Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

DeCSS, From the Beginning 166

Posted by michael from the once-more,-with-emphasis dept.
An anonymous reader sent in a link to a presentation given by Tom Vogt at HAL 2001. He reviews the whole CSS/DeCSS mess from the beginning, which makes a it a nice backgrounder for people who are wondering what the Sklyarov, 2600 and other cases are all about.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DeCSS, From the Beginning More

DeCSS, From the Beginning

Comments Filter:
  • Ever wonder if there's any connection between these virus outbreaks and the issues the RIAA nad MPAA hold dear? Maybe I'm starting to sound like one of those "conspiracy theorists", but it seems funny that when an issue such as the fundamental loss of freedom presented by the DMCA is before us, it is eclipsed in the media by these horrible nasty internet worms and viruses. And at the end of the day if there is any mention of Skyarlov, it's "Oh...he's one of THEM!" (a hacker) and he's immediately equated with the authors of Code Red or Sircam and immediately he's views (and those of others like him)are invalidated, and he and all the other hackers should be locked up and the key thrown away, and humanity will be able to breathe easier and all will be well in MPAA-land!
  • There were dinosaurs. But they all died and turned to oil. The the Arabs came along and drilled that oil. With oil-based products we could make plastics and vinyl records. But we could record these vinyl records to tape and listen to them in our cars because of fair-use laws.

    Then things like intellectual property rights were invented. Next was the digital wonder of DVDs but you can't record them to anything else because they're encrypted. Laws were passed to protect the MPAA's IP rights. Someone discovered the keys to the MPAA's magic kingdom. Smarter people made several software programs to copy the DVDs so we could do whatever we wanted to with them.

    And then there were no fair-use laws.

    • BOTTOM LINE: If I can hear/see it. I can copy it. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Fortunetely no lawyer nor army of layers on the planet can force God to require installation of additional digital encrypted inputs to the ears and eyes with "copyright management" controls into our auditory and optic nerves. That bastard Creator! He's supporting piracy! Fear the day when genetic engineering makes such things possible and the RIAA/MPAA demanding it be made mandatory for all new beings. "They're just 'additional' inputs. No one HAS TO use them. They're harmless!"

      It's high time for a raining storm of fire and brimstone to cut down corporate lawyers a few notches. Their IP content just isn't in need of that much protection. And penalties for violations cannot justifiably be greater than those for rape, second degree murder, etc.

      Why should copying a CD for someone other than yourself receive any greater penalty than stealing that CD from a store?

      Copying for other than personal use is petty theft at best. AT BEST. I say that because in rality, it's LESS harmful than petty theft because the copying does not deprive anyone else, NOT ANYONE ELSE, of their copy of whatever. How can it be "theft" if nothing is missing? Yes, I'm trotting out the movie theater example. Unsold emtpy seats in a movie theater are not called losses or criminal theft. Yet if some kids sneak into those seats and watch the movie, a loss is declared of n kids * full fare ticket dollars? "Oh but what if kids sneaking in fill seats so paying customers can't find a seat". Well, if I make 50,000,000,000 copies of Win XP CDs, that doesn't block you from buying one, does it? Next question please?

      Note also that Microsoft does not report even one bleeping cent in lost revenue to piracy on their annual shareholders report. NT ONE CENT! Um, doesn't the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) require full disclosure of all profits, losses, expenses, etc. in that report? Don't people go to jail for long periods of time if they fudge numbers on this report? Not one cent reported lost to piracy.

      I guess piracy is a "loss" everywhere except where it counts, on financial reports, on tax documents, on investment prospectus, on insurance claims covering loss, etc.

      So do I think piracy is wrong? Yes! I do! I just think it's "seriousness" is way too exaggerated. And it becomes a more evil crime with harsher penalties every year to the point where it belittles the seriousness of other more real crimes. Beat up and fuck your unconscious girlfriend? Get a three day trial, zero dollar fine, three years in jail, and be able to go out with women again once you're out. Crack copy protection schemes? Get a 3 YEAR trial, a 5,000,000 dollar fine and 10 years in jail, and a ban from ever touching or getting near a computer ever again.

      Piracy: Bad, but not that bad.

      • Allow me to quote from a post [slashdot.org] a little further up the page.

        B5 DVDs (Score:-1, Offtopic)
        by Anonymous Coward on 11:40 AM August 12th, 2001 EDT (#44)

        Anyone know if they're gonna release the series on DVD? That's one boxed set I'm gonna buy no matter how much I hate MPAA and WarnerBros/TNT.

        When "additional digital encrypted inputs to the ears and eyes" are possible, there will be no need for laws making them mandatory. The content providers will release only for those inputs and the sheep will rush to the surgeons.

  • Public Discourse and IP (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hrieke ( 126185 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @11:14AM (#2113035) Homepage
    Sadly this story does not get the attention in the media that it really should. Yes there are a few blurs about 'Fair Use' here and there, but nothing that really that is open in the public forum. The only problem is that this is not some simple story, it's a rather hard and complex issue, one that the avg. American wouldn't know about or really give a fuck about. Public apathy will doom us in the end.
    Frankly if Sony and Paramount, etc. want to encrypt their media offerings then the should be forced to give a copy of the decrypting key to the Lirbary of Congress to held in escrow. The day that the copyright ends, those keys become public domain. End of story. No endless extentions to the life of the copyright either.
    I also feel that copyright should move to be more like patents, 20 years to explot, then 'The End', public domain.

  • appeal (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Idolatre ( 197068 )
    What happened to 2600's appeal of the court decision about DeCSS? Last time I heard from it, the judge had asked some questions about different forms of free speech, which they answered a long time ago.. and then, no news at all, not on slashdot and not on 2600.com..

    Did all media totally lost interest in the case and forgot mentionning the outcome? Or is it really taking so long for the judge to decide?
    • No decision has yet been rendered. I'm sure Slashdot will cover the result, even if CNN and MSNBC don't.

      Whatever the result, expect an appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • What the MPAA type people of the world fear about the Internet is that THEY don't control it. Every attack news report you have seen on TV - "predators roam the Internet trying to seduce your children" has as its root goal passing the MESSAGE: "Conventional media good Internet BAAAAAD . Quite correctly - people currently in positions of power fear a media which they can't control - it will eventually undermine their positions of power, authority, and privilege.

    To understand the DeCSS issue you have to understand the deeper issue of media control. The Internet is a communications media much in the same way that the air is a communications media for voice communications.

    To see what is really going on in attempts to control the Internet are substitute the word air for the word Internet in the following headline:

    Internet control necessary: predators using the Internet to go after YOUR (Children/Money/Identity (choose one))

    If anyone tried to use the above in an attempt to control the air it would be obvious to anyone with the snap of the village idiot that they were trying to get a strangle hold over everyone. That is what the battle is over. DeCSS is a test case: One in which people can be easily confused with plausible lies into misunderstanding. This is NOT just about money - it IS about obtaining a strangle hold over humanity.

  • Right to decode decss. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The thing I've never completely understood is what gives the DVD-CCA, or whatever they're called, the authority to license others to break encryption that effectively (although not that effectively) controls access to a copyrighted work? I understand that they're basically a front for those who developed the encryption scheme. Is the encryption or decryption scheme patented however? I haven't heard anything about patents on these techniques. So, if it's not patented, why do they have a special right to decrypt DVD's encoded with this technique? Is it just because of their special relationship with the major movie houses? If the encryption technique isn't patented, then can I create a home movie using this technique? If I do so, why shouldn't I have the right to create a player that can play it? Wouldn't they be violating the DMCA every bit as much as I would be since their licensed equipment could break the encryption on my copyrighted work?

    I'm not saying that the above is practical. I simply lack the knowledge to know why the above might be impractical. Any enlightenment on the issue would help me greatly. Because, if there are legal reasons why they can create CSS breakers and I can't, I'm getting the scary feeling that I'm also not legally allowed to know what those reasons are (NDA's and such). What I guess I'm really failing to grasp is how the movie industry major players can have this kind of control without being considered a Cartel. And aren't cartels illegal in the United States? Can anyone alleviate my confusion?

    • It's impractical because it's their keys used in the algorithm. Even if you encode something with CSS, you need to encode it to the keys of licensed devices. By encoding to their keys, you're giving permission to decrypt something. It would be like me writing my masterpiece, and encrypting to someone's public key, then going after them for breaking my encryption and destroying my IP rights by decrypting it. Unless I was forced to encrypt to something they can decrypt (ala key escrow), it was my choice to encrypt to them.

      Now, one thing I haven't seen discussed... Has anyone approached the CCA about becoming a licensed user of CSS? How much can be published? If the licensed app is GPL'ed, how much of the CSS code goes for the ride? $10k isn't all that much, in the scheme of things.

      What I guess I'm really failing to grasp is how the movie industry major players can have this kind of control without being considered a Cartel.

      One of the defining characteristics of a cartel is price collusion. When [mpaa | riaa | airlines | other greedy bastards] get together to fix prices, the FTC starts sniffing around.
  • All I can say to everyone complaining about the whole DeCSS affair is: DON'T BUY ANY MORE DVD'S. Send money to the Electronic Fronteir Foundation (www.eff.org). Voting with your wallet is the most effective thing you can do, aside from being the subject of one of these lawsuits, which most of us do not have the $$ to do.
    • "DON'T BUY ANY MORE DVD'S."

      I don't even have a DVD player, but that hasn't change the current state of affairs any.

      • I don't even have a DVD player, but that hasn't change the current state of affairs any.

        Nor do I, and I don't expect things to get better for a long time, but at least the RIAA/MPAA cannot use my money to sue people whom I believe are doing nothing wrong.

        I applaud your individualism in not buying DVD's. Perhaps you don't agree with my point, however, and that's fine. I can certainly respect your views. If you do agree with me, I'd urge you to take it a step further and not pay to see movies in the theater or by rental. I know it's hard not to pick up a video on a Saturday evening to watch with your significant other/spouse/kids, but you could try other ways of entertaining them, such as cooking a nice dinner, or even conversation. These are the things you will remember, not how many camera angles The Matrix DVD had.

  • When writing code is outlawed, only outlaws will write code.

    You can have my keyboard when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

    Cliches aside, I have been thinking for a while that geeks and the NRA now have a lot in common. The key to the issue is an interpretation of the constitution. Many of us believe that the DMCA is an abridgement of our first amendment rights. Let's do what the NRA does, let's lobby. Maybe we don't have the time or money to go to Washington, but we U.S. citizens can slashdot our senators [senate.gov] and our representatives. [house.gov] My one e-mail may not make the difference, but if we all send a polite e-mail expressing our concerns, we can make a difference. Contact your senators and representative. Let them know. They are becomming aware that there is a growing population of the technologically savvy. If they hear from enough of us, they will listen.

  • I am not in favor of DeCSS, or in favor of the way the MPAA has hounded people for using it. I am very much in the middle on this subject, thinking neither side is truely right, but neither is truly wrong. One thing I have noticed is that the pro-DeCSS side continually focuses on the "pirates" duplicating and sell DVD movies for profit, but completely ignores the people trading DVD movies on the internet. If you check any of the major file-sharing services (Morpheus, Gnutella and any of it's "front ends", etc) you will see hundereds of movies being traded every day. This piracy is completely different than the "pirates" selling copied DVDs as the real thing, and is also what the MPAA is focusing on. By ignoring these pirated copies (which do benefit substantially from DeCSS) you are fighting the wrong war. While the MPAA points this out, the pro-DeCSS forces point to other pirates and say "Well, we aren't as bad as them! Go after them instead!". This is a sure way to lose the war. This subject needs to be addressed in one way or another, and not just ignored. DeCSS can (and is) used for piracy, and just ignoring that fact will guarantee a lose in court. This si a subject that needs to be discussed, and either an explanation, or reason, or way to avoid it has to be found if you want any chance of coming out on top. Just pointing out that their are worse forms of piracy going on won't make any think that your's is okay.

    • Re:Ignoring the internet piracy... (Score:4, Informative)

      by shanek ( 153868 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @09:16AM (#2136838) Homepage
      DeCSS has nothing to do with piracy. A DVD must be decrypted to be viewed; it does not have to be decrypted to be copied since the players do the decrypting, plain and simple.

      DeCSS was part of an attempt to make a Linux DVD player. The DVD Consortium, however, is using the DMCA to go after everyone who makes a DVD player without buying a $10,000 license from them. That's what it's all about--that $10,000 dollars that they have no right to force out of programmers in the first place. All of this "pirating" nonsense is just the MPAA trying to justify their actions by making the programmers out to be pirates.

      The DMCA is a wicked law, and a blatant usurpation of our basic Constitutional rights. It must be fought.

      • A DVD must be decrypted to be viewed; it does not have to be decrypted to be copied since the players do the decrypting, plain and simple.

        I agree with the rest of your post, but it is easier to use DeCSS to convert the DVD into (say) an MPEG file and distribute that over the internet, than it is for `pirates' to distribute disc images and for the end person to write the DVD image on his DVD writer, and play it through an authorized player.

        I don't think that DeCSS should be illegal, because it can be used for legitimate purposes. But it's important to admit the facts to be able to be useful in any debate to that end.

        • I said it didn't have to be decrypted to be copied; not that it couldn't. And there are other (arguably easier) ways of changing the format than using DeCSS.

          My point was and is that DeCSS is far from a necessary tool for DVD copying, but it is a vital part of a DVD player--a player DVDs legally purchased by the consumer.


          • I agree with the rest of your post, but it is easier to use DeCSS to convert the DVD into (say) an MPEG file and distribute that over the internet, than it is for `pirates' to distribute disc images and for the end person to write the DVD image on his DVD writer, and play it through an authorized player.
            I said it didn't have to be decrypted to be copied; not that it couldn't. And there are other (arguably easier) ways of changing the format than using DeCSS.

            My point was and is that DeCSS is far from a necessary tool for DVD copying, but it is a vital part of a DVD player--a player DVDs legally purchased by the consumer.
            This may be true. However, I suspect the courts and, yes, even Congress will analyze the situation on a deeper, more statistical level.

            Honestly, what percentage of DeCSS use is for: (a) legitimate, legally recognized fair use purposes under the copyright law -- e.g., for archiving, playback on Linux and BSD systems, etc. ; compared to (b) the illegal purpose, under the copyright law, of copying movies to distribute to others over the net?

            Then there is the deeper, more fundamental point. You purchase a DVD. What makes you think you have a moral right to play it on a Linux system? What makes you think you have the legal right to play it on a Linux system? Simply the old, "Once I purchased it, its mine, I get to play it back on whatever system I want?"

            What if each DVD has (and perhaps is, or should be, required by law to have) prominently displayed on the front thereof a disclaimer: "NOTE: THIS DVD MAY BE LEGALLY PLAYED OR DISPLAYED ONLY ON A LICENSED DVD PLAYER. IF YOU INTEND TO PLAY OR DISPLAY THIS DVD ON A NON-LICENSED PLAYER DO NOT PURCHASE THIS DVD?"

            Is it that you honestly believe you, or other consumers are being misled? That you, or others, purchase DVDs believing they can be played on you Linux system only to be shocked, shocked to learn otherwise?

            Or is it that you believe you have a God given, natural law, pre-sociatal, and/or perhaps Constitutional right to play DVDs on your Linux system even if the seller sells it to you with the clear understanding, and with the honest admission, that they can be displayed only on licensed players?

            • In response, simply because a product, in this case DeCSS, might have more illegal uses than legal uses does not necessarily mean it should be made illegal. To me, it would mean two things: individuals are knowingly breaking copyright laws not caring about the consequences and if a large majority of people are engaged in such illegal acts, a better method for monitoring such actions needs to be created. This then becomes an issue for enforcing the laws not predicting the possible uses - or misuses - of a piece of software.

              But because many people decide to break the law so easily, does not mean the problem will be solved by making DeCSS illegal. If they care so little about copyright laws what is to stop them from finding another means. This other means will then need to be made illegal and then another means will be found. The problem isn't in the software, but rather with the morals of the people.

              And when I purchase a product, it is my right to use that product however I deem fit. Saying otherwise would restrict my freedom with respect to the product. What if every car manufacture required the consumer to take the car back to one of their dealerships for maintenance? Doing so would limit the consumers freedom of choice by forcing the consumer to always return to a dealership and pay whatever prices the dealer wanted to charge. Instead of having the option to shop around for a competitive price. This, of course, assumes the dealerships all work together trying to maximum their profit by charging the same prices. How would such a restriction affect taking your vehicle to a mom and pop automechanic shop?

              Requiring a DVD player to be used on a few systems, or not on a specific system - GNU/Linux for example - would also restrict my freedom in a way similar as the above example. Once you open this closet door, a lot could come tumbling out because the manufactures could then dictate how their product is to be used, repaired and maintained under penalty of the law.

              My freedom of use and choice is not a freedom I will give up lightly.


              • DISCLAIMER: I actually believe that the DMCA is poor public policy, and a bad law. I hope the Court's limit its impact to the extent legally possible, and that it is repealed. I think there is a better solution to the problem presented. However....

                In response, simply because a product, in this case DeCSS, might have more illegal uses than legal uses does not necessarily mean it should be made illegal.
                Conversely, the fact that DeCSS might have some legitimate uses does not necessarily mean it is, or should be, legal.

                My simple questions are as follows: Do the numbers matter? Does how DeCSS is actually used in the real world matter?

                If, hypothetically, as a matter of empirical fact, it turns out that 99% of DeCSS use is for an illegal, improper purpose (i.e., copying of DVDs for the purpose to distribution to others with no payment to the copyright holder), and only 1% of DeCSS use is for an arguably legal, proper purpose (i.e., play of DVDs on Linux, BSD systems, etc.), would it really be unreasonable, immoral or legally wrong (unconstitutional??) for Congress to make DeCSS illegal?

                The sad truth is this. Many things -- e.g., guns, pesticides, medications, locksmith tools, cars without airbags, tri-wheel off-road vehicles, etc. -- have both legitimate and illegitimate functions, or legitimate functions coupled with danger to society and its values. In all these cases and many more, the law is about finding a balance drawing lines. Frequently those who are on the loosing side in a democracy (or a republic as you will) either complain that: (a) they have a "right" to engage in the activity (without ever specifying where in the Constitution that right may arise); or (b) the "corrupt" "big money" "corporations" had an unfair advantage in the system. And you know what, sometimes, just sometimes (albeit far, far more often in the case of (b) above) they are right.

                And then the solution is what? Disregard the rule of law? Piss on Congress and vilify the courts? Take to the hills? Joke (hopefully), as some (not you) in this discussion have about blowing up buildings?

                To me, it would mean two things: individuals are knowingly breaking copyright laws not caring about the consequences and if a large majority of people are engaged in such illegal acts, a better method for monitoring such actions needs to be created.
                Why? Admitting that DeCSS has some legitimate and beneficial uses, if it in fact turns out that it's illegitimate uses far, far outweigh its legitimate ones, and that the most efficient way to prevent the unauthorized, uncompensated duplication and distribution of copyrighted digital material is to have the DMCA make DeCSS illegal, then why is Congress compelled to use less efficient means?
                This then becomes an issue for enforcing the laws not predicting the possible uses - or misuses - of a piece of software.
                Why? Law is often based on such predictions and empirical observations. The law frequently has to draw up a balance between benefit and burden.
                But because many people decide to break the law so easily, does not mean the problem will be solved by making DeCSS illegal.
                Of course not. Nothing is 100%. Nothing is ever "solved." But it may very well be the case that the DMCA will, as a practical matter, solve 90% or more of the problem of unauthorized, uncompensated distribution of digital material, and do so in a manner that is more efficient -- in terms of the total cost to society -- than any other alternative.
                If they care so little about copyright laws what is to stop them from finding another means.
                This is easy. "They" -- i.e., those who would violate copyright -- won't have the benefit of tools created by you, other Slashdotters, and other "geeks" to help them. :) (I am using the term "geek" as a term of high praise and distinction.) Creating DeCSS is, at least from my perspective, HARD. I'm a reasonably well-educated, intelligent non-"geek" guy, and I couldn't do it. Using DeCSS is, again from my perspective, easy. Hell, even I could use it.
                This other means will then need to be made illegal and then another means will be found. The problem isn't in the software, but rather with the morals of the people.
                "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." :)

                Now, I happen to be one of the people who think the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. But even constitutional rights can be limited if the limit is narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest (the current legal test). Few people who believe there is an individual Constitutional right to bear arms really believe there is an individual Constitutional right to own and possess tanks, artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and atomic weapons.

                You may think that is a bad, extreme example (although it does involve a recognized Constitutional right). You may be right. :) How about the following:

                Locksmith tools have many legitimate purposes. If I'm locked out of my house, I can get the tools from my hiding spot and let myself in! You might say I could just hide my keys outside. Ah, but what if my neighbor locks himself out, and didn't hide any keys? I could get my get my tools and, with his permission, let him into his house! A perfectly legitimate, and even laudable purpose.

                And in many jurisdictions, not sufficient. In many jurisdictions, mere possession of locksmith tools is a crime unless you are licensed as a locksmith. The relevant legislative body considered the legitimate uses and benefit to society, and weighed it against the illegitimate uses and possible cost to society, and drew a line. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to possess locksmith tools, or that a law outlawing their unlicensed possession is irrational or wrong.
                And when I purchase a product, it is my right to use that product however I deem fit.
                I keep hearing this, but no-one ever explains to me where this right comes from? Is this a God given right? A natural right that preexists government? A Constitutional right? If so, what Article and Clause?
                Saying otherwise would restrict my freedom with respect to the product.
                So what? You can legally purchase pesticides, but not only use them in certain areas under certain conditions. Hell, you can legally purchase an automobile but you can't drive it at 90 mph through most cities.
                What if every car manufacture required the consumer to take the car back to one of their dealerships for maintenance? Doing so would limit the consumers freedom of choice by forcing the consumer to always return to a dealership and pay whatever prices the dealer wanted to charge. Instead of having the option to shop around for a competitive price. This, of course, assumes the dealerships all work together trying to maximum their profit by charging the same prices.
                If the dealerships are all working together trying to maximize profit, this would violate antitrust law.
                How would such a restriction affect taking your vehicle to a mom and pop auto mechanic shop?
                If it was a contractual obligation, you would either refrain from taking your vehicle to the mom and pop auto mechanic shop, or you would be in breach of the contract. However, I wouldn't purchase an automobile from such a dealership.

                Then again, such service limitations already exist to some extent. If you don't have your scheduled maintenance and repairs done by an authorized shop, you void your warranty and lose its protection.

                Requiring a DVD player to be used on a few systems, or not on a specific system - GNU/Linux for example - would also restrict my freedom in a way similar as the above example. Once you open this closet door, a lot could come tumbling out because the manufactures could then dictate how their product is to be used, repaired and maintained under penalty of the law.
                You know what? I largely agree with you. As I stated above, I think the DMCA is poor public policy and a bad law. However, that does not mean it is unconstitutional or morally wrong. It certainly doesn't mean you have a right to disregard it, or to do whatever the hell you want anytime Congress passes a law you don't like.

                My freedom of use and choice is not a freedom I will give up lightly.
                Great! I hope you vote, are politically active, etc. Contribute to a legal defense fund.

            • Re:Ignoring the internet piracy... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by shanek ( 153868 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @02:35PM (#2144723) Homepage
              What the above two guys said, and also this:

              I just pulled out several DVDs from my collection and read them. None of them have the disclaimer you mention. They have the following: "This product is authorized for sale in U.S.A. only. This DVD is [or "these DVDs are" for 2-DVD sets] for private home viewing only. They are not authorized for any other use. All other rights reserved. Distributed by blah blah blah..."

              In their own legal disclaimers, they gave me explicit rights to private home viewing. No limitation is given for licensed players. The verbiage varies, but no mention is made on any of them for licensed players; therefore, I have the right to use any player I wish as long as it's for private home viewing.


              • I just pulled out several DVDs from my collection and read them. None of them have the disclaimer you mention. They have the following: "This product is authorized for sale in U.S.A. only. This DVD is [or "these DVDs are" for 2-DVD sets] for private home viewing only. They are not authorized for any other use. All other rights reserved. Distributed by blah blah blah..."

                In their own legal disclaimers, they gave me explicit rights to private home viewing. No limitation is given for licensed players. The verbiage varies, but no mention is made on any of them for licensed players; therefore, I have the right to use any player I wish as long as it's for private home viewing.
                You raise a very good point. However, let me ask:

                If the DVDs in fact had the disclaimer I mention above, would you still believe you have the moral right to display or play them on any unlicensed player? Would you have the legal right to do so?

                Is the issue for you solely one of misrepresentation, or failure to disclose, on the part of the DVD manufacturer?

    • Re:Ignoring the internet piracy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by coupland ( 160334 ) <dchase@ho[ ]il.com ['tma' in gap]> on Sunday August 12, 2001 @09:36AM (#2138040) Journal

      You are missing the entire moral ground here. Pirating DVDs is *illegal* and no one should do it. Anyone who really understands this issue would agree. But DeCSS is simply decryption code that has a multitude of perfectly legal uses.

      Unfortunately the media giants have pressured the goverment to make decryption itself illegal if the work is copyrighted. Panty-hose can be used to cover your face during a bank heist BUT YOU CAN STILL BUY THEM! Rather than prosecuting people for encryption algorithms they should be prosecuting the people using [ DeCSS | Napster | CD-R Drives | insert evil technology here ] to illegally trade in copyrighted works.

      That is called being impartial. Endorsing the misinformation that the media giants are spewing about the "evils" of DeCSS is not.

  • IP law is a system of law describing what people can and cannot do over Internet Protocol-based networks. The MPAA and RIAA (Motion Picture Associaton of America and Recording Industry Artist's Association) decided that IP-based networks were a bad thing, since it became possible to transmit files over the networks containing copyrighted materials (data) without authorization.

    The problem is that you can't really state that something like that is illegal, without making IP itself illegal. Take voice over IP (voIP) as an example. You could theoretically say something, a catch phrase, that is well known from a movie that the MPAA would consider copyrighted - would that then make voIP illegal ? No, of course not.

    So the RIAA and MPAA are really fighting a losing battle here. Even if they ban IP-based networks entirely, what about BBSes? Or even if they banned electronic communication entirely, what's stopping you from cutting CDs with copyrighted materials on them and swapping them with other CD cutters? They could try and ban CD-Rs, but there'll always be SOME way of getting information to people without paying the corporation which holds the rights to that information.

    • Funny maybe (if intentional). Insightful no. Allthough, the author makes accidentally an unintended interesting point.

      How about
      without making IP itself illegal.

      The notion of making intellectual property illegal is admirable. We have slogans such as knowledge is power, information wants to be free. Making intellectual property illegal, would be interesting. It means it would be a crime to hide information from the public domain. This causes new dilemmas, especially with regards to privacy. We would need legislation to decide which information is private, and which information is of interest to the public.

      Did you know for example, that Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speach is copyrighted?

      • the author makes accidentally an unintended interesting point

        ... and all that just from mixing up IP (Intelectual Property) with IP (Internet Protocol). As a sidenote: if you outlaw IP (the Internet Protocol) you outlaw the Internet. Anything you put in place of that is not the Internet and should be called different. Don't let anyone get away with 'innovating' a 'new' Internet or somesuch, so that their restricted-net is not confused with the internet (although some organisations already work hard to pervert the basic idea of the internet, namely to have a network of freely communicating participants).

  • DMCA voice vote (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is there any way to force them to reveal how they voted? Or will we be subjected to more of these bastard laws that no one will take credit for. At what point, I wonder, does a democracy become illigitimate for all practical purposes. Where the machinery is still chugging along appearing to be working, producing output that gets incorporated into our lives. But in reality the machine that everyone sees doesn't produce anything. The decisions being created in some far away place and inserted at the proper time to complete the illusion.

    I hope it hasn't come to this. A speedy revelation of who voted for what and an explanation of how this happened would make me feel a lot better

    • In the senate (S.2037), the vote was unanimous: 99-0. The only one who didn't vote was Sen. Gregg from NH.

      In the House, it passed by voice vote, but here are the bill's (H.R.2281) sponsors and cosponsors:

      • Rep Coble, Howard (Sponsor)
      • Rep Berman, Howard L. - 2/11/1998
      • Rep Bono, Mary - 6/5/1998
      • Rep Bono, Sonny - 9/26/1997
      • Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 7/29/1997
      • Rep Frank, Barney - 7/29/1997
      • Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/29/1997
      • Rep McCollum, Bill - 1/27/1998
      • Rep Paxon, Bill - 6/5/1998
      • Rep Pickering, Charles (Chip) - 6/22/1998
      Coble was also the one who moved to suspend the bylaws and pass the law by voice vote.

      • Coble was also the one who moved to suspend the bylaws and pass the law by voice vote.

        Some one in an earlier thread mentioned that the EFF can't post a roster of the vote because it would embarass members of the house so much that future disscussion/negotiation would be impossible.

        But we do know there are few congressmen who are so bought there is no hope.

        Is there a legal way to confront Coble in the senate during it's session and make him explain why he thought this matter required special consideration? Why should anyone request anonimity, in the face of overwhelming popular support?What is the motivation to keep the results a secret?

        I'd like to see that on the CNN live broadcast.

  • When Bionic vision comes around... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:42PM (#2128015) Homepage Journal
    In 10 years I hope to get artificial vision implants, because of my poor eyesight.

    Imagine, I can watch something, then use my built-in TiVO in my bionic eye to watch again and again.

    Think the DMCA means I can't go to a movie theater or watch a DVD?

  • What Kosh would say (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12, 2001 @08:36AM (#2128159)
    "So it begins... The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
  • A DeCSS Gallery [cmu.edu]. Enjoy DeCSS in Traditional Haiku [cmu.edu].
    For more information, here is the main page [cmu.edu]. E
  • Should go to the EFF http://www.eff.org [eff.org]

    'nuff said....

  • ACM talks about DeCSS, Sklyarov, at SIGGRAPH (Score:3, Informative)

    by davey23sol ( 462701 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @04:48PM (#2130031) Journal
    Today is day one at SIGGRAPH, and there has already been a course on Public Policy issues, including mentions of Sklyarov, DeCSS, the Felten case, and others.

    During the presentation, USACM co-chair Barbara Simons announced that tomorrow ACM is going to release a "declaration" strongly in Favor of Felten, and that ACM is going to take a strong stance on the Felten case. The group is starting to worry that the anti-circumvention provisions are getting close to "criminializing" a lot of work being done by ACM members, and they think that some of the papers being submitting for an upcoming conference are close to doing the same thing Felten did and that there could be trouble. They said that ACM is going to take some strong anti-DMCA stances.

    Check out the web site in the morning for the declaration. It's not up yet, but it will be up at http://www.acm.org and/or http://www.acm.org/
  • I'm just waiting until somebody arrests somebody from M$ under the DMCA.

    The law is a nice lad donkey with a ribbon around her eyes. While its okay when she's just holding some scales, (who knows what she's weighing?) I KNOW I wouldn't let my kids swing a double edged sword around blindfolded.

    Somebody will get miffed and being reverse-engineered and take M$ to court. Then the DMCA will be quickly made un-enforcable.
    • No, Microsoft will pour money onto lawyers to reach and agreeable settlement, as rich corporations can fork out lawyers as FreeBSD can spawn new jobs.

      One of the (many) problems with the DMCA is that 99% of the consumers out there do not have the legal resources to defend themselves from the chilling effects of this twisted law.
  • I'm not sure how hard it is to get the actual code these days, but I thought this might be a good opportunity to spread it a little. I'll put a tarball up on my machine [193.180.245.87] for a couple of hours. Don't wanna get sued ;-).
  • It looks like all those cyberpunkers were right: the fight of the 21st cen. is between the big evil corporations and the hackers.

    And I mean `hackers' in the Steven Levy sense, ie programmers building free software, not those lame script kiddies and their worms.

    RMS is correct: it's about *freedom*.

    Of course, thanks to _Shadowrun_, _Netrunner_ and numerous other simulations we are *honed*.
  • In Argentina the copyright law doesn't even allow making copies for personal use of anything.
    You cannot make a tape from a CD you bought so you can listen to it in the car.

    The industry doesn't care about that kind of copies, but they are illegal.

    Just FYI.

  • CSS Encrypter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kreyg ( 103130 ) <kreyg@s[ ].ca ['haw' in gap]> on Sunday August 12, 2001 @02:22PM (#2134095) Homepage
    OK, we have DeCSS... do we have code that actually ENCRYPTS stuff with CSS? What if people widely started encrypting their own works with CSS, (not as secure encryption, just as slightly-better-than-ROT13) then there would be an obvious reason to have it.

    Could decrypting your own work actually be illegal?
    • If you encrypt stuff with CSS without having paid that humongous license fee, then you are probably in violation of the law (a law, some law) without regard to whether you decrypt it or not.
      • As far as I know, the licensing fees would apply to the use of the names/logos associated with being an official DVD title. It might have to be handled delicately, but it should be legal to implement the algorithm. Unless they have patented the algorithm, in which case it would be next to useless to them, since we wouldn't even have to reverse engineer it, the patent would state it clearly and publicly.

        Would be interesting to test the reaction though. :-)

  • We can have the internet or we can have digital intellectual property-- but not both. Though many of us are middle-of-the-road in our opinions, the nature of the technology makes the issue fundamentally bipolar: there is no middle ground.

    If citizens are allowed to automatically send and receive encrypted messages over the internet, then there is no way to enforce digital intellectual property laws. Unless we start executing copyright infringers, the 0.0001% enforcement that might be possible against a Freenet-type system isn't going to alter behavior. Digital IP is dead.

    On the other hand, if citizens are not allowed to automatically send and receive encrypted messages over the internet, then the internet is dead. Yes, you can still dump your money into corporate web sites and post your baby pictures. But many potential applications are ruled out. And, more importantly, the internet is destroyed as a free speech medium: no longer can one use it to routinely circulate documents against the wishes of the usual elites.

    Digital people are typically too prone to see issues in black and white. In this case, however, the issue really is black or white: we can have the internet, or we can have digital IP. Probably a lot of us wish that the choice weren't so stark, but it is.

  • IP Law is Intellectual Property law, which pretty much everyone here should have heard about. The DMCA regulates the copyrights on those elements of intellectual property, therefore making it illegal to break an encryption scheme.

    It's a law written by corporate suits and bought congressmen, not techies. Therefore it supports the interests of the corporations.

    The kicker? RIAA and MPAA are constantly saying "were protecting the artists" - which is funny because with DVD, most of the people who worked on the film (Screen Actors Guild [SAG], Writers Guild of America [WGA] and the Directors Guild of America [DGA]) were fighting with the producers (represented by Jack Valenti and the MPAA) because they weren't getting residuals on DVD or Internet. Aka, the only people making money were the producers. Who have too much already. And trying to sway public opinion by saying "we're working for the artists". Same thing with the Napster suit.

    The problem is this:

    Who controls the copyright?

    If it's an artist directly controlling it, then he/she has the right to license and/or give it away for free. With music, if you walk into a bar and hear "Hit me baby one more time" that bar is paying royalties to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC to play that song. Same with radio. If they don't and an ASCAP laywer hears it? Slapped with a hefty fine.

    This doesn't happen on the internet because of it's transient and anonymous nature. I am all for protecting artist rights, but it needs to benefit the artist. Not some jacka$$ in a board room in new york who pays the artist 5 cents per record sold or the producers that make money while the crew doesn't (my sister's workin for her DGA membership, so I hear about this crud *daily*.)

    Down with the man. yeah.

  • DMCA Voting record? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blogan ( 84463 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @08:38AM (#2136860)
    Does anyone have a list of which senators and representatives voted for the DMCA? I tried the LOC, but all I got was when it was passed, not the voting records.
    • 2600 says it was a voice vote, as well as unanimous.

    • Re:DMCA Voting record? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by guygee ( 453727 )
      I have looked for this information as well, and while I expect it is available online somewhere, it is not easily located. I searched the the EFF site, but the voting records are either not there or not easily found. Perhaps this is not surprising, since the EFF is a lobbying organization that needs to maintain good relations with the congressmembers and their staff in order to remain effective. What is needed is a more radical branch of the digital free speech movement that identifies and campaigns for sympathetic congressman and congressional candidates, and also actively campaigns against politicans who have shown themselves to be the lackeys and prostitutes of industry.

      Slashdot, while a great resource for staying informed, is not a very useful organizing tool. What is needed is an online organizing resource that is more politically active and more radicalized than EFF, a supplement to the EFF modeled along the lines of Sinn Fein vs. IRA militants. Sladly, Slashdot is not sufficient, as we all too quickly move on to the new cool toy/outrage du jour.

      • Re:DMCA Voting record? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Sir.Cracked ( 140212 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @11:10AM (#2114698) Homepage
        I heard at one point that it was a voice vote. Now, I would hope that Congress wouldn't be so irresponsible to pass such huge legislation in a way that didn't leave us with any record of who voted for and against it, but if they were responsible, we wouldn't have this damn thing in the first place. And it does serve as an explination as to why it's so hard to find a voting record.
        • "Now, I would hope that Congress wouldn't be so irresponsible to pass such huge legislation in a way that didn't leave us with any record of who voted for and against it, but if they were responsible, we wouldn't have this damn thing in the first place."

          Simple solution: Because the DMCA is now law, we know that the majority of congresscritters voted for it. Therefore, if they were in office at the time, odds are they voted for it and it's safe to vote against them next election.

          Sure, maybe you'll vote out somebody that actually voted against the law, but it's their own fault for not speaking up more loudly against the law and generally help the law come about through their inaction.

        • First: I did some research on the voting record one of the last times this subject came up, and after a little digging, I found that it passed the House by a voice vote (no record) and passed the Senate by unanimous consent (no one said "no", one person abstained). The house sub committee that approved it voted to recommend it to the full House with a vote of 41-0.

          Second: Did this piece of legislation get any media attention before we figured out what a crock it is? My guess is that no one figured that it was that big a deal, and very little attention was placed on the wording. Very few pieces of legislature are closely scrutinized. You might be surprised how much is passed with this little effort.

      • What is needed is a more radical branch of the digital free speech movement ...

        www.anti-dmca.org [anti-dmca.org]
        eurorights.org [eurorights.org]

    • Voting records as well as the complete text are in the Congressional Record, the full text of which is available over the net...one link is here [gpo.gov] (check year 1998, subject "copyright") The bottom line is that the votes in both House and Senate were essentially unanimous. There was remarkably little discussion on the obvious conflict of the bills (HR. 2281, S. 2037) with the First Amendment, even from those who normally support individual freedoms over government regulation. In fact, quite a number of speeches implied that the DMCA was somehow a key part of defending the freedom of speech. Now that we've seen it actually implemented, it seems pretty clear that the true intent was quite different.
  • I have it documented here [calleballz.com]. It is my first and only 'cease & decist' letter. I can't say that what I did wasn't wrong, but it sucks that my DSL had to go away for a while...
    • If they took the money they spent trawling fserves and used it to lower the price, maybe people wouldn't bother. That has to be _incredibly_ time consuming. OTOH, is it possible that someone in the channel was pissed at you and sent the DCC log to the MPAA?
    • MPAA wanted to shut off your DSL and wanted your server offline? I always love it when private entities try to be the law enforcement (a good recent example: Acme Rent A Car and speeding fines). They don't have that type of authority. MPAA only has the authority to ask you to remove the copyrighted material, and that's it. If you don't comply, they can sue you and get the court to decide what you should do. But that's it. By wanting to shutdown the server and revoke your internet access, they overstepped their legal bounds. It's the ISP's job (not MPAA) to determine whether or not you violated their Terms of Service and whether or not to knock you offline.
  • The same fuss was never made about European VCRs that can play back NTSC tapes on PAL TVs. I guess that is the difference between open and closed standards.

    When will they bow down gracefully and let me watch the DVD I purchased regardless of my location.

  • CSS uses DMCA to protect license, not encryption (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NanoProf ( 245372 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @01:33PM (#2137101)
    Upon reading of the 100+ page license for CSS, I had a thought- DMCA isn't protecting the encryption; it's protecting the license for CSS. Wrap a weak encryption around a product, and only allow legal decryption if you agree to an onerous license. It doesn't matter how weak the encryption is, that's not the point. The point is to force agreement to the terms of the license. This seems to have legal ramifications, since if the purpose of the encryption is not to encrypt, but to activate the DMCA and thereby force the licensing terms, then it's not really encryption; it's a licensing ploy. So perchance then it doesn't fall under DMCA anymore, since the intention of the scheme isn't really encryption but licensing?
    • I have to agree with shanek. If there is no EULA-style "You Must Agree To/Not To..." before opening a DVD, then use of ANY tool to decrypt DVDs IS not and CANNOT be made illegal.

      I mean, a precedent was set last month or maybe even earlier involving the Netscape license: they had a license posted for downloaded software, but they didn't MAKE anyone view it -- they merely linked to it on the download page or something, from what I understand. The judge ruled that a license that the user doesn't have to SEE can't be legally binding -- what about one that the user doesn't even know EXISTS (except in the MPAA's (legal dept's) heads, of course)?

      Pity, though, I was hoping the MPAA and the ignorance of our gov't would cause a revolution during which most things would be made kick-ass...open up source code, freely distribute all kinds of media/art forms...
    • Someone using DeCSS never agreed to that license, so the license for them would be invalid. The law in question prohibits circumvention of an access method.
    • > Upon reading of the 100+ page license for CSS

      You read a copy? Is the following author's allegation true?

      > The CSS License

      > Is only available under NDA, or so it seems. The DVD CCA website makes a few .pdf files available with procedures, but not the
      > license itself. There are a number of references to NDAs on the DVD FLLC website (FLLC is the Format Logo Licensing
      > Corporation, which apparently licenses the DVD logo you see on every player and DVD disc).
      > In a presentation, John Hoy, president of DVD CCA, mentions that the CSS license consists of "218 carefully crafted pages",
      > and until someone violates the NDA and leaks the actual document (both Lemuria.org and Cryptome would surely be
      > happy to publish it) . . .

      It's hard to obey the rules when there are barriers to learn what they are.

      Geoff

  • Toshiba and Matsushita developed CSS, most likely answering requests from the movie mafia. One Toshiba employee, John Hoy, then left Toshiba and formed the DVD CCA, whose sole business is the management of CSS licenses. [...] The diagram shows boxes for the Executive Director of every organization, but does not put a name there. We can correct that omission. The name in every one of those boxes is "John Hoy". [...] If identical presidents and postal addresses are not enough, here is additional proof for the theory that all the organisations above are just different fronts for the same group: [etc]

    So it looks like out chief criminal in charge out of all this stuff is "John Hoy". This is important. One of the things that a criminal mind hates is exposure, especially of their crimes.

    Sounds like a job for some someone out there skilled in investigation. It _is_ important. As it is noted:

    Judging from the history of these organisations, and the extreme care everyone has shown to make the various arrangements as complex and bullet-proof as possible, the main reason is almost surely an attempt at exploiting the law and legal system to the fullest extent, and the avoidance of cartel and anti-trust investigations.

  • One line of questions I'd like to see MPAA answer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mekanix ( 127309 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @12:27PM (#2140303)
    One line of questions I'd like to see MPAA answer would be:

    1) Do they believe in the fair use rights for consumers?
    2) Do they believe in the right for anyone to reverse engineer any technology.

    If yes, that would imply that any user or group of users would be allowed to playback any DVD's in any ways they (the consumer) see fit?

    How would MPAA suggest a consumer to exercise their rights to create a tool to playback a DVD without infringing on the DMCA?

    And how would said tool not end up being a tool for copying as well?

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Close