[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Johan Addis johanaddis@hotmail.com Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:27:41 CDT I have no concerns about posting or not posting. I've had this working for over 6 months and thought that others might benefit from the work that I've done. Johan >From: Jeff Raubitschek <raubitsj@writeme.com> >To: Johan Addis <johanaddis@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: linuxdvd posting >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:19:44 -0400 (EDT) > > >Unfortunately I do not know what the specific issues are, i just am >concerned that there are some. My main concerns are that this code could >draw alot of attention. I followed the Rio mp3 legal case a little and >that got very heated. That case ofcourse was not about reverse >engineering, but it was about making the recording industry mad. This >code seems like it could make the DVD industry very upset in similar >ways. > >Maybe we should take this discussion onto the list and see what other >people have to say. I think we are all very interested in seeing this >code, but i think in todays lawyers around every corner world we live in, >we should show a little concern for how certain code will be received. > >-jeff > >On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Johan Addis wrote: > > > I can appreciate your desire to discuss this. Do you not want me > > to post it on the list? Would you rather I sent it to individuals who > > requested individually? Do you know what the legals of reverse > > engineering are? > > > > Thanks, > > Johan > > > > > > >From: Jeff Raubitschek <raubitsj@writeme.com> > > >To: johanaddis@hotmail.com > > >CC: dlehn@mail.vt.edu > > >Subject: linuxdvd posting > > >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:30:17 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > > >I am writing you in response to your intent to post reverse engineered > > >code on the linuxdvd mailing list. I am concerned that there are some > > >complex legal issues with posting that code in such an open forum. At > > >this point I would ask you to please not email this code until we > > >can discuss some of the legal ramifications. > > > > > >Please email me if you would like to discuss this issue. > > > > > >-jeff > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Jeff Raubitschek > > > Computer Engineer > > > raubitsj@writeme.com > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jeff Raubitschek > Computer Engineer > raubitsj@writeme.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org 14 Jul 1999 12:44:35 -0400 >I am writing you in response to your intent to post reverse engineered >code on the linuxdvd mailing list. I am concerned that there are some >complex legal issues with posting that code in such an open forum. At >this point I would ask you to please not email this code until we >can discuss some of the legal ramifications. Since no one on this list, especially not Johan, agreed to an NDA regarding CSS, I can't see any problems with that. Reverse Engineering is not illegal, there are even some companies doing it professionally to protect the intellectual property of their customers. Andreas -- "We show that all proposed quantum bit commitment schemes are insecure because the sender, Alice, can almost always cheat successfully by using an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen type of attack and delaying her measurement until she opens her commitment." ( http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9603004 )
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Ralph_Giles@sfu.ca Ralph_Giles@sfu.ca Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT) On 14 Jul, Andreas Bogk wrote: > >I am writing you in response to your intent to post reverse engineered > >code on the linuxdvd mailing list. I am concerned that there are some > >complex legal issues with posting that code in such an open forum. At > >this point I would ask you to please not email this code until we > >can discuss some of the legal ramifications. > > Since no one on this list, especially not Johan, agreed to an NDA > regarding CSS, I can't see any problems with that. Reverse Engineering > is not illegal, there are even some companies doing it professionally > to protect the intellectual property of their customers. Well, I agree, but the legal issues certainly are complicated. That's the nature of this project. :) I'd be more in favor of waiting for the cease-and-desist letters before we start to avoid posting things, but figuring out the issues in the meantime. Is the concern for having the material in the list archives, or for Johan in his posting of it? I was under the impression that reverse engineering was a grey area, depending largely on precident and jurisdiction. Quite poorly defined in the case of code posted to the internet, I imagine. At least there won't be patent issues with this one. :) I'd also suggest that Johan consider posting the code to some other public forum until this is decided. That way we can all look at it while dodging the issue. :) I'd suggest a newsgroup (one can even post anonymously) or dress it up like a hot secret and send it to a couple of the hacker underground websites. Cheers, -ralph --- Ralph_Giles@sfu.ca information design? what's that?
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Paul Volcko pvolcko@concentric.net Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:42:20 -0400 > I have no concerns about posting or not posting. I've had this > working for over 6 months and thought that others might benefit > from the work that I've done. You came upon this on your own without the help of information obtained under an NDA orother legally binding contract that you signed or argeed to. If that statement is true then you can not be held liable for dissemination of the code or information. The only possibility here is a software patent violation (which I don't think is a concern here, I don't think CSS is patented in any way). Furthermore, this is an unmoderated and open subscription list. If you happen to post this code then you would be taking responsibility for the post, not the list "provider." This is similar to laws protecting ISPs and Web sites. The producer or poster of the information is held liable, not the list owner. Of course this seems to be a state by state kind of thing, so it would serve the list owner well to make sure his state/country/province/whatever supports that stance on internet based liabilities. Posting it here should be fair game. I'm not a lawyer. That was my take. Do with it as you will. Paul Volcko LSDVD Project
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Paul Volcko pvolcko@concentric.net Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:45:16 -0400 > I'd also suggest that Johan consider posting the code to some other > public forum until this is decided. That way we can all look at it while > dodging the issue. :) I'd suggest a newsgroup (one can even post > anonymously) or dress it up like a hot secret and send it to a couple > of the hacker underground websites. Or send it to someone who is willing to put it up on a web site or something.
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Paul Volcko wrote: > You came upon this on your own without the help of information > obtained under an NDA orother legally binding contract that you > signed or argeed to. If that statement is true then you can not be > held liable for dissemination of the code or information. The only > possibility here is a software patent violation (which I don't think is > a concern here, I don't think CSS is patented in any way). On the other hand, if he disassembled a piece of software in order to do it, the software probably has a shrinkwrap license with a no-reverse-engineering clause in it. (Whether such a clause is legally binding is another story.)
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Paul Volcko pvolcko@concentric.net Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:26:01 -0400 > > You came upon this on your own without the help of information > > obtained under an NDA orother legally binding contract that you > > signed or argeed to. If that statement is true then you can not be > > held liable for dissemination of the code or information. The only > > possibility here is a software patent violation (which I don't think is > > a concern here, I don't think CSS is patented in any way). > > On the other hand, if he disassembled a piece of software in order to do it, > the software probably has a shrinkwrap license with a no-reverse-engineering > clause in it. (Whether such a clause is legally binding is another story.) This is true, which is why I worded it that way. If he did come upon this through reverse engineering something that he agreed not to by opening the packaging it came in, then he is liable for damages caused by posting or disseminating the code obtained or derived from that dissasembly. Chances are it would be legally binding. The loophole in this, I think, is if he guides someone else through making the code. If he dissasembles something and gains insight into how it works, I think he is only legally bound not to distribute that code or his derived works. That person can, I think, tell other people about what he discovered and guide them through creating something entirely their own that was not the result of their dissasembling anything. Likewise the guy who did dissasemble the original code hasn't produced anything or claimed rights to anything, that person is simply sharing thoughts with others. I'm probably wrong, but it makes sense and I think that is how previous reverse engineering efforts were performed. Kind of like mailing printed copies of code to people overseas in order to export pgp. You are covered by freedom of thought and expression since you havenot produced or transmitted in a compilable electronic form.
[LinuxDVD] Re: linuxdvd posting Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:44:01 +0100 On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 01:45:16PM -0400, Paul Volcko wrote: > > I'd also suggest that Johan consider posting the code to some other > > public forum until this is decided. That way we can all look at it while > > dodging the issue. :) I'd suggest a newsgroup (one can even post > > anonymously) or dress it up like a hot secret and send it to a couple > > of the hacker underground websites. > > Or send it to someone who is willing to put it up on a web site or > something. Reverse enginnering for the purposes of interoperability is legal in Europe (i.e. the European Union). So for example I could legally reverse engineer the code. I can see one possible reason my one might not want to _publically_ expose this code - simply that the DVD industry might try to change the spec, or add extra layers of encryption. Thus rendering software playback useless. Agreed once this is publically available it'll become very visible very quickly. i.e. word of mouth /. etc. Anyway I'm willing to place the code on my personal private web site. People could then grab it from there. -- One other possibility (depending upon the complexity of the code), would be to express the algorithm in English, or some other natural language which is not directly readable by a computer, and then disseminate the info that way. I believe this would get around any US problems (free speech etc). DF -- Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
[LinuxDVD] New Project - WAS: linuxdvd posting Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@purdue.edu Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:51:22 -0500 (EST) Check out livid.on.openprojects.net Full docs for DVD decoder that works with Matrox G200 series cards. Decoder does hardware decrypt and with the new CSS disc unlocking code, we should have a full functioning DVD solution soon. Matt