CSS: About Piracy, or About Content Regulation? 206
Linux Today is running an
opinion piece which
gives an alternative interpretation to the DeCSS saga: CSS is not so much about
preventing piracy or enforcing region codes as it is about protecting the
current content providers from any new competition (thereby also controlling
what you get to know).
Re:Court of public opinion controlled by...guess w (Score:1)
The Next Amendment:Freedom of Source (Score:1)
Those who have followed various cases with regard to the EAR (formerly ITAR), such as Junger v. DOS, Bernstein v. DOJ, and Reno v. ACLU, know how difficult it has been to apply First Amendment case precedent to the issue of computer source code, or for that matter, the web in general. Is a computer program speech or an actual object? Is a web site more analogous to a device or a book? In source code form, a program is plain text and almost certainly deserving of the same protection constitutionally afforded to printed materials. In another, theoretically separated by a single keystroke, it performs a specific function, and is harder to apply to a speech scenario.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not use the word "expression", but people often understand the First Amendment to protect "freedom of expression". This has happened because the Supreme Court has widened the definition of speech to include numerous different types of expression, ranging from flag burning to picketing, often for the purpose of protecting people who have approached the courts with grievances.
In the cases mentioned above, the government has regrettably used the argument that computer source code inherently refers to a function of a device and that most real people (read: not nerds and programmers) appreciate computer programs for their functional rather than for their expressive elements. In my opinion, if the Supreme Court hadn't extended "freedom of speech" to cover "freedom of expression", it simply would not be possible to deny source code First Amendment protection. When trying to deny protection, they are using the First Amendment defined as "freedom of expression", a computer program (rather than source code) defined as expression (which it isn't and therefore exempts it from First Amendment protection) instead of source code in the context of freedom of speech. However, you simply cannot separate a program from either its speech or its expression because a program is most specifically and exactly defined in its source form. What was originally used to secure freedom is now being used to deny it. As Alexander Bickel once said, "The more you need to define freedom, the less freedom you have."
Instead of seeking First Amendment protection, people should address the root cause of this problem. Big companies and powerful individuals are enacting borders and boundaries on individual behavior only because they want to profit from these boundaries. Why shouldn't the rest of the world be able to read Microsoft Word documents without Microsoft's permission? Why shouldn't people be allowed to listen to music without the permission of the record industry? It has proven more profitable and beneficial for Microsoft and the RIAA to have it that way, while making the lives of others worse. Corporations and the individuals acting on their behalf should not have the ability to place controls around the world that serve no purpose other than to increase their own control, power, and wealth. Control is necessary in some instances for security, freedom, and safety, but the kinds of controls imparted by the RIAA, Microsoft, and other companies have no other functional intention than to benefit themselves at the cost of others. As the companies wave the banner for artists' intellectual property, they end up owning the property themselves. This becomes evident when artists who want to distribute content on a public medium without restrictions are not able to do so. This should at least always be an option, and we can thank the GPL for elucidating this point.
At the end of the day, this issue has little to do with free speech, and we shouldn't allow either the issue or free speech to become confounded further by allowing it into First Amendment territory. The kind of attention this issue deserves is a new amendment to the United States Constitution that will not only defend access to source code, but also decree it.
Re:Court of public opinion controlled by...guess w (Score:1)
--
Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.
My guess... (Score:1)
Expect at least some of the key CSS players to protest at some of the documents, claiming commercial secrets (a-la Microsoft).
Expect those media under the influence of drugs, alchohol or Hollywood (assuming you can tell the difference) to be favourable to the pro-CSS group and to lobby for the concealment of evidence.
Expect a major Hollywood blockbuster to come out, shortly before the trial (especially if it's by jury, I don't know if it will be) in which Jon Johanson is played by a 7' thug who can bend a 2' thick titanium bar with his nostrils, armed to the teeth with enough armament to take out a small continent, and equipt with enough DVD recorders to fill a five-story warehouse.
Interesting ... (Score:1)
Re:probelm with MPAA argument (Score:1)
You misunderstand his argument. He's pointing out that the MPAA is saying that with online piracy, they'll go belly up, while the software industry has online piracy and has not gone belly up. It's still not OK to pirate, but it's going to happen, and if the software industry can deal with it, so can the movie industry. It may not be right, but it's going to happen some day anyway.
What about microsoft (Score:1)
Obiviously, I'm reading more into this whole thing. But it seems very plausible that if you reverse engineer and don't release the source code but build a better product than that's competition and if you just give away the source code it's now lost revenue.
um... (Score:1)
The article consistently says "DeCSS" where I think it probably means "CSS". Anyone else notice that?
Re:Time of posting (Score:1)
Who is this Q*bert guy and why am I seconding his nomination for Mayor?
Re:Why is it that... (Score:1)
Re:Hackers becoming disenchanted with it (Score:1)
And in answer to your question: Yes we should be able to "rip" DVDs. This is necessary for fair use rights to be exercised since the word "rip" in this context is synonomous with copy (a necessary step for backups or media/time shifting). One just hopes that people have enough respect for the content, and those who produced it, not to illegally distribute the copied information.
Paul Volcko
LSDVD
Wealthy Linux stockholders, pay attention! (Score:1)
I've been reading and reading here, and I just thought of something.
If Hollywood was a revolt against the strangulation caused by Thomas Edison's "movie industry" in New York, and if the MPAA and their Content Scrambling System are maybe holding back Linux markets, I have one question:
What are you wealthy people, who got where you were because of the initiative and resourcefulness of people like the DVD hackers, going to do about this?
Hollywood and its other media brothers and sisters may have the upper hand now, but you have a platform at stake here--a platform that a lot of very dedicated people essentially dropped in your lap, many without a single penny of compensation (including me; I've contributed code to at least 2 Linux-related programs, pretty much anonymously.)
Well, you've got your money. So help us on this one.
So lets us get the DoJ involved (Score:1)
Besides - who'd want to copy a DVD anyway? Those same evil people who photocopy paperbacks, I suppose.
A big Why sticks in my mind... (Score:1)
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:1)
But another problem, even ignoring the biodiversity problem, is that the change with artificial GM happens much more quickly than with breeding. With breeding, the surrounding environment (including other plants and animals)
has time to react to change. With GM, though, it's a shock, and the various dependent species don't know what to do. Therefore, the equilibrium can be very easily upset. The same phenomenon can be observed when alien species are introduced into a new environment, like kudzu in Florida, f'rinstance. The other species are overwhelmed.
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:1)
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:1)
If you're planning "wide" distribution of your movies, paying a small licensing/royalty for the priveledge shouldn't break the bank. It all comes down to who's put out the money to develop DVD and push it out into the mainstream as quickly as it has come.
CD-R's took ages to approach affordability, with DVD's, it happened quite rapidly.
In the long term, I'd much rather own a disk rathern than rely on digital streams to get content from distributors to me. For one, you can pay one time to watch a DVD as many times as you like. I don't know if that will be an option with streaming video in the future. And even if it is, one hard drive crash will cause a lot of difficulties, as you try to resurrect movie's you'd downloaded, or recreate certificates that state you own the right to watch such and such whenever you'd like.
Regardless. The industry has learned it's lesson. Don't be suprised if and when they do switch to completely online distribution. Of course, that will probably lock out the whole linux market again, but they'll be able to point to what happened with DVD's as a reason to not allow online distribution to any but a few "supported" operating systems. And they won't leave unencrypted keys laying around next time.
Quote from Sony case (Score:1)
creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
Define:Crime (Score:1)
I'm amazed this topic has yet to appear on what I read of the threads, but I have a question:
Isn't the definition of "crime" all about motive? Intent? You know, all that good stuff? Isn't that what separates Murder 1 from Manslaughter, or Manslaughter from Reckless driving (or whatever?)
The point is, the code was not invented with Piracy in mind ("motive"). It was invented with a perfectly legal use of the DVD in question in mind. He paid money for his player, his computer, his DVD... I don't understand how, having acutally followed all the rules and jumped through all the hoops, that any court could even entertain the idea of this guy being a criminal. (And this is all not even bringing up the oft-mentioned idea that DeCSS really doesn't make piracy any easier then it was before.)
So, I conclude by the fact that the courts are taking the MPAA seriously that my previous understanding of "crime" was flawed, and that I'm really missing something here. And I just would like a clue as to what.
--WorLord (include.beer in [responce])
Are there more open alternatives to DVD? (Score:1)
established in the market.
But are there alternatives? The presence of
an alternative that's not a pain for consumers
could make a difference.
This is especially true as we get into audio. While movie studios will have control over the format that popular video content is distributed in, the costs of creating popular audio content
are much smaller. Much fewer barriers to entry.
This is why you see tons of small record labels, but not as many small film studios (though they do exist, and maybe there'll be more as technology improves)...
Anyway, if there were a DVD competitor, that'd be one way of attacking the problem.
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:1)
Players today may be able to play unencrypted DVDs, but as more and more pirates shift from cloning encrypted DVDs to making unencrypted ones, which is certainly easier to do now, then surely the consortium will be pressuring its manufacturer members to block the playing of unencrypted DVDs in future models. We need to consider that, even though players may not do so today, they could tomorrow not be able to play unencrypted DVDs.
If they do make such a move, it does put them further into the darker side of the gray areas of anti-trust violations, as long as there exists some kind of legitimate business in unencrypted DVDs, which I believe there will be.
One thing I would like to find out is just what technology licenses I need to be able to make a player, to make a recorder, and to manufacture blank and recorded media, in DVD without any encryption (e.g. without using CSS). If some businesses do get into this market, will pirates make illegal copies of unencrypted DVDs for this market? If it's big enough, I'm certain they will. if it happens I'm sure there will be yet another big stink over the whole issue.
Computers in general are a thorn in the side of the audio/video entertainment industry. Computer media itself is beyond the control (so far) of the entertainment industry. US laws that do place restrictions on consumer playback devices with regard to copy protections and copy generation limits do not apply to computer devices. And in much the same way that the Internet will be diffusing the difference between data, radio, TV, and telephone, computers, as they get smaller in size, larger in capacity, and faster in capability, will be diffusing the difference between a data device, and a media device.
It used to be impractical for the average person to build their own playback device that could defeat region codes and other mechanisms of megacorporate monopoly. Computers are changing that landscape since the making process is now just a matter of someone coding software, and someone else downloading it.
In the end, which may be as little as 10 years away, we will either have open art that anyone can utilize on the honor system (or by contract), or we will lose the ability control the software that runs in the very computers we buy, build, and own. Be wary of the piracy scare coming into computers. Next we might have CPUs that require decryption keys just to run programs, and that could mean we can't even program our own computers. Both the entertainment industry as well as the software industry would love that.
It's hard to tell exactly where this is all headed, and evey they may not know. We need to keep our eyes open to every possibility and pay particularly close attention to future laws and computer technology.
Re:Encrypting content is still optional (Score:1)
It's optional until the major content producers start pressuring the manufacturers to stop playing back unencrypted media. They will use the fact that pirated content is coming out unencrypted as the excuse for this. The producers can do this even without the consortium being involved by threatening to not include the key for players made by non-cooperating manufacturers in their future releases. As soon as a few manufacturers go along, then the threat would no longer be a bluff, and most of the rest of the manufacturers would step in line.
That would certainly break the ability to play unencrypted material. That could be exactly what the producers want, and it would cover not only the piracy, but the up-starts as well. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. CSS gives them a tremendous amount of power. They either have not figured out how to use it, yet, or, more likely, are carefully treading the legal waters to find out just how far they really can go, and to allow their campaign of whining about piracy and reverse engineering to develop public, and legislative, sympathy.
Encrypting content is still optional (Score:1)
What [CSS] lets the consortium do is determine who will make players, and on what terms, and who will provide content. If you can neither encrypt or decrypt the bit stream, you are locked out of both markets. [snip] Want to produce content - well, you need a license to produce the encrypted bitstream that will go on a disk, or you'll have to deal with someone who does.
This is not quite correct. Although CSS lets the DVD consortium control who can make players, it doesn't necessarily control who can produce DVD content, because the use of CSS encryption on a DVD video is optional. There are apparently several 'non-Hollywood' DVD titles in existence that are not encrypted. (I've been told, for example, that "Earthwatch" is one such title, although I haven't yet checked this myself.)
Of course, I imagine that any content producers that belong to the MPAA will be under pressure (covert or overt) to encrypt all their content using CSS...
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:1)
Which means that unencrypted DVDs aren't going to be acceptable mediums for people who want wide distribution of the content.
Perhaps this is yet another reason why completely digitial distribution (i.e., on-line) is a better long-term solution than anything physical: it's simply harder to control bits than it is to control molecules.
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:1)
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:1)
He's dead wrong about not having a TV affecting your career, you get more time to work and play without it and you get superior news content from NPR.
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:1)
Crush
Re:marginal (Score:1)
Then, if it is disgraceful in the philosopher to be unable, when a doctor speaks about the sick, either to follow his remarks or to contribute anything of his own to what is being said or done, and to be in the same case when any other of the craftsmen speaks, is it not disgraceful that he should be unable, when it is a judge or a king or some other of the persons whom we have just instanced, either to follow their words or contribute anything to their business?It must indeed be disgraceful, Socrates, to have nothing to contribute to subjects of such great importance!
Plato Lovers - Loeb tr.
In the next place our business transactions one with another will require proper regulation. The following will serve for a comprehensive rule:--as far as possible, no one shall touch my goods nor move them in the slightest degree, if he has in no wise at all got my consent; and I must act in like manner regarding the goods of all other men
Plato Laws - Loeb tr.
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:1)
Well this is pretty off topic, but here goes anyway.
As a molecular evolutionist I am aware of the point that you make. All you are doing however is picking out the literal meaning of the phrase Genetically Modified and ignoring the fact that it is used in a very specific context now by those both pro and anti the idea of changing the genome of organisms by methods other than selective breeding.
Personally I am opposed to the idea of GM (in it's common non-pedantic usage) foods, but not for the reason that you posit
.the breeding is just as likely to cause harmful characteristics as the engineering.
Rather for the reason that many anti-GM proponents have expressed - namely that it allows a more controlled, uniform, patentable life. This is of course sweet music to the ears of large corporations who would love to have uniform yields and drug-responses and control over the leasing and licensing of these life-forms. Personally, I'd rather see things been done on a more ad-hoc basis as they are now with repositories of genetic information being built up and controlled by governmental institutions whose mandate is to preserve them for all humans (like the FAO). Add to this that uniformity is inherently a dangerous thing as it will remove flexibility of a species to respond to new environmental challenges, be they viral, bacterial or ecological and the fact that the practice of monoculture goes hand in hand with intensive farming which usually means environmental destruction. So, don't assume that all anti-GM people are arguing the simplistic line that you are attacking!
Re:Hackers becoming disenchanted with it (Score:1)
Re:Hackers becoming disenchanted with it (Score:1)
Coming Soon to Printed Media Distibution (Score:1)
What Monopoly? (Score:1)
Re:region controls are irrelevant (Score:1)
Is it worth it? Yes! Oddly enough, the picture quality is very good, and it actually has component outputs (!!) for the video, and digital (coax only) outputs for AC3 and DTS. Strange. Oh, and the picture quality seemed to improve (very slightly) when I turned off the Macrovision encoding.
Very feature-packed for a sub-$200 player, and it's pretty sweet to be able to watch whatever DVD's I want (regardless of where they come from).
Re:Time of posting (Score:1)
And check your time configuration in your Slashdot User Settings.
Re:Silver Bullet (Score:1)
Re:DeCSS cuts into profits (Score:1)
Punk Rock and Media Control (Score:1)
If they win this one we'll go back to the dark ages of analog bootlegs and censorship. I think that big government is no longer a threat, because big business has long ago taken the power, and is now carrying the torch of repression and control, but with even more sinister goals. Big government wants self-preservation. Big business wants your money, all of it. We'll all be shopping at the "company store" soon.
I agree that we should be more worried about content control than anything else...
Practical, dumb question: Can I watch DVDs? (Score:1)
If I buy a DVD-ROM drive, is it physically possible for me to watch normal encrypted DVDs with linux, in a window in X?
I'm very tempted to by a drive, and I don't mind spending ages fiddling to make it work, or if the quality is awful - I'd just like to know if this is actually physically possible right now?
I just don't really have any other use for a DVD drive right now, so I'm trying to decide if I should buy one
Thanks,
/james.
My Favourite Palindrome (almost on topic!) (Score:1)
Content regulation... (Score:1)
Well said; 'nuff said.
Re:At last - someone "gets it" - almost (Score:1)
Note that the content they are fighting about is not necessarily endemic to DVDs. You could produce a new format (or even use something not so well suited, like CD) and put CSS encrypted content on there, and you'd have the same legal battle.
So the key is to start using the enormous storing power of DVDs without encryption.
Imagine if someone out there produced an online movie store that was like mp3.com.... you go there, buy a DVD, and immediately download the *unencrypted*
Oxryly
Re:Regional encoding does *not* benefit most peopl (Score:1)
Only if the same prints are shipped around the world. Which is kind of tricky when subtitling or dubbing is needed
Re:Regional encoding does *not* benefit most peopl (Score:1)
If enough people speak english to make this a real problem, maybe the translation wasn't worth doing after all...
--
Will Dyson
What to Do: or How I Learned To Love DeCSS (Score:1)
It's time to stop whining and start winning
So, if every
Don't yell at them, do give your name and address and phone number (or the filtering software will block it as spam), and ask, politely, that they promote free trade for US musicians and people who need to have DVD for Linux systems, in other words, the real engines of the economy who are creating the real jobs in the US and the rest of the world. Tell them to ask that illegal monopolistic practices of this trade association controlled mostly by Japanese and other Asian corporations are harming your ability to donate money to their political campaigns when you IPO.
That will get their attention.
Re:What to Do: or How I Learned To Love DeCSS (Score:1)
For every voter who sends an email with name, address, zip, and phone number, a congressmember figures there are hundreds of pissed-off voters in his district. And if the people who send it mention that they are the new wave of Linux IPO geekdom, he's sweating bullets that their cash will find it's way to his opponents. Voters vote, lobbyists are only good for cash, voters with cash who will talk to their friends and write letters to the editor are people you want on your side.
It's better to send a snail mail letter, hand written, or a postcard (20 cents) you find in a coffee shop, because that's worth thousands of voters. If you picked up those free postcards in a coffee shop and got ten friends to send in postcards that just said "We think that permitting the media monopoly in DeCSS by foreign companies is so bad for the US that we'll give money to your opponent" - now that's POWER!
And I've been on the Exec Board for my District and my County, as well as many activist orgs, so I know how effective it is.
Reverse Engineering (Score:1)
If this case is found in favor of the plantiffs (MPAA), we are just postponing another monoply trial. MPAA: we control the movies being made, we control the movie releases, we control the media movies are released on, we control the players for the movies. The first time the MPAA or the DVD-CCA locks a DVD player manufacturer out will cause a revisitation to the issues contained within this case.
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:1)
Re:Someone "gets it", but you don't (Score:2)
Enabling earlier releases in some parts of the world is just a convenient excuse that happens to hold a grain of truth.
Re:DeCSS cuts into profits (Score:2)
----------------------------
Re:This article is silly.. (Score:2)
It is my understanding that normal cd players
need more reflectivity than a CD-RW provides.
Thats pretty close to not having enough contrast IMHO.
I'd really like to know if there is another reason.
CSS about what? (Score:2)
Now that the major manufacturers know that the "protection scheme" is completely useless, and only impedes the legitimate users of their products, (the other ones have other, better ways to copy / rip DVD's) they have two options.
1) Rail against the MPAA, admit their wrongdoing, and create a new, open spec.
2) Trust the MPAA to protect their interests, and not make them all look like fools.
Which one do you think they'll pick?
If this came to court, and the issue was presented correctly, I'm sure the MPAA would lose, as a free-speech and reverse engineering issue. But when "dangerous hackers" are concerned, the US Legal System turns into a kangaroo court.
I've believed this ever since RTM was unfairly convicted, and I'll believe it until I hear clueful presentation of the issues without that "dangerous hacker" crap tossed around.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
You make it sound almost legitimate.... (Score:2)
I don't see why they should have the right to use technological protections to overstep the protections that copyright law gives them. By using the DMCA, they've managed to secure the right to use technological means, not only to protect the rights that copyright law gives them, but to extend those rights as well.
We've all been hoodwinked by the MPAA lawyers and others who supported the DMCA. Between that and UCITA, we're gonna get screwed good and hard. I, personally, don't give a damn what rights the MPAA thinks it should have. If they want to extend their legitimate rights through technology, then I plan to use technology to take my own rights back.
Could drive a truck through a loophole that big.. (Score:2)
What's the point of having the right to reverse engineer something for compatibility purposes if you aren't allowed to bypass some trivial encryption scheme in order to do it? Sounds like the MPAA is trying to make themselves a nice big loophole in the law to get rid of all that pesky fair use stuff.
Hackers becoming disenchanted with it (Score:2)
Regional encoding (Score:2)
What about Canada? They're region 1 too. Okay, perhaps I'm being nit-picky. The article is just trying to be sensational: saying "domestic" US makes it sound even more restrictive.
Personally I think that regional encoding is ridiculous. From what I understand, DVD's cost more in say the UK, but often come with fewer features (e.g. The Matrix). Without the regional encoding, Brits could order their DVD's from the US. Talk about protectionism and monopolies!
Re:Regional encoding (Score:2)
As you said, this region encoding destroys that potential market. Makes me sad.
Controlling Content -- Big Deal (Score:2)
I realize there are other issues with the whole CSS debacle, but I know if I were Hollywood, I would definitely want some way to prevent people from easily copying and distributing my product. If I don't have this, I don't have a business, and there's no incentive for me to make the product. As a capitalist society (I'm in America), this is how things work, and frankly, I don't see the problem with it.
No right to unencrypted content? How do you watch? (Score:2)
I find this comment seriously offensive. How do you watch a DVD if you have no right to view unencrypted content?
Are you going to try to lock down my brain, and prevent me from telling all my friends about the new movie I just saw, because the memory of the movie in my brain is unencrypted and can be passed to anyone?
The fundamental problem with content encryption, which you don't seem to realize, is that if it can be sensed with our eyes and ears, then it can not be protected unless you impose thought control upon the citizens. I have a sinking feeling that Orwellian thought control is what you really want to bring about in this country. It may be legal, but it sure isn't right.
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:2)
What about a player that can decode CSS, does verify the key, but can also play un-encrypted DVD content?
CSS not needed to create content (Score:2)
I'm 99% sure you don't need to use CSS to create content - just make an unencrypted DVD. Pretty sure they exist...
----
Re:Someone "gets it", but you don't (Score:2)
-jwb
Question: Can you master a non-encrypted DVD? (Score:2)
The article said:
Want to produce content - well, you need a license to produce the encrypted bitstream that will go on a disk, or you'll have to deal with someone who does.
I was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that it was possible to master a DVD with no encryption, i.e. a key of "zero", and that a DVD player has the ability to recognize and play back such a DVD.
Is this true, or is encryption mandatory?
If encryption is mandatory, DeCSS is of NO use in creating "pirated" copies of DVDs, and it should be argued that way in court.
After all, what good is having the decrypted data, if you can't make a playable disk with it?
Or did the opinion piece author get it wrong?
- John
Re:DeCSS cuts into profits (Score:2)
As you point out, it's not about piracy. It's not about encryption. It's not even about keeping the little guy out of media. It's not even about DVD players on Linux.
It's 100% about money. It's about that $20 licensing fee. After all, would Sony pay that $20 per product license fee, if they could legally implement the decryption? Of course not. No one would. And then where would be MPAA be? There'd be no one controlling the industry, and maintaining standards that allow us to buy a DVD player and play DVD's without worrying about imcompatibilities.
Tough problem, eh?
-BrentRe:Silver Bullet (Score:2)
We've got the stick, not we just need the right judge to beat the MPAA and DVDCA over the head with it.
LK
Re:Silver Bullet (Score:2)
The main issue in the DeCSS trial is whether or not the DeCSS program/utility circumvents a technological method for restricting access to a copyrighted work - not whether the CSS access control is copyrighted.
In other words, the DeCSS trial isn't about whether DeCSS illegally copied how CSS decrypts DVDs. It's about whether DeCSS illegally decrypts DVDs itself. The judge has continually referred to the matter as not being a copyright issue, but rather a circumvention issue.
As a result, this ruling isn't nearly as applicable. The CCA is suing under the provisions of the DMCA that make circumvention of access barriers a crime.
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:2)
Next thing you know, you'll be claiming that DVDs aren't the only media storage format!
Re:Yes, you're paranoid (Score:2)
Yes, you're paranoid. Take a few steps back and reread what you just wrote. I've heard similar rants at John Birch conventsions! These sort of baseless, screwball and wacked-out aspersions have become all too common since the DeCSS affair.
No, we don't want multi-nationals making our laws for us! Sheesh! What you fail to realize, is that they CANNOT make laws for us! They have to get someone else, namely the government, to do it for them.
Tell you a story. Two corner newsstands in New York circa 1930. One of them believes in fair competition based on quality service and selection. The other wants to be the only newstand for blocks around. So the evil newstand hires the mafia to send Guido over to break the kneecaps of the good newstand's owner. A cub reporter finds out and writes an expose. People get indigant and go picket the evil newsstand, and eventually a court throws the evil owner in jail and it is out of business. Everybody happy, right? Wrong! The mafia and Guido are still out there. Nothing has been done about them. They're still breaking kneecaps and mugging boy scouts for pocket change. Soon, some other shady businessman will hire them to knock off his rivals, and so on, and so on, and so on. Nothing will ever change if you keep going after the crooked businessmen and ignore the mob.
Re:Someone "gets it", but you don't (Score:2)
--
Re:Silver Bullet (Score:2)
If the prosecution were claiming that the decryption method itself was protected by copyright, and basing their suit on that, you would have a very good point.
Unfortunately, they are suing under the DMCA, which tries to outlaw Mechanisms/Devices/Methods of circumventing a technical copy protection mechanism.
Re:Court of public opinion controlled by...guess w (Score:2)
A massive boycott is about the *only* thing that will sway thier opinion.
We had a cable company here, several years ago, that started doing some questionable marketing tactics.. people complained, but the company said 'we're allowed to do this, so beat it'.
Translation: If you still pay your bill, what do we care if you like us or not?
One week of organized cable revolt (thousands of people calling up and cancelling in a very short period of time)... and the company *IMMEDIATELY* changed it's tune.
Re:uh huh (Score:2)
This article is silly.. (Score:2)
<i>And CD-RW?. Well, you know, the disks can't be played in a normal CD player. Not enough contrast in the media. Funny how that little technical problem couldn't be solved, eh?. Ah, yes, this is the world the studio execs want!. </i>
If they guy who wrote this is too ignorent to know why this is not possible, why should I belive the rest of the tripe in this article? Maybe they'll pull this one like the Windows / Linux DDoS article.
Discovery, Your Honor! (Score:2)
(For non-USA readers: before trial, both lawyers have time to "discover" relevant evidence. This includes both lawyers sharing relevant information, search warrants of relevant locations, copies of all police reports...all the evidence is supposed to be found and known by both sides before trial. There should be no surprises during the trial, although Hollywood prefers surprises in their stories.)
Control of Players ... (Score:2)
They control the creation, distribution and playing.
Thats all they want, but this is what every monopoly wants, isn't it?
Css is *no* copy protection, because you can copy a dvd without removing css.
Write to the opinion section of your newspaper (Score:2)
I would suggest more people write to their newspaper to help spread the word. Here's the article I wrote if you would like something concise that conveys the point:
Recently, the Motion Picture Association of America as well as the
DVD Content Control Association filed lawsuits in New York and
California claiming that a computer program named DeCSS allows
people to steal DVDs. This claim is misleading because DVDs can be
copied without the use of DeCSS. What DeCSS does is allows you
to watch DVDs on systems not supported by DVD player
manufacturers. All the 16 year old author of DeCSS wanted
was a means to watch a DVD on his computer rather than a TV. He
was arrested for it. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows any
content producing company to dictate where and how you can use
the information you purchased. It would be like buying a newspaper
that you can only read in your kitchen but not in your living room.
What ever happened to the idea of fair use? If you value your
freedoms, write to your legislators and boycott the major film
companies to let them know that your freedom is more important
than their greed.
Re:I buy legitimate import DVDs. Right to modify? (Score:2)
Re:Someone "gets it", but you don't (Score:2)
Oh, this is going to be most amusing....
because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world.
Are you seriously attempting to tell us that Hollywood is concerned about losing revenue because people in Kuala Lampur are going to order DVDs from the US rather than going to their local theater?
Time to administer the coup de grace to your argument. If it were correct, then no movies and TV shows released on DVD after their original run is complete would have region coding. This is not the case in reality. QED.
/.
Regional encoding does *not* benefit most people (Score:2)
> movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in
> theaters in other parts of the world. Without region
> encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the
> movie is done in all parts of the world before
> releasing the DVD.
This argument is based upon a fallacy. There's no good reason why films should be released later in some regions than others. Obviously, it's worth doing trial runs of a film in a few cinemas in the US, to find out how marketable the film is. But once the film is released across the US, you have a very good idea of how it will do internationally. In the old days, the reason for this staggered release practise was that it took a lot of time to copy the film reels. But in today's world that excuse just doesn't hold water. It's now a method of getting more money out of non-US viewers (by lengthening the marketing cycle in those countries). Enforcing staggered releases (and dual-pricing) using DVD regional encoding is an anticompetitive practise which is against the spirit of international trade law. I see no benefit to anyone not employed by the media industry.
Solutions? (Score:2)
The truth is, if the CCA had used really good, uncrackable encryption, this whole issue wouldn't have come up for years. We'd have been stuck with the DVDs as is with no way to make our own DVD players. I wouldn't have really opposed this, because after all if another movie format took off and it was unecrypted (think MP3s) it wouldn't matter in the long run.
The problem is, frankly, that the corporations behind DVD are subverting governments in order to enforce their will on consumers. It ought to frighten people, it frightens me. Because if they win this based on the might and power of their money and organizations, then what new battles can they win in the future. I mean, think in terms of Soylent Green the big corporate types got the good food and the average Joe got Soylent Green or starved.
I know, my hysterical, paranoid and "out there" view of a little fight over how we can use our own property for entertainment is going to make most people dismiss me as a wacko. My question is, do we really want the multi-nationals making our laws for us?
So, to put it in extremist terms, does what happens in the end in the DVD fight signal the death of the US Republic (and many other forms of popularly elected government, worldwide), or not? If not, then does it at least signify a significant change in the quality of life for people without stock in Sony or Time/Warner/AOL (c'mon, you have to admit that company name sounds like something out of a Cyberpunk novel!)?
I say fight on, fight through the courts, fight through protests, fight through the ballot box and fight through boycotts. Don't let them win.
Re:Never bought a TV (Score:2)
Ummm... I'd be willing to be almost all of the food we eat is genetically modified in some way. You think the tomatoes grown today were like that a couple thousand years ago? Heck, so are our pets, and our children. It's called "selective breeding" - carefully choosing which plants/animals mate to enhance certain characteristics. It's all in an effort to modify the genetics.
The only difference with genetic engineering is that they skip the whole breeding step and just change the DNA to start with. The breeding is just as likely to cause harmful characteristics as the engineering.
---
Re:CSS not needed to create content (Score:2)
If you're planning "wide" distribution of your movies, paying a small licensing/royalty for the priveledge shouldn't break the bank.
The problem is, that even if you pay this fee, the DVDCA/MPAA can say "NO. We won't let you produce content." They don't HAVE TO grant you a license. That gives them a monopoly on content and player production.
Yesterday, in the decision for the Connectix/Sony case, regarding reverse engineering of the Sony Playstation, the court said this:
"Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly."
The same should be true for DVD's, or any other media. A company should not automatically get a monopoly just because they chose the format.
With open source players, the "certificates that state you own the right to watch such and such" issue is mute. You simply take out the part of the code that looks for the certificate. Actually, since the creators of the program knew this, it probably isn't there to start with. In open source, if you have something, you have the right to watch it. That's the whole idea.
Re:Regional encoding (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's not what DVD creators want.
Its like Intel, when they announced their measures to keep out overclocking saying that they didn't want to hurt the legitimate overclocking community. Well, they didn't have to, but they did.
Re:Regional encoding (Score:2)
DMCA Legislative History (Score:2)
Summary page for Legislative History of DMCA [hrrc.org].
The following is most revealing: DMCA Comments of Commerce Chairman Bliley [hrrc.org]. Here's a few choice comments:
The Committee considered it particularly important to ensure that the concept of fair use remain firmly established in the law and that consumer electronics, telecommunications, computer, and other legitimate device manufacturers have the freedom to design new products without being subjected to the threat of litigation for making design decisions.
Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in so-called `black boxes'--devices with no substantial non-infringing uses that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of technological measures for purposes of gaining access to or making a copy of a work. These provisions are not aimed at widely used staple articles of commerce, such as the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products--including videocassette recorders, telecommunications switches, personal computers, and servers--used by businesses and consumers everyday for perfectly legitimate purposes.
Under section 1201(a)(1)(C), the Librarian of Congress must make certain determinations based on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who must consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information before making any such recommendations, which must be made on the record. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I felt very strongly about ensuring that the Assistant Secretary would have a substantial and meaningful role in making fair use and related decisions, and that his or her views would be made a part of the record.
Re:Court of public opinion controlled by...guess w (Score:2)
That is exactly what some of us here in Michigan (the home state of
We'll be handing out flyers and demonstrating a working Linux DVD setup in Ann Arbor tomorrow night. It's only a 1/2 hour drive from Detroit or Flint, and under an hour from Toledo, Ohio.
It will be followed up by a Quake LAN party.
Want details?
jim_tuck@newcourt.com [mailto]
Duh! (Score:2)
Re:At last - someone "gets it" - almost (Score:2)
I definitely think it's a desire by the industry to have strong influence in every aspect of the entertainment process, from production to viewing.
MPAA has to win (Score:2)
Re:Question: Can you master a non-encrypted DVD? (Score:2)
DVD players can play unencrypted media. Many porno movies are unencrypted, and creating free DVD appliances that can play unencrypted media is perfectly legal, and in fact, there is free program [epita.fr] for the Macintosh that can play unencrypted media. That media would not exist if existing DVD players could not play it. It is perfectly feasible to produce free (as in freedom) DVD appliances - recording and playback, audio and digital.
Please, please get a clue, and stop spreading this FUD around. Hollywood wants to control their own content (which they have a right to do), not other people's content.
Re:probelm with MPAA argument (Score:2)
How many companies have gone "belly up" because there software was not purchased by enough honest people? There are numerous cases of companies abandoning markets because sales weren't high enough. Perhaps they could have been higher if people wouldn't have pirated their software. How many programs have we lost because of people like you? How many people have lost their business because sales have not been what they should have been because of people like you? Please don't try to rationalize your behavior with such poor logic.
You can do anything you want, but know that pirating is never the right thing to do, and your justification that it is okay since just stealing from the faceless corporations is wrong.
Re:Court of public opinion controlled by...guess w (Score:2)
Yes we should get OUR SIDE of the story out, simply because we have the truth on our side, but ultimately this is a legal issue.
In the 1950's public opinion said that black people weren't allowed to go to white schools. When this was challenged it LOST.
In matters of rights, public opinion doesn't matter. It might take time for this to come to the surface, but it will.
Of course, in Brittain... (Score:2)
the police will want to see the decryption algorythms. Otherwise, they'll throw anyone owning a DVD player, who distributes DVDs, etc. into jail for breaking the encryption laws that Parlement is thinking about now.
Silver Bullet (Score:3)
It comes to us via the Sony Vs Connectix battle. In the most recent ruling the judge's opinion includes the following...
17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a product that must be compatible with a copyrighted product frequently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46 (1994).
What more do we need as ammunition?
LK
US v Paramount (1948) (Score:3)
This all happened before. Everyone should take a moment and read U
In this case the Supreme Count found that the motion picture industry was engaing in anti-competitive business practices in violation of the Sherman Act. They overruled the claim that copyright protection justify their business practices. The practices were:
Then:
A) Price Fixing - Using copyright licencing with strings attached to force theaters to raise prices
B) Tying - Using copyright licencing to sell one product (movie A) contingent on another (movie B)
Now:
A) Price Fixing - Using copyright licencing to inflate the price of DVD's using regional licencing
B) Tying - Using copyright licencing to sell one product (movie A) contingent on another (licenced player).
We're not going to win the case (Score:3)
The article didn't say much that I haven't already heard but the author was correct in saying that we aren't going to win this case. The cards are stacked heavily in the plaintiff's favor.
Or, I should say, we can't win at this level. We have to go down a few levels, to where the plaintiff's power comes from.
I've always beleived that the average person has all the power there is if we act together, and that the average person is reasonable. However, people don't support us for a few reasons:
1) In school you are not taught to think for yourself, you are taught to submit to authority, not to ask questions, and not to try and change "the way things are" which leads to #2:
2) Most information channels are controlled by the same type of people who are the plaintiffs, they have the same agenda. With the assumption that the media is a factual source of knowledge, people aren't going to ask questions. Our community is discredited with one word, hackers. This is a very powerful ability. So even though we have all the power, we've already lost because of public opinion.
So what do we do? Organize, protest, and educate. This needs to include a lot more people that are in this community as well, because all facets of society contribute to the problems we have. Our gains might be small but at least we can get the spiral of society to move upward rather than downward. I'm not talking about organizing, portesting, and educating only on the level of this specific issue either. I mean society in general. As long as we have corporations, a government who supports them, and an apathetic population, (ALL 3, simply removing the government solves nothing) these kind of problems will never be solved without having to fight tooth and nail every time with little chance of success.
Fortunatly information channels have opened up a bit, I think the internet was a good part of the reason that DIVX failed, but I think it would have failed anyway. At any rate, it can be a big help, which is why this particular community needs to fight as hard as we can on all these issues.
We won't win the fight now, but the more we can educate, the more press we can get to hear our side, the better chances of succes we have in the future.
Someone "gets it", but you don't (Score:3)
You're missing the point of CSS and why it is so valuable to the movie industry. The entertainment industry wants to ensure that only licensed players can play encrypted DVD's so that they can ensure players won't have a, "Save as unencrypted..." or even a "Save as..." option, and will respect the region encoding system. Without control over the players, the region encoding and CSS encryption would be useless since not all players would support it, and people will move to players that don't abide by the restrictions licensed players must adhere to. Region encoding benefits the average person because movie studios can release a DVD while it is still in theaters in other parts of the world. Without region encoding, movie studios would have to wait until the movie is done in all parts of the world before releasing the DVD.
So, before you get into a hissy fit about the monopoly the DVD consortium has, understand content makers are free to release their content without any restrictions on it, and anyone can make a player that plays this content. However, the CSS encryption allows the studios to choose to protect their assets. If you don't support CSS encrypted content, simply buy the VHS tape, or don't buy the content. You don't have the right to unencrypted content, and DeCSS would basically grant you that right.
Court of public opinion controlled by...guess who? (Score:4)
This article raises a very good point: the MPAA and its allies are very good at manipulating public opinion. In fact, not only are they very good at it, but they have all the tools to do it. The companies represented by MPAA include Warner (CNN and Time), Fox (news and newspapers), Disney (ABC), Paramount (any number of news shows), &c. You'd be a fool to assume that any of these sources is going to be unbiased about this case. Unfortunately, most people still believe that these media outlets are motivated by the search for truth, rather than corporate policy (read as: greed.)
This is why protests are important right now. The only way we are going to get our side heard is to go out and tell people what's happening. Slashdot helps a lot, but it reaches a very specialized audience. The people whose minds we need to change aren't typical Slashdot readers; they're average joes and janes, who, for the most part, have other things to worry about and don't have time to investigate these things themselves. Either we tell them what's going on, or the MPAA does through its many voices. Which would you prefer?
How to get involved:
Post other suggestions here!
At last - someone "gets it" - almost (Score:4)
DeCSS is not about piracy, but about compatability - we all know that by now. You can make the bit-wise copies by other means. The real thrust is controlling the medium - who can make and sell DVD movies.
We are talking about a <b>Motion Picure</b> consortium here. That's the big clue - they could give a $#@# whether we can watch DVDs on our Linux boxes. But to get there we needed to 1) decrypt the DVD movies, 2) store them locally, 3) work on the playback software to the point that the picture and sound look good , 4) put on-the-fly decryption in the player. 5) Done. DVD on Linux.
Step 4 is what has caused the witchhunt. If the OSS folks build a DVD player - do you seriously think they will make it play ONLY encrypted DVDs? Heck NO! It will play unencrypted movies and sound also.
And THAT's the "it". After DeCSS, it is trivial to make a player that will play encrypted and UNENCRYPTED DVDs. They are scared to death of having a DVD player S/W that plays both encrypted and unencrypted DVDs. Ever made a copy of a VHS movie for a friend? Not legal to do so, but hard to stop. If you wanted to do the same with your new spiffy DVD-R (fast forwarding a year) would you try to encrypt it? Heck NO!
Once there is an OSS DVD player application that plays both encrypted and unencrypted DVDs, the jig is up. Independent artists can make DVDs and distribute them without CSS encryption. Your DVD player won't play it? Here's the link - download the freeware player that does.
That Japanese DVD won't let you play it? The freeware DVD player will play ANY DVD, no matter where it came from.
Then we start hacking the "upgradable" console DVD players - so they can play unencrypted DVDs and break the region locking.
Follow the reprocussions to their logical conclusion and it's easy to see why the MPAA will throw everything including the kitchen sink into this fight. They have a whole new medium to lose (not to mention the $$ they spent designing it in the first place, plus the $$ spent on getting the DMCA legislated.)
region controls are irrelevant (Score:4)
Check out the Apex AD-600A [geek.com] DVD, VCD and MP3 player.
There are instructions at nerd-out.com [nerd-out.com] for changing the Region ID, as well as the Macrovision options and, ahem, other things, via the secret menu [nerd-out.com].
LOL. The player costs $199 at Circuit City. People are buying it en masse. I ordered mine already.