From digitech@mmadb.no Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:55:32 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:55:32 +0100 From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@mmadb.no Subject: [Livid-dev] Legal defenses and all that I've also been contacted by lawyers (who claimed to be representing the movie studios). I'm having a journalist dig into the matter right now. In case you feel like read more, look at http://mmadb.no/hwplus/Software/DeCSS/decss.html or read this (same text as on my page): ------------------------------------------ 11/08/99 - 19:27 I was contacted by an attorney from the firm Simonsen & Musaus today. A lot of bla bla bla and that if the link to DeCSS was removed, no further action from their side would be taken? I know very well that they would not win in court, but they could make a big mess out of it. I simply do not have the time, nor money, to go up against these people. While they believe that they've just made progress, the rest of you nice people, who don't want to use DeCSS for illegal purposes, can head over to the nice search engine Altavista where you might find a nice gift from MoRE :) If you would like to show your disrespect towards threats like these, which seem to be a bit common (dvdutils.com ....), mail them today with your thoughts. (simonsen.musaeus@simu.no) Please DO NOT spam or bomb them, as that would be lowering yourself to their level. <COUNTER> people have been to this page (& probably downloaded DeCSS as a result of it) since the 6th of November 99, 17:50 CET Will the MPAA be able to hunt down these thousands of happily DeCSS'ing souls? :) Regards, Jon Johansen digitech@mmadb.no http://mmadb.no/hwplus
From digitech@mmadb.no Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:44:45 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:44:45 +0100 From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@mmadb.no Subject: [Livid-dev] MPAA & MoRE The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: http://www.hrrc.org/DMCA-leg-hist.html Final Text of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as passed by the 105th Congress: http://www.hrrc.org/2281enrolled.pdf CSS Cryptoanalysis by Frank A. Stevenson: http://crypto.gq.nu/ Interesting part(s) of DMCA: Quite long.. see the end for my comment... =91=91(f ) REVERSE ENGINEERING.=97(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.H. R. 2281= =978 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. =91=91(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 identificatio= n 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. =91=91(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. =91=91(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term =91interoperability=92 means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. =91=91(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH.=97 =91=91(1) DEFINITIONS.=97For purposes of this subsection=97 =91=91(A) the term =91encryption research=92 means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and =91=91(B) the term =91encryption technology=92 means the scram-bling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms. =91=91(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH.=97Not-withstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if=97 =91=91(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work; =91=91(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research; =91=91(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and =91=91(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provi-sions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. =91=91(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION.=97In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include=97 =91=91(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether.H. R. 2281=979 it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security; =91=91(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and =91=91(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided. =91=91(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR RESEARCH ACTIVI-TIES.=97 Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to=97 =91=91(A) develop and employ technological means to cir-cumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and =91=91(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2). =91=91(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.=97Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall jointly report to the Congress on the effect this subsection has had on=97 =91=91(A) encryption research and the development of encryption technology; =91=91(B) the adequacy and effectiveness of technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works; and =91=91(C) protection of copyright owners against the unauthorized access to their encrypted copyrighted works. The report shall include legislative recommendations, if any. Comment: MPAA & its Norwegian lawyers are currently trying to get something on me, and have stated that within a few days they will decide whether to charge me with something or not. Personally, I don't think they actually will do it. First of all, the reverse engineering (which they're claiming was illegal), was done by MoRE's german member, which is anonymous. This means they can't get me (unless they cook up something?). Since both the German and the Dutch MoRE member are anonymous, they can't get to them either. Isn't internet great? Nor do they know where the reverse engineering was performed. Which means they can't tell if it was legal or not in the country where it happened. In the US we have the DMCA which explicetly states that what has happened would be perfectly legal. We now have dvd playback on linux. On tv today, the lawyer also referred to what he called the "hacker" -paragraph (that they can't even tell hacker from cracker is a good sign...): I've looked up the paragraph (=A7 145) he mentioned, for those of you who speak norwegian: (and for those who don't, see below, I'll translate the part which is important). Straffeloven inneholder ogs=E5 bestemmelser som regulerer sp=F8rsm=E5l kn= yttet til datasikkerhet i elektroniske nett. Straffeloven =A7 145 annet ledd inneb=E6= rer straffeansvar for den som gj=F8r seg skyldig i =E5 =ABbryte en beskyttels= e eller p=E5 lignende m=E5te uberettiget skaffer seg adgang til data eller programutrustning=BB. I straffeloven =A7 262 er det tatt inn en bestemmel= se om straffeansvar for den som bryter en beskyttelse eller p=E5 lignende m=E5t= e rettsstridig skaffer seg selv eller andre vinning ved =E5 f=E5 tilgang ti= l fjernsyns- eller radiosignaler. Straffeloven =A7 393 inneb=E6rer straffea= nsvar for den som =ABbruger eller forf=F8ier over L=F8s=F8regjenstand, der tilh= =F8rer en anden, saaledes at den berettigede derved paaf=F8res Tab eller Uleilighed= =BB. Disse bestemmelsene kan komme til anvendelse overfor =ABhackere=BB som urettmessig skaffer seg tilgang til lukkede datanettverk.46 =A7 145: those who "break a protection or in a similar manner gain access to data or software without having paid for it" This is complete and utter bullshit. I paid for my dvds, they're mine! And in this case, I'm not sure whether the reverse engineering can be called cracking (it's absolutely NOT hacking). Cracking usually involves changing an existing application to make it work like you want it to. In case the norwegian lawyer who's representing the MPAA ever reads this, here's a snack for you (from Lawyer rules & ethics): 3.1.4 En advokat b=F8r ikke p=E5ta seg et oppdrag n=E5r han vet eller b=F8= r vite at han mangler den n=F8dvendige kompetanse dersom han ikke kan samr=E5 seg m= ed en kvalifisert kollega. Translation: 3.1.4 A lawyer should never assume responsibility for a case when he know= s or should know that he lacks the necessary competence or when he can not consult with a colleague. (this was taken from http://odin.dep.no/jd/publ/advokatfor/advokat-11.html#12) I think it's quite obvious that the lawyer, Espen T=F8ndel, who's represe= nting the MPAA here in Norway lacks the necessary competence. Because if he had it, there wouldn't be any case. PS: As you might have know, after having to remove the link to DeCSS on m= y page, I put up an email link to the lawfirm where T=F8ndel works. Today I recei= ved an email from the people providing our web-hotel. They had been contacted by the law firm who had requested that the link was to be removed immediately. M= y web-provider mentioned among other things, that I had encoureged to illeg= al actions. How could that be when I specifically wrote on my webpage "DO NO= T spam or bomb them, as that would be lowering yourself to their level". A = lot of those (linux) users who sent them an email, also carbon copied me, and= I must say, those I received a copy of were very well written. I thank you = for your "support". Anyway, now putting up an email link is illegal. Another thing is, the server which my webpages reside on is located in Denmark. (Which means my norwegian web provider would need to be contacted by a Danish lawyer, no?). Anyway, isn't freedom of speech great? That's all I have to say for now. I'll get back to you when I find out what Espen T=F8ndel and MPAA decide to do. Regards, Jon Johansen [MoRE] digitech@mmadb.no http://mmadb.no/hwplus
From crow@debian.org Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:49:11 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:49:11 -0600 From: Stephen Crowley crow@debian.org Subject: [Livid-dev] email? For some reason this address, simonsen.musaeus@simu.no, randomly popped into my head when Jonn mentioned he had to remove someone's email from his homepage. Please, no mailbombing..
From digitech@mmadb.no Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:47:41 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:47:41 +0100 From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@mmadb.no Subject: [Livid-dev] email link(s) to MPAA lawyer now back! I have been in touch with my web provider, who says that they never requested the links to be removed. Well, if you know Norwegian, read the mail from them yourself (see below). Anyway, I have now put the email link(s) back on my page. PS: In a recent article in a .no inet magazine, the lawyer commented that I'm hosting my homepage on my fathers domain, and that he (my father= ) could make profit out of selling the net service (not sure what he exactly meant by that). Anyway, when they haven't got anything else to say than BS like that, only shows that they haven't got anything else. The same article also said that the lawfirm one day had 300 mails, and had to bring in Compaq (did they need help reading them? :) Regards, Jon Johansen [MoRE] digitech@mmadb.no http://mmadb.no/hwplus > Vi har f=E5tt en henveldelse fra advokatfirmaet Simonsen & Mus=E6us > ang=E5ende en epostlink p=E5 Deres sider, > http://mmadb.no/hwplus/Software/DeCSS/decss.html . > > Advokatfirmaet ber om at Dere sletter epostadressen fra nevnte side, da > advokatfirmaet er blitt utsatt for omfattende spamming de siste dagene. > > De gj=F8r ogs=E5 oppmerksom p=E5 at oppfordringen sammen med > epostadressen kan v=E6re brudd p=E5 straffelovens =A7 390 a, og > sannsynligvis ogs=E5 oppfordring til ulovlig handling (misbruk av annen= s > eiendom - tele og datautstyr). > > Vi ber derfor om at Dere sletter dette umiddelbart, slik at innholdet e= r > innefor lovligheten av norsk lov, og dermed ogs=E5 oppfyller Digiweb > Norge's betingelser (http://digiweb.no/Produkter/betingelser.html). > > Vennlig hilsen > Digiweb Norge > > Arnljot Moseng > Daglig leder
From maroberts@dial.pipex.com Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:25:07 +0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:25:07 +0000 From: Mark A Roberts maroberts@dial.pipex.com Subject: [Livid-dev] email link(s) to MPAA lawyer now back! I presume "Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB)" wrote: > > I have been in touch with my web provider, who says that > they never requested the links to be removed. Well, if you > know Norwegian, read the mail from them yourself (see below). > Anyway, I have now put the email link(s) back on my page. > > PS: In a recent article in a .no inet magazine, the lawyer commented > that I'm hosting my homepage on my fathers domain, and that he (my father) > could make profit out of selling the net service (not sure what he > exactly meant by that). Was he trying to say that your father was technically breaking the terms and conditions of your ISP? The terms and conditions of your fathers internet connection may not allow use by other people. Of course, in practise, many people would be caught out by such a provision, and most ISPs recognise that accounts are going to be used by groups/families [otherwise they wouldn't provide multiple aliases/mailboxes] Or he could be trying to say that you could make a profit by putting banner ads on your home page due to the number of new visitors! :-) > The same article also said that the lawfirm one day had 300 mails, and > had to bring in Compaq (did they need help reading them? :) 300 emails is not very many - I receive about 250 per day [due to being on the KDE mailing list]; I'm sure Alan Cox and similar people receive many more. All mine get preprocessed by mail and spam filters so I only read on subjects which interest me. As you said before, the law firm should not represent on subjects which they are not competent - if they can't set up mail filters there isn't much hope for them. :-) > > Regards, > Jon Johansen [MoRE] > digitech@mmadb.no > http://mmadb.no/hwplus
From digitech@mmadb.no Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:54:53 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:54:53 +0100 From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@mmadb.no Subject: [Livid-dev] email link(s) to MPAA lawyer now back! > Was he trying to say that your father was technically breaking the terms > and conditions of your ISP? The terms and conditions of your fathers > internet connection may not allow use by other people. Of course, in > practise, many people would be caught out by such a provision, and most > ISPs recognise that accounts are going to be used by groups/families > [otherwise they wouldn't provide multiple aliases/mailboxes] I (we) don't use my (our) isp as web-provider. And there's not anything like that in the terms of our web provider. > Or he could be trying to say that you could make a profit by putting > banner ads on your home page due to the number of new visitors! :-) I think that might be what he meant. > > The same article also said that the lawfirm one day had 300 mails, and > > had to bring in Compaq (did they need help reading them? :) > > 300 emails is not very many - I receive about 250 per day [due to being > on the KDE mailing list]; Yes, I know. I get a lot of email myself each day. That's why I included "did they need help reading them? :)" because I couldn't quite see why they needed to bring in Compaq. > I'm sure Alan Cox and similar people receive many more. All mine get > preprocessed by mail and spam filters so I only read on subjects which > interest me. > > As you said before, the law firm should not represent on subjects which > they are not competent - if they can't set up mail filters there isn't > much hope for them. :-) Yep :) Regards, Jon Johansen [MoRE] digitech@mmadb.no http://mmadb.no/hwplus