Linux Journal on the DMCA 188
phantomlord writes "Linux Journal has a very good summary of how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act came about and how it relates to DeCSS. " Well, how it came about was simple: the copyright industries just paid a lot of money to the right Congressmen. How to get rid of it is the more interesting question.
Re:Control over markets (Score:1)
Microsoft is a *single corporate entity*. That's what makes it a monopoly.
Correct. The MPAA is, of course, a cartel.
Re:Defeat the crappy law in court (Score:1)
Not the only thing at all, you can also :
1. Lobby and encourage others to lobby for the Act to be repealed.
2. Just ignore it anyway (if it's unconstitutional you're not bound by it anyway).
3. Emigrate.
Pixar? (Score:1)
That article in brief (Score:1)
Blah Blah Blah Vague accusations of corruption
Blah Blah Blah free speech
Blah Blah Blah Zzzzzzzzzzzz.........
And the sin of omission award goes to... the "not mentioning that DeCSS runs on Windows".
And the paranoid creativity award goes to... "the MPAA want to track your every move, control where and when you can view materials, and prevent you from sharing your knowledge with others."... If anyone knows where this tracking functionality is in CSS, write to
And while we're here...
'I opened this column with a quote from Jack Valenti: "If we have to file a thousand lawsuits a day, we'll do it. It's less expensive
than losing control of your creative works." As you can see, this was a bit of a slip. He's not talking about copyright infringement.
He's talking about control--specifically, control over the uses made of lawfully obtained, copyrighted material.'
This is a classic. Condemning the control of lawfully obtained copyrighted material... This'll be the same Bryan Pfaffenberger who advocates the GPL, (http://www.gnome.org/mailing-lists/archives/gnom
But then this kind of confusion can be expected when you look at his bibliography.....
Re:Control over markets (Score:1)
You will need to show that a group, wanting to produce a Linux DVD player, formally approached the DVDCCA for a license and were refused.
Or did no one even think of asking?
Re:Getting rid of it.(sidestepping it?) (Score:1)
Now then, where you going to find your content? And what's the point of buying a player which in "ethically pure" mode plays nothing?
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
And all you need to do is pull the encrypted stream onto Linux as a file and then use a Linux DeCSS to test it.
The defence of "It's on Windows to test the code" is very weak.
Next, of "informed one", there's absolutely nothing to prevent me from playing my DVD's backwards on a licensed player. Access control does not prevent "fair use" of copyright materials. It controls *access*. "Fair use" BTW, does not cover works in their entirity, so unless you want to watch movies and skip the last half hour, you are on dubious ground.
BTW, a case can be made for economic harm to legitimate licensees of the decryption technology. Think of it like oooh cable descrambling. You can do it, but it's hardly a *right*.
And hell, someone's got to go against the party line.... The party line seems to be what gave us the sloppy EFF defence in court.
Re:Modern Technology and the Death of Copyright (Score:1)
What CSS prevents you from doing is playing DVD's on an unlicensed player. The license requires you to implement features in the player, like region coding and Macrovision (why no fuss there eh)...
You've omitted that DeCSS was also release on Windows (and in a binary not source form).
Kaplan gave an opinion on law for the injunction; there is no open and shut case on code as free speech and the context of the code *has* to be taken into account.
The rest of the article is just "What if's..." which are very nice by of little relevance to the current issues.
But, just to pick up on one... what if music was distributed on line for 50 cents an album. Would that give you the right to give it to your friend for nothing? If the rights of the artist are to be respected, then the transaction means you just paid 50 cents for your right to play that music. Ponder the mechanisms available to protect that artists right.
Finally, you do the case no good whatsoever by encouraging people to copy copyright material and run "warez" servers. But then who needs to be sensible and help the current case along.
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
When you're in a hole... stop digging.
Re:Control over markets (Score:1)
Microsoft is a *single corporate entity*. That's what makes it a monopoly.
No code is required to be licensed AFAIR for the DVDCCA; you license a key and the license includes a set of responsibilities to implement to comply with the specs.
You'll be telling me that the ISO is an evil monopoly of standards next.
Re:Control over markets (Score:1)
Was is a startup, or was it a shell?
Details please!
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
You've purchased a license to play that copyrighted material on licensed players.
You're ability to make a copy of a purchased work isn't inhibited (as people regularly mention here) as CSS does not prevent bitwise copying (though BackupaDVD kits don't exist yet)
If you want to alter the movie... well CSS doesn't stop that...
The DVD you buy is a carrier for a stream; you've bought it with a license to play it on licensed players. Now, you physically own the carrier, you are licensed to access the contents, but it's the player licensing which is the missing element.
You could own a box identical to a cable decoder and plug it in and watch programming. But you aren't licensed to watch that programming...
Re:Hmm, 'ethically pure'...? (Score:1)
Now, while you are splashing in the swamp...
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
You are licensed to watch the DVD, on a licensed player. That's the missing element.
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
"Approved" players are the ones which *license* a DVDCCA key and comply with the player requirements laid down. And you say licenses are irrelevant? The license on a DVD allows you to play it back on a DVD-compatible player, not any player but one which bears the logo and complies with the spec.
DeCSS is a fiasco. Bad reverse engineering practices and badly thought through legal defences are what's helped contribute to this fiasco.
I don't have a problem with seeing DVDs played on Linux or anywhere else, but if you're going to try and do it, Gnu-idealism is about as an effective a weapon or strategy as a damp haddock.
Re:No such viewing license restrictions (Score:1)
DVD logo on your player, thats the license.
If you choose not to buy region 2 disks, your loss. I buy whichever region has the best version at the best price, and there are titles where R2 has the better versions in the same way that R1 has advantages for other titles. But I wouldn't say that out loud too much.
"Warning: For sale or rental for private home viewing in the USA and Canada only".
If you want to do something about it... start your own movie industry.
Re:Revenue Loss? (Score:1)
The MPAA says that companies are lossing millions of dollars of revenue. Don't they mean they are lossing a chance to make millions of dollars of revenue by controlling all information?
Precisely. I am losing few billions of dollars per year because I am not the owner of all oil industry in some Middle East country. Can I sue them?
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
I'd be tempted to license your E-GUVEGRRA technology just because it has such a cool name.
And I'd love to cite prior art, since I've seen a program with similar output, which can be implemented as "tr A-MN-Za-mn-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m"
(don't use it! I bet that data string is copyrighted too, I saw it on a website once!)
But since I can't even figure out the name of your technology, I'm afraid I couldn't get that much information to sue you.
And your header format is completely original, I'm very impressed! Maybe we could rkpunatr fbzr qngn? [slashdot.org] (You can't profit from my data without my permission! This warning message constitutes a good-faith effort on my part to dissuade you from doing so! If you disregard this message, I will sue you under the DMCA!!!)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
They knew they'd get in trouble one day, for letting people see encrypted text on USENET, when they *knew* that the corporate interests were against it, since it is secretly used as the fast algorithm instead of the 128-bit encryption versions of most popular web browsers.
That 128-bit thing and the random gibberish they send in the occasional block is just to throw off the hackers. In reality, they just stream compressed E-GUVEGRRA encoded text.
Wait... did I just violate another trade secret? I'm going to shut up now, and consult with my lawyers.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
It strikes me that if they're going to broadcast a signal into my property then I ought to have the ability to watch it. Not duplicate it - that's still verboten (unless it's a public domain signal or something)
Cable is not such a big deal, b/c you really do have to hook into their system and this can cause some degredation (e.g. if way way too many people are hooked in without sufficient infrastructure) but there's no similar argument with broadcasts.
Anyone here willing to rebut?
Re:Big Brother (Score:1)
And I disagree with your statement that there would be very few movies to copy otherwise. Copyrights are pretty new things, and while there's certainly *more* pieces of art or scientific advances than there used to be, most serious artists and scientists are motivated by other concerns and have been for thousands of years.
Anyone could copy Michelangelo's "David" if they wanted to, and no one would likely care. But it didn't stop Michelangeo, or his backers, and it certainly wouldn't've diminished the value of the original. But try getting away with that now....
Re:Lots of Linux hackers just want to rip DVDs (Score:1)
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Re:Big Brother (Score:1)
Copyright is government's way of helping you protect your ownership of what you create. Without it there would be very few movies around to copy, legally or otherwise.
Re:No such viewing license restrictions (Score:1)
"This disc is compatible with all players displaying these symbols."
And the region and DVD Video symbols are next to this statement. This implies that you have no rights to view this disc on anything that doesn't display these two symbols. You can try to do so if you want, but there is no promise or garentee that you can. As such you're only rights to view the disc are on licensed players for the region depiced on the disc case and compatible with DVD Video standards. It's very subtle and sneaky, but I'm afraid that it would hold up in court.
This doesn't have any bearing on the NY/CT or CA cases, though, since the issue in CA is trade secret violation and the NY case is DMCA clauses regarding reverse engineering and copyright protection.
Paul Volcko
LSDVD
Re:What about us non-US folks? (Score:1)
The US DMCA is, for the time being, the only law in the world that would prevent you from accessing your own property. Other countries will be under fierce pressure from the MPAA to harmonize with the US; as probably the most important thing that DeCSS protects (besides the people who license players) is the inability to play disks from all regions.
It will be hard for us in the US to beat back the DMCA, but I think that it would be substantially easier to prevent similar laws from being enacted.
Call it sovereignty, call it fair, call it a way for the little people to fight back -- call it anything that works in your country -- but keep similar laws off the books.
If that is done, and free players are available throughout the world, then the good guys will have won most of the battle. And, as the internet is without boundaries; then no doubt some of those players will make it back into the US.
thad
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
I don't think the system in the US is fundamentally corrupt; otherwise, I wouldn't be so outraged. If it were that corrupt, this sort of thing would be commonplace.
You don't get out much, do you?
This sort of thing is more than just commonplace, it is a daily occurrence. Why do you think the tax code in the U.S. is so complicated and skewed toward the big corporations who can get all the big deductions? Why do you think the MPAA even dreams that they can get away with these lawsuits? Because the gov't of the United States of America has become fundamentally corrupt.
What has voter turnout been in most recent elections: less than 50% of registered voters. What percentage of Americans eligible to vote are registered to vote: less than 50%. What that means is your elected officials are voted into office by less than 25% of the population. A block that small is very easy for a small, organized special interest to control. (I wonder how many American Slashdotters who are eligible to vote actually vote.)
The trouble is that the big money interests maintain a strangle hold on the candidates who are put up by the two major parties. These are the only candidates who can afford to run national ads and the only ones who get any kind of attention from the press. When was the last time you heard Harry Browne or David McReynolds mentioned on the news? They're running for President on the Libertarian and Socialist ballots respectively.
The corruption begins at the base of our republican process: the election cycle. American voters are aware of this corruption and so stay away from the polls in droves. Most of them could care less about the gov't because they don't see it as doing anything that even affects their daily life, but rather they see it as protecting the special interests (read: corporations, because special interest is Washingtonspeak for corporation).
Jane & John Q. Dumbass don't give a flip about your DeCSS. They either believe the coroporate hype about people who use it being software pirates, or they just don't see it as affecting them. I mean, they use Windoze, right?
Now, the question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you gonna bitch and moan here on /.? Are you going to fight in the courts? (That can take years, by the way?) Or, are you gonna vote with your ballot and with your dollars? Are you gonna get involved with the EFF or even in a political party that supports your views? It is going to take more than dollars to stop this thing, because the special interests will be able to outspend you every time. Are you gonna run for political office?
I'm thinking seriously about running for the office of President of the United States of America in 2008 and in every election after that. I may never get elected, but I can make a lot of noise.
The system is corrupt, but we can change it. What do you think 1776 was about?
Oh man, what did I just say? My head hurts.
McCain (Score:1)
Erik
Re:McCain (Score:1)
He was a POW and proved it is difficult to railroad him into doing anything.
> Also for a non technical person, this law,
> expecially with its special exclusions for
> content providers and what not, its easy for a
> quick gloss of this bill to appear as a positive
> thing for technology. Almost looks like it moves
> copywrite law into the new millinium! hehehehe
Yeah, that's my excuse for still supporting him. Still, I would think (and this goes for all senators) that they would have at least one geek on the staff who could tell them this is a very, very, bad idea. But I guess conservative republicans go for slightly libertarian geeks.
Erik
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
Vtcnl ngvaynl hyrfenl!
Article and 2600 Flier (Score:1)
With a few definitions placed at the bottom of the flier for non-technically savvy people, even a person who has never touched a computer before will easily be able to see how this is going to affect things that THEY care about, making them much more likely to take action.
Unfortunatly, I see no contact information at the bottom. I am going to attempt to mail the webmaster of the website, but since it is a rather large website I have no way of knowing if it will get to the right people. If anyone can get me a contact address where I may post the information (a post saying permission is granted will not suffice, I do not wish to have a lawsuit on my hands) that would be greatly appreciated.
Don't let the corporate bastards get you down. Get out, print copies of the flier, stand outside the largest movie theatre in your area with some friends, and pass it out. The only way to make a real difference in this fight is to educate the masses. Never give up.
Pressure YOUR Government to put pressure on OURS! (Score:1)
I don't see what else can be done outside our borders. I'd think that this could be tied to countless other international matters that the US handles on a daily basis. If the diplomats keep hearing about this, they'll start to make noise in D.C. - if for no other reason than to stop hearing about it!
Anythings worth a try, with the only exception being nothing.
Linux Journal with an interesting article? (Score:1)
I've written off LJ a long time ago because their lack of decent articles has been rather frustrating for me (except for At The Forge, kudos to Mr. Lerner for producing excellent article after excellent article for the past couple years).
Linux Magazine and Maximum Linux are better choices, IMHO, for magazines that deal with interesting and useful topics.
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:1)
I wonder if we could list our congressmen on eBay, and donate the proceedes to the EFF legal fund?
--
Re:Why this is important (Score:1)
DMCA = ability to create and enforce Monopolies (Score:1)
After all, Microsoft had to do a lot of work to create it's monopoly! It had to buy or crush its competitors, abuse it's relationships with it's "partners", etc.
The DMCA gives the MPAA the power to create monopolies simply by refusing to license the "copyright protection mechanism" needed to view DVD's on computers and operating systems they don't like.
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
If I have a DVD, the rules are actually generally the same. The license on most DVDs is written in such a way that it allows playback via DeCSS.
However the MPAA (which owns no DVD copyrights) is trying to make DeCSS illegal, not via any means of copyright or license (because use of DeCSS doesn't violate any copyright or license in and of itself) but by using the DMCA, since they can claim that using it to break copyright is possible. Their intent is to make it impossible to VIEW dvd's on anything other than an "approved" player.
THIS is what is being railed against, NOT the concept of copyright, or licenses. Whether these things are good or not is an open issue, but the entire DeCSS fiasco has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or license violation; if there were a copyright violation, the plantiff would be the specific studio that owned the copyright, and the defendant would be the person who violated that specific copyright, not the person who developed the software which was used.
This is an important distinction, because this is very directly not a copyright issue, it's a usage issue. So in my opinion, the GPL really has nothing to do with this discussion.
Re:That article in brief (Score:1)
Important? (Score:1)
I'm sorry, I really fail to see how the US legal system now becomes the world legal system - though the international conglomerate now probably is much stronger than nation states
"I sold my soul to the company store."
Re:Getting rid of it. (Score:1)
Re:Control over markets (Score:1)
Re:What You Can Do (Score:1)
Last thursday at the LinuxWorldExpo, I bought one of those DVD shirts, you know, the ones with DVD CSS crossed out on the front and the acutal code on the back... copyleft sells them.
Anyway, today, I wore it to school and to the meeting of our political debate club. A bunch of people asked about it and I briefly explained the issue. Many thought the shirt was funny, but all of them roughly understood the issue. Of course, you can't wear it every day, but buy one and wear it as much as you can; explain to random people who ask about it what the issue is. Spread awareness in general. I found that most people, even people who are into technology and computers, don't know about this particular issue. So teach them. Wear the shirt!
Re:Big Brother (Score:1)
Ryan Salsbury
* Fuck you, badge #51
Moving in the Wrong Direction (Score:2)
I was just reading this article and despite that fact that it is written in a bias against the MPAA, it seems to me that the MPAA has a right to levy whatever protection schemes they care to. They have the right to do that.
If you want to lay an analogy to VHS & BETA tapes, BETA died. Not because it wasn't the better of the two products, but because they (Sony) wouldn't let anyone else manufactur/sell the Players. Isn't this what MPAA is doing with CSS? Seems so. I think that in a few years all these DVD players will become like the ancient Beta's and 8-Tracks that you find in garage salees.
Here's Why:
Here's my personal take on the whole DVD, encripted data thing: If there is someone who comes out with some hot new product that utilizes this encrypted data schema, then do the following:
You couldn't get Microsoft to release the code of it's software. But with enough constant noise, constant product improvement, advocacy, and media coverage - a lot of damage has been inflicted not only into the Microsoft Machine, but into the entire philosophy of having proprietary software.
It is likely that this will become one of the most significant 'grass-roots' events in the 20th-21st centuries. The Corporate/Capitolist animal has been hit square between the eyes and it knows that it must stop and reaxamine it's adversary.
If the mechanisms and behaviour to break down the walls to proprietary software worked there, then why can't these same mechanisms and behaviours be employed against the MPAA and all the Media Content Restriction efforts out there? Same battle - different battlefield.
I don't know anyone who was successful in decompiling/reverse-engineering the Microsoft Code. So why should DeCSS be any more successful in it's efforts? I don't think it will. But I think we have all been shooting in the wrong direction.
Proprietary software was beaten by consistently better products that came with the restriction of GPL. Eventually the proprietary options became so restrictive in use (cost, reliability, etc.) that people looked to alternatives and here we are.
Is there any reason why the same story line _won't_ happen with CSS & MPAA? Eventually they will tighten the noose around data using cost and accessability that people will start looking for alternatives. They key is to have someone/something to answer that call when the time comes. And if it can be demonstrated that you can make a marketable product using an Open Source technology that replaces current-DVD, then maybe the $$$-holders will take a look.
Maybe we need to reconsider where we are putting our efforts. What we do is now is valuable, but this is only a fight for a short term problem. There is a longer term problem that we are not attacking. Replacement of DVD is not a If, but a When. We (OSS) needs to be there when the time comes.
You can flame me @ tallison@mediaone.net if you want to.
On what is happening, and what we should be doing. (Score:2)
The first thing I would like to state is that we should be looking to the law for guidance or policy but for strategy. This may seem like a strange thing to say, but a lot of discussion has revolved around whether DeCSS is legal or not as though we should, if DeCSS turned out to be illegal, throw up our arms and go "Doh! My Bad!". The legalities are important in terms of making sure Jon Johansen is OK (a goal I heartily approve of) but should not be our concern in terms of what we are trying to achieve, but instead, how we achieve them.
Why do I say this? Look at the MPAA and the DVD-CCA. Are they really concerned about us pirating DVDs? Since we've already established it would cost more to do so than to buy legitimate ones, we can guess probably not. No, they have other concerns -- control, indirect profit through licensing, and so forth. But they are using the threat of piracy (amongst other things) as a tool .
We are in a situation where laws are in existance, primarily the DMCA (in this case), which we consider morally wrong.
In this legal climate, we should therefore not be concerning ourselves with the law first; we should be concerning ourselves with what we believe to be the morally correct (or as close as we can get...) course of action. Then we should look into how to use the law as a tool in order to bring that course of action about.
This is what the MPAA are doing (only, they are not trying to bring about the course of action they consider morally correct, but the one they consider most profitable), and what the DVD-CCA are doing, and what we must do in order to fight them.
Digital information, whether it be films, music, text or 'other', is far too important to human civilisation to allow it to be locked down and controlled by a small collection of men in suits with lawyers.
This is only my personal moral outlook -- but it is one, I believe, though cannot prove, is shared by the majority of slashdotters, EFF members (I joined; have you? If not, go do it now!) and, in fact, most people outside of the Motion Picture Industry that have looked into the issues at all.
Artists have a right to be reimbursed for the use of their work. People who have bought copies of their work should be free to use those copies in any noncommercial, non-piracy manner they wish -- such as making backups, or watching it under Linux, or converting it to AVI to watch on the laptop on the plane, or whatever.
As well as using the law, there is also public pressure, and this is a battle in which the MPAA has already fired several salvoes at us: Accusations of being pirates, of seeking to defraud the artists... these things are designed to turn that majority portion of the public which is not aware of the deeper issues, against us.
Thus far, I have been pretty vague about things: Taking a generic overview rather than dealing with individual issues. I aim to rectify this now.
So... two main actions are being brought us: One under Trade Secret law and one under the DMCA.
The Trade Secret action is (I hope) going to fail as being purely rediculous. Allow me to introduce The Cola Analogy, which I hope will serve the Public Relations issue and may even (IANAL but you probably guessed that) serve some use in looking at the applicable law:
"They" (I forget who; Jack Valenti perhaps, or maybe just one of the lawyers for the CCA) keeps pointing out that if you broke into Coca Cola's labs and stole their Secret Formula, you would be in violation of Trade Secret law. They claim that this is directly equivilent to what has happened here. I disagree.
Imagine if you went into your local supermarket and bought a can of coke. You take it to the checkout, hand over some coins for it, and take it outside to drink.
Under Trade Law (as I understand it; remember, IANAL) it is perfectly legal to then take this can to a testing lab and determine its contents.
Imagine if, as you go to tug the ring-pull, and the light glints off the shiny metallic surface of the top of the can, you notice some tiny etched writing: "By tugging this ring-pull, you indicate that you have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions of Use printed upon the side and base of this can."
Flipping the can over in your hand, you read the small text:
I could go on, but I wont, as I can see a few people yawning at the back and rubbing their eyes. The point is that this "license agreement" -- putting The Man back into Manufacturer -- is absurd and would under no circumstances be tolerated!So firstly, on a moral front, this is objectionable; on a legal front, it's shaky, and finally on a devious "lets use the law as a tool" front, at no point does the "agreement" prevent you from jabbing a fork into the side of the can and syphoning off the liquid inside; if you do not pull the ring pull or drink the product, you have not agreed to the license, and thus are not bound by it, and go off and reverse engineer it (uh... I mean... chemically analyse it), publish the results, and do whatever else you like.
The equivilent to this is, of course, just manually extracting the data from the installation package, without running the installer, potentially never even seeing the license agreement, let alone agreeing to it, and taking the resultant code and reverse engineering it.
This is a fact that must be gotten across; I think the "fork in the can" analogy works fairly well here as being something nice and physical for non-technical people to deal with.
Overall, I feel fairly confident about the Trade Secrets case. So let's move on to the other side, the darkly ominous side that is the DMCA case.
The problem with the DMCA is the way it deals with access control mechanisms. This is my Big Beef with it; it could be our downfall, or our point of leverage, depending on how we approach this.
My feelings (remembering that IANAL) on the matter are that DeCSS probably does fall foul of the DMCA. However, my feelings are also that DMCA is unconstitutional. In fact it may even be (to use some legal jargon that has been useful when dealing with Bad Law before) unconstitutionally vague, if "access" is not adequately defined; perhaps a Real Lawyer could look into this.
Why? Because "access" is such a broad, all-encompassing term. That one word is probably one on which the case will hang. Let's look at why.
The DMCA deals with (I'm going to paraphrase here rather than repeatedly cut and paste bits) "devices" which "circumvent technological measures" designed to do two things: prevent piracy, and control access.
DeCSS is almost certainly a "device" as defined by DMCA. It definately "circumvents" a "technological measure". But that measure does not prevent piracy -- by their own admission, in several articles.
No, what "prevents piracy" (we all know there are ways around these things, but those ways around are precisely the "circumventions" made illegal by the DMCA) is the zeroing out of the key sector on blank recordable DVDs. Decrypting a DVD offers no advantage in making a new disk that can be read in a commercial player (the only set of circumstances in which CSS has any effect on potential pirates -- since high level pirates can already stamp out identical duplicates, still encrypted, and have them work; and low level pirates can simply dub out to VHS).
DeCSS does, however, circumvent the "access control" mechanism that is CSS. So it all comes down to whether the "access control" clauses of the DMCA are constitutional or not.
If they are, then that word is the one we will be hung on.
Hmm.
The potential problem with "access" as far as constitutionality, I believe, is that of "barriers to entry" -- a key phrase in the Microsoft trial.
We're looking at a situation where digital video is as easy to manipulate as any other software on a computer, and I think we agree deserves the same protections in terms of innovation. Maybe this is how we can use the law to our advantage -- citing the example mentioned earlier of the Linux startup that wanted to make a Linux DVD player -- to demonstrate that CCA seeks to exert monopoly control. Their argument -- that VA or IBM or whoever could stump up the cash for a license -- is irrelevant because Joe Schmoe on the street could not and is thus locked out of a format which will, as likely as not, become the dominant format for video in the 21st century, stifling innovation. Maybe someone wants to make a better bit of DVD playback software -- say, better optimised for CPU usage, or able to perform more useful features (eg, my hardware DVD player cannot play backwards; perhaps a nifty software one could, with some clever buffering tricks). This right to innovate is what must be protected and furthermore this right to innovation should not be reserved for people with Big Money -- this is where those Barriers to Entry come in. The reason we have so much good Free Software is because anyone can just jump in and get their feet wet with it -- without needing to obtain a grant, License, or anything else from Big Money.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: They opted to use Trade Secret protection instead of filing for a Patent, so they have no legal ownership or protection of the CSS algorithms; they are trying to stifle innovation based on them anyway by (ab)using the DMCA and claiming that their illegal monopoly on CSS is the only thing 'protecting' the materials on the DVDs. Dodgy ground.
Wow, I've gone on for quite a while. I'd like to round off with one final statement: From a PR point of view it's desperately important that we get as much support as possible from content creators. MPAA like to claim they are "protecting the rights of the artist" -- let the artist speak out. If famous film directors, actors, scriptwriters, and so forth, were to be made aware of the issues, and speak up -- assuming they didn't simply toe the Company line -- I suspect we need to talk to some of the more 'maverick', less popcorn-orientated artists -- then we would have a powerful voice to educate the public.
Look at Public Enemy, Prince and others who have fought the record companies; we need Motion Picture equivilents to raise public awareness.
Phew. There. I've said my piece. I feel better now. I'm going to have some coffee.
Re:Copying DVD's (Score:2)
Can somebody clear something up for me? I'm sure I read somewhere that it wasn't that easy to copy a DVD, since recordable DVD's had the place where the keys go pre-burned with zeros.
No equipment currently available to consumers can produce DVDs that can be played on DVD players. There is a theoretically possible way of circumventing that by writing unencrypted DVD (that will also require multiple disks for the content that can fit on one normal DVD -- writable DVDs have lower capacity) that can be played only on computers with MPEG2 players. I don't see, who will bother to go through such a trouble though.
Another question while I'm thinking about it - how do independent DVD producers get their DVD's encrypted, since they don't have the keys either?
What "independent" producers ever made DVDs by themselves?
Or is that a members-only priviledge?
I have never seen DVD encoding equipment and software, so I don't know, what comes with it, however I suspect that it requires special kind of license from DVDCCA.
Scary stuff... (Score:2)
I don't think the system in the US is fundamentally corrupt; otherwise, I wouldn't be so outraged. If it were that corrupt, this sort of thing would be commonplace.
As it is, I know what information is, and I like to collect it. It's mine, that's what it is. If I buy it, I can do whatever I want with it, because I paid for it. If I buy a book, I can read it or save it. If I buy a DVD, I should be able to watch it or trust it not to expire.
The information in that book or movie is now not the property of the people who produced it, because they sold it to me. If they don't like what I do with it, tough, I will laugh at them.
I didn't buy a license to read a book or watch a movie. I bought the physical book, or the movie. If they sue me for redistributing and selling it, that's understandable. But what do they lose if I watch it, or look at all the pretty bits, or use it as a source of data for a musical composition? Did they lose anything because of it? Am I hurting anyone?
They're just so scared of piracy, and someone "causing us to lose $XXX Billion dollars worth of revenue" that they don't mind tromping all over their customers basic rights as consumers. I don't think showing such a lack of respect for the customer is a good way to prevent piracy, or even to stay in business.
Of course, from this broad interpretation, it sounds like I could now take my classified papers and whatnot, encrypt them, and put a note on this that says, "This file contains my credit card numbers, and other classified information. If you decrypt this, I'll sue you under the DMCA". Maybe this could help Mitnick?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Lots of Linux hackers just want to rip DVDs (Score:2)
When given the software to play DVDs, users tend to ask themselves "Now that we can play DVDs what now?" and rapidly shift from deCSS as a playback option to deCSS as a ripping tool. On the other hand, when they see the complexity involved in writing an actual playback program, they're more than happy to focus on DVD ripping instead of writing a player.
Re:Big Brother (Score:2)
So if the govt. were to step out of those two issues altogether, the DVD CCA would no longer exist (not to mention that none of the movie studios would either), and anyone who wanted to copy a movie would have no prohibition from doing so.
It's a bit extreme, but I could live with it.
(Seriously, when you're talking about rights explicitly granted by the government there's no reason *not* to look to the government for recourse.)
What about us non-US folks? (Score:2)
--
No such viewing license restrictions (Score:2)
There is no such restriction declared on any of my DVDs, neither on the packing nor inside.
If such a restriction were visible on a DVD at the point of sale, I would not buy it, in the same way as I choose not to buy any Region 2 disks despite living in Region 2 (I regard the implied censorship and time and price fixing unacceptable). But there is no restriction of the type you mention declared on the DVDs on sale, and I'm not surprised, as it would limit their sales.
In all of this, there appears to be something missing: it is *WE* that keep the studios in profit, yet *our* viewing requirements never get a say. It's time we did something about it.
Re:Independent films (Score:2)
Enter DVD and CSS. The industry gets to pick how you read and write your own DVD's. Make the cost of recording software prohibitively expensive. Don't release recording software for Irix.
You don't have to use CSS to record a DVD if you don't want to... however, I don't know if the other pieces of recording software are similarly encumbered. Can you master your own DVD without infringing on patents?
----
Re:Independent films (Score:2)
----
Re:Copying DVD's (Score:2)
Paul Volcko
LSDVD
PS - The above is en educated guess at the process. The process B license information on DVD CCA's site is sketchy on details beyond interactions with the DVD CCA.
DeCSS runs on WINE too (Score:2)
In any case, there's also css-auth, css-cat, and a few other Linux programs which appeared literally days after DeCSS, but it's unlikely a journalist will mention them since "DeCSS" is more 'photogenic'. "css-cat" makes sense only to Unix wizards, let's admit it
Re:That article in brief (Score:2)
You're ability to make a copy of a purchased work isn't inhibited (as people regularly mention here) as CSS does not prevent bitwise copying
But isn't this what the DVD consortium's case is based on in the East Coast? In the West Coast their case is based on trade secrets, but that argument is really shaky.
Now, you physically own the carrier, you are licensed to access the contents, but it's the player licensing which is the missing element.
But there is no need for a player license! The DVD CCA never patented their method, they just have it as a trade secret. A trade secret only provides protection against a non-innocent spreading the information. For example, someone walking into your office and stealing the info off your desk and distributing it. It does not however protect against others reverse-engineering your product. If they wanted to protect their technique so badly, they should have patented it, but there are stricter requirements for a patent (which CSS might not meet).
You could own a box identical to a cable decoder and plug it in and watch programming. But you aren't licensed to watch that programming...
My point exactly. In that case you are illegally obtaining cable service. You are however licensed to watch a DVD that you have purchased. Just because the DVD CCA realy doesn't want you to doesn't mean the law (as it is written) supports them. Unfortunately the law as it is practiced seems to be supporting them so far.
Re:That article in brief (Score:2)
Well, you couldn't do this when Linux didn't have a filesystem for DVDs. Besides, why do you object to a windows version? I'm not sure what it is about DeCSS that you object to? You haven't even brought up pirating yet
Access control does not prevent "fair use" of copyright materials. It controls *access*.
I think I'm not expressing my point well enough. I have no problem with DVDs having CSS protection on them. I have every problem with companies telling me that I have no right to twiddle the bits on a piece of copyrighted work that I have purchased a license for. Actually this brings up an interesting question - does the purchaser buy the rights to use the encrypted content, or the viewable content? I would have to say it is the viewable content, but I could see it going either way.
"Fair use" BTW, does not cover works in their entirity, so unless you want to watch movies and skip the last half hour, you are on dubious ground.
You're partly correct here. Fair Use would not allow me to quote the whole contents of a book in a magazine article, nor even a sizable chunk of text. The amount depends on many circumstances (there was a case on this topic concerning Jimmy Carter's memoirs actually). But we are talking about an individuals right to do what they want with a copyrighted work that they have legally obtained. You are allowed to make an archive copy of a work in its entirety, so obviously your interpretation of fair use is incomplete. In Nintendo v Galoob, Nintendo sued Galoob for making a device that altered its games. The 'Game Genie' would allow a player to change values in the code governing how many lives a player had for example. Galoob won. The court ruled that the individual has a right to govern their playing experience and that Nintendo suffered no harm. I would contend that the case before us is very similar.
a case can be made for economic harm to legitimate licensees of the decryption technology. Think of it like oooh cable descrambling. You can do it, but it's hardly a *right*.
The case of cable descrambling is very different. You can only use DeCSS if you already have a copy of the DVD. Thus you have already paid for it and there is no economic damage. With cable descrambling on the other hand the information is sent to everyone and its only use would be to unlock information that you haven't paid for.
Re:History Does Repeat (Score:2)
<br><br>
Eh? Could it hell. My original comment simply stated that if the EFF are incompetent then <i>they</i> deserve to lose. That statement made *no* reference to what the <i>open-source community</i>might deserve. See the difference?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:History Does Repeat (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:History Does Repeat (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This will be the first of many battles (Score:2)
But anger does nothing unless it is converted to action.
We must defeat the MPAA on this issue or we will be forced to live in a world without important, basic rights.
We must make an example of the MPAA so that the other hungry corporate wolves will not try to do as the MPAA has done.
This is just the first of many battles we will fight to defend our freedom. Someday the GPL will be chalenged and we must be ready. All the work we have done is at risk.
There are many of us. Together we have considerable power and resources. Look at all we have done. We can prevail in this fight. We must.
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Congress for auction on Ebay... (Score:2)
So, do you wanna do it or do you want me to? (it was your idea after all so you should have the credit for it if you wanna tackle it)
Re:McCain (Score:2)
Re:McCain (Score:2)
Re:McCain (Score:2)
I still like him better'n GWB, although I'm from Texas. Bush scares me and his Rangers never won the World Series. Then again, having a president that was onced pissed on has it's own bad points.
Re:That article in brief (Score:2)
Jiu Jitsu -- Use their overreaching against them (Score:2)
Congress was told what they wanted to hear: that these claims are speculative at best, and a Congressional Study by the LOC through the Copyright Office can determine whether DMCA is a good experiment or a grave evil.
The worse MPAA gets in handling these matters, the better it will be in the long run when it is time to have Congress revisit this question. This time, however, be sure to be there, and get loud. Focus on the strongest issues, step away from those that the Washington insiders will never get.
Ironically, I am optimistic that the present losses in preliminary injunction hearings may ultimately be the best basis for junking anti-circumvention laws entirely.
Am I on to something? (Score:2)
If free software exists that can encrypt and decrypt DVD's, the Motion Picture industry no longer has a monopoly on MAKING DVD's
Think about it. Right now, anyone with a $150 CD burner and some studio equipment can make a CD (of their own music) that's just as good as what you buy in the store, if they're good. The result? Sites like mp3.com where independent artists can completely bypass record companies. Artists are no longer at the mercy of the head honchos, they don't have to send their demo tapes to everyone in hopes that someone will like it. They can do it on their own.
I think we're seeing the MPAA trying to keep the same thing from ever happening to DVDs.
Re:Important? (Score:2)
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1. an earlier occurence of something similar
2 a. something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind [a verdict that had no precedent]
b. the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3. a person or thing that serves as a model
Courtesy of Merriam Webster www.m-w.com
A wiseass without wisdom is just an ass.
Ryan Salsbury
Re:Lots of Linux hackers just want to rip DVDs (Score:2)
Only <em>playing or editing</em> the movie requires decryption.
Thus, the decryption system is for those who wish to play their movies, not for those who wish to pirate.
Period.
Re:Independent films (Score:2)
Yes, a lot of movies come out of the "big guys'" movie houses (think Disney and WB), but there are a lot where they might not be as concerned about foreign-market viewing control. If we can get through to those companies to back us, that is, to not use CSS at all in their DVDs, we'd be laughing!
Re:Independent films (Score:2)
Re:McCain (Score:2)
Admittedly, I am skeptical as to how much McCain can do, even if he is very serious about his platform. However, he is many times better than the empty headed "princeling" bush in my opinion. Wishful thinking, maybe. It is at least calculated.
Anyway, as McCain put it (paraphrased), everyone involved in this political system are tainted and he is just working within it to (hopefully) noble goals. I don't think there is sufficient information on the voting of this particular bill to guess how McCain voted. However, his voting record regarding certain special interests in publicly subsidization and pro big business certainly looks good against his platform. I've recently become much more interested in this race than previous races, because I've finally found a candidate who's more than degrees of hopelessness.
To get back on topic, campaign finance reforms as well as limits on personal gifts by anyone who could be classified as a special interest are very important to restoring unclouded judgment to american politics. Of course, there are other problems such as in party pressure to conform...
Re:Scary stuff... (Score:2)
Yes, I am certainly concerned that we, the government, and the media regularly practice exclusion on these parties -- even if my vision of america does not closely match theirs. Even if some are extremists, they could bring some balance to broken processes.
A different angle... (Score:2)
Sony is a member of the MPAA.
Sony Playstation discs are printed on plain cd's. They can thus be read by cd-roms, and copied by cdrs.
Sony, Inc. hates the makers of bleem! and various mod chips, which allow in various ways people to avoid buying Playstation consoles and games from Sony.
Sony is about to release the Playstation 2, possibly the most anticipated console gaming system ever.
Sony's Playstation 2 games use DVD media.
There's a lot of things we can draw from this....
Contacting filmmakers (Score:2)
Call me crazy but I left Michael Moore a lengthy email about this with a few good links for him to do more research.
With his anti-corporate policy and very liberal (almost left-wing) attitude he would very likely be on our side.
The good news is that I've emailed him before and he actually read it and replied.
The bad news is that he just started filming his new season of THE AWFUL TRUTH and is also POLITICALLY INCORRECT'S politcal correspondent and might be too busy to be reading his email right now.
But if he does read it, it might be just the kind of thing he'd feature on his show.
Re:History Does Repeat (Score:2)
Why doesn't someone forward this to the EFF's legal staff? This might be the kind of precedent for which they're looking.
Just because they're the experts we shouldn't assume that they have the resources to have found every relevent precedent.
Re:History Does Repeat (Score:2)
And this MIGHT be the reason they can not real all of slashdot.
Well, that's all very cute and reactionary, but hardly a good point.
We have no idea how large their staff is, and I think are doing the open-source community a great disservice to display attitudes like that.
Re:History Does Repeat (Score:2)
This is a completely different argument from your original post. Yes, the EFF probably knows that they should look to Slashdot and the open-source community in general for ideas and inspiration.
But your original argument could be reworded to say, "Just because the EFF doesn't have infinite resources the entire open-source community deserves to suffer within the EFF's loss".
I tend to agree more with your latter more reasonable point, not the former.
Getting rid of it. (Score:2)
Well, we quite simply need to do what we've been doing.
Attacking it aggressively at the grassroots level by contributing to the EFF, writing our politicians (I have my senator's and congresman's email addresses in my addressbook, as should you), and writing editorials to any and all publications you can find time for (it goes without saying that these should be to the point and intelligently written).
Naturally, assembling the best legal team that we possibly can is also a must.
But frankly, what else is there TO do? They have HUGE loads of cash, and we have less. We need VA or Red Hat to jump in on the legal defense end, and the rest of us need to work our asses off getting the word out.
Re:Getting rid of it.(sidestepping it?) (Score:2)
I realize that it's a long shot to expect any motion picture companies to ever use some weird format that could explicitly facilitate copying, but who knows -- it would make people think they were cool, and if it existed there would be a lot of people who would refuse to buy anything else.
It would be nice to see something like this happen -- kind of like a rematch of Beta vs. VHS where this time Beta could actually win (so much for 'to-the-point and intelligently written').
Revenue Loss? (Score:2)
The MPAA says that companies are lossing millions of dollars of revenue. Don't they mean they are lossing a chance to make millions of dollars of revenue by controlling all information?
How to get rid if it... (Score:2)
Points of influence (Score:2)
In order for the message to reach the common viewer, we need to convince hollywood's own employees, the acters and actresses. Generally speaking, this is a very diversified group of people. We are far more likely to find well known, well spoken individuals here who are willing to speak out against this both inside their industry and, more importantly, to the outside world where the common man will listen.
I wish I had a list of celebrity emails or addresses. However, I'm guessing that such information IS available, and if used judiciously, stands a good chance of getting non-techno representatives to defeat these ridiculus, restrictive agreements.
I'm getting pictures of Sandra Bullock speaking to E! and telling them how the Net is becoming a reality....
Big Brother (Score:2)
In short this is another conspiracy, if you want to call it that, in which big corporations want to play the role of "big brother". Is it about power? Maybe. But I'm more of the opinion its about money. Take a look at the recent statements by Doubleclick and their scheme to track the web habits of everyone in America. This information is highly valuable to large businesses and advertisers and some will stop at nothing to obtain it, whether it violates the fundamental rights of the constitution or not.
I think it is time for the government to step in and actually protect the population like they are supposed to. They need to crack down on these "big brother" tactics and thereby preserve our venerable constitution.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
My take (IANALANIKW) (Score:3)
U.S. Supreme Court
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. , 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
243 U.S. 502
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
UNIVERSAL FILM MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.
No. 715.
Argued January 12 and 15, 1917.
Decided April 9, 1917
It is sufficient description of the patent to say that it covers a part of the mechanism used in motion picture exhibiting machines for feeding a film through the machine with a regular, uniform, and accurate movement, and so as not to expose the film to excessive strain or wear.
To paraphrase, a way to access the film media in a useful way.
The defendants, in a joint answer, do not dispute the title [243 U.S. 502, 506] of the plaintiff to the patent, but they deny the validity of it, deny infringement, and claim an implied license to use the patented machine.
i.e. I thought I could use it because I bought it.
The defendants agreed to some type of EULA that stated:
This agreement contains a covenant on the part of the grantee that every machine sold by it, except those for export, shall be sold 'under the restriction and condition that such exhibiting or projecting machine shall be used solely for exhibiting or projecting motion pictures containing the inventions of reissued letters patent No. 12,192, leased by a licensee of the licensor while it owns said patents and upon other terms to be fixed by the licensor and complied with by the user while the said machine is in use and while the licensor owns said patents (which other terms shall only be the payment of a royalty or rental to the licensor while in use).'
And you need it to view movies...
It was admitted at the bar that 40,000 of the plaintiff's machines are now in use in this country, and that the mechanism covered by the patent in suit is the only one with which motion picture films can be used successfully.
And the Questions...
This state of facts presents two questions for decision:
First: May a patentee or his assignee license another to manufacture and sell a patented machine, and by a mere notice attached to it limit its use by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee, to films which are no part of the patented machine, and which are not patented?
which I think means "Can you make a machine based on accessing patented tech and distribute it with a notice (license agreement) to use it only for specific media?"
Second. May the assignee of a patent, which has licensed another to make and sell the machine covered by it, by a mere notice attached to such machine, limit the [243 U.S. 502, 509] use of it by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee to terms not stated in the notice, but which are to be fixed, after sale, by such assignee, in its discretion?
i.e. can you do DIVX, SDMI. And control access by later changing agreed upon rules.
some judge's musings (opps, uh "Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: )
This construction gives to the inventor the exclusive use of just what his inventive genius has discovered. (the patent system)
now an interesting bit
If his discovery is an important one, his reward under such a construction of the law will be large, as experience has abundantly proved; and if it be unimportant, he should not be permitted by legal devices to impose an unjust charge upon the public in return for the use of it.
wow, eh? If something is proven to be useless a patent holder shouldn't use the law to try and profit.
It would serve no good purpose to amplify by argument or illustration this plain meaning of the statute. It is so plain that to argue it would obscure it.
and a really long sentence
The statutory authority to grant the exclusive right to 'use' a patented machine is not greater, indeed, it is precisely the same, as the authority to grant the exclusive right to 'vend,' and, looking to that authority, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we are convinced that the exclusive right granted in every patent must be limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that it is not competent for the owner of a patent, by notice attached to its machine, to, in effect, extend the scope of its patent monopoly by restricting the use of it to materials necessary in its operation, but which are no part of the patented invention, or to send its machines forth into the channels of trade of the country subject to conditions as to use or royalty to be paid, to be imposed thereafter at the discretion of such patent owner.
You can't extend patent protection. i.e. "You need this peice to go with that piece and we control both. Pay up."
The patent law furnishes no warrant for such a practice, and the cost, inconvenience, and annoyance to the public which the opposite conclusion would occasion forbid it.
Man, if I we use "inconvenience, and annoyance to the public."...
I think this next part is called "damning as hell" (hehe)
It is argued as a merit of this system of sale under a [243 U.S. 502, 517] license notice that the public is benefited by the sale of the machine at what is practically its cost, and by the fact that the owner of the patent makes its entire profit from the sale of the supplies with which it is operated. This fact, if it be a fact, instead of commending, is the clearest possible condemnation of, the practice adopted, for it proves that, under color of its patent, the owner intends to and does derive its profit, not from the invention on which the law gives it a monopoly, but from the unpatented supplies with which it is used, and which are wholly without the scope of the patent monopoly, thus in effect extending the power to the owner of the patent to fix the price to the public of the unpatented supplies as effectively as he may fix the price on the patented machine.
Use control over the hardware to leverage a higher price for the content, which you also control.
And in conclusion
This notice first provides that the machine, which was sold to and paid for by the Amusement Company, may be used only with moving picture films containing the invention of reissued patent No. 12,192, so long as the plaintiff continues to own this reissued patent.
Such a restriction is invalid because such a film is obviously not any part of the invention of the patent in suit; because it is an attempt, without statutory warrant, to continue the patent monopoly in this particular character of film after it has expired, and because to enforce it would be to create a monopoly in the manufacture and use of moving picture films, wholly outside of the patent in suit and of the patent law as we have interpreted it.
and in black and white
A restriction which would give to the plaintiff such a potential power for evil over an industry which must be recognized as an important element in the amusement life of the nation, under the conclusions we have stated in this opinion, is plainly void, because wholly without the scope and purpose of our patent laws, and because, if sustained, it would be gravely injurious to that public interest, which we have seen is more a favorite of the law than is the promotion of private fortunes.
Both questions as stated must be answered in the negative, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Mr. Justice McReynolds concurs in the result.
There you have it. If we can somehow make this a case of a useless technology (the Decoder/player card) being forced on customers/licensees (useless because it can easily be replaced with simple software) then perhaps there is an arguement. This all seems to be patent law and that's a big proglem (I would assume, since, IANAL, and now I know why, that's some mindbending grammar)
Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting:
I suppose that a patentee has no less property in his patented machine than any other owner, and that, in addition to keeping the machine to himself, the patent gives him the further right to forbid the rest of the world from making others like it. In short, for whatever motive, he may keep his device wholly out of use.
i.e. He thinks it's o.k. to say "It's my ball so you follow my rules (even though I can't play alone) or you can't play. And they're my rules, so don't be thinking you can start your own game either."
Read it yourself for your own interpretation.
Another DMCA Critique (Score:3)
The author concludes, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act "effectively gave [copyright] owners the power to write their own intellectual-property statutes." This is exactly what the MPAA is trying to do. The DMCA effectively removes fair use by making it a crime to circumvent access control even if you would normally have a legal fair use right to access the material.
Defating this will not be easy. In the MPAA suit in New York, Judge Kaplan has already decided in his Memorandum Opinion [cryptome.org] that fair use isn't even an issue the court will address:
Finally, defendants claim that they are engaged in a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.27 They are mistaken.
Section 107 of the Act provides in critical part that certain uses of copyrighted works that otherwise would be wrongful are "not . . . infringement[s] of copyright.''28 Defendants, however, are not here sued for copyright infringement.
Very frightening stuff - let the media and your representatives know what this debate is about!
I wonder if this could mean the end of the MPAA (Score:3)
Perhaps the same will occurr with the MPAA. In seeking such a congressional stranglehold on their product, it can only help the small film, independant, and tiny label businesses. They can begin to release their items under "fair use" provisions that allow people the rights they can not get from the MPAA.
This could be a real boon for them. Music and movies could be delivered free for small producers trying to make a name for themselves by a dotcom similar to NoNags [nonags.com]. Another dotcom, similar to Broadband Download Center [beyond.com] could give away free snippets (the first minute of a song, like Voltaire [voltaire.net] does) and sell full versions.
The MPAA in creating these regulations encourages the small creator to avoid the MPAA in order to increase their share of the marketplace. In addition the MPAA has distanced itself from it's clients and encouraged it's clients to find a new source of entertainment. I say we do just that.
-----
Re:VCRs are illegal now << no, the MPAA gets paid (Score:3)
Why this is important (Score:4)
The ramifications of decisions made during this period in our history will resonate for years-- and probably decades-- to come. The Internet started as a wild, free place, but our freedoms are being chipped away in huge chunks.
Once gone, we're not gonna get 'em back.
The MPAA is really making me sick. The film industry prides itself for liberal, cutting-edge values and ideals. They're so apologetic for their actions during the McCarthy period (remember the Elia Kazan debacle during the Oscars?)
This is the Hollywood blacklist all over again.
They're doing the wrong thing for America and the world. Corporate paranoia is once again choking individual freedoms and rights to free expression and thought.
I wonder if it woudl be a good idea to appeal to prominent filmmakers as well as the movie-going public (as 2600 is doing).
Maybe go through the special effects/CGI departments (where the nerds are) for support-- then pass the word up through the ranks.
Who is powerful in the entertainment industry who might "get" this issue?
And anyone got any good contacts?
Re:That article in brief (Score:4)
Seriously though, the reason DeCSS was written for Windows was that there was no UDF (DVD style) filesystem at the time that the program was written. It was a proof of concept that the program could be written. Of course there were several hacks before this that would allow you to grab raw video off a DVD - one would just read the contents of the framebuffer. It has to be readable sometime.
What the real issue here is that you should be able to openly read your DVD and watch the video backwards if you want to, or to watch the DVD with pink plastic wrap in front of your TV. It's called fair use, look into it. In copyright law cases of the past it has actually had a strong presence.
The DVD companies should be allowed to implement whatever crypto measures they want to prevent me from using their product - however I should be allowed to do anything I want to circumvent those measures. As long as I don't redistribute the material there is no economic damage.
Sorry if this post is somewhat blunt, but that's what you get for going against the Slashdot official party line! (joke)
VCRs are illegal now (Score:4)
Paid a lot of money (Score:4)
The bill was passed in the house by a voice vote; that means there is no record of how each Representative voted.
But really, can you blame them? This is a non-issue to the public at large, and corporate interests were at stake. The only time they'll defy the corporations is over a large public issue, e.g. campaign finance reform.
Re:is format the problem? (Score:4)
But why would we want to submit to this? The DVD-CCA and the DMCA already seek to limit (and to a good extent succeed at limiting) the rights of consumers to use the product they purchased as they see fit. The movie studios and copyright enforcers have some pretty big delusions that consumers are buying "licensed intellectual property". Granted, commercial redistribution should be illegal, but a VHS or DVD purchase is a convienence purchase, not a $15.95 homage paid to their creativity and intellectual property. IMHO, DVDs (and software for that matter) are more like toasters than contractual agreements - you buy it, its yours. If you want to microwave it [hamjudo.com] or something, feel free.
By restricting the DeCSS code with a NDA, we'd be a logical extension of exactly what we're trying to fight - illogical and unfounded restrictions dictating what we can and can't know about our property. The problem is because its in source code form - the DVD-CCA is afraid of the knowledge of their "technology" rather than use of it. It's the fact that they possess the sole knowledge of the encryption scheme that gives them power over consumers and smaller corporations - the power to region-lock movies, the power to artificially drive up prices, the power to extract thousands of dollars from a business for a "key" which offers no benefits.
They fear OpenDVD [opendvd.org] because it reduces their monopoly and cuts into their already gargantuan botton-line. It's a classic power struggle.
Control over markets (Score:4)
Does this sound familiar, in any way? Substitute "Operating Systems" for "content", and "WWW browsers" or "applications" for "DVD players", and we have a rerun of Microsoft's actions over IE...
When Microsoft did it, the court held that it was illegal, and stopped Microsoft doing it (albeit too late, really...) - hopefully, the same will happen over DVD and all the restrictive trade practices associated with it (region coding, to enforce discriminatory pricing regimes, which I am told is illegal; preventing the use of competitor's products in conjunction with lawfully obtained material, almost certainly a violation of anti-trust laws...)
What You Can Do (Score:5)
There have been a lot of people here who have asked the same question: "What can I do?" There's a lot we can do, but only if we do it now. If you wait even a few weeks, the entire ballgame may have changed.
- Post the code. Don't just link to it - get another copy of it out there. If you really believe in this, put yourself on the line; post the code and make a stand.
- Write up flyers and distribute them. Get actions organized with others to go out and get them distributed. We need to get the message out to the "mainstream" public.
- Refuse to see another movie made by any of the movie studios affilliated with the MPAA, ever . If you want to see the new Star Wars or Star Trek movie, you're just going to have to decide which means more to you - the next installment or your rights. If these studios want us to go back into their theaters, all they have to do is withdraw from the MPAA and demonstrate that they give a damn about their customers. Until then, to hell with them.
- Support any motion picture studio that is not a member of the MPAA. Learn to appreciate the joys of independent film.
- If you're currently arguing for a boycott of DVD, stop. It's not the technology's fault, and by doing this you hurt independent movie studios who wish to release in digital format. DVD is broken - let's keep it broken. All a boycott will do is destabilize the industry, allow the MPAA to say "see, we were right, DeCSS destroyed DVD" and give them an excuse to put even worse laws and "protections" into place. Don't boycott DVD - support it wholeheartedly.
- Write your Congressman and make your displeasure clear. It may fall on deaf ears, but even a deaf man knows when a million people want his head.
- Write letters to the editor, guest editorials, flyers, websites, everything. In the presidential election of 1992, when this administration came into office, James Carville had a very simple strategy - don't let any action go unresponded to for more than a news cycle. React fast, adapt faster, attack even faster. We're the antibodies of the Internet and this is an infection that will kill the body. Let's kill it first.
- Get informed. Read everything on this issue you can get your hands on. Don't gloss over where our case is weak - admit to it. Admit that we're weak under the DMCA - attack the DMCA itself. People will respect it more than if you fudge the facts to get a convert.
I worked in the election of 1992. In order to respond to local action faster - say, the other side was planning a local demonstration and we wanted to be present - we organized a "phone tree". Every person in this tree had a list of ten phone numbers. The person on the top of the tree would call their ten people, and each of the ten would call ten more. In under an hour, hundreds of people were in their cars and moving.We may need to organize something like this - by both email and phone. We need to be in front of television cameras, we need to be talking to reporters with notepads. Contact your local Linux users group and find out what they're doing about this. If they're doing nothing, or you have no Linux group in your area, get something organized yourself.
If you see an online poll, or a newspaper phone poll, that asks "Should hackers be prosecuted?" or anything similar, FLOOD IT . Get as close to 99% for our side as you can. Am I recommending polling fraud? You're damned right I am. It's standard practice in any U.S. political campaign.
Us Linux people have a tendency of believing that the best outcome is inevitable, because deep down we tend to believe in people. If we take the attitude that it's all going to work out because we're in the right, we are in severe trouble, because the other side is doing the same thing with a lot more resources.
We need to start dealing with this like a major political campaign against a popular and long-seated incumbent, who has vast resources and rooted connections. We need to start acting like a guerilla force against a standing army, and stop screwing around.
They want a fight? Let's give them a fight.
Rob Warren
www.iag.net/~aleris [iag.net]
History Does Repeat (Score:5)
Read the Supreme Court decision in MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. , 243 U.S. 502 (1917) [findlaw.com] for some amusemt. Edison and the New York patent holders attempted to do all the evil things the MPAA and DVDCCA are now doing. Hopefully the Court will uphold the doctrine of "first sale" and allow thos who purchase DVDs to use them as any other piece of property that they own.
Oh, and even before motion pictures, book publishers attempted to use licenses printed inside book covers to prevent customers from selling used books after they finished reading them. History does repeat and greedy corporations don't seem to change.
Independent films (Score:5)
It's the idea that you can't record (not copy) your own DVD without the "official" software.
It doesn't make sense to me that you would control the use of a player for whatever system you have. It's the theory of standardization. The more you sell, the more you sell because you have become the defacto standard for that technology. That's why we use VHS instead of Beta, and why MS kicked booty on Apple. So, it's to your advantage to freely distribute your player ala IE or Acrobat Viewer or Shockwave Plugins.
The film industry is a weird thing. Hollywood was built by accountants. All movies do not make money. How? Everything is taken off of the top, what we call gross points. There is also what we call net points, where you get a percentage of what's left after expenses. Everything gets taken out of gross points, so a studio almost always fails to make a hefty profit. Of course, everyone makes money, but for tax purposes, every movie is a flop.
Now, here come the independent filmmakers. These guys make a movie for less that $50,000, so if a movie makes it big, it makes it BIG! What's even better, these guys make better movies, more suited to thinking intellectuals than the usual mass-marketed pulp.
So, the big studios see these "yahoos" coming in and taking out some slices of the pie, which are needed for the industry system to function, and need a way to up the "profit" margin.
Enter DVD and CSS. The industry gets to pick how you read and write your own DVD's. Make the cost of recording software prohibitively expensive. Don't release recording software for Irix.
The reason that these independents are making movies so cheaply is that they use computer graphics to fix up the footage during editing. That means that they can spend less time shooting on location, which is prohibitively expensive. Once you buy a good CG system, you are limited only by time.
The potential from DVD for independent filmmakers is enormous. I offer the following scenarios:
A) You're an independent filmmaker trying to get a deal to sell your film to a chain of theaters. It's very expensive to get your film transfered to celluloid (film that goes in a projector). That's what the deal guys use to preview movies. So, you burn a DVD from your CG machine (the whole movie's on your hd, remember?) and get a laptop with a DVD player. You have a very portable instant-presentation device. Oh, here, wait a minute, I have it on my laptop, I can show you right now. If you have a couple of these setups, you can take them to show at Sundance or wherever.
B) Several independents get together and form a distributed distribution organization. They use a DVD repository, and manufacturing facilities all over the world. A filmmaker makes his film, loads it on the server, and presses all over the world start distributing this DVD. Sure, it's 8Gigs, but it only gets sent out a couple of times. Big studios are all about distribution--they are the kings of it. What the independent needs is a way to get his product out there in the market. It's a major problem for independents.
C) An independent filmmaker wants to make a film with a message and is not concerned about making any profit. He puts the whole damn thing on the net and lets anybody download it free. My wife, who has a degree in theater, says that it would just make the studios go ballistic that somebody would have a good movie (better that their waste of film) and be giving it away for free.
I just don't know why anybody has thought of this. Maybe we need to start telling the independents about these capabilities that they are missing out on.
For more information about independent films, check out ifc's web page www.ifctv.com or IF magazine www.ifmagazine.com
Re:Control over markets (Score:5)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected