Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

More DeCSS Time-Warner Hypocrisy 188

Posted by CmdrTaco from the gotta-laugh-at-this-one dept.
Sethb writes "Scripting News has the scoop about CNN linking to the source code for DeCSS. CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, so in effect they're suing 2600 and others for something that they are doing themselves!" Update: 08/26 02:05 AM by michael : CNN has deleted the link from their story after reporters asked about it. But the screenshots are out there.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More DeCSS Time-Warner Hypocrisy More

More DeCSS Time-Warner Hypocrisy

Comments Filter:

  • what are you talking about? (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:35PM (#827182)

    ...so while this is a funny anecdote I don't see it by any means as a sign of hypocrisy.

    WTF?

    The HYPOCRISY is in that 2600 was doing the same thing. They are a journalistic site, but on the fringe. So it's all right for a news site to post as long as their NOT on the fringe, and owned by the plaintiffs? It's just as sleazy for T-W to force any reporting group to pull an article, whether that group is one they own or not.

    If CNN had been the one to "break" DeCSS, and not 2600, there wouldn't have been any court case.. precisely because T-W owns CNN.

  • I'm pretty sure that there are no specific "freedom of the press laws," just the familiar "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...". Can anyone supply a reference that says the press have greater protections on their speech than private individuals? Even if there were such protections, I don't believe it should matter. From my point of view, 2600 is as much a news entity as CNN. Besides, the DMCA is explicit about DeCSS being illegal; if it can violate the freedom of speech clause, why not the freedom of the press clause?

    Walt

    P.S. I'm not sure that people watching /. told CNN to pull the link. More likely, an eager reader wrote CNN a mocking email and pointed out the illegality of the link.

  • Sue yourself for copyright infringement? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hate to point it out, but that's like saying I can't sue someone who copies my books since I'm making copies myself. Since they own the copyright if they want to link all the better... they have automatic permission to do what they want with copyrighted material they own.

    While minorly ironic, don't plan on this toppling the giant....

  • I think this is great. It shows that a division of Time/Warner that proposes itself as a news organization can stand up and show the news without getting squashed by the corporate office.

    Just because one part of an organization has taken the wrong stance on an issue does not mean that every other part of the organization is necessarily tainted to the point of not being able to report this accurately. It certainly does not mean that everyone working there has to agree with the corporate position is that wasn't totally obvious.

  • The point he is trying to make is neither party represents him at all, nor do they represent me in any way shape or form. I'm not represented, not because I don't vote, I'm not represented because "NONE", let me repeat that "NONE" of the candidates even come close agreeing with me on any issue that is important to me. Lets face it, Republicans and the Democrates are virtually the same party, they only disagree on a very narrow list of issues.

    So what is the solution? I could vote for a 3rd party or I could vote for myself as a write in, but isn't that just throwing my vote away? Is this better than not voting at all? Is effect is the same ?

    Numbersyx


    Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.

  • Here's something to try... (Score:3)

    by Nagash ( 6945 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @02:57PM (#827187)
    Try converting the DeCSS source code (generously posted by an anon coward here) into English. Write an article about it. Make it a story. Sure, converting those array's of hex values into some sort of coherent story won't be simple, but if you're creative, it could be cool.

    Make it so if I read the story, I could easily write the source file - just don't publish the source verbatim. Wouldn't this be like outlining how to build explosives? or how to prepare meatloaf? lose weight? murder someone?

    Crime novels and true crime stories regularily contain ideas on how to go about breaking the law. Where do you think copycat killers get their ideas? Obviously, it's illegal to go kill someone, but it's certainly not illegal to outline how to do it.

    Pushing this kind of limit would be a helluva test, I think. If I had some time, I'd convert it to story form, but maybe someone with better writing talent is up to the challenge?

    Maybe this will make compelling evidence to show that source code and writing are equivalent =)

    Woz
  • Hi Scott. Don't forget Seagrams was recently bought out by Vivendi, which got its start as a sewage utility company, which now therefore also owns Universal Studios. So it's finally come full circle: hollywood shit is now being produced by a shit-hauling company. It might also make you think twice about cracking that bottle of rum.

    (And this is on topic, since it's precisely these sorts of insane corporate interdependencies that produce irrational behavior like what CNN's exhibited.)
  • That, sir, is a syllogism. Money can be used for good AND for bad. For instance, you can give money to charity, which IMHO is a good thing.
  • It's not that at all. It's actually as if you're suing someone for copying your books while at the same time you're giving them a printing press. That's hypocracy.
  • Heh... but, if Microsoft actually ends up splitting, this is a possibility (since MS-OS inc. and MSN will be two different companies.) =^)
    -legolas

    i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

  • More MPAA sites can link to DeCSS (Score:4)

    by x0dus ( 163280 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @03:06PM (#827192)
    Why limit ourselves to CNN's web site? Most of the MPAA member's web sites can be instantly turned into DeCSS links as well. Try the following links to get to DeCSS. No, I'm not linking to the DeCSS source code, that would probably be illegal for me to do. Instead, I'm linking to the web sites of Warner Bros., Universal Studios, and Walt Disney Company (who happen to have links to DeCSS--sue them, not me!). On an unrelated topic, from my understanding the reverse engineering of CSS was originally deemed illegal because presumably Jon Johansen clicked a button which indicated he complied with a license that said he wouldn't reverse engineer Xing's DVD player. My question is: don't the laws of Norway require you to be legal age (18) to enter into a contract?
  • Nice =)

    If I follow suit, would you say I'm being a rebel or bowing to peer pressure? ;)

    Woz

  • I Won the Slashdot Cruiser... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...people would point and laugh as I drove by.

  • Lets face it, Republicans and the Democrates are virtually the same party, they only disagree on a very narrow list of issues.

    I always hear this, but I never see it. Republicans and Democrats disagree on most major issues. Watch C-SPAN; they vote along different lines consistently.
    --
  • The DMCA doesn't even give the right to circumvent to the author of the encryption tool. Only to the copyright holder for a protected work. Now Time Warner indirectly owns copyright to some CSS encrypted movies. So maybe there are allowed. But they could possibly get sued by other MPAA members.

    17 USC 1201 [cornell.edu], part of the DMCA [cornell.edu], says the following:

    to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner

    Circumvention is illegal, no exception for fair use or even for access by those writing the encryption (the phrase "without the authority of the copyright owner" is very strict, it does take into account authority to access a work under the fair use provisions of Title 17 or any other law.)

  • why the slashdot article itself seems to have been pulled from the front page of slashdot?

  • Unknown Ownership (Score:3)

    by lupine ( 100665 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:36PM (#827198) Journal
    This is off topic, but who knew cnn was owned by time warner? I would like to see some tree type organizational structure that details how these mega corporations are tied together.

    I live in an area with a high student population which tends to be educated and more environmentally conscientious. The gas station down the street is called the freedom station, which just happens to be owned by exxon.

    I want to people to be easily able to see that phillip morris owns miller, marlboro, and kraft. Is this information available on the net. If you are going to boycott time warner you need to know what companies to avoid. This information is public record, but it seems that much is done to keep it from being public knowledge.

    Are there any web sites that chronicle this type of information? Is there any easy(consumer friendly) way of finding this out?

  • Is this really surprising? (Score:3)

    by Knight ( 10458 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:37PM (#827199)
    CNN, like 2600, is a news organization, staffed by journalists. As journalists, they have the natural and logical instinct that source code is Free Speech, and as such, is covered under the First Amendment. I'm sure that whoever posted the link was unaware of the issue at hand. As I type this, the link has already been removed, but the point remains. Surely, CNN will not be sued, molested, or otherwise punished for this, which says to me that what I've believed all along is true: this lawsuit is not as much about DeCSS as it is an attack on the hacker community as a whole. 2600 was picked because of who they are, not because of what they did, and CNN will be left alone for the same reason. What has it come to that we now live in a society that applies laws differently to each person based on someone's perception of the person in general rather than the legitimacy of the charges? This makes me sick. I'm a security professional, and as such, a big part of what I do is security audits of products. What this ruling means to me is that if some large corporate entity decides they don't like me because I discovered a security hole in a product of theirs, they can sue me to death, but if they did the same thing to me, I would have no recourse. Well, I guess I have only one response to this, "http://magic.hurrah.com/~fireball/dvd/". I'm not linking to anything here, I'm just typing a URL, which surely will be illegal tomorrow, along with quoting the phrase "For Dummies", and writing a disassembler, because after all, I could use it to circumvent copy protection...
  • Basically I dont think it would matter much besides all the bitching and moaning, if CNN would have removed the link to DeCSS or not. Fact of the matter is they are going to bulldoze over basic Constitutional rights and we are going to sit on our asses and cry about it. I think it would be funny if like 1 week before the elections that the canidates real finacial records were some how "hacked" and posted for every one to see. That would be one hell of an election!

  • Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (Score:4)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:37PM (#827201)
    The injuction only enjoined 2600 from linking to the DeCSS code.

    Presumably, CNN and Time-Warner are free to link to it as they see fit.

    If I couldn't tell my ass from my head, I'd say that 2600 got sued because they didn't believe in copyright law, and Eric's mother dressed him funny (two facts which have about the same relevance to the case, except for the fact that since I can't tell my head from my ass, I can choose ignore the sworn testimony of the defendants to the contrary)... and that CNN/Time-Warner shouldn't be sued because, after all, they're respectable law-abiding organizations that promulgate goodthought.

    As others have pointed out, this is a first amendment case - if linking to source code is legally actionable under DMCA, we're all suffering from a chilling effect, because it's reasonable to assume that MPAA is much more likely to sue "one of us" than it is CNN/Time-Warner.

    This is also an antitrust case - going offtopic for a moment: since CSS does (as a matter of simple fact) not prevent DVDs from being pirated (the encrypted streams can be copied with suitable equipment), about the only function it serves is to protect a licensing cartel between MPAA and the hardware manufacturers. DeCSS isn't required for DVD piracy. Indeed, the only thing DeCSS does is allow an end user to decrypt and play back the encrypted video stream on hardware not licensed by the aforementioned MPAA/hardware-manufacturer cartel.

  • They're watching everything closely.

    I doubt it. More likely, someone flamed them for the hypocrisy (or politely pointed it out :]).


    -------

  • Microsoft sued MSN for linking to Windows piracy sites

    A few years back, NBC was criticized for not running a story critical of Microsoft, who owns a chunk of them.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • Which brings up an interesting point (possibly OT).

    What defines a legitimate news source on the Net? Readership? Accountability? Gross negligence? =)

    Is /. not legitimate source? What issues might /. have with posting DeCSS references and links?

    The double-standards are irritating.

    Oh, DeCSS...
    purpose so provocative!
    CNN was hacked

    anti-digerati auntie-digerati ante-digerati NT-digerati
  • who's breaking the law?

    or are CNN and ZDNet breaking the law because they routinely link to SlashDot? :)

  • um... not very good reasoning. consider that lot's of types of evidence are falsifiable, yet those types of evidence are still accepted and falsification is still illegal.
  • Checkout the link below or go to www.time.com and search for decss. Has a link to www.scour.com. Article seems to imply site has DivX movies for download. How can a link to a tool be worse than site which may contain illegal copies?

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266, 50590,00.html

    1. Ok, Now I did not chase the link and see if the movies were on the site. If I did this I would be breaking the law, correct? I also hope I am not slandering scour.com. If I am I sorry. I also do not mean to imply that scour is primarly in existance for this purpose. It may have denounced the files and rooted them out. I can't even look at the site so how would I know.

      The lawyers are chasing me. Help! help!

  • I will vote when I don't feel that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. Let my voter apathy be my vote. None of the above.

    Abstaining does nothing except reinforce the system that you seem to hate. The DMCA and similiar laws don't pass because too many people vote. They pass because not enough voters make themselves heard on the issue. Vote for Ralph Nader (or write in John McCain) if you want to vote against corporate influence in politics.
    --
  • Hellow fellow americans. I would like for formally apolagize for being such a "dill-weed" over the course of the DeCSS trial. Unfortunately, i didn't realize that the implications of my ruling would basically fuck everything good about the internet.

    For example. Did you know, that because of my ruling, one could practically infer that linking to a site that links to a site containing DeCSS source code is illegal. A)Because that site linked to is now illegal, which makes the linking site illegal - therefore violation the DMCA or something. and B)Because i've got my head shoved so far up my ass that i can see my stomach digesting the bullshit that the MPAA fed me. Of course, this means that a link to a link to a link to a link is now illegal...and since %99.9 of all websites contain "hyperlinks" - they're all illegal because they, invariably, lead somehow to DeCSS source.

    on a lighter note: i think i'll just continue to hook my DVD player up to my computer and rip DVD's to mpeg.


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • Why is it this is only wrong if it's hypocritical? I realize we can poke fun at CNN because they're owned by Time-Warner, but if they weren't, would it make it any more right?

  • Okay, they do disagree on major issues such as where to spend my money. The Republicans want to take my money and give it to the rich and the Democrates want to take my money and give it to the poor. The Republicans want to take my money and feed the bloated military budget, the Democrates want to take my money and feed the bloated social reform budget. The Republicans want to take away my freedom to choose Atheism, the Democrates want to take away my freedom not choose Atheism. The Republicans want to lower taxes and raise the deficeit, the Democrates want to riase taxes and lower the deficeit. The list goes on and on like this, the two parties agree that I should pay taxes, they just can't agree on how to spend it. The agree they should be limiting my freedom, they just can't agree on which freedoms I'm not responsible enough to have. At the end of the day it doesn't matter which party is in power, because I still am not represented, I still get 30% of my income taken away from me, nothing changes and every day I have a few less freedoms than I had the day before. They look an awful lot alike to me.

    Numbersyx


    Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.

  • I guess they have to sue themselves now. But of course CNN is covered by the freedom of the press laws becouse they are a "legitimate" news source.
  • I guess Imperial Corporate Judge Kaplan really ruled that if your company's net worth is $1 billion or more you have freedom of speech.
  • In theire latest court filing, the DVDCCA really rips at Matthew Pavlovich and LIVID. Here's the opening:

    Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called "open source" movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free.

    The DeCSS fight is a fight that must be won, and supporting LiVid and getting a polished open source DVD player for Linux is a prerequisite for Linux ever dominating the desktop. Everyone please do what they can to support this fight.
  • Hey,

    TWarner won't sue itself.

    Oh, they won't will they? They'll sue software developers, but when it comes to launching a little lawsuit against themselves, nooooo...

    The hypocrites!

    Michael

    ...another comment from Michael Tandy.

  • Fixed? (Score:3)

    by ct.smith ( 80232 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:24PM (#827216) Homepage
    The link the in question seems to have dissappeared. The fourth link is now to Harvard University, not to a DeCSS mirror.

    Someone at CNN/Time-Warner must have noticed.
  • If you don't like it, stop whining and do something.

    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/ [cnn.com]

    My .02
    Quux26

  • Do as I say, not as I do.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • > Money may not be the root of all that's evil but

    *sigh*

    Can you at please quote properly:

    "The *love* of money is the root of all evil"

    Money is an inanimate object. It is neither good nor bad.
  • Here [scripting.com] is a screenshot pre-change (assuming this isn't a hoax).
  • Kudos to the writer (Deborah Durham-Vichr) - she graciously gave credibility to Corley's defense, probably w/o realizing it. Was she promoting piracy or subverting copyright through the distribution of pirating software? No, she was reporting a story, same as Corley.


    -------

  • Re:Well, the link's gone now... (Score:4)

    by Daffy Duck ( 17350 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:41PM (#827222) Homepage
    The Microsoft trial showed that doctored videotapes are admissible, so why not screenshots?
  • Here [scripting.com]...Not that that proves anything, or wouldn't be easily doctorable, but it at least is a record of the link.

    Unless of course this whole thing's a hoax. But Scripting News doesn't seem to be the type of site that would bother with a hoax like this.
    -----

  • Moderate HerrNewton's post up; this is a good point. I remember Babylon 5 executive producer talking about the levels of infighting between different entertainment arms of Time Warner (TNT vs. Warner Bros. Domestic Television vs. Warner Home Video...). I would not be at all surprised to see folks in the editorial side of CNN who are completely at odds with the supression of DeCSS on First Amendment principles.

    Come to think of it, you could draw an anology to Nullsoft's release of the original Gnutella and AOL's aghast reaction.

  • I don't know if it was an informer, of if it was the sudden influx of traffic with a referer of slashdot.org perhaps tipped them off...
  • That one particular ownership is relatively well known, but you're right, such a site would be immensely valuable.

    Recently I heard a rumor that Starbucks was owned by Philip Morris... turns out they are independent (I think) and just have a distribution agreement with Kraft Foods, but that sort of web site would have really helped me out. Who's going to want to put the time into researching that though? There are thousands of companies that own other companies, and some (like Jeld-Wen) don't publish information on what companies they own/partner with.

    Maybe a community-edited effort along the lines of Everything [everything2.com] would be effective.
    --
  • "There are a number of laws on the books governing who can own media and how much, this to prevent undue influence and partiality upon news."

    [this is going to be a treat]...

    Can you give us a few examples?

    My .02
    Quux26

  • Exactly.

    "This trend toward greater integration of the media into the market system has been accelerated by the loosening of rules limiting media concentration, cross-ownership, and control by non-media companies*. There has also been an abandonment of restrictions -- previously quite feeble anyway -- on radio-TV commercials, entertainment-mayhem programming, and "fairness doctrine" threats, opening the door to the unrestrained commercial use of the airwaves."

    - Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky
    Manufacturing Consent [barnesandnoble.com] &copy 1988

    * The Reagan administration strengthened the control of existing holders of television-station licenses by increasnig their term from three to five years, and its FCC made renewals essentially automatic. The FCC also greatly facilitated speculation and trading in television properties by a rule change reducing the required holding period before sale of a newly acquired property from three years to one year.
    The reagan era FCC and Department of Justice also refused to challenge mergers and takeover bids that would signifaantly increase the concentration of power (GE-RCA) or media concentration (Capital Cities-ABC). Furthermore, beginning April 2, 1985, media owners could own as many as twelve televison stations, as long as their total audience didn't exceed 25 percent of the nation's televison households; and they could also hold twelve AM and twelve FM stations, as in the 1953 "7-7-7 rule" was replaced with a "12-12-12 rule." See Herbert H. Howard, "Group and Cross-Media Ownership of Televion Stations: 1985" (Washington: National Association of Broadcasters 1985).

    Do the words MSNBC mean anything to you? (the original poster, not the AC)

    My .02
    Quux26

  • But isn't the point that the judge ruled that it is illegal to link to the DeCSS source code? If it's illegal, it's illegal, news or not. CNN shouldn't get a pass if 2600 doesn't.

    It's like saying a group of kids making a newsletter can't tell others the address for e.g. a gun wholesaler, but a newspaper can (which a kid could then read...)
    -----
    D. Fischer
    • pretty blisteringly fast. So, here's a thought: They're watching everything closely.
    Maybe they are not watching everything [everything2.com] closely.

    Maybe they just watching Slashdot closely.

    Where else does a lazy journalist keep up to date with the latest IT news?

  • In other words... (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:48PM (#827243)
    Hello, we're the MPAA, and we announce that we're going to sue anyone who writes the word DeCSS.

    Oops!

    Little problem. Jack, we need more lawyers!

  • I say fixed, because it is unlikely that the person designing that screenshot realized then onmouseover with IE turns text red, then when you take a screenshot in win32 the mouse will disappear. That is why that screenshot link is red and not underlined.

    Also the window footer contains "http://www.zpok.demon.co.uk/decss/ [demon.co.uk]" (oops I just linked it) which indeed would happen when the mouse is over.

    So I doubt this is a fake, but indeed it was fixed pretty rapidly.
  • Just convert them into regular integers. Then, incorporate those integers into a story (9 dogs went to eat 7 bowls of dogfood. Then, they played 20 questions, etc...)
  • "This is off topic, but who knew cnn was owned by time warner? I would like to see some tree type organizational structure that details how these mega corporations are tied together."

    I'm working on it. Expect to see something about it November 1st or so (sorry, can't say any more than that for fear of getting Slashdotted before I'm prepped). But for the moment, you might want to check Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent [barnesandnoble.com]". A bit old but it still gives numbers that will make you say "hmmmmm."

    My .02
    Quux26

  • Re:Fixed? (Score:3)

    by GrenDel Fuego ( 2558 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @05:26PM (#827251)
    Style sheets?

    Are you saying that they used CSS on their link to DeCSS?

    Talk about hypocracy! ;)
  • Not true. The original Xing was hacked on an NT machine but Xing would not even run on NT at that time so the target was unpacked manually without even clicking any Agree button. The northlanders may have used Win9X later but the first hack utilized manually unpacked files.

  • Re:Here's something to try... (Score:4)

    by Coppit ( 2441 ) on Saturday August 26, 2000 @06:15AM (#827254) Homepage
    It's already been made into a song [joeysmith.com].
    ------------------------------------------- ------------
  • Judge Kaplan linking to DECSS? You got it here's my original post.

    Kaplan braking the law? [slashdot.org]

  • DeCSS mirror (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:49PM (#827263)
    /*
    * css_descramble.c
    *
    * Released under the version 2 of the GPL.
    *
    * Copyright 1999 Derek Fawcus
    *
    * This file contains functions to descramble CSS encrypted DVD content
    *
    */

    /*
    * Still in progress: Remove the use of the bit_reverse[] table by recoding
    * the generation of LFSR1. Finish combining this with
    * the css authentication code.
    *
    */

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <string.h>
    #include "css-descramble.h"

    typedef unsigned char byte;

    /*
    *
    * some tables used for descrambling sectors and/or decrypting title keys
    *
    */

    static byte csstab1[256]=
    {
    0x33,0x73,0x3b,0x26,0x63,0x23,0x6b,0x76,0x3e,0x7e, 0x36,0x2b,0x6e,0x2e,0x66,0x7b,
    0xd3,0x93,0xdb,0x06,0x43,0x03,0x4b,0x96,0xde,0x9e, 0xd6,0x0b,0x4e,0x0e,0x46,0x9b,
    0x57,0x17,0x5f,0x82,0xc7,0x87,0xcf,0x12,0x5a,0x1a, 0x52,0x8f,0xca,0x8a,0xc2,0x1f,
    0xd9,0x99,0xd1,0x00,0x49,0x09,0x41,0x90,0xd8,0x98, 0xd0,0x01,0x48,0x08,0x40,0x91,
    0x3d,0x7d,0x35,0x24,0x6d,0x2d,0x65,0x74,0x3c,0x7c, 0x34,0x25,0x6c,0x2c,0x64,0x75,
    0xdd,0x9d,0xd5,0x04,0x4d,0x0d,0x45,0x94,0xdc,0x9c, 0xd4,0x05,0x4c,0x0c,0x44,0x95,
    0x59,0x19,0x51,0x80,0xc9,0x89,0xc1,0x10,0x58,0x18, 0x50,0x81,0xc8,0x88,0xc0,0x11,
    0xd7,0x97,0xdf,0x02,0x47,0x07,0x4f,0x92,0xda,0x9a, 0xd2,0x0f,0x4a,0x0a,0x42,0x9f,
    0x53,0x13,0x5b,0x86,0xc3,0x83,0xcb,0x16,0x5e,0x1e, 0x56,0x8b,0xce,0x8e,0xc6,0x1b,
    0xb3,0xf3,0xbb,0xa6,0xe3,0xa3,0xeb,0xf6,0xbe,0xfe, 0xb6,0xab,0xee,0xae,0xe6,0xfb,
    0x37,0x77,0x3f,0x22,0x67,0x27,0x6f,0x72,0x3a,0x7a, 0x32,0x2f,0x6a,0x2a,0x62,0x7f,
    0xb9,0xf9,0xb1,0xa0,0xe9,0xa9,0xe1,0xf0,0xb8,0xf8, 0xb0,0xa1,0xe8,0xa8,0xe0,0xf1,
    0x5d,0x1d,0x55,0x84,0xcd,0x8d,0xc5,0x14,0x5c,0x1c, 0x54,0x85,0xcc,0x8c,0xc4,0x15,
    0xbd,0xfd,0xb5,0xa4,0xed,0xad,0xe5,0xf4,0xbc,0xfc, 0xb4,0xa5,0xec,0xac,0xe4,0xf5,
    0x39,0x79,0x31,0x20,0x69,0x29,0x61,0x70,0x38,0x78, 0x30,0x21,0x68,0x28,0x60,0x71,
    0xb7,0xf7,0xbf,0xa2,0xe7,0xa7,0xef,0xf2,0xba,0xfa, 0xb2,0xaf,0xea,0xaa,0xe2,0xff
    };

    static byte lfsr1_bits0[256]=
    {
    0x00,0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x09,0x08, 0x0b,0x0a,0x0d,0x0c,0x0f,0x0e,
    0x12,0x13,0x10,0x11,0x16,0x17,0x14,0x15,0x1b,0x1a, 0x19,0x18,0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,
    0x24,0x25,0x26,0x27,0x20,0x21,0x22,0x23,0x2d,0x2c, 0x2f,0x2e,0x29,0x28,0x2b,0x2a,
    0x36,0x37,0x34,0x35,0x32,0x33,0x30,0x31,0x3f,0x3e, 0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,
    0x49,0x48,0x4b,0x4a,0x4d,0x4c,0x4f,0x4e,0x40,0x41, 0x42,0x43,0x44,0x45,0x46,0x47,
    0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x52,0x53, 0x50,0x51,0x56,0x57,0x54,0x55,
    0x6d,0x6c,0x6f,0x6e,0x69,0x68,0x6b,0x6a,0x64,0x65, 0x66,0x67,0x60,0x61,0x62,0x63,
    0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x76,0x77, 0x74,0x75,0x72,0x73,0x70,0x71,
    0x92,0x93,0x90,0x91,0x96,0x97,0x94,0x95,0x9b,0x9a, 0x99,0x98,0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,
    0x80,0x81,0x82,0x83,0x84,0x85,0x86,0x87,0x89,0x88, 0x8b,0x8a,0x8d,0x8c,0x8f,0x8e,
    0xb6,0xb7,0xb4,0xb5,0xb2,0xb3,0xb0,0xb1,0xbf,0xbe, 0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,
    0xa4,0xa5,0xa6,0xa7,0xa0,0xa1,0xa2,0xa3,0xad,0xac, 0xaf,0xae,0xa9,0xa8,0xab,0xaa,
    0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xd2,0xd3, 0xd0,0xd1,0xd6,0xd7,0xd4,0xd5,
    0xc9,0xc8,0xcb,0xca,0xcd,0xcc,0xcf,0xce,0xc0,0xc1, 0xc2,0xc3,0xc4,0xc5,0xc6,0xc7,
    0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf6,0xf7, 0xf4,0xf5,0xf2,0xf3,0xf0,0xf1,
    0xed,0xec,0xef,0xee,0xe9,0xe8,0xeb,0xea,0xe4,0xe5, 0xe6,0xe7,0xe0,0xe1,0xe2,0xe3
    };

    static byte lfsr1_bits1[512]=
    {
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,
    0x00,0x24,0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff,0x00,0x24, 0x49,0x6d,0x92,0xb6,0xdb,0xff
    };

    /* Reverse the order of the bits within a byte.
    */
    static byte bit_reverse[256]=
    {
    0x00,0x80,0x40,0xc0,0x20,0xa0,0x60,0xe0,0x10,0x90, 0x50,0xd0,0x30,0xb0,0x70,0xf0,
    0x08,0x88,0x48,0xc8,0x28,0xa8,0x68,0xe8,0x18,0x98, 0x58,0xd8,0x38,0xb8,0x78,0xf8,
    0x04,0x84,0x44,0xc4,0x24,0xa4,0x64,0xe4,0x14,0x94, 0x54,0xd4,0x34,0xb4,0x74,0xf4,
    0x0c,0x8c,0x4c,0xcc,0x2c,0xac,0x6c,0xec,0x1c,0x9c, 0x5c,0xdc,0x3c,0xbc,0x7c,0xfc,
    0x02,0x82,0x42,0xc2,0x22,0xa2,0x62,0xe2,0x12,0x92, 0x52,0xd2,0x32,0xb2,0x72,0xf2,
    0x0a,0x8a,0x4a,0xca,0x2a,0xaa,0x6a,0xea,0x1a,0x9a, 0x5a,0xda,0x3a,0xba,0x7a,0xfa,
    0x06,0x86,0x46,0xc6,0x26,0xa6,0x66,0xe6,0x16,0x96, 0x56,0xd6,0x36,0xb6,0x76,0xf6,
    0x0e,0x8e,0x4e,0xce,0x2e,0xae,0x6e,0xee,0x1e,0x9e, 0x5e,0xde,0x3e,0xbe,0x7e,0xfe,
    0x01,0x81,0x41,0xc1,0x21,0xa1,0x61,0xe1,0x11,0x91, 0x51,0xd1,0x31,0xb1,0x71,0xf1,
    0x09,0x89,0x49,0xc9,0x29,0xa9,0x69,0xe9,0x19,0x99, 0x59,0xd9,0x39,0xb9,0x79,0xf9,
    0x05,0x85,0x45,0xc5,0x25,0xa5,0x65,0xe5,0x15,0x95, 0x55,0xd5,0x35,0xb5,0x75,0xf5,
    0x0d,0x8d,0x4d,0xcd,0x2d,0xad,0x6d,0xed,0x1d,0x9d, 0x5d,0xdd,0x3d,0xbd,0x7d,0xfd,
    0x03,0x83,0x43,0xc3,0x23,0xa3,0x63,0xe3,0x13,0x93, 0x53,0xd3,0x33,0xb3,0x73,0xf3,
    0x0b,0x8b,0x4b,0xcb,0x2b,0xab,0x6b,0xeb,0x1b,0x9b, 0x5b,0xdb,0x3b,0xbb,0x7b,0xfb,
    0x07,0x87,0x47,0xc7,0x27,0xa7,0x67,0xe7,0x17,0x97, 0x57,0xd7,0x37,0xb7,0x77,0xf7,
    0x0f,0x8f,0x4f,0xcf,0x2f,0xaf,0x6f,0xef,0x1f,0x9f, 0x5f,0xdf,0x3f,0xbf,0x7f,0xff
    };

    /*
    *
    * this function is only used internally when decrypting title key
    *
    */
    static void css_titlekey(byte *key, byte *im, byte invert)
    {
    unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
    byte o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
    byte k[5];
    int i;

    lfsr1_lo = im[0] | 0x100;
    lfsr1_hi = im[1];

    lfsr0 = ((im[4] << 17) | (im[3] << 9) | (im[2] << 1)) + 8 - (im[2]&7);
    lfsr0 = (bit_reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<24) | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>8)&0xff] << 16)
    | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<8) | bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>24)&0xff];

    combined = 0;
    for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
    o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
    lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
    lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)<<8) ^ o_lfsr1;
    o_lfsr1 = bit_reverse[o_lfsr1];

    /*o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>19);*/
    o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7);
    lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0<<24);

    combined += (o_lfsr0 ^ invert) + o_lfsr1;
    k[i] = combined & 0xff;
    combined >>= 8;
    }

    key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
    key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
    key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
    key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
    key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]]^key[4];

    key[4]=k[4]^csstab1[key[4]]^key[3];
    key[3]=k[3]^csstab1[key[3]]^key[2];
    key[2]=k[2]^csstab1[key[2]]^key[1];
    key[1]=k[1]^csstab1[key[1]]^key[0];
    key[0]=k[0]^csstab1[key[0]];
    }

    /*
    *
    * this function decrypts a title key with the specified disk key
    *
    * tkey: the unobfuscated title key (XORed with BusKey)
    * dkey: the unobfuscated disk key (XORed with BusKey)
    * 2048 bytes in length (though only 5 bytes are needed, see below)
    * pkey: array of pointers to player keys and disk key offsets
    *
    *
    * use the result returned in tkey with css_descramble
    *
    */

    int css_decrypttitlekey(byte *tkey, byte *dkey, struct playkey **pkey)
    {
    byte test[5], pretkey[5];
    int i = 0;

    for (; *pkey; ++pkey, ++i) {
    memcpy(pretkey, dkey + (*pkey)->offset, 5);
    css_titlekey(pretkey, (*pkey)->key, 0);

    memcpy(test, dkey, 5);
    css_titlekey(test, pretkey, 0);

    if (memcmp(test, pretkey, 5) == 0) {
    fprintf(stderr, "Using Key %d\n", i+1);
    break;
    }
    }

    if (!*pkey) {
    fprintf(stderr, "Shit - Need Key %d\n", i+1);
    return 0;
    }

    css_titlekey(tkey, pretkey, 0xff);

    return 1;
    }

    /*
    *
    * this function does the actual descrambling
    *
    * sec: encrypted sector (2048 bytes)
    * key: decrypted title key obtained from css_decrypttitlekey
    *
    */
    void css_descramble(byte *sec,byte *key)
    {
    unsigned int lfsr1_lo,lfsr1_hi,lfsr0,combined;
    unsigned char o_lfsr0, o_lfsr1;
    unsigned char *end = sec + 0x800;
    #define SALTED(i) (key[i] ^ sec[0x54 + (i)])

    lfsr1_lo = SALTED(0) | 0x100;
    lfsr1_hi = SALTED(1);

    lfsr0 = ((SALTED(4) << 17) | (SALTED(3) << 9) | (SALTED(2) << 1)) + 8 - (SALTED(2)&7);
    lfsr0 = (bit_reverse[lfsr0&0xff]<<24) | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>8)&0xff] << 16)
    | (bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>16)&0xff]<<8) | bit_reverse[(lfsr0>>24)&0xff];

    sec+=0x80;
    combined = 0;
    while (sec != end) {
    o_lfsr1 = lfsr1_bits0[lfsr1_hi] ^ lfsr1_bits1[lfsr1_lo];
    lfsr1_hi = lfsr1_lo>>1;
    lfsr1_lo = ((lfsr1_lo&1)<<8) ^ o_lfsr1;
    o_lfsr1 = bit_reverse[o_lfsr1];

    /*o_lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>7)^(lfsr0>>10)^(lfsr0>>11)^(lfsr0>>19);*/
    o_lfsr0 = (((((((lfsr0>>8)^lfsr0)>>1)^lfsr0)>>3)^lfsr0)>>7);
    lfsr0 = (lfsr0>>8)|(o_lfsr0<<24);

    combined += o_lfsr0 + (byte)~o_lfsr1;
    *sec++ = csstab1[*sec] ^ (combined&0xff);
    combined >>= 8;
    }
    }

  • but what's the diff between an established news service and our own ability to publish 'news' on our own web pages?

    I see no diff. they're bigger and more well known but news is news. if they can link to it, I should be able to.

    --

  • Story Originated from IDG LinuxWorld (Score:3)

    by ttyRazor ( 20815 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:51PM (#827266)
    The story, and the links themselves, was written by someone from IDG, and was simply reposted on CNN.com. They also have some litle disclaimer: "External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive", blah, blah, blah. That famous Time-Warner media synergy finally kicked in and link appears to be gone now. This was probably just the doing of some retarded news script that doesn't understand the hypocrisy it just commited on behalf of its owners.
  • That's an interesting point, considering the link has now been removed from CNN's site.

    Was the report and image a fabrication?
    Is CNN hypocritical?
    Did they just decide that link wasn't really part of the "whole story"?
    Or were they *really* short on hard-drive space? :)
    -----
    D. Fischer
  • Scripting News is a very legit site, even though it may not be familiar to many of the Linux crowd. I was the one who submitted the story, and I verified it at CNN's site before doing so, but I did not take a screen shot. I did, however, ICQ a friend of mine who does web work on CNN's site, and point her at the Scripting News site.

    I doubt Liz did anything about it, she's pretty new there, and low on the totem pole, but I figured I could help her out at the same time as embarassing CNN, if she was able to get them to fix it early. :)
    ---
  • Nah, it's too late by then. They're the media -- they know what you're thinking...

    Of course they know what you're thinking. They induced you to think it. They probably had it in their business plan months ago.

    ... I wonder what my big national concern will be as the election draws nearer ...

  • Don't call it "hypocrisy" just yet. There is a long tradition in "legitimate" journalism of a wall of separation between the editorial (content) and business (financial) sides of news organizations.

    The hypocracy would be on Time Warner's part, not CNN's. Of course, removing the link does cast a negative light on CNN since it didn't even require a court order.

  • Dr David Touretzky [mailto] of Carnegie Mellon University, who testified on the 2600 [2600.org] case and was commended [uscourts.gov] by the Court for his "lucid explication" and "candour", has a Gallery of CSS Descramblers [cmu.edu], including an English prose version [cmu.edu].

    His site [cmu.edu]'s a real treasure trove. Great for truffling up odd facts. Like this gem buried in the DMCA [cmu.edu]:
    (4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

    Incidentally, reading Touretzky's wonderfully eloquent and stirring defence [cmu.edu] of what effectively amounts to civil disobedience [beck.org], a sudden irony bludgeoned me unconscious like a baby seal: one day this somewhat clichéd story of the little guy taking on the faceless dehumanising monolith and prevailing through resourcefulness and passion will be made into a Hollywood Movie starring Robin Williams as Touretzky, that kid from Jerry Maguire as Jon Johansen, and Alanis Morisette as The American Constitution.

    The tagline on the DVD (just above the Oscar garlands)? 'Information Wants to Be Free.'

  • For stories syndicated from IDG publications, the 'related sites' are typically added by the IDG member editors, and added to or edited by IDG.net editors.

    Only then is it passed on to CNN.com, where it's processed and published. There's an editing process there, too, but apparently the link got overlooked. Sorry, no conspiracy afoot here. As with most "Media Conspiracies," it's just your basic "oops."

    There is a journalism-wide lack of scope regarding the DeCSS issue. Part of it is a genuine lack of understanding on the part of reporters, and part of it is the Eternal Problem of Technology Reporting -- making it understandable to the masses, while still not wrong. The byproduct of that is that it's typically not exactly what the Slashdot-types want to see. But then again, that's why the speciality media exists.

    And just so y'all don't think I'm just making all this up, I'm the former Technology Editor at CNN.com. A scant few months ago, it would have been my ass in the fire for what happened today. Timing's everything, I guess.

    I doubt the courts, or Congress, will adequately address this issue of linking. After all, sites think they're doing pretty well as long as they run the disclaimer next to internal links -- for those not savvy enough to note that they've left the publication's site. But now, even that's not enough.

    Might as well make the shameless plug of a lurker... feel free to e-mail me with story tips. Now I'm the Washington tech writer for The Associated Press.

    - Ian.

  • It doesn't work that way... (Score:3)

    by Sir_Winston ( 107378 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:53PM (#827288)
    News organizations, first of all, never report with impartiality. Sometimes they try, but most often they don't even make an effort to be impartial--reporters are people, and people are inherently biased and inclined to express those biases, even if only subconsciously.

    The problem I see is that news organizations these days try to *appear* impartial to the public, while in reality infusing their stories with either a liberal or conservative bias depending on the people running the show. Thus, the public thinks what they're hearing is impartial "fact" when the reality is that they're hearing subtle political propaganda.

    In the old days, newspapers came right out and proudly proclaimed their political beliefs. Think of the rampant jingoism of a Hurst (Hearst? sorry, my mind is asleep and I'm too lazy to go to Google to check) news organization. That was honesty about being biased. But now news organizations just lie about their biases, and that's dangerous: it indoctrinates the citizenry to have the same bias, through subtle manipulation of facts, instead of teaching them to form their own opinion.

    If you want an example, just look at the huge mistake CNN made when they ran the story two years ago about American forces using CS gas against civilians during the Vietnam War. It was a lie based on the ramblings of an unstable person with a bad memory, who when questioned by others couldn't even remember who some of his commanding officers were. There was no corroborating evidence at all, but they ran the story as if it were gospel truth. No one thought of pulling the plug, because everyone there had an inherent bias. Journalism is just a dangerous illusion--no one in the profession is impartial.

    Aside from which, if it were illegal to link to DeCSS code or binaries, CNN would be committing a crime by doing so just as if a private citizen were to do the same. I dare say that's doubtless why the link has been removed. A news person cannot break the law to get a story or in reporting a story. For example, a journalist who freelanced and did contract pieces for NPR and other organizations was arrested for child pornography when he was investigating it for a piece, because he retransmitted an image which he'd downloaded in a chat room (he got the image from a Fed shill, BTW--doesn't our government have better things to do than distribute child pornography? Entrapment, anyone?)...

  • Re:Not really a conflict of interest (Score:3)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:55PM (#827290) Homepage Journal
    The really sleazy thing would be for Time Warner to force an impartial news service like CNN to pull the article!

    And hardly a new idea. There are a number of laws on the books governing who can own media and how much, this to prevent undue influence and partiality upon news. But, hell, if I really want to know what's going on in the world, I just read the foreign press. It's not all filtered through the State Dept. or the uberdummies in the media.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • You just showed that those non-obvious points are known by people. Thus, the image creator could have know that too, and added all the right details to perfect the deception.

    A good hoax must be well done. Otherwise, what's the point?

    This of course raises bigger questions, like, "Can we trust images as evidence?" or, "How do you collect evidence in a digital investigation?" It's illegal to destroy incriminating evidence. But if there is no evidence of that evidence ever existing, how can it be shown that it was deleted?

    Finally, in a more philosophical bent, "What is the sound of one hacker hacking?"
    -----
    D. Fischer
  • Finally, in a more philosophical bent, "What is the sound of one hacker hacking?"

    clickity click ... slurp ... click click clickity click ... muahahaha

  • Well, the thing is they're not the authors of DeCSS. They're linking to something they didn't write that they're actively suing to prevent people linking to. Wow. That sentence hurts my brain. :)
  • I've been waiting for some insightful commentary on this, but I think everyone is laughing too hard.

  • We all know news services have to have freedom to report impartially, so while this is a funny anecdote I don't see it by any means as a sign of hypocrisy. CNN must be able to report news regardless of Time-Warner's allegiances just like Slashdot needs to have the freedom to report things that even Andover.net doesn't like.

    The really sleazy thing would be for Time Warner to force an impartial news service like CNN to pull the article!

  • Holy crap... (Score:4)

    by dbarclay10 ( 70443 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:27PM (#827309)
    Wow, they're quick. 2 comments here on Slashdot.org, and the CNN story that was supposedly carrying the link has been changed. That's pretty blisteringly fast. So, here's a thought: They're watching everything closely. Remember that. If you have a thought, maybe a plan, that could *really* work, maybe you should contact the proper authorities(maybe the EFF or something) privately.

    Dave
  • Damit, I'm so sick of all this decss crap. Everyone on /. knows how full of it the MPAA people are, and how right 2600 is. But all I ever see here is /. people telling other /. people about new developments that support pre-existing ideas. It doesn't matter what we say if we're just preaching to the choir, and I haven't seen any impact at all against the mpaa with all the "public awareness" we've supposed to have been raising for the past 9 months. We gotta quit just telling each other about it and start making a geater impact on other people's opinions. AARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!! Stupid Pescimism!
  • I'm curious if anyone has any comments as to how this will affect the appeal of Judge Kaplan's ruling. While, IANAL, it seems to me that this will bolster the case of 2600. Would 2600 be able to say to the appeals court, "They're suing us for something they are doing themselves! They don't want us to link to the DeCSS program, then they turn around and do it themselves. If its as bad and harmful as they would like us to believe, why would they link to it?"

    On the other hand, this is more than likely the questionable judgement of some mid-level HTML coder working deep within the Time-Warner machine. As the link seems to be gone, I think its safe to deduce that someone at CNN reads Slashdot! :)

  • Sure, CNN links to DeCSS. But, this is the WEB, folks, which (arguably) has more links than content. So, what if CNN linked to Slashdot? Slashdot has links to DeCSS. I'm sure that CNN links to other sites which link to DeCSS (and maybe through several levels of indirection).

    By the transitive law of equality (does that apply on the net?), CNN has links to probably a dozen copies of DeCSS.

    And every actor, living or dead, has a Kevin Bacon Number. But, I digress ...

    If link-crime is taken to hysterical limits, then you couldn't link ANYWHERE, for fear of inadvertently creating a link chain to something nasty or (de jure) illegal.
  • Has a really great article on the AOL-Time-Warner merger that specifically discusses Time-Warner's coporate culture of basically ongoing civil warfare between the departments. The crux of the issue is that it's gotten so damned big relatively quickly---even without the added factor of AOL---that its internal sectors might as well be separate companies. Lots of power struggles and penis measuring contests, apparently.

    Good read. Not online yet, as Wired doesn't post current magazine content, but for posterity, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.09/ Definitely pick it up off the newstand for a bit of insight into intracorporate warfare. [wired.com]

    ----
  • I'm certainly laughing about it. I think anytime an entertainment/media company merges with a tech company this sort of thing has potential. Rather like watching a snake bite it's own tail.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • Turner is a very large company that contains several news networks and many entertainment networks, as well as several movie studios and affiliated facilities (like an internal production studio for the networks, and road crews to cover sporting events, and offices around the globe representing CNN and Headline News).

    If you haven't figured it out - I work for the Turner Broadcasting System. I don't know what the heck is going on in every part of the company - if I tried to actually keep up on it, I'd never do any work, I'd just be studying the company.

    Now, add on top of that Time Warner, which is even a bigger company, with all sorts of entertainment and news media divisions. That's right - one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, it would be next to impossible to even try.

    It is not hypocritical for CNN to report the news, regardless of what it is, and they have enough integrity (no, I don't work for CNN) to mention, in each and every article where something like this is concerned, when Time Warner is mentioned, that Time Warner is the parent company to CNN. Time Warner, at least right now, does NOT control what gets shown on CNN (or displayed on the website).

    If the link is gone now, the only difference is that instead of a cease and desist letter, the legal department contacted CNN directly and told them to remove it because of legal issues, not because someone didn't like it. Believe me, CNN has shown both AOL and Time Warner in negative light on more than one occasion. Nobody gets fired or threatened for telling it like it is.
    ----------

  • Re:well, they DO own it. (Score:3)

    by molog ( 110171 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:59PM (#827326) Homepage Journal
    They don't own it. DeCSS has been deemed a device, which is made to bypass an access mechanism, in this case CSS. Therefore it is not copyrighted by Time Warner, it is merely and illegal tool in their eyes. That is what makes this so funny.
    Molog

    So Linus, what are we doing tonight?

  • I guess it's too late for my idea, but I was going to suggest that everyone link to the cnn page that had the decss link instead of linking to DeCSS itself. Too bad too, because what would they do then? I guess they could make all linking illegal, but that defeats the whole purpose of the internet!

    Here goes the whole Napster debate again, we are trying to put blame on the person linking to the data rather than the person who is posting the data. When will they learn?

  • Re:Fixed? -- nope, it is just harder to find (Score:3)

    by Mr Slushy ( 220285 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @02:00PM (#827328)
    You can still get to the DeCSS source from CNN in 4 clicks:
    1. from the CNN page, click on berkman center link
    2. At the Berkman center page, click on the "2600 enjoined from posting..." link.
    3. on the OpenDVD page, click on the OpenDVD FAQ link
    4. on the FAQ page, scroll to section 4.2.1 "where can I get a copy of DeCSS" You have three URLs that lead to the DeCSS source.
  • Microsoft doesn't own any part of GE (who owns NBC). MS and NBC have a joint venture called MSNBC, but that is not the same thing as MS having ownership in NBC.
  • What's even scarier than CNN linking to this (presumably under journalistic freedom) is that Time-Warner-AOL got them to remove the link!

    The nick is a joke! Really!
  • I saw the page unmodified, but reloaded and lost it and the damn thing isn't in my cache. Can anyone hold onto (and post) a link to the actual html with the link intact?

    --Bob

  • Re:I own rights to this link (Score:3)

    by NaughtyEddie ( 140998 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @02:34PM (#827339)
    Hey man, that link pointed to my private intranet web server which contains the DeCSS code

    You're in BIG TROUBLE, mister.

  • Re:DeCSS mirror (Score:3)

    by Joe Groff ( 11149 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @02:35PM (#827340) Homepage
    Slashdot has already been hosting the css_descramble code in my User Info [slashdot.org].

    - Joe

  • Well, the link's gone now... (Score:3)

    by dizee ( 143832 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:30PM (#827345) Homepage
    ...but they still look like idiots. The story has a screenshot of the link, plain as day, with the URL intact.

    On a side note, can screenshots be presented as legal evidence?

    Mike

    "I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
  • GoingWare [goingware.com] is at last able to post on-topic by asserting that computer program source code is constitutionally protected free speech.

    http://www.goingware.com/decss [goingware.com]

    When a law is unjust, it is just to disobey the law. Also, court judgements can only be made based on actual cases; the U.S. court system does not render "advisory opinions", so if you believe that your rights have been violated by Judge Kaplan's decision, it is your duty to mirror DeCSS too.

  • But 2600 is itself (as much as Time-Warner, et al., might not like it) a journalistic source. If CNN can write about (and link to) the source, what's fundamentally different about 2600?

    The hypocrisy here is Time-Warner's, not at all CNN's.

  • I like it..... Now the MPAA will have to go through every single User Info page to find every copy. Have fun guys....

    Link [slashdot.org]

    Since this post contains a link to DeCSS, who's breaking the law? Am I breaking it for posting the link, or is Slashdot for allowing the post?

  • Why can't people accept that CNN can report the news, regardless of wether or not it's detrimental to the parent company? News is news, and people at CNN are allowed to have integrity, regardless of what you media bashing fanatics might conspiracy theorize.

    Yes, I work for Turner Broadcasting System, but no, I do not work for CNN, nor do I know anyone who does. It's a big company. We have felt very little (and only good things) of the Time Warner presence. I'm on your side: I think DeCSS should be allowed to exist, and I think people should be allowed to link to whatever the hell they want to, as long as it's clear what they're linking to. I won't be fired for saying that. People at CNN are free to report the news as they see proper.
    ----------

  • Wrong money rules. (Score:3)

    by |deity| ( 102693 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @02:39PM (#827354) Homepage
    As long as politicians and judges can be swayed by money, laws will always be biased. Money may not be the root of all that's evil but it is the root of all power in the US.

    When the average citizen can be swayed quite easily by high cost political adds and corporations provide the money to fuel those advertising campaigns, we get laws like the DMCA.

    I will vote when I don't feel that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. Let my voter apathy be my vote. None of the above.
  • This is the one disadvantage of electronic news, is that it can be changed 'after the fact', and it's almost impossible to prove which was the origional one.

    If this was a paper newspaper, they couldn't retroactively alter the past in this way, but because this is electronic, they can.

    I don't like this ability.to change the past, it is WAY too much like 1984.

  • Next, Time-Warner will sue Scripting News for copyright violation (for republishing the evidence).

    The biggest threat to freedom today is corporate abuse of intellectual property laws to suppress criticism and to prevent anyone from knowing anything the money guys don't want known.

  • "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Thanks for the quote. I added it to the page [goingware.com] and added a few words of my own on why I think this is important:

    I want to make it clear that while I feel the Content Scrambling System is annoying and a violation of antitrust laws, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is a violation of established Supreme Court precedent of authorizing Fair Use, the reason I have provided this page in protest is specifically because Judge Kaplan's decission in the
    2600 [2600.com] case is a violation of constitutional rights.

    While the Motion Picture Association and Jack Valenti are at fault here, the greater fault lies with Judge Kaplan in failing in his sworn duty to uphold the United States Constitution.

    Judge Kaplan's decision represents a far greater danger than the ability to view digital movies where you want on the operating system of your choice, or even to be able to share them over the Internet. It represents a danger to your security to rest safe in your bed at night, knowing that you are safe to say what you wish without fear of oppression by your government.

    Judge Kaplan, if you are reading this, I want you to understand that America's founding fathers fought and died in bloody battles to put a stop to men like you.

  • Re:Unknown Ownership (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Here is the Columbia Journalism Review Media Ownership [cjr.org] list.
  • It's a shame it was gone. 2600 should have linked to them in <H1>.<BLINK>, and <B> right on their front page...

  • Editorial vs. Business (Score:4)

    by Sudderth ( 146030 ) on Friday August 25, 2000 @01:33PM (#827367) Homepage
    Don't call it "hypocrisy" just yet. There is a long tradition in "legitimate" journalism of a wall of separation between the editorial (content) and business (financial) sides of news organizations. This wall is admittedly getting some chunks knocked out of it in today's corporate-driven media, but there are many journalists who will be damned if they'll let the suits spike their story.

    I wouldn't be surprised if some folks in the news division at CNN.com, or IDG, or LinuxWorld -- whoever's responsible -- included the link on the same basis as they would any other external link. Maybe they even thought that highlighting this worldwide list was important in driving a point home. They made their journalistic point. Then the lawyers for the Suits noticed; rather than have that inconsistency noted for all and sundry to see (too late -- thanks, Scripting News), and to keep themselves from violating the law as interpreted by Kaplan, the suits pulled the plug.

Slashdot Top Deals

After a number of decimal places, nobody gives a damn.

Close