From hetz-home@cobol2java.com Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:50:32 +0200 Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:50:32 +0200 From: Hetz Ben Hamo hetz-home@cobol2java.com Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers Hi, If someone would take a look at slashdot.org, and look for the word Australia, you'll see that there is an article about a law who passed in Australia who PERMITS reverse engineering. My idea? if someone from the list is living in Australia and got a permanent connection and a Linux machine, we could move the CVS, and the web site to Australia and can skip the fear of cease and desist. I think we'll split our web to 2 parts: 1. The software DVD player which should move to Australia. 2. The hardware MPEG player, should stay on openprojects.net What do you think about it? -- Hetz Ben Hamo - Sys. Admin. - Intercomp hetz@cobol2java.com --------------------------------------- Redmond, you have a problem..
From pvolcko@concentric.net Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:11:37 -0400 (EDT) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers > If someone would take a look at slashdot.org, and look for the word > Australia, you'll see that there is an article about a law who passed in > Australia who PERMITS reverse engineering. > > My idea? if someone from the list is living in Australia and got a > permanent connection and a Linux machine, we could move the CVS, and the > web site to Australia and can skip the fear of cease and desist. > This may get around some of the issues, but most of the patents pertaining to MPEG-2 and AC-3 are worldwide in scope. Not that US patents are honored world wide, but that the (for example) MPEG-2 patent portfolio includes patents to cover almost all countries. Assume that Australia isn't covered in those patents. The CVS is moved to an Australian site. While the product produced would be legally usable in any country that the patents don't cover, use in or distrbution to any country that is covered by the patents would be considered illegal (I think). Also, the patented material is not covered in RE laws, I don't think. There is technically no REing to be done with patented systems because the information is already public. Where you use code derived from REing or looking at a patent or other public docs doesn't matter, it is still patented and as such the patent holder can ask for payment for use of the method. Australia's RE laws would get us around the CSS licensing and the Navigation API licensing (DVD Forum), but not MPEG-2 or AC-3. These last two are the ones my message was dealing with and are the ones that carry with them the most in terms of licensing costs. I'm sick of all the licensing bullshit just as much as the next person. I know I come off sounding like someone hired by Dolby or MPEGLA or something like that. I can assure you I'm not, but at the same time I don't want to see everyone put all of this time consuming effort into these projects just to have legalities and licensing thrown in our collective face. Sure, once it's out there it's out there, but that doesn't make it any more legal or right. All it does is make us look like irresponsible people hell bent on defying "the system" and wanting to screw people/companies out of what the law says they are entitled to. Not to mention, since this is a linux related project, it will look bad to execs looking at linux and their strategies regarding it. That all said. The MPEG-2 decoder module is perfectly legal at this point (the "display" portion is iffy, but...) and work should continue on it. It might be prudent to seperate the actual decoding portion and the display portion. Distribute them seperately and never talk about them in the same sentence. Most importantly, never say that one works with the other explicitly. Leave it to other people to put the two together. This should circumvent most licensing issues with that for the time being. The AC-3 decoding module is still a work in progress and as such is probably exempt from the licensing terms of Dolby at this point, even for an implementation license. As with the MPEG-2 module, the audio output part is questionable as that moves the code into the realm of both an implementation and a system. This being the case it makes sense to seperate the output and decoding portions as with the MPEG-2 code. Something working to the open source community's advantage in all of this is that the law regulating patent infringment and whatnot are based in retail distribution and commercial software development cycles. Everything I've heard about this stuff seems to indicate that they don't handle public open source development efforts. Specifically, works under construction and in the "design/development" phase generally aren't held to the restrictions of licensing. Only once they are distributed publicly and as a final working product are the laws implemented. Since open source projects are technically development and not working version distributions, it seems that there may be a way for any open source project working with patented material to be freely worked upon collectively. Just say that it is always in development or is not fit for any specific purpose, which is just what is in the GPL (if I'm not mistaken). I don't know any of this for sure. Just something that crept into my mind as I was writing this post. I'm not sure what the patentent infringment laws say specifically. If they deem any publicly available/distributed code/binary that utlizes the method patented, regardless of place in the development cycle, as infringement then all of this paragraph is useless. If it is more specific and says that code/binaries distributed for profit or otherwise deemed capable of performing the task and utilizing the patented method are infringment, then we could be in the clear on all of this under the GPL. Need to find a patent lawyer. Only way any of this will get cleared up. Sorry for the long post. These things are never simple though. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From eric@brouhaha.com 4 Sep 1999 17:27:22 -0000 Date: 4 Sep 1999 17:27:22 -0000 From: Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers > Assume that Australia isn't covered in those patents. The CVS is moved to > an Australian site. While the product produced would be legally usable in > any country that the patents don't cover, use in or distrbution to any > country that is covered by the patents would be considered illegal (I > think). With regard to reverse-engineering CSS, aren't patents a complete non-issue? And, for that matter, the data formats of a video DVD outside of the actual MPEG and AC-3 data? I know there are a zillion patents that are claimed to cover MPEG-2 video, and more for audio, but I haven't seen ANY for CSS, or for the DVD-Video format.
From nstrug@crsa.bu.edu Sat, 4 Sep 1999 14:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 14:42:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicholas Strugnell nstrug@crsa.bu.edu Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers DVD and CSS are not patented for the simple reason that the act of patenting a device means you have to publicly declare how it works. You then get exclusive rights on implementation and licensing for 17 years after which they become public domain. The DVD and CSS mechanisms are not public knowledge, ergo they cannot have been patented. On the point of reverse engineering, it is legal in most countries for purposes of interoperability. The Australian law is actually MORE restrictive than EU and US laws. Case in point: Samba. Reverse engineering CSS is perfectly legal as it is being done for purposes of interoperability - in this case allowing users to use DVD players under unsupported operating systems. The NDA is a non-issue as none of us have signed the NDA. And as previously explained patents are not an issue. Don't know about AC-3 though... Is it patented? Nick Dept. of Geography | Phone (Office): +1 (617) 353-8031 Boston University | Phone (Home): +1 (617) 247-6292 675 Commonwealth Avenue | Fax: +1 (617) 353-8399 Boston, MA 02215-1401, USA | WWW: http://crsa.bu.edu/~nstrug/
From pvolcko@concentric.net Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:19:09 -0400 (EDT) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers I didn't touch on this point in the other post because it was already long enough, but you are right in that CSS and IFO and VOB format are not patented in any way. At least to my knowledge they aren't. As such reverse engineering of the CSS and file formats would be allowable, except for the fact that the REing wouldn't be for compatibility reasons or Y2K compilance or anything like that. It would simply be to "spread the information." While a ncie enough goal and reason, it will not hold up in a court by a long shot. Especially if the REing is based on dissasembled code from an existing product with copyright laws protecting it. IT the REing were done in the "clean room" format where people are handed a requirements/engineering design spec and told to make it and those people have no knowledge of CSS or file formats or anything else, then it would possibly be legal. Again... I'm not a lawyer. I don't even want to be one. :) Just my take on things based on what I've learned and gathered. Paul Volcko LSDVD On 4 Sep 1999, Eric Smith wrote: > > Assume that Australia isn't covered in those patents. The CVS is moved to > > an Australian site. While the product produced would be legally usable in > > any country that the patents don't cover, use in or distrbution to any > > country that is covered by the patents would be considered illegal (I > > think). > > With regard to reverse-engineering CSS, aren't patents a complete non-issue? > And, for that matter, the data formats of a video DVD outside of the > actual MPEG and AC-3 data? > > I know there are a zillion patents that are claimed to cover MPEG-2 video, > and more for audio, but I haven't seen ANY for CSS, or for the DVD-Video > format. > > > _______________________________________________ > Livid-dev maillist - Livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net > http://livid.on.openprojects.net/mailman/listinfo/livid-dev >
From pvolcko@concentric.net Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:29:42 -0400 (EDT) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers > Reverse engineering CSS is perfectly legal as it is being done for > purposes of interoperability - in this case allowing users to use DVD > players under unsupported operating systems. The NDA is a non-issue as > none of us have signed the NDA. And as previously explained patents are > not an issue. Don't know about AC-3 though... Is it patented? On the CSS interoperability claim... it's a stretch. The only way I can see it being claimed that this dissassembly based CSS effort is legal is if we aim to write a DVD authoring tool. In this way we can claim that we are REing for the purpose of being able to create encrypted DVDs compatible with existing players. Even then, I think that use of the products of that REing wouldn't be usable in a player application or decoder module, because interoperability isn't the goal then. I could be wrong. You're claim of interoperability in this effort may very well be totally correct. I hope it is. I'd want to hear it from a lawyer, though, before I sunk too much time and effort into it. Certainly before I'd release CSS decryption/encryption code. As far as AC-3 patented... yes, Dolby Labs holds several patents on aspects of AC-3 encoding/decoding. I'm not sure of the geographical scope of the patents, especially those pertaining to software implementations/systems. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From eric@brouhaha.com 5 Sep 1999 08:02:52 -0000 Date: 5 Sep 1999 08:02:52 -0000 From: Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers <pvolcko@concentric.net> wrote: > I didn't touch on this point in the other post because it was already long > enough, but you are right in that CSS and IFO and VOB format are not > patented in any way. At least to my knowledge they aren't. As such > reverse engineering of the CSS and file formats would be allowable, except > for the fact that the REing wouldn't be for compatibility reasons or Y2K > compilance or anything like that. It would simply be to "spread the > information." 1. The purpose of reverse-engineering it *IS* compatability. Compatability with Linux. Here's the specific scoop from 17 USC Section 1201: (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. Reverse-engineering the VOB format is probably not prohibited, since it isn't really intended as copy protection, so this section probably isn't applicable. The real question is whether reverse-engineering CSS in order to play DVDs under Linux is covered by this section. > While a ncie enough goal and reason, it will not hold up in > a court by a long shot. Especially if the REing is based on dissasembled > code from an existing product with copyright laws protecting it. Even disassembling the code is legal. A lower court ruled in Sega vs. Accolade that it was copyright infringement, but the appeals court reversed the decision. However, use of the literal assembly code or a literal translation to another language such as C may run afoul of copyright law. Cheers, Eric
From eric@brouhaha.com 5 Sep 1999 08:09:57 -0000 Date: 5 Sep 1999 08:09:57 -0000 From: Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers <pvolcko@concentric.net> wrote: > Even then, I think that use of the > products of that REing wouldn't be usable in a player application or > decoder module, because interoperability isn't the goal then. What on earth are you talking about? Of *course* interoperability is the goal. Interoperability with Linux. This is pretty clear from the statute: 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 program Where "independently created computer program" is the Linux DVD player application, and "other program" is the CSS firmware inside the DVD-ROM drive. (Or is it the other way around?)
From pvolcko@concentric.net Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:18:59 -0400 (EDT) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers > 1. The purpose of reverse-engineering it *IS* compatability. Compatability > with Linux. Here's the specific scoop from 17 USC Section 1201: > > [snip] > > Reverse-engineering the VOB format is probably not prohibited, since it isn't > really intended as copy protection, so this section probably isn't applicable. > > The real question is whether reverse-engineering CSS in order to play DVDs > under Linux is covered by this section. > > > While a ncie enough goal and reason, it will not hold up in > > a court by a long shot. Especially if the REing is based on dissasembled > > code from an existing product with copyright laws protecting it. > > Even disassembling the code is legal. A lower court ruled in Sega > vs. Accolade that it was copyright infringement, but the appeals court > reversed the decision. > > However, use of the literal assembly code or a literal translation to > another language such as C may run afoul of copyright law. Eric, First, are you a lawyer or law student or something? Second, did the Sega vs Accolade case involved someone not abiding by a shrink wrap license clause (or some other license) specifically saying no dissassembly or decompilation of this software is allowed?
From pvolcko@concentric.net Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:37:58 -0400 (EDT) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers On 5 Sep 1999, Eric Smith wrote: > <pvolcko@concentric.net> wrote: > > Even then, I think that use of the > > products of that REing wouldn't be usable in a player application or > > decoder module, because interoperability isn't the goal then. > > What on earth are you talking about? Of *course* interoperability is > the goal. Interoperability with Linux. This is pretty clear from the > statute: > > 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 program > > Where "independently created computer program" is the Linux DVD player > application, and "other program" is the CSS firmware inside the DVD-ROM drive. > (Or is it the other way around?) > That argument gets you to having the authentication part covered. It wouldn't cover the actual decryption though. At that point you aren't being interoperable with any software. You are trying to work with raw data. Perhaps there is an argument that would get you decryption as well. But a prosecutor would likely be able to fall back on the issue of having broken a license/contract to begin with by performing the dissasembly. Or use of copyrighted code. I'm not going to get in some argument on this. I don't have the background to make a a case for or against this effort. I never have pretended to. I only wanted to ask the people working on the CSS and IFO file format efforts, especially those who are hosting/leading the efforts, to consider the legalities of whats being done. If for no other reason but to make sure that the time spent completing them is not nulled a few months down the line by some corporate lawyer. I think my statements made it clear that there are some issues. I think your statements, while having a more supportive slant, still make it clear that whats being done is 100% in the clear of legal entanglements. I will answer private email about this topic but I'm not going to bother the list with it anymore. I've said my peace and the main thrust of my point in discussing this still stands. The archives between this list and linuxdvd have all the information I have regarding licensing of AC-3 and MPEG-2. Back to productive work and development. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From eric@brouhaha.com 5 Sep 1999 21:10:20 -0000 Date: 5 Sep 1999 21:10:20 -0000 From: Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers <pvolcko@concentric.net> writes: > First, are you a lawyer or law student or something? No. I am not a lawyer, and if anyone takes my advice as gospel, they'd better not come running back crying to me if they lose a case. But I've been peripherally involved in enough copyright cases that I've had to study the laws a fair bit. > Second, did the Sega vs Accolade case involved someone not abiding by a > shrink wrap license clause (or some other license) specifically saying no > dissassembly or decompilation of this software is allowed? Yes. It is my understanding that in the US, prohibitions on reverse-engineering are generally not enforceable. Usually, however, this is not fought on copyright grounds. In Sega vs. Accolade, the defendant disassembled some code from a Sega Genesis cartridge for the sole purpose of figuring out how to write games for the Genesis. Sega claimed that even if Accolade did not use the Sega code, that because they had disassembled the Sega code they were infringing. As I said, the court decided for Sega, but the appeals court overturned it. This is one of the most famous recent US cases involving reverse-engineering.
From pvolcko@concentric.net Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:43:49 -0400 (EDT) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] an Idea for our servers > It is my understanding that in the US, prohibitions on reverse-engineering > are generally not enforceable. Usually, however, this is not fought on > copyright grounds. In Sega vs. Accolade, the defendant disassembled some > code from a Sega Genesis cartridge for the sole purpose of figuring out > how to write games for the Genesis. Sega claimed that even if Accolade > did not use the Sega code, that because they had disassembled the Sega code > they were infringing. As I said, the court decided for Sega, but the > appeals court overturned it. This is one of the most famous recent US > cases involving reverse-engineering. This is somewhat different than whats being done here. In that case one entity was using knoledge gained from another entity's code to formulate their own methods. In our case of CSS, we are using the code derived in a nearly verbatim way. If we were implementing our own protection scheme and wanted to see how CSs worked, then that case would serve as precedent, I would think. But it's a stretch to claim it sets precedent for the CSS efforts being taken on here, I'd say. Personal opinion, but a safe one. Paul Volcko LSDVD