From mpav@purdue.edu Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:39:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:39:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@purdue.edu
Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case

I wanted to keep the DVD Case discussion off of this mailing list, as much
as possible, so I am going to make this brief and recommend anyone else
who wants to discuss the topic to visit opendvd.org
---------------------------------------------------------

As a mostly non-code contributor to this project I find it hard to bring
myself to do this..

One of the best exhibits we could provide the court would be a Linux
machine playing a DVD movie, and a Windows machine w/ a blue screen of
death.  Combine that with the fact that there is no software available to
copy DVDs, I believe that our point that the development was for
ineroperabliity, and not piracy can be made clearly.   

Getting To The Point-
We would need a stable, fast and reliable DVD player for linux by Jan
14th.

I have a 500Mhz Celeron laptop w/ an 8Mb ATI Rago Pro LT.  I am willing to
donate this for use in the court case.  I would not ask
for help if I did not think this was an important cause.  If you are
willing to work on this I commend you, and if you wish to bash and flame
me, I will light your blow torch.

 Matthew R. Pavlovich

From jfbeam@bluetopia.net Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:57:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:57:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Ricky Beam jfbeam@bluetopia.net
Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Matthew R. Pavlovich wrote:
>One of the best exhibits we could provide the court would be a Linux
>machine playing a DVD movie, and a Windows machine w/ a blue screen of
>death.  Combine that with the fact that there is no software available to
>copy DVDs, I believe that our point that the development was for
>ineroperabliity, and not piracy can be made clearly.   

I don't think "playing a DVD movie" is all it's spankin' glory is necessary.
The only point that needs to be made is that the CSS source code is an
absolute REQUIREMENT to even hope to play back a DVD movie.  With out it,
one cannot even access the disk much less descramble the vob file for
playback.

I would make sure the lawyers etch that into the brain of the judge.

I would also suggest introducing as "evidence" the DVD physical specifications
as well as the UDF filesystem specifications (exhibits A and B.)  The DVD
specs are all that is required to duplicate a DVD-ROM disk -- CSS scambled
data, disk keys, and vob keys intact.

Also at issue is the fact that DVD CCA has made no attempt to subvert any
knowledge of the IFO and VOB data file formats.  Those formats constitute
the bulk of the trade secret, copyrighted, and patentable material the DVD
Forum has invested the most time and money developing.

>Getting To The Point-
>We would need a stable, fast and reliable DVD player for linux by Jan
>14th.

This would presume a "crappy" software playback -- missing most of the
magic of the DVD capabilities and having previously noted sync problems.
But for the purposes of proving the DVD CCA a bunch of nar-do-wells, it'll
do.

I'll take as much time as I can find to getting portions of software and
hardware playback functional.  A lot of the material in CVS does "function"
but it's still very much a mess.  (What do you expect for free from people
with jobs and lives to deal with?  I, for example, have several thousand
dollars of hardware gathering dust for lack of time to deal with it.)

--Ricky

PS: I'm on the wrong coast for this farse.

From pvolcko@concentric.net Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:53:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:53:14 -0500 (EST)
From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net
Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case

> Also at issue is the fact that DVD CCA has made no attempt to subvert any
> knowledge of the IFO and VOB data file formats.  Those formats constitute
> the bulk of the trade secret, copyrighted, and patentable material the DVD
> Forum has invested the most time and money developing.

Well, taking a look at the argument the CCA is making for the TRO, I don't
think that anyone will be getting into any trouble for work on the IFO and/or
vob data structures.  It seems that they are pushing the copyright protection
as their base argument.  The alleged illegal disassembly of the Xing
player, in their eyes, lead to the creation of a tool whose only purpose is
for infrgining on copyrights of content producers.  While it is questionable
that CSS provides any kind of copyright protection, it is almost certain that
nothing in the IFO or VOB files really provide copyright protections.  The
region management stuff is the only part of the IFO that I can think of that
would even remotely qualify, and even that is a stretch since it seems to be
more of a release control tool not a content copy protection tool.  

Also, the DeCSS code was out a few months ago in it's "final" form (putting
asside minor changes and key management updates) and it took them all this
time to make a legal move.  The IFO related code is much less
functional than the CSS related code was at its release.  If they are going
to make any move on the IFO related work, it will probably be after there is
something of real substance there (there is still a long way to go
functionality wise).

In short if they were to take legal action on the IFO related work it would
absolutely boil down to them trying to impede fair use rights.  They can't 
make the copyright infringment argument.  As long as there is no "leaking" of
the IFO specs to anyone involved with the IFO development work then what's
being done within Livid is most likely safe.  Since CSS has a much larger grey
area as far as it's use as copyright protection, the CCA is able to move based
on the copyright infringment angle and try to play it to their
advantage.  

Paul Volcko
LSDVD

From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:07:28 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:07:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case

> as their base argument.  The alleged illegal disassembly of the Xing
> player, in their eyes, lead to the creation of a tool whose only purpose is
> for infrgining on copyrights of content producers.  While it is questionable

They are trying to push an argument for illegal disassembly, thus illegal
obtaining of trade secrets. That is likely to be very questionable since
the reverse engineering was probably legal in Norway, was probably legal in
the USA under the Digital Millenium rules as well as assorted prior judgements

> In short if they were to take legal action on the IFO related work it would
> absolutely boil down to them trying to impede fair use rights.  They can't 
> make the copyright infringment argument.  As long as there is no "leaking" of

The copyright side is clear. From the previous supreme court ruling on 
betamax:

| If vicarious liability is to be imposed on Sony in this case, it must rest 
| on the fact that it has sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact 
| that its customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of 
| copyrighted material. There is no precedent in the law of copyright for the 
| imposition of vicarious liability on such a theory. 

[Sony Corp v University City Studios, 
 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984) ]

Alan