From pvolcko@concentric.net Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:03:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 12:03:48 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] question At LWE, specifically the friday morning panel discussion on DeCSS/DVD the DMCA rep said that the reverse engineering clauses only apply to computer programs, not media such as movies or CDs. The eff lawyers and everyone else really didn't dissagree with him. Now, on the OVD list we were dicsussing what the PGCI and NV Pack information was ideologically, a program or malign data (yes they are both the same physically, but in use they are different). We pretty much agreed that the PGCI and other stream control mechanisms were in fact program codes. The PGCI information in an IFO file specify a set fo very dicrete and specific instructions for the dvd player "VM" to execute. The NV pack information in part controls parts of the video display subsystem and overall stream playback. These two sentences describe the very definition of what a program is. So can the claim not be made that REing CSS in fact was a necessary step to achieve interoperability of the DVD program structures under a linux version of a DVD player Virtual machine? Thus the reverse engineering exception clauses in the DMCA do in fact apply to the DeCSS program *and it's derivitives*. Now the exception(s) may apply due to some other reason, but I've never heard it said in quite this way. When thought about in the terms described above, it seems to me that there is absolutely no question that the exceptions apply here. Sorry to bring up a decidedly legal issue on the list, but it is very specific to livid in that livid becomes the example DVD Player Virtual Machine for linux. Paul Volcko LSDVD PS - As a side note, if this reasoning does indeed prove the point, then we have the DVD Forum itself to the thank. Their inclusion of such control information in the VOB stream and in the IFO files makes a DVD-Video disc itself a program. Their absolute need to control even the viewing experience during playback (ie no skipping FBI warnings and commercials and whatnot) becomes their legal downfall.
From andreas@andreas.org 07 Feb 2000 01:32:45 +0100 Date: 07 Feb 2000 01:32:45 +0100 From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org Subject: [Livid-dev] question <pvolcko@concentric.net> writes: > At LWE, specifically the friday morning panel discussion on DeCSS/DVD the DMCA > rep said that the reverse engineering clauses only apply to computer > programs, not media such as movies or CDs. The eff lawyers and everyone else > really didn't dissagree with him. Hey, I'm not a lawyer, but it was a Windows player software that was reverse engineered, not a DVD. I fail to see the purpose of the argument. Andreas -- "Now the DVD people are explicitly suing the Internet at large, which makes about as much sense as trying to hold the Pacific Ocean legally responsible for Hurricane Andrew. Even if you win, what is it supposed to mean?" -- Oak, from The Motley Fool
From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 7 Feb 2000 00:08:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 00:08:39 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] question > > At LWE, specifically the friday morning panel discussion on DeCSS/DVD the DMCA > > rep said that the reverse engineering clauses only apply to computer > > programs, not media such as movies or CDs. The eff lawyers and everyone else > > really didn't dissagree with him. > > Hey, I'm not a lawyer, but it was a Windows player software that was > reverse engineered, not a DVD. I fail to see the purpose of the > argument. Well I think the argument is that even though it was a program that was RE'd, the point was not to gain interoperability with the program that was RE'd to get interoperability of the DVD-Video discs on linux. Thus it wasn't so much the Xing program, but the actual discs themselves we are seeking interoperability with. As such it is an important point. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From roberth@ise-tlx.com Mon, 07 Feb 2000 08:29:50 -0700 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 08:29:50 -0700 From: Robert Scott Horning roberth@ise-tlx.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal aspects of reverse engineering DVD-Video (was Re: question) Andreas Bogk wrote: > <pvolcko@concentric.net> writes: > > > At LWE, specifically the friday morning panel discussion on DeCSS/DVD the DMCA > > rep said that the reverse engineering clauses only apply to computer > > programs, not media such as movies or CDs. The eff lawyers and everyone else > > really didn't dissagree with him. > > Hey, I'm not a lawyer, but it was a Windows player software that was > reverse engineered, not a DVD. I fail to see the purpose of the > argument. > > Andreas Although you are correct that this doesn't apply to the deCSS situation (because it was reversed engineered from a "shrink-wrap license protected" executable image prohibiting reverse engineering), but in terms of getting DVD to be working on an open source player, this is rather significant. If (somehow) we were able to reverse engineer the DVD-Video specs by de-multiplexing the VOB & IFO files and figure out how everything is put together from a "clean-room" environment, essentially coming up with our "own" open-source specs, we could "legally" create a DVD-Video player without having to sign the NDA from the DVD Fourm. BTW, the $10,000 for the DVD Fourm is independent of the $10,000 that you have to spend for licensing the CSS stuff. And from my understanding, EACH open source developer would have to spend $10,000, because each person would be an independent developer (for the most part... there would be a couple exceptions). I'm just curious if another legal approach would be useful: The US Constitution specifies that patents & copyrights are in place for the "advancement of the useful arts & sciences." This may be a stretch, but could it be argued that the rather high licensing fee could be considered unconstitutional to obtain the specifications? Or at the very least such specifications could never be protected by patent or copyright legislation? (IE if somebody accidently "loses" a set of the specifications into the trash, a dark alley, ect. that somebody else who didn't sign the NDA could publish them without any legal recourse from the DVD Fourm.) Just my meandering ramblings. -- Robert Scott Horning Integrated Systems Engineering 1115 North 200 East Suite 210 Logan, Utah 84341 Phone: (435) 755-5999 FAX: (435) 755-5992 E-mail: roberth@ise-tlx.com
From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:37:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:37:41 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal aspects of reverse engineering DVD-Video (was Re: question) > Although you are correct that this doesn't apply to the deCSS situation (because it > was reversed engineered from a "shrink-wrap license protected" executable image > prohibiting reverse engineering), but in terms of getting DVD to be working on an > open source player, this is rather significant. If (somehow) we were able to > reverse engineer the DVD-Video specs by de-multiplexing the VOB & IFO files and > figure out how everything is put together from a "clean-room" environment, > essentially coming up with our "own" open-source specs, we could "legally" create a > DVD-Video player without having to sign the NDA from the DVD Fourm. BTW, the > $10,000 for the DVD Fourm is independent of the $10,000 that you have to spend for > licensing the CSS stuff. And from my understanding, EACH open source developer > would have to spend $10,000, because each person would be an independent developer > (for the most part... there would be a couple exceptions). CSS is a bit more than 10K. :) Try 1000K. (this is the latest I've heard, may not be accurate, but would make sense). I agree, though, that a clean room developed IFO and VOB spec would be good for everyone. I talked to MPav and Sean Lynch about his briefly at LWE. Afterwards, though, I thought about it some more and it would seem to me that as long as the current reverse engineering efforts on the IFO and VOB are being done by inspeciton of the streams and files, not through dissassembly of an executable, then things are fine in terms of having any lawsuits brought against the effort (at least with regard to DVD Video Specs). IT is vital though that those people who have had access to the specs do not participate in the reverse engineering process and do not volunteer information beyond that already known to the general public. > I'm just curious if another legal approach would be useful: The US Constitution > specifies that patents & copyrights are in place for the "advancement of the useful > arts & sciences." This may be a stretch, but could it be argued that the rather > high licensing fee could be considered unconstitutional to obtain the > specifications? Or at the very least such specifications could never be protected > by patent or copyright legislation? (IE if somebody accidently "loses" a set of the > specifications into the trash, a dark alley, ect. that somebody else who didn't sign > the NDA could publish them without any legal recourse from the DVD Fourm.) Just my > meandering ramblings. The specs are automatically coverd by copyright (at least the official version ) since all writen and recorded works are by default. However if someone foudn the specs and then either created an open source implementation based on them or created a new set of specs based on ones understanding of the original, then things are legally distributable. Even if someone found the specs laying around they couldn't publish them due to copyright infringement (at least this is my understanding). As far as advancement of the arts and sciences... I don't know. Thats way into the "grey" area of law I think. Very touchy feely, if you know what I mean. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From roberth@ise-tlx.com Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:00:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:00:07 -0700 From: Robert Scott Horning roberth@ise-tlx.com Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal aspects of reverse engineering DVD-Video (wasRe: question) pvolcko@concentric.net wrote: > As far as advancement of the arts and sciences... I don't know. Thats way > into the "grey" area of law I think. Very touchy feely, if you know what I > mean. > > Paul Volcko > LSDVD I was just trying to suggest a potential legal approach to defending some of our actions in developing a DVD player in an open source project. I agree that this is certainly a very grey area, and is something more for legal scholars than for a simple computer nerd like myself. I do wish, from a political/philosophical viewpoint that such licenses such as what the DVD Fourm has made were declared illegal, or at least forced to be brought down to the point that they may only charge sufficiently to cover duplication costs, overhead, and reasonable "membership fees" rather than trying to do a restraint of trade like they really are doing. I was *VERY* surprised that it was suggested that as long as somebody would pay the licensing fee that they would get the specifications. This seems quite contrary to my previous experience with the DVD Fourm representatives that I've dealt with in the past. -- Robert Scott Horning Integrated Systems Engineering 1115 North 200 East Suite 210 Logan, Utah 84341 Phone: (435) 755-5999 FAX: (435) 755-5992 E-mail: roberth@ise-tlx.com
From ekl@wans.net Mon, 07 Feb 2000 15:37:40 -0600 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 15:37:40 -0600 From: Evan Langlois ekl@wans.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > At LWE, specifically the friday morning panel discussion on DeCSS/DVD the DMCA > rep said that the reverse engineering clauses only apply to computer > programs, not media such as movies or CDs. The eff lawyers and everyone else > really didn't dissagree with him. > > Now, on the OVD list we were dicsussing what the PGCI and NV Pack information > was ideologically, a program or malign data (yes they are both the same > physically, but in use they are different). We pretty much agreed that the > PGCI and other stream control mechanisms were in fact program codes. The PGCI > information in an IFO file specify a set fo very dicrete and specific > instructions for the dvd player "VM" to execute. The NV pack information > in part controls parts of the video display subsystem and overall stream > playback. These two sentences describe the very definition of what a program > is. > Sorry, but, whats being protected is a movie, not a virtual machine, not a piece of software. They want to stop you from viewing the movie, period. You guys are getting worse than a damn lawyer trying to say the movie is a computer program running on a virtual machine. Geez.. I suppose you can copy web pages now too since they are just instructions telling the "netscape virtual machine" what to render on your screen right? > So can the claim not be made that REing CSS in fact was a necessary step to > achieve interoperability of the DVD program structures under a linux version > of a DVD player Virtual machine? Thus the reverse engineering exception > clauses in the DMCA do in fact apply to the DeCSS program *and it's > derivitives*. > Huh? > PS - As a side note, if this reasoning does indeed prove the point, then we > have the DVD Forum itself to the thank. Their inclusion of such control > information in the VOB stream and in the IFO files makes a DVD-Video disc > itself a program. Their absolute need to control even the viewing experience > during playback (ie no skipping FBI warnings and commercials and > whatnot) becomes their legal downfall. You gotta pay the big money so that your player DOESN'T allow someone to skip FBI warnings and such! > Well I think the argument is that even though it was a program that was RE'd, > the point was not to gain interoperability with the program that was RE'd to > get interoperability of the DVD-Video discs on linux. Thus it wasn't so much > the Xing program, but the actual discs themselves we are seeking > interoperability with. As such it is an important point. > EXACTLY
From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:58:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:58:38 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > > Now, on the OVD list we were dicsussing what the PGCI and NV Pack information > > was ideologically, a program or malign data (yes they are both the same > > physically, but in use they are different). We pretty much agreed that the > > PGCI and other stream control mechanisms were in fact program codes. The PGCI > > information in an IFO file specify a set fo very dicrete and specific > > instructions for the dvd player "VM" to execute. The NV pack information > > in part controls parts of the video display subsystem and overall stream > > playback. These two sentences describe the very definition of what a program > > is. > > > > Sorry, but, whats being protected is a movie, not a virtual machine, not a piece of > software. They want to stop you from viewing the movie, period. You guys are > getting worse than a damn lawyer trying to say the movie is a computer program > running on a virtual machine. Geez.. I suppose you can copy web pages now too since > they are just instructions telling the "netscape virtual machine" what to render on > your screen right? No a virtual machine isn't being protected, you are right there,. However I do think that a strong argument can be made that the line between program and movie (or the art) are very blurred when it comes to DVD Video titles. They want to control how you view the movie (they don't want to stop you from viewing it). That control is achieved via the CSS mechanisms and encoding and it is achieved via that stream control commands within the IFO and VOB files. Sicne CSS protects the control commands within the VOB files it was necessary to work around it/through it to achieve interoperability of the DVD Video playback command structures with linux OS based playback applications. It is also necessary to reverse engineer the command structures (which is the same as saying DVD Video Disc Language) of DVD Video... ala the IFO parser/navigation implementation effort underway within the livid project. > > So can the claim not be made that REing CSS in fact was a necessary step to > > achieve interoperability of the DVD program structures under a linux version > > of a DVD player Virtual machine? Thus the reverse engineering exception > > clauses in the DMCA do in fact apply to the DeCSS program *and it's > > derivitives*. > > Huh? I'd like to clarify, but I'm not sure what wasn't understood. :) > > PS - As a side note, if this reasoning does indeed prove the point, then we > > have the DVD Forum itself to the thank. Their inclusion of such control > > information in the VOB stream and in the IFO files makes a DVD-Video disc > > itself a program. Their absolute need to control even the viewing experience > > during playback (ie no skipping FBI warnings and commercials and > > whatnot) becomes their legal downfall. > > You gotta pay the big money so that your player DOESN'T allow someone to skip > FBI warnings and such! Yeah. Thats the way things are right now and have been since the inception of DVD Video. > > Well I think the argument is that even though it was a program that was RE'd, > > the point was not to gain interoperability with the program that was RE'd to > > get interoperability of the DVD-Video discs on linux. Thus it wasn't so much > > the Xing program, but the actual discs themselves we are seeking > > interoperability with. As such it is an important point. > > > > EXACTLY > Exactly, perhaps... but the point there is that if that is indeed what we are seeking (interoperability with DVDVideo discs), the DMCA *very* clearly says that it is not protected to reverse engineer the protection (CSS). So you have three options in fighting the suit as a defendant: 1) Get the DMCA declared unlawful. This will take a very long time and will be very costly. IT is the "high road" way to go, but the path of most resistance. 2) Find a tricky type loophole or argument to make that moves DeCSS out of the realm of the DMCA or finds it to be a protected reverse engineering under that Act. 3) Cut a deal with the prosecution. Perhaps the least likely path to be taken. Offers the least resistance though. Just a weak option, however. #2 seems the best way to go to me if one's goal is to win. It will also have the side effect of paving the way for the DMCA to be turned into a dead set of laws, or at the very least more clearly defined. The argument I present above is a potential argument to be made that fits the #2 defense option.
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:13:19 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:13:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > Sorry, but, whats being protected is a movie, not a virtual machine, not a piece of > software. They want to stop you from viewing the movie, period. You guys are The movie is a piece of software, it contains instructions and although primitive it contains conditional jumps, and loops. That makes it a program in the software sense This is one of the fun problems, and the reasons the entire existing copyright system is going to have to get reworked in our new world. The movie people will use that to try and screw everyone because they are terrified of that future. Believe me the DVD software/hardware/movie which is it issue is a tiny facet. You might want to ask a patent lawyer who is liable if a genetic algorithm evolves into a patent infringing format for example. The law has yet to get to grips with simple things like my.mp3.com let alone the complex stuff. Alan
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:15:25 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:15:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > 1) Get the DMCA declared unlawful. This will take a very long time and will > be very costly. IT is the "high road" way to go, but the path of most > resistance. > > The argument I present above is a potential argument to be made that fits the > #2 defense option. #1 is the only interesting solution. Otherwise you'll be getting busted for owning a copy of gdb in the USA in 20 years time
From mpav@debian.org Mon, 07 Feb 2000 18:05:02 EST Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 18:05:02 EST From: Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@debian.org Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > Exactly, perhaps... but the point there is that if that is indeed what we are > seeking (interoperability with DVDVideo discs), the DMCA *very* clearly says > that it is not protected to reverse engineer the protection (CSS). So you > have three options in fighting the suit as a defendant: Even the RE clause in DMCA isn't too clear. From what Mark (DMCA author) was saying at the forum on Friday, the RE clause wouldn't apply to this. > 1) Get the DMCA declared unlawful. This will take a very long time and will > be very costly. IT is the "high road" way to go, but the path of most > resistance. This is the way to go. How many times are we gonna take detours and switchbacks to get to the top of the same hill? It will be costly. It will take a lot of time. What will be more costly and more time consuming? Defeating the DMCA now, or fighting countless other battles and taking concessions when we can? > #2 seems the best way to go to me if one's goal is to win. It will also have > the side effect of paving the way for the DMCA to be turned into a > dead set of laws, or at the very least more clearly defined. Our goal is to win, but not at the potential of sacrificing future technologies and having to fight the same battle over and over. If they set a precedent with the DMCA, companies, such as Microsoft and others in the consumer electronics industry, will have a 12 step program on how to keep future technology out of the hands of consumers. Regards, MRP
From ekl@wans.net Mon, 07 Feb 2000 17:26:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 17:26:46 -0600 From: Evan Langlois ekl@wans.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN Alan Cox wrote: > > Sorry, but, whats being protected is a movie, not a virtual machine, not a piece of > > software. They want to stop you from viewing the movie, period. You guys are > > The movie is a piece of software, it contains instructions and although > primitive it contains conditional jumps, and loops. That makes it a program > in the software sense No your thinking about it all wrong. The stuff on the disk is just how the movie is played. Your thinking of the movie as the information on the disk, and thats not correct. The stuff on the disk is a digital representation of that movie. For example, if you had a Nike swoosh on your web page, that would be illegal cause the swoosh is a trademark of Nike. Doesn't matter if its a GIF, a Java applet, an ActiveX control, or whatever. It may be program code that generates the subject matter (in this case, the movie), but the issue is the movie itself and the attempt to protect that movie, the instructions that generate it aren't the issue. > This is one of the fun problems, and the reasons the entire existing copyright > system is going to have to get reworked in our new world. The movie people > will use that to try and screw everyone because they are terrified of that > future. No one is gonna rewrite our copyright system over this little case that no one has even heard of. We're gonna lose this one.
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:24:56 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:24:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > No your thinking about it all wrong. The stuff on the disk is just how the movie is > played. Your thinking of the movie as the information on the disk, and thats not > correct. The stuff on the disk is a digital representation of that movie. Wrong. The stuff on the disk is a program for a turing complete computer system with a lot of data. The DMCA is actually irrelevant since it is unconstitutionally violating fair use and other rules. > We're gonna lose this one. In which case the sooner the US collapses the better, because everything it ever stood for it has lost. I guess you are paid by the DVD folks to try and make everyone dispirited. Alan
From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:46:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:46:30 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > > 1) Get the DMCA declared unlawful. This will take a very long time and will > > be very costly. IT is the "high road" way to go, but the path of most > > resistance. > > > > The argument I present above is a potential argument to be made that fits the > > #2 defense option. > > #1 is the only interesting solution. Otherwise you'll be getting busted for > owning a copy of gdb in the USA in 20 years time Like I said in the text in the rest of the message. It all depends on the goals of the defendants: 1) get DMCA ruled unconstitutional/unlawful (at least in part) 2) win and be done in the next 5 years I'm simply suggesting that #2 might actually be more in line with what the defendants are seeking here and we need to respect that. Either way a blow si dealt to the DMCA, it's just not being attacked outright in the paticular fight. I agree with you that the #1 option is by far more philisophically and morally pleasing. But this might not the the case(s) we want to try and get it accomplished during. Kind of a chose your battles wisely kind of thing. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From jfreed@johnfreed.com Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:59:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:59:06 -0500 (EST) From: John Freed jfreed@johnfreed.com Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Alan Cox wrote: EL> > We're gonna lose this one. AC> I guess you are paid by the DVD folks to try and make everyone AC> dispirited. Touche'! Mr. Langlois is also incorrect in his example of the Web page. By definition, in order to view the Web page you must first make a copy, at least, into RAM. This is a classic example of "fair use." What the judge in NY said (as I understand it; IANAL) is that "fair use" is a limited defense against copyright infringement, and that to use the defense you must admit the infringement. So css-auth is a tool for copyright infringement, *even if* used solely for fair use. Yikes!
From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 7 Feb 2000 20:01:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 20:01:43 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > > Exactly, perhaps... but the point there is that if that is indeed what we are > > seeking (interoperability with DVDVideo discs), the DMCA *very* clearly says > > that it is not protected to reverse engineer the protection (CSS). So you > > have three options in fighting the suit as a defendant: > > Even the RE clause in DMCA isn't too clear. From what Mark (DMCA author) was > saying at the forum on Friday, the RE clause wouldn't apply to this. I took it to mean that the REing protection clauses do not apply, thus DeCSS is deemed illegal under DMCA. There is some room for interpretation and there are several REing protection clauses covering issues from interoperability of computer programs to education and research, but the DMCA author was arguing that these protections do not apply to the DeCSS program and thus is illegal according to the act. > > 1) Get the DMCA declared unlawful. This will take a very long time and will > > be very costly. IT is the "high road" way to go, but the path of most > > resistance. > > This is the way to go. How many times are we gonna take detours and > switchbacks to get to the top of the same hill? It will be costly. It will > take a lot of time. What will be more costly and more time consuming? > Defeating the DMCA now, or fighting countless other battles and taking > concessions when we can? IF the defendants are willing, go for it I say. I was just trying to suggest alternative paths of fighting the fight. The important point I think is that of the somewhat misleading statement you make above: DMCA is not going to be defeated now. I realize you didn't mean it literally, but it is really important that people involved directly and even on the periphery trying to drum up support int he public that this is going to be a *long* fight. Unless I'm mistaken the level that the current cases are at are not sufficient to actually declare DMCA unlawful, are they? > > #2 seems the best way to go to me if one's goal is to win. It will also have > > the side effect of paving the way for the DMCA to be turned into a > > dead set of laws, or at the very least more clearly defined. > > Our goal is to win, but not at the potential of sacrificing future technologies > and having to fight the same battle over and over. If they set a precedent > with the DMCA, companies, such as Microsoft and others in the consumer > electronics industry, will have a 12 step program on how to keep future > technology out of the hands of consumers. Good, I'm glad that is the mindset. As Alan Cox said, it is the only interesting defense option. I agree whole heartedly. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From pvolcko@concentric.net Mon, 7 Feb 2000 20:13:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 20:13:12 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > > This is one of the fun problems, and the reasons the entire existing copyright > > system is going to have to get reworked in our new world. The movie people > > will use that to try and screw everyone because they are terrified of that > > future. > > No one is gonna rewrite our copyright system over this little case that no one has even > heard of. > > We're gonna lose this one. Rest assured that in the coming months people will hear about and it learn of the evils being commited at the expense of the individual. Just as linux is growing by leaps and bound as of late, this issue will gain recognition and attention. Perfect example, the 2600 MPAA flyer. Reading it you'll very likely laugh it off initially. I mean seriously this is supposed to be the beginning of the end of individual freedom?! HA! But the thing is, if you think about it for a little bit and take a look at what is at stake and it really is the case. DMCA and the precedents that could be set in the cases going through the system right now have the potential to severely limit rights to expression, self education, and in general all the values associated with hacking (not cracking). Paul Volcko LSDVD
From mpav@debian.org Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:18:03 EST Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:18:03 EST From: Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@debian.org Subject: [Livid-dev] livid [WAS:] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > No one is gonna rewrite our copyright system over this little case that no > one has even > heard of. If no one hears of this case, then it is our own fault. Instead of trying to cut down those formulating a plan, how about some constructive ideas on how to combat the forces against us? You seem to take enough interest in Linux development to follow the LiViD mailing list, but you are ready to quit at a moments notice. You know what? I think I am gonna quit, too. I mean really, what do we have to gain here? Yeah, we gave it a good shot. Had a few laughs here and there. By the way, New York City is pretty cool. Wouldn't have gone there had it not been for this project. But, that's all over now. What should we do now? I have always wondered what it would be like to paint murals on the side of expressways. Don't bother replying to this message, the shows over. LiViD is disbanding. I sent a letter to Larry, he agrees and everyone at VA is gonna be let go, because we can't win. ESR has signed up for a creative writing course at the local community college. Alan has taken up water polo at the local club, and Linus has opened an Irish pub in San Jose. Slashdot has turned converted to an internet tabloid, and is now accepting photos and articles about celebrities and/or three eyed ragamuffins. Bob Young decided tap dancing was his calling, and the entire Xfree86 team has started an online bridge league. Oh, I almost forgot about our friends at the gnome project.. they are going to be featured on a Lifetime orginal about these twelve people that live in a box car for three months. I think too many people associate Linux as another product, a new toy for people to try out and tinker with. Its the next 'thing', just a fad. A few people made some bucks on Wall Street, wasn't that nice? Whoop-di-do. La-di-frick-n-da. There will be something out next fall, along with the new Backstreet boys album. To these people, I offer a challenge for them to open their eyes and see what is really going on. Linux _is_ a product. But it is a product of a new way of thinking, designing and operating technology and industry. It is the child of the open source movement. It could have been called anything, started by anyone, but it was *bound* to happen. The last quarter of a century has been spent exploring new ways of developing technology, and designing systems. All previous methods and means of business have, or will fail. Linux isn't about replacing what is available (well, kind of), it is a new way of thinking about how to extend technology. The open source development model is the result of all the previous ideas not being the best way to work. We have proved this to be the superior model, and care enough about it to challenge those that see other wise. > We're gonna lose this one. This, we will not do. MRP
From mpav@debian.org Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:31:23 EST Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 22:31:23 EST From: Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@debian.org Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN > Kind of a chose your battles wisely kind of thing. I think I speak for the majority of those involved, when I say that we may be able to scoot out from under this barely scratched, but when we come out the other side, they will be waiting again, this time with sharper claws. We *can* win. To do this, we need money, support and most importantly a game plan. The basis for this plan is being put into place. ***The most important thing I can stress to people is that we _must_ inform the general public in a civilized manner.*** Flaming, shouting and battering does not accomplish anything. It will only hamper our efforts to win over public opinion. I have spent the last month doing countless interviews, answering several thousand e-mails and from time to time catching a wink of sleep. With all that I have done, I know there is still far more. If they set a precedent with a case backing the DMCA, there will be a blue print for anyother company to follow, if they chose to illiminate operability with an open source operating system. We could face *countless* actions in the future. However, if we win. We establish that open source development is a viable means for enhancing technology, then we get a *huge* boost in what we support (technology wise). MRP
From derek@spider.com Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:19:25 +0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:19:25 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD-CSS, sigh AGAIN On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:59:06PM -0500, John Freed wrote: > > What the judge in NY said (as I understand it; IANAL) is that "fair use" > is a limited defense against copyright infringement, and that to use the > defense you must admit the infringement. So css-auth is a tool for > copyright infringement, *even if* used solely for fair use. Yikes! Except all of the legal aruments have been about DeCSS not about css-auth. Draw your own conclusions... DF -- Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034 PGP/GnuPG Keys available