Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


		  LinuxDVD Project Mailing List Archives

[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

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/