From mpav@purdue.edu Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:39:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:39:33 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew R. Pavlovich mpav@purdue.edu Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case I wanted to keep the DVD Case discussion off of this mailing list, as much as possible, so I am going to make this brief and recommend anyone else who wants to discuss the topic to visit opendvd.org --------------------------------------------------------- As a mostly non-code contributor to this project I find it hard to bring myself to do this.. One of the best exhibits we could provide the court would be a Linux machine playing a DVD movie, and a Windows machine w/ a blue screen of death. Combine that with the fact that there is no software available to copy DVDs, I believe that our point that the development was for ineroperabliity, and not piracy can be made clearly. Getting To The Point- We would need a stable, fast and reliable DVD player for linux by Jan 14th. I have a 500Mhz Celeron laptop w/ an 8Mb ATI Rago Pro LT. I am willing to donate this for use in the court case. I would not ask for help if I did not think this was an important cause. If you are willing to work on this I commend you, and if you wish to bash and flame me, I will light your blow torch. Matthew R. Pavlovich
From jfbeam@bluetopia.net Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:57:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:57:15 -0500 (EST) From: Ricky Beam jfbeam@bluetopia.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Matthew R. Pavlovich wrote: >One of the best exhibits we could provide the court would be a Linux >machine playing a DVD movie, and a Windows machine w/ a blue screen of >death. Combine that with the fact that there is no software available to >copy DVDs, I believe that our point that the development was for >ineroperabliity, and not piracy can be made clearly. I don't think "playing a DVD movie" is all it's spankin' glory is necessary. The only point that needs to be made is that the CSS source code is an absolute REQUIREMENT to even hope to play back a DVD movie. With out it, one cannot even access the disk much less descramble the vob file for playback. I would make sure the lawyers etch that into the brain of the judge. I would also suggest introducing as "evidence" the DVD physical specifications as well as the UDF filesystem specifications (exhibits A and B.) The DVD specs are all that is required to duplicate a DVD-ROM disk -- CSS scambled data, disk keys, and vob keys intact. Also at issue is the fact that DVD CCA has made no attempt to subvert any knowledge of the IFO and VOB data file formats. Those formats constitute the bulk of the trade secret, copyrighted, and patentable material the DVD Forum has invested the most time and money developing. >Getting To The Point- >We would need a stable, fast and reliable DVD player for linux by Jan >14th. This would presume a "crappy" software playback -- missing most of the magic of the DVD capabilities and having previously noted sync problems. But for the purposes of proving the DVD CCA a bunch of nar-do-wells, it'll do. I'll take as much time as I can find to getting portions of software and hardware playback functional. A lot of the material in CVS does "function" but it's still very much a mess. (What do you expect for free from people with jobs and lives to deal with? I, for example, have several thousand dollars of hardware gathering dust for lack of time to deal with it.) --Ricky PS: I'm on the wrong coast for this farse.
From pvolcko@concentric.net Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:53:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:53:14 -0500 (EST) From: pvolcko@concentric.net pvolcko@concentric.net Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case > Also at issue is the fact that DVD CCA has made no attempt to subvert any > knowledge of the IFO and VOB data file formats. Those formats constitute > the bulk of the trade secret, copyrighted, and patentable material the DVD > Forum has invested the most time and money developing. Well, taking a look at the argument the CCA is making for the TRO, I don't think that anyone will be getting into any trouble for work on the IFO and/or vob data structures. It seems that they are pushing the copyright protection as their base argument. The alleged illegal disassembly of the Xing player, in their eyes, lead to the creation of a tool whose only purpose is for infrgining on copyrights of content producers. While it is questionable that CSS provides any kind of copyright protection, it is almost certain that nothing in the IFO or VOB files really provide copyright protections. The region management stuff is the only part of the IFO that I can think of that would even remotely qualify, and even that is a stretch since it seems to be more of a release control tool not a content copy protection tool. Also, the DeCSS code was out a few months ago in it's "final" form (putting asside minor changes and key management updates) and it took them all this time to make a legal move. The IFO related code is much less functional than the CSS related code was at its release. If they are going to make any move on the IFO related work, it will probably be after there is something of real substance there (there is still a long way to go functionality wise). In short if they were to take legal action on the IFO related work it would absolutely boil down to them trying to impede fair use rights. They can't make the copyright infringment argument. As long as there is no "leaking" of the IFO specs to anyone involved with the IFO development work then what's being done within Livid is most likely safe. Since CSS has a much larger grey area as far as it's use as copyright protection, the CCA is able to move based on the copyright infringment angle and try to play it to their advantage. Paul Volcko LSDVD
From alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:07:28 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:07:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: [Livid-dev] DVD Case > as their base argument. The alleged illegal disassembly of the Xing > player, in their eyes, lead to the creation of a tool whose only purpose is > for infrgining on copyrights of content producers. While it is questionable They are trying to push an argument for illegal disassembly, thus illegal obtaining of trade secrets. That is likely to be very questionable since the reverse engineering was probably legal in Norway, was probably legal in the USA under the Digital Millenium rules as well as assorted prior judgements > In short if they were to take legal action on the IFO related work it would > absolutely boil down to them trying to impede fair use rights. They can't > make the copyright infringment argument. As long as there is no "leaking" of The copyright side is clear. From the previous supreme court ruling on betamax: | If vicarious liability is to be imposed on Sony in this case, it must rest | on the fact that it has sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact | that its customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of | copyrighted material. There is no precedent in the law of copyright for the | imposition of vicarious liability on such a theory. [Sony Corp v University City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984) ] Alan