiracy alone.
CSS isn't about limiting piracy. It's about being able to artificially inflate the prices in the US and other regions where people who don't know any better pay through the nose, while still allowing the movies to reach markets where it has to be sold at lower but still very profitable prices. In short, it's about conning US and European customers out of more money than they should have to pay. CSS, not DeCSS, is the true theft. And if something of mine is stolen, I have the right to get it back.
There is nothing preventing a software company from licensing the technology to create DVD software that runs under Linux.
Other than millions of dollars in license fees, insanely-restrictive NDA's, threats and FUD from Microsoft, and corporate elitism, you mean? There are plenty of things preventing a software company from using the technology for Linux. The barriers aren't legal ones, but they're just as real.
It's not free, but don't the people that worked to create this format deserve a reasonable profit for their efforts?
CSS is not a format. DVD movies are encoded using the MPEG-2 format, which is free. CSS is only an encryption system, and a piss-poor one to boot.
And yes, they deserve a reasonable profit. But CSS isn't about reasonable profits; it's about artificially inflating them by forcing consumers to pay more than they should.
DVD CSS is fighting for their livelihoods. If they lose this trade secret, they have the choice of comming up with a new encryption method, and convincing hardware manufacturers and the recording industry to support it, or they're out of business.
One: it's DVD CCA, not DVD CSS.
Two: DVD CCA is not a coporation. It makes no profit at all from CSS. The CCA is a group which represents the major makers of DVD's. If CCA is dissolved, no one loses any jobs, except maybe the lawyers, because CCA doesn't employ anyone per se. It's not a business, it doesn't make any profit from CSS (the profit is made by the member groups, who already get plenty of profit from DVD sales unrelated to CSS licensing).
Re:This case is realy against RedHat and Diamond (Score:2)
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on this whole sorry matter!
Yes, you nailed it. They could care less about Joe Hacker downloading and compiling decss source. They want to stop RedHat/Mandrake/Suse from distributing FREE Linux DVD players.
As usual, it's all about money.
Get the docs now! (Score:2)
This will be good for the CSS Documentation project I mentioned on Monday (and which, sad to say, is probably what prompted the lawyers to hold this hearing; I apologize for that). I do intend to get this started.
Under US Law (Score:2)
I don't know Australian copyright law. Much of copyright law is standardized internationally under the Berne Treaty. I don't know what the status of the DMCA act enacted in 1998 in the US is internationally.
What are known as the anti-circumvention provisions of US law (17 U.S.C. 1201 [cornell.edu]. In part it reads:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
If you aren't given licensed access to protected media, you are circumventing the measure. If there are no licensed tools available for Linux, then ipso facto you are violating the above provision if you are viewing CSS protected DVDs on Linux. In the US. Possibly elsewhere.
There are other legal dimensions to the case. Distributing DeCSS code falls under another portion of the same law (scroll down the link provided). Trade secrets law is being used in several instances, this appears to the be hook used to snare Jon Johansen.
IANAL, this is not legal advice.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Re:Clip & Save (Score:2)
Re:No More Games (Score:2)
None of the stuff I buy on video appears to be coming out on DVD (mostly TV shows). Even if it does, it's unlikely that it will be released in Australia, and the region coding screws me out of being able to import the stuff I want. I therefore don't give a toss whether DVD lives or dies as a format. If it continues to be a closed, expensive, limited system I would imagine it will go the way of LaserDisc (and BetaMax). If it opens up and becomes cheap and available then I would imagine that it will succeed, like VHS.
Actually, that's an interesting point; Mac, closed, small audience. PC, open, large market. BetaMax, closed, died. VHS, open, everywhere. Time and again it's shown that an open, cheap standard will win over a closed expensive thing. Previously it was just about licencing fees, now it's also about protection against piracy (supposedly)...
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
My personal interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (which gives Congress powers to promote the Arts and Sciences) would be that they have undefined powers, and any specific act of congress to promote the arts and sciences (like passing copyright laws) is obviously subordinate to the First Amendment. (were there some specifics about the matter in the constitution itself we'd be in much more of a pickle)
There must be some reconciliation between the First Amendment and the aforementioned clause, but it's probably a moot point, or a great opportunity for precedents to be made in a completely new field.
After all, the DeCSS code (et al) are _NOT_ copyright violations in and of themselves, or so it is thought. That would ONLY be true if it turned out that the code used by the DVD CCA is identical or so exceptionally similar that it could be considered plagarism. In that case an argument could be made that DeCSS is infringing on the copyright, not of movies, but of the DVD CCA's code. Plagarized material is not useful to the public and would therefore probably have little protection or sympathy from the court. But I can live with that.
Given that there was a clean reverse-engineering process though, this would not seem to apply.
In that case, the freedom of the DeCSS authors to express themselves, and the advancement in the arts and sciences that it permits (after all, it now makes DVDs more widely available, and was an interesting challenge in itself) would seem to weigh only in favor of its' protection.
The entire case of the DVD CCA is founded on the idea that by permitting freedom of expression you are simultaneously restricting the freedom of expression of the authors of DVDs. But that's clearly not true - there is no inalienable right to freedom from competition in the 'marketplace of ideas.' That right is only granted by Congress and cannot stand against the 1st amendment.
Futhermore by allowing people more freedom with regard to the whole DVD situation, you'd be promoting smaller copyright holders who are not part of the DVD CCA and may wish to use DeCSS on material for which they hold the copyright to.
---
Whew!
On your other points though, yeah it's very sad how people are permissive of the erosion of rights and liberties simply because they can't be bothered to think about the matter rationally. Makes me want to move to some Geek-run country where we would have a chance to do things a bit differently. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Re:This is comedy! (Score:4)
People outside of the US are not affected in any way.
Conspiracy Theories (Re:Why is everything last...) (Score:2)
Do I think they're greedy, yes. Do I think everything is a plot, no.
DeCSS (Score:5)
css-auth.h
----------
typedef unsigned char byte;
struct block {
byte b[5];
};
extern void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
extern void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key);
css-auth.c
----------
* Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Fawcus
*
* This code may be used under the terms of Version 2 of the GPL,
* read the file COPYING for details.
*
*/
* These routines do some reordering of the supplied data before
* calling engine() to do the main work.
*
* The reordering seems similar to that done by the initial stages of
* the DES algorithm, in that it looks like it's just been done to
* try and make software decoding slower. I'm not sure that it
* actually adds anything to the security.
*
* The nature of the shuffling is that the bits of the supplied
* parameter 'varient' are reorganised (and some inverted), and
* the bytes of the parameter 'challenge' are reorganised.
*
* The reorganisation in each routine is different, and the first
* (CryptKey1) does not bother of play with the 'varient' parameter.
*
* Since this code is only run once per disk change, I've made the
* code table driven in order to improve readability.
*
* Since these routines are so similar to each other, one could even
* abstract them all to one routine supplied a parameter determining
* the nature of the reordering it has to do.
*/
#include "css-auth.h"
typedef unsigned long u32;
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output);
void CryptKey1(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {1,3,0,7,5, 2,9,6,4,8};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(varient, scratch, key);
}
* 4 -> !3
* 3 -> 4
* varient bits: 2 -> 0 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> !1
*/
void CryptKey2(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {6,1,9,3,8, 5,7,4,0,2};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x0a, 0x08, 0x0e, 0x0c, 0x0b, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x0d,
0x1a, 0x18, 0x1e, 0x1c, 0x1b, 0x19, 0x1f, 0x1d,
0x02, 0x00, 0x06, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x07, 0x05,
0x12, 0x10, 0x16, 0x14, 0x13, 0x11, 0x17, 0x15};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key);
}
* 4 -> 0
* 3 -> !1
* varient bits: 2 -> !4 perm_varient bits
* 1 -> 2
* 0 -> 3
*/
void CryptBusKey(int varient, byte const *challenge, struct block *key)
{
static byte perm_challenge[] = {4,0,3,5,7, 2,8,6,1,9};
static byte perm_varient[] = {
0x12, 0x1a, 0x16, 0x1e, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x06, 0x0e,
0x10, 0x18, 0x14, 0x1c, 0x00, 0x08, 0x04, 0x0c,
0x13, 0x1b, 0x17, 0x1f, 0x03, 0x0b, 0x07, 0x0f,
0x11, 0x19, 0x15, 0x1d, 0x01, 0x09, 0x05, 0x0d};
byte scratch[10];
int i;
for (i = 9; i >= 0; --i)
scratch[i] = challenge[perm_challenge[i]];
engine(perm_varient[varient], scratch, key);
}
* We use two LFSR's (seeded from some of the input data bytes) to
* generate two streams of pseudo-random bits. These two bit streams
* are then combined by simply adding with carry to generate a final
* sequence of pseudo-random bits which is stored in the buffer that
* 'output' points to the end of - len is the size of this buffer.
*
* The first LFSR is of degree 25, and has a polynomial of:
* x^13 + x^5 + x^4 + x^1 + 1
*
* The second LSFR is of degree 17, and has a (primitive) polynomial of:
* x^15 + x^1 + 1
*
* I don't know if these polynomials are primitive modulo 2, and thus
* represent maximal-period LFSR's.
*
*
* Note that we take the output of each LFSR from the new shifted in
* bit, not the old shifted out bit. Thus for ease of use the LFSR's
* are implemented in bit reversed order.
*
*/
static void generate_bits(byte *output, int len, struct block const *s)
{
u32 lfsr0, lfsr1;
byte carry;
* initial values are non-zero. Thus when we initialise them from
* the seed, we ensure that a bit is set.
*/
lfsr0 = (s->b[0] b[1] b[2] & ~7) b[2] & 7);
lfsr1 = (s->b[3] b[4];
++output;
carry = 0;
do {
int bit;
byte val;
for (bit = 0, val = 0; bit > 24) ^ (lfsr0 >> 21) ^ (lfsr0 >> 20) ^ (lfsr0 >> 12)) & 1;
lfsr0 = (lfsr0 > 16) ^ (lfsr1 >> 2)) & 1;
lfsr1 = (lfsr1 > 1) & 1)
combined = !o_lfsr1 + carry + !o_lfsr0;
carry = BIT1(combined);
val |= BIT0(combined) 0);
}
static byte Secret[];
static byte Varients[];
static byte Table0[];
static byte Table1[];
static byte Table2[];
static byte Table3[];
* This encryption engine implements one of 32 variations
* one the same theme depending upon the choice in the
* varient parameter (0 - 31).
*
* The algorithm itself manipulates a 40 bit input into
* a 40 bit output.
* The parameter 'input' is 80 bits. It consists of
* the 40 bit input value that is to be encrypted followed
* by a 40 bit seed value for the pseudo random number
* generators.
*/
static void engine(int varient, byte const *input, struct block *output)
{
byte cse, term, index;
struct block temp1;
struct block temp2;
byte bits[30];
int i;
* we alter the seed to the LFSR's used above, then
* generate the bits to play with.
*/
for (i = 5; --i >= 0; )
temp1.b[i] = input[5 + i] ^ Secret[i] ^ Table2[i];
generate_bits(&bits[29], sizeof bits, &temp1);
* select one of 32 different variations on the
* algorithm.
*/
cse = Varients[varient] ^ Table2[varient];
* of these works on 40 bits at a time and are quite
* similar.
*/
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = input[i]) {
index = bits[25 + i] ^ input[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[20 + i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp2.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {
index = bits[15 + i] ^ temp2.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp1.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index];
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[10 + i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
index = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
temp2.b[i] = Table0[index] ^ Table2[index];
}
temp2.b[4] ^= temp2.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp2.b[i]) {
index = bits[5 + i] ^ temp2.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
temp1.b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
temp1.b[4] ^= temp1.b[0];
for (i = 5, term = 0; --i >= 0; term = temp1.b[i]) {
index = bits[i] ^ temp1.b[i];
index = Table1[index] ^ ~Table2[index] ^ cse;
output->b[i] = Table2[index] ^ Table3[index] ^ term;
}
}
static byte Varients[] = {
0xB7, 0x74, 0x85, 0xD0, 0xCC, 0xDB, 0xCA, 0x73,
0x03, 0xFE, 0x31, 0x03, 0x52, 0xE0, 0xB7, 0x42,
0x63, 0x16, 0xF2, 0x2A, 0x79, 0x52, 0xFF, 0x1B,
0x7A, 0x11, 0xCA, 0x1A, 0x9B, 0x40, 0xAD, 0x01};
static byte Secret[] = {0x55, 0xD6, 0xC4, 0xC5, 0x28};
static byte Table0[] = {
0xB7, 0xF4, 0x82, 0x57, 0xDA, 0x4D, 0xDB, 0xE2,
0x2F, 0x52, 0x1A, 0xA8, 0x68, 0x5A, 0x8A, 0xFF,
0xFB, 0x0E, 0x6D, 0x35, 0xF7, 0x5C, 0x76, 0x12,
0xCE, 0x25, 0x79, 0x29, 0x39, 0x62, 0x08, 0x24,
0xA5, 0x85, 0x7B, 0x56, 0x01, 0x23, 0x68, 0xCF,
0x0A, 0xE2, 0x5A, 0xED, 0x3D, 0x59, 0xB0, 0xA9,
0xB0, 0x2C, 0xF2, 0xB8, 0xEF, 0x32, 0xA9, 0x40,
0x80, 0x71, 0xAF, 0x1E, 0xDE, 0x8F, 0x58, 0x88,
0xB8, 0x3A, 0xD0, 0xFC, 0xC4, 0x1E, 0xB5, 0xA0,
0xBB, 0x3B, 0x0F, 0x01, 0x7E, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0xD9,
0xAA, 0xB8, 0x3D, 0x9D, 0x74, 0x1E, 0x25, 0xDB,
0x37, 0x56, 0x8F, 0x16, 0xBA, 0x49, 0x2B, 0xAC,
0xD0, 0xBD, 0x95, 0x20, 0xBE, 0x7A, 0x28, 0xD0,
0x51, 0x64, 0x63, 0x1C, 0x7F, 0x66, 0x10, 0xBB,
0xC4, 0x56, 0x1A, 0x04, 0x6E, 0x0A, 0xEC, 0x9C,
0xD6, 0xE8, 0x9A, 0x7A, 0xCF, 0x8C, 0xDB, 0xB1,
0xEF, 0x71, 0xDE, 0x31, 0xFF, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x5E,
0x07, 0x69, 0x96, 0xB0, 0xCF, 0xDD, 0x9E, 0x47,
0xC7, 0x96, 0x8F, 0xE4, 0x2B, 0x59, 0xC6, 0xEE,
0xB9, 0x86, 0x9A, 0x64, 0x84, 0x72, 0xE2, 0x5B,
0xA2, 0x96, 0x58, 0x99, 0x50, 0x03, 0xF5, 0x38,
0x4D, 0x02, 0x7D, 0xE7, 0x7D, 0x75, 0xA7, 0xB8,
0x67, 0x87, 0x84, 0x3F, 0x1D, 0x11, 0xE5, 0xFC,
0x1E, 0xD3, 0x83, 0x16, 0xA5, 0x29, 0xF6, 0xC7,
0x15, 0x61, 0x29, 0x1A, 0x43, 0x4F, 0x9B, 0xAF,
0xC5, 0x87, 0x34, 0x6C, 0x0F, 0x3B, 0xA8, 0x1D,
0x45, 0x58, 0x25, 0xDC, 0xA8, 0xA3, 0x3B, 0xD1,
0x79, 0x1B, 0x48, 0xF2, 0xE9, 0x93, 0x1F, 0xFC,
0xDB, 0x2A, 0x90, 0xA9, 0x8A, 0x3D, 0x39, 0x18,
0xA3, 0x8E, 0x58, 0x6C, 0xE0, 0x12, 0xBB, 0x25,
0xCD, 0x71, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x64, 0xC6, 0xE7, 0xFB,
0xAD, 0x94, 0x77, 0x04, 0x9A, 0x39, 0xCF, 0x7C};
static byte Table1[] = {
0x8C, 0x47, 0xB0, 0xE1, 0xEB, 0xFC, 0xEB, 0x56,
0x10, 0xE5, 0x2C, 0x1A, 0x5D, 0xEF, 0xBE, 0x4F,
0x08, 0x75, 0x97, 0x4B, 0x0E, 0x25, 0x8E, 0x6E,
0x39, 0x5A, 0x87, 0x53, 0xC4, 0x1F, 0xF4, 0x5C,
0x4E, 0xE6, 0x99, 0x30, 0xE0, 0x42, 0x88, 0xAB,
0xE5, 0x85, 0xBC, 0x8F, 0xD8, 0x3C, 0x54, 0xC9,
0x53, 0x47, 0x18, 0xD6, 0x06, 0x5B, 0x41, 0x2C,
0x67, 0x1E, 0x41, 0x74, 0x33, 0xE2, 0xB4, 0xE0,
0x23, 0x29, 0x42, 0xEA, 0x55, 0x0F, 0x25, 0xB4,
0x24, 0x2C, 0x99, 0x13, 0xEB, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0xC9,
0xF9, 0x63, 0x67, 0x43, 0x2D, 0xC7, 0x7D, 0x07,
0x60, 0x89, 0xD1, 0xCC, 0xE7, 0x94, 0x77, 0x74,
0x9B, 0x7E, 0xD7, 0xE6, 0xFF, 0xBB, 0x68, 0x14,
0x1E, 0xA3, 0x25, 0xDE, 0x3A, 0xA3, 0x54, 0x7B,
0x87, 0x9D, 0x50, 0xCA, 0x27, 0xC3, 0xA4, 0x50,
0x91, 0x27, 0xD4, 0xB0, 0x82, 0x41, 0x97, 0x79,
0x94, 0x82, 0xAC, 0xC7, 0x8E, 0xA5, 0x4E, 0xAA,
0x78, 0x9E, 0xE0, 0x42, 0xBA, 0x28, 0xEA, 0xB7,
0x74, 0xAD, 0x35, 0xDA, 0x92, 0x60, 0x7E, 0xD2,
0x0E, 0xB9, 0x24, 0x5E, 0x39, 0x4F, 0x5E, 0x63,
0x09, 0xB5, 0xFA, 0xBF, 0xF1, 0x22, 0x55, 0x1C,
0xE2, 0x25, 0xDB, 0xC5, 0xD8, 0x50, 0x03, 0x98,
0xC4, 0xAC, 0x2E, 0x11, 0xB4, 0x38, 0x4D, 0xD0,
0xB9, 0xFC, 0x2D, 0x3C, 0x08, 0x04, 0x5A, 0xEF,
0xCE, 0x32, 0xFB, 0x4C, 0x92, 0x1E, 0x4B, 0xFB,
0x1A, 0xD0, 0xE2, 0x3E, 0xDA, 0x6E, 0x7C, 0x4D,
0x56, 0xC3, 0x3F, 0x42, 0xB1, 0x3A, 0x23, 0x4D,
0x6E, 0x84, 0x56, 0x68, 0xF4, 0x0E, 0x03, 0x64,
0xD0, 0xA9, 0x92, 0x2F, 0x8B, 0xBC, 0x39, 0x9C,
0xAC, 0x09, 0x5E, 0xEE, 0xE5, 0x97, 0xBF, 0xA5,
0xCE, 0xFA, 0x28, 0x2C, 0x6D, 0x4F, 0xEF, 0x77,
0xAA, 0x1B, 0x79, 0x8E, 0x97, 0xB4, 0xC3, 0xF4};
static byte Table2[] = {
0xB7, 0x75, 0x81, 0xD5, 0xDC, 0xCA, 0xDE, 0x66,
0x23, 0xDF, 0x15, 0x26, 0x62, 0xD1, 0x83, 0x77,
0xE3, 0x97, 0x76, 0xAF, 0xE9, 0xC3, 0x6B, 0x8E,
0xDA, 0xB0, 0x6E, 0xBF, 0x2B, 0xF1, 0x19, 0xB4,
0x95, 0x34, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x37, 0x94, 0x5D, 0x7B,
0x36, 0x5F, 0x65, 0x53, 0x07, 0xE2, 0x89, 0x11,
0x98, 0x85, 0xD9, 0x12, 0xC1, 0x9D, 0x84, 0xEC,
0xA4, 0xD4, 0x88, 0xB8, 0xFC, 0x2C, 0x79, 0x28,
0xD8, 0xDB, 0xB3, 0x1E, 0xA2, 0xF9, 0xD0, 0x44,
0xD7, 0xD6, 0x60, 0xEF, 0x14, 0xF4, 0xF6, 0x31,
0xD2, 0x41, 0x46, 0x67, 0x0A, 0xE1, 0x58, 0x27,
0x43, 0xA3, 0xF8, 0xE0, 0xC8, 0xBA, 0x5A, 0x5C,
0x80, 0x6C, 0xC6, 0xF2, 0xE8, 0xAD, 0x7D, 0x04,
0x0D, 0xB9, 0x3C, 0xC2, 0x25, 0xBD, 0x49, 0x63,
0x8C, 0x9F, 0x51, 0xCE, 0x20, 0xC5, 0xA1, 0x50,
0x92, 0x2D, 0xDD, 0xBC, 0x8D, 0x4F, 0x9A, 0x71,
0x2F, 0x30, 0x1D, 0x73, 0x39, 0x13, 0xFB, 0x1A,
0xCB, 0x24, 0x59, 0xFE, 0x05, 0x96, 0x57, 0x0F,
0x1F, 0xCF, 0x54, 0xBE, 0xF5, 0x06, 0x1B, 0xB2,
0x6D, 0xD3, 0x4D, 0x32, 0x56, 0x21, 0x33, 0x0B,
0x52, 0xE7, 0xAB, 0xEB, 0xA6, 0x74, 0x00, 0x4C,
0xB1, 0x7F, 0x82, 0x99, 0x87, 0x0E, 0x5E, 0xC0,
0x8F, 0xEE, 0x6F, 0x55, 0xF3, 0x7E, 0x08, 0x90,
0xFA, 0xB6, 0x64, 0x70, 0x47, 0x4A, 0x17, 0xA7,
0xB5, 0x40, 0x8A, 0x38, 0xE5, 0x68, 0x3E, 0x8B,
0x69, 0xAA, 0x9B, 0x42, 0xA5, 0x10, 0x01, 0x35,
0xFD, 0x61, 0x9E, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x9C, 0x86, 0xED,
0xCD, 0x2E, 0xFF, 0xC4, 0x5B, 0xA0, 0xAE, 0xCC,
0x4B, 0x3B, 0x03, 0xBB, 0x1C, 0x2A, 0xAC, 0x0C,
0x3F, 0x93, 0xC7, 0x72, 0x7A, 0x09, 0x22, 0x3D,
0x45, 0x78, 0xA9, 0xA8, 0xEA, 0xC9, 0x6A, 0xF7,
0x29, 0x91, 0xF0, 0x02, 0x18, 0x3A, 0x4E, 0x7C};
static byte Table3[] = {
0x73, 0x51, 0x95, 0xE1, 0x12, 0xE4, 0xC0, 0x58,
0xEE, 0xF2, 0x08, 0x1B, 0xA9, 0xFA, 0x98, 0x4C,
0xA7, 0x33, 0xE2, 0x1B, 0xA7, 0x6D, 0xF5, 0x30,
0x97, 0x1D, 0xF3, 0x02, 0x60, 0x5A, 0x82, 0x0F,
0x91, 0xD0, 0x9C, 0x10, 0x39, 0x7A, 0x83, 0x85,
0x3B, 0xB2, 0xB8, 0xAE, 0x0C, 0x09, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x1C, 0xE1, 0x8D, 0x66, 0x4F, 0xF3, 0xDA, 0x92,
0x29, 0xB9, 0xD5, 0xC5, 0x77, 0x47, 0x22, 0x53,
0x14, 0xF7, 0xAF, 0x22, 0x64, 0xDF, 0xC6, 0x72,
0x12, 0xF3, 0x75, 0xDA, 0xD7, 0xD7, 0xE5, 0x02,
0x9E, 0xED, 0xDA, 0xDB, 0x4C, 0x47, 0xCE, 0x91,
0x06, 0x06, 0x6D, 0x55, 0x8B, 0x19, 0xC9, 0xEF,
0x8C, 0x80, 0x1A, 0x0E, 0xEE, 0x4B, 0xAB, 0xF2,
0x08, 0x5C, 0xE9, 0x37, 0x26, 0x5E, 0x9A, 0x90,
0x00, 0xF3, 0x0D, 0xB2, 0xA6, 0xA3, 0xF7, 0x26,
0x17, 0x48, 0x88, 0xC9, 0x0E, 0x2C, 0xC9, 0x02,
0xE7, 0x18, 0x05, 0x4B, 0xF3, 0x39, 0xE1, 0x20,
0x02, 0x0D, 0x40, 0xC7, 0xCA, 0xB9, 0x48, 0x30,
0x57, 0x67, 0xCC, 0x06, 0xBF, 0xAC, 0x81, 0x08,
0x24, 0x7A, 0xD4, 0x8B, 0x19, 0x8E, 0xAC, 0xB4,
0x5A, 0x0F, 0x73, 0x13, 0xAC, 0x9E, 0xDA, 0xB6,
0xB8, 0x96, 0x5B, 0x60, 0x88, 0xE1, 0x81, 0x3F,
0x07, 0x86, 0x37, 0x2D, 0x79, 0x14, 0x52, 0xEA,
0x73, 0xDF, 0x3D, 0x09, 0xC8, 0x25, 0x48, 0xD8,
0x75, 0x60, 0x9A, 0x08, 0x27, 0x4A, 0x2C, 0xB9,
0xA8, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x73, 0x62, 0x37, 0x16, 0x02,
0xBD, 0xC1, 0x0E, 0x56, 0x54, 0x3E, 0x14, 0x5F,
0x8C, 0x8F, 0x6E, 0x75, 0x1C, 0x07, 0x39, 0x7B,
0x4B, 0xDB, 0xD3, 0x4B, 0x1E, 0xC8, 0x7E, 0xFE,
0x3E, 0x72, 0x16, 0x83, 0x7D, 0xEE, 0xF5, 0xCA,
0xC5, 0x18, 0xF9, 0xD8, 0x68, 0xAB, 0x38, 0x85,
0xA8, 0xF0, 0xA1, 0x73, 0x9F, 0x5D, 0x19, 0x0B,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x33, 0x72, 0x39, 0x25, 0x67, 0x26, 0x6D, 0x71,
0x36, 0x77, 0x3C, 0x20, 0x62, 0x23, 0x68, 0x74,
0xC3, 0x82, 0xC9, 0x15, 0x57, 0x16, 0x5D, 0x81};
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:5)
Sense of humour (Score:4)
I nominate this for Slashdot's Greatest Hacks of the 21st Century competition that will probably show up in 999 years or so
Thank you "SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA "
This has to work (Score:2)
On a completely different note:
Yesterday was a debate on our national television (in Norway) with very prominent debaters on "our" side and some twisted, desperate ones on theirs. The DVD associatons' attorney, Tøndel, were the biggest joke of a lifetime, especially when he couldn't explain why copying DVDs is impossible without DeCSS... He kept talking non-stop througout the show to try to silence the opposition. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunately, at the point where the charges against Jon were called fascism, the show ended.
You are ignorant of the facts. (Score:4)
> hardware decoders only.
Think about it. This doesn't solve anything. First of all, there are very few true hardware DVD cards for computers. Most are really just hardware MPEG encoders, so the issue of CSS is just as relevant if you have a hardware card than if you don't. Secondly, we won't ever get specifications for these cards anyway, because the manufacturers signed agreements with Macrovision not to reveal anything to prevent the Macrovision from being turned off. (of course, people have already worked around this for all the cards anyway)
And most of all, we'll still be stuck with the obnoxious practice of region coding if we use somebody else's secret hardware system.
> The biggest argument is that deCSS was written to allow playback on Linux yet the defending
> lawyer emphatically denies the existance of any player for DVD files on Linux.
The defendents' lawyers argued that was WAS no DVD player for Linux before DeCSS. As a matter of fact, there now is one, and I am sure it will be publicly demonstrated at the trial.
> The public interest in this case has not been about playing DVD's on Linux but individual
> freedom. That makes the argument as credible as wanting to drink under the age of 21.
What, are you saying you shouldn't be allowed to buy DVDs and watch them until you're 21?
> So without any credibility behind the DVD argument, no DVD player,
The argument is that it is immoral for the MPAA or DVDCCA to tell us what we can or cannot do in our own homes, with the movies we paid them for. And see above, there is a DVD player for Linux. You know this because you've posted on the mailing list for it, so stop being facetious.
> we can only expect a repeat of the Fraunhoffer Gmbh fiasco.
This is where you are most wrong. Fraunhofer claimed to own the patent rights "essential" to the MP3 format. Moreover, no one could argue with them, because none of the people making free encoders bothered to really understand MPEG audio and know if the claim was valid or not. They were just copying the ISO source code and hacking it.
This is a case of legal reverse engineering, and CSS is not covered by any patent. And before you talk about the Xing license agreement, don't forget that U.S. courts have declared such licenses invalid in numerous cases already directly involving reverse engineering. (see the EFF web site for references) The MPAA is treading on thin legal justification for their actions.
And what makes you think we are going to lose? Have you looked at the press coverage recently? The headlines are "Linux DVD player denied", not "pirates arrested". There is strong public support for Johansen in Norway. The movie companies are going to end up tarnishing their imagine more than they ever could have possibly imagines.
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:3)
It's a CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
As a previous poster pointed out, in most countries, "constitutional right" doesn't have the meaning you seem to think it has.
This is an UNALIENABLE RIGHTS as I've mentioned before and CAN'T under any laws be deem ILLEGAL.
Sorry, we're owned by rich people. They determine what the laws will protect. People are, in general, too stupid to know what's happening to their rights. If you can convince them that you're doing something good and moral (not hard to do, just talk about the children and stuff.. doesn't hurt to mention God a few times either), they'll back you up as you strip their rights away. They don't listen to rational arguments, they vote with their emotions, which is why politicians have the ability to manipulate public into supporting their idiotic legislation.
The "war on drugs" is a classic example of this. Tell people that the whole reason you need to be able to take people's property with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing is in order to protect the children from the evil drug dealers and they'll give you all the power you want. After all, they'll only enforce the screwed up laws against the "bad guys."
Anarchy anti-defamation league sez... (Score:2)
No but..
Anarchy+Greed == Chaos
Anarchy+Stupidity == Chaos
Anarchy+Conceit == Chaos
So as you can see, Anarchy is half of Chaos.
On the other hand:
Govenment+Greed == Chaos
Government+Stupidity == Chaos
Government+Conceit == Chaos
But the biggest source of chaos is two or more governments claiming the same hunk of land, population, or resources. So:
Polyarchy == Chaos.
And the more governments, the more chaos.
(What gripes me the most is people - generally in the government or the establishment media - who point to a polyarchy and its associated violence and tell us that this shows us how bad "Anarchy" is.)
Uh, read that again. (Score:2)
Make Backups! (Score:4)
Even here in the good free USA, the government can and probably will barge into your homes, confiscate everything that looks technical, including your computers, CD's, discs, manuals, CD players, DVD players, etc. etc. They are under no obligation to return your stuff to you, even if you are eventually found not guilty!
Make sure you have backups of important stuff and possibly a computer you can use in the mean-time if they do raid you.
And if you do get raided, don't say a word to them without your attorney there. This should be obvious, but police and government agents can be very intimidating!
________________________________
Re:Is a "clean room" DeCSS possible ? (Score:2)
Whilst the inner workings of CSS are covered by a licensing agreement, the basic interface specifications may not be; in addition, if it can be proved that keys and decryption algorithm may be obtained without use of Xing and one can document the whole procedure, with only reference to those documents and possibly access to any DVD drive, then AFAIK this would probably qualify as a clean development in a similar way to how early BIOSs were cloned for PCs.
Re:Director of NASA (Score:2)
My presumption for the existence of this law is in case the Presidency is taken over by aliens who mimic humans, NASA is best able to determine this and arbitrarily detain them. Now, if I were an alien, I'd take over NASA and make sure we never found out that aliens existed . . .
The director of NSA can surely detain you as well, with military force, but no one would ever know that you were detained, including yourself ...
Re:WRONG (Score:2)
These battles have been fought before and when the free market is allowed to enter the consumer always wins. "Us gimme-it-all-now types" are why you have 5 cents a minute long distance and 500 local/long distance minutes on your cell phone. We're also the reason you'll get flat rate long distance in the very near future.
Now I know where this argument will get taken so I'll address it here. Cable TV. If I build a descrambler and watch all of a cable systems channels how is that different than decoding a DVD? The difference is that I payed for the DVD. Once I pay for the channel I get it descrambled by the cable company. But what if I still use my descrambler after I pay? The cable company has no course of action against me. I am now paying for the signel. At which point I can tape it on my VCR, encode it as an MPEG stream and write it to VCD or if I have the authoring equipment, burn it on to a DVD and play it back on my linux laptop while I'm on a plane to Norway.
America was founded on the principle that I have the right to risk it all. I might win, I might lose. How much I lose is based on how much I risk. But Corporate america wants it to be "I can risk it all and win, but if I don't I'll press charges".
Re:Clue sticks at the ready.. (Score:2)
Let's face it, the DVD CCA isn't really worried about the guy with the ability to bit copy one DVD and make/press thousands of exact copies for resale. They've always known that this is possable. If you do a search for cable box instructions you'll find loads of information from crackers on how they use electron microscopes and other fairly high tech equipment to crack the cable scrambling.
But this isn't what the DVDCCA is afraid of, what they are afraid of is you snagging a copy of the DVD you rented last night because it is so good that you want to watch it again this weekend but don't want to rent it again. Or you wanted to give a copy to Uncle Jimmy because it just happens to exactly express your political opinion.
Those are the "pirates" that DVDCAA is worried about.
How many of us have borrowed a friends ablum and cut your own tape of it. Or maybe even made an MP3 for your own personal use. According to the MPAA and DVDCCA that's piracy. The big pirates are pretty easy to catch. The FBI goes after them and there are lots of foot prints all over the place. Relativly easy to find and relatively easy to prosicute.
But the FBI just isn't going to want to spend a few grand just to prove that you made a copy of the Matrix and handed it to your brother. Its just to small to bother with.
DVDCCA came up with a technical solution. They hid some bits and then did a simple encrypt on the data, no big deal. But what it did was it made it difficult for you and me to make those single copies. Of course it also ment that anybody using a real OS got screwed. No DVDs for us FreeBSD users or IRIX or BeOs, or oh yea, Linux. We just got left out.
DVDCCA and MPAA isn't nearly as worried about 10 people stealing 10,000 copies each as they are of 1,000,000 people stealling 2 or 3 copies each.
All that aside, I got my builitin from the EFF and sent them a check to help fight this and I hope that the good guys, that's us, win.
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
the "war on drugs" is a much needed campaign.
That may be, but not the way it's being done now.
What needs to be done is to fix the problems in this country that are producing people stupid enough or desperate enough to use these drugs in the first place. What needs to be done is to lock up anyone who commits a violent crime, drug-related or not, and not let them out again 2 years later instead of filling up the prisons with people convicted of "drug use" or "drug possession." Drug use should not be a crime in itself, nor should possession, except in very large amounts when intent to sell can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have a problem with them prosecuting people for selling drugs that are addictive and have well-known adverse effects, especially without a doctor's prescription. (This should apply to tobacco too, but there's too many people already hooked and it generates too much money for the government for them to do anything about it.)
What I take serious issue with is the government's blatant disregard for people's rights. If I'm carrying over a certain amount of money with me when I cross the border, they are free, without any evidence whatsoever, to confiscate it. They decided that they should be able to just assume it's drug money and take it from you. No trial, no conviction of anything, they just take it. Same thing they're doing with some of the alleged computer crimes now. They take people's computers and any related hardware and they keep them for as long as they are allowed (5 years). They don't need to prove you did anything. By the time you get the stuff back, it's virtually worthless.
I'm entirely in favor of reducing drug use and illegal drug sales in this country, I just vehemently oppose the methods they are using.
No More Games (Score:5)
There is no reason to be craven about this. We don't need to argue that it might not have come from Xing, we don't need to argue that an accident in court suddenly invalidates a trade secret, we don't need to rely on cheap tricks to get our way.
It's called the Moral High Ground, folks.
Yes, the code is everywhere on the 'net. Stop for a moment and realize that this isn't a magic talisman. A horde of thieves is still composed of thieves, and that's all we're saying by saying we've all got it and you can't stop us.
But guess what, folks. We ain't thieves. Lets not fall into their trap.
(Yes, this post is conspicuously absent of my defense of DeCSS, mainly because I want to finish my main paper on the topic and release all at once. Email me if you believe in the spirit of the law, because believe me, in the end it's going to be the spirit more than the letter that will carry the day.)
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data (Score:2)
Creative dxr2 (Score:2)
The drivers are even open sourced... the only binary needed is an image of something, I forget what. (I was drunk last night when I set this up
If anybody's wondering, the URL is http://opensource.creative.com [creative.com]. The command line program works decently (but you have to know the number of the
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
CSS Patent (Score:2)
Hey, has anyone noticed this part in Exhibit C?
Have filed patent applications, huh? Well, that should certainly calm down the Slashdot crowd.
Not!
Maybe this code will soon be available by browsing patent databases. Alas, a patent will be enough to keep it underground and out of Linux distros. It looks like there's a lot of fronts to fight these guys on. I'm beginning to think I didn't give EFF enough money.
---
Re:Corporate America Has No Right (Score:2)
Yeah, not saying anything about code created to play DVDs would have been REAL malicious...um...trying to think how...
The last resort.... (Score:2)
--
Re:Clueless in court (Score:2)
Re:Clip & Save (Score:2)
As of Sunday, I'm Doe number 191, so there are plenty more identities to go around. ;)
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:WIndows or not, doesn't matter... (Score:2)
I guess this is why we have courts. I read it differently.
Let me substitute some words here to illustrate what I think it's saying. Keep in mind, IANAL, so I may be misinterpreting a word or two, but it sounds reasonable to me.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a DVD may circumvent an encryption scheme that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that DVD for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of the DVD with other programs, and that the decryption routine has 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.
The way I see it, since the decryption routine wasn't available to the person who wanted to write a DVD player, whether other DVD players are available or not, they have the right to reverse engineer the encryption scheme in order to make their program work if the decryption routine isn't already available to them. Just because other players have built in decoders, doesn't mean I can achieve interoperability with the program I'm writing. Therefore I have the right to circumvent the protection that is keeping me from making my program work with DVDs.
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
Ah, but many of the rights enumerated in the amendments to the constitution (including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights) are inalienable rights.
Why? Because the United States government says so? That may fly here, but why should other countries conform to our beliefs? We sure don't conform to theirs. We'd raise holy hell if China tried to tell us what rights people should have. Why should it be different when we tell them what rights people should have?
I think I agree with most of the rest of your post though. I should probably read it again when I'm more awake :)
Buy the T-Shirt!!! (Score:4)
Everyone go to Copyleft.net and buy a DVD t-shirt with css_descramble.c source code on the back!
Re:DeCSS (Score:2)
Hmm.. Slashdot is one of the named defendants, no? Looks like a potentially interesting test of Common Carrier status.
Yeah.
---
Cluestick not necessary (Score:2)
I hadn't hear the $10M figure before, actually I never heard any figure. Usually the terms of licensing agreements are closely guarded info. Licenses also usually sold by a certain dollar amount, for a certain number.
Several companies have applied for licenses to make DVD decoders for Linux, and have been denied each and every time.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought I read yesterday that the DVD CCA specifically told the Judge that no one had requested a license to create DVD software for Linux. I can't seem to find the article back, but if you can tell me where you heard that several companies were denied licenses, I'd happily look there for the info.
My statements are based on the facts I've read in articles. I thought I read the bit about no one requesting a Linux license in the court documents, but I can't seem to find it back. But I have to ask why the DVD CCA wouldn't license the technology to a company that was interested in making Linux software. After all, more licensing fees means more money for them. There's nothing about a Linux client in itself that makes it easier to crack than a Windows client. The only reason I could guess is that the company requesting the license didn't have the finacial backing to afford a reasonable licensing agreement (by the DVD CCA's definition of reasonable), or they had concerns that the company would simply leak the propriatary information.
The cluestick isn't necessary, just show me the facts. Who are the companies? Where did you read or hear that they had tried to attain licenses? I'm also curious where you heard the $10M licensing fee.
Re:Conspiracy Theories (Re:Why is everything last. (Score:2)
I think this is the beginning of a new trend. There's a good chance that hackers will become the corporate equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." This kind of thing either needs to be nipped in the bud now, or we might as well get used to it.
We really need more discussion about how we can fight back. Can we change public perceptions of hackers? Can we expose the fact that corporations are attacking our freedoms? What CAN we do? I really wish I knew the answer. Someone suggested a couple days ago to donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]. I grabbed my credit card and did it. It only takes a minute and you can get a cool book if you donate $65 or more. If you haven't donated to the cause yet, make sure you do--NOW.
numb
Re:This is comedy! (Score:2)
That doesn't mean its legal to download and compile the source code, you are merely free to read. Obviously redistributing this information to others is when it gets messy.
Now, there are limitations that can be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, that is (normally) done on an individual state basis (unless the matter is a matter of national security or a similar federal government "concern").
In other words, if they haven't had a judgement in your state, then it's legal to read. I believe there's only been that kind of action in CA and NY (where the litigants are from).
Now, the information can also be pulled from the public record (which is what this meeting is about). After that point you no longer can claim to be merely disseminating that public record to others like a nice, proper news agency, and can be held liable for your actions.
If there are any lawyers present, please, correct me!
Before Y'all flip out.. (Score:2)
THe court simply says... what is the cost/benefit/likelyhood of success?
It is *possible* the DVD CCA will win. Perhaps their rights *have* been violated. If they HAVE, then having all this code all over, including in public documents means any ruling the court would make after the fact meaningless. on the other hand.. the courts simply say 'stop doing this until the case is decided'.. doesn't this make sense?
Hey... nobody said it was unfair an injunction was granted acgainst Microsoft, to make them stop distributing J++ until the Sun-MS Java trial is over... hey.. same thing there, no? TRIAL isn't over.. no judgement made...
but the jude figured that if MS was in the wrong, then by letting them continue, sun's whole plan could be shot, wheras if MS was right, they would simply suffer a minor setback in sales.
Why we're going to lose just like we lost mp3 (Score:4)
The biggest argument is that deCSS was written to allow playback
on Linux yet the defending lawyer emphatically denies the existance of any player for DVD files on Linux.
The public interest in this case has not been about playing DVD's on Linux but individual freedom. That makes the argument as credible as wanting to drink under the age of 21. Face it. When you're a teenager you have no rights, but when you graduate from college you'll inevitably have more rights. How many Linux hackers do you run into who have graduated from college? So without any credibility behind the DVD argument, no DVD player, and no interest we can only expect a repeat of the Fraunhoffer Gmbh fiasco.
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
Given that the judge already granted a temporary *TEMPORARY, get it?* inunction against many web sites in the suit... preventing them from distributing DeCSS source until *after* the trial.. and the purpose of the trial is allegedly to protect trade secret information, it makes sense that those court documents that include said alleged secrets should be shielded until the trial is over.
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
It harms them in no way. You can't just say 'it's supposed to be a public document!'.
Court records are sealed for a number of reasons.
Re:ex-post-facto is legal now, apparently (Score:2)
These cops *own* guns today.. the act of *owning* is continuous, and in their case, no longer lawful (what a silly law...).
The only thing they did in the past was *acquire* the weapon, which may be covered under different terms.
Too fast -- too slow -- just right? (Score:5)
To a layperson, the law seems to move glacially (and it generally does). Nothing ever gets decided, and when it does, only a little bit at a time.
There are some exceptions, however, and good agressive lawyers can use them to achieve partial results with remarkable speed. One is the preliminary inunction/TRO -- which by rule must be decided promptly. The other are these administrative emergency motions. The court is highly likely to seal this initially, and promptly, on the theory that it can always be unsealed, but that if not sealed, the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. (cat-out-of-bag, genie-bottle, pick the cliche of your choosing).
It certainly *DOES* seem unfair when you represent defendants (as we seem to be doing a lot of these days), and a plaintiff who has had months to prepare a complaint and preliminary injunction/TRO papers just files, serves, and gives you just days to rally (usually just hours, since the client has spent days shopping for a lawyer). In practice, though, this is often enough time to address the status quo questions.
I cannot defend the conduct of MPAA, but I note that the results obtained so far, and the tactics used, are not unusual or surprising. Such tactics are regularly used by plaintiffs representing not only corporate monsters but also individuals. (I presently have a case where an individual unwealthy single mom who sued a corporation for copyright infringement. Her lawyers used precisely the same tactics.)
In other words, cool your jets. This is not the unconcionable part -- it is in fact routine and expected legal stuff. The unconcionable part comes on the bringing of the case and the results on the merits.
In just a few weeks, the opportunities for breakneck nasties are over, and we will be communally criticizing the system for being so onerously slow at being able to finally resolve these questions.
I know its not as much fun as presuming that the judges are cowtowing to wealthy powers-that-be in whose pockets they reside, giving opportunities to the monied not available to mere mortals. But this just isn't the case as to *THIS MOTION* -- it is a fairly routine matter, and one that doesn't require much effort for which to prepare a response.
Re:What disturbs me is.. (Score:2)
I'd be pissed if I was "not allowed" to play a DVD in my standalone player, because it wasn't a Windows PC.
Clueless! (Score:5)
has trouble with the fact that the DVD "code" mechanism has been broken.
They still don't realize some facts of life.
When recordable cassette decks became common, they were feared as a
means of breaking the back of the music industry -- one person would
buy an album, and then distribute copies.
This happened with videotapes.
With CDs.
Will happen with DVDs.
(Just buy a Phillips DVD recorder and make bit-wise copies of a DVD for an
exact copy.)
The majority of people (the market) will still buy original copies.
This is not a theory or hypothesis but a simple truth. It is easier
for a person to go to the local MediaShop to buy a movie, or music, or
anything else than to find Joe "Jon Johansen" Hacker to burn them a copy
of Titanic.
Sure some people copy their work and distribute the copies. There is always
going to be a "grey" (I think chartreuse, but that's me) area surrounding
the profit zone. Grow up and live with it.
Focus on the profitable area and be satisfied with it.
Norweigan Constitution on Free Speech (Score:2)
http://odin.dep.no/ud/nornytt/uda-121.ht ml - Norweigan Constitution. [odin.dep.no]
Article 100 There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Article 101 New and permanent privileges implying restrictions on the freedom of trade and industry must not in future be granted to anyone. Article 102 Search of private homes shall not be made except in criminal cases.
Re:Make Backups! (Score:2)
By the time they are obligated to give it back your equipment and data are useless and out of date.
Make those backups and keep them off site. It's the minimum you should be doing anyways. Ever heard of fire, flood, and theft? Keep backups and keep a copy or two off site.
The other thing to do is make sure your restoration strategy works. It does no good to make a backup if you can't restore it. This includes having all the copies of the programs and OS you need for restoring. Also keep a copy of the hardware specs for your backup drive of choice. I know of one case where they had to buy three different tape drives before they found right type that could read the tapes. Keep them all safe and off site.
Doubtfull (Score:2)
Legality of DeCSS (Score:5)
Re:Conspiracy Theories (Re:Why is everything last. (Score:2)
Re:Make Backups! (Score:2)
My Mirror: http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/dvd [freeserve.co.uk]
This case is realy against RedHat and Diamond (Score:5)
I have said it before and I will say it again. This hasn't got squat to do with weather you or I have LiViD. It's actually about making sure Diamond Multimedia can't use it. It's so RedHot and Mandrake can't distribute it to the next generation of Linux users.
What's the deference between us and them ? They have money, wide distribution channels, deep pockets and the will to sell DVD players ( software and hardware ) for less than they cost now.
The aim of this lawsuit is to get a court to rule that DeCSS is outlawed. This is why http://www.2600.com was one of the defendants in each and every case. They have been protesting about Kevin M. for like 5 years. They have a bad rep to judges and the like ( "how dare you say he is being held unjustly" ).
Once such a ruling exists DeCSS and LiViD will remain things a technically savvy user downloads and installs on his own to play DVDs. Without the ruling it becomes something smaller electronics companies use to avoid forking over a few bucks for ever DVD player they ship. The big companies ( Sony ) will follow suite and the DVD-CCA will seas to exist.
So the fact is distributing it far and wide doesn't mean squat. What we need now is to win in court. We need to make a *Judge* say that these people are talking out of there asses and the stuff was revers engineered fair and square.
This is also why they went after that kid so brutally. They don't so much want him to stop distributing it since he did that months ago when they asked the 1st time. They want to pressure him into signing an Affidavit to the effect that "I stole this data illegally and apologize for letting it get out."
That last point explains why his father was also taken. It's all an attempt to scare his mother into making him "confess". Some of the Linux hackers in Norway need to be at that family's house today. Comfort them, tell them you care and most importantly be prepared to fight for them as much as possible. That way you keep the kid in the fight and we can't afford to have him quit. Ever.
BTW : Somebody loan him a new PC for me.
Re:What disturbs me is.. (Score:2)
"Man this is some fucked up shit!"
:-)
Re:This is why they sort-off legalised mariuana (Score:2)
Re:Sense of humour (Score:3)
Though I would say that this is not authopities sence of humour, it is a MPAA legal problem.
It will actually be reproduced in any such case in the future. All the defendant will need will be to make sure that the "offending code is entered as an evidence in court.
After that it is a matter of the public record accessible freely in almost any country. Any motion to close it will be a motion for a closure of a public record which has very low chances to succeed.
Slightly OT: last CNN article pretty objective (Score:2)
Chris
Re:Too fast -- too slow -- just right? (Score:2)
I fail to see why the fact that it's "routine and expected legal stuff" necessarily implies that it's not unconcionable. And just because individuals (unwealthy ones, even) use it doesn't mean it's a good thing. Unwealthy people also mug and rape and steal from the undeservedly wealthy. Does that make it right? Rarely...
Re:Make Backups! (Score:4)
your first mistake is to assume the US legal system ia a fair and just system, treating people with respect.
ha! yeah right - wake up and smell the coffee.
I've known folks who had their house raided and posessions stolen by the thugs^H^H^H^H^Hcops just because they were suspected of posessing drugs. yes, this country has a very screwed up sense of priorities. some ultra non-violent 'offender' gets royally fscked by the feds and permanently loses all rights to his posessions. has to face an incredibly expensive legal system - and still has ZERO recourse to regain his stolen (ie, stolen by the police) posessions. all for some right-wing moralistic scapegoat we call the 'war on drugs'.
but now, since they've come for the drug users and they're getting bored, they're now coming for the linux dvd viewing folks. what was that saying about "they came for the {mumble} and I wasn't a {mumble} so I didn't speak up. then they came for the {...} and I wasn't a {...} so I didn't speak up. then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me".
its getting chillier and chillier outside.
--
Re:Why we're going to lose just like we lost mp3 (Score:3)
Anyway, so far, pretty much each move by the court seems appropriate to me. Preliminary injunction? It's probably the right thing to do. Now, I'm not sure what MP3s have to do with it, but I think I know why you say the biggest argument is about individual freedom. It seems to me the case is about the following:
The DVD-CCA filed a suit based on the fact that the CSS was stolen. Was it? That's for the court to decide, apparently. The DVD-CCA says they are the sole licenser of the CSS, but does that give them certain rights/controls over individuals who have not entered into license agreements with them? If the case sets the precedent that I don't have the freedom to not enter a license agreement that I've never seen with a party I want no business with and maybe have never heard of; then, yes, I'd certainly say this is about individual freedom.
What I find repugnant, on both sides, is the heated way the point is obscured. The DVD-CCA in their original filing [cryptome.org] give three disrespectful /.-style quotes in the very introduction of the application! It's as if the court is expected to find someone guilty of a crime because they are impolite! "Here's the kind of thing the defendants say. Don't you just want to stick it to them, superior court of California?" Furthermore, their paper is littered with discussion of piracy (no evidence of such was even submitted, as far as I can tell) of the hypothetically underlying intellectual property (the MPA's business.)
On this side of the issue, it seems that the DVD-CCA should be screwed because of one of the following reasons:
- It is a big, rich orginization and therefore symbolizes ENEMY, who naturally should be fucked. We are at war, no?
- They encoded something that is crackable (and therefore ought to be cracked) What the hell did they expect?
- They havn't convinced a Linux vendor to buy a CSS license so we can watch Matrix on our little computer screen. Goddamn Microsoft! They're in league with the devil.
Now, the point is obscured (do you even remember it, or have the above three bullets gotten your blood so hot, that you're already off linking another "mirror."?)It's hopeless that the press can get it right. I hope the court can be more clear-headed.
Re:No More Games (Score:3)
Or more to the point, it's almost certainly what the judge is going to do.
The basis for the judge's ruling in granting the temporary injunction was that not doing so would cause great harm to the DVD group, while doing so wouldn't cause great harm to the DeCSS group (he probably had no role in and no knowledge of the police's action in Norway.) So if he's consistent, he'll order those records sealed. If the case is won by the DeCSS guys, they'll be unsealed, and the code widely available anyway.
As Dan says, save the big guns for the actual case.
Oh, and note that your Slashdot comments are being used in court. To all parties concerned: I have no interest in making illegal copies of DVDs. I am almost certainly going to be spending significant amounts of money buying them in future. I just want to be able to bypass the cncryption so I can view my legal DVDs with whatever software and hardware I choose to do so.
Re:This is comedy! (Score:2)
However, this sequence shows that the DVD clowns still don't understand what publication on the Internet means. Even with the example of hundreds of links to their former trade secret, they allowed this information to be placed in a public place.
Re:Why we're going to lose just like we lost mp3 (Score:2)
Now, the point is obscured (do you even remember it, or have the above three bullets gotten your blood so hot, that you're already off linking another "mirror."?)
No, the point isn't too far obscured. What seems to be driving the mirror-mania is that the MPAA isn't really using the courts to prove their case - they're using the courts to bludgeon this thing to death.
They've won TWO - COUNT THEM, TWO - preliminary injunctions in the United States against a total of 75 or so parties, of which two thirds are not even named. Based on this, and an enormous amount of pressure, they've somehow managed to convince the Norwegian government to arrest a 16-year-old kid based on law which has never been tried and is weak at best.
The truth is, these people aren't interested in moral issues or playing fair. They will paint each and every one of us as evil cyberterrorists, they will twist this in the press, they will threaten huge lawsuits against ISP's thereby assuring that few ISP's will allow anything even remotely controversial.
The most important thing, though - even more than "consumer freedom" - is that they will have gone a long way towards convincing the general public that understanding how technology works is a bad thing, an immoral thing. We already have too much of that crap as it stands. *That* is the real issue here.
The mirror-mania is only the beginning. Until the tide of law turns the other way, we need methods of protecting free software. Someone here mentioned not long ago an "underground railroad". I for one think that's a great idea.
You may not like the idea of keeping an underground going, and to a large extent I agree with you. But we need to be aware that sometimes - quite often - the high moral ground is the first place to bomb into the High Moral Crater. That's the reason for the mirrors.
Mongering (Score:3)
Judge already granted prelimenaty injunctions agatinst TONS of sources of the DeCSS code. It follows that he most likely seal this as well, for the exact same reasons. He would have done it at the same time as the previous one, had they asked.
Having court records sealed until the trial is over is *not* a violation of your rights.
We all know the CCA is *evil*... me included.. but, hey.. they *are* *LAWS* that the CCA thinks should apply here, and they have gone to court to have the court decide. *IF* the CCA is correct, and they can have their work protected by the acts in question, then it follows that the court record will be sealed.
Rather.. if the Judge doesn't seal the record, it makes his other injuncions useless anyway.
Yes. Legit. (Score:3)
Preventive Lawsuit (Score:2)
Believe me, this is not just about recalling the DeCSS code off the web. They KNOW they cannot effectively enforce doing this. What's this about is more a preventive lawsuit - it will make any hacker out there think twice before posting his work.
This lawsuit is also a fiendish stab against Open Source, because the next time such code will be posted annonymously (so that the hackers can avoid being harrased), and the targets will not be the individuals, but the OpenSource community, and the companies that use it, like Red Hat.
This fight is not only about freedom of expression - it is the fight about the validity of the Open Source concept, and there are great many players out there that wish it was dead.
The Horse is Gone! Close the Barn Doors! (Score:3)
Let's presume for a second that the DVD CCA prevails in every suit -- what are they going to collect, some judgement leveled against a 16-year-old kid in Norway? That might be worth almost as much as the judgement in favor of the U.S. Football league in USFL vs. NFL ($1). What good is that going to do?
Re:Why is everything last minute (Score:2)
Re: a new contest is open... + a huge concern (Score:5)
In a different vein, I have what I think is an important question related to the public documentation part 'though: If we downloaded the "exhibit a" [cryptome.org], part of the document while it was "open" (which is the DeCSS source in question), and then they seal it, what is the legal status of those copies we downloaded?
The closest analogy I can think of is this: if I went to the courthouse and made xerox copies of a public document which was later "sealed" by the court, would I somehow be in violation of the law? If so, it seems like it would be an "ex post facto" law (a law passed making a crime out of an act which had not previously been legislated against). At least in the US of A, "ex post facto" prosecution is against our constitutional rights. IANAL and this has me very very concerned.
Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data (Score:2)
1. Region encoding, a movie sold in one part of the world can only be played by dvd players sold in stores in that same region. (I'm sure you can ship the players around, but that gets complicated) Same with many other countries. I don't know where the accual borders are set, but it creates problems for people trying to copy a cd and spread it across the world.
2. CSS, only playback on industry specified players, by industry specified software. In other words, I couldn't just go into buisness making DVD players, I would have to get a license from DVD CCA. (I think this is a huge part of the deal, as its not patented or anything, if the CSS is in hte public domain, the licenses are no longer needed). Its about control people, pure and simple.
Re:This has to work, why not copy raw data (Score:2)
Re:No More Games (Score:3)
No. It's what the judge should do, unless the judge wishes to change his mind on the entire matter and decide that the trade secret is too widely disseminated and too innocently added into the court record to be anything *but* public knowledge.
There's certainly an argument to make in that regard, but I'll be blunt: I don't think it's worth making. I'd rather beat these guys once than face stream after stream of legal harassment, only to weasel out at great expense and useless precedent.
Your Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
What disturbs me is.. (Score:5)
Could someone please point out to me where it states on my DVD discs (or associated containers/sleeves/whatnot) that I have "no right" to view them on my Linux system?
Looking at the back of my "Blade" case I can see the following warning:
WARNING: This digital video disc is sold on the condition it is not offered for sale or hire outside Australia (Fine with me.. I'm Australian and live there)
The copyright proprietor has licensed the film (including the soundtrack) comprised in this digital video disc for home use only (Fine also, my computer is indeed in my home) All other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, exchanging, hiring, lending, public performances and/or broadcasts of this digital video disc or any part thereof is strictly prohibited.
Did you see any mention of Linux there? Me neither.
In my opinion, it is becoming more and more obvious that this case is not about DeCSS; it is about the DVD CCA's right to charge exorbitant amounts of money for their beloved "licenses", along with imposing restrictions on said licenses that would be prohibitive of Linux development (which would most likely be under the GPL).
Just think of what could happen if we win this case. Suddenly, all the developers who have agreed to licenses for using CSS code can bypass those licenses and save some dough in the process. A new breed of players could crop up, designed by people/groups who have the programming ability but not the cash to afford a license. All of this would lead to one thing: reduced income for the CCA. Indeed, is CSS not the CCA's main asset (if not the only one)? If so, then the CCA could stand to lose their entire reason to exist if this case fails..
In any case, I think it is appalling that the CCA can openly suggest that Linux users have no "right" to view movies that they have legally purchased. Isn't this called product tying? I hope they get what they deserve.. a solid beating
As a side note, does this mean they will be adding the court to their list of defendants, thus effectively suing the entire United States of America? Maybe the US Govt. will be able to put up some cash towards the war effort
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. (how typical) I'm posting this from Australia (of course), so I apologise in advance if the records are resealed before this was posted - I'm not entirely sure what the time is in the US
Re:This is comedy! -FIA (Score:3)
The exclusions are below:
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and
(B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
Thank you! (Score:3)
I'd love to have a DVD player available for FreeBSD/Linux/etc. Hell, I'd even like to see open source software on the windows platform. Without the technology in DeCSS, that just isn't possible. Much luck to those who fight this fight.
As to the video industry, as one of your more active consumers, I have to say, chill. One-way cable systems everywhere are vulnerable to descrambling, yet most people pay for their premium channels. DirecTV is vulnerable to card reprogramming with the older smart cards... free everything... yet most of us still pay our monthly fees.
And most importantly, those of us who know anything about DVD production know that you don't have to decrypt the DVD to clone it.