From derek@spider.com Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:44:00 +0000
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:44:00 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
My web page is down at the moment 'cause someone (I don't know who)
is claiming it violates copyright. I'm trying to persue this at the
moment with my ISP. We'll see what happens.
Maybe they'll go after the CVS archive next, and the mailing list
archives, and slashdot, and ...
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From derek@spider.com Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:52:30 +0000
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:52:30 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 03:46:20PM +0100, Alain Borel wrote:
>
> On 05-Nov-99 Derek Fawcus wrote:
> > My web page is down at the moment 'cause someone (I don't know who)
> > is claiming it violates copyright. I'm trying to persue this at the
> > moment with my ISP. We'll see what happens.
> >
> > Maybe they'll go after the CVS archive next, and the mailing list
> > archives, and slashdot, and ...
> Could you please post the CVS procedure? I forgot to write it down
> thinking I could always refer to your page...
CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@cvs.on.openprojects.net:/cvs/livid cvs -z3 co -r Ver-0_9 css-auth
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From kju@flummi.de Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:04:16 +0100
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:04:16 +0100
From: Michael Holzt kju@flummi.de
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:44:00PM +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> Maybe they'll go after the CVS archive next, and the mailing list
> archives, and slashdot, and ...
Grr, this guys are just tooo stupid. None of the above will stop
the problem. There are so many copies of the software around in the
internet and this kind of behaviour just increases the interest in
it.
All this legal shit never stopped anything. All this will lead to
'blabla.to/blupp' adresses pointing to daily changing geocities/
xoom/... servers.
The illegal software for decrypting pay-tv is the best example
for this.
Instead of making us responsible for their poor design of CSS
they should go for the things already discussed like watermarking
etc.
I do not want to copy the movies, i want just see them, and to
do this, i will need to be able to read the data. Of course this
would allow me to recode the files to MPEG1 (VCD) but this leads
to bad quality.
The industry should really be happy, that the insecurity of CSS
was revealed at this point. There are still no recordable medias
which would hold the data of a DVD as it is (in original quality
with all extras). So when they will now developing such media,
they are able to add such things like watermarks, track modulation
etc.
CSS was just the old story - Security by obscurity. I say it again:
In fact the industry should thank us for showing that CSS was crap.
It would be worse if this had happened in 5 years when we all have
our 5 GByte DVD-RAM installed with media available for $5, because
then it would be to late to add such things.
--
with kindly regards
Michael Holzt
From andreas@andreas.org 05 Nov 1999 16:15:16 +0100
Date: 05 Nov 1999 16:15:16 +0100
From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
Derek Fawcus <derek@spider.com> writes:
> Maybe they'll go after the CVS archive next, and the mailing list
> archives, and slashdot, and ...
Would it be possible to enable anonymous rsync access to the CVS
repository? Then we could organize mirrors in more friendly
countries...
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 derek@spider.com Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:12:00 +0000
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:12:00 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Re: The legal side has started
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:44:00PM +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> My web page is down at the moment 'cause someone (I don't know who)
> is claiming it violates copyright. I'm trying to persue this at the
> moment with my ISP. We'll see what happens.
Still haven't got full details, but it "potentially violates the
Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988; Sectiond 296(1) and (2)".
So I couldn't find this at HMSO web site - anyone know if there's a
copy online, or have I got to visit the Library?
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From blacava@edupoint.com Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:04:09 -0800
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:04:09 -0800
From: Brandon LaCava blacava@edupoint.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:04:16 +0100 Michael Holzt kju@flummi.de wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:44:00PM +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote:
>> Maybe they'll go after the CVS archive next, and the mailing list
>> archives, and slashdot, and ...
>
>Grr, this guys are just tooo stupid. None of the above will stop
>the problem. There are so many copies of the software around in the
>internet and this kind of behaviour just increases the interest in
>it.
>
>All this legal shit never stopped anything. All this will lead to
>'blabla.to/blupp' adresses pointing to daily changing geocities/
>xoom/... servers.
... etc ...
Just from a legal perspective, reverse engineering an algorithm and then
using it or distributing/publishing it are still copyright violations
regardless of your intentions or opinions. Just because you are _able_
(physically or electronically) to access a certain piece of information
doesn't give you the right to use it or distribute it, for profit or not.
I have access to _highly_ controlled information every day, and just because
I know the details and believe in freedom of information, it doesn't mean I
can publish it. Not that I care too particularly about the CSS topic either
way, but you have to be _very_ careful when reverse engineering copyrighted
material. Remember Intel vs. AMD? It's no different than if one of the
original engineers turned traitor and published the actual algorithm. All
the money and time they put into designing the system is now worthless, and
their copyrighted algorithm (and probably patented technique) is now being
used unlicensed. If I were the author(s) I would start preparing in case a
very painful legal issue develops. Remember, you've just picked a fight with
a rather unforgiving multi-billion-dollar power... Keep in mind I'm not a
lawyer so errors in my understanding of this topic are possible.
blacava@edupoint.com
From eric@brouhaha.com 5 Nov 1999 19:51:57 -0000
Date: 5 Nov 1999 19:51:57 -0000
From: Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
Brandon LaCava <blacava@edupoint.com> wrote:
> Just from a legal perspective, reverse engineering an algorithm and then
> using it or distributing/publishing it are still copyright violations
> regardless of your intentions or opinions.
Let's not start up the legal arguments again. We've been through all of
this before, and the reality is that each country has their own laws about
it. In the US, publishing the information would be probably be legal
(despite the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act), but in the UK
it appears that it may not be.
Also, there is a big difference between reverse-engineering and copyright
infringement. If I post a copy or disassembly of copyrighted code, that
is copyright infringement. If I reverse-engineer the code, study the
algorithm, and write my own compatible implementation, that's generally
not copyright infringement.
Eric
From derek@spider.com Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:34:10 +0000
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:34:10 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Offsers of web mirrors
Thanks for all of the offers of mirror sites, but I won't be taking up
any of them.
The reasons for this are that:
a) it in light of developments it may not prudent
b) the useful stuff is in the CVS archive, so anyone can grab it and
set up their own mirror
c) the only other thing on that page (the CSS description) was incomplete,
and anyway was already covered in the code comments.
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From digitech@mmadb.no Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:00:18 +0100
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:00:18 +0100
From: Jon Johansen digitech@mmadb.no
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
Wether reverse engineering software and publishing
whatever you find is illegal, depends on which country
you are located in. In EU, and in Norway, this is not
illegal. EU is passing a new law though, which says
that software which removes copy-protection from copy-
righted material is illegal. But this will not affect
DeCSS & MoRE in any way.
Regards,
Jon Johansen [MoRE]
digitech@mmadb.no
> -----Original Message-----
> From: livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net
> [mailto:livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net]On Behalf Of Brandon
> LaCava
> Sent: 5. november 1999 21:04
> To: 'livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net '
> Subject: RE: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:04:16 +0100 Michael Holzt kju@flummi.de wrote:
> >>On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:44:00PM +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> >> Maybe they'll go after the CVS archive next, and the mailing list
> >> archives, and slashdot, and ...
> >
> >Grr, this guys are just tooo stupid. None of the above will stop
> >the problem. There are so many copies of the software around in the
> >internet and this kind of behaviour just increases the interest in
> >it.
> >
> >All this legal shit never stopped anything. All this will lead to
> >'blabla.to/blupp' adresses pointing to daily changing geocities/
> >xoom/... servers.
> ... etc ...
>
> Just from a legal perspective, reverse engineering an algorithm and then
> using it or distributing/publishing it are still copyright violations
> regardless of your intentions or opinions. Just because you are _able_
> (physically or electronically) to access a certain piece of information
> doesn't give you the right to use it or distribute it, for profit or not.
> I have access to _highly_ controlled information every day, and
> just because
> I know the details and believe in freedom of information, it
> doesn't mean I
> can publish it. Not that I care too particularly about the CSS
> topic either
> way, but you have to be _very_ careful when reverse engineering
> copyrighted
> material. Remember Intel vs. AMD? It's no different than if one of the
> original engineers turned traitor and published the actual algorithm. All
> the money and time they put into designing the system is now
> worthless, and
> their copyrighted algorithm (and probably patented technique) is now being
> used unlicensed. If I were the author(s) I would start preparing in case a
> very painful legal issue develops. Remember, you've just picked a
> fight with
> a rather unforgiving multi-billion-dollar power... Keep in mind I'm not a
> lawyer so errors in my understanding of this topic are possible.
>
> blacava@edupoint.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livid-dev maillist - Livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
> http://livid.on.openprojects.net/mailman/listinfo/livid-dev
>
>
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:58:33 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:58:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
> this before, and the reality is that each country has their own laws about
> it. In the US, publishing the information would be probably be legal
> (despite the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act), but in the UK
> it appears that it may not be.
Under the US publishing the algorithm at least as a written description is
protected by the US constitution. Publishing code for breaking crypto is
unclear.
Alan
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:02:28 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:02:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [Livid-dev] The legal side has started
> My web page is down at the moment 'cause someone (I don't know who)
> is claiming it violates copyright. I'm trying to persue this at the
> moment with my ISP. We'll see what happens.
ISP's are in a difficult area. If they act on the statement then they are
relatively free from risk in a lawsuit, but risk lawsuits from the site owner
- in paticular for defamation if the ISP tells any third party that the site
was shut down because ... and you can show you lost money in any way for it.
Basically under current UK law they have a really bad time, whatever they do
they risk being sued. Hence UK ISP's tend to be a bit touchy about such stuff
Alan
From greg@linuxpower.cx Tue, 09 Nov 1999 22:20:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 22:20:02 -0500
From: Greg Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx
Subject: [Livid-dev] CSS mirror.
In case someone goes after the CVS archive..
I've made a mirror of css-auth:
http://www.linuxpower.cx/~greg/css/