From declan@wired.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:56:50 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:56:50 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32449,00.html
3:00 a.m. 10.Nov.1999 PST
If there's one thing entertainment
industry lawyers don't like, it's someone
copying CDs or DVDs.
But what they really, truly detest are the
upstart hackers who discovered how to
copy DVD films -- and had the temerity
to distribute a program that does just
that.
From nobody@replay.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:07:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:07:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Anonymous nobody@replay.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> The program, a tiny Linux utility called DeCSS, allows
> knowledgable users to copy any DVD movie to a .VOB file that
> ranges between 4.7 and 9.4 GB.
Gee, Declan, thanks for getting your facts straight. :(
And for neglecting to point out that most Linux users just want to watch
the movies, not copy them - which is the whole point of decrypting CSS.
You can copy the movie without decrypting CSS.
From declan@wired.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:12:33 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:12:33 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Hey, Anonymous, I did the best I could given the limited time I had.
Neither one of the two people I mentioned in the article seemed to want to
talk to me, which would have helped to refine the story, so it may have
suffered.
Note for the peanut gallery: Talking to reporters may be irksome, but it's
usually better than not talking to them at all. And you can always speak on
background if you don't want to be quoted.
-Declan
At 18:07 11/10/1999 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
>> The program, a tiny Linux utility called DeCSS, allows
>> knowledgable users to copy any DVD movie to a .VOB file that
>> ranges between 4.7 and 9.4 GB.
>
>Gee, Declan, thanks for getting your facts straight. :(
>
>And for neglecting to point out that most Linux users just want to watch
>the movies, not copy them - which is the whole point of decrypting CSS.
>You can copy the movie without decrypting CSS.
>
From digitech@mmadb.no Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:26:23 +0100
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:26:23 +0100
From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@mmadb.no
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
I assume you've read a great deal of articles
on the subject? If you have, you might have
noticed that I'm only 15 years old; which
means I go to school. Norway is GMT+01. You
should be able to figure out the time difference,
and when I would be available for comment :)
Everyone, the lawyer who has contacted me represents
the MPAA. They will be deciding whether to file charges
or not on Friday. I'll keep you posted.
Regards,
Jon Johansen [MoRE]
digitech@mmadb.no
http://mmadb.no/hwplus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net
> [mailto:livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net]On Behalf Of Declan
> McCullagh
> Sent: 10. november 1999 18:13
> To: livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
> Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
>
>
> Hey, Anonymous, I did the best I could given the limited time I had.
> Neither one of the two people I mentioned in the article seemed to want to
> talk to me, which would have helped to refine the story, so it may have
> suffered.
>
> Note for the peanut gallery: Talking to reporters may be irksome, but it's
> usually better than not talking to them at all. And you can
> always speak on
> background if you don't want to be quoted.
>
> -Declan
>
>
> At 18:07 11/10/1999 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
> >> The program, a tiny Linux utility called DeCSS, allows
> >> knowledgable users to copy any DVD movie to a .VOB file that
> >> ranges between 4.7 and 9.4 GB.
> >
> >Gee, Declan, thanks for getting your facts straight. :(
> >
> >And for neglecting to point out that most Linux users just want to watch
> >the movies, not copy them - which is the whole point of decrypting CSS.
> >You can copy the movie without decrypting CSS.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livid-dev maillist - Livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
> http://livid.on.openprojects.net/mailman/listinfo/livid-dev
>
>
From greg@linuxpower.cx Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:34:41 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:34:41 -0500
From: Greg Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Hey, Anonymous, I did the best I could given the limited time I had.
> Neither one of the two people I mentioned in the article seemed to want to
> talk to me, which would have helped to refine the story, so it may have
> suffered.
>
> Note for the peanut gallery: Talking to reporters may be irksome, but it's
> usually better than not talking to them at all. And you can always speak on
> background if you don't want to be quoted.
>
> -Declan
They probably didn't want to talk to you because wired's reputation
precedes you.
For an example of a good article:
http://www.emedialive.com/news99/news111.html
From declan@wired.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:06:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:06:28 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Oh, yawn. Is this the best you can do? I've had better insults from my
WebTV'd grandmother.
It is of course an individual's choice not to talk to reporters. People
have the right to be stupid. (Not that such a thing necessarily happened in
this case, but I thought I'd make the broader point anyway.)
-Declan
At 17:34 11/10/1999 -0500, Greg Maxwell wrote:
>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>
>> Hey, Anonymous, I did the best I could given the limited time I had.
>> Neither one of the two people I mentioned in the article seemed to want to
>> talk to me, which would have helped to refine the story, so it may have
>> suffered.
>>
>> Note for the peanut gallery: Talking to reporters may be irksome, but it's
>> usually better than not talking to them at all. And you can always speak on
>> background if you don't want to be quoted.
>>
>> -Declan
>
>They probably didn't want to talk to you because wired's reputation
>precedes you.
>
>For an example of a good article:
>http://www.emedialive.com/news99/news111.html
From greg@linuxpower.cx Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:17:39 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:17:39 -0500
From: Greg Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Oh, yawn. Is this the best you can do? I've had better insults from my
> WebTV'd grandmother.
>
> It is of course an individual's choice not to talk to reporters. People
> have the right to be stupid. (Not that such a thing necessarily happened in
> this case, but I thought I'd make the broader point anyway.)
I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just letting you know my view of the
facts.
IMHO, a really *good* journalist would refuse to publish an article
before it's done, even at the potential expense of his/her job.
Anyone who publishes with the kind of harmful inaccuracies that were in
your article is not a journalist, but rather nothing more then a media
whore.
Perhaps if your article were better reseached, or more levelly
presented, there wouldn't be so much legal BS being thrown at the linux
DVD people.
I guess it's your bussiness what you right, I'm not forced to read or
believe it.
From declan@wired.com Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:32:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:32:57 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
You seem to be complaining that articles written by journalists are causing
lawyers to attack "linux dvd people."
Me, I have enough respect for the cunning of our fine legal profession to
believe they can figure things out for themselves.
Second, I've tried to help folks here by giving contact names at
organizations that might be of assistance. What have you done to help head
off the legal threats -- besides whine, of course?
-Declan
At 18:17 11/10/1999 -0500, Greg Maxwell wrote:
>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>
>> Oh, yawn. Is this the best you can do? I've had better insults from my
>> WebTV'd grandmother.
>>
>> It is of course an individual's choice not to talk to reporters. People
>> have the right to be stupid. (Not that such a thing necessarily happened in
>> this case, but I thought I'd make the broader point anyway.)
>
>I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just letting you know my view of the
>facts.
>
>IMHO, a really *good* journalist would refuse to publish an article
>before it's done, even at the potential expense of his/her job.
>
>Anyone who publishes with the kind of harmful inaccuracies that were in
>your article is not a journalist, but rather nothing more then a media
>whore.
>
>Perhaps if your article were better reseached, or more levelly
>presented, there wouldn't be so much legal BS being thrown at the linux
>DVD people.
>
>I guess it's your bussiness what you right, I'm not forced to read or
>believe it.
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:19:27 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:19:27 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> Perhaps if your article were better reseached, or more levelly
> presented, there wouldn't be so much legal BS being thrown at the linux
> DVD people.
The DVD forum will have had a meeting. They will have decided to attempt to
scare the hell out of people and pursue and victimise them.
Sure a Journalist triggered it, but by revealing the state of things. Once they
found out they were bound to try it. This is a set of large corporations who
are having a bad time of it. DIVX was cracked and pretty much hushed up but
died anyway. DVD has now done the same.
Next time they will have to do things right, which means putting trace info
on the disk data stream so you know if it was pirated who by, not try and
stop people watching movies.
I don't think you can blame the press. The reporting is in part misleading
talking about piracy versus plain straight forward exercise of fair rights.
Hopefully once the lawyers get involved for real the press will cover the
battle for first amendmant rights too.
The press can do damage. They created 90% of the cracker problem on the net
today by making Mitnick a demigod. But its rare.
Alan
From mpav@purdue.edu Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:31:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:31:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@purdue.edu
Subject: [Livid-dev] Press and such.
We have contacted people at New York Times, and Washington Post. I think
we need some efforts on the other side of the pond. Most of the letters
have been recieved by people in Europe.
Can we get a collection of the letters people have recieved?
Matthew R. Pavlovich
pub 1024/E46C06D9 2011/11/09 Matthew R. Pavlovich <mpav@debian.org>
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3a
mQCNA0664LgAAAEEANk185ZTpdXM+lXD8eMTcBmHJp+Jb3VVnZurMKS4X47TgCks
j2vKPUyK+vc9AdGDN4G3nMPYJ/9dyQT8qircqZHOdpGSBnDvZbBPQlU0g5YiVvJk
rPpWuAUE/6joZcCEIzrlh4GiVq1llTqbkJAEpP+Wdh4Q5Ev7S78Dn0LkbAbZAAUR
tCZNYXR0aGV3IFIuIFBhdmxvdmljaCA8bXBhdkBkZWJpYW4ub3JnPokAlQMFEE66
4Li/A59C5GwG2QEBacsD/iLy1Pb9ixdG5LaqSyqOqVOPXvA+6vJx14n94mrNR5Z3
ACGOjKZEH1hWN8mwSVGb2OFuUxwRn0R8yQRpGbGNEEA1LC1iVHsKXAgcTx4tY2So
RJURm5Kc8Ynrqd3r4Alaw5BCZi9C+uQLkWKzrM37/Lfp1LVnQrazCwhdgSuJFZQO
=Q8AA
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From jean@kcco.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:18:14 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:18:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Jean Liddle jean@kcco.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On 10 Nov, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Oh, yawn. Is this the best you can do? I've had better insults from my
> WebTV'd grandmother.
IF it had been intended as an insult, it would have indeed been
pathetic. However, as anyone (else) who was reading the post could
tell, the author was telling you, in a reasonably civil manner, why he
(and possibly others) would have been reluctant to talk to you. Wired
does have a bad reputation for getting technical stories wrong. For
examples of this, see the slashdot.org archives, crossreferences to o
ther much more accurate reporting for the given subjects, and the
accompanying slashdot commentary. The author was even kind enough to
provide you with a reference to a fair and thorough report of what
exactly was going on -- all the context and background you could
possibly want, in one place.
> It is of course an individual's choice not to talk to reporters. People
> have the right to be stupid. (Not that such a thing necessarily happened in
> this case, but I thought I'd make the broader point anyway.)
I'm afraid the shoe is on the other foot in this case. From the point
of view of one who isn't directly affected legally, but does have a
vested interest in being able to play their own DVDs under Linux, you
appear to have done the following:
- irresponsibly sensationalized an innocent effort to get DVDs running
under Linux into a Grand Piracy Conspiracy against the MPAA/DVD Forum,
against all evidence and contrary to reality
- made the situation worse with followups equally inaccurate
[ real people are suffering real problems as a result, with colassal
financial loss looming, not to mention possible criminal charges which,
while they are innocent (at least in intent, though perhaps not on a
technicality as the laws have been so severely revamped in favor of the
MPAA in the last couple of years, at least in the US and UK), will
probably devistate them financially to defend against. ]
- a refusal to take responsibility for your own shoddy work, blaming
instead the victims for not wanting to talk to you, or not talking to
you in a timely enough manner to meet your schedule, or a short
deadline. While these may have contributed, you are the one who went
with the story as is, knowing you didn't have the full
[ one 15 year old developer has already informed you on this list that
he was in school at the time and unable to get, much less respond to,
your requests before your ran your story ]
- an arrogant, unrepented, and calous attitude, where you appear to be
more concerned with the (remarkably mild) flames you have received
here, yet show little or no concern to the lives you've helped to throw
into disarray through the inaccurate stories that were run
I would imagine if I were one directly affected, my perspective of your
behavior would be even less flattering.
It isn't too late for you to do the right thing. Get the facts of the
story, get over whatever slights (real or imagined) you may have
suffered in this mailing list, and don't be afraid to retract
previous commentary on Wired if you decide to write a followup that is
fair, accurate, and well researched. We all screw up, that is a part
of being human. You are in a position to do something about it, and
help repair some of the damage done. Please make use of tha
t opportunity.
(I for one have much more respect for journalists who will correct
their work than for those who stick by their guns, unwilling to admit
mistakes, even when they become painfully obvious. I suspect most
others feel the same.)
Jean.
From derek@spider.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:26:32 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:26:32 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net
> > [mailto:livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net]On Behalf Of Declan
> > McCullagh
> > Sent: 10. november 1999 18:13
> > To: livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
> > Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> >
> >
> > Hey, Anonymous, I did the best I could given the limited time I had.
> > Neither one of the two people I mentioned in the article seemed to want to
> > talk to me, which would have helped to refine the story, so it may have
> > suffered.
Seeing as how you're referring to me as the other person (Jon having
already responded) I might as well give my side. You simply didn't
give enougth time for a response. I read your article before I saw
your email.
From memory the email was sent a 1615 hrs local time (which is what - 5
hours behind GMT), with a request that I phone you. The number appeared
to be a cell phone. So now I'm expected to make international calls to
mobile phones so your story comes to you instead of you seeking the story?
At least the other journalists (for printed medium) who contacted me
had the forsight to phone me during UK business hours. Even then, I
wasn't able to deal with their questions there and then, but eventually
had discussions over the course of hours. Of those journalists, some
decided that there wasn't actually any story worth publishing.
Mind - given that the only contact method journalists have to reach
me is at my place of employment, they shouldn't be suprised if I don't
get back to them in a timely manner (if at all).
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From declan@wired.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:47:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:47:21 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
I had about an hour, maybe an hour and a half, to write the story, and I
gave you as much time as I had. Such is the reality of journalism -- not
Wired, not just the web, but any news organization. I never heard back from
you until just now, and you could easily have given me a number to reach
you, but you chose not to. Perhaps if you had I could have written a
followup. Your choice.
-Declan
At 15:26 11/11/1999 +0000, Derek Fawcus wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net
>> > [mailto:livid-dev-admin@livid.on.openprojects.net]On Behalf Of Declan
>> > McCullagh
>> > Sent: 10. november 1999 18:13
>> > To: livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
>> > Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
>> >
>> >
>> > Hey, Anonymous, I did the best I could given the limited time I had.
>> > Neither one of the two people I mentioned in the article seemed to
want to
>> > talk to me, which would have helped to refine the story, so it may have
>> > suffered.
>
> Seeing as how you're referring to me as the other person (Jon having
>already responded) I might as well give my side. You simply didn't
>give enougth time for a response. I read your article before I saw
>your email.
>
> From memory the email was sent a 1615 hrs local time (which is what - 5
>hours behind GMT), with a request that I phone you. The number appeared
>to be a cell phone. So now I'm expected to make international calls to
>mobile phones so your story comes to you instead of you seeking the story?
>
> At least the other journalists (for printed medium) who contacted me
>had the forsight to phone me during UK business hours. Even then, I
>wasn't able to deal with their questions there and then, but eventually
>had discussions over the course of hours. Of those journalists, some
>decided that there wasn't actually any story worth publishing.
>
> Mind - given that the only contact method journalists have to reach
>me is at my place of employment, they shouldn't be suprised if I don't
>get back to them in a timely manner (if at all).
>
>DF
>--
>Derek Fawcus
derek@spider.com
>Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131
475 7034
>PGP/GnuPG Keys available
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livid-dev maillist - Livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
>http://livid.on.openprojects.net/mailman/listinfo/livid-dev
>
From declan@wired.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:51:33 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:51:33 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Well, Jean and folks, I'm writing another article on this topic. I welcome
reasonable feedback, and will get to it tomorrow after I'm done with other
stuff today. --Declan
From derek@spider.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:18:11 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:18:11 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 10:47:21AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I had about an hour, maybe an hour and a half, to write the story, and I
> gave you as much time as I had.
Well then, you're working with unrealistic expectations. The whole of
the world does not run according to the timezones of the US. You send
email at, what, 9:15pm UK time, expecting a response by 11:45 pm?
> I never heard back from you until just now,
It seemed pointless to try. It's just your claims to have made a
reasonable effort in pursuit of the article that prompted my email,
else I'd not even have bothered with that.
> and you could easily have given me a number to reach you, but you chose
> not to.
Not with regard to that first article you wrote (I don't know if
you've written subsequent ones), since that was the first contact
I'd had from you. So how could I choose to give you a contact number
when I'd never heard of you?
[ Aside - So now I'm expected to give out my home phone number,
an itinrary for my evening, and friends phone numbers
to all and sundry?
]
> Perhaps if you had I could have written a followup. Your choice.
As I said above, I couldn't, and upon reflection my attempting
to help in a followup article appeared to be an exercise in futility.
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From andreas@andreas.org 11 Nov 1999 15:26:55 +0100
Date: 11 Nov 1999 15:26:55 +0100
From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> Next time they will have to do things right, which means putting trace info
> on the disk data stream so you know if it was pirated who by, not try and
> stop people watching movies.
This is a hard problem, given that you have to produce a DVD before
you know whom you're going to sell it.
I've talked to quite a few people from the cryptographic research
community, and their general opinion is that the problem of copy
protection is unsolvable.
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 Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:54:29 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:54:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> This is a hard problem, given that you have to produce a DVD before
> you know whom you're going to sell it.
Actually for home piracy its easier to solve, and has been routinely
solved before. Maybe I should run off and patent the solution 8)
You don't put the serial number on the disk, you put it in the disc player. So
I record a copy of the movie. No problem. I play it. No problem. I hand it
to 20000 people. The bitstream data has the drive serial info merged into
it in hard to detect ways (+ randomness to make it harder).
Now I know the drive serial, thus which channel, which distributor, which shop
and from the warranty log I as the law can recover your credit card data.
It isnt all sci-fi. There are people playing with set top boxes that add
signature data to trace piracy of movies recorded off cable tv.
> I've talked to quite a few people from the cryptographic research
> community, and their general opinion is that the problem of copy
> protection is unsolvable.
I'd agree.
Alan
From derek@spider.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:10:23 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:10:23 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 10:51:33AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Well, Jean and folks, I'm writing another article on this topic. I welcome
> reasonable feedback, and will get to it tomorrow after I'm done with other
> stuff today. --Declan
Well I'm afraid that for the moment you'll have to do without any input
form myself. If this was going to be written next week, or maybe a few
weeks later then I might be able to help.
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From jfbeam@bluetopia.net Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:46:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:46:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Ricky Beam jfbeam@bluetopia.net
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>I had about an hour, maybe an hour and a half, to write the story, and I
>gave you as much time as I had. Such is the reality of journalism -- not
>Wired, not just the web, but any news organization. I never heard back from
>you until just now, and you could easily have given me a number to reach
>you, but you chose not to. Perhaps if you had I could have written a
>followup. Your choice.
Pardon me, that's bullshit. _NO_ reputable publication (print, broadcast,
web, etc.) spits out an article in "about an hour". Hell, it takes more
than an hour to get a news item up on slashdot :-)
I don't care what excuses you provide. The article you wrote is inaccurate
and damaging. By putting your name on it, it makes you out to be an idiot,
a complete incompotent, or too lazy to find _any_ facts. Ok, so you had an
hour to get up to speed on this DVD thing... there's plenty of information
out there that doesn't require you to hunt down anybody: list archives, web
pages, the DeCSS web page!
You've argued about people's judgement of you as a fool. They read that
article just like I did. I was banging my head on my desk upon reading the
part about DeCSS being a linux program. No jury required; you're an idiot.
If you can print that (and I assume you wrote that, read it, and believe it)
then you certainly have not looked at DeCSS, read any of the livid-dev
email on the subject, or even bothered to search the web.
Please enlighten us as to the source of that statement.
--Ricky
From declan@wired.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:54:11 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:54:11 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
At 12:46 11/11/1999 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
>Pardon me, that's bullshit. _NO_ reputable publication (print, broadcast,
>web, etc.) spits out an article in "about an hour". Hell, it takes more
>than an hour to get a news item up on slashdot :-)
Clueless you are. I once wrote for UPI. Wire services like AP and Reuters
pump out stories in a few minutes. An hour is luxury to their reporters.
Maybe Slashdot is just slow?
-Declan
From jean@kcco.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:42:34 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:42:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Jean Liddle jean@kcco.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On 11 Nov, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Well, Jean and folks, I'm writing another article on this topic. I welcome
> reasonable feedback, and will get to it tomorrow after I'm done with other
> stuff today. --Declan
I would humbly suggest we all put our personal feelings aside and give
this person as much good information as we can. I know its easy for me
to say, as one who hasn't been at the barrel of a legal gun, so to
speak, but getting the truth out to the public would I believe help
everyone, whatever our personal feelings are for the messenger themself.
From greg@linuxpower.cx Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:10:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:10:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Clueless you are. I once wrote for UPI. Wire services like AP and Reuters
> pump out stories in a few minutes. An hour is luxury to their reporters.
>
> Maybe Slashdot is just slow?
I may not be a journalist, but I suspect they often work off press
releases which usually gets them in the ballpark.
Just go away, we dont like you or your crap magizine.
From greg@linuxpower.cx Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:11:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Maxwell greg@linuxpower.cx
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Jean Liddle wrote:
> I would humbly suggest we all put our personal feelings aside and give
> this person as much good information as we can.
So that he can twist, contort, restate and lie his way to a fame
generating shocker slam piece.
From declan@wired.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:17:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:17:05 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@wired.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
At 16:10 11/11/1999 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>Just go away, we dont like you or your crap magizine.
Now this is particularly erudite.
Hey, maybe you less frothy folks will enjoy this:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,32487,00.html
-Declan
From jean@kcco.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:05:24 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:05:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Jean Liddle jean@kcco.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On 11 Nov, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Jean Liddle wrote:
>
>> I would humbly suggest we all put our personal feelings aside and give
>> this person as much good information as we can.
> So that he can twist, contort, restate and lie his way to a fame
> generating shocker slam piece.
No, to give him an opportunity to redeem himself. If he were to misuse
that opportunity and do what you describe, I think he'd have a hard time
finding any technically savvy person, anywhere, willing to talk to him
after that. I doubt he would be that foolish (think of the career
problems that would entail given his profession), but then, I tend to
give people the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is entitled to one
colossal screw up in my book, as long as they work hard to redeem
themselves and make it right. Maybe I'm too willing to give someone the
benefit of the doubt, but let's at least not allow an "inability to get
the facts" be an excuse to print misinformation, if nothing else
From giles@raj.phys.sfu.ca Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:52:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Giles giles@raj.phys.sfu.ca
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Hey, maybe you less frothy folks will enjoy this:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,32487,00.html
Hmmm. I guess it's slightly better. Though I still don't understand your angle
as anything but sensationalist.
One point:
> MORE members began trying to
> reverse-engineer Windows players to figure
> out how to handle playback. But all of the
> players had an encrypted decryption key,
> except one: XingDVD, from RealNetworks'
> subsidiary Xing Technologies, had failed to
> encrypt its key because of an oversight.
I find the term "encrypted decryption key" misleading here. Encryption
requires a key, so "encrypting the decryption key" only helps security if
another (external) key is somehow supplied.
In my understanding, the css licensing agreement requires implementers to
take steps to *obfuscate* the css algorithm and key. In hardware, this
seems just to mean not externally offering the key. In software, most
implentations scramble their object code so that discovering the
algorithm/key isn't as simple as reading the object code. This is what
Xing apparently failed to do. However, any program can be run step-by-step
in a debugger, or even simulated with pencil and paper, so there's no way
to hide the information from a determined investigator. The Xing player's
lack of obfuscation only made it easier.
And, as you rightly point out, the algorithm is quite weak. The keys are
quite amenable to brute-force attack. In my mind, the publication of the
css algorithm was far more valuable than the key(s) they obtained from the
player crack. Guessing the algorithm would have involved significantly
more effort.
Reporting on the supposed connection between css key length and US export
restrictions is to me a more interesting vein than your early stories. I
think the really interesting issue here is what the various groups who
designed the Content Scrambling System (note that the word 'crypt' doesn't
appear anywhere in the name) thought they were doing. But I haven't read
Wired in a few years, so perhaps I wildly misunderstand your target
audience these days. What have your editors asked for on this?
Cheers,
-ralph
--
Ralph_Giles@sfu.ca
To steal from one is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. -- sumana
From laredo@gnu.org Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:01:57 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:01:57 -0500 (EST)
From: laredo@gnu.org laredo@gnu.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> Hey, maybe you less frothy folks will enjoy this:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,32487,00.html
>
Another poorly written article.
The fact that the Xing player was used or that it may have
had certain tables in the clear is unimportant. Any player
could have been used just as easily. This is yet another
example of a journalist taking one passing comment out of
context and twisting and contorting it to create a
sensationalist article in the midst of other troubles
that Real Networks may be facing (re privacy issues).
Additionally, it would not matter whether it was a 40-bit
key or a 1024-bit key, it's just unreasonable to believe
that any content can be protected from copying by any
measures. Simply put, "If you can see it, it can be copied."
The industry faught the introduction of the VCR a couple
of decades ago because they believed that it would allow
uncontrolled piracy of their movies cutting into their
profits. Indeed it's been since proven that the Home
Video industry is one of their most profitable markets.
You also say in all your articles that "this could cost
the industry millions of dollars," but what you and the
DVD Forum/MPAA also fail to realize is that the same
people that expended so much effort trying to make an
open implementation of the CSS algorithm are the same
people that have likely purchased as many as 60 DVD
videos per year. Most users of alternative operating
systems are the "early adopters" that are more likely
to be buying DVD videos in the first place. The MPAA
is only cutting its own hand off with this CSS issue.
Finally, your article misrepresents things you may have
found on web sites. For example, you say "Stevenson
is the codebreaker," but you should have said "Stevenson
is a codebreaker." And indeed, I am also wondering if
you even got permission from Mr Stevenson to use his name
in your article. Just because something is posted on
a homepage does not give you permission to reprint it or
quote it.
-- Nathan Laredo
laredo@gnu.org
From declan@well.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:19:42 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:19:42 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@well.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
At 17:01 11/11/1999 -0500, laredo@gnu.org wrote:
>in your article. Just because something is posted on
>a homepage does not give you permission to reprint it or
>quote it.
My earlier guess was right: You are truly a fool. Why don't you pack up
your bags and play Mr. Studly Net Lawyer somewhere where clueless newbies
might actually pay attention to you, hmm?
-Declan
From aholtzma@ess4.engr.UVic.CA Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:30:18 -0800
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:30:18 -0800
From: Aaron Holtzman aholtzma@ess4.engr.UVic.CA
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
It would seem that Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) said:
> My earlier guess was right: You are truly a fool. Why don't you pack up
> your bags and play Mr. Studly Net Lawyer somewhere where clueless newbies
> might actually pay attention to you, hmm?
>
> -Declan
You're certainly not making any friends around here. I'm sure your
editor/boss would love to see how a "journalist" from Wired is representing
himself in a public forum. Go home monkey-boy.
cheers,
aaron
From crow@debian.org Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:34:50 -0600
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:34:50 -0600
From: Stephen Crowley crow@debian.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 12:54:11PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> At 12:46 11/11/1999 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> >Pardon me, that's bullshit. _NO_ reputable publication (print, broadcast,
> >web, etc.) spits out an article in "about an hour". Hell, it takes more
> >than an hour to get a news item up on slashdot :-)
>
> Clueless you are. I once wrote for UPI. Wire services like AP and Reuters
> pump out stories in a few minutes. An hour is luxury to their reporters.
>
> Maybe Slashdot is just slow?
You still never explained the ignorant mistake of claiming DeCSS was a linux
util. No one cares who you worked for in the past, stop dodging the
questions and take responsibility for your shoddy reporting.
--
Stephen Crowley
From andreas@andreas.org 11 Nov 1999 23:42:57 +0100
Date: 11 Nov 1999 23:42:57 +0100
From: Andreas Bogk andreas@andreas.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Ralph Giles <giles@raj.phys.sfu.ca> writes:
> Reporting on the supposed connection between css key length and US export
> restrictions is to me a more interesting vein than your early stories. I
> think the really interesting issue here is what the various groups who
> designed the Content Scrambling System (note that the word 'crypt' doesn't
> appear anywhere in the name) thought they were doing. But I haven't read
They knew what they were doing, and they have told the DVD guys. I've
talked to the Intel guy who designed the CSS key management system,
and he told me, after I asked for the short keylength, about the 2^16
attack Frank Stevenson redidiscovered later.
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 laredo@gnu.org Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:03:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:03:14 -0500 (EST)
From: laredo@gnu.org laredo@gnu.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> At 17:01 11/11/1999 -0500, laredo@gnu.org wrote:
> >in your article. Just because something is posted on
> >a homepage does not give you permission to reprint it or
> >quote it.
>
> My earlier guess was right: You are truly a fool. Why don't you pack up
> your bags and play Mr. Studly Net Lawyer somewhere where clueless newbies
> might actually pay attention to you, hmm?
Your earlier guess? I've never said a word to you before this.
Personal attacks to defend a position are a sign that you do not
have faith in your own position. Welcome to my procmail ignore
file.
As the author of the very first supported mpeg hardware decoder
driver for Linux, a valuable resource for your articles is now
lost.
You have no permission to quote anything i have said in the past,
present or future on any mailing list or web site in any
publication and I am prepared to take legal action against you.
No, I am not a lawyer, but allow me to introduce you to my
mother's law firm sometime.
-- Nathan Laredo
laredo@gnu.org
From declan@well.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:24:03 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:24:03 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@well.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Well, Nathan, you may be incredibly bright and all that, but your mother
sure didn't teach you any manners.
You should also ask your mother about a concept called "fair use." Perhaps
one of the intellectual property lawyers at her firm can explain that to
you. Pay attention to what mother says.
Hint: I can quote, for example, any paragraph you write publicly (as can
anyone else), and there's nothing you can do about it.
As for personal attacks, there are two things you can do when in a
discussion with a fool: Engage him, and become one, or treat him as he
should be dealt with.
-Declan
At 19:03 11/11/1999 -0500, laredo@gnu.org wrote:
>> At 17:01 11/11/1999 -0500, laredo@gnu.org wrote:
>> >in your article. Just because something is posted on
>> >a homepage does not give you permission to reprint it or
>> >quote it.
>>
>> My earlier guess was right: You are truly a fool. Why don't you pack up
>> your bags and play Mr. Studly Net Lawyer somewhere where clueless newbies
>> might actually pay attention to you, hmm?
>
>Your earlier guess? I've never said a word to you before this.
>Personal attacks to defend a position are a sign that you do not
>have faith in your own position. Welcome to my procmail ignore
>file.
>
>As the author of the very first supported mpeg hardware decoder
>driver for Linux, a valuable resource for your articles is now
>lost.
>
>You have no permission to quote anything i have said in the past,
>present or future on any mailing list or web site in any
>publication and I am prepared to take legal action against you.
>
>No, I am not a lawyer, but allow me to introduce you to my
>mother's law firm sometime.
>
>-- Nathan Laredo
>laredo@gnu.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livid-dev maillist - Livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
>http://livid.on.openprojects.net/mailman/listinfo/livid-dev
>
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:26:20 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:26:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> As for personal attacks, there are two things you can do when in a
> discussion with a fool: Engage him, and become one, or treat him as he
> should be dealt with.
In the case of Nathan you started it however. So we have a Wired author that
libelling people on email lists, apparently in a professional capacity. I
wonder what Wired's editors think.
Perhaps you should go back and look at who was insulting you, and who
was giving detailed criticism of the article. Then you can send Nathan an
apology
From laredo@gnu.org Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:33:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:33:22 -0500 (EST)
From: laredo@gnu.org laredo@gnu.org
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> Well, Nathan, you may be incredibly bright and all that, but your mother
> sure didn't teach you any manners.
>
> You should also ask your mother about a concept called "fair use." Perhaps
> one of the intellectual property lawyers at her firm can explain that to
> you. Pay attention to what mother says.
>
> Hint: I can quote, for example, any paragraph you write publicly (as can
> anyone else), and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
> As for personal attacks, there are two things you can do when in a
> discussion with a fool: Engage him, and become one, or treat him as he
> should be dealt with.
Ok, so you're not really in my procmail file yet, but you've
just proven one IMPORTANT point. I have the right to do the
same thing with DVD. Your articles continually miss this point.
Cheers,
-- Nathan Laredo
laredo@gnu.org
From declan@well.com Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:45:12 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:45:12 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh declan@well.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
Nathan: We finally agree on something. I think any government attempt to in
any way deal with "anticircumvention" is unreasonable and probably
unconstitutional. You should have the right to make personal use copies and
disassemble to your heart's content, and the lawyers and companies are
slimy for doing what they're doing.
My articles didn't address this point. I would like to write a followup
that does.
-Declan
At 19:33 11/11/1999 -0500, laredo@gnu.org wrote:
>> Well, Nathan, you may be incredibly bright and all that, but your mother
>> sure didn't teach you any manners.
>>
>> You should also ask your mother about a concept called "fair use." Perhaps
>> one of the intellectual property lawyers at her firm can explain that to
>> you. Pay attention to what mother says.
>>
>> Hint: I can quote, for example, any paragraph you write publicly (as can
>> anyone else), and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>
>> As for personal attacks, there are two things you can do when in a
>> discussion with a fool: Engage him, and become one, or treat him as he
>> should be dealt with.
>
>Ok, so you're not really in my procmail file yet, but you've
>just proven one IMPORTANT point. I have the right to do the
>same thing with DVD. Your articles continually miss this point.
>
>Cheers,
>-- Nathan Laredo
>laredo@gnu.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livid-dev maillist - Livid-dev@livid.on.openprojects.net
>http://livid.on.openprojects.net/mailman/listinfo/livid-dev
>
From derek@spider.com Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:12:15 +0000
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:12:15 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 05:01:57PM -0500, laredo@gnu.org wrote:
>
> The fact that the Xing player was used or that it may have
> had certain tables in the clear is unimportant. Any player
> could have been used just as easily.
Case in point - Based upon my the posting's made by the person who
originally posted the assember code for the authentication algorithm.
This following is all going from memory (check the list archives):
That person stated that it had taken him a significant period of time
to find and extract the code, and that he was still working at the stream
scrambling part.
Thus I am lead to believe that he was not working from the Xing code.
Another point is that he stated he'd had that code for around 6 months,
meaning he got the authentication code around the start of the year. One
could also infer that in the following 6 months he had still not managed
to figure out the stream scrambling code (maybe he was busy on other
pursuits).
-> Anyway the point being that this almost certainly started with a
-> player _other than_ the Xing one.
DF
--
Derek Fawcus derek@spider.com
Spider Software Ltd. +44 (0) 131 475 7034
PGP/GnuPG Keys available
From jean@kcco.com Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:56:15 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:56:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jean Liddle jean@kcco.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
On 11 Nov, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Hint: I can quote, for example, any paragraph you write publicly (as can
> anyone else), and there's nothing you can do about it.
Not that anyone was likely to take my suggestion on this to heart, but
in light of your despicable behavior in this newsgroup (not just the
above quote, but the unwarrented personal attacks earlier), I will for
the record state publicly that I was very wrong in suggesting anyone
give you the time of day.
BTW - Quoting somebody out of context in order to alter the meaning of
their words, or misquoting someone altogether, may not count as fair use
at all. I suggest you check with your legal department.
From jherico@iname.com Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:43:40 +0000
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:43:40 +0000
From: jherico@iname.com jherico@iname.com
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
> At 12:46 11/11/1999 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> >Pardon me, that's bullshit. _NO_ reputable publication (print, broadcast,
> >web, etc.) spits out an article in "about an hour". Hell, it takes more
> >than an hour to get a news item up on slashdot :-)
>
> Clueless you are. I once wrote for UPI. Wire services like AP and Reuters
> pump out stories in a few minutes. An hour is luxury to their reporters.
>
> Maybe Slashdot is just slow?
At least its accurate.
I think the problem here is that the people on either side of this argument
simply see the world in a different way. Any techie on this list would
probably agree with me when I say that if they were told they had an hour to
prepare a presentation on some piece of technology outside their area of
expertise (Java, ISO9660, Linux, device drivers for NT, what have you, Public
Key Crypto, IC design) they would simply respond with a blank stare. An hour,
two even, is simply NOT ENOUGH TIME for someone, even someone well versed in
technical things, to assimilate a complex new subject.
A journalist, with his modern journalist ego and his attitude of "I've got the
responsibility of disseminating all the information that's out there, so people
will know" given the same task will apparently go "Sure thing Boss!" and set
about trying to accomplish the impossible and screwing it up 99 time out of
100. The 100th time is simply luck. No one here is going to buy the excuse
that you only had an hour. Even if its true, I (and probably we) don't care.
If your jobs is to get stories with insufficient information, you shouldn't be
looking for sympathy from people who resent that kind of behaviour, you should
be looking for a new job.
Brad