The Village Voice On The DVD Wars 86
Phantom writes: "The Village Voice has great story (here) about DeCSS, 2600.com, and the legal battle about to ensue. Looks like the MPAA may be in some trouble. " Well written piece - things have been quiet here for a while, but I think both sides have been lining up necessary support. The lawyer, Martin Garbus, is going to be defending Eric Corley aka Emmanuel Goldstein, and is a /very sharp/ cookie.
Sharp Cooke? So what? (Score:2)
I heard the MPAA hired a guy who was described as "a very fudgie brownie"! Doesn't that trump a sharp cookie!?!? Or is that cold ice cream that does that?
Dang it I'm no good at this lawlyering stuff! I'm hungry!
The real reason you can't shout "fire"... (Score:2)
Actually, the reason you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre has nothing to do we free speech and everything to do with contract law. When you buy a ticket you are essentially entering into a contract of sorts with the movie theatre - in exchange for your money you are allowed to watch the movie. If you shout "fire" and everyone leaves, essentially you have caused a breach of that contract by infringing on everyone else's viewing of the movie and the theatre's showing of the movie.
As for live stage theatre, the same principle applies.
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
>a shame for those of us who use it for its oringinal use.
You're missing a few things. If you're talking about lower bandwidths and codecs, then it's easier and quicker and less hardware intensive to _not_ use DeCSS. Furthermore, Hollywood is painting horror stories of unlimited copy generations, which could make them look somewhat foolish if all they could point too were online copies of even lesser quality than an old-fashioned VHS dub.
But yes, I share the fear that some pirate might actually believe Hollywood's lies and try to incorporate DeCSS into their piracy. It'll only take one discovered case. But given the nature of DeCSS, upon the first discovery of DeCSS being used for non-legitimate means, my first question would be "Was this activity carried out at the covert request of the MPAA to give them a leg to stand on?". Call me distrustful, but they've stooped to every other dirty trick so far, and I don't see them cleaning up their act anytime soon.
Sharp == Smart (Score:1)
Disclaimer: I would like to apologize to anyone with a decent sense of humor for the rediculously bad pun within this post as well as for the many speling errors :)
kwsNI
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:1)
This is a dangerous case. This case could destroy the practice of reverse-engineering. A process that has given civilization countless innovations and advances. The MPAA could very easily pave the way for other industries to stifle competition and further shackle consumers.
What happens when the MPAA starts to extort CSS license holders with higher CSS license fees? The market would be broken and you can bet the companies that have an interest in the MPAA and the DVD player market (Sony & RCA) would certainly gain some market share. It may be a little far-fetched, but it would be completely legal, even under anti-trust laws.
What about the computer industry? Reverse- engineering is responsible for nearly all innovations in the industry. Many parts of DOS, Windows, and of course Linux were reverse engineered from previous operating systems and applications. Talk about having to reinvent the wheel.
As for the free speech argument, I don't see code=free speech, to be nearly as perilous as the implications of a journalist being dragged in to court for doing their job. What if a newspaper prints a list of auto inspection stations that were fined for passing unfit vehicles? What about a news expose on night clubs that are serving minors? What about an internet journalist who posts an article and links to websites that are distributing a software program that is NOT illegal yet? DeCSS maybe under fire, but only the courts can decide its fate now.
The real irony! (Score:1)
I can understand the argument for placing a film in region x, when it is fairly new to prevent it from being viewed in countries where it has not yet appeared at the cinemas. But for films that have been out for over 10 years makes no sense what so ever, these films should be released a region 0 !!!
AOL/TW (Score:1)
- Steeltoe
"Fire in a Crowded Theatre" - the truth (Score:3)
Justice Holmes coined this memorable phrase in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) [ukans.edu]. Schenck printed 15,000 leaflets: the front contained the text of Section I of the 13th
Amendment, and the flip side of the leaflet had phrases and slogans like: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your Rights", "your right to assert your opposition to the draft", and "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."
Schenck spent 10(?) years in jal for merely telling his citizens their constitutional rights The 'fire in a crowded theater' argument was used to allow the Supreme Court uphold his conviction
This is not a precedent that should be blithely tossed around without noting the history of abuse that it engendered.
This court ruling, and others explicitly based on it led to the Pulitzer Prize winning author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally (1923) and many others being arrested for belonging to, or participating in, groups espousing views regarded as "radical" by the government in this period (I'm talking about unions and religious societies, not the Communist Party or subversive groups)
In short -- "the crowded theater" can and has been something as seemingly innocuous as Slashdot, and the cry was not false Better put a lawyer - a criminal lawyer - on retainer before expressing any opinions in public
_____________
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:1)
>the phrase 'get it', as in certain people
>(Garbus, hackers, etc.) 'get it' and certain
>other people (the MPAA) don't 'get it'. I love
>it when a group of people on either side tell
>others how things should be and when the other
>side doesn't agree, they say, "You just
>don't 'get it', man!" Personally, I think
>Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to
>quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and
>provides links to it. It's not a hard argument
>to make that he's at least aiding the
>distribution of the material. It would've been
>just as easy to let others provide links. God
>knows there's enough sites, and hell, all you
>have to do is link to the filed briefs.
Well, he linked to the filed briefs, too. :) EG was enjoined from placing the DeCSS files on 2600's page, and presumably, anywhere in its directory. Judge Kaplan said nothing about placing links on his page, though. He didn't disobey the injunction--if he did, the MPAA would not have had to file another one.
No, you don't get it. DeCSS is in and of itself a separate issue from hyperlinking, but they both fall under the rubric of freedom of expression. DeCSS' objective is to actually increase speech-acts--that is, allowing people who may not otherwise have the ablity to view a movie on DVD as a result of a DVD's regional coding, etc. (aside from paying a hefty price for another player) to do so. Placing your speech-act in the "market of ideas" is the whole point, yes? Unfortunately, the MPAA is too greedy to consider ideas anymore--why have art when you can market films as commodities?
You can't compare DeCSS to a virus, because transmitting a virus gives rise to a completely different cause of action--that has nothing to do with copyright and fair use.
The MPAA *is* actually attacking piraters in Asia--Valenti spoke about this in a Reuters piece several days ago--but he's not doing it out of respect for artists' rights. He's doing it to encourage trade WITH China, something the rest of us in the thinking world are a bit skeptical of, if not passionately opposed to, because of their little human rights abuse problem over there.
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:2)
I don't think even the script kiddies are that interested in DeCSS. It's completely unnessecary for decrypting video streams if all you intend to do is make a copy. Any DVD player has to decrypt the stream before it goes to the display. Intercepting the stream on the way to the display would have been a lot easier if that was what it was really about--isn't there software for Windows already that does this?
Another thing I'd like to point out is that the value of DeCSS is not just that it allows Linux users to watch DVD's. DeCSS without the source would probably be ignored by OSS people as well as the MPAA. It's the availability of the source code that makes it so important.
With the source code we can make as many different DVD players for as many different operating systems as we want. This includes embedded operating systems that could run on more traditional DVD players like the kind that people hook up to their TV's.
It subverts the whole region coding scam that the MPAA put into place which effectively allows them to censor movies for certain areas. I can buy a movie made in a foreign country, but I can't play it in the US unless the foreign film company has a US region code on it.
Take the Stanley Kubrick movie "Eyes Wide Shut" for example. In the US only the censored version of the movie is available as far as I know. (I'm not sure if it's out on DVD yet or not, but that's not my point.) My point is that the MPAA wants to control who gets to see what and where.
I think that the OSS guys are concerned about more than just watching DVD's in Linux--like freedom of choice and speech. The MPAA is concerned about something other than piracy--piracy is just a convenient excuse although it's innaccurate. Things like price-fixing are a lot easier if you can restrict where people get playable DVD's from.
numb
Re:Connectix Ruling (Score:1)
The old white boys of the MPAA and the old white boys in DC are figuratively sucking each other's dicks, mostly due to the fact that Jack Valenti worked for LBJ.
Re:everybody is stupid (Score:2)
No. CSS doesn't prevent anything. It is just a scrambling algorithm, and DeCSS undoes it. The connection to VHS is this: Let's say that you want to build a player and decide to buy the secret of the algorithm from DVD-CCA (which doesn't make sense these days, since it is no longer a secret). As part of your agreement with DVD-CCA, in addition to paying them a lot of money, you have to agree that your player will add Macrovision to the video out. Macrovision is a method of putting some extra junk in the signal that usually does not interfere with TVs, and usually does interfere with VCRs. The net effect is that it makes it hard for some VCRs to accurately record the output of the DVD player.
So anyway, CSS doesn't interfere with VHS. It's just that the contract to get CSS requires that players implement Macrovision, and that makes copying to VHS inconvenient. And of course, if you create a player by using the publicly available information about CSS, then you don't need to make and agreement with DVD-CCA, and the whole Macrovision issue becomes moot.
Nope. It's a copyright and trade secret issue, not a speech issue.
IANAL, but I think that, in general, RE is allowed for other purposes too. But in this case, DMCA specifically outlaws some uses of RE, but REing for interoperability is exempt. (That is good news too, since this whole case is about whether or not MPAA has to tolerate interoperability.)
---
The First Ammendment and why it is important (Score:2)
Sure, you can only be sued by a company, not hauled off to jail, but they can otherwise make your life miserable to where a prison would be preferable. That being said, the first ammendment still applies to private individuals as well. If I walk with a picket sign in front of a business, I can't be stopped with a lawsuit as long as I'm factually correct or expressing my opinion. Sure, there are municipal ordinances saying how I can do something like this or where, but I can't be stopped because this is exactly what the first ammendment is about.... I'm free to say what ever I want and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
A (somewhat) recent encounter between the President of the People's Republic of China and US President Clinton illistrates this point a little more clearly. At the time, the movie "A Walk in Tibet", staring Brad Pitt, was being widly distributed in movie theaters throughout the United States. President Jiang requested that President Clinton force the movie theaters in the US to stop playing this movie, because it portrays China as an agressor country in a manner that the Chinese government didn't appreciate. I'm sure it was a little awkward to explain that not only would President Clinton probabally not do something that raw, he didn't even have the legal authority to even require something like that. Furthermore, an "offical" plea not to watch a movie like that would actually be like free advertising to promote a movie like that here.
The reason why people defend the first ammendment is that the right to speak freely is usually the first citizen privlege to disappear during a crisis. And not everything that can be said about you or anybody else is always pleasant to hear, so there are always some struggle to restrict that speech or discussion. Especially when you are in a position to be able to stop that speech.
Re:The real reason you can't shout "fire"... (Score:2)
That is an interesting legal reasoning, but in *first amendment law*, "fire in a crowded theatre" has been used repeatedly as a metaphor for "speech which can be prohibited because failing to prohibit it would constitute a clear and present danger to innocent bystanders".
The total amount of speech which falls into this is fairly small, but it has been a recognized category of speech in first amendment jurisprudence for more than a century
Re:The First Ammendment and why it is important (Score:1)
ObFlame: "Seven Years in Tibet", even.
Re:DeCSS website location (Score:1)
Garbus is not working for free (Score:2)
Garbus may be sharp, but let me remind you that he is not working on this case for free. We at the EFF need to send him large checks every month, and that only comes from the donations of our members and supporters.
Have you made a bundle from open source and open standards? Donating appreciated stock gives you a double tax deduction and can even be done when the stock is locked out under certain provisions.
Does your company benefit from the right to reverse engineer? Does it want reverse engineering to be prohibited on copy protection devices? Does your company benefit from open discussion of cryptosystems and their flaws?
If this is true, make the business case to your company as to why these rights need to be defended.
Go to EFF's web site [eff.org] to find out how to join or donate. Sorry about the ad, but this thread wouldn't even exist if not for the donors who have come forward so far. In spite of the generous donations we have raised only a fraction of what this case will take if it goes the supreme court as expected.
end beg break
Yay for nitpicking (Score:1)
This is a well-written article that gets all of the basic points right.. but there's one problem.
For his part, Garbus will submit that DeCSS is an exercise in cryptography, an innovation in interoperability, and protected speech to boot. Under that argument, the program should be covered by the "fair use" principle of the First Amendment--putting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and freedom of expression atirreconcilable odds.
Fair use has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Fair use is part of copyright law, which is located in the US code.
He will argue that DeCSS falls under the First Amendment's fair-use exception to the Copyright Act. The doctrine of fair use permits, for example, a reporter to quote paragraphs from a book or print sections of a pamphlet.
Again, the author confuses the Bill of Rights with copyright law. He gets the fair use doctrine right, but he cites the wrong document.
Oh well. Despite this stuff, it's a great article. Neat pictures too.
Re:Good points (Score:1)
Re:They're aiming hire (Score:2)
The arguments presented on
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
So, DeCSS is irrelevant as far as piracy. Get it now?
The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:3)
The MPAA's a bunch of morons as well. The article points this out as well as they are attacking the author of the DeCSS code when they could be attacking known piraters in Asia who are actually producing illegal material.
As for the argument of free speech, well, hell, I guess I don't 'get it'. I understand why linking as an activity should be considered free speech (possibly, although the court orders people to shut up all the time, and when they break that law they're found in contempt), but DeCSS as free speech? Are you saying that all code should be free speech? If I write a virus that destroys half a hard drive and distribute it and some government or company criminally prosecutes me, can I claim my free speech rights or is it still illegal? I sure as hell hope it's the latter, because code is not the same as speech. Words may hurt feelings, but they can't damage physical property or rights (except in the case of libel or slander). Code has the potential to be much more destructive.
Personally, I think DeCSS is the wrong battle to be fighting for both parties. But then again, I don't claim to 'get it'.
They're aiming hire (Score:2)
By controlling the playback mechanism, it won't be long before they can legally require you to pay for every play, or inform them that you are playing the media. Guobblemints and corporations BOTH want this.
Think back to the Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment trial and ask yourself if you want all of your media viewing habits disclosed at your next civil/criminal/divorce/custody court hearing. Even if they keep info out of the marketers hands, if the info exists in databases, the judge can demand it.
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
Besides, it would be easier to import a video CD verion of the film (These are quite popular in parts of Asia) and pirate that
Re:Garbus out? (Score:1)
-Marc
Re:Slightly offtopic, but... (Score:1)
How about "You can't make jokes about murder if you're an unpopular American high-school or university student"?
tragically yours,
Mike.
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:2)
If you've read much of the mainstream reporting of the issue, you'd probably realise that it's justified - _most_ people don't "get it" because they think DeCSS is program that illgeally copies DVDs, that this is what it was designed to do, and that this is all it can do. From this false premise, their entire subsequent understanding of the issue is complete rubbish.
News coverage has usually been oversimplified and innacurate in this way. The majority of people are only aware of the issue as presented to them by the news. I don't think you can deny that very few people have a good grasp of the issues involved here, thus only a select few "get it".
I also (from memory) think you are mistaken when claiming that the MPAA was included with those who "don't get it". "Getting it" is _not_ used to mean "on our side", but it is used rather to indicate that he believes that it is difficult to not come on to his side when you do "get it" (ie have seen the issues beyond the simplified BS). The MPAA are an obvious exception - they "get it", but are unconcerned with any issues other than their vested interests, thus they are not "on our side" despite (presumably) "getting it".
I think the terminology is fine - a crucial problem in this issue is the degree of poor information and understanding. People like Garbus who really understand the ramifications "get it" in a way that the many quite clearly don't, regardless of which side his "getting it" causes him to take.
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:3)
As in, instead of saying "Yes, sir! At once, sir!" and then going back to the holding pen?
The whole case is about the freedom to distribute information. Try thinking about it some more.
Are you saying that all code should be free speech? If I write a virus that destroys half a hard drive and distribute it and some government or company criminally prosecutes me, can I claim my free speech rights or is it still illegal?
Yes, there are a lot of people saying code is free speech (it's just some text, no?). At least one court has agreed.
A company cannot criminally prosecute you, only a government can. A company can sue you in civil court and the First Amendment is not and never has been a defence against that. In any case, First Amendment is binding only on the government, not on private companies.
As to whether the government can prosecute you, sure it can. Free speech rights are not absolute. A classic example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- it's free speech, but a criminal act.
Words may hurt feelings, but they can't damage physical property or rights (except in the case of libel or slander). Code has the potential to be much more destructive.
I think you hugely undervalue words. Words can be very, very powerful -- by moving people to action. Think of people like Ghandi, for example -- all they used was words. On the other hand, consider a mob inflamed by an agitator. Still thinking that words cannot do damage?
Kaa
Re:everybody is stupid (Score:2)
CSS is the Content Scrambeling System. It is an encryption that is used on the raw video/audio on the DVD to prevent reading the data. You can still copy the encrypted video/audio data byte for byte from the DVD. It has nothing to do with VHS copying.
2. From the article: "The First Amendment also protects a process called reverse-engineering, which was used to create DeCSS. Reverse engineers take things apart in order to learn how to put them back together in a better form. In other words, to build a better mousetrap. The right to take things apart--whether breakfast cereals or pharmaceutical compounds--is a time-honored tenet in American law, held to encourage innovation."
Is that true? Is reverse engineering part of the First Amendment?? Isn't it covered under patent law? Aren't we talking about copyright law? And isn't reverse engineering only protected for purposes of interoperability?
Well it is protected. You can take stuff apart to see how it works. It wasn't a movie that was taken apart. It was the software, specifically the player, that is used to decrypt the data on the DVD to get the keys. There would not be different brands of cars if reverse engineering was illegal. There would not be generic drugs in the pharmacy if it were illegal. Mac users would not be able to play PlayStation games if it were illegal.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Re:Current DVD state of afairs... (Score:1)
"Only the entertainment industry feels the need to make enemies of their customers."
Sorry, I don't remember who said it first.
Re:DXR3 Linux Drivers (Score:2)
For comparison, under Windows (yeah, I know, but there's no Linux software) my puny little 233MHz Winchip (supports MMX and 3Dnow! but otherwise is essentially a 486 in drag - 156 bogomips) plays DVDs (using PowerDVD) at a viewable frame rate (it isn't 30 fps, probably more like 20) with no sound problems. All this with software decoding (the cheap VGA card doesn't add any support either).
There are Linux software solutions that require a couple of passes -- decrypting the VOBs and then playing them via eg mpeg2play -- if any driver for hardware decoding is worse than that, the only excuse is that it's a debugging version and must be writing a ton of stuff to a log file somewhere.
(Of course, current solutions are for strictly linear playback, you miss out on some of the extra features like branching or multiple camera angles.)
Re:The real reason you can't shout "fire"... (Score:1)
Re:The First Ammendment and why it is important (Score:2)
It can? I don't think so. What can they do to you besides forcing you into bankrupcy? And if you think going to prison is better than declaring bankrupty, well, then you've got lot to learn.
That being said, the first ammendment still applies to private individuals as well.
Nope. That's factually incorrect.
If I walk with a picket sign in front of a business, I can't be stopped with a lawsuit as long as I'm factually correct or expressing my opinion.
The company (or a person) would sue you under tort law. If a judge orders you to stop picketing (has happened frequently, e.g. anti-abortion protesters), you will stop or be hauled into jail on a contempt of court charge. First Amendment is not a defence against torts.
Sure, there are municipal ordinances...
Municipality is a government and as such is bound by the First Amendment
I'm free to say what ever I want and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
You are mistaken. Here are three examples of forbidden speech:
(1) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
(2) Slander
(3) Threatening the life of the President
But again, you don't understand the legal difference between a private entity (a company or an individual) and a government.
Kaa
Re:Semi-Geek Issue? (Score:1)
I was in college. I had a 21" monitor. DVD drive. No TV. Didn't have room for it, or any need for it. Poor reception, and the lounge had a TV. Why should I be forced to buy a multi-hundred dollar player and a multi-hundred dollar screen when I already have quality equipment for it? Or pay another $100+ dollars for Windows, just so I can waste drive space to watch DVDs?
A lot of college students spent decent money on their computers, and don't necessarily have a lot left over (or space left over) for a TV/DVDp.
Besides, I tend to be fairly demanding of my video/audio equipment - I can't stand watching an inferior player throw crap to an inferior screen with one speaker out the side... especially when I already have a flat computer tube with digital audio out to a real decoder.
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:2)
Nah .. my DVD player plays all regions without me having to do anything. Of course, originally it doesn't, but there's a nice little kit for the Sony 715 that removes the regioncheck and macrovision completely, at the same time ...
I buy all my DVDs from Canada - cheaper, and you get more extras than on the region 2 versions.
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
How to pirate a DVD:--
Get your DVD disk.
Go to the DVD copier at work (Every IT shop has at least one).
Insert the original DVD in the "reader" drawer.
Insert a blank disk in the "writer" drawer.
Double click on "copy".
Repeat until bored.
And be sure to use your own blank disks and not your employers as that would be stealing.
Disks copied in this way will play on any DVD just as well as the origonal.
On a more philisophical note. How can someone defend the "secrecy" of an encryption algorithim that was so easy to crack! I like man mean if like man I encrypted like man a sentence which used like man an alogrithm consisting like man of like man inserting like man the like man words like like man man randomly in the like man text could I have you like man arrested for like man cracking the like man code.
You have the right to remain silent!
Another reason to resist mergers (Score:2)
It'll be really nifty when all of the world's media are owned by the same corporation, and it's nearly impossible to find a lawyer to represent you in a case against them, because all of the law firms are involved with the megacorp in one way or another....
---
Re:De-Regionizing? (Score:1)
Re:The First Ammendment and why it is important (Score:1)
Awkward to explain? It would probably have been easier to just point them at "Primary Colors" and say "...if I had any authority over media..."
Furthermore, an "offical" plea not to watch a movie like that would actually be like free advertising to promote a movie like that here.
The only reason I watched "The Last Temptation" was because of the attempts to suppress it. I rented it again because of the Blockbuster decision to not carry it. The movie wasn't all that interesting to me. In essence the admission and the rental were donations to companies willing to produce or carry controversial material.
Re:Current DVD state of afairs... (Score:1)
It's not Linux, but if your goal is just a reasonably stable machine that can run most Windows-y things including most of the consumer devices out there, either NT4 or Win2000 will do a much better job than Win98. Neither are quite as well supported, driver-wise, as Win98, but you can get most things working with them, and once they work, it's pretty stable.
I have a media PC that was running NT4 with a Creative Encore 8x (with Dxr3) and a Hauppauge WinTV card. That machine also has a SCSI HP scanner, a Smartmedia (digital film) reader, and an Ethernet connection to the Internet. It never crashes.
Over the past few days, I've upgraded this machine to Win2000, mainly to be able to start connecting USB devices to it, since NT4 has no USB support. So far, everything's working fine under Win2000, although I had to switch from the Creative Dxr3 drivers to the Hollywood Plus drivers directly from Sigma Designs, since Creative doesn't seem to support W2K yet.
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
Sharp? (Score:2)
Re:Current DVD state of afairs... (Score:1)
have not tried them though....
I just know they are available.
Dom.
Cracking code protected as critic/parody/satire ? (Score:5)
The lawyer seems to have worked out an intriguing twist on the DeCSS case. While the DMCA is ostensibly about regulating copyright and hence well within the legitimate purview of Congress, it does have First Amendment implications. The real question will be whether the prohibition on publishing cracking code is seen as a necessary limitation on Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech is _not_ absolute. You can't falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Nor can you slander or libel others. The issue will boil down to whether the cracking code is a separate work. We all know it is, but do Judges? They will have to be convinced, and some have shown themselves capable [Penfield].
Current DVD state of afairs... (Score:4)
I have been using Windows 98 for some time now, as I am an avid Quake 3 player, but with the recent changes in NVidia's beta Linux drivers, I can go back to Linux for this.
Windows 98 is really getting on my nerves - I cannot stand the crashes any longer, and have investigating alternatives. There is one common problem (apart from ther not-so-big problem of NT4 and DirectX 7), and that is: DVD playing!
There JUST AINT NO SUPPORT FOR NON_WIN98 users!
So I'm basically stuffed. Creative has no info on their site regarding this, leaving me, the customer, totally in the dark.
If it was not for my extensive movie collection, I would have been running Linux long ago. (as my primary games machine - since I already do most of my work on Linux)
I have a large collection of original DVD's, including quite a couple that our local distributors have no intention of importing. I don't think I will ever pirate it, and see all this ZONE shit as really a drag... fortunately I hack my drive and software with Remote Selector 1.74, or otherwise I would really be stuffed.)
So I really really hope this DeCSS case will get things sorted out propperly... as I have paid quite substansial (3rd world income, you see...) amounts for this, and am totally legal, and for my troubles I get screwed.
Hehe... talk a lot, don't I.
'nough said.
De-Regionizing? (Score:1)
Everyone owns everyone... (Score:2)
Yet another reason why megagiant supercorporations such as AOL/Time-Warner suck.
W
-------------------
Re:De-Regionizing? (Score:1)
Re:Current DVD state of afairs... (Score:1)
Love,
Bill Gates
Semi-Geek Issue? (Score:1)
My question is, if you're ticked you can't play DVDs in Linux... why not go out and buy a cheep $180 player (is the hackable Apex still available?) instead of buying the DVD drive for your comp? After all, just because you couldn't get drivers for your ATI TV tuner cards in Linux doesn't mean you don't have a TV sitting around somewhere to watch.
--Infinity
"Okay, so, I'm a raging Windows user. I'll change later."
Re:Shark as Dolphin? (Score:1)
Seems a bit odd that the lawyer Martin Garbus was just previously defending these MPAA bastards and is now fighting against them.
No, no, no... Garbus is NOT fighting or defending the MPAA, he is only working for a client.
All lawyers in all countries have to take a solemn vow when they graduate, swearing that they will always strive for the best interests of their clients, without ever allowing their own interests, morals or values interfere with their work.
Thats why the best lawyers are the ones without morals! And we would be wrong to take it against them... after all, its their job.
Where do I get the latest version of DeCSS? (Score:1)
;)
Goldstein should release it as GPL on SourceForge or something... making it illegal to take it off!
-laugh-
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:1)
There's quite a big difference between breaking an encryption scheme and breaking a hard drive. As for the potential to be destructive, go after the sticks and stones manufacturers. After all, they have the possibility to break your bones.
--
Re: Mirroring DsCSS in support of _Corley_? (Score:1)
I know there is a lot of crossover and blurr between the OSS and 2600/warez communities, but I think this statement makes it sound like this is a 2600 issue that has gained support from OSS, not the other way around.
IMHO, its actually the 2600/warez community that has muddied this issue, and gives the MPAA a bright red target to accuse. The OSS community (or at least a significant part of it) is as much against pirating as the MPAA, just try and violate the GPL and see what response you get, even if you do it unintentionally.
While I have no problem with the OSS community getting support from the 2600/warez community, Corley and others shouldn't take the lead claiming they are innocent and have no intentions of using DeCSS for violating copyrights.
DeCSS website location (Score:2)
A newspaper like this one, for instance, would be forbidden from telling its readers how to find the source code to DeCSS on cryptome.org.
Cute.
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:2)
Actually, IMHO, the code is speech, the use of the code is not. There are laws that says 'You should not copy movies you bought to your friend, he needs to buy it for himself, or else you'll be busted' But! There are also laws (or at least should be) that grants you the right to do whatever you want to do with your rightfully purchased movie, including creating backup copies. And there is some thing like you are not guilty until proven otherwise, so if the companies happen to create a way to protect they movies that does not allow you to create backup, they should be out of luck and forced to remove the protection. In the meantime to the users should be made clear what they can and cannot do with their copy of the movie. If they violate the law, bust them. But not until! The government and the police should develop ways to enforce the law and preserve privacy. Sounds hard? Well, its a hard job...
Szo
Re:They're aiming hire (Score:3)
I do sympathize with the DeCSS cause, but DeCSS (or any similar program) per se is of no use to me. I don't watch Hollywood movies. (And rarely non-Hollywood ones.) I have better things to do in my life.
Now moderate me down as troll or something.
--
2600's Brief Filed Yesterday, Online (Score:2)
The brief argues both that DeCSS itself is expressive speech and that links (to it or other sites) are communicative and should not be subject to the prior restraint of an injunction. It frequently emphasizes that even though non-traditional, 2600 is news media and is entitled to the same constitutional protections as the New York Times.
It strongly disputes plaintiffs' claim of "irreparable injury" -- necessary to maintain a preliminary injunction -- on the grounds that the studios have been crying wolf for months over "piracy" but have yet to demonstrate that DeCSS is used to copy DVDs. Further, it argues that DeCSS must be allowed to facilitate fair use of DVD movies and that DeCSS is exempt from the DMCA as part of a reverse engineering effort.
The brief is supported by a set of declarations [harvard.edu] from Harold Abelson, Andrew Appel, Chris DiBona, Bruce Fries, John Gilmore, Robin Gross, Lewis Kurlantzick, Eben Moglen, Matt Pavlovich, Bruce Schneier, Barbara Simons, Frank Stevenson, Dave Touretsky, David Wagner, and John Young.
For more on the case, see Openlaw/DVD/ [harvard.edu]. Openlaw participants will be drafting an amicus brief.
"couldn't hack his way into a paper bag," (Score:2)
Until this is resolved in favour of Truth and Justice (tm), even without considering free speech issues, my fallback position is that if MPAA isn't interested in my business as a Linux user, I'm not interested in their products.
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:2)
I think your missing the point of the use of the phrase "Get it". In the article in question they are referring mostly to the way the case will impact the current freedoms enjoyed by the "public". What people don't "get" appears to be the fact that if Corley were to lose this case then the implications would be much wider than is immediately apparent.
In addition what is being defended is not the right for all code to be "free speech", though there are some people who might think so, but the right to take a product and reverse-engineer it. In this case to allow the Linux community (and others) to play DVDs. The Hollywood industry has decided that the only people who matter and might want to buy their products are those on Windows and Macintosh platforms. If they have no desire to provide the mechanism for Linux users to use their products should this mean all Linux users should suffer... Permanently.
Re:I agree with your point, not with the score (Score:1)
No, it really isn't worthy of a 5--I'm as suprised as you that it got moderated that high. It could've happened because two people moderated at the same time. I've moderated 2's before and by the time it actually goes through the proxy server the post is a 5.
I felt it was worth mentioning though because the Slashdot summary neglected to point it out. In fact it doesn't appear that they were aware that there was a potential problem with Garbus defending Corley. It's a pretty big deal as far as the case goes.
numb
Re:Current DVD state of afairs... (Score:1)
Eeewww, rogue drivers under NT4 - isn't life too short for that? OTOH, what is kernel32.dll but a big rogue driver???;-)
Was that Illegal? Hmm... (Score:1)
Google is illegal!!!
;)
Here.
Re:They're aiming hire (Score:1)
Personally, I think the whole DVD/Linux thing (especially here on Slashdot) is rather silly. There seems to be this presumption that people have the "right" to consumer entertainment in 525-line resolution, and therefore they have some moral standing to use DeCSS. Lots of twisty arguments about "Fair Use" and "Reverse Engineering" get posted here, apparently just so DeCSS users can morally justify themselves.
It is just far more respectable to stand up and say I don't watch DVD movies because I don't like the licencing terms.
Or if you can't say that: I illegally use DeCSS to watch DVD movies because I don't give a crap what the MPAA and the Government thinks. In fact, I might start making copies of DVDs as soon as the tech appears.
Either of those positions are more admirable than the bogus moral middle ground that folks try to stake out.
--
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
Be carefull when you say that. Do you really mean it? If you do, you must agree with every one of the following statements:
It's wrong to keep people from buying, selling, possessing surveillance equipment (bugs, parabolic mikes, etc.) just because some people might use it illegally.
It's wrong to keep people from possessing, using, selling drugs (any drugs!) because other people might abuse it.
It's wrong to disallow people from owning, carrying, selling guns (any guns, any place, for any reason!) becasue other people might abuse them.
It's wrong to illegalize anything (as long as the method of production isn't illegal) just because someone might (no matter how easily) abuse it.
If you agree with that, great. I certainly do. But if you disagree with any of those statements, you can't truly support that position.
Good points (Score:1)
CORRECT: CSS breaks the law, by not allowing people who purchased media content to use it how they wish (which includes the copying of small portions, etc). The only way the MPAA will be defeated is if CSS is shown to be illegal. You're OK if you break a law and then prove that law to be bogus.
INCORRECT: DeCSS was the result of reverse engineering. We all know this is not true. The code is the result of hacking the Xing player, both to get the keys and the algorithm. A pure reversal of CSS would have been to just look at the bits on a disk and figure out how to get them to unscramble.
My question is, if CSS is wrong, how would they have done it right? That's what I've been trying to mull over in my mind for a while.
-davek
Garbus out? (Score:4)
Look a little further in the article and you'll see that there is a good chance that Time Warner can stop Garbus from defending Corley:
On April 25, attorneys for the movie association filed a motion to disqualify Garbus from the case. Garbus's firm, it turns out, represents Scholastic in an unrelated case. Time Warner, a member of the association, owns Scholastic, and you're not supposed to defend and attack the same client at the same time. This technicality may be enough to kick Garbus out of the suit. "He probably has a 50-50 chance," speculated one legal observer close to the action.
That would seriously suck. I appreciate the hard work of the EFF attornies, but Garbus has an awesome track record and is well respected in the legal system. Losing his support will be a great loss to Corley and anyone else that cares about things like fair use.
numb
DXR3 Linux Drivers (Score:2)
http://hem.fyristorg.com/henrikj/em8300/ [fyristorg.com]
Re:Where do I get the latest version of DeCSS? (Score:1)
DeCSS.zip [google.com]
Re:Semi-Geek Issue? (Score:2)
Pigheadedness. Its not so much that Linux users want to use their machines to play DVD's. Its more that they object to somebody else telling them that they can't use a piece of software for legal reasons.
Re:DXR3 Linux Drivers (Score:1)
I've read up on the linux players, using these drivers...
Phrases such as:
"You'll need a P3 500" for Video OR Sound - not both"
"Sound will not be synchronised"
"Only PAL output supported" - THIS is the biggest problem - WHICH Pal standard Pal50 or Pal60 And whout about NTSC?
I am tryly following all the developments, and sadly, I think Creative will have a Win2K driver before Livid gets working... but I'll keep holding thumbs.
everybody is stupid (Score:1)
I don't think very many people involved in this whole discussion understand what's really happening, myself included. Could somebody clear a couple of things up for me?
1. What's all this talk in the article about DeCSS being used to copy DVDs over the internet? I thought the CSS prevented you from copying from DVD to VHS.
2. From the article:
"The First Amendment also protects a process called reverse-engineering, which was used to create DeCSS. Reverse engineers take things apart in order to learn how to put them back together in a better form.
In other words, to build a better mousetrap. The right to take things apart--whether breakfast cereals or pharmaceutical compounds--is a time-honored tenet in American law, held to encourage innovation."
Is that true? Is reverse engineering part of the First Amendment?? Isn't it covered under patent law? Aren't we talking about copyright law? And isn't reverse engineering only protected for purposes of interoperability?
Any enlightenment much appreciated!
Cheers,
Jamie
Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:2)
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:2)
For instance, suppose I tell you the following:
Microsoft operating systems are inappropriate in a multi-user environment. As proof I submit that any one user can interrupt the work of all others by simply executing a sequence of commands from the console.
You can respond, "That's just FUD!" The argument would be dead at that point unless I could provide further proof. Am I allowed to provide that proof? Am I allowed to tell people how to interrupt a computer system?
One way of doing this task would be:
cd /
del
Should we have laws that allow the Feds to bust down my door and take my computer because script kiddies now have a tool to destroy their schools network? Why should the MPAA be allowed to bust people for telling each other how to view a movie?
We have the First Admendment in America, because it is the only way for the truth to be known. Restricting the way people communicate is just silly.
Cease and Desist (Score:1)
Re:Its not the Open Source Community who'll Pirate (Score:1)
That's not much of a threat to anyone's commercial interests. Why spend the time to download an inferior product when you can purchase or rent the original cheaply?
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:1)
In other words, he doesn't "get it"?
Actually, the first amendment is a defense against so-called SLAPP suits (suing for libel or slander with the intention of quieting constitutionally protected criticism or dissent). It won't prevent the suit from going to court, but it will protect the defendant, and in states with anti-SLAPP laws, prevent it from going to trial.
Words can be very, very powerful -- by moving people to action.
So where does the power originate, the speaker or people acting on those words? The mob, or the agitator? The government that criminalized DeCSS, or the corporations that paid them to do it?
Connectix Ruling (Score:1)
The motion picture industry has a much more powerful influence in Washington, so I would not be suprised if we see another nonsenical ruling in this case.
Re:The Arrogance Of The Hacker Community (Score:1)
As to whether the government can prosecute you, sure it can. Free speech rights are not absolute. A classic example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- it's free speech, but a criminal act.
You are both suffering from a misconception concerning how free speech is regulated. Freedom of speech is much more absolute than you think, but you are still responsible for what you say. You are perfectly free to yell fire in a crowded theatre, you are not free however to incite a riot, disturb the peace, or recklessley endanger others which are the statutes you would be prosecuted under. Your code is legally protected speech but the actions of said code are still your responsibility.
The Ultimate case against CSS and for DeCSS (Score:1)
I agree with your point, not with the score (Score:1)
I agree with what G27 [slashdot.org] is saying here. What I do not agree with is the fact that this comment has been moderated up to a 5. While I am in no way saying that this is a weak comment, I am saying that all this person did was include a few quoted lines from the article in this comment. This is not an "informative" comment because if you are reading the comments to a story posted here, you are interested in the story. If you are interested in the story then you should have read the article(s) that go along with the story. If you have read the article(s) then it is not informative to you to see the same information you just read appear in the comments.
Like I have said, I like this article and it is in no way ment to mock its author. I am simply pointing out the fact that moderators need to take the time and read the article(s) on which the comments that they are moderating are based upon. If everyone were to do this, I feel that the level of worthy comments that don't get moderated would decline, and we, the slashdoters, would be reading better comments.
In closing, I would just like to state that no matter what happens there are always going to be some people who are going to post the "first post rules" and "I'm a troll" and who are going to waste there moderator points doing things that they feel with "piss people off." Instead of giving into their childish behavior, and posting "flame" responces, just ignore them and wait for them to mature. One last thing, if you would like to read worth-while comments on slashdot, set you comment filter to 2 and enjoy.
Re:Semi-Geek Issue? (Score:1)
Umm.. look at the Gatos project on freshmeat. Capture isn't there yet, (requires either X support or a kernel driver; current plan is an Xv module).
Slightly offtopic, but... (Score:4)
This is one of the most popular examples used when people talk about the limits on freedom of speech. While it's a valid example, I once heard someone tell an amusing tale about it.
I was talking to an old friend several years ago, who at the time was majoring in psycology. She told me about this one study she did concerning people's perceptions of catchphrases.
One of the ones they asked people about was some variation on "you can't shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater". The results were interesing, and showed how this particular phrase is perhaps becoming a little antiquated.
- A majority of people attempted to clarify the statement, most often asking, "You mean, like a movie theater?" (So much for the arts.)
- An overwhelming majority (90%+, IIRC) stated that if they were in a crowded (movie) theater and someone shouted "fire!", if alarms weren't going off, they would most likely completely ignore the person. (A significant portion of the respondants stated something along the lines of "it'd probably just be kids.")
I guess it takes more to incite a panic in today's jaded society. Perhaps it's time for a new metaphor for the argument of limits on free speech?"You know, there are limits on free speech. I mean, c'mon, it's like, you can't just reverse-engineer content-protection mechanisms and post the code on the Internet or something." :)
Memo to John Katz (Score:4)
Assignment #2-Read it again.
This how you write a properly researched, low rhetoric article about a tech/sociological subjet. See how separate subjects aren't intermixed as if they were equal.
Assignment #3-Read the article again.
Assignment #4-Read the NYT DeCSS article
Assignment #5-Go back and read that awful mp3.com 'article' that you wrote last week.
Shark as Dolphin? (Score:2)