MPAA v. 2600 NY Trial Has Ended 365
jlj writes: "According to this New York Times (reg. required) article, the MPAA v. 2600 trial in New York has ended. Judge Kaplan indicated that he was likely to declare the DeCSS code as a form of expressive content, "a distinction that may help bring it First Amendment protection." No matter who wins, this case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully 2600 will win this round because I can only imagine the very truthful press releases the MPAA will be pouring out if they win. From the article: The judge said he was impressed by David Touretzky, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who testified that the case raises ``very serious concerns about the future of computer science and my ability to function as a computer scientist.''." No ruling has been issued yet, as you can tell from the article - we'll keep you updated.
Protect outdated business models (Score:2)
This is a fact of business. Adapt or die. Imagine if the government had decreed that railroads were the only way to transport product? Or what if copy machines were banned because they infringed book publishers' rights.
Secondly, if the MPAA wins this case it could also make vulnerable such products as Wine (windows emulator), VMWare, or the PlayStation Emulator.
Third, an MPAA win would severely limit the freedom for informative articles about technology. For example, it could then become illegal to explain the pitfalls of the CSS encryption procedure because doing so would aid in its circumvention.
Re:Code is not a form of expression! (Score:2)
In either case, you must be able to understand the language in which they are written to appreciate their beauty. To someone who can't read music, a Bach score is as indecipherable as a C program is to someone who doesn't know C.
- Robin
Re:Access control circumvention (Score:2)
Winning and losing (Score:2)
All that aside, it is going to be quite hard for the judge to rule that something published in a magazine is not covered by the 1st Amendment. The MPAA made a *MAJOR* mistake in going after 2600 Magazine as their first "big-name" villain here... if they'd first tried to shut down private citizens, and left 2600 alone, they could have gotten their precedent. Instead, they have run ashore on the shoals of the 1st Amendment here, because you don't censor magazines here in the United States unless there is a darn good reason to do so.
Of course, the trial transcripts of the MPAA execs on the stand showed that the MPAA was seriously clueless anyhow. Apparently they had no idea that 2600.com was the webzine version of a magazine until after they'd already filed the suit.
-E
Re:make-yer-own-DVD guides? (Score:2)
Express this! (Score:2)
use Slashdot;
$sd = Slashdot->new('00/07/26/1317255');
@expression = ("expression", "of", "form", "a", "is", "code", "My");
$agree = 0;
if (! $agree) {
foreach $word (reverse @expression) {
print "$word ";
}
if ($sd->usertype($sd->post(27)->getuser()) eq 'dumbass') {
print "dumbass";
}
print "!\n";
}
Somebody please... (Score:2)
Email me a link to a ripped copy of The Matrix so I can verify that DeCSS is being used for piracy. I promise I won't watch it much. It's really just for educational purposes anyway.
loss (Score:2)
How is this relevant? Well, to make a pirated copy of a movie like this, DeCSS isn't even necessary. Just ripping it from the output of a DVD player will be fine.
--
make-yer-own-DVD guides? (Score:2)
--
Re:DeCSS is Freedom of Speech? (Score:2)
Re:Access control circumvention (Score:2)
Smashing or breaking a lock is legal if you own the lock, or the owner of the lock says you can. Under the DMCA it is illegal to smash locks you own (assuming "locks" are digital access control devices).
Think about it. You bought it, and until the DMCA there were very few limits on what you could do with (digital) things you had bought. The software industry has been thriving for well over two decades without the DMCA, it clearly didn't need it to keep going. (I think software history prior to two decades ago isn't all that relivant, because they tended to be packages with an actual negioatated contract once you get much before the 80s, and today's software is mostly shrink wrap licences)
Re:DeCSS Jekyll and Hyde (Score:2)
I wouldn't object to the region coding so much, so long as it was only used to control the release schedule for a limited time - for instance, encode a region lock expiry date on the disc, and STOP USING REGION CODING ON DVDs OF 30 YEAR OLD FILMS! It's the region-coding of EVERY DVD that hollywood makes that pisses me off. The only region-free DVDs that I own are BBC discs (Black Adder, and the Flumps), I think.
Re:Touretzky (Score:2)
Are you implying (Score:2)
Re:You're missing more sinister points of the DMCA (Score:2)
You make some great points, but a few things to be looked at.
First, I think that the Constitutional provissions of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of speech can not be superceded by any act of Congress, including the DMCA. This is why I beleive Kaplan is looking at the Freedom of Speech issue and wondering if the Horse is out of the Barn.
If Corly (Pronounced Goldstien
Ultimately, while the DMCA tries to define Reverse Engineering, and Fair Use, it's not really the last word on these issues since they are Constitutional Doctrin. But even still, the DMCA [nyfairuse.org], which can be seen in it entirety in the link provided, gives us the following contradictory passages!!!
------------------------------
(f ) REVERSE ENGINEERING.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained
the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent
a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particu-
lar portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying
and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary
to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer
program with other programs, and that have not previously been
H. R. 2281-8
readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to
the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not
constitute infringement under this title.
``(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and
(b), a person may develop and employ technological means to cir-
cumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection
afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identi-
fication and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of
enabling interoperability of an independently created computer pro-
gram with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve
such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute
infringement under this title.
``(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under
paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may
be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph
(1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means
solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independ-
ently created computer program with other programs, and to the
extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this
title or violate applicable law other than this section.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability'
means the ability of computer programs to exchange information,
and of such programs mutually to use the information which has
been exchanged.
_______________________________
Congress added this because it would not withstand a Court Case otherwise. Likely the issue of Fair Use. Without Fair Use provissions, the DMCA would be struck down as Consonstitutional in the Cradle. Part of what these Law Suites are about is the MPAA trying to redefine Fair Use in the eye of the public. Where Fair use was the right to make archival Copies, they are say - no - it isn't.
But the DMCA is clear even in it's text that is can not over rule FAIR USE......
______________________________________________
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.-(1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
______________________________________________
The mechanism of Copyright Office review is some quack idea to try to save this insane act from Court Review death. If the DMCA is an impedence to Fair Use, it should become a dead letter. Therefor the REAL battle is over the definition of Fair Use. That is the issue this case, if decided upon Freedom of Speech/the Press, threatens to circumvent, at least for another day.
Re:Surely not(Star Wars Rulez!) (Score:2)
Very common story. In the past few years 2 movies that I know of used it. Galaxey Quest, A Bugs life, and I know I have seen it before even that.
It's a comedic variant of the type of story seen in The Music Man.
Re:DeCSS is Freedom of Speech? (Score:2)
<p>
Are you saying there is actually an American movie which acknowledges the existence of the rest of the world? Wow.
Re:The XXXTimesXXX YOU missed the point (Score:2)
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
Well then, what is it used for?
DeCSS is the only DVD descrambling technology that is suitable for manufacturing a DVD player without the user restrictions mandated by the DVD-CCA licensing contract, such as a ban on unencrypted digital outputs, and the Macrovision requirement.
In fact there are several Windows programs to decrypt DVDs, why are they not in court?
Good question. Why aren't they?
Other technologies, such as DVD rip are not suitable for development of an unrestricted DVD player because they are simply modifications of an existing, licensed player. You could not legally use these programs to manufacture an unlicensed player. Tellingly, the MPAA has made no moves against people who distribute DVD decryption programs based on hacks to licensed CSS implementations, even though they perform the same function.
The only difference between these programs and DeCSS is not that DeCSS enables copying and the other programs don't. The difference is that by using DeCSS one is legally free and clear of the industry tying arrangement between the MPAA, the DVD-CCA, and the player manufacturers that controls and restricts what consumer features are allowed and disallowed on DVD player products.
As usual in the entertainment industry, the real issue is over control and power. Copying in this case is a red herring designed to draw attention away from the MPAA's real interests.
Re:Code is not a form of expression! (Score:2)
From your comments, its obvious that you haven't worked on programming for any large or medium-sized project.
Just as you can paint a picture a million ways, and tell a story a million ways, you can design a system in a million ways. A coder is an artist in the purest sense because he (or she!) is not limited by the medium. Code can be made simple, elegant, robust, and/or portable. Code can be ugly, orderly, confused, structured... A single program can be written in hundreds of ways using many different languages.
Certainly my code is governed by mathematical laws, no different than the laws which hold paint to a canvas, or the laws that allow two notes to harmonize. Just because something is governed by laws does not make it less expressive.
Coding is not a process. It doesn't follow a procedure. It has commonly used methods and practices, but common in the way that most painters use their hands instead of their feet to create.
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
I wouldn't concede that without a hell of a fight. Not if I paid for the software before to getting to the installer. Once the deal is closed, it is closed.
---
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
That is flat-out untrue.
DeCSS is not primarily used for lawbreaking. That is only one of many uses for it, and I would even go as far as to say that so far, that is the least popular use for it. The plaintiffs in the case admitted that they had never even heard of anyone using DeCSS to pirate movies.
And in all that time since DeCSS has been out, while it hasn't been used for breaking the law, it has been used for:
- A first step in an awkward complex process for watching DVDs
- A starting point to write other DVD players (e.g. Livid) that hopefull aren't so complex
- Education and amusement
I bet that so far, piracy isn't even up to the 10% point.How could piracy be considered the primary use for the software when this goes against the facts of how people are really using it? That's like have an alleged lockpick tool that 99% of it's owners only use for brushing their teeth, and claiming that lock picking is its primary use.
When people criticize Napster, which isn't technically a violator, they have a damn good point that the overwhelmingly most popular use of Napster (despite its more neutral purpose) is to pirate. But in the case of DeCSS, even that isn't true.
---
Re:Journalists never fucking get it right (Score:2)
If these f***ing journalists bothered READING anything before spouting off, they'd realize that there are plenty of programs out there that copy DVDs, and the central purpose of DeCSS is to 'De'crypt the 'CSS' protecting access to the DVD.
Idiots. Oh yeah, it's not just the NYT, the Associated Press actually released the article, so it's their hacks who screwed up this particular article.
Eric
Re:Touretzky testimony (Score:2)
To paraphrase, the question he asks is "Where do you draw the line?"
Is some English text describing an algorithm protected under the 1st amendment?
What about the same text, but annotated in some well defined programming language for which there is no compiler?
What if it was annotated with C code?
The C code all by itself (ready to be compiled)?
Object code?
Binary executables?
At what point is it no longer 'speech'?
Griff
Re:Not out of the woods yet... (Score:2)
Lots of books have been made that describe the creation of bombs. Does that make them liable?
Firearms instructors aren't held liable for aiding and abetting if one of their students uses a gun to murder someobdy, either.
How about these security sites on the Web? They post known exploits and other security loopholes in popular operating systems. If someone uses that information to crack a Linux box, for instance, should that site be held liable for aiding and abetting?
No, I don't think so.
Re:I'm tired of this BS posturing (Score:2)
However, if you look at the time taken to rip a DVD and downconvert it to, say, something that'll fit on a CD (upwards of 15 hours, I've seen), you realize that folks are probably doing to more so they can say they've done it than anything else. If I wanted to make a CD of a DVD movie, I'd just play the thing into a video capture card and grab it in real time. No DeCSS involved at all.
Heck, where do you think the bootleg V-CDs of 'The Phantom Menace' came from? Certainly not from someone ripping a DVD, there aren't any of TPM. (The one I've seen came from a vidcap of a tape somebody made by sneaking a camcorder into a theatre. There are probably better ones now that the movie has been officially released on VHS.)
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
> Well, most of it is, isn't it? I'll let this slide for now.
How do you figure? On the very first day of the trial the MPAA's shill had to admit that he could not name a single instance of deCSS being used for bootlegging.
--
Re:Code is not a form of expression! (Score:2)
Re:Since it's legal to do... (Score:2)
LSA has similar effects to LSD, though it (I believe) has a shorter half-life and more toxicity.
Simply eating the seeds works just as well as refining, though you must make sure the seeds you have obtained have not been adulterated (toxins added to make you sick if you eat them, to prevent kiddies from tripping on K-mart seeds).
If they have, you must refine first.
Re:About time... (Score:2)
Re:New Moderation Category - (OT sorry) (Score:2)
Re:The XXXTimesXXX YOU missed the point (Score:2)
Of course, this isn't a valid license, neither is the license with a DVD movie.
1) You bought the disk, the license tries to offer you the right to play it which you already own, thus the license doesn't offer you any consideration - invalid license.
2) The license isn't brought to your attention before the purchase - invalid license.
You are bound by copyright laws because those are applied in blanket fashion to *all* copyrightable works. The only way for copyright protection to not apply is for the author to give away the right.
DVD Licenses might be valid if the disk performed properly without the license, but if you agreed to it, they'd ship you a movie poster, or something. This way you'd have a valid contract.
Anyways, they lie, as do software companies, when they claim they have tons and tons of rights and that you *must* agree, etc. It's nothing but lies, you can click 'I Agree' all day and it's not binding.
(The only exception is in places where the legislators have been bribed to pass the UCITA, but those places suck anyways.)
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
With the GPL, you have no right to distribute a GPLed file under copyright law. The only way to get that right is to agree to the license which grants you all the distribution rights you want, as long as you do it their way.
The EULAs try to restrict your actions, but they don't offer you anything in return so you have no reason to accept (and even if you do, it's not a binding contract.)
A contract needs to have consideration (something for you) for both parties and consent.
EULAs don't have consent because you don't know about the license when you buy it. Even if you know there will be one, it's not presented as part of the sale, so it's void. They also force you to 'agree' to use the product you legally paid for, this extortion means you didn't actually consent to the contract, you just said so to be able to use the product. They don't have any consideration for the end user because that user already paid for the right (or it was paid on their behalf) to use the software. They are legally entitled to it. To offer them the right to use it is like offering someone the legal right to drink a Coke(tm) that they legally purchased
EULAs *could* be valid, *if* you told the sales person you wanted to buy a package, they bring out the contract, explain it, and then in trade for cash, let you use the software in certain ways only.
As it stands however, EULAs aren't valid. You can click 'I Agree' all you wish, you aren't agreeing to anything, just clicking 'Next'...
In fact, something ammusing is that licenses that 'allow' your software to do something, like buying windows NT and finding out it'll only server a 5-user network, aren't required. You can legally crack that software and do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't copy copyrighted material.
(ie, if it's a registry hack to make NT server more machines, it's legal. If you have to copy binaries from a 25-user license, it's not legal.)
This means that cracking software to remove restrictions like only serving a certain number of users, or requiring the CD, is perfectly legal.
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
The only exception to this is the UCITA which isn't a law in any place worth living and is a documented case of bribery. (There was an NYTimes article back when the UCITA was first passed in one state that documented the payoffs to a few elected officials, both as campaign donations and as other barely legit things.)
You can ignore the UCITA, it wouldn't stand up in small claims court, let alone the Supreme court...
Re:EULAs are optional to the end user (Score:2)
And yes, you can do *everything* (legally, not physically) with software that you can with a book. You don't need to look at the license unless you want to do something normally prohibited by law (such as make copies, etc.)
You're allowed to take a magic marker and modify your book, you're similarly allowed to take a crack and modify your software. To tell someone how to modify a book you say "Ok, on page 83 where it says "Fourscore and seven
The DMCA steps on some of these right, not only is it an unfair law, but like with the UCITA they stepped over the bounds into bribery to get it passed and (it appears) in trying to defend it.
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
It's also invalid because of extortion, they're trying to get you to 'agree' despite your wishes. If you click 'No', you don't get to use the software you bought and paid for. If there was 'Agree' 'Disagree' and 'Cancel Install' where the first two installed just the same, then it *might* be binding, if the EULA as offered granted you any benefits you didn't already have the right to.
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:2)
"Well then, what is it (DeCSS) used for?"
"Good question. Why aren't they?" (windows DVD decryptors being sued).
Simple. What if you wanted to make your own DVD player so you could add custome functionaility, and perhaps do things like pipe firewire video through the house, eliminate menu lockouts, and add persistant bookmarks into movies?
Well, the anser is without a legal DeCSS you can't do any of those things. You can't make your own player unless you pay the MPAA money fo access to the decrpyiton info, and alnog with THAT comes all sorts of things you can't do in a player (like firewire output).
It's all about who can make players, and not really about being able to copy movies. If just anyone could make a DVD player without paying the MPAA, they would loose a large source of revenue.
Good points, a few clarifications (Score:2)
Also, remember that the quality of the images stored on a DVD are a bit higher than standard NTSC. For one thing, it's not interlaced, and secondly, the analog recapture would introduce artifacts that (from what I've seen) significantly degrade the quality of the recompress. And while you do sacrifice some quality for smaller size, what I've seen using Divx / mp4 is quite acceptable, especially compared to the old VCD format.
I travel a lot, and I'm considering using these tools to rip movies I own so I can easily watch them on the plane without having to carry a DVD drive or burn the batteries on my laptop spinning it. I could easily fit 5-6 movies in the spare space on my HD...
nytimes link to 2600 (Score:2)
While the URL of the site [2600.com] is printed at the bottom of the article, it is not linked. This seems too coincidental...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re:Stop injunctions of courts! (Score:2)
No, but it has always been legal to BUILD a descrambler... just not legal to use it to steal cable. If you are paying for cable but using your own homemade cable box, I don't think you are breaking any laws. We are talking the same thing here. DeCSS is legal to build and use for viewing your own DVDs, but using it (or anything else) to pirate movies is illegal. At least that is how I interpret the law. Lets hope Kaplan sees it the same way.
Thad
no. (Score:2)
It seems true. A symphony is only beautiful when it is performed. A program is beautiful when it runs. Depending on the hardware or orchestra, the composer's score or programmer's code could be played beautifully or crappily.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Scores can be beautiful to those who know how to read them, so too can code be beautiful to those who can comprehend. Those who can not understand staff notation or awk might only be able to appreciate the beauty of the output, but that does not diminish the beauty in the original.
Imagine an illerate child and a fabulous tale such as 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.' To the child, the book is just ugly pages until the kind parent reads the story aloud and then the child is captivated by the beauty of the story. The parent is able to perceive the beauty of the story without 'performing' the work because he or she can comprehend the written word.
Scores and code are no different.
Re:The Times missed the point (Score:2)
Re:It really would be nice (Score:2)
Else how long until I can't legal even *think* about crypto? What if someone copyrighted "plus" and "minus"? Use to be that one had to join a guild to use screws...make your own screws (for your own use) and the king's soldiers would have your ass.
We've come along way, lets not slip back!
Re:Access control circumvention (Score:2)
Re:Not out of the woods yet... (Score:2)
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Re:Not out of the woods yet... (Score:2)
Actually they are. The difference is that the primary use of cars is to drive (legally of course). The vast majority of people using cars do not do so illegally (unless you count speeding). The primary purpose of piracy software however is to pirate which is illegal. IANAL but I think it has to deal with primary intention and/or likelyhood of a committing a crime.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Interesting related case and quote (Score:2)
recorded music in the United States."
Hrm. Wonder what percent the MPAA owns.. Probably like 99.9%. Thanks for standing up to these creeps 2600!
Re:nytimes link to 2600 (Score:2)
See this article [nytimes.com] on Microsoft's latest appeal in their antitrust case for an example. The URL for MS' actual press release hasn't been made a link either, however, there are links provided to more information on the NYTimes site itself. I think it is more an IP issue in that they don't want to link to sites without first obtaining permission from the site's owners.
Re:The XXXTimesXXX YOU missed the point (Score:2)
were designed for, and I suppose the same is true of US law. I'm
guessing the MPAA isn't trying to argue that the purpose of a DVD disk
is to be a pretty, shiny round thing.
Re:DeCSS is Freedom of Speech? (Score:2)
Re:Code is not a form of expression! (Score:2)
Not so. A DifEq or the bank books are just a way of cenceptualizing an existing phenomenon. The equation describes and predicts behavior of something- a moving object or a wave, the books describe the state and history of a bank account. They describe and nothing more. Code on the other hand, both describes and creates. If I code a beautiful GUI, is that any less of a creative expression than any other picture, be it in a marketing campaign or the Louvre? I decide how the problem is to be solved. Looking at the problem, you could not predict the precise way in which I as opposed to someone else will solve it. Maybe I think C is appropriate, and someone else would rather use pure assembly, or C++. The solution is unique to me, not the the problem
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization
It seems that if that were true, most source would be written by computers by now. Coding is more than a logical batch process. It involves conceptualizing potentially new solutions to existing problems. A novel method of solving a problem has as much to do with the person solving as it does the problem. It is the creation of a model and a method, and those are both creative acts.
Expression does not have to be poetry; we aren't talking about "what is art" here. Source code can constitue expression, because it describes the way in which you (the coder) uniquely feel a set of problems ought to be solved. Consider this: I need to solve a complex problem, so I come up with a solution. I write a paper expressing my method of solving the problem, and why I think it is most appropriate (talking here about engineering-style problems, where solutions have to take into account existing conditions and other factors, not a pure-mathematics problem where solutions can be proved). Then I make some psuedocode describing the procedure, with comments explaining certain orderings or optimizations. Finally, I sit down and pound it out in C, or Java, or Perl, or (insert favored language here), creating a source file that includes the methods that I described for solving the problem expressed in code, with comments that explain why a particular statement is in a certain order, or why certain optimizations or algorythms are appropriate at a certain juncture. I think most people would say that the first of these three examples is expression. Now, why, I ask, can the last two be considered any differently, simply because they do not use regular English (or other) grammer? I am yet to see a reason why an idea expressed in one form (a paper) is expression, but the same idea expressed in another way (code) is nothing.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Not out of the woods yet... (Score:2)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Speaking of injunctions, Napster today (Score:2)
If you mean pro-Napster legal arguments and such, try going here [napster.com].
Of particular interest is the Opposition to RIAA's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [napster.com] (182 kb PDF).
Phase 2 DVD players... no unencrypted discs. (Score:2)
If this is true, then the MPAA is acting just like the RIAA with their phase1 and phase2 players. Phase one is to get the public to accept it. The phase1 players play unencrypted, unsigned media. But then they flip a switch and you can only play encrypted, signed media. And from that point forward, you HAVE TO GO THROUGH them to get anything published.
And, if it's true, then the switch has been flipped in the case of DVD players. You can no longer play unencrypted discs. You can no longer avoid paying a license fee to the DVD/CA to make a disc.
(I did some research and cannot confirm that that is true. But I can confirm that the phase1/phase2 switch DOES disable changing your region code. In Phase 1, you can switch regions, in Phase 2, the DVD drive itself holds the region code and it cannot be changed or reset.)
Quick question: Anyone know how to tell if you have a phase1/phase2 player?
But what about the actual code? (Score:2)
The code was published by a Norwegian in Norway, where disassembling code isn't a crime.
When the movie industry in US reacted, the police in Norway asked the kid some qustions (_not_ arresting him in any way).
He was even given awards from his school for his coding.
So from a coders perspective he was given a pat on his head within his country.
2600 reported abot this, what logic is it in the first case to atack 2600 for reporting about something that a Norwegian did in Norway?
US Law as far as I know, doesn't aply here in Scandinavia, so it seems to me abit strange that you guys (as a country) are sueing one-another about a thing done over here???
This is not intended as a flamer, just my inability to understand, what the trial is realy about, but since it's already over, maybe it's a little late to ask this
Speaking of injunctions, Napster today (Score:2)
Napster CEO Optimistic for Hearing on Wednesday
Updated 1:31 AM ET July 26, 2000
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Napster Chief Executive Hank Barry said Tuesday he was optimistic the company will prevail at a hearing in federal court Wednesday to decide if Napster's popular song-swap service should be shut down amid claims it is promoting digital piracy. 'We're very optimistic about our legal positions and our legal team,' Barry told Reuters in an interview Tuesday.
I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Can you?
Injunction hearing in SF today! (Score:2)
Napster CEO Optimistic for Hearing on Wednesday
Updated 1:31 AM ET July 26, 2000
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Napster Chief Executive Hank Barry said Tuesday he was optimistic the company will prevail at a hearing in federal court Wednesday to decide if Napster's popular song-swap service should be shut down amid claims it is promoting digital piracy. 'We're very optimistic about our legal positions and our legal team,' Barry told Reuters in an interview Tuesday.
I can't find resources for pro-Napster resources on the web. Are you interested? Help us out by posting 'em if you find 'em, most notably the time and place of this thing? I would love to go - maybe you CAN!
Re:Touretzky (Score:2)
While doing so he's done it in the guise of academic scholarly study - pointing out why the 1st amendment is important and why 'fair use' is needed for a free and open society
Access control circumvention must NOT be a crime (Score:2)
No, sir, I most certainly do NOT want circumvention of access control to be a crime! The issue of cracking someone's computer or infiltrating their firewall is NOT the same as that of blocking or exercising fair use of copyrighted material that I have purchased and now OWN.
Cracking a computer or a firewall is a form of burglary or trespass, and, IMHO, should be recognized as such in law; the cracker has no legitimate business being there. It's an infringement of a property right; I have an essentially absolute right to be free from trespass by private citizens.
Restricting access to copyrighted material one has bought and paid for is an infringement of "Fair Use" under the copyright laws (the DMCA excepted; it WILL go down.). I DO have a legitimate right to view the work, 'cause I bought it! Traditionally, a copyright holder relinquishes ALL control over the manner in which a buyer will view or experience the work, (or even make copies not for distribution); all the copyright holder gets is the legal assurance that he/she will have exclusive rights of first sale for a limited time.
DMCA and its demonic brethren attempt to extend this control over first sale to a total control over all access; THAT is an intellectual property land grab of breathtaking proportions.
Tonight's homework: What about circumvention of access control AFTER the copyright expires and the work enters the public domain?
Re:Code is an ULTIMATE form of expression (Score:2)
. Please explain how smearing a brush on canvas is being "creative"
Re:Donate money to the EFF right now!!! (Score:2)
-Vercingetorix
Re:Perspective (Score:2)
I'm sure someone convicted of murder has a very strong opinion on what his or her sentence should be, and they certainly have a greater stake in that decision than anyone else, but ultimately their opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
I would say Touretsky's testimony was probably the most valuable offered during the whole trial, since he was able to make it starkly clear that this really is about free speech, and not about copying DVDs. The DMCA simply has no power to override your 1st amendment rights, and the judge's decision in this case could set the precedent to either nullify, or at least take a significant bite out of the DMCA. If the judge makes a ruling that states, in effect, that the DeCSS code constitutes protected speech, then the MPAA will have no recourse but to go after the actual pirates, instead of software developers and journalists.
-Vercingetorix
how clueless can you get? (Score:2)
Re:Stop injunctions of courts! (Score:2)
So before the DMCA it was legal to use a descrambler to get free cable?
Access control circumvention does not need to be illegal. A ruling in favor of DeCSS wouldn't mean that copyright infringement is ok.
No decision on linking? (Score:3)
...phil
This could be a very Good Thing(tm) (Score:3)
Which brings up the second point, which is that the DCMA provides for this type of unfair practice.
So, the MPAA losing here would be a great blow to this ridiculous law.
I also agree that this is freedom of speech. Some people would disagree here, but this type of hack is not only a technical breakthrough, but it also indirectly protests an unfair law. You must admit that the thousands of people mirroring the code, are doing it out of principle. The fact is, they should be able to mirror it, because it is both a message that the DCMA and MPAA are wrong in denying us fair use. In that way, it is freedom of speech, and it ought to be protected. I doubt those who are mirroring it are doing it for the technical validity of the code.
On a more personal level, I have a laptop with a DVD player, and I'm stuck running Windows on it. The potential legality of DeCSS could lead to a good Linux DVD player, which means I can eliminate the last bastion of Microsoft in my home. Which will be a victory for me, anyway.
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:3)
Your copyright allows you to make demands of the licensee in exchange for your work. So far, so good. This allows you to impose certain conditions - in the case of the Microsoft EULA, payment, in the case of the GPL/BSDL certain conditions relating to copying and modification.
However, there are limits to what you can do with such a license. In short, you can't deprive the licensee or any other individual of their other rights through it. You can't (to pick an absurd example) require that someone go out and commit a murder in order to use you software.
To get back to the original issue: The question is not whether copyright is good or bad, but what the legitimate scope of a copyright license is. Can you require that only approved devices be used to access the work ? can you require that no copies be made ? Can you override somebody's right to free expression on the grounds that the knowledge they've expressed might be used to undermine your monopoly on players, or copy your work ?
According the doctrine of fair use, which is fundamental to the law in this matter, the answer to the first question is "no", you can't create a monopoly on players in this way, as it has nothing to do with your profiting from your work. To the second "sometimes", you can only control the making of copies where you can reasonably argue that you're being deprived of a sale you'd otherwise have made.
The answer to the third question is clearly the critical matter in this case. To us, the answer is pretty clearly no. The MPAA has no right to maintain its monopoly on players, and no right to restrict information about copying (thats like outlawing the instructions for making a photocopier).
Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many people have such a naive idea of copyright as a form of "ownership" that allows the owners copyright to override everything else.
Re:Access control circumvention (Score:3)
Well...smashing or breaking a lock would be destruction of property,
But that's the whole point the RIAA says that if we buy the lock, we can't break it. Last time I checked, we were able to buy an object, then do anything we wanted to it. Otherwise, the Who and Jimi Hendrix would be jailed for smashing or burning their insturments.
In fact, they say that if we bought an Epiphone guitar, we would have to buy Epiphone strings, and only play it on a Epiphone amplifier through Epiphone cords. If someone built their own amp (a fairly simple task that requires some technical skill, similar to writing DeCSS) to play the guitar that they bought, they would be seized out of their home and taken to the police (like a certain scandinavian fellow).
What pisses me off is that some fairly intelligent people can't get past the "well, are you saying it should be legal to copy movies and give them to your friends?" This is not about copying - it's about using the objects that you bought fairly and making them do what you want for your own private use.
--
Evan
You're missing more sinister points of the DMCA! (Score:3)
> One of the problems that those of us watching this case have had in our
> analysis and understanding is that we are so
> passionate about the issue of being able to create free software
> to play DVD's, and the threat of the DMCA to the continued development
> of free software, that we are overlooking the specifics of this
> particular case.
>
> In the case against Corey, we have a situation where the prosecution
> is saying that Corey is trafficking in an illegal software program
> that violates the DMCA. The defense, on the other hand, has been
> arguing that Corey is a JOURNALIST!!! and that the links to the
> DeCSS program is a protection of the 1st Amendment, protected
> Free Speech and an issue of Freedom of the Press.
>
> In this light, actually, the issue of the DMCA is actually a side
> show altogether. The real issue is can the court suppress the
> Press from reporting the location and contents of DeCSS,
> regardless of any violation of the DMCA.
First of all, it's Corley. (pronounced Gold-stein)
Let me enlighten you on some fine points of the DMCA:
Sec.1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA hasn't even taken effect yet.
[DMCA]
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.
(1)
(A)
No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected
under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence
shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this chapter.
[/DMCA]
That 2-year period hasn't yet expired.. In the interim, the Library of
congress was charged with holding hearings about exempted works.
The interesting part of this case, isn't that Emmanuel is charged with
copyright infringement under 1201(a)(1)(A), but that he's charged
with copyright infringement under 1201(a)(2)(A,B,C)
[DMCA]
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.
(2)
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof, that--
(A)
is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
(B)
has only limited commercially significant purpose or
use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C)
is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
a technological measure that effectively controls access
to a work protected under this title.
[/DMCA]
There is no 2-year waiting period on 1201(a)(2).
It is in effect right now, and has been in effect since 1998.
So it's not accurate to say that the real issue is regardless
of violations of the DMCA.. The DMCA itself puts these restrictions
on the press and on every other American.
Not out of the woods yet... (Score:3)
He noted that free speech rights allow the publishing of a formula for LSD even though it is illegal to possess LSD -- and the publishing of a schematic for a timing device for a bomb.
But the poster of such information could be held liable as aiding and abetting to a crime. If DVD's start being pirated, couldn't MPAA start suing all the distributors of DeCSS? (Even if thay can't prove a specific site led to it - sue them all and hope one sticks)
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Re:Cathedral design (Score:3)
Partially true- if it were wholly true, all cathedrals would be identical. And even given the similarities in cathedrals, it is still clear that their design is influenced a great deal by personal (or communal) expression as much as functionality. Why are cathedrals in the shape of a cross, with the main alter at the meeting of the two beams? Why are there so many upward-pointing structures (spires, steeples, the pointed-topped arches)? Why were they built to that size at all, with huge vaulted ceilings and massive internal fixtures? Functionality controlled how these features were achieved (ie- flying buttresses et al.), but why set out to create those features at all? If the people who had conceived of and built the cathedrals had not been religious people, there design(not to mention existance) would have been wholly different. Features were chosen, based on what the designers and patrons wanted the building to express, and then the means to achieve that vision were used where necesary.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Way off base there (Score:3)
No matter who pretends to exercise them, that still doesn't make them rights. They are exercising a unilateral extension of contract law, which is generally not legitimately enforceable. They do this to try and prevent fair use. However, fair use still stands, because it is the condition under which copyright law exists.
License agreements operate under the smokescreen of copyright law, when really they are more closely related to contract law. By getting someone to agree to a contract, you can give yourself any "rights" you want to. The problem with license agreements is that they try to take away the fair rights of the consumer without that consumer's actual agreement. This generally makes the contract invalid. In all reality, the only basis for license agreements is fear. (Of course, if you get right down to it, that's the basis of law itself.)
Re:Access control circumvention must NOT be a crim (Score:3)
> assurance that he/she will have exclusive
> rights of first sale for a limited time.
And even then, its not total. In fact, hows this for a kicker in the whole "information as property" copyright argument:
There is a section of copyright law, which applies explicitly to music. It states that you do NOT need to obtain permission to distribute copyrighted musical works AT ALL. There is a simple, outlined procedure whereby you notify the copyright holder, distribute, and then send them royalties.
It is called a compulsory licence. You notify them, not ask for permission. Why? Because they can't refuse. Its law, its compulsory. All you need to do is be sure to notify them and send in the royalties in the manner that is specified.
I think that is a pretty clear statment that posessing a copyright is NOT the same as owning property.
> Tonight's homework: What about circumvention of
> access control AFTER the copyright expires and
> the work enters the public domain?
It doesn't matter, no software will be going into the public domain for the next 80 years or so (ok more like 60). Certainly no current day, well used software. By that time the interests of Big Buisness will have done away with the concepts of public domain and "fair use".
DeCSS Jekyll and Hyde (Score:3)
It seems to me that the biggest problem has been divorcing the legality of posting the DeCSS from the legality of copying and pirating DVDs.
The next part, and this will be the trickiest step, is how to deal with the legal and illegal uses of DeCSS. I agree with all the posts here talking about how one of its major uses will be to circumvent the horrendously idiotic region controls that the MPAA has built into it. This goes back to the heart of intellectual property issue, that I buy it and I should be able to get every part of it. Hopefully this issue will get resolved in another fasion (probably a court case) so that people don't have to DeCSS their DVD's just to get all the content.
The other side is how to deal with the piracy. It seems to me that this will eventually mirror the mp3 issue... the algorithm is of course legal, but piracy isn't, and I suppose we'll see the MPAA looking more and more like the RIAA, hunting down Napster sites. I hope that the Congressional hearings on Online Music will have implications on fair use and licensing that will extend to the MPAA. As they currently stand, the intellectual property laws cannot continue to exist, and they most certainly will have to be changed. And this is why the DeCSS case has been so complicated.. it has been impossible to divorce it from issues of intellectual property rights, the rights of the consumer, and the potential for piracy.
Re:Not out of the woods yet... (Score:3)
I guess the various Gun manufactures must be in a lot of trouble then. And car manufactures. Hey, brick and bottle makers best watch out, people use them to smash things. Oh, and knife makers, tool makers (Hammers, crowbars). I could go on and on...
The point is, providing a tool to a person is not a crime. If that person then uses the tool to commit a crime, then thats their problem. I shouldn't be liable if i tell someone how to light a match, and they burn down a hospital.
Re:Not out of the woods yet... (Score:3)
I am not responsible for what people do with the information I give them unless it can be proved that I actively conspired with them to commit a crime.
Media representations... (Score:3)
Firstly, this sounds like an extremely positive step. It's about time that source code was given the legal protection of being self-expression - almost everything else creative is given this distinction so this sounds like it will finally give source code the recognition it deserves.
But while it sounds like the courts may be getting it sorted, it looks like we still have a long way to go in educating the Media at large about technical issues. First, this NYT article constantly babbles about how DeCSS allows people to copy DVDs. AAARGGGGHH. How do we get the Media to realize that you can copy DVDs anyway, without the DeCSS code? And more importantly, how do we get the Media to spot the distinction between Access control (i.e. CSS) and Copy control (such as special disks, watermarking, etc.). This seems to be an issue that just isn't getting explained in the general press.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:The Times missed the point (Score:3)
Everyone, even Emmanuel Goldstein and Jon Johansen have stated DeCSS copies the VOB to the harddrive in windows. So the Times is correct, the version of DeCSS that Johansen released, a windows Binary, was designed to COPY files from the DVD drive to the hard drive. It is however, a qualified yes because the end intention was to copy the files to Linux and allow them to be played there.
Re:Access control circumvention (Score:3)
Very simple, I would get arrested if I went and broke into someone elses locker, but if I broke into mine. I have the right to destroy my own property.
I can blow up my car, I can kick dents in it. But YOU CANNOT. There is the truth. If reconized that we own the property, then we can do whatever we want.
So, is the DVD ours? or a loner?
Re:DeCSS is Freedom of Speech? (Score:4)
Don't be silly...everyone whos seen the film U-571 knows that it was the Americans who captured the Enigma machine, cracked the code single handedly, and won the whole war without any help from the rest of the world!
Oh, wait...
Re:About time... (Score:4)
An interesting note is that Slashdot was mentioned over and over again as a primary source of information by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Even Judge Kaplan seemed to have read many of the
His decision is going to be interesting. I look forward to reading it.
- Robin
Re:Code is not a form of expression! (Score:4)
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:4)
Since it's so easy to replicate digital media, it's fair to make some laws which govern doing so, and to have the government enforce those laws. But why should we radically increase the rights given? Large copyright interests are taking the opportunity presented by digital media to attempt an overcompensation -- they're asking for rights they've never had before.
--
What is this case about!? (Score:4)
analysis and understanding is that we are so
passionate about the issue of being able to create free software
to play DVD's, and the threat of the DMCA to the continued development
of free software, that we are overlooking the specifics of this
particular case.
In the case against Corey, we have a situation where the prosecution
is saying that Corey is trafficking in an illegal software program
that violates the DMCA. The defense, on the other hand, has been
arguing that Corey is a JOURNALIST!!! and that the links to the
DeCSS program is a protection of the 1st Amendment, protected
Free Speech and an issue of Freedom of the Press.
In this light, actually, the issue of the DMCA is actually a side
show altogether. The real issue is can the court suppress the
Press from reporting the location and contents of DeCSS,
regardless of any violation of the DMCA.
In consideration of THIS question, Kaplan is asking if the Horse is
out of the Barn, Is DeCSS publicly available knowledge which is
newsworthy and therefor afforded protection. This is indeed a
fair point of view in regards to this specific case. Does it
really matter if 2600.com publishes the link, as opposed to
the NY Times?
Probably not.
However, such a ruling does not answer the fundamental question
of the legality of the DMCA or it's use as a legal means to
repress reverse engineering or forms of freedom of speech more
specific the "Fair Use" doctrine.
On the other hand, if Kaplan rules that DeCSS is a form of
speech protected under the 1st amendment, regardless of it
being an instruction kit to descramble the CSS algorthim or
not, then the issue of the Horse being out of the Barn is
irrelevant. Free Speech is assumed to be permitted, horse, barn
or entire farm notwithstanding!
In any event, a ruling in favor of Corey under this logic may not
be what's in the best interest of Free Software, or for that matter,
the public's welfare. Ideally, Kaplan would examine the facts and rule
that the property rights of the writers of the DeCSS permits them to
reverse engineer the CSS encryption scheme, and their rights to
freedom of speech permits them to distribute the code
as they see fit. He would rule this is permissible under the DMCA
and in line with previous Constitutional Ruling of the Supreme Court,
or he would rule that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it's
enforcement would violate the civil rights guaranteed every citizen
to their property and their freedom of speech. Then he would
rule that because the software was legally developed for a legal
purpose, that the MPAA's arguments for a permanent injunction
has no basis in the law, DMCA notwithstanding.
Baring a ruling similar to this, the MPAA might loose this battle, and
not appeal, thereby sidestepping the major issues which argue that the
DMCA is either unenforcible as the MPAA wishes it to be,
or unconstitutional. And in the long run, that would be very bad
for the public and Free Software.
Bet the Farm on it!!
New Yorkers for Fair Use [nyfairuse.org]
EULAs are optional to the end user (Score:4)
You can, of course. You just can't count on the end user agreeing to the EULA. The terms of the license is entirely optional to the end user! (Yes, even when the license is the GPL.)
When I buy some software, there's a tiny little implicit contract between me and the vendor (who is likely not the copyright holder) which is basically: money in exchange for a copyrighted work. And when I download some GPLed software off the 'Net, there's probably no contract at all.
At this point, I may not have even seen the license or know whether or not it exists. I certainly haven't agreed to it yet. After I own the box that contains the software, or after I have exploded the archive, I might see the license and then decide whether or not to agree to it. If there's a seal that says, "by breaking this seal, you agree to..." I don't worry about it because I know that the words on the seal are incorrect, even misleading. I already own it without the need for an additional contract.
If I don't agree to the license, then the usual copyright laws apply. I can't redistribute the software, but I can do anything within fair use. This even applies to software that is distributed under GPL! If I do decide to agree to it, well, then whatever is in the license applies. Some licenses (e.g. GPL, BSD) grant me additional rights, above and beyond the rights given to me by copyright law, to entice me to agree to them. Think of those additional rights as my "consideration" in the new contract that I'm entering into with the copyright holder.
In the case of DVDs, the MPAA offers a license that nobody wants. It doesn't grant any additional rights, so there's no reason for me to agree to it. (In fact, if it doesn't have any "consideration" for me, it may not even be a legal contract at all.) Therefore I reject the license, plain and simple, and just accept the rights given to me by copyright law. The only restrictions on what I can or can't do with the DVD, are the ones specified by copyright law. The license is irrelevant if I don't agree to it.
(Of course, the restrictions "specified by copyright law" were severely changed when DMCA passed. A lot of people think that it is an unfair law. All unfair laws should be ignored, since the Purpose of Law is to serve us by making the world a more fair place, rather than to make us slaves. Laws that do not serve the public interest are a form of tyranny. I wish legislators would stop and think about that for a moment before they vote on things.)
---
Re:Phase 2 DVD players... no unencrypted discs. (Score:4)
Ah, but the CSS algorithm has been reverse-engineered and is no longer a secret. Why pay a license fee when you can get the specs for free? Just download DeCSS and invert its function.
That's the trial I really want to see: DVDCCA suing a publisher for making an encrypted DVD without a license, in order to play in Phase 2 players.
Because if the publisher were to win that case (and I think they would) and 2600 loses the DeCSS case, then every single DVD player manufacturer -- even the ones who already have licenses from DVDCCA -- would be in violation of DMCA unless they reached a settlement with that publisher for "authorization" to circumvent.
Read DMCA some time. It uses words like "authorization" but is pretty vague on who does the authorizing. I'm pretty sure it refers to the owner of the copyrighted work, though it doesn't explicitly say that. I'm damn sure that it doesn't refer to the inventor of the algorithm.
I wish there were some say to make Judge Kaplan aware of this. It sheds a lot of light on the bizarre consequences of DMCA's language.
---
Touretzky (Score:4)
However, it may be appropriate to label him as an "activist" as well. On his Web page [cmu.edu] you'll find links to such things as his "Ethics and Etiquette in Scientific Research", deCSS, Cyber Patrol's filter list, and the latest poop on Scientology and Amway.
--
Re:About time... (Score:4)
Yes, but did he moderate them up, or down?
--
Donate money to the EFF right now!!! (Score:4)
Show your support, and send money [eff.org] to them RIGHT NOW. There simply is no more effective way to tell the MPAA and RIAA that they can not get away with what they are trying to do.
Boycotts will not work. Protests will not work. Support the only fight that can actually achive a lasting victory!
I'm tired of this BS posturing (Score:4)
DeCSS is being used for piracy today. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.
I'm not talking about the old-style piracy of copying a disk physically and selling it through some black market channel... this is the modern, Internet-enabled kind. Download Scour Exchange sometime and search for videos- you'll find plenty of movies there that are described as having been converted by a DVD rip.
With mpeg4 (divx comes to mind) it's very feasible to put a reasonable quality dvd rip into files that can be downloaded without too much trouble by anyone with a DSL connection. It's happening today- people who didn't buy the DVD download these movies and watch them for free. This is piracy, any way you look at.
It's like guns- they have many potential uses, but it's hard to ignore that they're awfully good at killing people. DeCSS has many potentially benign uses, but it's awfully good at helping to enable piracy. If freely packaged with the right tools, it could enable digital piracy of DVDs on a scale approaching that of mp3s and CDs.
Just so you don't think I'm some sort of industry flack- I think the movie (and music, for that matter) companies are being terribly hidebound and reactive, and they deserve every last bit of damage that comes from their inabililty to grasp and sanely exploit the potential for electronic distribution of their content. I don't think programs like DeCSS should be illegal. Lawsuits against companies like Napster and Scour are sad attempts to return to an earlier time when complete control of content was possible through restricting physical distribution. My only point: just don't say that DeCSS isn't used for piracy- that's BS.
Re:Code is not a form of expression! (Score:4)
That's like saying there's no creativity in designing bridges, buildings etc...
My god man, Cathedrals rely on those laws and rules in order to stand up for centuries, but take away the creativity and I'd rather they fall down than to look at a functional, boring square box they'd turn into.
(Moderators, don't 'troll'/'flamebait' this just yet. I want to see those hundred of replies how this suit's got it all wrong.
---
DeCSS is Freedom of Speech? (Score:4)
I wonder if it's too late for Nazi Germany to sue the British for breaking their code in WWII?
Continued Ignorance of the Issues (Score:4)
But of course every time someone makes that mistake and publishes an article containing the implication that the purpose of deCSS is to copy/pirate/steal, it strengthens the MPAA's case. If people are copying DVDs, then go after them, sure, but isn't it time they came clean and declared once and for all that the CSS is a tool for segmenting the market, creating regional focuses that allow them to price discriminate, and potentially create a new source of revenue through the need to licence the CSS code to companies that want to make DVD players?
Does this also mean that amateur film-makers will be unable to create films for distribution on DVD because they won't be allowed to use the CSS encryption standard and therefore can't create content readable by CSS-hobbled DVD players? Or am I wrong about that last point?
No login link for the lazy (Score:4)
Unencrypted DVDs (Score:5)
CSS-encrypted discs for the player's region
Non-encrypted discs which will play in any region.
It's perfectly feasible to create an unencrypted region-free disc, and playing it will be no problem as long as you use the correct file formats/bitrates/etc. (Which ARE documented AFAIK - In fact, there are guides on how to make your own DVD. Although in most cases they cover using the DVD filesystem/file format on CD-R media, which DVD players will recognize and play just like a normal DVD.)
Access control circumvention (Score:5)
The distinction between a marketing control device and an access control device is a good one, but breaking both should be legal, so long as no other laws are violated. If I want to hack the living crap out of my linux box, breaking every access control device I can find along the way, I should be perfectly within my rights to do so. To declare otherwise legally would be silly.
Re:The Times missed the point (Score:5)
Ah, but that's only what it means to us, to the consumers who purchase and have to make use of these DVD products.
To the MPAA however, which has far more potent propaganda organs than Slashdot can boast, this really is about copying and piracy.
When you rip a DVD directly without decryption, the resulting DVD remains playable only on MPAA-controlled hardware. The number of "rogue" copies is limited to your financial potential for output of physical DVDs - in other words, not much. This means the MPAA can largely restrict number and presentation of their movies, ultimately squeezing scarce-product revenue out of zero-scarcity information.
But with DeCSS, users can extract a clear copy of teh content, and present it via any channel they like, including the Internet. Unlike some geeks on slashdot, who for some reason only envision a future of broadband when piracy isn't on trial, the MPAA fully expects movies to be downloadable in a short period of time by ordinary viewers in just a matter of a few years.
They are trying to head off the perceived obsolesence of their marketing and distribution channels. It's not piracy now they're fighting but piracy five years from now.
All together now: YOU CORPORATE A$$HOLES!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
The Times missed the point (Score:5)
They had acutally been an important supporter of 2600 through this case and made a point of linking to the 2600 site to test the MPAA's contention that linking to DeCSS is illegal.
Well, at least the article wasn't written by John Markoff
Re:Maybe, but so do you (Score:5)
Well then, what is it used for?
Well I use it to decode the DVD vob to my hard drive, then run a converter to mpeg format, and then I watch the movie. I am well within my rights as I own the DVD that I'm decoding and watching.
If the DeCSS people had never published it, these people probably wouldn't have found the decryption algorithm, correct? So they're all essentially DeCSS offshoots.
For your info, speed ripper was out long before DeCSS was. In fact the code for DeCSS was not originally available but then the css-auth code came out. I do not think that they are all DeCSS offshoots and I would love to see you prove it. If DeCSS and css-auth have no practical purpose, what about its role in LiViD [linuxvideo.org]?
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Changing methods (Score:5)
First off, that the MPA admitted that their original suit and their original assumptions changed over the course of the trial. They admitted they only targeted DeCSS and knew when the trial was starting that they weren't going to get a piracy issue through. The true nature of the suit filed had been changed so that they had a better chance to win.
Secondly, that the MPA was really looking to make the DeCSS code and software a tool to help copy DVDs and help take away their licensing powers, but failed to call the proper witnesses. They did do a better job cross-examining the Defense witnesses than examining their own witnesses, from what I could see. As well, calling only one MPA agent for the prosecution seemed to weaken their case more, since she failed to shed much light on anything.
Truthfully, I think that DeCSS will win, just based on the lackluster case built by the MPA lawyers. I don't think they've actually built any substantial case about anything other than they're going to lose their ability to control licensing of their DVD encryption. If the MPA had better prepared for the case and realized earlier on that they were focusing on the wrong points, we might have seen DeCSS shut down permenantly. Not that such a thing could happen effectively, but it would have been the ruling.
My only hope is that Congress sees the growing trend of corporations trying to take away rights of their consumers by using the laws, and stop listening to lobbyists for the corporations about "proper" copyright laws. It just leads to cases like these.
Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]