Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Encryption Media Movies Security News Your Rights Online

DVD CCA Drops Case; DeCSS Not a Trade Secret 362

Posted by jamie from the put-a-t-shirt-on dept.
jon787 writes "EFF is reporting that the DVD CCA is dismissing its case against Andrew Bunner. He was being prosecuted under California's trade secret laws for redistributing DeCSS. This means that the DVD CCA has finally conceded that CSS is no longer a secret, something the rest of us have known for a few years now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DVD CCA Drops Case; DeCSS Not a Trade Secret More

DVD CCA Drops Case; DeCSS Not a Trade Secret

Comments Filter:

  • One down... (Score:4, Funny)

    by irving47 ( 73147 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:46PM (#8060446) Homepage
    SCO to go...

  • DeCSS (Score:5, Funny)

    by (1337) God ( 653941 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:46PM (#8060453)
    /* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root@ihack.net> */
    /* */
    /* Thanks to Phil Carmody <fatphil@asdf.org> for additional tweaks. */
    /* */
    /* DVD-logo shaped version by Alex Bowley <alex@hyperspeed.org> */
    /* */
    /* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob */

    #define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<

    unsigned char x[5] ,y,s[2048];main(
    n){for( read(0,x,5 );read(0,s ,n=2048
    ); write(1 ,s,n) )if(s
    [y=s [13]%8+20] /16%4 ==1 ){int
    i=m( 1)17 ^256 +m(0) 8,k =m(2)
    0,j= m(4) 17^ m(3) 9^k* 2-k%8
    ^8,a =0,c =26;for (s[y] -=16;
    --c;j *=2)a= a*2^i& 1,i=i /2^j&1
    <<24;for(j= 127; ++j<n;c=c>
    y)
    c

    +=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,
    i=i>>8^y<<17,a^=a>>14,y=a^a*8^a<<6,a=a
    &nbs p; >>8^y<<9,k=s[j],k ="7Wo~'G_\216"[k
    &7]+2^"cr3sfw6v;*k+>/n."[k>>4]*2^k*257/
    &nbsp ; 8,s[j]=k^(k&k*2&34)*6^c+~y
    ;}}

  • Full Press Release (Score:5, Informative)

    by mpav ( 101167 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:47PM (#8060464) Homepage
    Full Press release is available here [dvdcase.org].

  • distro's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by byrd77 ( 171150 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:47PM (#8060468) Homepage
    so does this mean the varios linux distro's will be able to include a dvd player by default? could be a boon to wider acceptance on the desktop, especially at home

    • MPEG2 is still patented, right? Free version still not possible I think (could be wrong tho).

    • Re:distro's (Score:2, Informative)

      by ElGnomo ( 612336 )
      you can already play DVDs with mandrake 9.2. Dont remember the app's name though. Is this feture really missing in most distros?

    • Re:distro's (Score:5, Funny)

      by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:06PM (#8060630) Journal
      " so does this mean the varios linux distro's will be able to include a dvd player by default?"

      Yep, as soon as we can find a DVD player in this damn spaghetti System V code.

    • Probably not. CSS may not be a trade secret any longer, but there's also the problem that under the DMCA any open source DVD player could be considered a circumvention device and thus illegal.

      The DVD CCA and motion picture studios were separately suing (or threatening to sue) people over both issues: the trade secret and the redistribution of a circumvention device. I got a C&D letter about the later myself. 2600 magazine was sued on grounds of the later also. Unfortunately 2600 lost, and they lost on

  • So if something is released to the public... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cartzworth ( 709639 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:48PM (#8060474) Journal
    ...whether or not it is by the company that created it, it ceases to be a trade secret in the case of proprietary encryption schemes?

    • Re:So if something is released to the public... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:08PM (#8060649)
      The entire point of a "trade secret" is that it is secret. Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection: both of those require that you disclose that which you are attempting to protect. I mean, you can't tell the patent office "I've got this way cool invention that will make me a billion dollars and I want patent protection but I don't want to tell you or anyone else how it works." Full disclosure is part of the process: your invention may be trivial , totally unoriginal, or absolutely brilliant, but you do have to disclose it in your patent app.

      If you choose to NOT seek patent or copyright protection and choose to protect it yourself, you are SOOL if the secret gets out anyway. For example, Coca Cola takes extreme measures, both within its' organization and without, to prevent anyone from learning the actual formula for Coke, because they've never patented it and if it does get out they would lose their monopoly on the Coke taste lickety split.

      • Re:So if something is released to the public... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by taustin ( 171655 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:17PM (#8060730) Homepage Journal
        Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection.

        I don't know what kind of dope you're smoking, but it must be good stuff. Copyright always applies, published or not.
        • This is somewhat simplistic, but copyright covers the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself (that's where a patent would come in).

          So if a trade secret is released, I can implement it in my own way, and not run afoul of copyright laws.

          -- Joe
          • Other way around. Copyrights cover ideas, PATENTS cover implementations. That was why, a long time ago, you could not receive a patent unless you could demonstrate a working invention, i.e., an implementation. Personally, I think the removal of that requirement has been the source of a lot of recent problems with patents in the U.S.
        • First, you are correct inasmuch as your post implies that copyright applies regardless whether a creator has sought its protection. Unlike a patent, copyright protections attach as soon as a creative work is set into a tangible form.

          Second, though, the original poster is correct that copyright cannot apply to unpublished or unrevealed works. That is, a story that one creates and recites without fixing to tangible form is not protected by copyright, but the same story published in text (or even recorded i

        • Re:So if something is released to the public... (Score:5, Informative)

          by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:37PM (#8060950)
          Trade secrets do not enjoy copyright or patent protection.

          I don't know what kind of dope you're smoking, but it must be good stuff. Copyright always applies, published or not.

          The word "secret" refers to the content, not the "tangible" form. Let's say you have a secret; "Dear diary, last night I robbed the 7-11." If I find your diary and rephrase that secret - as in "The 7-11 was robbed by taustin last night" - that's bona fide freedom of information right there.

          Obviously in the case of CSS the DeCSS implementation wasn't a direct lift of any existing code; it was reverse-engineered, and not copied from existing code.

          Freedom of information(gathering) is one of the basic tenets of democracy; without it, there is no free press. Of course, there are always companies looking to infringe upon it, even to the extent of pushing for laws that establish so-called "database rights" or pretending that trade secrets are secret when they're not secret any more.

          Also note that the US government has a lot of files that are secret, but not copyright protected.

          IANAL but I belief this is a case of "cattus ex sacculo est". (the cat's out the bag)
      • Like this [snopes.com] sort of extreme measure? :-)
      • prevent anyone from learning the actual formula for Coke, because they've never patented it and if it does get out they would lose their monopoly on the Coke taste lickety split.

        Frankly, the formula doesn't really matter. It's a friggin cola, which all contain water, sugar, caramel color, and caffeine. What really makes Coke so popular is the billions it spends in marketing.

        • Well, it does matter, and the secrecy of that formula is why Coke is able to spend those billions and get a return on the investment. If it became known that the precise formula used by Coca Cola Corporation to make their product were common knowledge, said product would be come significantly less valuable. Someone may very well have already hit upon their formula, but they'll never, ever, admit it.

          I don't drink the stuff anyways. Like you said, it's basically colored, flavored sugar-water. Not health
    • Obviously something that has been revealed is no longer a secret, but that doesn't mean someone can't be sued successfully for revealing the information.

      Otherwise the whole purpose of having a trade secret would be circumvented and no companies would bother with it.

      I haven't followed this case closely, but I doubt that any NDA's were violated. I suspect that that was the primary weakness of the case.

  • Does this mean? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Facekhan ( 445017 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:48PM (#8060480)
    Does this mean that Xine and Mplayer can now be distributed with libdvdcss included.

  • Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:48PM (#8060481)
    I'd just like to take a minute to thank the EFF. You can help them by donating [eff.org].
    • ...at the risk of sounding like a "Me too" AOLer, the EFF is an organization that is often overlooked. If any of you are big-time managers of fortune 500 companies, and need a tax-break, I would highly suggest kicking a few million down to them. You would be truly 1337. Think IBM. Think Intel (on the weeks they are on our side), Think Novell. You could be seen as the same, and have linux coders clammoring to make your code/hardware/whatever better.

      Just my $.02

  • so (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pvt_medic ( 715692 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:50PM (#8060495)
    does that basically kill thier argument about anything that copies DVD because if it is public knowledge anyone can do what they want
    • The technology to read the data may now be public domain / not illegal, but there are still Copyright infringement issues with copying DVD content.

      madCow.

  • CCA finally concedes CSS is no longer a secret... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dodgyville ( 660660 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:50PM (#8060499) Homepage Journal
    Now if we can only get the Beatles to finally admit that Paul is dead, then that will mean the two most important but worst-kept secrets in the world will have been revealed on one day.

  • And I still... (Score:5, Funny)

    by downix ( 84795 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:50PM (#8060501) Homepage
    haven't gotten the damned t-shirt yet. 8(

    Ok, thinkgeek here I come!

  • Hurrah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by BeneathTheVeil ( 305107 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:51PM (#8060507) Journal
    Let the mass pirating of DVDs begin!

    ...what?

  • Will it be easier to get region-free players? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:52PM (#8060513) Homepage Journal
    One would think that all the DVD player manufacturers will now start making region-free players, but that might not be the case because they have contracts with the DVD-CCA that forbids them from doing so.

    I've so far avoided getting a dedicated DVD player just because they have region coding, preferring to use a software-based open source dvd player.

    But it's sure not as convenient or as pleasant to watch DVDs on my laptop as it would be on my TV with a dedicated player. For one thing, my laptop doesn't have a remote control.

    • from well, anywhere but the US? :)

      Though what's always annoyed me is that they're more expensive, not much, but slightly. So the mass market buys region locked ones. Then again, I should probably be glad there are at all.

      Kjella

      • Re:Import one.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:30PM (#8060871)
        from well, anywhere but the US? :)

        I can buy one at the Japanese market down the street from me for $119. They do exist in the US, you just have to know where to look. Of course, a wide variety of web sites sell them too.

        It's moot in terms of this discussion, though, because CSS has nothing to do with region coding. My player's region free but it's still CSS-protected - you can't make a digital copy of DVD's even if you could somehow connect a PC to it. My old Apex player would remove the CSS protection but as far as I know there was nothing you could really do with the resulting data (unless someone did eventually invent a cable and connector to do it... but then why not just use a DVD-ROM drive to begin with?).

        My point? I have no point. Well, maybe just that we should clarify what CSS really does before talking about what the removal of it can do for us. Using DeCSS is not going to remove region coding on your DVD player (not like you could use it on a standalone player anyway), nor is it going to do it for you on a DVD-ROM drive (though other commonly-available firmware utilities will).
    • Just out of curiosity, on average how many DVDs that you watch are made for regions other than the one you live in?
      • None so far, but that's because I haven't traveled much the last few years.

        I'd like to be able to bring back DVDs with me when I do travel, because I know there are some not available to me here, and when I do, I want to watch them.

      • Re:Will it be easier to get region-free players? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:11PM (#8060679) Journal
        Just out of curiosity, on average how many DVDs that you watch are made for regions other than the one you live in?
        Not many, some though maybe 20% for me (I'm from Europe). But that is not the point. If I want to buy DVD's in Asia why should I not be allowed to do so?
        The whole point behind the region coding is to stiffle competition and control distrobution so the prices on the DVD's can be kept artificially high. Without region coding the prices on both players and DVD's would have been lower.
        • You know it is also wuite possible they could cost more money?

          If they cherry pick what proffits (per unit) they can from the poorer areas, by selling them at a price that would not be sustanable if they all cost that, but still make them a few extra dollors. They can use that money to repay some of the overhead of producing a movie.

          If the average price was used, the poorer areas could not buy any DVDs, so now we in the affluent areas have the burden of repaying more of the production cost ourselves, whic
      • There are many films that get published in one region but not the other. For example the Polish film "The Saragossa Manuscripts" which was filmed in Spain is only available as a Region 1 (US) encoded DVD. I am in Europe and can not watch a European film because of the greed and stupidity of these $@!$ media oligopolies. Quite ironic really.

        I bought it anyhow because it is really original: it was a favorite of the Greatful Dead lead singer. But I can't watch it on my PowerBook laptop or our home DVD player

      • I've watched plenty. I live a couple miles from a great video rental store [scarecrow.com]. I bought a Malata 310 [yahoo.com] online and have been reasonably satisfied. The only downside is the screen gets squished if the DVD is PAL *and* widescreen. Malata makes some more expensive models that handle PAL+widescreen, supposedly.

        One example of what I watched was the DVD box set for the TV show Angel -- the PAL version was released almost a year before the NTSC version. Scarecrow had the PAL version for rental the moment it came

      • I have a few US imports. Roughly 7 or 8, and about 40 or so UK releases. It's actually rarely worth importing these days. The ones I have either showed no signs of becoming available in England for many months, or had feautres that aren't on the region 2 release.

        The principle of the thing is important though. At first, the region 2 releases were extremely sparse of features. Because the European distributors had to compete with the US editions, they had to add the features.
    • You just needed to buy one DVD player per region you wanted to watch.

      I don't think any DVD players are incapable of playing DVDs from other regions. They just lock you into a region after certain criteria are met.

      So really, this whole exercise didn't prevent anything it was intended to prevent and just lined the pockets of DVD player manufacturers.

      With players comming down to $50 or less, there's less and less incentive to not purchase an additional player for other regions.

      And there already are DVD pl

  • Linux? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:52PM (#8060514) Journal
    Does this mean I can finally watch encrypted DVDs on Linux without having the fear of the FBI crashing through my windows?

    • Re:Linux? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:02PM (#8060595) Homepage
      Does this mean I can finally watch encrypted DVDs on Linux without having the fear of the FBI crashing through my windows?

      No, the SCO case is not settled yet.

      (HOW-TO: Mix SCO into a COMPLETELY unrelated story...)

      Kjella
    • 1. Sure, but you still have to worry about your Windows crashing. 2. Sure, assuming you've paid SCO their $650 3. Don't buy DVDs! Stick it to the MPAA! Any others?

    • Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CGP314 ( 672613 )
      Does this mean I can finally watch encrypted DVDs on Linux without having the fear of the FBI crashing through my windows?

      Who do you think you are? Zero cool?

      --
      In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]

      American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]

    • Re:Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @07:32PM (#8061476) Homepage

      You can't be prosecuted under the DMCA for having Ogle or DeCSS or the like on your computer, and using the program to play DVDs that you have obtained legally. The DMCA only forbids "trafficking" in technology that circumvents copyright protection measures, not use of such technology.

      You could still theoretically be at risk for use of software that infringes patents, but that's a civil matter (the patent holder might be able to sue you), not a criminal matter (no one can arrest you).

      • Re:Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DavidTC ( 10147 )
        Decrypting CSS has no patents on it. Sans the their idiotic 'trade secret' suit, the only 'violation' is that somehow they are the only people authorized to authorize you to watch DVDs, due to the magic of the DMCA. (I, personally, want to make a CSS encoded DVD and sue them, but the encrypting is patented...but there are countries that do not allow software patents. And there are no legal issues with importing a device made with a process that's patented here but not elsewhere, as long as the device itself

  • How does this affect DVD Jon? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:53PM (#8060520) Homepage Journal
    So, if it's no longer a trade secret in the US, does that mean that the Jon Johansen can finally quit worrying about the Norwegian government's appealing the second aquittal [eff.org]? Or can they claim that he's still guilty, if they prove it was a trade secret at the time he "hacked" it?

    en francais, aussi... [linuxfrench.net]

    • Re:How does this affect DVD Jon? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bwt ( 68845 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:07PM (#8060636)
      Actually, I suspect that the timing of this DVD-CCA decision is completely explained by the fact that Jon won in Norway. If Jon's actions were legal under the laws of his country then Bunner's actions in the US are not traceable to an act of misappropriation.

    • It doesn't affect his case. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:07PM (#8060643) Homepage

      So, if it's no longer a trade secret in the US, does that mean that the Jon Johansen can finally quit worrying about the Norwegian government's appealing the second aquittal [eff.org]?

      Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says "Okokrim announced on January 5, 2004 that it would not appeal the case any further" (apparently Slashdot will not let me type the O with the slash through it, but it gives me the proper character in the editor area).

    • It really didn't make the news because it's basicly a one-liner. The deadline for appealing to the Supreme court passed without an appeal filed. The ruling is final, there can be no retrial.

      They've suffered two straight losses in court, and chose not to appeal it. Unlike the US, the fact that they could have appealed but didn't is setting precedent.

      The previous rulings were so clear, the prosecution didn't even want to try arguing that the law should be interpreted to their favor before the Supreme court.

  • Donate! Please consider $upporting the EFF... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (1337) God ( 653941 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:53PM (#8060524)
    If any of you have some spare dollars or Euros lying around, maybe this article and the fact that you're in a relaxed Friday night mood might convince you to make a tax-deductible donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and help save civil liberties in cyberspace.

    Andrew Bunner, the man featured on this Slashdot page, was being prosecuted under California's trade secret laws for redistributing DeCSS. If the EFF hadn't stepped in and stood up for his rights (at no cost to him), he very well might be in jail right now.

    So please, consider joining [eff.org] or donating [eff.org] right now. It really does make a big difference.

    One thing I promised myself back in college was that if I made any money off my computer knowledge gleaned from the Open-Source and computer-loving communities like Slashdot, Freshmeat, SourceForge, etc., I would donate 1% of my salary to various groups such as the EFF. I have kept my word, and I must tell you that it feels great.

    I urge you all to think strongly consider it. Who's watching out for us if we don't all chip in?

    Thanks for reading this, friends. It means a lot to me.

  • Wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ENOENT ( 25325 )
    Finally, a headline that doesn't make me want to find a rock to hide under.

  • 40 bits (Score:3, Informative)

    by MooseGuy529 ( 578473 ) <`moc.liamekaens' `ta' `20b6th85i'> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:55PM (#8060537) Homepage Journal
    This means that the DVD CCA has finally conceded that CSS is no longer a secret, something the rest of us have known for a few years now.

    It's not CSS that's the problem--the five-digit player key is a trade secret.

    Anyway, let's celebrate!

    • Re:40 bits (Score:3, Interesting)

      by El ( 94934 )
      Can't the player key be passed in as a command-line argument, thus making the code fully distributable? As long as they don't automatically configure the key, I don't see the problem.

    • Re:40 bits (Score:5, Informative)

      by edwdig ( 47888 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:29PM (#8060857)
      The key isn't a problem. You don't need to know the key ahead of time. CSS encryption is so badly designed that you can brute force find a key within a few seconds. Any recent Linux DVD player doesn't contain a key, it just looks at the DVD and figures one out.

      They're admitting CSS isn't a trade secret anymore. If you know CSS, then it only takes a few seconds to find a key. Based on that, how can you justify calling the key a trade secret?

  • DMCA ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:56PM (#8060547) Homepage
    Not being a trade secret doesn't mean it's not prosecutable under DMCA. The reason distros don't include libdvdcss is really DMCA.

    DVD css was cracked through reverse engineering, which does not equate to stealing a trade secret. I do think that the outcome is important, but it won't really make that much of a difference IMHO (and of course, IANAL)

    • Re:DMCA ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:33PM (#8060907)
      However, 17 USC 1201(f) explicity allows reverse engineering for interoperability:

      (f) Reverse Engineering. -


      (1)

      Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

      (2)

      Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

      (3)

      The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

      (4)

      For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

  • In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)

    by plasm4 ( 533422 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:57PM (#8060556) Journal
    Microsoft releases Office under the GPL Steve Ballmer wins Nobel Price in physics Former Enron executive Ken Lay goes to jail Duke Nukem Forever released

  • No, sorry, that's spin your reading.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:02PM (#8060594) Journal
    This means that the DVD CCA has finally conceded that CSS is no longer a secret

    No it doesn't, it means they decided not to pursue this particular case. I dont see where they conceded anything, or shut the door on any future legal action.

    Just because the EFF sees it that way doesnt mean it's so, they're a special interest group with an agenda. Agreeing with the agenda doesn't make everything they say/do in pursuit of that agenda right.

    • Failure to pursue translates into the conclusion.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @07:02PM (#8061203) Homepage
      Either it's a Trade Secret and they vigorously pursue the violator- or they completely lose the ability to pursue anyone with regards to the secret in question (as it's no longer one...).

      For the DVD CCA to decide to no longer pursue the case means nobody will be harassed by them in this regard- if they do, they can and will face harassment or misuse of procedure countersuits that they'll lose.

  • Will 2600 post the code again? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bob Cat - NYMPHS ( 313647 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:02PM (#8060596) Homepage
    There's still a permanent injunction against them even linking to it. This should be interesting.

  • Don't be so naive (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigChigger ( 551094 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:03PM (#8060600)
    They're readying the next format now anyway. They know that DeCSS has made no dent at all in their revenues. But they won't make that mistake (letting the keys out) again.

    BC

  • At last! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stealth.c ( 724419 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:07PM (#8060639)
    An article where the corporations AREN'T omnipotent. I agree with above posters: give a few spare clams to the EFF.

    Hopefully this is the first event among many where we begin to turn the tide against corporate power. What the Internet gives us is too important to get shackled down by bureaucrats. I want to be able to get news and information from anyone anywhere and with no middlemen but the ones *I* designate. We'll win this war eventually.

  • DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:11PM (#8060672)
    IANAL, but could it be that the reason they backed away from this case is that they don't want the DMCA itself to undergo the judicial scrutiny that it would?

    It sure needs to, like, oh, shrinkwrap laws.

  • Makes You Wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:12PM (#8060694)
    Why all of the sudden this was dropped? Considering the recent RIAA actions, the second persuit Jon Johannson, the movements to crackdown on bootlegs, etc?

    Why drop this? Makes me wonder what is up the sleeves.

  • Does this mean (Score:3, Funny)

    by Catharz ( 223736 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:15PM (#8060713)
    copyleft are finally going to send me my goddamned t-shirts?
  • This is truly a great day for consumer freedom. We should all be thankful for what the DVDA has given us.
  • ...my tapes which I encoded with the C64 version [cmu.edu] of DeCSS [cmu.edu] again ?

  • Visit my DeCSS mirror (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:19PM (#8060745) Homepage Journal
    Want to post your own DeCSS mirror? You can get it from my DeCSS mirror [goingware.com].

    It's been on the first page of hits at google for the query content scrambling system for a couple of years now.

  • Is DeCSS really no longer a trade secret? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:39PM (#8060965)
    When they dropped the case, did they actually admit that it's no longer a trade secret? The second is much, much stronger than the former. If they admit it's not a trade secret, GNU/Linux DVD players are completely legally in the clear. If they simply stop prosecuting the case, it would certainly weaken the trade secret (since they are required to take active measures to keep it secret under trade secret laws), but they could potentially still prosecute others. It would still have to be struck down as a trade secret in a court of law, or openly admitted to not being one...

    It hasn't been a legally enforcable trade secret for a while, but they could still throw enough legal $$$ to harass most people not to distribute it. If they admit it's not one, they won't be able to do that anymore (it'll get struct down in court in 5 minutes and 0 dollars, rather than months or years and hundreds of grand).

    It'll also mean they're no longer bad guys, and I'll be able to stop undermining them in every way possible. Or at least with respect to DVDs... I'll have to investigate whether they are doing anything else evil first...

  • that's because of HD DVD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wotevah ( 620758 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @07:00PM (#8061172) Journal
    You know why they are conceding, that's because the new HD DVD standard will have a different kind of protection, and this time they will get it "right" by patenting some part of it (hopefully not).

  • There are still disturbing precedents... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @08:03PM (#8061737) Journal
    In essence, it all comes down to the EULA that accompanied the software that Jon Johansen reverse engineered in the first place.

    The DVD CCA was succesful in the Supreme Court of California in establishing that the provisions of the EULA that prohibited reverse engineering were enforceable and constituted discovery by "improper means".

    There are other serious precedents, namely that no one may reverse engineer a software product for the purpose of interoptability where the EULA strictly forbids it, that the EULA of any software product is enforcable and most distressing of of all, that trade secret law trumps the First Amendment (under very narrow circumstances, granted).

    Even with the case dismissed, these precedents stand in the State of California, do they not?

  • I'm Andrew Bunner -- here's my reaction (Score:5, Funny)

    by kinesis ( 13238 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @10:59PM (#8062860)
    So I'm the "Bunner" in DVD CCA vs Bunner. If you could look in my out-box today, here's what you'd see:

    Friends and family,

    My fifteen minutes of fame are over. The DVD CCA is dropping their case against me. For those that don't remember, I was sued in late 1999 for posting the source code to a software DVD player on my web site. The plaintifs included Sony, MGM, Panasonic, Microsoft, Warner-Brothers, and most other corporations in either media or electronics.

    Today, they gave up. They've withdrawn the case
    without prejudice.

    Reading between the lines that means that they finally realized they were going to lose and that even if they won, the "secrets" of playing a DVD have been pretty well documented for the public.

    To celebrate the occassion, I've asked my lawyers to file a counter-suit alleging emotional anguish and seeking damages of one hundred billion trillion dollars.

    -- Andrew

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close