This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
2600's Response to the DeCSS desicion
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]
Re:New Australian Law (Score:2)
Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 [aph.gov.au]
I admit, I don't understand why the Austrlian parliament would do this.
We, the Geeks (Score:2)
As much as we complain about bad legislation, we (in the US) are fortunate that market forces still dominate.
I think that the best shot we have at redemption from DMCA and other bad laws is to boycott "content" and pay for "art."
WE have the technology to bypass movie studios and record labels.
WE as geeks tend to have non-technology interests and talents, such as music and film making.
If WE distribute art (as opposed to banal "content") with express forfeiture of certain copyrights (like
prohibition of fair use) WE can ALL have our rights!
If we fuse napster and paypal functionality in an OPEN way, I think we will be will on our way to overthrowing "content
tyrants" and restoring both art and freedom in our society.
Sorry if this sounds over-the-top, but I am upset by all of this.
-Peter
Re:Linking (Score:2)
And shouldn't the MPAA be forced to offer a buy back program for the shirts? After all, depriving someone of an article of clothing involves a monetary loss to a third party whereas removing the code from a web site takes, at most, a minute.
----
Use an anonymizer. (Score:2)
---
Dear Hackers - send money. Love, the EFF. (Score:2)
You can do it here [eff.org].
---
Re:Which brings us to the problem... (Score:2)
The problem with libertarians is that i'm afraid they would make an even bigger mess trying to fix things. Simply because we've gotten used to living so far from the libertarian ideal.
To do things like eliminate welfare altogether, eliminate income taxes, drastically reduce defense spending, etc, could have dire consequences. Not to mention that something would seriously have to be done about the power of corporations. I'm not sure that can be done effectively without causing huge problems with our economy. Has any libertarian candidate discussed how they plan to make the changes without destroying everything in the process? That would be interesting reading I think.
Re:Are 2600 really helping? (Score:2)
However, I think we all have rights when it comes down to being our own stuff. I dare say that I should have the right to accidentally electrocute myself or to fry my hardware after ignoring warnings. I should be able to learn about anything that I own, discovering how those things work. I don't think that any of the knowledge I've gained on my own is the property of someone else. I should be able to redistribute that knowledge if I wish. If I receive that knowledge with permission to redistribute, then I should be able to do so.
IMO, there are many underlying issues that go beyond `what are my rights as a consumer?' to `what are my rights as a human being?' It seems that many content distributors (MPAA, RIAA) would like nothing better than to have everyone turn into mindless money-spending drones. They already see us like that anyway.
While I do not like some of what 2600 stands for, we need groups like them to exist. We need to be reminded what it is like to be the outsiders. They make an effort to be independent of corporate influence (their weekly radio show also runs on a non-commercial radio station, WBAI, which is funded only by contributions from individuals, not companies). In this age where virtually nothing is truly `made from scratch' by members of the public, people like that are a necessity.
This case (and the other similar ones running today) has shown me that we need to re-examine the role of copyrights, licenses, patents, trademarks, and anything else I forgot. So much of the last 200 years of laws on this subject have been greatly influenced by the publishers and distributors, rather than the original creators and the end consumers. We need to look at our rights as people and as a society, rather than those of the corporations. I want the content created today to be accessible to future generations, not locked behind encryption and licensing.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:Help make a difference! (Score:2)
don't equate getting involved with politics with just voting! why do you think that all of these big corporations have been able to get laws favoring them through congress (eg DMCA)? they've got special interest groups, we've got the EFF.
Re:Not a Simple Issue (Score:2)
The press can publish anything they want if they can get their hands on it, the secrets acts are all based around trying to prevent the press from getting ahold of things. And when the press does get ahold of secrets, the responsibility part of "freedom of the press" is that they have to decide whether or not to publish it, but the decision that is made is not whether or not they CAN publish it. Welcome to the United States. Go read the Constitution.
Oh, yeah, and normal white-hat practice when you find a security hole is to notify the vendor, give them a "reasonable" amount of time to respond, and if they don't, then you publish. You publish to force action when you can't get it any other way. I look at DeCSS this way: They knew people were working on cracking DVD so they could write players. They didn't do anything to improve their security. They didn't build their security strong enough to keep anyone out. So how do they protect their stuff: litigation.
This is just another great offshoot of our new economy/old economy fight. The old economy companies really see litigation as their sole means of competition. They can't compete technologically (because of their entrenched fear of change) and they're scared of losing control of their markets. Boo-hoo. This isn't 1970 anymore, they're going to have to start looking at better ways to do business than hiring a bunch of lawyers and buying off some congressmen. What happens when the programmers all move to . They publish what they want, and the only recourse is to censor the entire Internet (welcome to China). Even better, you just publish it all anonymously on Gnutella or Freenet.
chris.
Re:Reputations (Score:2)
Damnit. I'm really getting tired with this '15-year-old cracker/hacker' nonsense. I'm 16, and I consider myself a 'hacker', in the OSS sense of the word. I use Debian GNU/Linux + BSD at home (Solaris/SPARC at work), hack on Free Software projects in Perl, Java, C etc in my spare time, and work as a UNIX admin/web guy at a media company. I DO NOT crack into computer systems (although I might be able to, I've never tried, nor do I have any desire to try); I'm not a w3r4z d00d, or anything puerile like that. I'm not trying to boast or anything - but I think more people should be aware that not all - in fact, very few - teenagers are 'l33t hax0rs'.
I know that people like that do exist, and that's the stereotype that you were commenting on. But don't include the age group - there are many people like myself in the under-18 age group that feel sleighted at being associated with script kiddies - just like you would feel. If you want to refer to that group of peope, call them script kiddes, or crackers, or anything you like. But I don't think age has much to do with it.
Torx-like security breach. (Score:2)
It gives me other nightmares. It gives the tax man a reason to tax me for funds I have never been promised, nor have ever recieved. Or a Domestic Court deciding that a father must pay child support on same. But thank G_d that 2600 is not in either of those courts.
This smacks me as the judge saying that I have no right to remove the Torx nuts on (insert item) that I bought and paid for, because it needs a "special" security (?) Torx driver (tiny hole in the middle, purchasable anyplace). If I have the gumption to tell others about this, I am violating a "security provision" and then convicted.
For some reason, the same lie repeated over (not in this post) and over again, became "truth" in the press and in that worthless courtroom. DeCSS allows READING, nothing more.
To further PERSICUTE a simple magazine and web site for showing people how to read is absoutly outragious, but not unexpected.
Hopefully, when a court run by a TRUE conservative (USA style) gets hold of this, the mess will be over. Can you ever imagine a true conservative saying that a bunch of "lefties" in Hollywood should tell you what you can do with your own computer equipment? Can you really see a true conservative telling anybody that they can not give their own instructions to their own DVD player to decode and play their own DVD in the privacy of their own home? It is like imagining a conservative telling garage mechanics "you must not use your drill press for drilling 1/4" holes without a license from Ford".
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:2600 a victim of their own reputation (Score:4)
Although it appears that you're not trying to support the judges attitude, it appears to me that you're failing. Basically, you're saying, "it's too bad, it's not fair, but it's their fault that they are getting screwed by the system.", right? Explain to me how what you're saying is different than "well, she wouldn't have had such a hard time proving that she didn't sleep with Bob if she hadn't slept with Tom, Dick and Harry".
You go on to re-iterate that it's not fair. What I'm missing here is your point. I read "they are reaping what they have sown" to mean "they brought this on themselves", or, in other words, "it's their fault". Then later I read that it's wrong that this is happening. In other words, "it's the system that's wrong". I put these together to mean "reputations shouldn't matter, but they do, so they shouldn't have gotten a bad one, poor fools".
The article already points out that the judge was apparently biased against 2600 because of their previous publications, and that this is wrong. So what you are adding is that, because their description of what's wrong with various security models reads to you like instructions for crackers they have brougt it on themselves? It just keeps sounding to me like you sympathize with the judge even though you know you shouldn't.
Not a flame, just wondering if you can clarify your point, or tell what you think they should have done differently. Would it have gone better for them, in your opinion, if their past articles had been less of a how-to and more cold and clinical? I'm just not getting it.
thanks,
mike
--
Re:Another flaw of the bank vault metaphor (Score:2)
----
Re: (Score:2)
CSS is not copy protection. (Score:2)
CSS is not copy protection.
CSS is not copy protection.
CSS is not copy protection.
I can't believe how well the MPAA has pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes. CSS does not prevent copying. CSS does not make copying difficult. The ONLY thing CSS does is prevent Linux users from watching their DVD's that they just shelled out $20-$30 for.
While I'm on the subject, Macrovision is also not copy protection. Macrovision forces people to shell out $70 for a deMacrovision device so they can watch DVD's through their VCR if they have a TV with RF only inputs.
What I would do is buy a DVD and return it if the content won't play in Linux. Keep returning the DVD's untill they give you one that is not broken. A CSS'd or Macrovisioned'd DVD is a broken DVD!
Re:Don't Vote Gore, then! (or Bush) (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
What 2600 did was to stand as an acid-test to the First Amendment rights and the "fair-use" clause of the current copyright law. By fighting to keep the MPAA from getting what they want, they strove to set a legal precedent.
--
MPAA careful who to fight (Score:2)
As I have pointed out in another post the way bad case law is caused to exist is for the rich and powerful to pick first opponents that stand no chance in court. Then once an absurd, lopsided, decision is on the books everyone accepts that absurdity as the 'law' from that point forward. The legal system makes no note of the fact that you beat up somebody with ALS in a wheel chair in your judicial fist fight - all that gets recorded is the big 'W' in your column.
The law, 100's of millions of lines of code, not one line of which has ever been tested to see if it works.
Re:Not a Simple Issue (Score:2)
I think what he was saying is something like "If someone discovered that you could instantly open any Master lock by tapping the combination dial with your knuckle twice, then Master would be at fault for negligence. It shouldn't be illegal for the guy who discovered this fault to publish the information in hopes of exposing weak security."
Re:Austrialia 2600 will not comply (Score:2)
---
Re: (Score:2)
Fair Enough... (Score:4)
2600 is not exactly Scientific American. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of editing, and many of the articles are written in an informal, spoken-word kind of voice. It's not as bad as 3133t3 sp33k, but there's a lot of slang, bad grammar, and the like.
There's also a lot of "fight the Man!" rhetoric and quasi-revolutionary language, and the occasional thinly-veiled disclaimer. "This is totally illegal, and you should never do this, but if you wanted to here's how to do it...."
The impression created by reading a typical 2600 issue is eavesdropping on a conversation at a prison for tech-savvy criminals. It's not a fair impression, and it's more for show and image than substance ("We Bad! We 3133t3!") But 2600 manages to convey the message that it and its readership don't have much respect for law or law enforcement.
So when 2600 gets boned by a group of _real_ criminals (posing as Fine Upstanding Captialists) it's hard to imagine any judge reading a stack of 2600s and coming away with any sympathy for them. Page after page of "how to crack this system" and "how to phreak this phone" doesn't install much confidence in the argument that DeCSS wasn't intended as a copying/pirating tool. Page after page after tedious page of "Our legal system sucks. Judges are all corrupt. Free Kevin!!" rhetoric doesn't do much in the way of image building either.
What _really_ sucks is how much influence all this seems to have had on the judge - because once you get past all that noise and look at this case at the pure merits, it's obvious that the MPAA doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the legal system really was 100% pure logic and objective reason, the case would be done by now, and the MPAA would have been sent packing.
But that's not what happened. Obviously, 2600's somewhat grey-hat presentation style made a bigger impression on the judge than the actual facts of the case. And given that 2600 has worked very hard to create that "Hax0r 3133t3" image (that is now biting them very hard) they are reaping what they have sown.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if 2600 was a little more like Scientific American, and a little less like the Hax0r Pravda, that their troubles would be a lot less.
And yet, the fact that a change of editorial voice could sway a judicial proceeding is truly a Very Bad Thing. That 2600 ran afoul of the law is just Karma; that the judicial system was unable to look past the bullshit and see the real case is... disturbing.
So I'm torn myself. On the one hand, I see 2600 getting a little Karmic balancing for all the "on the edge" stuff they've done. On the other hand, to see them lose a meritorious and _important_ case because of their image (and the associated implication that if you want to have your rights protected by the courts, you had better toe the editorial line) strikes me as wrong too.
And in all of this, I see the litigational genius of the MPAA's legal team. They've picked the perfect target, one that is going to have to work very, very hard to create any sort of judicial sympathy.
Does that help at all?
DG
Re:sobering prospects for future tech (Score:2)
This one is simple, actually. The reason passing bad checks is illegal is because it falls under libel. In other words, free speech does not give you the right to lie. By passing a bad check, you are indicating that you have the money to pay it, and are willing to do so. If you do not have the money to pay, or are not willing to do so, you are lying. Libel law predates the constition, and being untruthful has never been guaranteed legal.
If you want a better example, how about license plates? In this case, the government is requiring you to tag yourself with a number, in order to utilize your constitutional right to travel. A direct violation of the right to NOT express things you choose not to.
However, the DMCA is NOT content neutral. It is illegal to publish source code to DeCSS, but it is not illegal to publish the source code of how to burn the Canadian flag. It is in fact the content of the source code that is being punished.
Assassination Analogy (Score:3)
I would go further, DeCSS is more like instructions on how to fire a rifle. Firing a rifle is not in itself an illegal act (at least depending on where you do it), and in fact is a constitutionally protected right.
DeCSS is not instructions on how to pirate or otherwise violate the copyright on a DVD. It is merely instructions on copying the decoded DVD data to another media, what the copier then does is up to his/her own conscience. Since there are valid reasons to perform such a procedure (such as playback on Linux - which arguably is also a protected right, since personal use of the disk presumably is included when you buy it), no implication of performing an illegal act is made simply by publishing (or linking to) the DeCSS code.
Re:Torx-like security breach. (Score:2)
Frankly, yes I can. Conservatives leaning toward the "law and order" point of view and seeing right through a law that is obviously a violation of basic property rights (since conservatives actually believe that property can be owned
Try posing this arguement to a "gear head" sort of guy: you can not tell other people how to make milled valve covers in their machine shop, because GM has a copyright and the machining instructions are a "secret". Do you really think that ANYBODY will believe that telling "joe sixpack" what he can do in his own garage, with his own hands and tools, is a conservative arguement?
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:No more fair use (Score:2)
Kaplan makes me wish for a jury (Score:2)
But apart from that - it's shit like this that really emphasizes the need for a jury. The only ways Kaplan could spout off with such a poor ruling are either: a) prejudice against 2600, b) ties to the MPAA, c) plain stupidity, or a combination of the above.
A jury would've eliminated a and b. And as for stupidity -- well that's where you hope for a jury of your peers (in this case, hackers).
Ahh well... I think I better give up my romantic notion of a just justice system.
SEAL
$200 more for legal defense.. (Score:2)
And yeah, they might not have premiums, but my liberty is worth more than a tote bag..
Your Working Boy,
Re:Linux DVD (Score:2)
However, imaclinux [imaclinux.net] has reported that it's possible to watch DVDs on LinuxPPC.
They link to this location [mapage.noos.fr].
I only have ydl, so I'm not able to give it a spin.
As another note, could I get in trouble for posting this? I guess it's too late if your reading it.
Re:And here it is with the proper format. (Score:3)
This is a very well-written article. The only problem I could really see is that Mr. Goldstein seems to be focusing a bit too much on "DeCSS provde to the MPAA that their protection was inadequate." This is probably just my bias, but that sounds to me like a "script kiddie" thing. "Its perfectly legal... we were just proving their protection wasn't strong enough." To me, the bigger issue is that DeCSS allows me to use my property (in this case, view a DVD I've bought from a video store) however I choose. If I want to take the movie and randomly rearrange the frames, that's my right, because its my property.
And CSS is a lock imposed on my property to prevent me from using it except as the person I bought it from intended. If I want to rip some five-second clips from it to use in a review, I can do that too, under fair use. Except CSS doesn't allow me to, and its now illegal to even tell someone about something that'll let them break it. To me, the fact that the MPAA's protection wasn't strong enough isn't the issue. Its that they had protection at all.
-RickHunter
He just doesn't get it. (Score:2)
See, in my mind, this case has always been about common sense. Someone cracked someone else's badly protected encryption scheme. Game over. It's shot to hell. You don't continue to use bad encryption or pretend it didn't happen.
That's not at all what it's about. This isn't a crypto war. It's like someone robbed a bank, and told all his friends how to get past security, then got caught and tried to convince everyone that he's the good guy for revealing that the bank had bad security. The point is that it was illegal to crack the encryption, and illegal to distribute the tool for doing so. If anyone doubts that it was really illegal, check out the DMCA [ucla.edu]. And it was the judge's job to uphold the law. So when he saw some kids arguing "Sure, we broke the law, but it was really their fault because their crypto sucked ass." of course he treated them with contempt. Their few defenses were bullshit. Development of a Linux player? Well besides the fact that developing an Open Source Linux player would be drastically violating DVD-CCA's intellectual property, (they spend money developing CSS, and they get that money back through licensing) the code was developed in Windows. But wait, he has another defense:
So now we have this law that basically says we are not allowed to show people the failings of technology if the people controlling that technology decide they don't want us to.
No, not true. DMCA "Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems." They didn't just "show people the failings of the technology," they took a program to exploit those failings and distributed it. It's one thing to tell Xing "Hey, we found a crack in your security and reverse engineered your program." and quite another to build a tool to use that crack and distribute it to the public. 2600 wasn't aiding crypto research, they were distributing a tool that not only had no legal use, but its very existence was a violation of copyright laws and the DMCA. They were fighting a war with an opponent that wasn't even aware they were being attacked. It's not the corp's responsibility to have good crypto anymore than its your responsibility to wear Kevlar. If you crack their crypto, just like if you shoot somebody, you're breaking the law. The crypto is only there to assure them some protection from lawbreakers. So what's their next point?
Oh, and let's also point out that no matter how hard they try, nobody can wipe the paint off the wall.
The fact that they can't stop all the criminals doesn't mean you shouldn't stop any. It's pretty much impossible to completely prevent all murders, but that's no reason to legalize murder.
He goes on to complain about how he was treated unfairly due to 2600's reputation. They earned the reputation. They're subversives, plain and simple. They teach people how to break the law. He says that if 2600 wasn't able to post their tutorials on things like stealing domain names and intercepting cell phone calls, that those security holes would still be there. Maybe so, but I don't believe for a second that 2600 published that info in the hopes of aiding the industry. If they really wanted the holes closed, they would discreetly explain the problems to the companies responsible, not publish them to a huge public audience of hackers.
Another thing that bothers me is that it doesn't seem to matter in the least WHY DeCSS was written. The fact is that DeCSS was written to circumvent CSS and, even if that was done specifically to cure world hunger, in the eyes of the court, it was a violation of the DMCA.
Actually it does matter. As I've already quoted, the DMCA makes it perfectly acceptable to crack encryption for research purposes. But the judge looked at the situation and determined that that was not why DeCSS was written.
And ironic that none of us even HAS a DVD player.
I find that pretty ironic, but probably not the same way he does. I think that for people who cry out so much about their "right" to view a DVD on whatever they want, they haven't actually purchased even one legitimate player. No wonder they want the illegal Linux player.
Now I don't agree with the MPAA, (though I end up defending them a lot around here, since the average Slashdotter doesn't even stop to think for a minute before crying out that MPAA is some giant conspiracy headed by evil warlords seeking to oppress all of us poor netizens.) I think CSS is pretty stupid and I think that the DMCA goes too far. Hatch even admits that DMCA goes too far. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. But in the meantime, it's the law, and the judge isn't biased and stupid by upholding the law. That's his job.
Re:Morality of CSS (Score:3)
Yeah, right, blame the scientists and engineers. Blame the ones who find the information and build the stuff that can be abused.
Politicians and marketdroids are innocent.
Re:worried.... (Score:2)
we all lose our right to link to something on the internet...
we cant speak out against things large corporations dont want us to...
plus so many more things i cant list them all.
am i interpreting this correctly?
This case says nothing about linking in general. The judge was very specific in pointing out why he ruled against linking the way he did. It is illegal to knowingly link to illegal material (in this case made illegal by the DMCA) for the purpose of spreading known illegal material. You could link to a site and say "HEy, this place has the deCSS code on it, let them know you think it's wrong" and not be breaking the law. You could link to a page and not know it has illegal material (and they have to prove you had exact knowledge of the illegal material) and not break the law. All you lose is the ability to deny everything because it's not on your server, even though you are the one helping spread it.
As for code being speech, I think it's somewhere in between. It is speech, but it is speech that can be directly used as a tool. The only decent comparison I can think of is if you could make a car you could fold into a briefcase. While it's folded, it's not a car (when it's not compiled, it's not usable), but with an easy and quick modification (unfolding the briefcase or compiling the source) it becomes something entirely different. It is somewhere between speech and a tool, and it should be held somewhere in between.
Wrong Perspective (Score:2)
No, they'll say that "the good capitalist owners of the Intellectual Property on the DVD have the right to protect their property, and as good, True Conservatives(tm), we will preserve property rights and fend off the godless free software communists!"
Couching this issue in a "conservative" vs. "liberal" cockfight is disingenuous and misses the point completely. Both conservatives and liberals have an appalling voting record when it comes to digital media, be it efforts to censor the internet (CDA), to entrench existing monopolies (DMCA), to prevent encryption (remember the defense fund for the Author of PGP?), or to gain control of the internet and silence its many non-conformist voices.
It was Orrin Hatch who cosponsored the DMCA, for crying out loud.
And Bill Clinton who signed it (and the CDA) into law.
It really doesn't matter whether you elect the Republican or Democratic branch of the Corporate Party of America, the policies on all but a few social issues deemed unimportant to the almighty bottom line (e.g. pro-choice vs. pro-life) have been decided at a higher level of authority and are nearly identical in both branches of the Corporate Party.
Personally, I'm voting for Ralph Nadar in the hopes he gets a high enough percentage to impact the policies of those who do win (Ross Perot succeeded in this, giving us the balanced budget we enjoy today). In addition, I am preparing a way to get the hell out of this country quickly. With nearly all of our civil rights in tatters and most peaceful means of effecting change neutralized by Corporate America, change, when it inevitably does come, will probably be extremely violent. I don't want to be anywhere near this country (the USA, or "CSA" as another aptly named it) when that happens. In the meantime I'll vote and raise a voice of protest, but if and when the shit really does hit the fan I'm outta here. I refuse to sacrifice my well being because the rest of America is to lazy and stupid to stand up for their own rights.
FreeUser - who (after following the conventions and the treatment of the attendant protestors) now believes the system to be broken beyond all possible repair.
Just use videotape (Score:2)
Re:Help make a difference! (Score:2)
I think the real point is that we only have 2 candidates for president that have any real chance of winning, and they are both crappy choices. It hardly matters which one you vote for. Even the third party candidates suck this time around. Reform Party can't even figure out who it's candidate is. Any way you cut it, you're just deciding which way you'd rather get screwed. The real decisions are being made behind the scenes, and apparently with little to no accountability for anyone. As someone pointed out, the DMCA was passed with a voice vote. Can you believe that?! A law that important and we can't even know who voted for or against it. Just Congress doing a great CYA job.
Re:The hardware angle (Score:2)
I agree, sometimes it is. Doesn't change the fact that you should do the right thing, though.
I hear that a lot of the peace activists (and let's face it, there were certainly a lot of people doing that just because it was what was cool) would argue that they weren't opposed to the war because they were afraid to die--they would be willing to die for what was right. But when a couple of them were killed by whoever it was at Kent State, everyone went home...
What you're doing is seeing the larger problem of living morally encapsulated into the tiny little question "will I refuse to buy the DVD of the X-Men in protest of what the MPAA is doing?" [NOTE--I do NOT know if that DVD applies. I don't know where all the arms of the MPAA octupus are attached. please pardon my ignorance].
The fact that the majority of people really woudn't want to be bothered with not buying the DVD of a movie they really like is the biggest threat to our freedom. We act like it's "the corporations" or "the government". The truth is, it's us. If we were willing to go through the pain of product boycotting, we would control everything. It could easily be organized (the internet exists), but how do you get people to care?
--
I'm getting a little suspicious (Score:5)
Too many of the analogies mentioned in the article are just too ludicrous to get past a higher court, and so this seems to be a way of passing the buck. My guess is that Kaplan knew that no matter how he ruled, he would not have the final say, and thus made things even more likely to move up.
I'ld better stop now. I'm having too much trouble passing my thoughts to my fingers.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Re:2600 a victim of their own reputation (Score:2)
Women who dress too sexy shouldn't have any recourse when they're raped.
Pitching the Idea (Score:2)
I can't wait until they release it on DVD!
Re:You know, (Score:5)
This fight needed to be fought. Sure, meekly complying with the bully would have kept 2600 et al out of court, but where would we be in terms of getting fair use back? The MPAA might be fighting a battle that, in all practicality, is as good as lost, but that doesn't mean they deserve the legal clout the DMCA gives them. What would happen if more laws (similar to the one alluded to on 2600 now, regarding reverse engineering - anybody got more info on that?) further restricting your rights to use/peruse/disseminate information get passed?
I don't like slippery slopes - and the good folks at 2600 are fighting tooth and nail to keep us from taking the first step down this one. They deserve our help, everyone - support the EFF [eff.org]!
Re:2600 a victim of their own reputation (Score:2)
But neither does it mean you're very _smart_, either. It's not good that you got robbed, it's not right that you got robbed, but it's not suprising you got robbed. And in retrospect, the decision to walk around with $100 bills stapled to your clothing doesn't look very bright.
Re:He just doesn't get it. (Score:2)
not.
2600 broke the law. But the point of this case was to contest a law that obviously treads on the rights of citizens. The fact is that CSS goes beyond the rights of the MPAA as purveyors of copyrighted materials. The fact is also that the MPAA is simply targeting a patsy with a bad reputation so they can get legislation in their favor.
there's more at stake here than i-was-right bragging rights. This case questions the constitutionality of the DCMA and the legality of the MPAA's actions with repsect to CSS. It's critical for the future of the internet and in determining if online publishing is a tool of the people or of corporations.
this rhetoric may be overblown, but the fact is that we believe the MPAA is in the wrong. As those who stand with a significant intellectual and emotional stake in this case, it's our duty to have an opinion, and as hackers it's our duty to stand up for our principles. This was the first field test of the DMCA, and a ruling in its favor is an attack on our beliefs.
and if you don't think so, think of a world where all your code is relegated to 'presidential assassination' status.
---------
Re:Help make a difference! (Score:2)
Point 1. The Presidential election isn't the only one this november. Have you ever heard of a little thing called the SENATE?
Yep. My choices aren't much better in the congressional elections. I can choose between republican, democrat, green, libertarian, or natural law candidates. The green and natural law candidates are so obscure that I can't find any info on their positions. The libertarian kinda scares me, but I've downloaded her book in the hope of gaining some insight into exactly what her vision is and how she plans to go about it without completely destroying the country. The republican and democrat candidates are the usual. Nothing special. Nothing different. Nothing at all about their views on tech or IP issues.
Point 2. There is a world of difference between the two major party's candidates for president. Didn't you know that one of them invented the internet?
I think you're making my point here. Neither of them really have a clue about tech issues except insofar as they effect the corporations that contribute to their campaigns. Maybe if we could elect their cabinet it would help, but we can't. Both have taken tons of money from the corps that want legislation like the DMCA to be in place and that pretty much makes them both completely worthless to vote for.
but you have to vote for whomever is closest sometimes.
Exactly. And since no candidate comes within sight of my views on things, I can't think of any reason to vote for any of them based on the issues we're talking about here. There are other issues that I can base my vote on, but that's not going to improve the IP situation at all.
Re:He just doesn't get it. (Score:2)
The point is that it was illegal to crack the encryption, and illegal to distribute the tool for doing so. If anyone doubts that it was really illegal, check out the DMCA.
It should not be illegal to crack encryption, it should be illegal to pirate movies. Pirating movies is the problem, and that is the problem that should be dealt with. The fact that someone cracks encryption, or even has in their possession a tool for cracking encryption, does not mean they pirated anything! Why is 2600 being held responsible for an action that another individual may or may not do?
I believe that the MPAA should go after people who actually pirated movies. That is my idea of common sense. None of the defendants in this case have ever pirated a movie!
It's not the corp's responsibility to have good crypto anymore than its your responsibility to wear Kevlar. If you crack their crypto, just like if you shoot somebody, you're breaking the law. The crypto is only there to assure them some protection from lawbreakers.
So, should it be illegal for me to shoot a hole in a suit of Kevlar, or should it be illegal for me to assassinate someone?
Computer code is not only speech, but also a tool. It's a weird aspect of computer programs that doesn't really exist anywhere else. You're writing instructions for the processor, but those instructions can also be used as a tool by someone else. The solution should be to enforce personal responsibility, not security through obscurity.
He goes on to complain about how he was treated unfairly due to 2600's reputation. They earned the reputation. They're subversives, plain and simple.
You're right that they earned their reputation, and I doubt they're ashamed of it. But this is a court of law! It is supposed to be objective Cases should be judged based on the facts, not on personal character.
Actually it does matter. As I've already quoted, the DMCA makes it perfectly acceptable to crack encryption for research purposes. But the judge looked at the situation and determined that that was not why DeCSS was written.
Yeah, and he was wrong. The creaters of DeCSS have stated that the intent of the program was a step in creating a DVD player for the Linux operating system. That's not piracy, that's fair use.
-- Blackthorne
Re:An Idea... (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
bouncing... (Score:3)
Your message
To: emily_cutner@mpaa.org
Subject: decss
Sent: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:29:03 -0700
did not reach the following recipient(s):
emily_cutner@mpaa.org on Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:35:47 -0700
The recipient name is not recognized
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a=
;p=MPAA;l=MPAAEXCHANGE0008211935Q0DV34PV
MSEXCH:IMS:MPAA:MPAA-HQ:MPAAEXCHANGE 0 (000C05A6) Unknown Recipient
Emperor's New Clothes? (Score:2)
<sarcasm>
Everyone ignore the fact that the DVD encryption was cracked. It's uncrackable. And those clothes Emperor MPAA is wearing look spectacular, don't they?
</sarcasm>
Re:2600 a victim of their own reputation (Score:2)
What I'm missing here is your point. I read "they are reaping what they have sown" to mean "they brought this on themselves", or, in other words, "it's their fault". Then later I read that it's wrong that this is happening. In other words, "it's the system that's wrong". I put these together to mean "reputations shouldn't matter, but they do, so they shouldn't have gotten a bad one, poor fools".
More to the point, we are reaping what they have sown. "We" being everyone whose life is influenced by computers, ultimately. Reputations shouldn't matter, but they do, so how the hell did so many people with good reputations (like the free software camp, with squeaky-clean leaders like Linus and Larry) wind up with their interests represented by 2600?
To the extent that 2600 was unfairly a victim of their own reputation, they deserve everyone's sympathy and support. But if we could untie our fortunes from theirs, it'd be a good thing.
Re:do you vote? (Score:2)
I think it a little uncharitable to be smarmy on the dubious premise that you have supernatural insight as to his voting habits.
Besides which, while both parties are owned by the MPAA and the RIAA, the only thing that voting affects is the nameplate on the desk of the guy whose job it is to rubber-stamp the MPAA's legislation. Votes have nothing to do with the leaders of the USA, votes are only pick which lackeys do the same dirty work.
Actually, I don't quite believe that - I think that all those strange people who vote for one of the big two (and thus ensure corporate rule) should wake up and vote for the smaller parties. If the two-horse race can eventually become an 11-horse trifector, buying the Whitehouse won't be so easy anymore.
In this country (not the USA), the voting process was reformed before the second-to-last election. Previously we had a two horse race. 6 Years later, the politicians brains of those two parties are still locked in us-vs-them two-horse thinking, but they lack the numbers for a straightforward majority and need to co-operate with one or more other parties to get their way, and each election, they grow weaker and the alternatives grow much, much stronger (and are much less hindered by deep us-vs-them dogma)
Like stupid children, both old parties unthinkingly oppose the other in pitiful kneejerk reaction because oppose the other is what they've always done. There is a lot of inertia in politicians, and a lot more "my way or no-one's way" than "the people's way", but the poison is in the system and it is a thrill to watch the first hints of democracy emerging from what used to masquerade under the name.
My (quasi-realistic-in-the-near-term) ideal of Democracy is when there are a multitude of parties representing a multitude of ideals and demographics, and not one of those parties has anything even close to a majority.
My (poor) understanding of the USA suggests a fundamental electoral overhaul might be necessary first.
But damn is it a thrill to watch politicians who put kindergartons to shame wake up to the repercussions. Politicians don't like genuinely working democracy very much. They much prefer the version where votes give them the power to to ignore the voices of the other representitives of socitey and steamroll over any opposition.
Re: You just don't get it (Score:4)
Some of what you're saying is true, but some of it is way off base. Let me try to cut through some of the mindless babbling.
1) 2600 didn't create the tool to bypass the encryption. Someone else did. Regardless, that's not the core issue of this case.
2) The judge has now prevented 2600 from linking to DeCSS. That in itself is pretty questionable.
3) The judge should be interpreting the law. So is his ruling correct? Perhaps so -- the DMCA may not be palatable to us, but it is there. However, he is still a judge. He should be setting aside his personal biases towards 2600's reputation.
4) The basis for appeal will probably be on First Amendment grounds, regarding the distribution of source code. As others have already pointed out, other cases have already succeeded in this area. That's 2600's goal, and if it works, it is likely that the DMCA or portions of it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Their few defenses were bullshit. Development of a Linux player?
Yes, and as you pointed out already, there is a clause in the DMCA which specifically allows reverse engineering for interoperability purposes.
Well besides the fact that developing an Open Source Linux player would be drastically violating DVD-CCA's intellectual property, (they spend money developing CSS, and they get that money back through licensing)
The encryption was a trade secret which is more or less fair game once the cat's out of the bag.
Best regards,
SEAL
my MPAA phone call... (Score:5)
At the bottom of the 2600 article, it reads: We would give out an address for the MPAA but they've been blocking e-mail for some time and blaming hackers for every problem they have. So give them a call at (818) 995-6600 from 9 am to 5:30 pm Pacific Time. Be civil but make sure you get your point across. After all, where do you think that $4 million ultimately comes from?
So, I called. The call went something like...
MPAA-Drone #1: Hello, Motion Picture Association of America.
Me: Hello, I'd like to speak to somebody about the DeCSS case.
MD1: The what?
Me: The DeCSS case.
MD1: Ok, um... [fumbles around] Let me transfer you.
MPAA-Drone #2: So-and-so's office, how can I help you?
Me: I'd like to know if the MPAA has an official position on the recent DeCSS ruling.
MD2: You want what? In what capacity would you like to know?
Me: I am a consumer of many of the MPAA's fine products, and would like to discuss the DeCSS case.
MD2: [thinks long and hard] OK, let me transfer you...
Emily Cutner: Hello, MPAA PR dept. How can I help you?
Me: Hello, I would like to discuss the DeCSS case with a representative of the MPAA.
EC: Well, we would greatly prefer it if you would send us your opinions via Email. You see, we have only a few legal analysts on staff [ed: yeah right!] and they are busy pursuing other matters. With Email, your digital voice can be heard, and we will gladly respond. Also, please check out our web page, where we have a FAQ [etc. etc.]
Me: Well, who should I send my Email to?
EC: I am the PR Manager for Anti-piracy. My email address is emily_cutner@mpaa.org [mailto].
Me: You mean that anyone who wants to express their opinion about the DeCSS case shoudl feel free to email you personally?
EC: That's right.
Me: Well, thanks so very much.
an idea.. reverse precedent. (Score:2)
Here's what you do.
Grab a large number of domains. Set up numerous webservers with all the domains. Set up LOTS of webpages. LOTS of them. Get lots of geocities accounts and accounts on every free webserver you can. Set up numerous pages on all these sites and make sure you have a lot of links to them that will be discovered and followed. Don't forget copyright notices on each page that linking to these sites is expressely prohibited and copying of the material on any of these pages is expressely prohibited.
Then wait a few months so the search engines will find all of them.
Now go on google and find your pages being linked, along with *gasp* a COPY OF YOUR PAGE HOSTED ON GOOGLE!!!! (cached pages in case you don't get it)
Find this extremely revolting and have a laywer draw up a form letter for you to send ceise and desist orders for EACH page in violation. Dont' forget the other search engines as well, as they're also illegally linking to you.
Wait a few days, or however many days you gave the engines to remove those links. Check all of them again. If any of them are still there, then they have willfully defied your order and you are now justified in suing for excessive damages.
And precedent has already been set to allow this. It no longer seems so horribly silly anymore.
But the judge in that case might actually have some degree of common sense and realize that the search engines can't be held responsible for every link on their site. This will have the effect of creating a precedent where linking IS permitted, even against the wishes of those who do not want it.
Of course, someone else will have to do this. I don't have the time.
-Restil
Re:Help make a difference! (Score:2)
Because studio executives donate big steaming piles of soft money to both parties. If the EFF would establish a PAC, they'd be able to grab some ears?
The Democrats, I think, are only slightly more likely to work on solving this problem.
You need to ease up on the crack pipe. Neither party will do anything about DMCA. That's what the courts are for. Because of the number of supreme court justices that will be appointed by the next president, this election is EXTREMELY important. Do you want judges to be independant minded or do you want justices to pass a few litmus tests before they're appointed?
Therefore I stand by my statement - donating money to the EFF will make more of a difference than voting.
You could make and then stand by the statement that your feet smell like peaches. That doesn't make it any more or less true.
LK
A question of design (Score:2)
I would like to challenge slashdoters to do design a legal system to do the following:
Favor evil as much as possible.
Create the appearance of fairness.
Allow some people to behave as tyrants.
Frustrate good.
Punish the innocent as much as possible.
Do everything possible to let the guilty off.
Be constructed in such a way that 'the public' accepts it as legitimate.
Spend some time thinking about this. At the end of that time see if there is ANYTHING you would change in the current system that would better meet the above criteria. I have been thinking about it for a long time, I haven't been able to come up with anything, how about you?
Re:He just doesn't get it. (Score:5)
The act of breaking into a bank is illegal, and it should be rightfully so. The point Emmanuel is making is that the law against distributing information is unconstitutional.
The act of distributing information about how to break into a bank in general, or a branch in particular must be protected under the First Amendment, just as instructions on how to build a bomb are currently protected.
The act of distributing information about how to decode a DVD, protected by cryptography, must also be protected, for source code is speech. The distribution of the source code does not constitute an act of theft, just as publishing instructions on how to build a bomb does not constitute an act of terrorism.
Both instructions can be used for legal and illegal purposes. The act of using such instructions to perform an illegal act is, and must continue to remail illegal.
Re:Help make a difference! (Score:2)
Which one do you think is going to appoint supreme court justices that attempt to stick to a literal reading of the constitution instead of bending it? And support free speech at the expense of corporate control?
I'm so happy that you can tell me, because I'm damned if I can tell from the ads on TV! I honestly don't know!
< rant >
By the way, why do candidates put up signs with just their freakin NAME on them? Am I supposed to vote for them because I like their NAME? Why the h3ll don't they put something like their policies on the stupid signs if they are going to print ten thousand of them and stick them on lawns all over the city?
<
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Which brings us to the problem... (Score:2)
Given the candidates that are out there, what difference would it make to our rights which one we vote for? Thanks to tons of corporate money and a virtual monopoly on media coverage, we only have 2 viable candidates in this election. Neither one of them will do a damn thing to restore or protect our rights.
well... (Score:4)
He probably should have rescued himself before the trial started, because this left a huge case of conflict of interest. His personal opinions of Mr. Garbus destroyed any chance at a fair trial.
SO yes, the MPAA won this round... But there will be multiple appeals. Probably all the way to the supreme court. Given the court's recent history in copyright/tradesecret cases, it wouldnt surprise me if 2600 wins at this point. It may have to go all the way to the Supreme court before they win, though.
tagline
Re:sobering prospects for future tech (Score:4)
"For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech."
The UTTERLY FRIGHTENING thing is that Kaplan held that DeCSS WAS speech! He said it was also functional, and that banning it was a content-neutral regulation that was narrowly tailored to advancing an important governement interest. That is he applied the intermediate scrutiny test, citing US v O'Brian that the governement can ban burning draft cards.
He ignored without comment the fact that Congress explicitly stated that the DMCA did not "diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. " [1201(c)(4)].
He then put elipses (!!!) over "but in no event shall impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st amendment to the Constitution; " when he quoted 1203(b)(1)'s empowerment of judicial injunctions. [p83]
Once again. Kaplan admits DeCSS is 'protected under the 1st amendment' !!!! In his own words:
"As computer code--whether source or object--is a means of expressing ideas, the First Amendment must be considered before its dissemination may be prohibited or regulated. In that sense, computer code is covered or, as sometimes is said, 'protected' by the First Amendment." [p51]
"It cannot seriously be argued that any form of computer code may be regulated without reference to First Amendment doctrine." [p50]
Re:A question of design (Score:2)
I agree that this case extends the legal systems' ability to silence critics - but that is part of the actual - as designed - legal system - not part of a new - hypothetically evil system that I asked for.
Killing DeCSS may make illegal copying worse (Score:2)
DeCSS offers two nice features for movie copiers. First, with high-speed DVD readers, a movie can be ripped much faster than real-time. (6x, 10x, etc.) Second, the quality of the rip is as good as the original, since it is the original. But feeding a video stream straight into a video capture card will work to copy a DVD, and there's no reason to believe this won't be available tech for a long time to come. Movies for internet download will probably be converted to some format like DivX;-), where the quality difference from a straight rip probably isn't an issue. For someone willing to copy a movie, neither advantage is such a big deal that it will stop them from doing so. So there's no reason to expect that sources of downloadable movies will be slowed by eliminating DeCSS.
No, for the MPAA to keep people buying DVDs, it must encourage people to stay away from those sites. DeCSSing stuff for private use, while illegal under the DMCA, isn't what they care about; they want those fat checks rolling in. Now, as an average consumer, I probably won't seek out pirate sites normally. But if I find that a DVD imposes some annoyance on me that I want to get rid of, I may buy the DVD and then seek out a download site, and download and create a VCD without the forced commercials (or whatever). But once I've done that once, I've found a gateway. I know where to get those files, and I have a grievance (in my mind, at least) with the DVD vendor. In that situation, I'm more likely to go ahead and download other files, simply because I know where they are and how to get them.
If DeCSS and the like were available to me, I probably wouldn't seek out the distribution sites. Paying money for a DVD seems a fair system to most of us, and if it is overpriced, I simply don't buy it, or else I rent it. Allow me to convert it when the need arises, and then I won't seek out those download sites, and I won't get into a situation where I can easily download movies I never purchased.
Meanwhile, if I am the type to seek out such sites, the lack of DeCSS just means the files I download are trivially lower in quality. Big whoop.
Re: You just don't get it (Score:2)
And some backwards places have crazy laws like "You cannot put an ice cream cone in your pocket". Just the other day I heard that some guy, under some stupid no-tolerence law, is spending 35-years-to-life for stealing a bicycle. A friggen $100 BIKE!
Are these people technically breaking the law? YES
Are these laws dumb and should be abolished? YES
Should these laws be challenged and brought to the Supreme Court? YES
People owned slaves once. Don't make it right.
Well, I read the transcripts and thought he was getting it. But then he found the opposite way, which really surprised me. Sure seems like he was soaking it all up, just to say, "well, I don't believe you, tough". He totally disregarded (or discredited without cause) a lot of testimony.
We've already (hopefully) established that DMCA is brain-dead and should be abolished. Reverse engineering, even to *implement* competing products is well established as legal. The player was only illegal insofar as it was contradictory to DMCA, which we've established is wrong in the first place. The judge could have questioned the constitutionality of DMCA...but he didn't. In fact he didn't even make any allowance that this was a grey area, and instead, went the extreme in the other direction, even banning linking to DeCSS code. And I thought that another court just upheld the constitutionality of that.
IANAL, but "trade secret" and "patent" and "copyright" are all different flavors of what could generally be called "intellectual property", and each have their own ramifications. There is a trade-off in using "trade secrets" along the lines of "you don't have to announce it, but if somebody discovers it tough for you". (Is there a lawyer in the house?).
IMHO, the rhetoric is still all wrong. E.g., it is impossible to *steal* a trade secret. I can *discover* a trade secret, but I can't deprive the originator of it. This mentality of physical property is just what MPAA, et al., want to foist on the consciousness of the American people. They want us to think their enemies are all peg-legged pirates roaming some digital sea "stealing" and pillaging their intellectual property, depriving them of a product won by their hard work. It just doesn't work that way.
Re:He just doesn't get it. (Score:3)
It's true that these are two different things. But the point is, they are both speech. If someone finds themselves with knowledge of how to defeat something, it is THEIR choice on how to handle it. It is not Xing's choice, it is not the government's choice. It is the choice of the person who has knowledge who to tell about it.
It is unfortunate that we have built a society where security through obscurity is so vital to the status quo that disseminating knowledge is punishable as a crime. If someone has enough knowledge about you to pretend to be you, then you become responsible for their actions. And if you build an empire out of paper cards, you can force our society to guard your card house. In turn, the people of that society have to give up freedoms for that protection.
The reason for freedom of speech is because speech is not a physical act. The way you respond to that speech is your own choice. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." If someone IS hurt by speech, it is either because of their response to that speech, or because they built a framework of lies that is destroyed by the truth.
The truth is that much of our society is built on fiction, and secrets, and dependence on ignorance. Dispelling that ignorance should be encouraged, because in the long run, knowledge rises to the top.
You know, (Score:3)
Welcome to Singapore (Score:3)
The UTTERLY FRIGHTENING thing is that Kaplan held that DeCSS WAS speech!
If DeCSS is speech that used to be constitutionally protected, but now a prior restraint is permitted, then we have enabled a wide range of censorship, not only by corporate entities such as MPAA/RIAA but anyone else with money and power.
This case scares me more every day.
sulli
Re:Morality of CSS (Score:2)
So I wonder what type of engineers these were, and how they rationalized what they were doing (perhaps they weren't told). Or perhaps the fact that a couple of teenagers cracked CSS in a matter of days, sheds enough light, with respect to the above paragraph.
what will the DMCA bring in the future? (Score:2)
Linux DVD (Score:2)
Important buried link emily_cutner@mpaa.org (Score:2)
The link is so far down that many might miss it (no excuse, just the facts) and it has this e-mail address for MPAA PR emily_cutner@mpaa.org
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Enforcement of the DMCA isn't mandatory (Score:2)
If you don't like it, don't buy the stuff. If you think the distributors are screwing over the artists, tell them -- most decent artists want to hear from their fans, at least the ones that are doing it for the right reasons.
I have voted with my money, I don't own a DVD player. I have decided that the region coding is too restrictive and their are no DVDs that I want. There certainly aren't any that I need.
I know this is the thin edge of a wedge, but it's really thin at the moment. Groups like 2600 and EFF will still be around when the DCMA or laws like it are being used to prevent the sick from getting new drugs or something actually important, but at the moment it's just about songs and movies. Just stop buying them and shut up!
Re: You just don't get it (Score:2)
Of course the DMCA overrides this, and makes it illegal to reverse engineer encryption schemes. My only point is that copyrighted source code has nothing to do with this case, and that no trade secrets were stolen - they were reverse engineered.
Re:sobering prospects for future tech (Score:2)
Re:sobering prospects for future tech (Score:2)
The most amazing part to me of this whole thing is that the Judge directly advocated doing something else illegal:
Judge Kaplan addressed that important issue this way: "[A]ll or substantially all motion pictures available on DVD are available also on videotape. In consequence, anyone wishing to make lawful use of a particular movie may buy or rent a videotape, play it, and even copy all or part of it with readily available equipment." THAT'S the solution to the "fair use" issue - use old technology that isn't affected by the DMCA?! Not exactly a graceful way of ducking the issues.I don't know what planet the Judge is from, but the same DMCA that he was ruling on also made illegal the boxes that he was refering to. Virtually every commercial VHS movie has Macrovision CopyGuard on it, and requires either a specific set of VCRs or a box that explicitly strips off that Macrovision signal. If you wish to express your Fair Use rights, you must violate the DMCA.
Republican!=conservative nor Democrat!=Liberal (Score:2)
If I own a machine, I should be able to tell that machine what I want it to do, with my own instruction set/program, or a set given to me by someone else.
DeCSS does not copy anybody else's work, it is origonal work. I fail to understand why you imply that it has some sort of copyright infringement attached to it.
If I purchase a block of metal and want to make a replacement part for my Jeep, nobody should be trying to tell me what size or pattern for bolt holes I may use because someone else used them first. I know that I do not have the right to mill the word "Jeep" into the finished item, without permission, because Jeep did not make the thing, I did. At any rate, doing the above is just as much of a copyright violation as DeCSS.
The case at hand would be if Emmanuel were taken to court for putting my blueprints in his magazine with my permission.
Why you are throwing these meaningless political parties into the mix is beyond me. They can call themselves five legged dogs if they wish and it still does not make them five legged dogs.
Don't be blinded by the label, take a look at the product. Anybody that backed this stupid law is as far from being a true conservative as a Kennedy (pick one).
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:And here it is with the proper format. (Score:4)
Novell v. Network Trade Center, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997) [ucsf.edu]
"This Court holds that transactions making up the distribution chain from Novell through NTC to the end-user are "sales" governed by the U.C.C. [Uniform Commercial Code] Therefore, the first sale doctrine applies. It follows that the purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in the copyright owner."
And here it is with the proper format. (Score:4)
08/21/00
Facing a major lawsuit is a lot like facing a major illness. It's expensive, time consuming, and there are a million other ways you'd like to be spending your time. But if you don't devote all of your attention to fighting it, your continued existence is profoundly endangered.
That's how this thing has been affecting us since it started back in January. It's greatly interfered with the magazine, production of our film, and organization of our conference. But it was necessary - essential, in fact - and most people seem to understand why.
It's a real shame Judge Kaplan wasn't one of those people.
From the first teleconferenced hearing to the pretrial motions all the way through the trial, I was amazed by what appeared to be unfettered hostility towards us and the many points we attempted to make. I don't see how anyone looking through the transcripts would have any difficulty seeing this. But we all held out hope that this wouldn't be present in the decision.
Were we ever wrong.
See, in my mind, this case has always been about common sense. Someone cracked someone else's badly protected encryption scheme. Game over. It's shot to hell. You don't continue to use bad encryption or pretend it didn't happen. Yet in November, that's exactly what we saw happening. And even worse, we saw people being intimidated into taking down web pages that had the offending code on them.
It was insane! It reminded me of the one car crash I've ever been in where a garbage truck ran through a stale red light right in front of me on 8th and Avenue A in the East Village. The driver tried to intimidate the people who came forward as witnesses, telling them, "You didn't see anything. Get out of here!" But if you know the East Village, you know it's not the place to intimidate people and get away with it. It's also where a lot of the "weirdoes" hang out. So to me, it's always had the mindset of the net. And that's why I've always been comfortable in both environments. And, yeah, the garbage guy got in a shitload of trouble.
The kind of honesty you get by having individuals who aren't afraid to express themselves has always been a threat to those who imagine themselves in power. Until recently, the net was the only place where individual opinion actually had a chance. If the media wouldn't tell your story, YOU could become the media and tell the story yourself. The whole world could be your audience.
I won't even get into how the net is being destroyed by advertising and conglomeration. There's no time to go on the offensive when so much time has to be spent defending one's very existence. Every day we get new reports of people being threatened in some way by some huge corporate entity because their opinions and free expression don't sit well. Years ago, this sort of thing would have been laughed at. Today, it's a very different story. Voices are being silenced, criticism is being eliminated. And very unfortunate precedents are being set.
This is all made possible through bad legislation, things like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has made this lawsuit possible. Unless stopped, there will be many many more like it in the future. And many more bad laws as well. Until we overturn this thing, the danger to all of us is incalculable.
Just for the fun of it, I tried to find out who had voted for the DMCA, so I could make an extra effort not to vote for them. But they did it with a voice vote - there is no record. How reassuring.
So now we have this law that basically says we are not allowed to show people the failings of technology if the people controlling that technology decide they don't want us to. An expansion of this law which could go into effect in October would make it illegal to even TRY to find failings in such technology.
It makes you want to scream. Concepts that most 12-year-olds can grasp and understand the value of are being signed away to entities that are already far too powerful. And the result is what we have been going through extended to however many more want to try and stand up for our vanishing rights.
To get back to the naive notion of common sense that we've been clinging to throughout this ordeal, we thought, no, we KNEW the right thing to do last November was to report the story and to publish the programs. And nobody here is ashamed of the fact that part of the reason for doing this was to show support for people who were being bullied. I've never liked bullies, whether they be kids, teachers, parents, cops, governments, or corporate giants. What they were doing to these people was wrong and we felt that our standing up might make a difference.
Well, it did. But not in the way we expected. Suddenly, WE became the problem even though we had nothing to do with the encryption being cracked or even with the initial release of the story. It was as if someone painted an insult on the side of a building that everyone in the world could see. A newspaper comes along and does a story on this and prints a picture of the building and is then blamed for the insult. Oh, and let's also point out that no matter how hard they try, nobody can wipe the paint off the wall. The way things are today, we're supposed to pretend nothing is wrong and if we dare to report otherwise or present evidence to the contrary, we will take the full brunt of the blame. Sounds like some weird medieval monarchy to me.
The sad fact is that we never had a chance in this court. A mere reading of the decision shows this more clearly than anything I could possibly say. "Not surprisingly, 2600: The Hacker Quarterly has included articles on such topics as how to steal an Internet domain name, access other people's e-mail, intercept cellular phone calls, and break into the computer systems at Costco stores and Federal Express." The fact that he would use the phrase "not surprisingly" speaks volumes as to his opinion on our value to society. It is, at best, utter ignorance and only proves beyond any shadow of a doubt how thoroughly Judge Kaplan bought into the MPAA's warped notions of what our magazine is about. We printed an article on weaknesses at Network Solutions that allowed domain names to be stolen. Guess what? They FIXED it as a result of this article and now, domain names, including our own, are not at risk of being stolen, at least, not as much. (Had Kaplan ruled on THAT issue, it would have been illegal for us to tell anyone this and the security holes would still exist.) The same holds true for many of the other security weaknesses we report on. But, as we tried fruitlessly to explain, we exist to report the story, period. Someone may fix the problem because of the story or someone may exploit it. We cannot and will not determine what happens as a result nor will we allow fear of that to make our editorial decisions for us.
Kaplan also seems to share the MPAA's amazement that we would actually copyright our magazine and our web site. ("Interestingly, defendants' copyright both their magazine and the material on their web site to prevent others from copying their works.") It's clear he believes that we have no respect for or belief in the concept of copyright. He either wasn't paying attention during my testimony or simply refuses to believe that copyright is necessary to prevent someone else from taking credit for and control of your work. I repeatedly said that copying was not our concern. What the MPAA is attempting to do with copyright is not at all in line with its original intent.
I also find it amazing how Jon Johansen's credibility is wiped away on two occasions with a single sentence. ("[T]he Court finds that Mr. Johansen and the others who actually did develop DeCSS did not do so solely for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player if, indeed, developing a Linux-based DVD player was among their purposes." "Substantial questions have been raised both at trial and elsewhere as to the veracity of Mr. Johansen's claim.") Yet not a single ounce of proof that he wasn't being totally honest is ever presented. I mean, we had PLENTY of questions both at trial and everywhere about the MPAA's veracity. But our saying that wouldn't be enough. Why is it that the MPAA is able to so easily put words in a judge's mouth?
The flaws in logic abound. At one point publishing DeCSS is compared to "the publication of a bank vault combination in a national newspaper. Even if no one uses the combination to open the vault, its mere publication has the effect of defeating the bank's security system, forcing the bank to reprogram the lock." First off, this isn't at all similar to what happened. If this analogy were to be correct, someone else would have already published the combination and we would simply have published the SAME information that had already been made public. Second, the security system of the bank was compromised the moment the combination was released or leaked to the public, NOT when this fact was reported in a newspaper. This method of blaming the messenger for the message has been used throughout the world to shut down opposition newspapers and imprison people who don't follow the party line. It's troubling to see it applied here.
Now, on the question of this theoretical bank being forced to reprogram its lock, would anyone hesitate to suggest that that is PRECISELY what they SHOULD do? A bank that didn't do this would probably be prosecuted for negligence. So why doesn't Kaplan apply this logic in his own analogy to the MPAA? Because of this: "Development and implementation of a new DVD copy protection system, however, is far more difficult and costly than reprogramming a combination lock and may carry with it the added problem of rendering the existing installed base of compliant DVD players obsolete." So basically, a security hole can be left in place if it's too expensive to fix and anyone who exposes the continued existence of the hole can be prosecuted? Riiight....
Meanwhile, a few pages later "the Court holds that CSS effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works." That made me laugh. Would we be here today if THAT were true?
At one point, DeCSS is compared to an epidemic. But even in that odd analogy, it's recognized that finding the original source of "infection" accomplishes nothing. It's a nifty metaphor but I don't see what it does for the case against us.
Another time, DeCSS is compared to an assassination. No kidding. "Computer code is expressive. To that extent, it is a matter of First Amendment concern. But computer code is not purely expressive any more than the assassination of a political figure is purely a political statement." You get the feeling he's deliberately equating computer code with something bad? Maybe it's me. But let's look at this somewhat logically. A political assassination is a completed act. A computer program isn't completed until someone copies it, compiles it (if it's source), and executes it on the proper platform in the proper setting. A more accurate comparison would be to compare INSTRUCTIONS for an assassination to a computer program. They both require someone or something to act upon the instructions before the task is complete. By outlawing all talk of assassination, including those within works of fiction, we achieve the same level of protection that outlawing dissemination of DeCSS accomplishes.
Naturally, one of the most important issues here is that of "fair use" which is something the DMCA appears to be taking away from us. In other words, you are entitled to excerpt portions of copyrighted works for all kinds of purposes. It's also not illegal to make backup copies. These are very fundamental and important concepts. So how do we get around the restrictions that we're now finding in new digital media? Judge Kaplan addressed that important issue this way: "[A]ll or substantially all motion pictures available on DVD are available also on videotape. In consequence, anyone wishing to make lawful use of a particular movie may buy or rent a videotape, play it, and even copy all or part of it with readily available equipment." THAT'S the solution to the "fair use" issue - use old technology that isn't affected by the DMCA?! Not exactly a graceful way of ducking the issues.
Another thing that bothers me is that it doesn't seem to matter in the least WHY DeCSS was written. The fact is that DeCSS was written to circumvent CSS and, even if that was done specifically to cure world hunger, in the eyes of the court, it was a violation of the DMCA. If this is the case, then it's pretty obvious that the DMCA is one screwed up piece of legislation that has to be thrown out. But the judge goes way beyond this, insulting our integrity and existence at every possible opportunity and making no secret of the disdain he feels for the entire case of the defense. One has to wonder why he found that necessary if it was such a clearcut violation.
Naturally, one of the most disturbing parts of all of this is the ruling on linking. "The only distinction is that the entity extending to the user the option of downloading the program is the transferee site rather than defendants, a distinction without a difference." We can all laugh at such words but they represent something very sinister. We are now expected to believe that telling someone how to get a file with a link is the same as offering it yourself. I want to know if this works both ways - if I point someone to a site or product that costs money, is that also a "distinction without a difference" that will allow me to be compensated? This kind of logic is already giving me nightmares.
Finally, there are the disturbing words on who we are and what we stand for and how this is somehow relevant to the decision. "Defendants are in the business of disseminating information to assist hackers in 'cracking' various types of technological security systems. And while defendants argue that they promptly stopped posting DeCSS when enjoined preliminarily from doing so, thus allegedly demonstrating their willingness to comply with the law, their reaction to the preliminary injunction in fact cuts the other way." Interesting, isn't it? Our "reaction" is enough to condemn us, even though we followed the injunction to the letter. By speaking our mind and encouraging others to do what we alone were forbidden from doing, we are somehow in the wrong. How is this even relevant to the law? Are people who believe in certain things or associate with certain people to be treated differently? In Judge Kaplan's mind, we "are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located." This is, to say the least, insulting and just plain wrong. I challenge him to find a single instance where we have ever supported piracy or accessing private information. These ignorant generalizations sound more like the work of Jack Valenti's ghost writer.
What too many people don't seem to realize is that the rules have changed overnight and it WILL affect them. Imagine not being allowed to lend a book to a friend. Imagine not being able to play music that you bought in another country. Imagine only being able to watch "approved" content on your DVD player. And just wait until HDTV comes around and makes it impossible to record anything unless you pay. These are all natural extensions of the existing restrictions and they are all now perfectly legal. You've lost the right of "fair use" with copyrighted material that you think you own. In actuality, you've just bought a license to do what they tell you.
So, after all is said and done, I have to echo what all of the legal experts have said so far: I'm not at all surprised. This is how we expected the first round to go. It's now time to focus on the Appellate Court and eventually, since whoever loses next will most likely appeal, the Supreme Court.
Everyone is asking what will happen to us and how they can help. Well, we were pretty fortunate that Judge Kaplan didn't choose to hit us with the MPAA's legal bill, like they wanted him to. Their legal fees are believed to be in excess of $4 million so that definitely would have caused a delay in the next issue. It should also make it pretty clear that the MPAA has no qualms about utterly destroying anyone who gets in their way. And it should also make it clear how important we think this is that we would risk such a thing. And ironic that none of us even HAS a DVD player.
We're also extremely fortunate that the Electronic Frontier Foundation was around to fund our defense. If anything has proven the value of the EFF in looking after civil liberties in the modern age, this has. I can't emphasize enough the importance of heading over to http://www.eff.org/support/joineff.html (I'm actually afraid to make a link now) and donating as much as you possibly can to keep this case going. Explain this to as many people as possible and get them to do the same.
If there's anything good to come out of this decision, it's that we'll get to continue working with our legal team who have been absolutely amazing from the start. I've never seen a group of people so dedicated to learning and understanding the facts. It's a real honor to be among them and it's really changed the way I look at the entire legal profession.
As for what you can do to help, apart from the above, that's really up to you as it's always been. If you believe DeCSS is a form of speech, a means of access for alternative operating systems, or a necessary step towards "fair use" of digital media, then spreading it throughout the world is extremely important for the preservation of those freedoms. If you're in the United States, be aware of the risk you are taking. And if you're one of those people who really buys into the MPAA notion that DeCSS is a tool of piracy, please DON'T do the above because you're missing the entire point.
We can no longer post DeCSS on our site nor can we link to it. We still have the right to list those sites that have it in non-linkable form and we also have the right to speak out against the injustice we're being hit with. The MPAA would like those rights taken away as well. We cannot allow them to succeed.
There will be further leafleting campaigns in the weeks ahead. Keep checking this web site for details. And please let us know your opinions - dvd@2600.com. We would give out an address for the MPAA but they've been blocking e-mail for some time and blaming hackers for every problem they have. So give them a call at (818) 995-6600 from 9 am to 5:30 pm Pacific Time. Be civil but make sure you get your point across. After all, where do you think that $4 million ultimately comes from?
emmanuel
Re:Reputations (Score:2)
There's some truth in what you say, but I think more to the point (and especially in this case), government and entrenched powers fear those who do not conform. They fear the "other," those who buck the system.
Look at who we're talking about: 2600 & Goldstein? Techno-anarchists who reveal the nifty secrets about the technologies employed by big business? 2600 was, after all, the control tone on the old telephone switches. (Remember the Cap'n Crunch whistle!)
I may be dating myself here, but I remember 2600 back when the phone company was the #1 technology monolith. So at that time, phone phreaking was the thing. Not to make a profit, but to get on that damned network and explore the hell out of it, see what you could do,put together conference calls with other phreakers and call Australia to talk to random people. Man, you felt like you could take that inhuman monolith and harness it for your own whims. Cool. (Remember Tron? Wargames?) These were times when the concept of technical knowledge as power really came home to a certain youth group. Jumping into Telco dumpsters at 2am looking for switching manuals or software documentation!
But the phone company, of course, didn't see it that way, and they certainly didn't talk to the media about such things. It was "theft of service," and "dollar losses" were arbitarily attached in case anyone wasn't sure it was serious. And they aimed to crush anyone who continued to stand in their waw. A decent, freely available account of this period is Sterling's The Hacker Crackdown [eff.org].
Now, with that in mind, it is no surprise to hear media reports of the case as involving: "Industry fights against hackers who cracked the security of digital movies in order to make free copies."
It's not the technology, its hackers who are outside the system, hacking around, being a pain, and generally not doing what they're told. This is what scares Sony--not that they know a header file from a hole in the ground.
(BTW. Using Mozilla M17 for the first time today and it's great! What an improvement over the last version I tried. Go Moz!)
---
In a hundred-mile march,
Re:Torx-like security breach. (Score:2)
>should tell you what you can do with your own computer equipment?
Can you ever imagine a true conservative even listening to the defense of some lefty anarchist hacker punks who flagrantly flout the law and are proud of it, while an upstanding MPAA man in a respectible suit is saying that they're stealing, pirating, corrupting others, breaking the law, and probably showing people how to crack porn sites to boot.
Quite frankly, I think a liberal judge offers more hope, however, I don't think that such factors are even remotely significant next to the things that are actually important, like getting an open-minded judge who grasps the ramifications...
pbryan does get it, please mod up? (Score:2)
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Linking (Score:5)
Like (I suspect) many of you, I have the Anti DVD-CCA shirt. One of my coworkers pointed out the absurdity of prohibiting linking; We know already that I am guilty of a crime by owning the shirt, especially if I wear it in public, because I am an illegal source code archive.
If he points to my shirt, is he guilty of making a link to an illegal source code archive?
sobering prospects for future tech (Score:5)
What confuses me is that the judge's ruling is directly at odds with both other caselaw (namely, the Bernstein/PGP ruling) and supreme court cases such as flag burning.
I located a copy of the Bernstein v Dept of State ruling (http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Crypto_export/Ber
"For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech."
Re:Emmanuel Goldstein (Score:4)
Sorry - you missed too :-)
Orson Welles was a radio broadcaster who recorded H.G. Wells War of the Worlds
H.G. Wells was a Victorian science fiction novelist. (granted, that's an irrelevent point, but credit where it's due, eh?)
George Orwell wrote 1984 which was indeed a good book, and featured Emmanual Goldstein as the head of a mythical revolution. Goldstein's figure was used to focus national pride and hatred of a most feared enemy. These feelings were used to keep the sheep like public focused on issues other then the corruption of their government
Distribute DeCSS the right way... with a VIRUS! (Score:2)
Killing DeCSS? Please show us where? (Score:2)
However, the topic has nothing to do with "killing" DeCSS.
The ONLY thing the court did was try to muzzle a news outlet. End of list.
Please, show us where DeCSS has been killed? Has it stopped existing at the bang of a gavel? Will it reappear as if by magic if the appeal is won? Hell, I will settel for some evidence of an *attempt* to "kill" DeCSS, but there is none. None at all.
All the court did was try to muzzle a news outlet. End of list.
Why must people be under the illusion that a judicial or legeslative body has the power to stop anything whatsoever, besides a human heart? Certainly a court can take away a person's liberty, life and/or property, but making a court decision does not yet have the Merlinian effect of a global erasure of a decyphering program, idea or discussion.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:Text of message, long, sorry about format. (Score:4)
Thanks for the mirror, too bad /. clipped the end of it there.
All I can say is that I share Mr. Goldstein's shock and dismay, and I'm spreading the word about this travesty of justice to everybody I know. Most non-hackers that I talk to are amazed that such a thing can go on in the land of the free. We need to get out and tell real people about this - tell your brother, your Mom, your boss, and try to explain that justice has not been served. Mr. Goldstein covers this territory more eloquently than I could ever hope, so I'll close with another exhortation to get the word out about this.
...posted from behind a firewall that keeps out those "evil 2600 hackers"...
Reputations (Score:3)
This is especially the case in the computing world, since the Information Age is rapidly progressing and computers are becoming a greater part of our life on a daily basis. The hope that such a bias would not find its way into a courtroom, where sits an elected judge, is naive at best and very likely dangerous.
The important thing is that the script-kiddies and 15-year-old "cracker/hacker" stereotypes do exist -- the unfortunate part is that, though a minority, they have a loud voice. Why? Because we limit our distaste for them, and our education about what tech folk are really like to forums like Slashdot. Not that Slashdot is not a wonderful forum for such discussions, but it must be taken to the world.
The linked 2600 Mag article made an interesting comment (I paraphrase): "The Internet allows you to become the media, with the whole world as your audience." (again, that's a paraphrase)
What I would like to see, and would in fact be willing to help build and support, is an organization dedicated to educating the public and the mass media of what being tech-savvy is really about -- not destroying systems, but learning about them (even if that means sometimes breaking apart encryption ala DeCSS).
Please feel free to contact me at my e-mail (remove the whitespace) above if you are interested in helping to organize something like this, or reply if something like it exists!
--
Bad facts make bad law (Score:3)
This is one reason we have Appeals Courts. Unfortunately, the findings of fact such that Johannsen didn't simply want to play DVDs under Linux are more difficult to overturn, and this will hobble the Appeals level. IANAL.
Re:my MPAA phone call... (Score:3)
To: hotline@mpaa.org
Subject: CSS preventing me from buying DVDs.
Hi.
I'm not sure if you are the one I should write to. It appears that you are involved with
anti-piracy, but I don't want to discuss piracy, just CSS. However, this was the only address I
could find. Feel free to forward it to whoever might be more appropriate.
I don't buy any DVDs. The reason is quite simple, I don't know how to watch them. Heck, it is
even ILLEGAL for me to know how to watch them.
Of course I could buy one of those MPAA-approved players. Or, strictly speaking, I _cannot_ buy
one. Simple because they are not for sale.
If I own something, I have the right to use it. I have the right to open it and look inside. I
have the right to modify it as I please. I have the right to fiddle with it to see how it works.
If I don't have these rights, I don't own it. Maybe even more importantly, if I own something, I
can control it. It cannot fuck with me, because if it did and I could control it, I would use
that control to stop it from fucking with me.
You cannot buy a legal DVD player. All you can do is buy the right to take it home and connect
it to your TV set.
I'm no different from most people. If something is fucking with you, you get pissed, right? I
know I do. Imagine you are driving a car, but the car had a GPS device that turned off the
engine whenever you tried to drive into certain areas, chosen at random. Unfortunately, your
home is in one of these areas, so you have to take the bus the last mile just to get home. This
would piss you off, right? I would get furious. But of course I wouldn't be angry if a car I own
stops because the engine is broken. That's not the cars fault.
See the difference? If the car is broken, OK, it's broken. If the car is not broken, but
_designed_ to fuck with me, I get mad. Of course, if I own the car that's no problem. I just rip
out the GPS device and get rid of the problem. If I cannot do that, then I don't control the
car. The car controls me.
Of course, I wouldn't expect that I have the legal right to run over people, even with a car
that I own. But what I do with my car in my own garage is strictly my business. If it isn't,
then I don't own the car.
That's the main reason I only want things in my home that I own. The ownership gives me a
guarantee that my things are not fucking with me.
Now, you might ask, why would I ever want a device in my home that I don't own and that I _know_
is designed to fuck with me? Of course I don't want it in my home. I don't want your DVD players
in my home, and I don't want your encrypted DVDs in my home. Simply because they are still
_YOUR_ player and _YOUR_ discs, not mine, and I know you designed them to fuck with me. I don't
pay money just to get pissed off.
Of course, all this would change if the encryption was made public. That would mean that I could
actually _buy_ DVDs and DVD players.
Help make a difference! (Score:5)
Become an EFF member while you're at it.
That single act will probably provide more benefit to the future of the United States than voting this fall.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:He just doesn't get it. (Score:3)
I beleive "fair use" applies here. It's commonly accepted that it's within an author's rights to prevent redistribution. But the author can't make arbitrary restrictions (except maybe under DMCA). For instance, what if a DVD EULA said that people of color can't watch the movie?
Re:Linux DVD (Score:5)
There's definately some licenced DVD players for Linux in development (e.g. PowerDVD-Linux), but I don't see how any open-sourced version could ever be legal under the terms of the licence; disclosing the decryption source code is not allowed, as any and all information that you get with the licence is covered under an NDA.
This snippet from the site linked above shows the prices involved:
3. License Fees are now required for the right to use the Format Books. The License Fee is US$10,000 per DVD Format for each Product Category, as specified in Schedule A-1 of the Definitive License.
Example: If a licensee wishes to manufacture DVD-Video players, the licensee shall pay US$20,000 since it needs to obtain licenses for DVD-Video Book and DVD-ROM Book, both to be used for Product Category II (DVD Players).
Example: If a licensee wishes to manufacture DVD-RAM drives and DVD-RAM discs, the licensee shall pay US$40,000 since it needs to obtain licenses for DVD-RAM and DVD-ROM Books, to be used for Category I Products (DVD discs) and Category II Products (DVD drives).
Here's a link to the text of the licence [dvdfllc.co.jp] (PDF format).
Austrialia 2600 will not comply (Score:4)
2600 a victim of their own reputation (Score:5)
The editorial linked to is intelligent and well-written. The defense case made for 2600 well-argued, well-presented, and logical. But the fact remains that large portions of the 2600 issues that I have read appear to be written as how-to documents for crackers and would-be cyberterrorists.
Now you and I know that, at best, your typical 2600 Hax0r is more of the network equivelent of the flaming bag of dog shit left on a front porch than a series threat to national security - but the judge doesn't see that. The judge sees a small-time larcenist with his hand caught in a bigger bag, and a long-running distain for law enforcement and legal proceedings. (Free Kevin! indeed)
No wonder that, despite their truly iron-clad defence, that the judge gives them almost no credibility. Imagine a skinhead trying to sue for (legitimate!) racial discrimination, and you get the idea.
It's not right, and it's not fair - but it's not suprising either. 2600 is reaping the harvest they have sown the last few years.
Give the MPAA credit - they knew _exactly_ who to tackle first. When you seek to set precident, attack the weakest defendant, then move on to the strong.
It's wrong that what is supposed to be an objective exercise in logical deduction has turned into a public relations contest, but that's what it is.
Good luck 2600 and the EFF. You need it.
Bernstein ruling (Score:4)
Well, first of all a judge can basically do whatever he wants. The appeals courts are there exactly to deal with bloopers, judge prejudice and just plain ol' stupidity. A judge doesn't have to follow case law. He makes case law. [nitpick] Well, really in the US it's the Circuit Courts that make case law, not lower-level judges, but the idea is still valid[/nitpick].
Second, even technically, the Bernstein/PGP ruling took place in California AFAIK. This is a different circuit and it is not binding on Judge Kaplan. Of course he would have been wise to read it carefully and think about it, but I as sure that his wisdom has already been commented on.
And I don't see much in common between flag burning and source code, other than the fairly obvuous fact that "speech" does not necessarily have to be speech, or even text.
Kaa
Morality of CSS (Score:5)
Anyway, it is the fair use issue that is significant here, and what's more, I think further attention to the matter should be to show that it is not DeCSS that is wrong, it is CSS that is immoral. CSS is specifically designed to deprive people of their fair use right, a right that is an important part of free speech.
I thought that when Garbus asked Valenti about what a student could do if she wanted to play a 3 minutes of "Schindler's List" and Valenti replied that she could get the analog version, I felt it had to be obvious to anyone that CSS did take away fair use rights, but Kaplan actually bought Valenti's argument. I can't believe it. I just can't believe it. How ignorant is it possible to get? Yes, today, analog versions exist, but they won't in a few years. I mean, I have a hard time awarding voting rights to people who are as ignorant as Kaplan was in this case, and when a judge exhibits such extreme ignorance, then democracy is at stake.
In the appeals, it should be very easy to demonstrate that Kaplan put words in the defendants mouths that they had never expressed, and that he was completely ignorant about matters of fundamental importance.
CSS is immoral. The engineers who designed CSS should have understood the consequences of what they where told to make, and should not have made them. That's their social responsibility. It is obvious that CSS takes away fair use rights. It is less obvious, yet important to realize, that it is a threat to free speech if a single body controls distribution of human communication. If DVD gets popular, you can't distribute communication by any other carrier, so in principle, it puts DVD-CCA (?) in the position that they can deny someone to produce a movie that is critical towards e.g. MPAA. Now, it is probably a long way before this is going to happen, but it is a serious threat to free speech if you make it possible. Therefore, I think it is important in the following to hammer on the point that it is not DeCSS that is immoral, it is CSS, and that breaking CSS was a moral act.
Talking about social responsibility, 2600 has one too, and sometimes, they should consider what the consquences of reporting a story is, that's the only bad feeling I get when I read the article, they seem to run away from the social responsibility of reporting a story. I think they would have been much better off if they said that "yes, we are responsible for reporting this story. The consequence of reporting this story is that a security hole will be fixed faster/it is being pointed out that MPAA is taking away our fair use rights", etc.
Re:Linux DVD (Score:3)
The open source DVD player (Thank you!) uses a brute force attack against CSS to unlock the disc. CSS uses a dinky little key space that even my Commodore 64 could cover in a day. But it's slow, requiring almost all the horsepower of my dual Celery@500 and about half of my quad Xeon@450. It's perfectly able to play unencrypted DVDs as well, so those Taiwan-made pirate copies you can buy almost anywhere play without a hitch.
Re:Reputations (Score:3)
Back when the CDA was passed (another execrable piece of legislation), there was a call to submit essays to a project called, "24 Hours of Democracy."
The keynote of my essay [best.com] was that we, as human beings, failed in our duty to educate our fellow human about what it was we've created. Now it seems our isolationism -- nee elitism -- is coming back to bite us.
I made a promise at the end of my essay; I still stand by it. I invite others to make the pledge as well: Teach!!
Schwab
Re:Linux DVD (Score:3)
Now look at this: The lack of a CSS capable player for Linux is encouring the purchase of true pirated DVDs.
[sarcasm]Geez... who'd'a thunk it? [/sarcasm]
----
Comment removed (Score:4)