From derek@spider.com Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:40:44 +0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:40:44 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Subject: [Livid-dev] CSS I will have nothing to do with work on CSS. If there is any work that I may be considered to have ownership of, I give up all rights to that work. DF -- Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034 PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From jean@kcco.com Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:05:56 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:05:56 -0600 (CST) From: Jean Liddle jean@kcco.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal defenses and all that Derek, If you find yourself in legal trouble, please let us know of any legal fund or other way we can help. I for one appreciate the works everyone here has collected and contributed to, and look forward to being able to watch DVD's under Linux using open source drivers, and would be happy to help out. FWIW, as I understand it reverse engineering is legal for purposes of interoperability, which is clearly (and on the public record as) the whole point of this project -- getting DVD to work (interoperate) with Linux. Jean.
From nstrug@crsa.bu.edu Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:16:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:16:09 -0500 (EST) From: Nicholas Strugnell nstrug@crsa.bu.edu Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal defenses and all that On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Jean Liddle wrote: > > FWIW, as I understand it reverse engineering is legal for purposes of > interoperability, which is clearly (and on the public record as) the > whole point of this project -- getting DVD to work (interoperate) with > Linux. > Jean, Derek was told that he was in violation of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, Sections 296(1) and (2). These sections read: 296 Devices designed to circumvent copy-protection (1) This section applies where copies of a copyright work are issued to the public, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, in an electronic form which is copy-protected. (2) The person issuing the copies to the public has the same rights against a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies- (a) makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any device or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent the form of copy-protection employed, or (b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection, as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright. [(2A) Where the copies being issued to the public as mentioned in subsection (1) are copies of a computer program, subsection (2) applies as if for the words "or advertises for sale or hire" there were substituted "advertises for sale or hire or possesses in the course of a business.] Clearly, the DVD consortium would try to demonstrate breach of copyright under clause 2(b) as Derek has published information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection. The fact that we are NOT using this information to actually copy DVDs is IRRELEVENT, simply publishing the information is, under this statute, equivalent to infringement of copyright. IANAL but in my opinion Derek would be found liable by the court as this statute stands. Derek is a scapegoat - the DVD consortium have not gone after MoRE or others who have worked on cracking CSS because they reside in coutries that do not have such a law on the books. Unfortunately, the UK parliament passed this law (no doubt after considerable lobbying by industry groups) and Derek is a UK resident so they went after him. EVEN if the DVD Consortium was on shaky legal grounds, the cost in time and money of fighting a copyright infringement case is astronomical and I think most people in Derek's position would have done the same thing. There is no point in arguing over whether reverse engineering is legal, whether this is a breach of free speech; as the statute stands, publishing details on how to circumvent copyright prevention is itself an infringement of copyright, pure and simple. However, all is not lost - I and every other person on this group still have access to the CSS code. Thousands of slashdotters downloaded it, it is available on safe mirrors around the world. 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 laredo@gnu.org Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:02:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:02:00 -0500 (EST) From: laredo@gnu.org laredo@gnu.org Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games Just in case anyone cares, I just thought I would try a little legal word game here: > 296 Devices designed to circumvent copy-protection > > (1) This section applies where copies of a copyright work are issued to > the public, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, in an > electronic form which is copy-protected. This implies that DVD is distributed in electronic form when in fact it is a physical object composed of lots of precicely placed pits on the surface of a disc. This also implies that CSS is some form of copy protection. One could argue that it is not, and is in fact only a means designed by the studios to prevent "fair-use". > (2) The person issuing the copies to the public has the same rights > against a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that it will be > used to make infringing copies- This implies that the code was released for some purpose other than allowing users of alternative operating systems to watch DVD. I could use a knife to kill someone, but that doesn't mean knives should be banned since they also work quite well in the kitchen. > (a) makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or > hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any device or means specifically > designed or adapted to circumvent the form of copy-protection employed, or This implies that some sort of monetary transaction is taking place. This is not the case. On top of that, it's the end user that "makes" the end product since all that is being provided is source code. This is similar to recent events where a certain drug could not be sold but all of the ingredients to make the drug could be purchased from a company. This company was found legally in the clear. > (b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to > circumvent that form of copy-protection, Again, this presumes that CSS is some form of copy protection when a valid argument is that it is a means applied by the movie studios to prevent "fair-use" of a product. CSS is more a method of controling the users and maintaining a monopoly stranglehold on the DVD market. > as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright. No copyright was violated in the creation of the source code to effect playback of CSS-encoded DVD under alternative operating systems. Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability have been proven time after time legal in court. Again, I can take a clearly innocent object and use it for good or evil and for everything outside the world of "copyright" the people who designed that object are not held responsible for its misuse. I've never seen International sued because they made big trucks that often kill people on the highway. Additionally, all of this, as previously stated, presumes that CSS is a form of copy protection and not some monopolistic effort to block "fair use". I quite obviously don't believe CSS is a means of copy protection at all. Additionally, greater than 50% of a DVD content is not scrambled in any way and Windows 98 has allowed free copying of this data since it was first released. I'm no lawyer, and the above represents my thoughts on the issue and not legal advice of any kind. -- Nathan Laredo laredo@gnu.org
From sandeen@jump.net Tue, 09 Nov 1999 19:59:48 -0600 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 19:59:48 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen sandeen@jump.net Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games laredo@gnu.org wrote: > > Just in case anyone cares, I just thought I would try a little legal > word game here: > > > 296 Devices designed to circumvent copy-protection > > > > (1) This section applies where copies of a copyright work are issued to > > the public, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, in an > > electronic form which is copy-protected. > > This implies that DVD is distributed in electronic form when in fact > it is a physical object composed of lots of precicely placed pits on > the surface of a disc. Hm... I don't think that's gonna work. "Electronic form" is always going to mean some sort of media like this. Probably anything in digital, binary form constitutes "electronic." Hopefully they define these terms some where? > This also implies that CSS is some form of copy protection. One could > argue that it is not, and is in fact only a means designed by the > studios to prevent "fair-use". This sounds more promising. Copy protection is something like Macrovision - you can watch it, but if you try to copy it, it'll cause you problems. CSS severely restricts your ability to even watch it. (You must use a sanctioned player available only for a subset of the OSs out there.) > > (2) The person issuing the copies to the public has the same rights > > against a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that it will be > > used to make infringing copies- > > This implies that the code was released for some purpose other than > allowing users of alternative operating systems to watch DVD. I could > use a knife to kill someone, but that doesn't mean knives should be > banned since they also work quite well in the kitchen. True, this is a bit of a supposition of guilt. However, history is probably on the side of the argument that one should have "reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies" when one defeats digital encryption. I'm not agreeing with the law, I'm just saying that's what the law says. > > (a) makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or > > hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any device or means specifically > > designed or adapted to circumvent the form of copy-protection employed, or > > This implies that some sort of monetary transaction is taking place. This > is not the case. On top of that, it's the end user that "makes" the end > product since all that is being provided is source code. This is similar > to recent events where a certain drug could not be sold but all of the > ingredients to make the drug could be purchased from a company. This > company was found legally in the clear. Hm... that's some serious word game. I don't think that's the "make" they were talking about. :) By extension, even a binary is in the clear, since it does not in itself decrypt anything - the user must first type the name of the executable... > > (b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to > > circumvent that form of copy-protection, > > Again, this presumes that CSS is some form of copy protection when a > valid argument is that it is a means applied by the movie studios to > prevent "fair-use" of a product. CSS is more a method of controling > the users and maintaining a monopoly stranglehold on the DVD market. Again, I like this argument. :) > > as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright. > > No copyright was violated in the creation of the source code to effect > playback of CSS-encoded DVD under alternative operating systems. > Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability have been > proven time after time legal in court. > > Again, I can take a clearly innocent object and use it for good or > evil and for everything outside the world of "copyright" the people > who designed that object are not held responsible for its misuse. > I've never seen International sued because they made big trucks that > often kill people on the highway. > > Additionally, all of this, as previously stated, presumes that CSS > is a form of copy protection and not some monopolistic effort to > block "fair use". I quite obviously don't believe CSS is a means > of copy protection at all. Additionally, greater than 50% of a > DVD content is not scrambled in any way and Windows 98 has allowed > free copying of this data since it was first released. > I agree the "CSS is not copy protection" is the best argument. This law targets efforts to circumvent copy protection, but I don't know what the definition of that term is with respect to this law. What CSS clearly does is prevent the user from directy accessing the data. It is less clear that it prevents the user from copying that data. As such, I think an argument can be made that it blocks fair use more than it prevents illegal copies. Also, I don't like this law (and it's US counterpart, the Millenium Digital Copyright Act) because it criminalizes unauthorized decryption, regardless of the reason for the decryption. In a sense, it establishes some sort of "digital tresspass" - even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're not supposed to _be_ there. The ludicrous extreme that this could go to is that if someone invents a text "encryption scheme" where, say, each character is replaced with it's ASCII code, it would be illegal to "decrypt" that scheme. Also (as you said), it says that if someone makes a tool which is subsequently used by a criminal, then that person is held accountable to the same extent as the criminal for those criminal acts - whether or not they actually occur. Your knife analogy works well to show that this is not a good model. However, the law(s) stand(s), and it seems to be in place to protect the copyright holder at the expense of the user. I suppose that it will take a serious legal challenge to make make any progress here. -Eric
From andreas@andreas.org 10 Nov 1999 15:05:56 +0100 Date: 10 Nov 1999 15:05:56 +0100 From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games laredo@gnu.org writes: > Just in case anyone cares, I just thought I would try a little legal > word game here: > > 296 Devices designed to circumvent copy-protection While your thoughts are of course right, I'm afraid there are people who can't afford the risk of being sued by someone *that* big. The risk is just too high. I'm talking to some people at the moment who *can* afford being sued by them, and who are willing and able to run a server to host further development, if possible in a country without copyright laws. People in countries with less fortunate laws can always contribute by posting to this list via a remailer. Gruss Andreas -- "We should be willing to look at the source code we produce not as the end product of a more interesting process, but as an artifact in its own right. It should look good stuck up on the wall." -- http://www.ftech.net/~honeyg/progstone/progstone.html
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:21:12 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:21:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games > I'm talking to some people at the moment who *can* afford being sued > by them, and who are willing and able to run a server to host further > development, if possible in a country without copyright laws. > > People in countries with less fortunate laws can always contribute by > posting to this list via a remailer. One thing we should do IMHO though is to merge css-cat and the player. Not only so we get streaming video but so you need to actually hack the code up to use it for piracy. Granted it wont stop anyone with a clue but it does mean J Random can't abuse it Alan
From jean@kcco.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:42:45 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:42:45 -0600 (CST) From: Jean Liddle jean@kcco.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games On 10 Nov, Alan Cox wrote: > > One thing we should do IMHO though is to merge css-cat and the player. Not > only so we get streaming video but so you need to actually hack the code > up to use it for piracy. Granted it wont stop anyone with a clue but it > does mean J Random can't abuse it I confess the idea of the MPAA or other such entities forcing the developers to make or change design decisions of this kind annoys me more than a little. I would prefer seeing something like dvdd being realized, where client programs (running on perhaps a different machine) could forward the necessary queries and data to a daemon (perhaps running in a completely different, friendly country), which would in turn return the disk and title keys as required. This would protect people in countries with super-draconian laws, in which even the player wouldn't be legal if the css-auth code were included. Their stripped down players could connect to the server, obtain the 2048 byte disk key and 5 byte title keys running in, say, the Czech Republic, and they could view their DVDs without fear of legal reprisal. Something like this appears to have been Derek's original intent, I think. Comments?
From declan@wired.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:54:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:54:38 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games At 15:05 11/10/1999 +0100, Andreas Bogk wrote: >laredo@gnu.org writes: > >> Just in case anyone cares, I just thought I would try a little legal >> word game here: >> > 296 Devices designed to circumvent copy-protection > >While your thoughts are of course right, I'm afraid there are people >who can't afford the risk of being sued by someone *that* big. The >risk is just too high. Right. Word games are fun and amusing on a mailing list, but less so when you're hauled into court and have already spent UK10,000 on lawyer fees. Besides, it seems to me that the British law is both straightforward and severe. -Declan
From frank@funcom.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:19:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:19:58 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Andrew Stevenson frank@funcom.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Declan McCullagh wrote: > [SNIP] > > Besides, it seems to me that the British law is both straightforward and > severe. > > -Declan It is a mystery to me how the lawyers had the nerve to try this in Norway. The Norwegian law explicitly permits copying for private, and non-commercial usage. http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/usr/www/lovdata/all/ tl-19610512-002-004.html&emne=%c5ndsverkloven& 12. When not for monetary gain, single copies of public works can be made for private use. These copies must be used for this purpose alone. Exeptions are: a) Copy architecture, by constructing buildings b) Make machine readable copys of computer programs c) Make machine readable copies of databases d) Reproduce works of art by photcopying, imprints, or by other means, when the objects can be considered an 'original work' As this permits the copy of CD->CD CD->tape DVD->VHS etc, one would be hard pressed to find a reason why copying DVD->(insert digital format of choice) shouldnt be legal. IANAL, but it seems simple to me. BTW: A technical description of the CSS weaknesses, and mirrors of my posts that got yanked from the archives can be found at: at crypto.gq.nu ( <- next in line for yanking ? ) frank This sentence is unique in this respect; it can safely be attributed to my employer, Funcom Oslo AS. 9C6A46E606959C4B8C84 47B72836446BE34311EC PGPmail preferred There is no place like N59 50.558' E010 50.870'. (WGS84)
From derek@spider.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:28:01 +0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:28:01 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 08:42:45AM -0600, Jean Liddle wrote: > > I would prefer seeing something like dvdd being realized, where client > programs (running on perhaps a different machine) could forward the > necessary queries and data to a daemon (perhaps running in a completely > different, friendly country), which would in turn return the disk and > title keys as required. This would protect people in countries with > super-draconian laws, in which even the player wouldn't be legal if the > css-auth code were included. Their stripped down players could connect > to the server, obtain the 2048 byte disk key and 5 byte title keys > running in, say, the Czech Republic, and they could view their DVDs > without fear of legal reprisal. Something like this appears to have > been Derek's original intent, I think. That's not my intent with dvdd. Assume for the moment that all DVDs are unencrypted (some do exist). Now assume you have a daemon, that upon connection and appropriate request, can serve a MPEG stream down a connection. What will happen is that a MPEG player would connect to the appropriate socket, say 'I want video, angle sequence 0, and audio sequence 1' It would then wait for data to come in and simply display what it gets. Another client could come along, connect and say 'I'm a navigation controller - ok play the data that's been requested'. This navigation stream could be subsequently used to change what 'angle sequence 0' and 'audio sequence 1' map to. It could also do thing like 'jump to chapter x' or 'go forward 4 minutes' etc. The navigation itself would be handled by the daemon (since it has access to the IFO files). Note: This is all structured around the fact I have an ethernet at home. DF -- Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034 PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From derek@spider.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:32:30 +0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:32:30 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 04:19:58PM +0100, Frank Andrew Stevenson wrote: > It is a mystery to me how the lawyers had the nerve to try this in Norway. > > The Norwegian law explicitly permits copying for private, and > non-commercial usage. [ snip ] > 12. When not for monetary gain, single copies of public works can be made > for private use. These copies must be used for this purpose alone. > > Exeptions are: > a) Copy architecture, by constructing buildings > b) Make machine readable copys of computer programs > c) Make machine readable copies of databases > d) Reproduce works of art by photcopying, imprints, or by other > means, when the objects can be considered an 'original work' Maybe they are claiming it's a computer program? DF -- Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034 PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:41:24 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:41:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games > BTW: > A technical description of the CSS weaknesses, and mirrors > of my posts that got yanked from the archives can be found at: > at crypto.gq.nu ( <- next in line for yanking ? ) Have you considered submitting the material as an article to 2600 magazine or to Phrack ? One thing people in the US do all seem to understand is the freedom of press
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:50:34 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:50:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games > I confess the idea of the MPAA or other such entities forcing the > developers to make or change design decisions of this kind annoys me > more than a little. Perhaps, and their flailing legal attitude is a bit comical and doing them a lot of harm but at the same time if we can make piracy harder and not compromise the player why not Also the CSS decode has left the data in the L1 cache so why not use that for performance too
From andreas@andreas.org 10 Nov 1999 17:00:57 +0100 Date: 10 Nov 1999 17:00:57 +0100 From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > One thing we should do IMHO though is to merge css-cat and the player. Not > only so we get streaming video but so you need to actually hack the code > up to use it for piracy. Granted it wont stop anyone with a clue but it > does mean J Random can't abuse it This is *exactly* the attitude of the DVD consortium. "Sure, we can't stop the piracy, but let's throw some stones in the way of the ordinary customer anyways". That's what got us in the trouble in the first place, and no, I'm not willing to play the game by their rules. According to German law, I have the right to make copies of movies for my own private use. Andreas -- "We should be willing to look at the source code we produce not as the end product of a more interesting process, but as an artifact in its own right. It should look good stuck up on the wall." -- http://www.ftech.net/~honeyg/progstone/progstone.html
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:01:46 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:01:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games > According to German law, I have the right to make copies of movies for > my own private use. Do you know if you have the right to make a decrypted copy however ? (just curious) Alan
From andreas@andreas.org 10 Nov 1999 17:32:49 +0100 Date: 10 Nov 1999 17:32:49 +0100 From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games Alan Cox < alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > > According to German law, I have the right to make copies of movies for > > my own private use. > Do you know if you have the right to make a decrypted copy however ? Where is the difference, if the keys are included? But the answer is yes, I'm also allowed to buy a Macrovison protection removal system and use it to make a copy of a Macrovision-protected VHS, as long as I'm not going to sell the copy. *And* I am allowed to sell the protection removal system. I'm running all this through a lawyer, just to make sure I don't get burned. Andreas -- "We should be willing to look at the source code we produce not as the end product of a more interesting process, but as an artifact in its own right. It should look good stuck up on the wall." -- http://www.ftech.net/~honeyg/progstone/progstone.html
From greg@linuxpower.cx Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:52:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:52:42 -0500 From: Greg Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games Declan McCullagh wrote: > Right. Word games are fun and amusing on a mailing list, but less so when > you're hauled into court and have already spent UK10,000 on lawyer fees. > > Besides, it seems to me that the British law is both straightforward and > severe. You go away. The reactionary BS printed in your mag has done more to harm this effort then anything else by far. The law isn't clear because it fails to clearly define copyright-protection and it fails to define how to tell a program from one ment to allow legal uses from one solely for copying. Clearly, the linux code's intent here was not to facilitate theft. It's still not possible to make a working DVD from some decrypted VOB's, the IFO, and a DVDR drive and as far as I've seen no one is working on that.
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:05:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:05:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games > Clearly, the linux code's intent here was not to facilitate theft. It's > still not possible to make a working DVD from some decrypted VOB's, the > IFO, and a DVDR drive and as far as I've seen no one is working on that. Why would they. A professional can do it for $30K US already with hardware. By the time they've figured in bribes, protection money and dealer chains its a penny in the ocean
From greg@linuxpower.cx Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:36:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:36:49 -0500 (EST) From: Gregory Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Alan Cox wrote: > > Clearly, the linux code's intent here was not to facilitate theft. It's > > still not possible to make a working DVD from some decrypted VOB's, the > > IFO, and a DVDR drive and as far as I've seen no one is working on that. > > Why would they. A professional can do it for $30K US already with hardware. > By the time they've figured in bribes, protection money and dealer chains > its a penny in the ocean I mention this on my CSS mirror page: http://www.linuxpower.cx/~greg/css/
From jherico@iname.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:45:58 +0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:45:58 +0000 From: jherico@iname.com jherico@iname.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games > laredo@gnu.org wrote: > I agree the "CSS is not copy protection" is the best argument. This law > targets efforts to circumvent copy protection, but I don't know what the > definition of that term is with respect to this law. What CSS clearly > does is prevent the user from directy accessing the data. It is less > clear that it prevents the user from copying that data. As such, I > think an argument can be made that it blocks fair use more than it > prevents illegal copies. No... the argument should be that "CSS represents an attempt by the DVD consortium to tie control of DVD playback mechanisms to legal accountabliity to Copyright law." Whether or not such an attempt is lawful or valid, is what would be fought over in a court. Simply saying "CSS is not copy protection (but represents the big bad corporations trying to squash freedom)" would just get you hammered. If you want to make an argument that instead of painting us (the linux user community that wants to watch DVD's) into a corner, that they have painted themselves into a corner. They want to say that everyone who tries to make an open source player is in violation of copyright law because it enables pirates to copy the unencrypted data. Since copyright law seems to revolve aronud intent, we can truthfully say we just wanted to create a method of watching DVD's on linux. If the result is that we make it easier to pirate, its hardly our fault. However this argument may not hold much water because publication of the decoding mechanism is not necessarily required for the creation of a linux DVD player. A binary only release is entirely possible and I think that's probably how the courts would see it. Brad
From andreas@andreas.org 11 Nov 1999 23:32:03 +0100 Date: 11 Nov 1999 23:32:03 +0100 From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal word games jherico@iname.com writes: > However this argument may not hold much water because publication of the > decoding mechanism is not necessarily required for the creation of a linux DVD > player. A binary only release is entirely possible and I think that's probably > how the courts would see it. I tried to acquire a CSS license to do exactly that, and didn't receive an answer. Andreas -- "We should be willing to look at the source code we produce not as the end product of a more interesting process, but as an artifact in its own right. It should look good stuck up on the wall." -- http://www.ftech.net/~honeyg/progstone/progstone.html